User talk:AgadaUrbanit/Archives/2010/November

Felis

A wildcat in the wildlife park

The lede of Felis says that Genetic studies indicate that the genus Felis first evolved around eight to ten million years ago, probably in the Mediterranean region.[1] Hope this is not controversial...

Additionally, there is category Felis. Do we want to do something like go through all species from African Wildcat till Felis silvestris caucasica belonging to this category, and massively add "Genetic studies indicate ..." info in the lede of each and every of Felis? Is this the grand plan? Thank you for clarification. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry mate, you've lost me a bit on this one, but I'll try to keep up. If an editor wanted to go through articles on the seven species of cat that are considered part of genus Felis, adding that "Genus Felis first evolved around eight to ten million years ago, probably in the Mediterranean region," citing the same source, I'd be fine with that. Now, the legality of a settlement is a bit different than the evolution of a cat species, because odds those seven different species of Felis didn't all evolve at the same time, whereas Israeli settlements all share the same legal status, regardless of what that status is (legal or not). I'm very much open to discussing the issue further though. I'm also trying to find out if the transitive use of sources counts as synthesis - that is, if source #1 says A is B, and source #2 says B is C, whether or not it's synthesis to say that A is C. ← George ^talk 02:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. Let's put OR aside. My question is about content placement. I'm not an expert on cats, but let's assume that all Felis do share this property. Do we want add this info in each and every cat article, belonging to Felis category from African Wildcat till Felis silvestris caucasica? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Placement (or inclusion at all) depends on whether the genetic origin of the genus is notable enough to the various species in that genus. I would take a sample of those species (or all of them, since there are only seven), and see how often reliable sources describe them as having a genetic origin eight to ten million years ago. ← George ^talk 03:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It can also be argued that DNA is nothing more than a program designed to preserve itself. Life has become more complex in the overwhelming sea of information. And life, when organized into species, relies upon genes to be its memory system. Saber-toothed cat did not know that homogeneity is a weakness and that versatility is a strength. It would be interesting to see how it rolls on, for others. 10x for explanation, George. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Bubble analogy

A man soapboxing in Speakers' Corner, London.

Can you explain your bubble photo with a quote from Sean.Hoyland?--Carwil (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It is cool of you to jump by my talk page. I really appreciate it. Let's start with what Nab fairly mentioned, Sean had no connection to that particular discussion. Generally, I do not know what Sean's intention was in placing this image on his user page, we never discussed it. However, clearly I love what Sean does here on Wikipedia: even when he does not agree with me, I tend to accept his advice and try to hear carefully to what Sean says. Sean is my beacon of neutrality.

I've put the image there to relieve somehow tensions that surrounded the discussion. There is a lot of mutual hostility and mistrust, sometime people (and I'm not totally innocent here ;) ) just want to argue their opinion, without hearing to others. People should lighten up a little bit and stop seeing editing Wiki as continuation of political conflicts of the real world. Wiki clearly should not be a place to advance one's personal political agenda, each editor should also give a fair reflection of opposing view. Wiki should be neutral. Maybe this explanation by another editor, in context of I/P area Wikipedia, could put it in more clear English. I am trying to apply this approach also in another conflict - Northern Ireland, God save the Queen ;). In short the ambiguous image was intended to generate discussion, instead of edit warring; it is completely up to each individual editor to interpret. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you understand the intended soapy meaning. It's funny that you are editing in the NI topic area. I stay away from that topic. By lucky coincidence I happened to be in Northern Ireland on what I think was the first weekend after the Good Friday Agreement learning about the East Irish Sea oil and gas reservoirs by hitting them with hammers and drinking a lot of alcohol. Having been in close proximity to IRA bombs going off in London on several occasions before that it was a joy to be in NI that weekend, rare sunny blue skies, soldiers confined to barracks, free food and beer. Maybe your part of the world will have a happy weekend like that one day. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I was worried it might be lack of structure and encyclopedic meaning, since this image is very abstract ;) Go Giants of the World! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:EA-287 end.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:EA-287 end.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 05:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)