User talk:Andreclos

Initialise Andreclos (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)\[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton Bypass

Thankyou for your recent edits to the Brighton bypass article. I have noticed your statements in the edit summaries and am wondering if they were directed at me or the previous person to edit the article? I do try to maintain a neutral point of view when editing but could always do with more advice in perfecting this. I did create this article with some haste and have tried to make the references as good as possible but clearly I could do with some improvement here also, thanks for your time. Wiki ian

Also, can you explain to me the issues with inline citations? I'm guessing that comment was aimed at myself? Wiki ian 09:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking over the historys and I'm fairly confident your remarks were aimed at the previous editor on the article and not myself. However if you have any advise you want to give me regarding my edits then please feel free. Thanks heaps Wiki ian 09:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wiki, the edits I was critical of were made by ArchWatch starting 15:22 22nd July, which was well after your edits. I had a quick look at your edits to Brighton Bypass and I can't see anything wrong with them (although see below para starting "Regarding advice you asked for advice, so... below), and my comments certainly weren't aimed at you.

Regarding "inline citations", what I'm referring to is where ArchWatch inserted links to PDFs in the text without using a citation template. Citation templates start with "{{cite", for example "<ref>{{cite web|title=example web page citation|url=http://www.somesite.com/page.html|author=Fred Smith|publisher=Some reliable news organisation}}</ref>". Done this way, only the superscript (numbers in square brackets raised above the line of normal text) appear in the text, and the citation information appears nicely formatted in the References section. That's the standard and correct way of doing it, but if you look at the recent history for Brighton Bypass you can see that ArchWatch inserted a number of quite lengthy PDF links in the text. This makes the text hard to read.

I understand that people like ArchWatch get upset about issues and want to argue them, but Wikipedia is not the place to argue a personal viewpoint.

Regarding advice for you about your edits generally, I had a quick look at your edits on pages other than Brighton Bypass and I noticed in Hobart Bypass you added a reference ".<ref>http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/11/23/188121_tasmania-news.html</ref>". Now this is both good and bad. It is good because it avoids putting the link inline in the text, i.e. it moves it to the references section and places a superscript link at the point where you inserted the reference. However it is bad because you don't describe the reference at all, you only provide the raw link. Wikipedia standard practice for doing this is to create a Citation using one of the many templates available. For web pages, the "{{cite web}}" template is best. These templates allow you to provide more information such as author, publisher, date accesses etc, all of which are highly desirable things in a citation and help to tell the reader how useful the citation is likely to be, e.g. how long it is since it was last checked, who it is published by, etc. You can get more information from WP:CIT and I encourage you to read this.

Please let me know if you would like more information. Andreclos (talk) 12:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alpaca

for you what mean linneaus 1758 in taxobox

OJX (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If i understand you correctly you want to know what I understand "Linneaus 1758" in the taxobox to mean. My understanding is that it is the binomial naming system defined by Linneaus in 1758 in his 10th edition of Systema Naturae and the subsequent usage of that system. Systema Naturae defined the structure and binomial naming conventions generally agreed to by scientists ever since. The original "10th edition of Systema Naturae" does not contain the definitive list of animal names. The definitive list has been growing and changing ever since. As far as I can tell, the custodians of the agreed names is the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. However, also as far as I can see, the agreed name for any given species is basically what scientists with most knowledge of that species agree to call it. The best reference for names I can find is the Encyclopedia of Life at http://www.eol.org. I see this contains Lama pacos and not Vicugna pacos as the name for alpaca. However I also note that in the page for Lama Pacos at http://www.eol.org/pages/309015 it says "many authors suggest that the correct name for the alpaca is therefore Vicugna pacos (Kadwell et al. 2001; Marín et al. 2007).". It may take 50 years for conservative organisations to catch up with reality, but in my opinion, based on the paper delivered to the Royal Society cited in the Alpaca page by Wheeler et al, and based on the above suggestion in eol.org that "many authors suggest that the correct name for the alpaca is Vicugna pacos", in my opinion the section of the scientific community who best understand this agree that it should be called Vicugna pacos. I cannot find any opinion in the scientific community that argues that Lama pacos should be retained. Thus the name shown should be Vicguna Pacos, not Lama pacos. Andreclos (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Andreclos. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Andreclos. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Andreclos. 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)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Andreclos. 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)[reply]