I won't do it, but I'd invite you to consider reverting your deletion of the rating. The rating is assigned by members of wikiprojects (in this case, mammals), and "B" corresponds to a set of descriptors; follow the blue clickie. It wouldn't really be appropriate for the initiator of an article to assign the rating. BTW: Except very initially, we can't really speak of "authors" of Wikipedia articles. Someone starts it, then it belongs to everybody who contributes. You clearly know a lot about raccoons. DavidOaks (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't do it, but I'd invite you to consider reverting your deletion of the rating.

Okay, removing was probably not the right thing to do, but I have written my opinion beneath the rating boxes now.

we can't really speak of "authors" of Wikipedia articles. [...]'

I meant author in the sense of main author.

--Novil Ariandis (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have looked at various other discussion pages and the rating system (not including good and featured articles) is completely useless and arbitrary and should therefore go away and never come back. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Novil Ariandis! Just a head's up regarding "fixing" capitalization on mammal articles: you are walking into a hornet's nest! See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Moves of mammal articles for a list of all of the debates/arguments/fights. Until a consensus is reached (likely through mediation & hopefully rather soon), would you mind reverting those moves yourself? Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just wanted to make the page titles consistent with the version used by the majority of raccoon experts. Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals#Capitalization also says Respect the original or primary authors; do not up and change something without notification, as you may be reverted. Well, the original author(s) have chosen the capitalized version, but since I am the sole author of practically any non trivial information in the articles now, I thought that it was okay for me to move the pages. Since the capitalized page titles are inconsistent with the main sources I think that reverting the moves is the wrong decision, so I won't do it myself. However, I also won't stop anybody else from doing it, since I doubt any reader cares about this stuff. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Island raccoons, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IU was the one who nominated Island raccoons. I should havetold you, but I've been busy lately.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 15:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take long editing on Wikipedia to realise that people will generally disagree ^-^. I would agree though that improving an article is much more important than its rather arbitrary "status". Since this article is quite good, but needs a fair bit of literary revision, it's taking me a bit longer than expected. I also had more to do today than I thought I would, so I'm not sure if I'll be finished before sometime Friday (I'm on Chilean time, so 6 hours behind you if you are in Germany), but I'll try to get it done as soon as possible. Thanks for the quick feedback! DJLayton4 (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you know which mammals who show long-term monogamy? Some examples I know are Peromyscus polionotus and Lutrogale perspicillata. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am really not an expert in this field. There are examples of long-term monogamy among wolves and red foxes, but I am sure you already knew that. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution to the improvement of furry fandom! I am confident that, in time, the problems you highlighted will be addressed in full . . . even if it takes another year. :-) GreenReaper (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons why I failed the article were more or less formal, but I also think that the overall quality of the content is only a B+ at the moment and some important facts could be added by someone who has a thorough look at the best available newspaper articles. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would rather have a B+ than a GA- (and not just because it costs less :-). I will have a go at improving it myself when I get a chance. Thanks again! GreenReaper (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think I've addressed your GA concerns for gameplay and plot, so if you could take a look at the rest, that would be great. The Prince (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and development. The Prince (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully, I've taken care of the remaining points. PS: What does it mean when the comments are marked in red? The Prince (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Novil Ariandis.

Regarding your inquiry about the river otter article, it is ready for the GA assessment. A lot of time, effort, and collaboration has been put into refining and expanding the article, so it should be in good shape. The large number of edits made during the "standby" period (since there was a GA review backlog), included copy-edits and some article expansion, but now the article is ready to go.

Thank you, --Wikitrevor (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello again Novil Ariandis.

It's been quite a while since I've posted my article for GA Nomination, and so far I haven't had any response to my request for GA Nomination other than your inquiry. I was wondering if you could perhaps provide a final briefing for the article. I suppose there's not a whole lot to check over, as I worked with many editors to make this article conform to GA standards. Essentially, all that is needed is an outside editor/reviewer to check over and pass it to complete the objective.

Thank you, --Wikitrevor (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Novil Ariandis! Tacking this on to Wikitrevor's comment above: were you planning to review the GAN of this article, or were you just commenting? I am willing to review it, but don't want to step on anyone's toes :) Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]