User talk:Chuunen Baka/archive4

Kelch Motif page introduction

At your suggestion I've tried to improve the lead section for the Kelch motif article. I've tried to separate out the generalisms and include notability in the first sentence. In doing this I've divided up the content into three rather sparse sections. I hope this will give the article more structure for future contributions. If you think that these changes are sufficient can you delete the tag you added or perhaps make some more suggestions on the talk page. Thanks. Alexbateman (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I was hoping for a more gentle introduction, expanding on the italicised phrase: The Kelch motif is a 50-residue repeated sequence region found in... --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 16:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess you mean that the current lead section is too technical. I've tried to make it more gentle :) Please let me know if it makes more sense now or whether you think its lacking links to other pages. Any other specific comments on the lead section will be useful. Thanks for your advice. Alexbateman (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the nag tag. Cheers. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 16:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for making me read the guidance for editors. It was nice doing wikipedia business with you :) Alexbateman (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pueblo County Sheriff's Office

You can not delete this through the speedy-deletion process. It has a realistic claim of notability. For precedent, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesee County, New York Sheriff's Office. Bearian (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I note that you have had several other speedies declined. Please be more careful in the future. Bearian (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saxaul Sparrow

As the photographer of File:Saxaul Sparrow.jpg, would you mind letting me know where it was taken? I think it is the subspecies ammodendri, but it would be nice to get a better idea of the locality, as the article is soon to go to WP:FAC with this one photo. Thanks, —innotata 01:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-and-paste moves

Hi Chuunen Baka,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you're quite a new editor, so you may not be aware that moving articles by copying and pasting is not acceptable: it breaks the link between the article history and text itself, which is vital for licensing purposes. I have merged the histories of Anax and Anax (dragonfly), but in future, if you find you cannot move an article because there is existing history at the target, please ask an administrator to help. This can be done either directly (on an admin's talk page), or by using a template such as {{db-g6}}. Thanks. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning that up. I wasn't aware of the policy and thought that it would be sufficient to fix the handful of links to the original. I figured the genus Anax should get precendence over some obscure bit of ancient Greek semantics but maybe I'm biologically biased :) --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 16:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Girgenti

Ciao,tempo fa ho scritto la voce Francesco Mucci e credevo di averla scritta discretamente.Vivo in Inghilterra da poco tempo e capirai non scrivo molto bene l'inglese.Potresti darmi una mano.Grazie--Gir (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Wikimedia Fundraiser

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AOU Changes

A number of changes from the AOU (American Ornithologists Union) occurred this past August. Some of those changes have aleady been changed in Wikipedia (namely the split of the Winter Wren/Pacific Wren/Eursian Wren, the change from Greater to Great Shearwater, and the split of Black and Common Scoter. Others weren't changed yet (i.e. the Aimophila Sparrows, the Greater Antillean Oriole, the Verivora New World Warblers, the Elepaio and the Whip-poor-will splits) so I changed them......Pvmoutside (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chuunen, I am not arrogant enough to think the AOU is the ultimate source for all changes to bird classification. I do know Wikipedia uses them as the reference point for all changes relating to North America. Birdlife International is beginning to recognize their taxonomy (see their references to Bahama Oriole) and are revising their species pages. I wanted to get the changes out there, and was going to follow up with references as time allowed, but I thought I'd be accurate,current and consistent with the information. Feel free to get other opinions from the community. Pvmoutside (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline Ornithology

Very many thanks for the improvements.But was has happened to this image

? The image has disappeared from the page but I can't see why. All the best Robert aka Notafly (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)==[reply]

Puzzle

The scouts pic returned in the interim. But your very neat Notes section disappeared. I think I removed Notes/reflist while deleting a temporary paste. Would you be very patient with a foolish old man and fix it again Robert aka Notafly (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline Ornithology

Many thanks.Soon I hope to write an introduction for each century.Hope you will keep an eye on that.Slainte (Irish for Cheers)Robert Notafly (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London

For our first official recruitment drive! Starting on Wednesday the 9th of February at 12:30pm. We would love to have you!

All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 15:31, 5 February 2011 (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, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). 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 all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. 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) 20:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blue-tailed Damselfly

Hello! You made an correction that was wrong. The photo you delete shows without a doubt Ischnura elegans. Please correct it. Thank you. (Sorry for my bad English) Frederik81 (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've checked with a better fieldguide and have restore the image. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 16:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the fast correction. The best book for UK is "Field Guide to the Dragonflies of Britain and Europe" by Dijkstra. I use it very often. GreetingsFrederik81 (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

countries without headlines

We should add a section listing the countries without a national bird.

         Canada10wi (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ulster place names

If you're talking about the Northern Irish Department of the Environment sources, the English and Irish Gaelic translations are available from the same website. With regards to the positioning of the names, I didn't choose where they go, that's down to the UK place infobox template, which places Scots names before Irish ones. Best, JonChapple ^Talk 11:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a look at your contribs and I realised you're probably talking about the North/South Ministerial Council annual reports. They're also available in English and Gaelic. JonChapple ^Talk 11:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which are the sources to which you refer? I don't think you can get much more official than NI/UK government documents. Perhaps a link to the page to download both Ulster Scots and English versions of said documents for comparison purposes would be better? And I agree we could do with an Ulster/NI-specific UK template that specifies that the language is the Ulster variety of Scots, but like you, I wouldn't know how to go about that. It does mention Ulster Scots in the first line of the Scots language article already though. JonChapple ^Talk 11:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Scots in the infobox if the article has one.

For places in Northern Ireland, only show non-English-language names in parentheses after the bolded name if the name in that language demonstrates the origin of the common name. Other names and etymologies can be described in the body of the article (after the lead, if the article has one).For places in Northern Ireland whose names are not derived from English: Dungannon (from Irish: Dún Geanainn, meaning "Geanann's stronghold")[1]Strangford (from Old Norse: Strangr-fjǫrðr meaning "strong fjord")[1]For places in Northern Ireland whose names are derived from English, the other names should only appear in the infobox along with a source." These can be found here WP:IMOS#Other names . Hope this helps your editing of NI articles and place names . Unless the name is derived from Irish/Norse/Scots that name does NOT go in the lede . If the name is of English language origin there should be NO other language name in the lede . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.248.153 (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right with regards to Northern Ireland. On Republic of Ireland articles, the Irish Gaelic always goes in the lead, regardless of derivation. JonC ^Talk 09:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try to give a basis for revert using actual policies and guidlines.

You need to address the legitimate concerns I posted both in the edit summary and on the talk page of BAE Systems before you post with an uninformed revert with the completely unfounded edit summary excuse of "..simple statement of fact of criticism". It doesn't work that way. It is unreferenced and the only citation given is at the very end which in fact is not a reliable source. I am not saying we can't find these, but per it being unsourced I could have simply deleted it, I was rather nice about moving it to the talk page. I will be undoing your revert until these issues are addressed in a discussion. Calling an unsourced section on criticism simply a "statement of facts" does not in any way justify your revert. Your input on the talk page would be appreciated. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I would simply add a maintenance tag- done it hundreds of times, but in this case I wanted to "red flag" the need right away instead of wait upon however long for someone to see let alone bother to fix the problem. Considering that specific countries were labelled, an unsubstantiated quantity used, and most importantly that the only reference used was a blatant POV violation of being a recruitment poster for an (Anti) organization, this needed to be addressed right away. Now it appears that such has been done. Cool beans it worked. And btw, it still does not work to say that something called "Criticism" and makes claims about specific countries, etc etc without any references is just a "simple statement of facts." This is not how facts or sourcing works. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we were simply talking about "proofs of existence of criticism" this would be easier. If this section was simply acting as a lead to other sub topics (much as the lead at the beginning of our articles themselves) However as the section was written- "various human rights and anti-arms trade organisations", then went on to name specific countries and even a specific fact of inventory (i.e. the amount of F 16s). The only reference given was to a recruitment pamphlet which mentioned none of the countries and no statistics. This does not meet the sourcing for what encyclopedic information is being sourced. There would be no problem of including the pamphlet as an example of criticism. Though honestly I don't think using a propaganda recruitment pamphlet is really the best option there either. This paragraph was making a broad statement of fact using a source that did nothing to represent that fact. We need to represent that with more than one source (which isn't an example of a particular opposition organization recruitment) otherwise we are incorrectly stating various making broad statements of fact and just plain synthesizing and mis quoting from the source. It just a simple matter of not representing vastly more from a single source than is stated or warranted. I personally think a section like this should almost be mandatory for large enough companies and such. I do however believe in being as reliable as possible with the information we are being trusted has been conveyed in the sources used. Anyways much good work by yourself and another editor has greatly improved the section and makes it moot so it's all good :) . I look forward to any collaboration we may have in the future. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Location info

Is this photograph taken in Kazakhstan ? I have assumed so on the basis of the flickr image stream and so noted it as subspecies ballioni on White-tailed Rubythroat. Please let me know if I have got this wrong. Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lestes viridis

Hi

I see that you have decided to change the genus from Lestes to Chalcolestes. Although Chalcolestes has been proposed as the genus for these damselflies I don't think that this name has yet been widely accepted or that it will be accepted in the future. The major ID guide for Europe Dijkstra, K-D.B & Lewington 2006 uses Lestes and has a discussion on the use of Chalcolestes in appendix 1. They conclude that a change in genus is not valid.

I think that wikipedia should stick to Lestes as this is the accepted Genus at present, in all probability this will continue be the situation in the future and Lestes is the genus found in most modern texts.

Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rixonrixon (talk • contribs) 09:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Salman Aditya for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Salman Aditya 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/Salman Aditya (2nd nomination) 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.

Your views to this article again would be appreciated seeing as you contributed to the discussion last time, when it was nominated for deletion in July 2010 and consequently deleted. Thanks. Hiddenstranger (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jaweed al-Ghussein article

Thanks for tidying up the Jaweed al-Ghussein article.Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 14:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Replacement of existing photos

You didn't give any examples; but I find some from your last edits.

1. Scarlet Skimmer. I doubt whether the current picture because " its abdomen has a mid dorsal black stripe. It can be confused with other species, but that stripe makes it easier to identify them". The current picture lacks this black stripe.

2. Bradinopyga. The current picture is not a Bradinopyga; it is a Trithemis pallidinervis. The file is already renamed after my discussion with the author, who is my friend.

3. Tholymis. The current picture is only 429 × 353 pixels; whereas the picture I replaced is 2,048 × 1,536 pixels.

Thank you for your interests, -- J Kadavoor J e e 13:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kadavoor is the location; not my name (Jeevan Jose). J Kadavoor J e e 13:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may contact Shyamal or Notafly if you have any doubt about me. BTW, I will be off since tomorrow as I stated in my talk page. J Kadavoor J e e 13:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Yes; I will. Not much experience in editing here; more in Commons. Most of my works (99%) are taken at Kadavoor; a few at Kudayathoor. They are mistakenly name "by kadavoor"; I've no problem if anybody rename them. J Kadavoor J e e 14:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

.

Croatia Nightingale

"the centre of the coin features a nightingale, a bird of the thrush family. The inscription "SLAVUJ" (lat. LUSCINIA MEGARHYNCHOS) is displayed circularly along the edge of the coin." [1].

Stop deleting the link under false pretenses or I will report you. Thanks. Shokatz (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The links are copied from the Common Nightingale article itself. It shows the link of the National Bank of Croatia which is issuing the coins, the other link is the overview off all coins and the third one is an overview of 1 kuna coin itself featuring the Nightingale. You deleted them all claiming none of them mention it. Second, it's not an official symbol of the state and it's clearly pointed out in the list/article. The Symbols of Croatia is an article about official symbols of the Republic of Croatia such as the Coat of Arms and state Flag(s). Shokatz (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mallow is a dark pink colour with five leaves.In irish it is Hocas and Italian Malva sylvestris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.211.105 (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diederik Cuckoo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emerson

Just so you know, the "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." quotation is about consistency in the sense of never changing one's mind and position (e.g. politicians who tow a party line even when they know it's wrong, for fear of criticism for having reversed their previously-stated stance). Like most other quotations on that Wikiquote page, it has nothing at all to do with the the consistency of a multi-article publication having and following a style manual. They're totally different uses of the word. This should be obvious, but at least one person per month in MOS-related discussions mistakenly quotes Emerson, or Huxley, Wilde or Berenson, all of whom were actually talking about changing one's own position on matters. I figure if I a notes like this every time it happens, the misguided quotations will eventually stop or nearly stop, in much the same way as Godwin's law forestalls most attempts to compare one's online debate opponents to nazis or Hitler (a very, very common occurrence in Usenet when that neo-maxim was introduced). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 13:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to be such a patronising arse. It might leave you with a nice smug feeling but it really doesn't contribute much to the debate in question. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 08:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You own your own emotions. Maybe I am being WP:DICKish to get the point across, but if you do not take well to correction when you are blatantly falsifying the applicability of quotations (basically a grievous WP:NOR and WP:V error, just conveniently outside of mainspace), you might want to find another hobby. If you and others would stop wrongly quoting Emerson, as a collective trickle of "smug" and "patronising" know-it-alls-who-really-don't, who think you've cleverly hit upon a way to be incivil by hiding behind the coattails of some dead guy who didn't even mean what you all thought he did, the overall debate at MOS would be greatly contributed to, actually. I mean, what part of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND and even WP:DICK for that matter lead you to think it's okay, and would go unnoticed and unaddressed, to call everyone who works on MOS/AT for consistency across our articles a bunch of "small minds"? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 18:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuunen Baka, I think you want Whitman, not Emerson: "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." Peter coxhead (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish The whole point of using the Emerson quote was to say the MOS folks trying to impose lower case on bird names are small minded. But you really do need to get a grip or some sense of proportion. Maybe you're the one who wants to find another hobby. You clearly can't cope with this one. Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 10:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know that was the point of you quoting Emerson. You just affirmatively admitted, and we're in complete agreement, that your purpose was an incivil personal attack on another group of editors. I'm coping just fine; things have gone precisely where I've been predicting they would for over four years now, and it wasn't MOS people who made that happen, it was completely random people proposing WP:RMs, followed by WP:BIRDS people overreacting, so badly that a pro-capitalization admin eventually closed that sprawling RfC (started by other pro-capitalization people) in favor of lower case, an example of the WP:BOOMERANG effect. The only excessively narrow imposition of a style rule by people suffering a lack of a sense of proportion here has been WP:BIRDS people doggedly forcing IOC naming on everyone else for the last 9 years, over constant resistance and objections, and in violation of WP:AT policy (especially WP:COMMONNAME), plus raising serious WP:NPOV concerns as well (IOC does not have the real-world support its boosters here claim it does, capitalization questions aside). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 12:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I once again affirm that the MOS folks are small-minded. That's not a personal attack since I have little dealings with any human beings on WP, only arrogant group-think. I have 30+ years ornithological experience. I have many metres of bird reference books on the shelves where I am typing and the vast majority use capitalisation of bird common names. Also, checking my insect and flower books, they do too. So it's not just imposing an IOC line. Being in favour of capitalisation of common names is just a pursuit of the convention in English language publishing. And please stop being an arse spraying your WP: links like some sort of wiki-lawyer: it does not impress and just make you seem even more dickish. Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 18:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion - Fifth International re-listed

Greetings! It seems that Fifth International is re-listed at Articles for deletion. I am in favor of keep, and I actually I have nothing to add to my previous comment on the subject. I hope you have time to take a look! Cheers! =P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

bird protection
Thank you, tenor banjo player and mathematician who started martial art late, for quality contributions as a dedicated birder for more than 10 years, adding images, common names and categories, for monitoring recent changes and fighting vandalism, for "tidy, remove uncited changes, remove inconsistent translations", for pointing out that consistency for its own sake is foolish, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 911th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 911 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2016 (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) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]