User talk:Anderswarr
Welcome!
[edit]
|
—Sadat (Masssly)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Anderswarr, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
[edit]
|
Hi Anderswarr!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. Hope to see you there! This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
|
Brown vs. grizzly bear
[edit]Anderswarr,
The common usage in Alaska describes bears as "brown" in coastal areas and "grizzly" in inland areas. This is standard terminology used by biologists and land managers - see the ADFG page on brown bears, for example. Please discuss your proposed changes to any article on the article's talk page, as they are not uncontroversial. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
April-May 2014
[edit]- I've found your note to NorthBySouthBaranof: the references to Brown and Busch are useful, though they're general-readership works and it's not clear what they actually say about the common-language taxonomy. In any case, the weight of common usage and usage of the FWS, NPS and Alaskan agencies does not support a blanket change to "grizzly." You are expected to stop and discuss your edits, as the burden of proof is on the editor making the bold change. What, specifically, do Brown and Busch state about the naming? Is it stated as their opinion, or do they cite scientific journals to substantiate the terminology? It's one thing if they opine "they're really all grizzlies:" it's another if they state something like "the coastal Ursus arctos horribilis population in Alaska are referred to as grizzly bears in scientific publications and by Alaskans" Acroterion (talk) 01:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Brown, Busch, and several other authors say that the coastal Ursus arctos horribilis are grizzly bears as well because they think it is less confusing. And they refer to all European ones as "brown bears" because it is less confusing. They do make reference to sources that call them browns, but they ignore the common usage and go by their own ways because it is less confusing - that's a fact. It would be fine to call coastal ones browns and inland ones grizzlies if they were a different subspecies, but they're all in Ursus arctos horribilis, so calling them by different names is confusing. Only the geographically isolated Kodiak bears are a different subspecies.
I have finally decided to bring up the confusion experienced whhen calling them by different names. Pretend I am a visitor to Kobuk Vally National Park in northern Alaska. When we see an Ursus arctos the guide will say "Look, there's a grizzly bear!" And then we might see a black bear as well. Then, when we go to Lake Clark or Katmai, the guide will say "brown bear" instead. They might think there are three species of bears they have seen, but they really saw only two. With the guide's explanation, they will find out that grizzlies and browns are the same species, but the viewer will likely have lots of questions about why they are named differently. It is not incorrect to call them grizzlies, which is what you said earlier, but "brown" is the common usage. Anderswarr (talk) 01:42, 20-25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right. And Brown and Bush are right, from an ideal taxonomy point of view. Nobody is arguing that. That doesn't mean that you should systematically go through articles on brown bears in North America and change them all to grizzlies because it pleases your personal views (or Brown and Bush's views) on common naming practice. Taxonomy and common naming practice are messy, and it's a distortion of real world language for Wikipedia to pretend it isn't. Wikipedia follows, it does not lead, and it's not an appropriate place to get Alaskans to stop calling coastal bears brown bears. Acroterion (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
You've got the makings of a Did You Know?-eligible article here - great work! If we can expand it to 1,500 characters in the next two or three days (it's almost there now!) I will help you get it nominated and through the process to become featured on the front page of Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Why calling both inland and coastal European bears and coastal American bears brown bears and inland ones grizzlies is irrelevant
[edit]- If you go online, and search for photos of coastal and inland Ursus arctos, you'll see that most results say "brown bear". And when you search for pictures of most North American Ursus arctos, you'll see that most say "grizzly bear".
But looking for photos of coastal Alaska bears will also get brown bear as the most common name. Why should people refer to all Eurasian subspecies and coastal Alaskan ones as brown bears and call inland North American ones grizzlies? It's not easy to remember which is which, so calling them by different names is irrelevant and stupid.
This is why people should not refer to coastal American ones as grizzlies. In Eurasia, inland ones are in the subspecies Ursus arctos arctos and coastal Kamchatka bears are in the subspecies Ursus arctos beringianus. They are distinguished as a different subspecies by size, weight, and behavior habits. The same thing is shown in North American bears. So why aren't they called all grizzlies? Is it because Alaskans like brown bear better? Is is because they hate grizzly bear? And coastal browns and inland grizzlies aren't even a different subspecies! So why the hell would people call them by different names?!
These are some incorrect reasons that people use to distinguish then as a different subspecies and name:
1. "Inland grizzlies" are smaller than "coastal browns". No, this is not true. The grizzlies of coastal British Columbia (especially those in the Bella Coola Valley) are just as large as coastal Alaska bears and not far short of the size of Kodiak bears. [1]
2. Inland grizzlies don't have the same food supplies as coastal browns. No, this is not true. All grizzlies of the BC coast and even some grizzlies of the Rockies (esp. Yellowstone NP) get the same food supplies, salmon and trout, as coastal bears, though in some cases not as much.[2]
3. Browns and grizzlies are a different subspecies.
No, this is not true. As I have explained before, all NA browns and grizzlies are in the subspecies Ursus arctos horribilis except Kodiak bears.[3]
Other incorrect answers:
5. The average weight for a coastal brown bear is 600-900 pounds.
No, they are bigger than that. A large male "inland grizzly" can easily reach that weight. The average weight for a coastal brown bear is 800-1000 pounds.[4]
6. Coastal brown bears live an average lifespan of 20 years and the oldest was 35 years.
No, the average lifespan is 20-25 years, and the oldest bear was 40 years. In captivity one bear lived for 55 years![4]
On their Brown Bear Frequently Aasked Questions page, the National Park Service educates people about North American "brown bears" using these incorrect questions. They need to do some studying on bear behavior and taxonomy.
I'd recommend to all who read this page to look over this section, and if they call coastal ones browns, I'd recommend they read the 3 questions and reconsider what name they should really use.
So there. Anderswarr (talk) 01:42, 20-25 May 2014 (UTC)
References
- ^ "1200 lb Bear". The Harvard Crimson.
- ^ "Grizzly Bears & Cutthroat Trout". NPS.
- ^ "Grizzly Bear". NWF.
- ^ a b "Brown Bear". Bear Trust International.
Disambiguation link notification for January 13
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Animal Face-Off, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Abyss and Riverbank. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 11
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frederick Simpich, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Argosy and American. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 3
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cecil E. Rhode, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Renville County. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Cecil E. Rhode
[edit]Hello, thanks for creating that article, and for taking a pass at copyright cleanup when the bot tagged it. Unfortunately, it is still mostly directyl-copied text, and what was cleaned up is too closely-paraphrased. See here: [1] for the report on the copied material. For legal reasons, all text here must be free (not copyrighted or closely-paraphrased). Please re-word the infringing material if you could. It is likely to be deleted as a copyright violation otherwise. Thanks, CrowCaw 22:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
A page you started (Frank and John Craighead) has been reviewed!
[edit]Thanks for creating Frank and John Craighead, Anderswarr!
Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
This article has too many passages that are too close to the text on craigheadresearch.org. This is Close paraphrasing, a form of plagiarism. Please summarize the sources in your own words.
To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Disambiguation link notification for September 5
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frank and John Craighead, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Potomac and Conservationist. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Anderswarr. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Anderswarr. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Anderswarr. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Anderswarr. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ITN recognition for Carrie Meek
[edit]
On 2 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Carrie Meek, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. SpencerT•C 06:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of Cecil E. Rhode for deletion
[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil E. Rhode until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article.
John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
[edit]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Hummingbird into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Hummingbird migration — Diannaa (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
- I can see no point in duplicating material treated in context at Hummingbird#Migration, and have redirected the page back there. Please discuss at Talk:Hummingbird whether a split is desireable here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Barnstar
[edit]
|
The Civility Barnstar | |
| Awarded for contributions to fish, natural history, and biography-related pages. Anderswarr (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC) |
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
[edit]Hello, Anderswarr. Thank you for your work on Salish Sea orcas. Chaotic Enby, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Congratulations, amazing job!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Chaotic Enby}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 00:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you!Anderswarr (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)