User talk:Shrumster/Archive 2

Tamaraw GA?

Thanks for the added stub section. I have already filled the required text there with citation. Do you think we could promote this article to GA status? The only criteria that cannot be addressed by me is the use of Images. (I also beleive my manual of style is not that impressive). I'm sorry but I really can't help in this criteria. I already asked in the tambayan and Seav but nobody has acted yet.Lenticel 03:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Impressive work! I hope I'll be that good in time. the picture is really a problem. I think there are no pictures for the baby or in that case, any open-source pictures at all. The only nice pictures that I know are from haribon and ultimateungulate and I believe both has restrictions in picture use. I did saw "kali" here [1] but I don't think this is public domain. I'm quite excited by the evolution of the article in such short notice. However I may not be able to be of help. I must finish my thesis manuscript and its corresponding poster today since my defense/poster presentation will be at wednesday, March 21 (Hey, you could visit NIMBB at that day! One of the poster people would be me). I just stop by at wikipedia every now and then to keep myself sane by focusing on other things. Maybe after I finish my requirements, I will be able to focus more energy to wikipedia. Hey, good luck to your work at MSI as well! --Lenticel 05:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There is an image for the tamaraw in wiki! No wonder nobody replies to my post. Anyways, check out the image in the article (Ok, I know its not ideal but its a start)--Lenticel 03:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Hey, I'll request for a peer review for this article. Just a heads up. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope the article gets promoted. I want to edit wiki badly but can only do so after office (when I already want to relax). Besides our office's Internet connection is uber slow--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Tamaraw is GA!--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Fishes

There is a new proposal on naming conventions for fish being discussed at WikiProject Fishes. As a member of said project your feedback would be appreciated at the WikiProject Fishes talk page here. Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 07:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiPilipinas

On 1 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article WikiPilipinas, 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.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 13:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you know...

On 5 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article turtle excluder device , 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 23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice article - good work! Verisimilus T 10:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 6 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Protostegidae, 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 21:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hydrophis

Hi Shrumster! I noticed your edits to Hydrophis. However, I don't think it's necessary to mention this particular taxonomic issue in every single sea snake article. It should be enough to explain it once at length in a single place -- the sea snake article -- and then refer to that in the articles for the specific sea snake taxa. You could call it "leveraging the taxonomic hierarchy." Otherwise, this kind of repetition will breed inconsistency and error. --Jwinius 14:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

After taking another look at your edits, I saw that they were inconsistent with the thinking that is reflected in the ITIS database. The latter does not recognize the Hydrophiinae or the Hydrophiidae, and simply lumps all of the sea snake genera in the family Elapidae. This approach is explained in the taxonomy section of the sea snake article. Therefore, I went ahead and undid most of your changes and adding your links to the "Further reading" section below ("bibliography" and "references" mean pretty much the same thing). If you'd like to know more about how ITIS compared to the New Reptile Database, read this discussion. BTW, DFCisneros's opinion carries some weight, since he's an actual herpetologist, although specialized in frogs. --Jwinius 15:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 8 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Santanachelys gaffneyi, 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 22:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Naming issues & synonymy

Hi Shrumster! As a systematist, what is your opinion of the use of scientific names and adding complete synonymies to articles on most plants and animals? I like to use scientific names for article titles for a number of reasons, but mostly because this makes it easier to keep track of such articles, as well as to prevent petty squabbles regarding the title of the article. After the botanical group decided to take this approach (there are way too many vague common name for plants), this practice seems to be growing more acceptable. Another thing I do these days, is use this use this amazing checklist I have to start every article off with proper distribution data and a complete synonymy with redirects. Not only does this prevent duplicate articles from being created that use old names, but it has also led me to find such articles. Ultimately, I hope this will lead to an unabridged working taxonomy for snakes here at Wikipedia. No doubt this will seem a bit complicated and over the top for most editors today, but if Wikipedia is to exist for 100 years or more, I can't imagine that it will eventually become anything less. What do you think? (PS -- You can answer here as I've temporarily added your talk page to my watchlist). --Jwinius 00:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, that's one issue I have with the current WP:MoS - I'm a sucker for scientific names. :P But seriously, I do think that WP articles on taxa should be named after each taxon's most-official (according to whichever body is the ranking authority on that particular taxon) scientific name. Common names are personally just too unwieldy and are just subject to too much regionalization which can (and probably does) lead to more confusion. Synonymies are quite appropriate as well, especially when those few people who actually do check on that article's references encounter the earlier papers that may have addressed that particular taxon differently. I understand why most lay-people would want the "most common name in English" to be a taxon's article title for ease of use, but I believe that WP has to balance between being easy-to-use and being educational. And naming articles after their specific taxon's official scientific names do go a long way towards the educational end of that spectrum. (Coming from the Philippines where most people know enough English to be able to read and understand contemporary English movies/books but not enough to be able to write with a passable level of grammatical correctness, organisms' common names are a mess here. Red-eared sliders are called "green turtles" in pet shops, practically any cichlid is a "tilapia" and freshwater crayfish are called "fortune lobsters." Frankly, it's a mess. :P) Just my two cents. Shrumster 05:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Then you'll be happy to hear that I recently managed to get a fourth viper article, Daboia, to pass a GA review. There were a number of criticisms, since my articles violate the MoS in various ways, but the fact that it uses a scientific name for the article title was not even mentioned in the review.

Scientific names are being used in another area as well: categories. Not even I was doing this, but then I noticed that a bot, Polbot, was not only using scientific names to create hundreds of new articles, but categories as well. When I was then asked by someone whether I wanted to merge category Vipers into Viperidae and Elapids into Elapidae, I said sure! Subsequently, I rearranged many of the other snake categories too, renaming more than a few articles along the way, and have so far received zero protests. Not that many other people bother themselves with snake articles these days, but still. It's another sign that things are changing. Besides, as the number of articles grows, it's becoming increasingly obvious to a growing number of people that there's no better way to organize them.

If, in general, you share my position, then we should stick together. Discussions regarding the naming issue pop up in Tree of life with some regularity, but unfortunately the opposition has never been that well organized, possibly because the serious people never took WP that seriously! Maybe that's changing now. In addition, like in the botany group, we can also work from the bottom up by first getting out own subprojects to see the light. This way, we might eventually be able to convince the larger Amphibians and Reptiles project to adopt this position as well. Not that I expect any of this to happen overnight, but it is something to work on. --Jwinius 14:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool, that's good to hear! Yep, feel free to count on my vote whenever it's needed for the scientific name-vs-common name disputes that'll eventually come up. I'll keep an eye on the WProj:AAR more often now. I'll try to do that categorization as well with the other zoological articles I'm stewarding. So far, WProj:Fishes have been a bit accepting of proper taxon names but I've encountered resistance at WProj:Sharks in the past (which is why I kind of try to stay away from shark articles unless I absolutely have to). :P Shrumster 14:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If I notice any relevant debates going on, I'll be sure to let you know. Likewise, you can count on my support if you think it might come in handy. --Jwinius 15:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Neat, thanks! :) Shrumster 15:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Ecology by taxon

Thankyou very much. Most Wikipedians would have created Category:Ecology by species or the horribly clumsy Category:Ecology by taxonomic group. The fact that you have no fear of the word "taxon" makes you someone I hope to get a chance to work with. Hesperian 05:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm curious as to whether you plan on tagging Human ecology into it. Hesperian 05:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

On 22 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mindoro stripe-faced fruit bat, 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 12:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

On 8 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Apo Reef , 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 16:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Snapping turtle

hey, thanks for your work on the article in july - it badly needed it! i've been terribly scattered this summer Metanoid (talk, email) 19:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Voting for the Tambayan Philippines Collaboration #1 is ongoing

Hi! The voting for the article to be the first target of Tambayan Philippines Collaboration Department is ongoing. Please vote even if it is abstain. Thanks! --seav 14:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The Future of WP:40k

Hello. As a member of WP:40K I ask you to share your thoughts and opinions on a matter that I feel will shape the future of the project. Thanks. --Falcorian ^(talk) 02:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Support

Hi Shrumster! I was wondering if I could have your support for a merge proposal. It concerns this discussion. I've already tried reasoning with the party responsible for the status quo (and admin), but that conversation went nowhere. I would like to see the previous situation restored, but I don't want to make this into a big fight, so I'm hoping to keep this as civilized as possible. Therefore, assuming your agree with my merge proposal, a short word of support from you will suffice. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Shrumster. A question, though, concerning your comment, which is similar to the one Shyamal made. The merge proposal is based on the premise that it's illogical to make separate articles for nominate subspecies, but the the two of you seem to dislike the idea of making articles for subspecies in general. So far, I've consistently been making separate articles for subspecies not only because I've been following a perceived trend, but because it seemed practical for a number of reasons:

• In snakes the subspecies often have markedly different color patterns (Morelia spilota is a good example).
• It allows for a place to display the images of the subspecies separately.
• It allows for a place to redirect the common names separately.
• It allows for a place to redirect the synonyms separately. I've often found this convenient, as the synonymies for some taxa, such as Vipera berus berus and Vipera berus bosniensis, are long enough as they are.
• Many well-known books systematically treat snake subspecies separately as well, although I admit that many others do not.
• Splitting off the subspecies articles can help to keep the size of the species articles down.

Still, not creating separate articles for the subspecies would help to keep the total number of articles down. Considering all this, would you care to elaborate your point of view in this matter? --Jwinius (talk) 00:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Taxonomy translation

Can you help the Tagalog Wikipedia here? Thanks--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We managed to get consensus for the Tagalog translation for taxonomy terms. Thanks for your input. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Warhammer 40K Project updated

File:W40000 Symbol.png

File:W40000 Symbol.png

The Warhammer 40,000 project page has been updated!

• Assessment tags have been added to the project banner.
• New material, including transwiki instructions and an organizational chart, has been added to the main project page.
• Please help us get the Warhammer 40K project back on track!

Protonk (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Sent with Auto Wiki Browser to all 40K project members.

Project activity

File:W40000 Symbol.png

This message is a test to check to see if members of the Warhammer 40K Project are still online, active and interested in helping the project. If you are no longer interested in the project all you need to do is...nothing! If you don't respond to this I'll take your name off the list and you'll never here from us again. If you're the proactive type you can remove the name yourself or talk to me and I'll do it.

If you are still interested in helping out the 40K project or otherwise still want to be listed there you can say so in response to this message on your talk page or on mine. Alternately you can add our new userbox ({{User WikiProject Warhammer 40,000}}) to your userpage and I'll take that as a response. The userpage doesn't automatically include people in a category of members yet, but it might in the future.

We've assessed most of the articles in the project on the Version 1.0 assessment scale (the table on the project page should take a few days to update) but we need to push to get the core articles in the project up to GA status. Thanks for all your help. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help the project along. Protonk (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Still here, still alive. Shrumster (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles: Rollcall

At WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, we recently did a purge of the members list, which your name was on. Please re-add your username as well as your area of expertise at our list of participants if you plan to stay active in this Wikiproject. Also, a discussion is going on regarding the standardization of taxonomy in lizard articles, located in this section. We'd like to have some more voices in this matter. Thanks everyone! bibliomaniac15 23:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Odontochelys

On 1 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Odontochelys, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Jawbreaker

There's really no fair use rationale for any of the extra images - they all look the same. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Even so, I don't see the point in extra images, since they convey the same point. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't text enough to show that there are ports of it? Merely stating that there are different ports should be enough to say that there are different ports, right? The various images are almost identical, and don't really serve the article, especially for those with worse-off connections who have problems loading some images. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Pansipit River

Hello! Your submission of Pansipit River at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Screenshot Jawbreaker landscape.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Screenshot Jawbreaker landscape.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Pansipit River

On 16 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pansipit River, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

Please accept this invite to join the Unreferenced Article Cleanup WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to decreasing the number of unreferenced articles on Wikipedia. As of December, 2008 there were over 154,000 unreferenced articles on Wikipedia, we need your help! Simply click here and sign your username to accept!

DYK for Austroraptor

On 21 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Austroraptor, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Terlinguachelys fischbecki

On 22 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Terlinguachelys fischbecki, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: 4000 edits!

Thanks! :D --SilentAria ^talk 07:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Cearachelys

On 22 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cearachelys, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Caririemys

On 26 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Caririemys, 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Gook

On 27 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gook, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky 20:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Attercopus

On 30 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Attercopus, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cirt (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Aktiogavialis

On 31 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aktiogavialis, 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.

DYK for Boga (noisemaker)

On 2 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Boga (noisemaker), which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Araripesuchus

On 3 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Araripesuchus, 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.

Thanks for you effort!

Royalbroil 00:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

American croc

Thank you for making some major headway on improving the American crocodile article! I am slowly trying to get it up to WP:GA, and some of the hurdles are at Talk:American crocodile/GA1 (some of which you have already fixed). Cheers, StevePrutz (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of Undo

Why did you do this? Not only did you delete accurate information, given with a source, but you didn't even bother to explain it with an edit summary. Given that I'm an admin with several years' and several thousand edits' worth of experience, it's probably safe to assume that my changes aren't just idle trolling. Maybe you should at least bother to check the sources provided before undoing other people's work next time, rather than having a kneejerk reaction to naughty words. calr (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

A simple edit summary or talk page comment would've been appreciated. Incidentally bastard turtle still points to the Kemp's Ridley, you might want to change that if you disagree with the source I provided. calr (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Deleted template

Good catch! I reverted the embedding of the template. I also watchlisted it in case it's tried again. Thanks! --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 07:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll monitor the page and warn him. We could always protect the page if need be. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Conolophus rosada

Excellent work here!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Palengke

On January 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Palengke, 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK

Hello! Your submission of Conolophus rosada at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --Eustress (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Iskul Bukol 20 Years After (Ungasis and Escaleras Adventure)

On 11 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Iskul Bukol 20 Years After (Ungasis and Escaleras Adventure), which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Kaben

Hello! Your submission of Kaben at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dravecky (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Kaben

On January 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kaben, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Conolophus rosada

On January 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Conolophus rosada, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Platax

On January 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Platax, 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 05:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Alternanthera mosaic virus

On 18 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alternanthera mosaic virus, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Santanichthys

Hello! Your submission of Santanichthys at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jappalang (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Diadema setosum

On January 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Diadema setosum, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for 1998 Jesse pipeline explosion

On 22 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1998 Jesse pipeline explosion, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Santanichthys

On January 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Santanichthys, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Coelosimilia

On January 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Coelosimilia, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Hydramacin-1

On January 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hydramacin-1, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My dispute history

Hi Shrumster, at KP Botany's talk page, you wrote:

Just a heads-up. I'm not too sure about User:PBS yet but looking at Born2cycle's talk page, he seems to have been involved in a multitude of naming disputes since 2006 across so many different articles (city names, popsicle, etc). Makes me think that all this hullabaloo he (they?) are making on the WP:Plants (and other areas now) might be a massive case of WP:POINT. Shrumster (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

First, if you have a concern about someone's behavior, you might considering bringing it up on their page, not on someone elses. Thanks.

Anyway, one of my main interests in Wikipedia is the naming policies, conventions and guidelines, and, in particular, that articles in all areas are named consistently with respect to each other (which means in accordance with common/general policy, conventions and guidelines). Inevitably, editors who spend most of their time editing in specific areas tend to be biased about how "their" articles should be name, irrespective of how other articles are named. So in my efforts to improve consistency in naming within Wikipedia, I inevitably encounter editors who disagree with what I'm trying to do, hence the number of disputes I've been in. But I think you'll find I'm pretty consistent about, well, simply trying to improve article naming consistency within WP. I have no "point" to prove. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Weberian apparatus

On January 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Weberian apparatus, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Corethrellidae

On January 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Corethrellidae, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Salvia

Hi! I hope you don't mind, I've been poking around at several Salvia articles you created over the past few days, hoping to do enough work to get them to DYK. I'm new at editing plant articles (usually over the other side of the fence with the chloroplast-less organisms :P) so if I'm doing some things wrong, feel free to gimme a whack on the head. :) Shrumster (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your work! I'm very happy to see those stubs growing into DYK-worthy articles. I'll see if I can fluff them up any more, like I did with Salvia involucrata (though I think that one had more possibilities than some of the others I've been creating). I'm an unlearned gardener, and not schooled in the study of any organisms (as I see you are), so feel free to slap me with a trout as needed. First Light (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. In the Salvia interrupta article, you added "found within a band of forested land some 4,000 feet wide" and "Its native distribution comprises a wide band of habitats spanning almost 4,000 feet". In my source, it only mentions the range in elevation, from 1300-5000 ft., which is almost 4,000 ft. Do you have another source that gives the 4,000 ft wide band? Otherwise, it's a band of elevation that's nearly 4,000 ft. First Light (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I tidied it up a bit more. 'Wide' usually means horizontal only. And a 4,000 ft. range in elevation can actually be a fair amount of territory, especially if it occurs across an entire mountain range. If you've never done mountain climbing (which I have) you would be surprised at how much 4,000 ft up really is! (I well and truly messed up a bird DYK awhile ago, adding a bunch of information that was actually about another related bird instead) First Light (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thx

Thanks for the information, Shrumster. Yes, I've noticed it. It's hard not to.  ;) Take care, --KP Botany (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Salvias, plant world

Hi Shrumster, good work on getting those salvia articles moving into DYK. With at least two of them, I didn't think there would be enough material, but I was obviously wrong. There will be lots more new salvia articles over time. And thanks for your involvement in the dog-eat-dog, shark-infested, waters of the plant-naming kingdom (with apologies to sharks and dogs, and for my abuse of metaphors). First Light (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Naming Conventions Discussion

Thank you, I will! Regards, DaMatriX (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Justicia flaviflora

On February 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Justicia flaviflora, 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Salvia interrupta

On February 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Salvia interrupta, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Salvia indica

On February 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Salvia indica, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Salvia involucrata

On February 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Salvia involucrata, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Santa Marta Formation

On 9 February, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Santa Marta Formation, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 05:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ryan M-1

On 9 February, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ryan M-1, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 10:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Euptoieta claudia

On 11 February, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Euptoieta claudia, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Backslash Forwardslash 21:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Euptoieta claudia

On 12 February, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Euptoieta claudia, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Backslash Forwardslash 03:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Honsinger Bluff

On 12 February, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Honsinger Bluff, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Santanichthys

Thanks for this one! I was reading it as I perused the New Page logs, and it is an excellent article! If you know anything about bats/rats/similar would you be able to take a look at those articles found here; I either created or expanded them, but my knowledge of the area is limited to google and my local library, so I would be very grateful for any assistance you can give. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 06:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Kampilan and Panabas vis a vis shorter Philippine swords

You're an FMA enthusiast! Wow! I must ask if you know what differences there are in the handling of the longer swords like the Kampilan and Panabas, as opposed to the shorter weapons like the Kris and Dahompalay? I can't find any references and I'm afraid I must know soon, as it's an element of the novel I'm writing. -- RE de Leon, Alternativity (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. The insights are great! I'm curious what style/school of swordhandling you follow, and how you feel you as a follower of that school would adapt to the usage of the Panabas? I've substantiated that article a bit, by the way, if you care to check it for inconsistencies. My own exposure to FMA is limited to observing students of Leskas/LSAI training, from a distance. I'm afrid first work and now geography stopped me from being able to take lessons of my own, but my fascination grows the more I learn. Hm. I'm doing a talk at UP Diliman on Feb 20... Any chance I can pick your brain for novel ideas, in exchange for coffee after? Hehe. Feel free to say no, though, of course, if you feel you want to protect your privacy. -- Alternativity (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Alright. That's okay. :-D Mind if I send you a link to chapter 1 after I finish the next draft, though? Hehe. It could use the eyes of people who physically know martial arts. :-D -- Alternativity (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the revert of Alvarez

Alvarez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AlvarezQz)

Is soo annoying. S/he keeps reverting the updated version(s) of the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&action=history) Into the shamefully short and outdated version of it.

The old version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines&oldid=272653520

And s/he's been doing this habitually. I thank you for reverting his/her edits. This means that Xeltran and I are not the only ones who think that s/hes acts a little too irrationally.

Truly yours: Gintong Liwanag Ng Araw (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

When you revert someone's non-vandalism edits it's a good idea to let them know.

Hi Shrumster,

You recently performed this quick-revert: [2]. I appreciate your intent, but it is also important to be careful when reverting legitimate edits like that. In cases where it is not vandalism, it's a good idea to provide an actual edit description as opposed to the generic "undid changes" message. Even better, let the editor know so they can revisit their edit and correct what you feel is wrong.

Anyways, I've changed it back and added a mediocre source, feel free to provide a better source.

—siroχo 13:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Naming Conventions. RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.

This is to inform you that removing exceptions to the use of "most Common Names" as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Please update your status with WP:VG

Dear WikiProject Video games member,

You are receiving this message because you have either Category:WikiProject Video games members or {{User WPVG}} somewhere in your userspace and you have edited Wikipedia in recent months.

The Video games project has created a member list to provide a clearer picture of its active membership.

All members have currently been placed in the "Inactive" section by default. Please remove your username from the "Inactive" listing and place it under the "Active" listing if you plan on regularly:

• Editing video game-related pages in the Article namespace
• Participating in video game-related discussions in the Project namespace (WT:VG, WP:AfD, WP:GAN, etc.)

Ideally, members are encouraged to do both, but either one meets our criteria of inclusion. Members still listed inactive at the beginning of November 2009 may be removed. You may re-add yourself to the active list at any time. Thank you for your help, and we look forward to working with you.

—WikiProject Video games (delivery by xenobot 03:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles needs you!

Ahoy there! We're conducting our annual purge of the participants list for WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, in an effort to make sure our members stay current with events at the WikiProject. If you would like to renew your participation with the WikiProject, simply drop by the participants list and re-add your name to the list in alphabetical order using the following format: {{user|YOUR USERNAME HERE}}. Also feel free to add your specialties or points of interest. If you don't have the time or don't feel like rejoining, then ignore this request; you can rejoin at any time you'd like. Cheers, bibliomaniac15 00:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Another gentle ping from WP:VG

Dear Shrumster,

You are receiving this message because either [[Category:WikiProject Video games members]] or {{User WPVG}} is somewhere in your userspace, and you are currently listed in the "Unknown" section on the project's member list.

The member list is meant to provide a clearer picture of active membership. It is recommended that you update your status if you plan to regularly:

• Edit video game-related pages in the Article namespace
• Participate in video game-related discussions in the Project namespace (WT:VG, WP:AfD, WP:GAN, etc.)

Members listed in the "Unknown" section will be removed from the membership list and category at the end of January 2010. You may re-add yourself to the active list at any time. Thank you for your help, and we look forward to working with you.

Sincerely, the Video Games WikiProject (delivery by xenobot 22:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

Hello, Shrumster/Archive 2! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 20:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Science lovers wanted!

Science lovers wanted!

Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)