Archives

---

1. 1 December 2005 – December 2006
2. December 2006 – February 2007
3. February 2007 – July 2007
4. July 2007 – November 2007
5. November 2007 – January 2008
6. January 2008 – March 2008
7. March 2008 – August 2008
8. September 2008 – 13 December 2008
9. December 2008 – 1 February 2009
10. February 2009 – 2 July 2009
11. 2 July 2009 - 30 November 2009
12. 1 December 2009 - 15 December 2010

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

If you need help, check out Getting Help below, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

User:Snowmanradio has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Snowmanradio's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Snowmanradio! Peace, Rlevse 02:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wonder whether you'd be prepared to judge the new FPs for next week at The Signpost's "F and A" page. It would just require up to about 140 words nominating your choice and giving your technical/subjective reasons for it. Here's an example. Please let me know if you want to do it, I'll link you to the draft when it's done, Saturday. Tony (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the pictures and if I can choose just one. When you say next week, I presume that the pictures to choose from will be made up to FP next week and not available now. I think I could choose one for the pictures made up to FP during the week preceding today, but I presume that is the wrong set of photographs. Snowman (talk) 10:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't very clear about the timing, was I. And usually I arrange things with a bit more notice, but WP has been so busy. The Signpost is published Mondays UTC. We take the new FPs from the week up to the previous Friday (end, midnight); in this case, it would be Saturday 11 December to Friday 17 (today). But it gets easier; I need to make up the list for the page, so you can conveniently click on the nom pages. I'll send you a link when it's done, probably within 24 hours. I saw your name active at FPC a while ago; we choose a different reviewer/nominator each week. Tony (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Snowman (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman, ready for you now, here, down the bottom. Looks like a good field. Thanks. Tony (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional copy: "There is a very wide range of new Featured Pictures this week including several bird photographs. It was very difficult to select one; however, my favourite is the Wood Swallow about to feed chicks in a nest. I wondered how long the photographer patiently watched the nest and how he managed to focus the moment on the sensor of his digital camera. I think that the photograph from space of the Sarychev Volcano erupting, the photo-stitched interior of Galeries Lafayette store, the map of Florida, and the pit stop at Darlington are amazingly good technical images, and all these images had good image descriptions explaining the who, when, where, and what of the photograph.".

Lovely, thank you SMR! Noodle snacks must be a master of timing. Tony (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If there are any typos or issues, please let me know. I was not sure about naming any photographers in the report thinking that it would be best to ask them first. Snowman (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Bader is being reviewed for GA listing. It has been put on hold for an initial 14 days to allow issues such as prose, inline citing and detailed coverage to be addressed. SilkTork *^YES! 16:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no need for a link to photobucket to be duplicated. Agreed. My apologies, I didn't spot the duplicate. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you speedily deleted David Alderton last April as db-g11 and one week later your deletion was undone by the author himself. I have now applied db-11 myself but think the article should be salted or he will simply undo your revision again. Mark^Dask 07:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you have sent a message to the wrong person. I have contributed to the article, and I think that it is good and should be kept. Snowman (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noted in the history that on the 4 April 2010 your edit summary on the page included the words "(looks like copy vio from authors website, so deleted)". Oops - I misread those words, I thought you meant you had proposed the article for deletion, and it didn't help that on the 11th April David Alderton undid that revision. I will remove the Hangon template and work on the article. Mark^Dask 11:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see, but I just deleted the copy vio. Snowman (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay snowman but the following text, the last paragraph of of this article, appears verbatim both in the article and in the "About David" section of his homepage, petinfoclub.com - "David has recently established this website as a means of providing information for those interested in pets, in an accessible magazine-type format. His aim is to cater both for the specialist enthusiast as well as the general pet-owner, creating a pet care community for all. " - Is this not a copyright vio? - I have added 3 refs and made other constructive edits but could you deal with the last para please cos I don't have the experience.Mark^Dask 14:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted some more copy vio. Snowman (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez you must one of the sharpest editors on here - kudos.Mark^Dask 14:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just happen to be on line when you left the messages. Snowman (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the same Snowmanradio as on Commons, please see your talkpage there for a message from me and on Commons:COM:AN as well. If you are not the same person, please kindly disgard this message. Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. Snowman (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Peter Morris (surgeon). I created the redirect Peter John Morris, which links from Lister Medal and List of Fellows of the Royal Society M,N,O. I'll add the Lister Medal information when I get a chance, but wanted to leave you this note as that is one less redlink for me to create! (I'm planning to get to the others on that list over the next few weeks.) Do you mind if I ask how you came across him and decided to create the article? Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was on the BBC radio 4 a few years ago. Snowman (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman I've listed what I tentatively think are the four best images we have for the taxobox here at Talk:White_Stork#Taxobox_image, so decide which one you think is best - and if you find a better one, link it there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a difficult choice. Snowman (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snowman...I made some comments about the taxonomy and evolution in the review page of the White Stork and noticed that you had made a few changes to this section. I was wondering if you could take a look at what I had to say about the genetic study and fix the mistakes? It states in the article that "The close evolutionary relationship between the White Stork and the Maguari Stork suggested by behavioural similarities was confirmed through analysis of mitochondrial cytochrome b gene sequences." - this is actually false. You're doing a great job at fixing the other material - thought I would pull your attention to the comments I made in the review page on this.Thompsma (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well spotted. Some of these errors were in the wiki article before I copy-edited this section. Snowman (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snowman! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE.

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Snowmanradio, your image Image:Haliaeetus leucocephalus -Skagit valley-8-2c.jpg was the Random Picture of the Day! It looked like this: {{User:Presidentman/potd/{{date}} }}. - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Erna Lazarus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has had no sources inserted since it was tagged in 2007. That's long enough. It should be rescued or deleted. If rescued, the filmography should be turned into a "Selected filmography" and cut down to six notable films, per guidelines

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David in DC (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this article for deletion, after the PROD notice was lifted. The article has been tagged for no having no sources on the article's page since 2007. WP:DEADLINE does not extend into infinity. The only source the editor who deleted the prior prod notice could find was evidently not sufficient to establish notability. assuming good faith, if it we're, the editor would have put it into the article, instead of onto the talk page. I agree. It's not enough to pass WP:GNG, let alone WP:BIO. I can find no better. If (A) the tag has been there since 2007 and (B) the editor who opposes Prod can find no source that establishes notability, and (C) I can find none either, WP:DUCK. David in DC (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You made the following edit: "It is not clear to everyone who Ed is?" that you later reverted. I myself have no idea. Is it important for me to know? --Garrondo (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied over there. Snowman (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the article has been promoted I will address your pending comments at talk page. For the moment I have copied all pending comments there.--Garrondo (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to do attend to the lead pipe rigidity, double vision, and find ref for "uncommon under 40 yrs", as I could probably look them up somewhere reasonably easily. I would be grateful if you could look at the pesticides paragraphs. Might take a while to get a response for the author of the image of the brain electrodes, so I might try to explain in the image from what is shown. Snowman (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already found a ref for double vision and I will add it soon. My bet is that per reasons I gave you at FAC it will be more than a while regarding image author... so your description would be great. Regarding uncommon under 40 I still feel that is covered with existing ref but another ref of course will not harm.--Garrondo (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Sasata who has pointed out some stuff to fix and i am working my way through it. I will nominate it at FAC but alot of folks are also responsible. Do you want to be listed as a co-nominator? You've done alot of work on it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking me. The article has turned out well. I do not want to be a co-nominator, because I do not want to spend too much time there. I expect I will have a look at it from time to time. Snowman (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

okay. I will wait until we do another parrot article, which I suspect you'll want to help out on. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Snowman (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lovebirds has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it if needs be. Snowman (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow, I have never really done editing. I have commented in the past providing information for those redacting articles (always bird-related). A couple of my friends, however, did do some editing and were kind enough to upload a lot of their own photos, and they were getting flak for their perhaps unpolished efforts at editing. I commented then about not being happy that they were being treated rather shabbily, and thereafter decided simply to stay away from the wiki entirely. This was about a year and a half to two years ago. I decided to redact some of the ID's again through the wiki because I was getting inquiries about my ID's through flickr. I have no intention of causing a ruckus about something this far in the past, however, I found some things offputting before, and I don't intend to do anything more now through the wiki other than provide ID information, nor do I wish to further deepen this discussion which is a dead letter to me by now. I don't need the aggravation, and if with what little free time that I do have to dedicate to vetting bird species I can further the overall enthusiasm of people that might want to save them and habitat, then that is quite sufficient.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many ways of contributing to the wiki. Snowman (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of removal, the Gould and Naumann are of only historical interest, the English and Lituanian subspecies don't add much since all forms similar. If you want another, the eating earthworm image only shows what you would expect Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NZ is nominate (distribution para 2, ref 13) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We normally just show natural distributions on the map, with an appropriate caption, and only mention introductions in the text. Alternatively, as with common Blackbird, the map includes the introduced range (not my preference). If the introduced range isn't shown, I wouldn't mention it in the caption, but I don't feel strongly about it, so it's up to you Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moot point. Snowman (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#Consistency_with_introduced_ranges_on_maps. Snowman (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Errol Fuller is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Errol Fuller until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. bender235 (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on April 11, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 11, 2011. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 06:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Flying High Bird Sanctuary requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. OlYeller^Talktome 05:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to deal with some of the zoo articles. There is inherently little information about them in books (unless we are talking about the Bronx Zoo, London Zoo, or other long-standing organization) but they are part of the overall picture of zoos in the world. A lot of information for zoos tends to come from their own Web sites (despite what the official policy states, I would argue that the zoo knows better than anyone else how many animals it has and of what species) and tourist publications, and a lot of the latter is duplicated across multiple sites. I've been working on trying to get zoo articles at least up to start-class (which to me means it at least has to have some refs), but there are still some 320 stubs on my list (meaning NO refs, and less than four paragraphs). I'm not sure why this one was singled out, as there are quite a few more that are in much worse shape. I'm only managing to get one or two articles up-rated per week, which makes this seem pretty hopeless. Also, this article has been around for over a year -- why only now? Donlammers (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense as written, should be exothermic. It's not a ref I have access to, so I've just excised that phrase since it's non-essential and not usually in species' articles anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, that has fixed it. Reducing jargon this small print line probably should say something like "can keep warm in the nest without warmth from a parent", but I have not looked it up in a reliable source. Snowman (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I heard someone say that all snow which is suitable for the making of snowmen (aka: snowman-snow) that falls on your property belongs to you, I could respond thusly:

"Snowman's snowman-snow's no man's snowman snow; man!"

Instead of "Such snow that belongs to him in fact belongs to no man! Geez!"

That's five! Can't possibly be beat!

;-)

Chrisrus (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snow, I still haven't figured out how to make small corrections on the images.

Just a heads-up. The word taxa is the plural of the singular taxon.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that you are asking about correcting text descriptions of images rather than editing the images (to remove watermarks and borders and so on). When you view an image on the wiki it has usually been uploaded to commons, so you can not edit them on the wiki, but you can edit on commons. There are several ways of getting on Commons, and I would recommend that you signed in there to do the editing. When viewed on en wiki the images have:

"This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below."

This is written in a box on the actual view on en wiki, and you will see that there is wikilink to the image on commons. Click on this link and you will be viewing the image from Commons and you can log in Commons and edit it. The wiki link example is one I uploaded from Flickr of a white-nosed coati in Costa Rica. You can also clink on the signpost to commons at the bottom of some wiki pages - the mark up code for a signpost is; {{Commons category|Binomial name}}. You will know when you are on common from the logo at the top left hand corner of the page. The en wiki has a sphere with letters in different alphabets in jigsaw pieces, and the Commons has a schematic indicating centralization. Snowman (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a near certainty that it's hunting. Although there are other reasons for flying (mud gathering etc), given the habitat it's much more likely that it's feeding low over water. Although they feed at medium height in fine weather, like other swallows they come down to water when its cool, such as early morning. I have added an Iceland ref and tweaked the caption a bit. also delinked countries and continents in line with current FA practice Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine, I'm happy to go with your image selections Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference in commons cat and commons category? They go to the same page and neither shows as a redirect so it seems to not matter. As for Cas and Black Bishop credit he said he'd add more. If he doesn't we can remove him. As for giving credit for history merge for AA, I don't see that as edits to the article so I'd vote no on that one. BarkingMoon (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template is Template:Commons category, so it is more natural to link directly than through a redirect, and I think it is less work for the servers. Snowman (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Commons must be different that en wiki as commonscat doesn't have a redirect line at the top of the page when you use it, such as when you use WP:BIRD. BarkingMoon (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commonscat is a redirect. Snowman (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but it still doesn't display when you use it. I agree, we should use the non redirect version. BarkingMoon (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter that much. I would not change it if it was the only thing on a page that needed changing, but I sometimes change it with other edits on the page. Snowman (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to the some of the questions you raised on WP:BIRD since they to some extent are based on unpublished info (i.e., under no circumstances does the info belong in any wiki article): Yes, the range has contracted, and, at least in theory, there could be geographical differences, but to my knowledge this is not supported by any published info; it is speculative. In Phil. endemics, a large percentage of the species with populations on both Luzon (the larger northern island) and Mindanao (the larger southern island) have different subspecies on these islands, and if only looking at forest based Phil. endemics, it is the vast majority where the two island populations are different subspecies. The three specimens you asked about: One male came from W. Mindanao and the other from SE Mindanao. The very large that is of unknown sex according to the published source is actually a female based on the label that is attached to the specimen, which is entirely unsurprising based on the presumed sexual dimorphism in the species, but it is not clear where it was captured before it arrived in Brookfield Zoo. Back then (~50 years ago), the animal trade was (even) less controlled than it is today, and they often didn't bother to note exactly where an animal was captured. Additionally, valuable animals often passed through a whole range of traders before they arrived at their final destination, which further blurred the picture. The three are all complete skins that are not on display, but they can be measured again if access is requested (you'll need a better argument than "I'd like to measure it for wikipedia" for the curator to allow access to such valued specimens, however). FMNH also has a chick preserved in alcohol, a complete skeleton of an adult, and a partial skeleton of an adult. The complete is not linked to any of the skins, but the partial is from the SE Mindanao male where the skin also is preserved.
A question about photo copyrights on commons that you may be able to answer: How are the rules on deleting photos from people where the majority of their photos have been shown to be copyright violations? The reason I'm asking is that this Phil. Eagle photo originates from the same flickr account as the two deleted earlier due to copyright violations. This flickr user only has three photos in total on his account, and we already know two are copyright violations. Should/can the final be deleted from commons based on the known bad faith behavior in the first two or is it necessary to locate the source in every single case? Based on the quality and the fine black edge on its lower part I'm pretty sure we're looking at a scan from a book/article, but of course that is far from certain proof of a copyright violation. • Rabo³ • 13:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I had not noticed that image licence, but I will ask about it over the next fer days; see Commons:Flickr_files especially the section "Questionable Flickr images" on commons about Flickr washing. There are several ways to suspect Flickr washing, including when Flickr users upload images that are taken with a lot of different cameras. Snowman (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. • Rabo³ • 17:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• On Commons I have informed Commons:User talk:MGA73, who deleted the other images. Snowman (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Snowman. I was wondering, is this a project standard or your personal preference? No one has said nor done anything til now. I think the smaller person's name and year are okay but prefer the bolded Latin name.BarkingMoon (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did all ten bird articles I've done the same and I just noticed you haven't changed them the same, so they're totally inconsistent now. Lord knows how the other bird articles are, but the ten I did were at least consistent. BarkingMoon (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the style for the wiki - look at the binomial and the authority in the infobox. You got the brackets wrong as well. I think all the other 9 articles should be corrected. Snowman (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that and why didn't you nor Cas notice it before? Also in your edit to the parrot you just made, you only changed some, not all, and I KNOW that's not right. Plus it looks worse now as the way you did it makes it all run together. BarkingMoon (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard - some with brackets and some without - look at the original source and look at other sources and the brackets are the same. When the brackets are not present, the bird has the name given by the author, but not when the bracket is present. Snowman (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct the other 9 articles - take notice of where the brackets are and use a consistent format using small text. Do not use a lot of emboldening. Snowman (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not 'fixing' them.BarkingMoon (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For one of many reasons, wiki's own FA's on birds aren't even consistent, so you can't say the Cas showed me how to do them is "wrong" nor that your way is "right". For example, compare subspecies in Yellow-tailed_Black_Cockatoo with Eurasian_Tree_Sparrow. BarkingMoon (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Casliber made aware. See User_talk:Casliber#Formatting_of_subspecies_lists. Snowman (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made him aware beforehand. And what standard formatting? See my post just above. BarkingMoon (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, BarkingMoon, trying to get conformity in wikipedia can be like herding cats really, and has really lagged behind content building, and many times folks have agreed to disagree. Brackets around an authority's name means that the name has changed since the first author described the bird, hence using it elsewhere can be confusing. We have had discussions about whether to place subspecies headers in bold on a page (I prefer it slightly, but the consensus is against it generally, so older bird FAs with it in should realistically be de-bolded. The other issue is that I pushed for taxonomy to go before description, which works well alot of the time....unless a bird has a lot of subspecies and one has to describe some of the differences under the subspecies subsections (but this does not work so good if these bits lie above the description section). Anyway, this is all part of a learning curve. Having editors who are more concerned about formatting is good as I can be a bit of a slob with it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the standard is that there is no standard, IE, it's up to whomever last edited the page. No, I'm not changing it because this week Snowman wants it a certain way, next week someone else will want it a third way, etc ad nauseum. If Snowman or someone else wants to format stuff a certain way, he can do it. And using brackets to discern if a name changed is just silly to me. I formatted all 10 of these articles exactly the same, putting a lot of time into, Snowman saw several of them and didn't say one word or change any of the formatting til now. And all 10 are still sitting on the DYK noms page but let's not go there.BarkingMoon (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your bad habits in formatting should have been picked up earlier. I am more interested in parrot articles that most others, so I read it more carefully. Uniformity is important on the wiki, so keep to the approved style, which has been described by User Casliber and myself above. Snowman (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heil! signed just a nobody. This edit of 09:48, 7 June 2011 - unsigned by BarkingMoon (talk)

I have tidied some of the formatting on several recently expanded pages going back to the original references to put the round brackets in the correct places. Wiki editors should accept that their edits will be re-edited and possibly re-edited again, and so contributors should be prepared to let this happen as long the sequence of edits improves the Wiki. Incidentally, I thought that is was odd that round brackets are used in this way when I first heard about it, but it is a well recognised convention apparently. A Wiki editor corrected my formatting and I learnt from it and his explanations in the edit summaries. As User Casliber suggests, put this learning experience down to the learning curve that editors experience, since I presume that you have learnt about standard author presentation (however silly the use round brackets may appear to be at first) and also edit histories. DYK articles are shown on the main page, and so I think that formatting errors and edit histories should be fixed prior to presentation on the main page. Snowman (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...about biting the newcomers! While you undoubtedly feel strongly about these things, comments like "I think that your bad habits in formatting should have been picked up earlier." are certainly not constructive, and appear to have cost the project a very active new participant. This is not the first time that this has happened, and — since you yourself worried about the project regularly losing members several years ago — it would help if we all worked with each other rather than putting fences up. Take a step back, take a deep breath and think about how it sounds from the other end before putting "pen to paper" as it were! Just a suggestion. MeegsC | Talk 15:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and I do not think that the messenger should be criticized. As far as I am aware, no one else picked up these editing issues created by User BarkingMoon. With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps, I could have rephrased one or two things slightly differently, and perhaps I was somewhat disappointed that User BarkingMoon did not readily accept the standard use of round brackets selectively despite adequate edit summaries, explanation by myself, and explanation by User Casliber. Incidentally, I have put in quite a lot of work to help User BarkingMoon with his editing, which has temporarily distracted me from my interest in illustrating bird articles. This included quite long discussions on the WP:Bird talk page about the importance of maintaining edit histories, and also the use of round brackets and the formatting for subspecies and their authors. There was some urgency in repairing DYKs before their presentation on the main page. User Casliber appears to be generally supportive to me in all this work I have done to tidy up after User BarkingMoon and show him Wiki lore. Snowman (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm saying is that the messenger has the ability to phrase his/her message in a way that makes it less offensive to the person receiving the message. BarkingMoon may well have reacted very differently if those initial comments had been less confrontational. As it was, you came out with all guns blazing right from the start. On a separate note, if this is indeed something that is to be made standard, then the appropriate information needs to be added to the project page. Otherwise, we're assuming far too much detailed taxonomic knowledge on the part of editors who may not have any background in taxonomy, and it appears to newcomers like BarkingMoon that it's one person arbitrarily telling everybody else what to do. MeegsC | Talk 17:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While your edit here was helpful, I note your edit which sounds to me like sarcasm here, while I was undertaking the rather difficult task of coordinating restoration of edit histories. Your edit summary was "what?!", and I think this shows that you had mis-read that editors were in a serious discussion about edit histories and that there was some resistance to the rightful restoration of edit histories. I read this as somewhat belittling and could have generated a feeling of disrespect to me by the very users I was trying the help. User BarkingMoon picked up on your comment with this edit saying "Here here, touche!", which I did not fully understand. Please think about your edits and what message they give. Snowman (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I think very carefully about them all. And I write and don't save many that I (on re-reading them) think might be misinterpreted. My edit summary was my astonished reaction to your implication that my method of gathering notes and preparing entries in my sandbox before moving them piecemeal into a live article was somehow against the rules. You said "Are you sure the notes and piecemeal method are within the guideline" in your post directly above mine. It was meant to convey my complete puzzlement; in trying to help BarkingMoon, I suddenly found that I was being "chastised" as well! MeegsC | Talk 19:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You left the question mark off the quote from my edit; see my edit here. The correct quote is; "Are the notes method and piecemeal method within the guidelines?" If you can not quote it properly, I guess that you did not understand it properly. It was a question to which I did not know the answer at the time. Now, I think (not completely certain) that the answer is that you can add small pieces of text from a sub-page as long as the work does not include any contributions from anyone else. I presume that editing this way keeps the attribution correct. I think that User BarkingMoon's comment "Here here, touche!" responding to your reply that you made in complete puzzlement actually enhanced the element of sarcasm in your comment. Snowman (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Reverting_on_Yellow-crowned_Bishop_photo. The image used for the DYK lead is temporarily copied from Commons so the DYK admins can protect it while it's on the main page. You and Chienlit have, hopefully unknowingly, subverted that. The smaller pic shows the bird centered and in more detail. This is something else you had ample chance to review when you were editing the article. The larger one is not better.BarkingMoon (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the small image is still going to be shown on the main page. The trouble here is that the small version on en wiki of the image for the infobox has the same name as the large image on commons, and this was a mistake. The en wiki image takes preference and this small image looks much to small for the infobox image, since the en wiki version was designed for the main page. The version of the image I shown is an image that fills the infobox space and looks better. Things can go back to normal when the en wiki version has been deleted. Snowman (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, dude, you're not getting it, see this, the en version copied from commons just for today with the same name ON PURPOSE so the en admins can protect it. And no, the bigger one is not better, the bird is not shown as well. And again, why didn't you, with your vast all-knowing experience here, catch this when you were editing the article? BarkingMoon (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]