User talk:Ethel Aardvark

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Ethel Aardvark, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  What an intriguing user name - trust you wear it well... SatuSuro 10:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorghum[edit]

Are you aware that you're erasing huge portions of this article with your edits? Have a look at this diff which shows your latest edit. Most of the article's content, including legitimate links to the article in other languages, are removed. I have reverted your edit for the second time; I wanted to make sure you knew why I was doing so. Obviously, if you just want to edit or add something to the article, that would be fine! Cheers. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 23:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Thanks for the response, and I'm glad to understand what you're trying to do. I did not write the article, and have no knowledge on sorghum (commercial or otherwise), so by all means, continue with your edits. In the future though, it would be extremely helpful if you used edit summaries to give a brief description of the changes you are making. Particularly when you are making such large, sweeping (although necessary!) changes, to someone looking in from the outside, it might appear you were simply trying to blank sections of the article. Cheers! --PeruvianLlama(spit) 00:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding to him Ethyl, and yes -- please do put edit summaries in. We tried to respond to vandalism as fast as possible... large blankings without knowing why are bad. ;) --Auto(talk / contribs) 00:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, edit summaries. I did not know about those. Still learning. Thanks for the heads up guys.

Hi Ethel, I redid that edit to Sorghum, chinese wine is a distilled beverage so it's actually a liquor. I've added a redirect to the Chinese wine article in the page.Ticklemygrits 06:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Your Edits to Eucalyptus[edit]

Please be aware that removing the taxobox from a biological article is considered to be gross vandalism.--Mr Fink 22:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

I assume the above was an innocent mistake, as I came here to thank you for your ongoing edits to Acacia and Eucalyptus taxon articles, which have been coming up on my watchlist all week. Keep up the good work! Hesperian 04:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Your Edits to Eucalyptus 2[edit]

Hi Ethel

I note your editing comments regarding the removal of the canopy ground covering that is used as a determinig factor when discerning between forest and woodland eucalypts. I understand your point in that, in isolation, canopy cover defines a forest and not the trees, etc., and that you describe this as your reason for removing the remarks. As the contributor of that information I would like to comment that this information was referenced to Brooker and Kleinig (2001) and is intended as a means to define characteristics associates witheucalypt description and identification and not with regard to forests and woodlands per se. I appreciate your efforts to make the article clearer, but this matter is a key point in tree identity and motives for editing, in my opinion, are to improve and article and clarify matters. I would have liked you to have made the point in a different way, if possible, rather than delete it out of hand without citing a reference when you didn't agree with it.

Thanks HelloMojo 09:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Ethel

As you have requested i will quote from Brooker and Kleinig:

"As a generalisation, "forest trees" are single-stemmed and have a crown forming a minor proportion of the whole tree height, with the combined forest crowns occupying at least 30% of the ground cover. "Woodland trees" are single-stemmed although they may branch at a short distance above ground level, and have a crown occupying a major proportion of the tree height, with the combined crowns occupying less than 30% of the ground cover.

Having reflected on the above and the original edit I did I can see that there are interpretative errors in my edit. If you would like to make cleaner sense of the above in the article, as I see you have attempted in historic edits,then by all means, please, go ahead.

Thanks

HelloMojo 11:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

Gnangarra 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.

Hi Ethel, welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed your edits to the lead of Indigenous Australians the lead is a 2-4 paragraph summary of the article. It should carry pertinent information about the subject, as such the time frame for arrival should be noted in the lead. This guide WP:LEAD explains the topic and I recommend you take the time to read it along with Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If I can be of any assistance just ask. Gnangarra 02:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rainforest[edit]

I have removed the pp-semi-protected template you added to the article as it doesn't seem to be protected. Please let me know if I'm wrong, and please don't do it again if I'm right. Regards, Mr Stephen 23:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Mr Stephen 23:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pleistocene megafauna and New World Pleistocene extinctions[edit]

Your edits here are rather unhelpful; they are poorly written and appear to contain original research. On the former article, I already incorporated all useful information from your contribution. The way, the truth, and the light 05:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ethel Aardvark, you appear to have reverted Pleistocene megafauna about 5 times in 26 hours or so, with no discussion that I can see. I suggest you read WP:3RR, and more importantly engage in discussion of the issues. Cheers Geologyguy 04:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss your objections on Talk:Megafauna. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 03:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule on Megafauna. In the future, please solve editing disputes through discussion rather than edit warring. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ethel Aardvark (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I attempted to discuss this with the user who repeatedly reverted my contributions. I pointed out that I was happy to provide any references required and was more than happy that he edit my contributions. You can confirm this on his own talk page. When the person in question refused to discuss or provide reasons as to why he was reverting my contributions then it is of course impossible to resolve the issue through discussion. I repeat, if anyone feels that my contributons are unsound then I am more than happy to provide references. If someone feels the quality is sub-standard then they can of course clean up the grammar, typos etc. When someone's sole contribution is to revert all my additions and refuses to enter into discussion on why then of course discussion is impossible.

Decline reason:

Edit-warring is not a substitute for dispute resolution. MaxSem 08:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ethel Aardvark 06:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Megafauna[edit]

Howdy, I have made some changes to the Pleistocene megafauna article, as well as re-reverted Megafauna. My principle concern is discussion, so if you're not unblocked, I would be happy to discuss the changes here on your talk page. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 06:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous Australian[edit]

Hi Ethel, I've culled off all of that stuff added by the IP, I did notice you tried to clean it up. With articles that big if an IP adds without referencing instead of chanllenging the fact just delete. Gnangarra 08:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signing comments[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as in Talk:Banana, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. -- Why Not A Duck 23:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous[edit]

Hi Ethel, I notice that you undid my removal of the main article link to race and crime. Perhaps my edit summary was unclear or it should have been discussed on the talk page. My reasons for removing it are primarily these:

  1. They are not a race.
  2. That fallacy aside, "Whether there is a relationship between race and crime is a subject of debate."[1]

You also stated that "Aborigines perpetrate violence on other Aborigines". No doubt, but that is not what the paragraph describes. It only refers to the statistical information as victims of crime. Let me know what you think. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 03:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply Ethel. I always appreciate people taking the time to respond, however astounding it may be. Your edit summary/comment incorrectly assumed that the victims alleged assailants were 'aboriginal', that information is not provided. The 'however edit' was not mine, you should discuss that with him. I removed the Main Article link to Race and crime, it is highly disputed and not the main article for this section. I gave my reasons for removing it, please provide a reason for including it. I will indulge you a little by addressing the other issues you have decided are pertinent.

  • I'm not disputing the statistics, but they would be of individuals who ticked a box that identified themselves as 'indigenous' - not as a race.
  • How is categorisation determined, other than self identification? Who makes this determination?
  • If the person is of 'mixed race', how do we know which is the criminal one?

To state that some people are a race is to confuse term with fact. We agree on the biological basis, perhaps this will extend the foundations of AFAYK;

  • The fifth point criticized the layperson use of the term "race": "To most people, a race is any group which they choose to describe as a race. Thus, many national, religious, geographic, linguistic or cultural groups have, in such loose usage, been called 'race', when obviously Americans are not a race, nor are Englishmen, nor are Frenchmen, nor any other national group. Catholics, Protestants, Moslems and Jews are not races... People who live in Iceland or England or India are not races; nor are people who are culturally Turkish or Chinese..."
  • Because of this popular misconception which assert a pseudo-scientific correspondence between "racial groups" and "national, religious, geographic, linguistic and cultural groups," the UNESCO advocated to "drop the term 'race' altogether and speak of "ethnic groups."

This is from the article on The Race Question. I am providing this as gentle guidance, not a citation. Your extraordinary claim will require one or two references, I believe they are required in these situations. I am curious whether similar examples of somepeople and crime (or ethnicity and crime) can be found on wikipedia. There is a large amount of historical racist policy and practice relating to "race from a sociological, cultural and legistlative perspective" in Australia, perhaps that is where the 'race' angle requires explanation. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 08:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White vs white[edit]

Hi, on this edit you reverted my change of the only instance of the word White' to white. I agree that using your rationale, in this particular instance it probably makes sense to use "White Australians". But if you are going to make a stand for this one instance, please read the rest of the article - I think you would find that many other references to "white Australians" are in exactly the same context and should also be White Australians, if you feel there is any case for using White Australians "ever" rather than "white Australians". For example, later in the same paragraph, the same phrase refers to the same group of people. If you are capitalising one, capitalise the other.

My personal opinion is there is never a need to capitalise White or Black in this context. I am open to other opinions. But the article needs to have a consistant style. Garrie 23:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment[edit]

Hello again Ethel, I noticed your edit here:. I fully endorse the decision to remove it, thank you for doing so. Keep up the 'surveying';-) Regards, Fred ☻ 16:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOVE[edit]

You may want to take a look at Help:Moving a page. Simply cutting text from one page and pasting it into another is not the best way to move things around here. If needed, an admin can delete the target page if it has more one edit. --mav 00:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Not sure I understand it, but at least I now know that it exists. Ethel Aardvark 11:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving infomation[edit]

Hello. I noticed that you moved the majority f the information out of the Tussock (grass) page into a new one. I found that the move was not obvious. It is good practice to make it obvious where the info is going. Also, given the number of edits and the size of your edit a page move may have been a better option. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons[edit]

Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! There is, however, another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In future, please upload media there instead (see m:Help:Unified login). That way, all of 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!--OsamaK 08:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of edit summaries and content deletions on Ficus racemosa[edit]

Hello. You recently deleted content on Ficus racemosa without any edit summary.[2]. I reverted your unexplained deletions.[3] You then returned to make the same deletions, again without edit summaries.[4] Before I revert your content blanking without explanation (technically vandalism) and report you as a vandal, could you please take the time to explain your edits? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate[edit]

I've reverted your placement of a WP:DICT on Alternate, and I'm the second editor to revert your changes. Please use the proper dab page to add your material, which is the target of the current redirect. For more information about disambiguation, please see WP:DAB. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Placing media-files in gallery[edit]

Hi Ethel, I'm not sure why you have placed my Bush Stone-Curlew video-clip in the gallery, but could you revert this? Just makes the clip very small and difficult to view. I've spent my own time and resources adding images and media to WP and get a bit peeved when it just gets tossed into a corner by someone else adding their own wisdom, cheers Aviceda talk 02:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the undo Ethel, hopefully I will be able to replace the clip with a higher-def one in the future. Aviceda talk 04:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Deforestation. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Asidemes (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have noted both in the discussionpage of that articl;e and on your talk page, these changes are not vandalism and I am more than happy to discuss the issue with you. Do you wish tot discuss this or are you only interested in an edit war? Ethel Aardvark (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as the one you made to Rainforest. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Asidemes (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles Deforestation and Rainforest have been protected for one week due to edit warring. Please discuss your concerns on the respective talk pages. Vsmith (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008[edit]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Deforestation, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Removing references to reliable sources is the worst kind of vandalism. cygnis insignis 08:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your blanket reverts to the rainforest article removed valid sources and sourced information. If you disagree with a particular source then comment specifically regarding that source on the talk page. Your blanket reverts have also removed other unrelated edits - and that is simply carelessness. User Asidemes modified his bit about the Madagascar rainforest per your discussion, specifying "eastern rainforest", but you ignored that and removed his edits anyway. You mention a "better" reference on the talk page, but you don't use it in the article. If your "better reference" disputes what other references state, then that discrepancy should be noted rather than simply removing cited references. Now, please proceed with caution and work with other editors rather than mass reverting their sourced information. Vsmith (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acting in Good Faith[edit]

While not a rule of wikipedia anymore, please remember to act in good faith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:On_assuming_good_faith http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don't_"call_a_spade_a_spade" Zanotam - Google me (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IA - some points[edit]

The IA article attracts maybe trolls and fringe theories, please read WP:TROLL and WP:UNDUE as well as sockpuppets of editors who have recieved community bans. Also editors who have been community banned can no longer edit from any account, ip, or through proxies. Acting as proxy for a banned user may result in you being blocked as a meat puppet Gnangarra 03:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

You have been blocked for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and removal of valid referenced material on the article deforestation. Your reversions of 17 Oct not only removed sourced material, but also added or re-added grammatical and spelling errors and blatantly POV statements. When you return, please use more caution in your editing and discuss your proposed changes one at a time rather than doing a wholesale revert.Vsmith (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watching recent edits[edit]

I withdraw all agf and welcome I made when you first started editing (see top of this talk page ) - all I can see is spelling mistakes, weird ideas and POV - please take very careful note of why you are blocked - and try to understand what wikipedia is about - SatuSuro 00:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Mulga.JPG[edit]

File:Mulga.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Mulga.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Mulga.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies[edit]

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please conatct me[edit]

G'day Ethel A

please contact me via my User_Talk email link, I would like to use and acknowledge some of your images TonyYoung (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)TonyYoung[reply]

11:58, 7 August 2008‎ 134.148.5.119 (talk)‎[edit]

Hope you don't mind me using your user page to communicate with you. You and me both came to the aid of that person who pointed out the incorrect statement re: aboriginal urbanisation.

Looking through the edit history I see this information was removed:

"The proportion of Aboriginal adults married (de facto or de jure) to non-Aboriginal spouses was 69% according to the 2001 census, up from 64% in 1996, 51% in 1991 and 46% in 1986. [1] [2] [3] The census figures show there were more intermixed Aboriginal couples in capital cities: 87 per cent in 2001 compared to 60 per cent in rural and regional Australia. [4] [5] [6]"

I've looked into it. The editors wouldn't let that information remain despite the fact it was more than adequately refereced from verifable sources and they banned the poor person who added it just because they continually reversed their edits.

Perhaps you can take up the crudgels for them?

References
  1. ^ http://www.bennelong.com.au/articles/pdf/howsonquadrant2004.pdf
  2. ^ http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/14/1029113955646.html
  3. ^ Birrell, R and J Hirst, 2002, Aboriginal Couples at the 2001 Census, People and Place, 10(3): 27.
  4. ^ http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/14/1029113955646.html
  5. ^ http://www.samuelgriffith.org.au/papers/html/volume18/v18chap11.html
  6. ^ Birrell, R and J Hirst, 2002, Aboriginal Couples at the 2001 Census, People and Place, 10(3): 27.

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Capparis mitchellii.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ethel_Aardvark&oldid=1080083753"