User talk:Richard001/Archive

Geneticist

I saw that you helped edit the geneticist page. I have been working on it for a class and I was wondering if you had any other suggestions or helpful ideas on anything that could be added or changed on the page. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nichschn (talk • contribs) 17:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I was wondering if you could help me add a picture, I am new to wikipedia and I am not sure how to do this. Thanks for all of your help Nichschn 15:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Structure

I completely agree with your comment on the lewis structure article; the majority of the information too, doesn't fit with the text -- in the formal charges section, there are partial charges used in the initial example, which generally make it more confusing for those reading the article for the first time. I'm always wary of those who edit in things such as "consider", "imagine" or "suppose" because it's in a tone which some people can't derive meaning. Minestrone Soup 13:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Pā (Māori)

Can you please provide references for your change? Thank you. MadMaxDog 23:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. Wikipedia still has way too many claims without references, we should attempt to not add new stuff unless well referenced. Good of you to go to that effort. MadMaxDog 10:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a further note, the link you provided to me needs a password. But I think I can assume that what you say is correct. After all, not all references need to be available online. MadMaxDog 10:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I would like to place the text at User:Badgettrg/death into the Medicine subsection of the death article following causes of death / autopsy. Does this seem appropriate? - Badgettrg 00:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To make your day

Jupiter12 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Jupiter12 02:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Erg

Thanks for the Good article rating on Erg (landform). Not to denigrate your efforts, but I feel like I got this one too easily. I mean, I really had to work hard to editing my first GA, Rancho Camulos to GA status and then this one you just come by and declare it good enough. If you have the time, perhaps you can reassess it. See User:IvoShandor/submissions/GA reviews/criteria for some help. After reading this, if you feel that the article still meets GA criteria as-is, I'm more than happy to accept the rating. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

assessment script

"I've just started using your script, and find it quite helpful. I noticed it comes up with the rating on disambiguation pages - would you be able to turn it off for those pages? Richard001 07:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)"

I've implemented this (for the majority of cases; I'm not concerned if it misses some, as it's a "nice to have"). Give it a try. –Outriggr § 08:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detritivores

I think the difference between detritivore and decomposer is just that detritivores are animals and decomposers are microbes. Or at least that's the only difference I can find in how the terms are used by soil ecologists. Elements of Ecology, by Smith & Smith (a pretty good college ecology textbook) is actually explicit about this distinction, but all my other references don't seem to notice how confusingly similar the definitions are. I'll tinker with the two pages a little more. Cheers, Justinleif 04:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet worm

Hi Richard. I found a bit of time over the weekend and I've re-started the translation of the German Stummelfüßer article. So far I've done the anatomy section - you can see my progress to date at User:Yummifruitbat/Velvet worm. It needs wikifying/linking and the German article doesn't have inline references, just a list at the end. Ironically all the references were originally in English, so hopefully my translation won't have lost too much of the original meaning via English-German-English... if there's any hope of an FAC when it's finished, it'll need someone to get hold of the reference works and do the citations properly. I think it's best for me to finish the entire translation first, then do a mass-update of the English article, so I'll do what I can while it's still in my sandbox. Feel free to add wikilinks etc. if you've got some free time. Best wishes, --YFB ¿ 08:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biologist listing

Thanks for putting me on the biologist list. As you probably realise, my main area is native freshwater fish of Australia, but I can also assist in more general aquatic topics.

Good luck finishing the B.Sc!

cheers

Codman 06:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Public domain images

Thank you for the suggestion, I am slowly moving Pd pictures from wikipedia to the commoms. As well as uploading any new pd picture I create to the commons. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started the transfers with Image:Bobcat sitting.jpg. The image is now on the commons, but it shows up as out of sync, and doesn't awknowledge the fact that it is on the commons through wikipedia. how do i fix that? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me about the Commons. When I uploaded my image in 2003, the Commons did not exist. I'll have to explore the new way to do things. --Dennis Fernkes 06:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plant defense against herbivory

Hi Richard, I noticed that you nominated this article-which I worked on quite a bit-as a GAC, thank you. Unfortunately the article was not quite ready for such a move, and was failed as unstable. You will be happy to know that several areas of the article have been improved, and the other editors and I feel it may be appropriate to nominate the article again (a few days after any major other changes to fulfill the "stable criteria"). Perhaps you would take a look at the new and improved article, any comments or suggestions you might have would be welcome. Also, I noted that when you rated the article your edit summary said Assessed - a top article! but you actually assessed the article's importance as "high"; this is a bit confusing to me, could you enlighten me? Cheers--DO11.10 17:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Theory of Island Biogeography

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Talk:The Theory of Island Biogeography, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Talk:The Theory of Island Biogeography fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

This is the name of a book by E.O. Wilson. It should not redirect to the concept of island biogeography itself.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:The Theory of Island Biogeography, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Talk:The Theory of Island Biogeography itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 04:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalence point and endpoint

Hello, recently you suggested that Equivalence point be merged with a seperate, to be article called Titration curves.[[1]] Don't you think Endpoint (chemistry) is very similar to Equivalence point?Bless sins 17:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Deer2.jpg

The original image is at Image:Deer.jpg, which is actually already at the Commons. :p TheCoffee 14:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I wasn't quite clear about the concept of the Commons at the time, when I uploaded it in 2005. TheCoffee 07:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian biology students

You may want to join Category:Wikipedians interested in biology instead, as student cateogories by specific subjects are generally merged into 'interested in' categories due to overlap. –Pomte 05:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant niche on hold

I just thought that I would remind you that an article you recently contributed to, Vacant niche, has been reviewed and put on hold due to a few issues that don't meet the Good Article requirements. Keep in mind that it was reviewed 4 days ago and will not normally stay on hold for more than 7 days. I just wanted to make sure you knew in case you wanted to make the few changes. Otherwise the article will have to be resubmitted after the improvements are made. Thanks! Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 12:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 16 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article mobbing behavior, 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.

--Carabinieri 09:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Edit to WP:WPVS

It's interesting to read your answers, and you obviously have some experience with this, but couldn't you be a little less offensive in doing so? It's insulting to the whole project to effectively call it 'useless'. Gathering data and researching things is hardly useless; much of the data gathered has been useful already, both for informing debates and helping fight vandalism. Much more needs to be researched, and many of your answers are entirely inadequate for anyone who wants any detailed information on the subject. The research questions is just a rough draft of some possible research topics to stimulate further studies. You may not think it productive, but I certainly think it will be. You may now return to your useless vandal fighting, while we find a more efficient way to go about it :) Richard001 11:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the only findings you seem to have presented so far state things that are just as obvious. We know what vandalism is, we know how often it happens, we know why it happens, and we know how to deal with it. How exactly have your findings helped deal with vandalism? Telling us that 3-6% of edits are vandalism when we all know it's about 5% anyway is not awfully helpful – Gurch 13:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should also start thinking in terms of much larger sample sizes, rather than quoting results based on a few dozen edits to two decimal places. The sort of thing that used to reside at User:Gurch/Reports/Statistics (as for it to be undeleted if you can't see it) – Gurch 13:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mobbing behavior/To do

The youtube link was requested right above where I entered it. If no one is interested, at least I tried.--Curtis Clark 13:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Agathis australis" article referencing

Hey ao', I see you've been doing some solid work on the Kauri article- it's looking really good, keep it up. However, wouldn't it be best to change the method of footnoting so that we have the little numbers for each reference after the relavant line of text? The method used at the moment is the proper one used in scientific papaers, I used to do something similar but I think it's better to do it this other way as it makes things easier for the reader - ie: they can just click on the number to be taken to the reference with all its details at the bottom of the page + the inline citations are less obtrusive. Also, this is the type of footnoting featured articles ususally employ. Let me know your thoughts- if you agree to change the footnoting method I'm happy to make the changes.

Cheers, Kotare 10:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet I'll go ahead and have a go at whacking in inline references now. Hmm I know what you mean; it's tricky to get references for uni bio notes and it can be frustrating because they are often so useful/have material that would make a valuable contribution to wikipedia - maybe you could e-mail your lecturer and ask him what sources he used(?) Hope it goes well, I think this article will soon be able to be bumped up to A class at this rate.

Cheers, Kotare 10:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving images from Wikipedia to Wikimedia

Hi Richard, thanks for your note, I completely agree and am keen to move my pictures to Wikimedia and contribute new ones there. I've tried the Move-to-commons assistant, but it says "This image has no verificable good license, and can thus not be uploaded to commons through this tool.". All my pictures are "public domain"-license, so I would have thought it should be fine. Can you refer me to any easy way of moving existing files? I can see one of my pics has ended up on Wikimedia (Pittosporum crassifolium (foliage & flowers).jpg), so it must work ... somehow? Sorry to bother you with this, but since you left a message :-D, Cheers, Pseudopanax 04:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, got it to work now - I was missing the .jpg at the end (had just the name typed in). Doh! Thanks for your reply, though, because it made it clear to me that it must be a "user error" ;-)

Thanks re Vandalism

Much thanks for the vandalism warning template and admin report links. On this side of the learning curve, I may need some help spoon-fed, but I can get the links off of my Talk page any time now. Exactly what I needed. I'm dealing with an anon IP that began "editing" this month on a narrow range of subjects. Got it from here. X ile 18:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC) - Talk[reply]

Thanks for the criticism

Sorry to take so long to respond to you, but I am a military man and my time is not always my own. You sent me a comment about my contributions to death. You reset my contribution to the warfare portion of the article. Warfare is my job, so I think I am more than qualified to provide input to that section. The definition provided was too limiting. War doesn't always take the form of armed conflict, and it isn't always among different groups, to just state examples of what was wrong with that article. Although reading it again, I think I can improve what I said. About my input to natural selection, I stated that it is possible for less "fit" organism to outbreed a more "fit" organism. It is, in theory at least, possible for an organism that is less "fit" for a certain biome to outbreed a more "fit" specie by doing such things as reproducing much faster, choking out resources the more fit specie needs, etc. Thanks again for the criticism. Echo5Joker 00:50, 23 June 2007 (CST)

Anatomy project banner

Hey there. In response to youre comment on anatomy wikiproject talk page: A project banner with assessment rating and such would be great! I would do it but i have absolutelly no idea about the whole process of changing the plain banner with multiple functiuons...If you would be able to do it somehow (whenever u got time) it would be great! I suppose u dont have rush as wikiproject anatomy is not very active compared to other wikiprojects, but i suppose more functionality wont hurt :)... petze 06:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SURE thing :) Just tell me what to do and ill do it.What do you mean by set up categories? But yeah just give me instructions and once uve done the talk page template ill do the required changes or fixes...petze 06:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey hey...First of all, ur a legend for making it work. Now ok look at this article talk page Sartorius muscle and tell me if you like what i did on the assessment (i changed {{WikiProject Anatomy}} to {{WikiProject Anatomy|class=Start|importance=mid}}... so all the articles can get rated and assessed now and they will be placed at the appropriate categories on their own wikiprojects correct? I am not sure though what you mean by ur last comment.... so in addition to the above thats already on the talk page you want me to add {{catmore1|[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy]]}} and {{Cat importance|topic=Anatomy|importance=High}} underneath???And what do you mean all the articles placed in currently will be ghosts? Do you mean there isint a actual page where the whole assessment can be undertaken for anatomy (such as this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Article_rating in the medicine wikiproject) and i have to create one? Im not complaining but just wanting to make sure i understand what you said....Thanks again. petze 07:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FINISHED :)... have a look at Category:Anatomy articles by importance & Category:Anatomy articles by quality ... if there is anything else i left out that i need to do, dont hesitate to contact me... may i say on behalf of the anatomy wikiproject, thank you for making all this assessment on anatomy related subjects possible :) Cya later

Ah yeah forgot about that haha. No worries, glad I could help.

Koala image

The koala photo which you have writen to me about, was taken by myself during a visit to Lone Pine Koala Sanctuary. Please advise me exactly what you consider is the problem with the image. Figaro 07:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image problem

As you have requested I do with images, I have just uploaded three images of Peter Ustinov to the Wikimedia Commons. While the uploading went okay, I do not know the correct procedure for adding Wikimedia Commons images to Wikipedia pages. I tried to add the photos (which I personally took of Peter Ustinov during a book signing session) to Peter Ustinov's page at Wikipedia (without success). Could you please give me help with this (by instructions on how to do so, etc.). Thank you. Figaro 04:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a temporary glitch preventing images from showing up. Wikipedia:Picture tutorial gives a how-to, and the Commons images are treated in the same way as images uploaded to Wikipedeia – just use the image name. dave souza, talk 11:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin's view

Re your comment at Talk:Vestigiality, sometimes an obvious interpretation of writings can seem an unusual inference when it goes against the usual modern expectation. Quite often orthodoxy projects current views back, when in historical fact the original viewpoint was more ambiguous. Example include the common ideas that Darwin didn't learn about Glyptodons being related to Armadillos and birds being unique to islands in the Galapagos before he returned from the Beagle expedition, and that he always insisted that evolution took place at a steady slow page in contrast to the new idea of punctuated equilibrium. Eldredge, Niles (2006), "Confessions of a Darwinist", The Virginia Quarterly Review (Spring 2006): 32–53 discusses how this wasn't strictly the case. .. dave souza, talk 11:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Young-sowthistle.jpg

Thanks Richard! I've discovered Wikimedia Commons in the two years since the photograph was uploaded. ;) --Pjf 23:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

Hi Richard, might this be covered by either Habitat (ecology) or Ecological niche? Tim Vickers 03:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps you might add a sourced section to Fitness landscape. WAS 4.250 10:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdom teeth

Thanks for the pointers! I really shouldn't have gone and deleted that section without discussing it first. I think I will do some more research, and add it to the section, explaining why wisdom teeth can no longer be considered vestigial.

Thanks again for the help!

Disconformist 00:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mergers

Regarding your request to move: Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology/Assessment to the correct name Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology/Assessment, it seems to me that a merge would be more appropriate: see Help:Merging and moving pages for guidance. (I had to look that up) Have a look and see what the best procedure is, presumably you'd want some but not all of the content of the two pages in the final page. Have a go, and let me know if difficulties arise. The Habitat (ecology) to Habitat move seems to have been the final change as proposed at Talk:Habitat (disambiguation), but no-one's got around to it so I'll have a go at that. Enjoy learning how-to, .. dave souza, talk 18:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Warlordjohncarter#Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology/Assessment, that's it done now. These glitches happen very easily, I'm sure we've all done something of the sort. .. dave souza, talk 13:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of all wikipedia articles

I was wondering if this is possible or not?

Herbivory

It is fine that you changed it back. Wikipedia sucks, and I tell my students in the General Ecology class that I teach not to use it to start with. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the grazers, herbivory, I can see your point. Parasitic plants are what it says, parasites, and not herbivores. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rich!

Giggy _U^CP has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Savaging Improvements

Hi Richard001, thanks for your constructive and well-cited contributions at Savaging. Let me know if you make any changes regarding the page-merge or move; and keep up the good work with cited sources! Nimur 16:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infanticide (zoology)

Great choice for an article, and generally very well done. KP Botany 02:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, hope it doesn't scare anybody if they put it on the main page :) Richard001 02:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably will, Werothegreat studies protists and he objected to it--and algae are complex and scarey. The subject is rather repugnant to most people, so I found out from studying it--my physical anthropology professor studied cultures which practice human sacrifices. The main page gets some censorship, generaly on porn stars, and related issues, but I think this can be written properly and make it through GA and FA and wind up on the main page. There are a few issues, but very few, mostly when you connect it with human infanticide you're not as neutral in tone as you are otherwise. This was my thought, though, that you should be working towards FA with this--it will make it, imo. KP Botany 02:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just meant DYK, FA is a lot of work. I'd like to bring something to GA at least though, so I might try for this one once I've finished the remaining sections. Re: Human infanticide, a lot of it was just copied from the main article, so if it's not neutral it would be best to address it there too. Richard001 02:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, that's right you mentioned DYK. It's a heck of a lot better already than most articles from which DYKs are pulled. I have no issues with it being in DYK. And, yes, FA is a ton of work, way too much--still this article shows a lot of what it takes, so I think you might move towards it. You're a student, though, so you don't have the time to make a push for it all at once, but with time it can get there. The subject is interesting and largely unknown to many. I did look at the human infanticide article and just cringed in horror. KP Botany 02:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with KP that this is worth pushing towards FA status.-gadfium 03:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On July 17, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Infanticide (zoology), 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.

Excellent comprehensive article. Well done.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. I am glad it is on the front page, but how did it get there so quickly? You only started it a week or so ago, didn't you? BrainyBabe 16:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a DYK, in fact if it was any more than 5 days old it wouldn't be eligible. Richard001 23:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fecundity

I changed your rating on importance for this article to high. The article needs major work, but it really needs to be one of our best articles. KP Botany 05:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Tag a Mistake?

Hello! I just happened to be looking at the User Template category page and noticed that a users actual page was on there. Long story short, check out [2]. If I am not mistaken (which is possible, since I am very new) I think you accidently pasted the category tag into this users talk page along with the actual template. I have removed the tag, but wanted to let you know, in case there is something I'm missing, and I'm the one mistaken. Thanks! Drake Maijstral 06:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wildlife of Africa

HI Richard. Thankyou for the new infanticde article -very interesting indeed and an invaluable encyclopedic contribution. Well done! I don't know if you have any knolwedge on African wildlife but I need an expert to write some good articles Wildlife of Tanzania, Wildlife of Kenya for example should be a lovely written article not a list . Would you be interested in helping it? Youd expect wikipedia to have detailed articles on each country with a summary of flora, fauna, conservation national reserves etc ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 11:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there

Cant believe I run into another university student studying environmental science, cause me too! We should exchange our ideas once in a while. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 16:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HI

Thelordsavenger 02:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC) you make a good point, I do not agree with evolutionary theory but I should not attempt to push my views on anyone. I would like to add that I find it mildly offensive that evolution is considered a wikipedia policy with virtually no contest except to basically say that a bunch of religious crazies disagree because it would violate their belief system. macroevolution is a theory which cannot be truly proven as a result of the inability to travel back 4.5 billion years and observe the process. also, is not expansion or explosion of absolute mass impossible? If that is so then how is the big bang possible? also, how could life come from nothing without the influence of an existing outside source? I appreciate your point though and will be more cautious in the future. Thelordsavenger 02:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GenieWiki

Just thought you might like to know, there's been somewhat of a revival at GenieWiki (TDA advertised it on AoEH, etc.). So it'd be great to see you around there again! Giggy _U^CP 08:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Robert Whittaker.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Robert Whittaker.PNG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

zero point

but how do you explain where the beings or amino acids or cells or bio matter etc. came from! were they there for eternity? well that would not make much sense would it? also what about the lack of what should be billions of transitional fossils? you can belive that the world today exists because of random mutation that has never in recoded history been benificial and has never ever resulted in speciation, but how do you explain how the materials and specific situations necessary to affect this theory came about? maybe almost all important scientists believe in the thory, but THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE!!! especially if that is all they were taught during their academic lives. you may think you can explain the "origin" of the species but how do you explain the origin of the materials necessary for your theory to take place? Thelordsavenger 20:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

i was not asking about the chemical reactants etc. i was asking where did the early freaking earth come from. you know the big hunk of rock just bubbling with possibilities for life? if it came from dust then where did the dust come from. think hard. i was talking about the original first blocks. the big rocks life was supposed to form ON! now where did they come from?

Mimicry

You wrote: " 'Mimicry' of a plant by a praying mantis does not lower the fitness of the plant". That is not true if what the mantis is preying on are organisms beneficial to that plant, such as its pollinators. Crab spiders, ambush bugs, and other floral mimics certainly reduce the fitness of the model. Katydids, leaf insects and walking sticks feed on the plants they mimic, and because of their succesful avoidance of predators, the model loses fitness. You went on to say "This is really the defining aspect of mimicry" - to which I'd have to ask, under whose definition is the fitness of the model considered crucial? I'm familiar with much of the literature on at least insect mimicry (I even co-authored one such publication myself), and cannot recall ever seeing any such definition. I prefer a more general definition of mimicry which allows for camouflage to be considered a special case - "A mimic is an organism which produces a signal that transmits incorrect information about its potential effect on the fitness of that particular signal's receiver" - by not including any arbitrary conditions regarding the nature of the "model", this allows for ALL the various phenomena included presently under mimicry and camouflage, PLUS others like harmless snakes with loud hisses, frilled lizards, owl butterflies, underwing moths, and other animals that use "bluff" or "startle" tactics. There is no specific model for the eyespots on many organisms, yet they ARE still mimetic. It wouldn't even necessarily be fair to include a clause about "the signal is deceptive because it is familiar to the receiver in other contexts and has an associated fitness value" because that is not universally going to be true, though admittedly it's not often that would be violated; but that's about as much as one would conceivably need to say, in a generalized definition, about the significance of the "model". I honestly don't see why the model's fitness would ever come into play. Dyanega 07:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auckland Meetup - 11 August 2007 1pm

You are invited to Auckland Meetup 3 on the afternoon of Saturday 11 August 2007 at Ironique in Mt Eden. Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 3 for details. You can also watch Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland to be informed of future NZ meetups. Linnah 13:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

surely you jest!

but if there is no explanation for the existence of the first materials necessary for evolution to occur (dust) then to declare it fact is not only illogical but also unscientific! all the variables in an experiment must be accounted for before you can confirm the hypothesis!!! therefore if you cannot account for this one major variable in the experiment of evolution then the the conclusion must be drawn that evolution is only a mere hypothesis and therefore it is a fallacy to teach it in public schools as a fact! now while I am not suggesting (as you stated rather prematurely that I would)that these truths confirm gods existence i am stating that the fact that evolution is considered wikipedia policy places doubt on the security and correctness of wikipedia policy! if a website which suggests that it is unprejudiced and completely scientific can place undue weight on a theory as flawed as that of macroevolution then what point is there in attempting to pursue science and knowledge!? Thelordsavenger 19:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About translation

I'd like to see the article evolution translated into other languages. How do you think it would go down though, if it were translated into say Arabic or Turkish? I'm unable to speak those languages, but I doubt the page would survive long before it became overun with the prevailing political and religious views of the countries from which the editors hail. Do you think it would be worth a try? Richard001 07:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good day richard . The article is already translated by someone else . In fact my knowledge about biology sciense in kinda limited . But for sure , the arabic translation is including every thing in the theory of the evolution. And you right , Muslims (both arabs and turks) deny most of Charles Darwin theorys. but the translator has translated the article 100% as it is . he is also trying to translate the history of evolutionary biology , see this link : (Link). Make sure there are too many liberal arabic translators Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 18:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anthropocentrism

A template you created, Template:Anthropocentrism, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 00:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Vandalism on TFA

Point taken; thanks. — TKD::Talk 06:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've (begun) to use Twinkle, too. I had been so used to manual warnings that I had gotten pretty efficient about it. The best part about Twinkle so far for me has been the one-click salting of nonsense pages. — TKD::Talk 06:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random Smile!

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 02:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review

Hi there, I was wondering if you were interested in reviewing Oxidative phosphorylation as a FAC. If you were, any comments or suggestions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oxidative phosphorylation‎ would be very welcome. All the best Tim Vickers 02:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, another pair of eyes is always valuable! Tim Vickers 02:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals

When are you putting it up? We're waiting to sign up. AshLin 10:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I haven't actually got a draft drawn up yet. I was hoping to get a few more people interested, though the replies all seemed to come at once. We probably do have enough people to start something. I might start a page or a draft page sometime. Richard001 03:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your comment on Talk:Ethology

I don't know, the two things are practically the same -- ethology is the scientific approach to the study of animal behavior so all the scientific facts should go under ethology. What would you put in animal behavior instead? -- Outspan [talk · contribs] 07:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Well, I'm not an admin, and I have a control for protecting pages. Will I get into trouble for using them? Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 01:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's like genitalia. Use them carefully, and nobody tries to stop you. BrewJay 14:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human

The request for comment regards the addition of Human#Dysgenics to the human article. Your comments seemed very apposite. Tim Vickers 03:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. "Apposite" means strikingly appropriate and relevant. :) Ferrylodge 03:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your comments were indeed very appropriate and relevant. Eugenics and "Dysgenics" seem to be two different names for the same thing. Tim Vickers 03:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't bother to read the section before commenting... they are related, but my original comment was certainly not very relevant. Dysgenics is more an observation than a political position. One need not be pro-eugenics to say that dysgenics is happening (if it is), just as one need not be a racist to say there is a relationship between race and intelligence (if there is one). Richard001 03:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetness

Replying to:

Thanks for your work on the table, but what's with changing the numbers? I doubt I would have typed them all in incorrectly, so unless there's a mistake in the book I can't imagine why you would change them. Richard001 00:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw the numbers and immediately thought that there's a 0 too much. If you look here, look at the respective Wikipedia articles or just use your favorite search engine, everywhere numbers about 1/10 of your values are presented. If you didn't make an error when copying the numbers from the book, I guess that the book is wrong (I don't have a tabletop sweetener at hand, if the amount of sweetener is on the label, you could compare the amount of sucrose equivalent to the sweetness...). Icek 20:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to:

I suppose, but it would be better if you could provide a reference here. If someone tried to check the numbers they wouldn't be supported by the current one given. A second reference explaining the error may be appropriate. Richard001 00:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have provided a reference; while the values for aspartame, cyclamate and saccharin are certainly closer to reality, the reference (which itself cites an article by DuBois et al. from 1991) unfortunately has other values for fructose (1.30) and glucose (0.59). The factors probably depend on the concentration used - DuBois et al. used a solution of water with 2% sucrose as a reference. Icek 22:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Saw Brainybabes recent article on slavery. Liked it ... I proposed it here Saw you made a recent edit or two - may need a good opening para ... Victuallers 17:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:New Zealand Journal of Ecology 2006 cover.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:New Zealand Journal of Ecology 2006 cover.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spunj Merjer

You raised a question: here or there, there being an article to create. By default, I will follow the directions and begin if not finish moving any essential information from the stubs to the main article, then redirect the stubs to the main article. BrewJay 14:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Working Man's Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I am delighted to present the award for your tireless contributions, in particular for assessing WP:MED articles

--Countincr^{( t@lk )} 23:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I have your attention regarding images please

Thank you for uploading images/media such as Image:Timber DonnellyMills2005 SeanMcClean.jpg to Wikipedia! There is however another Wikimedia foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading media there instead. That way, all the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view images you have previously uploaded by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!

Richard001 09:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offence - but - http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/Gallery.php?wikifam=commons.wikimedia.org&img_user_text=SeanMack — [Unsigned comment added by SeanMack (talk • contribs).]

Rollback

On User talk:Bobo192, Richard001 said:
Some of your reverts at organ (anatomy) have been to a vandalized version. There's no point in reverting an anons vandal edit if it's just going back to one of their former anon vandal edits, is there? Please be sure to check what you are reverting back too, and take a quick look at the recent history and page itself to ensure the resultant page is rubbish free. The current version of the page seems to be riddled with old vandalism, some of it rather obvious. I don't have time to sort through it myself but hopefully you'll be extra careful in future and pass this message on to other editors if you see the same happening.

You are right, I do apologize. It's quite telling that when I rolled back this time, the last sane non-vandalized version was nearly 20 days old. Thank you for the notification, I do these days attempt to be extra-certain that I'm reverting correctly, but it's always better of me if I'm on the lookout for these things. Thank you very much. Bobo . 13:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharing images between wikis

Hi! I got your note about Commons and think, your efforts are a tad mis-directed. The Bug 5283 is trying to make sharing of images (and other media) between wikis (much) easier. Please, consider voting for it... Yours, пан Бостон-Київський 16:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetness

Ah, right, thx. --sin-man 07:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tui

I'll see if I can't get some equipment soon - I've had a busy couple of weeks. But the wretched things sing outside my window, so it should be dooable. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mutualism‎

The Mutualism article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created your template

Hey, Richard. I've created your template, and a template documentation is up coming. For now, the syntax is here. Happy editing, Arky ^¡Hablar! 21:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons bugging

I know about Commons and I put that image where I thought was appropriate. If you had looked you would have found an account with my name already on Commons. If you had looked at my Talk page you would have found the message before yours was discussing my Commons postings. (SEWilco 00:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Evolutionary pressure

I think Evolutionary pressure ought to be merged into selection, definately. The material in Evolutionary pressure also needs referenceing, badly. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 00:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military of New Zealand

Kia Ora Richard. I have no objection to the page been moved now. Back last year, each country was having those separate pages, that’s why I reverted then, as the page redirect should not have just happened a merge would have been more acceptable. Leave the tag up for a couple of days, then feel free to merge/redirect them Brian | (Talk) 08:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE

On the edit, I was on the "Recent Edit" pages and I saw a blanking on "Carbohydrates" and I thought I was reverting vandal edit. I wasn't sure what exactly happened... --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 23:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On September 20, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Religion in New Zealand, 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.

Well done Richard. We always have a bit of a shortage of NZ stuff, so feel free to keep self nominating, happy editing. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

seeking your comments

Hey Richard, as one of the more active editors on related biological matters of late, I invite your input on Talk:Sexual_selection#.22Darwin_befouls_a_lady_with_lecherous_monkey_tricks.22_image. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 03:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

about taxis and the small paragraphs of wiki

Dear Richard, As I could learn from your notes attached to "Taxis" you prefer the complete paragraphs in Wiki. It is OK, however, please open an encyclopedy and check how many short notes are there. I think both the long and the short descriptions have the role in our growing electronic book. I think the only problem is when somebody makes a small story big without any reason. In the case of taxis - description of the main forms of taxes is enough, but there is no reason to delete them. Can ypou accept this or not? (Otherwise thanks for the evaluation of chemotaxis! - I have worked with it much, and there are still new chapters under editing) Best regrds from, Kohlasz 21:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be best to make your case on the talk page there. I don't feel there's any point having article's no bigger than their summary, and the taxis page isn't exactly bloated. Richard001 07:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of EBO?

Hello Richard001. I've received no response to my proposal to replace Encyclopædia_Britannica Online with a redirect, and not modify the parent article. Should I go ahead at this point? You placed the merge tag. I see no useful content to merge, but EBO is already discussed in the parent article. EdJohnston 19:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Noam Chomsky/expansion

That is plainly absurd. If you see something notable that is missing, add it. smb 02:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little context would help here, but I'll try to reverse engineer your meaning... Richard001 06:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. In haste, I thought you deemed the whole page too small, and needing expansion. I failed to spot the colon. smb 16:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'll try to add something on Dennett if nobody else does, since Chomsky's views on evolution don't seem to be covered. I haven't even read the Noam Chomsky article yet though, so don't count on me. Richard001 11:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Animals

I loved your idea for an Animals WikiProject and I added a formal proposal to the WikiProject Council . Please add your name if you are still interested, and if enough are, I'll start working on the project skeleton. Thanks J. Hall • ^(Talk) 18:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a draft on my user page, though it's extremely skeletal. Richard001 11:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I threw together a WikiProject based largely on WP:PLANTS. I figured using that as a starting format would be a good idea, and it can be adjusted to fit within the MUCH broader scope of WP:ANIMALS. Any help would be appreciated. J. Hall • ^(Talk) 17:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hi Richard: Thanks for your comment on the new Bird nest article. It's nice to know people are actually reading it! :) MeegsC | Talk 11:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. John Bosco Interparish School up for deletion

Wanted to let you know, St. John Bosco Interparish School which you had commented on as being non-notable is up for deletion. On the talk page you had requested a note on your user page if that happened... just following up! Macboots 05:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience/Assessment

In July you asked about an assessment scheme at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience. One has now been set up and if you're interested, your help would be appreciated. --Oldak Quill 14:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

On 4 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article aggressive mimicry, 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.

--Allen3 ^talk 01:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Removal of OR template from Doublethink

Hi Richard001,

I just wanted to stop by and ask about your edit on the Doublethink article on August 22. I noted the reasons I saw for adding the template on the talk page of that article, but you removed the template without responding to the concerns I raised.

Since I don't want to just put the template back in without hearing your reasons for the change, would you mind responding either here or on the talk page for the article?

Thanks! --jonny-mt 05:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Sorry about putting the comment at the top; I'll be sure to watch that from now on. Regarding Doublethink, though, I did actually note the reasons for adding the template in on the talk page...but since I put it at the top (that's two slaps on my wrist and counting), it's possible that it was simply overlooked. I've moved my notice to the bottom of the talk page and re-added the template since the points I raised haven't changed; feel free to stop by and debate! --jonny-mt 04:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

talk handicap

Whups, I left some droppings when I moved some figures from the talk page to the article. I've policed up my litter now. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 05:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just you, I saw them too... maybe they're like fnords? ... Pete.Hurd 06:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They really were there, see... Pete.Hurd 06:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, yes I see now. Sounds like your computer. My nokia N800 does odd things like that sometimes when I edit wikipedia... Restored figs on that page now. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 06:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mimicry

The article seems to be fine as it stands, and makes for good reading and I think putting the classification in a different linked article will make it too non-linear for most readers. Also, I added an old image the other day that you might find of interest Image:InsectMimicryLyd.jpg. Cheers. Shyamal 04:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mention of mammalian mimicry on the lead with no further info later on. This could make for an example (Ratel + Cheetah cub). Shyamal 04:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. Discussions on the mathematical aspects should definitely go into a separate article. What is present on the page currently should be a good outline for what follows there. The classification itself is good in that we have an idea of what kinds of options exist. Shyamal 04:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing and assessment in a selection of random articles

I'd appreciate it if you'd get in touch with me by email from my page about following this up & applying this. DGG (talk) 05:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what you want to talk about, but if you want to do it by email mine is available on the left. Richard001 22:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crypsis

Hi Richard001. The OED gives "Zool. Of markings, coloration, etc.: serving for concealment; protective" under cryptic. Which does indicate that it's just visual. But OTOH, dictionaries haven't got the space to discuss nuances of meaning (that would be the job of an encyclopedia;-).

On another topic, the OED doesn't list "crypsis", nor does my other dictionary. But the word does appear in scientific journals.

Best wishes from a fellow kiwi, Robinh 07:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Richard. I've discovered that"cryptic" has another meaning: check out crypsis (taxonomy). Cheers, Robinh 07:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 21 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vavilovian mimicry, 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.

--Wizardman 15:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commons

Hey, yep I'm aware of commons, I don't think I have an account on it though, I think its just other people who upload my pics from wikipedia ot it.Tnarg 12345 12:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rye and Wheat

Hi Richard:

I'm asking you this as you seem to be a main editor of Mimicry. Mimetic weeds are a whole new idea to me. Great!

In the transformation of rye from a weed to a chosen crop, do you have any idea of the timeframe over which this would have taken place? Thanks, Wanderer57 23:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of -Phagy

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on -Phagy, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because -Phagy is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting -Phagy, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 13:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Owner

Template:Owner has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Hesperian 12:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: This guy

Hello there. Please avoid giving lower level warnings than previous ones, at least in the same month. I've aiv'ed our friend 'Titty sprinkles' myself. Richard001 04:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That warning was over a week ago. If it was a logged-in user, it would be different, but with IP addresses – especially dynamic or shared ones – there's no guarantee that it's the same person from one day to the next. It's quite possible for an IP address to be re-assigned several times in a one-week period, and tens of thousands of people often share the same IP address. Thus, unless it is clear from the timing that all edits are coming from the same person, it's often best to start with a lower-level warning; if the user is persistent in making unconstructive edits, they will be blocked anyway. I always leave a higher warning than the one which was previously there if that was left less than 24 hours ago; otherwise, however, I may not. Thanks – Gurch 04:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess you have a lot more tolerance for vandals than me. Seeing a page with dozens of vandal warnings that never escalate is too much for me. That dynamic IP thing is one of the most annoying aspects of Wikipedia in my opinion, and it makes me very partial to simply blocking anons entirely. Richard001 05:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And losing tens of thousands of constructive edits every day? What good would that do? Also, dynamic IP addresses are not an aspect of Wikipedia, they are an aspect of the Internet in general; there is no way to know for sure who is who, unless you're suggesting everyone on the Internet be required to personally identify themselves at all times, and I think you can see why that is a bad idea – Gurch 05:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but we also lose a lot of credibility when someone comes to mutualism and instead of seeing content, views the word 'Titty sprinkles' several hundred times. I very, very seldomly see good contributions from IPs. Most of it is vandalism, reverting vandalism (often rather poorly) and making good faith edits that make you want to cry. A serious academic would be rather deterred from contributing to an article that received such treatment. In fact they would be much more likely to tell students to avoid Wikipedia completely. Richard001 05:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you're not looking very hard. Please, go through Recent Changes some time looking at all anonymous contributions; every one of them, not just the ones that catch your eye. Far more of them are constructive than are not – Gurch 05:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles I watch must be from a different wiki then... Richard001 05:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 20 random anonymous edits, taken from Recent Changes:

Three bad edits out of 20 is not "mostly vandalism" by any stretch of the imagination. Unless you spend your entire time watching Pokémon articles, I really don't see how you can have arrived at this conclusion.

Of course new contributors' edits aren't always going to be good. They are frequently confused by the arcane and complex system of policies and guidelines that we have (I doubt very much that you have read every single one of our 42 official policies from end to end; I know I haven't), as well as formatting details, which templates to use, Wikipedia's "style" (read the entire Manual of Style? thought not) and other such issues. You are forgetting that everyone was a newcomer once, and dismissing newcomers as worthless because "we have enough experienced users" (which is false) can only lead to a decline in overall activity and the amount of new material being added. Most of our new content is contributed anonymously; registered users are proportionally more concerned with formatting, tidying up, rewriting and squabbling in project-space – Gurch 17:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for jumping in here, but without knowing the specifics, I agree with Gurch's sentiments about anonymous users in general. - TwoOars (Rev) 19:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biology collaboration

Hey, sorry I didn't see your comment here earlier. I had thought it would be a good idea, but now I am not so sure. I mean, just the fact that no one has responded to the proposal in all this time is indication enough. Which is a shame really. :/ - TwoOars (Rev) 19:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Or it could mean that the idea has to be brought up in a forum with higher traffic. - TwoOars (Rev) 19:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phylogenetic systematics

Hello Richard001. I saw your recent update at Cladistics, suggesting that 'phylogenetic systematics' should be marked as a synonym. My issue with making them the same is that this makes Willi Hennig the only authority on the meaning of the term. Ernst Mayr coined the word 'cladism' and he surely would not have made it synonymous with phylogenetic systematics. Mayr considered himself a systematist and he had a very different view of phylogenetics from Hennig. The claim that the two terms are equivalent is the kind of thing that a cladist would say, and aren't we supposed to be neutral? EdJohnston 13:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organisms Wiki

Hi Richard. After some thought, I came to the conclusion that the Organisms Wiki affair was indeed quite a joke. If anything, a wiki on organisms or other aspects of science would be better hosted on an independent server rather than a wikia. I am better off contributing to Wikipedia - as your comments clearly suggest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwhdavey (talk • contribs) 08:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On November 5, 2007, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Batesian mimicry, and Müllerian mimicry, 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.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are a great pair of articles. I enjoyed reading them. — BillC ^talk 11:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. They're only in their infancy really, but nice to see you enjoyed reading them. Richard001 21:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Breakurteeth‎

Regarding my warning to User:Breakurteeth‎, I saw a warning one and, considering the vast size of the vandalistic edits the user was making, I escalated it to 3. I didn't see that the first was for the user's own talk page. Sorry for the confusion. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jasongallant

Oops, sorry about that. I'll go ahead and make the changes. Thanks for the info!

Jasongallant 21:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraviolet

Changing the links on ultraviolet to something that asks for a login isn't helpful. Pharmboy 15:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA nominations

Hi Richard, I am nominating the Mimicry article that you worked up for WP:GA. Shyamal (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dodson Article Translation

Just a heads up - I finished the first draft translation you requested for Calaway H. Dodson - it has been posted for proofreading. Descartes1979 (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Keen citation

Hi-- it's available here. Jokestress (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Close Up.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Close Up.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage in NZ

Hi Richard - it's an interesting idea... unfortunately I'm a vcery small cog in the ODT machine, and not on reporter staff, but it's certainly a possibility. I've got the ear of one of the features editors, so I'll run it by him next time I speak to him. ISTR there have been articles on Wikipedia in NZ media in the past - if I remember correctly there was one in the ODT's "World Focus" supplement sometime in about 2006. Russell Brown may even have written something in the Listener, I'm not sure. Grutness...wha? 22:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see brief references in the New Zealand Herald and in the Listener frequently - they expect people to know about Wikipedia and don't try to explain what it is. Just google for Wikipedia with "site:nzherald.co.nz" to see their stories about Wikipedia, or use the Herald website built-in search for references. For today's Herald, see this example. For last week's Listener, try this. Campbell Live rebroadcast an interview with Jimbo about a month ago (the interview was with some other program, but they put shots of John Campbell in asking the questions).

I had an email conversation in February 2007 with Sandra Ordonez, the Wikimedia Foundation's Communications Manager, about setting up a press contact in New Zealand. I didn't want the job, and suggested several possible names to her (including Grutness'), but I don't think anyone followed up on it.

It would be interesting to have an article on local Wikipedians and Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand. This would be best brought up at WP:NZWNB or WP:NZ.-gadfium 23:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was the sort of thing I was thinking about - something focusing on New Zealand editors and content, maybe even an interview with a NZ editor? Richard001 (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to template?

I beg your pardon, but could you point out where I am supposed to have objected to the template you refer to? I only participate in AfD nominations, especially football - I do not get involved with other deletion processes. If you supply the diff, I will clarify why you have mistaken someone else's objection for mine. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to the template at all - feel free to carry on using it. But don't expect me to, that's all. Good faith edits are good faith edits. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 00:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We will just have to beg to differ over this one. I made the comment many moons ago, and it seems churlish to trawl over it once more. Let's leave it at that. Thanks for your postings. Ref ^(chew)(do) 05:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question on your theory...

I'm currently working on a bot that will tag article talk pages in Category:Animals with the {{Animal}} template. At the moment I'm attempting to garner a list of categories to avoid (obviously, Category:Amphibians should have the WP:AAR template etc). I noticed you removed the WP:ANIMALS template from Mimicry so I'm curious what your thoughts on how to properly tag articles.

As an example, WP:AAR has their banner up on the Tetrapod article, which is completely outside of its scope, since it covers far more than just amphibians or reptiles. I'm just trying to decide right now if the bot should simply ignore articles already tagged by subprojects, remove the banner if it's outside of its scope, or tag the WP:ANIMAL banner along side the subproject banner? It seems to be messy to have 4 or 5 projects within the same project hierarchy with banners on the same article, so I tend to lean towards the second of the options. Your input would be much appreciated. Justin ^chat 07:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ezproxy

I have noticed a couple of your edits have changed an external link by appending ".ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz" to the base of the url. The most recent example is at Tourism in New Zealand. I presume that there is something in your computer setup which is causing this, and it would be useful if you could locate this and turn it off when editing Wikipedia, since it makes the links incorrect for people editing outside of the University of Auckland.

I have occasionally edited from UoA computers and not had this problem as far as I am aware. I use Firefox when it is available on these computers but I have certainly also edited using IE7 (and earlier versions in earlier years). The computers I use are those available to the general student population, such as those in the basement of the biology building.

If you don't know what's causing this, perhaps the IT helpdesk at the University could help you.-gadfium 23:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of the issue. We can access Wikipedia free using this proxy (at least I think that's the case...), but it replaces links with the proxy version of them so I have to be careful when I edit. I can search the WP for 'ezproxy' and it should bring up any instances I (or others here, though our IP has thankfully been blocked so there won't be many) have accidentally inserted into articles (I checked this morning and cleaned up the three I could find). Richard001 (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I'd known that before - I've been paying good money for my internet account at UoA. Is it as simple as accessing "en.wikipedia.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz"? Does that work for any other web sites?-gadfium 05:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, though it doesn't seem to have been free lately, I think. That's the idea though; several sites have ezproxy compatibility, though not all (got to keep the kids off MySpace). Are you a student here? Richard001 (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, should finish my BSc in Biology this coming semester. I started off as a chemistry major and then switched to the easier option last year. I've been a part time student at UoA since 2001!-gadfium 08:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small world (well, country). There's more about it here. Richard001 (talk) 06:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jimduchek

Thanks for the comment. I agree that the intro is probably too short now... at the time I posted that comment though, it was about 7-8 pages long. Jimduchek (talk) 08:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friend

Can I help you? TableManners^U·T·C 07:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand on that a little? You're not a sock of User:Orangemarlin trying to send me into further fits of bemused confusion are you? Richard001 (talk) 07:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. See this. TableManners^U·T·C 07:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution of fair use images

The resolution of Image:Why is Sex Fun.jpg‎ is ok. For album covers we usually have either 300x300 or 400x400, so 196x300 for a book cover is reasonable. Addhoc (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmer

That probably wouldn't hurt. You're welcome to upload a cropped version over it.--ragesoss (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll upload a crop once I get home to my computer tomorrow. Paint (or better, Paint.NET) probably wouldn't result in any quality loss though...not that there is much image quality there in the first place.--ragesoss (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither should result in quality loss; GIMP definitely won't. Actually, I have an easy way to do it... through Flickr. I'll upload it momentarily.--ragesoss (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were right. It's a definite improvement. Thanks!--ragesoss (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image upload + collab.

Hey there Richard. I've just started to upload images to wiki commons, I just uploaded the one you now see at Winika but I'm having a problem and was wondering if you could help me out..

How do I categorise this image? - I want to put it under the category "Winika cunninghammi". At the moment I can only find it on commons by going through my gallery.

also - are you interested in a collab. on a NZ natural history article? I was trying to find a place to write about our 2 main native forest types a while back and realized that, as articles, "Forests of New Zealand" and "Deforestation in New Zealand" don't exist (I find this crazy). They could be interesting to get going, also Kokako and Saddleback seriously need work. It's the summer holidays so a good time for many and I think it would be awesome to make a big group effort; I can think of at least 2 other users who would be interested. Let me know what you think.

Cheers, Kotare (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing summer school myself, so no more holidays for me, but I'd still be interested. A bird article sounds good, though I'd be willing to give anything a shot.

For the orchid, there's commons:Category:Winika for the genus. There is no category for the species, but there is a gallery page you can link to your picture from. I still don't understand the gallery/category think fully (I don't think it's agreed upon either).

Remember to link to commons using the template too, especially if there is media there not displayed in the article. Richard001 (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biology textbook

If a way to assert the notability of the Campbell-Reece Biology textbook exists, I do agree that it should have its own article. --Heero Kirashami (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, though I'm not actually sure there's that much you could say about it. There are other textbooks with articles though, e.g. Principles of Neural Science. Printed reviews from third parties would probably be the best bet. Richard001 (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Image undeletion

I have investigated the two images you requested an undeletion of, and found that of the two Image:Wittgenstein.jpg is unavailable due to age (the image was deleted in 2005 while the technical enhancements allowing image undeletion did not become available till 2007). The other image, Image:Wittgenstein2.jpg was removed due to lack of a Fair Use explanation. Simply undeleting the image will not correct this issue and would simply require the image to be deleted again. I instead recommend that you or another interested party upload the image again, providing a proper Fair Use rationale as part of the upload process. A copy of the image that was formerly at Image:Wittgenstein2.jpg is available off the web at <http://aeiou.iicm.tugraz.at/aeiou.encyclop.w/w841569.htm>. --Allen3 ^talk 12:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reproductive rights

Hi Richard 001! I've been following your contributions over at RR. I have to say, you make a number of good points. I'd weigh in, but Blackworm, Coppertwig, and I are in the middle of prepping a mediation request, and Coppertwig and I have agreed to refrain from editing or posting on talk during this time. I was in the process of building the stub up when the dispute arose. Personally, I agree, I think it's weird to add criticism of limitless breeding to a section on a Programme that happened well after the info was published, particularly when it's known for supporting women's choices to limit their number of pregnancies. Hardin might be much more appropriate in the beginning of the section as an explanation for why some of these positions developed, or in an anti-natalist/pro-natalist section. I also support the global approach to the article. As it is the main article on RR, it warrants a history section (to be spun out at a later date). --Phyesalis (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equally irritating

According to you: that's annoying. People using WP:PHIL are likely to be looking for philosophy, for goodness sake leave it alone. Indeed it IS annoying that YOU keep adding a link to a totally unconnected project page that has no similarity between them. Show us who these people you say are likely to use WP:PHIL when looking for the philosophy project? You are not the only people who could suggest that WP:PHIL would be a shortcut they could claim as their own, possibly you wish you had thought of it earlier than we did. Is WP:PHILO not enough for you, but you have to try and usurp WP:PHIL with your link on our project main page? Perhaps you very own philosophy journal Philo points out clearly that WP:PHILO is the most appropriate shortcut for the philosophy project not WP:PHIL. Please, you, leave it alone, it is not a dab page. ww2censor (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People look for things using shortcuts. Sometimes they guess the wrong one, or forget them. The fact that I am not the first to add it should be a hint. Loads of pages have hatnotes like this, and yours will be no exception. It is no harm to you, and helpful for navigation, so please stop complaining about this. Richard001 (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Richard001 here. WP:Disambiguation says "There must then be a way to direct the reader to the correct specific article when an ambiguous term is referenced by linking, browsing or searching; this is what is known as disambiguation." I like it when it's easy to find things on Wikipedia. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work with the internal links.

I like all the internal links you added to Reproductive rights. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Informing past contributors of new TFD for Template:Maintained

As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that {{Maintained}} is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 17:48Z

Please do not address my talk page in that manner

I would appreciate a more civil tone next time you wish to get my attention on something, or discuss a change I have made to an article. If you do not agree, that is fine, but you'll find yourself nary an editor to help you with that kind of attitude. Just a thought. Wisdom89 (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your template request.

Can you clarify the following? question. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]