User talk:Bob the Wikipedian/Archive/3

Laos

Thanks for your input and comments on my talk page. Our contribution to the subject of Laos, with your recent reversal and note, was not 'expeimentation' as you assume. Hopefully we can produce a more informative description of this subject and others without wasting time and bandwidth on TE. Keep up the good work! Best Regards, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil range

Hi Bob, I noticed you have been making numerous changes to the dinosaur taxoboxes to include detailed information about both the epoch and faunal stage dinosaur groups appeared in. A while back we at Wikiproject Dinosaurs had agreed it was best to keep the taxobox info general, and discuss the exact tim period in the intro to the text. If you disagree with this, please discuss it with other people before making sweeping changes to the dinosaur pages that will take ages to revert if necessary. Thanks, Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that up. I don't know of any hard and fast rules on this outside what we've discussed in WP:Dino, might be something to bring up for discussion at WP:ToL. What I think we've been doing is, in general, using specific epochs where necessary (e.g. Late Cretaceous - Eocene, rather than Cretaceous - Paleogene. I remember a while ago there was discussion about what to do with recently extinct species, such as mammoth, and the consensus was Pleistocene - Recent should be used in that case. As for animals that are not known from the Pleistocene and have no fossil evidence, I'm not sure the fossil range field should be used at all, or just leave it as Recent with conservation status if applicable. Extant animals with no fossil record shouldn't use fossil range, they should have a conservation status (species only, status doesn't apply to higher taxa). Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article doesn't mention fossil grasshoppers at all, but listing Phanerozoic (Permian-Triassic)-Recent seems odd. My guess is that this is an estimate based on molecular divergence evidence, not fossil evidence, and therefore is not a fossil range. I'm not sure what the earliest member of Caelifera is, but whatever time period it's from should be used instead. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking on the grasshopper thing! And don't worry about upsetting anybody, we've all been guilty of getting a little overzealous with changes to format. ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one other thing--I noticed you changed (and later reverted) a number of mid-Cretaceous tags to Middle Cretaceous. This is incorrect at the moment, but apparently there is a push to get the Middle Cretaceous formally recognized as a geologic unit. That's part of why a lot of people are keen to let the mid- thing slide in this case and not assign say, Spinosaurus as Early-Late Cretaceous (which actually may be a better way of phrasing it when a taxon is restricted to one period, like Ornithomimosauria, in order to make the box less cluttered). Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paper access

Here is a list of good websites:

www.sciencedirect.com
www.blackwell-synergy.com
www.ingentaconnect.com

Sometimes for new issues they are free access. If you're at university your Athens access will get you in, depending upon what journals they subscribe to. My Imperial College alumni access lets me get pretty much anything I want, much better than my Bristol one.

www.palass.org/modules.php?name=backissues

Back issues of Palaeontology are free access.

If you're a member of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, their issues are online from the second half of 2000. Hope thats useful. Mark t young (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Phasmidae

No problem. :) I've now removed it from the synonyms section of Anisomorpha. Mgiganteus1 (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intermediate taxonomic levels in taxoboxes

Hello from Brazil. Someone who does not need a taxobox in the first place will also not need the intermediate ("redundant" or "unnecessary") taxonomic categories, but we must remember that we are writing for a non-specialist audience. The orientation on page Wikipedia:Taxobox usage is given thusly: "Taxoboxes should include all major ranks above the taxon described in the article, plus minor ranks that are important to understanding the classification of the taxon described in the article, or which are discussed in the article. Other minor ranks should be omitted." Including all named superior taxonomic categories will help folks in searching for information, as well as in understanding where a given taxon is placed in the classification. This is really a minor point, taken against the task of providing information on 2 million animal and plant species, and I hope you will not slow down in your more important editing. Keep up the good work.--Wloveral (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Far be it from me to disagree. Let´s see how these rules work out in practice. Tribes, as you know, have different weights between vertebrates and inverts. Botanists are always needing more levels, especially after APG-2. Cheers, --Wloveral (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the example of taxobox usage on page Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of life, you will not see Vertebrata above Cetacea. Remember that our audience includes school children who barely distinguish among whales, sharks, and giant squids, and I am sure that, as your rules would indicate, someone should put the backbone in Moby Dick (not the novel). And we are on the same page. Cheers,--Wloveral (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why no "| subphylum = Vertebrata"?--Wloveral (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

(moved from User talk:Kwamikagami):

Hi Bob, The standard adopted by both WikiProject Birds and WikiProject Cetaceans is that common names of birds and cetaceans (whales and dolphins) should be capitalized. This applies to bird and cetacean articles only (or should I say Bird and Cetacean articles only? Just kidding.) Most other WikiProjects have their own standards, some capitalize, some don't, so it's best to review those projects to see if any particular standard applies. Hope that helps. Neil916 (Talk) 15:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was changing both. To me the birds convention makes sense, because so many birds have names that could be mistaken for descriptions. However, there aren't that many cetaceans, and there just isn't the same opportunity for confusion. I mean, is anyone really going to think that "a pod of killer whales" means humpback whales that attack people, just because we didn't capitalize? Or that if a "blue whale" beaches itself, it did so because it had the blues? kwami (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statustop

No problem! Enjoy, xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 15:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: [1] You might want to give it a little more room to handle the lengthier "Recently online" notification. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 15:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiDragon/topicon

Can't see exactly what's making it lose functionality, so I reverted the change. It the subjectspace restriction shouldn't be a problem as long as no one abuses it. Thanks for pointing that out. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 18:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hello Bob the Wikipedian. Thanks for your note. A years worth of mistakes - sheesh. I hope that you did not think that I was complaining in my edit summary. There is only so much room to leave a note in those summaries. So now I will take the chance to say thanks for your efforts in keeping that page free of vandalism. It amazes me the amount of vandalism that this page receives. I don't think that there have been any edits other than v or the reversion of it in the last six months. Cheers and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 22:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Well i have corrected links on your review and given a small one.

Btw, your opnion barnstar reminds me of a barnstar proposal almost 2 years ago with a similar goal but not quite the same. Simply south (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pandora's box reopened

Have a look at Miserabilis. There is no ambiguity here: specific epithets are not unique. Wait until the author gets to speciosa and speciosus. To save this author from creating 100,000 unnecessary disambiguation pages (by my estimate), some tactful editor should try dialogue. I was not successful, as you can see.--Wloveral (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree whole-heartedly with your action on the case above. Two related pages also show the need for policy on what should have disambiguation pages. Serjão separtes two people who have the same rather connom Brazilian nickname. Immo separates an asteroid and a German rapper who share the same word as part of their names. The page Bob is going to take a lot of work to disambiguate among all the people who use the nickname Bob.--Wloveral (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added you to the Bob page (but without a link to your user pages). Now I am off to find the Bill page to see if I can disambiguate among Bill Gates, a handbill, and the part of a bird that pecks. Today is a holiday here in Brazil, and tomorrow looks to be a slow day after I get my butterfly collectors off and finish an administrative report at the university. Cheers, --Wloveral (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good action on Serjão. I am not up on asteroid taxonomy. There must be one called "Bob" even if preceded by an undecipherable 12-digit number. As far as the bee genus Andrena is concerned, I will beg off on the grounds that it is not found in South America. My old professor (90 years of age) is still working on this (along with 16,000 other species of bees). Now that I think of Mich, I must give him an infobox scientist. BTW, is there any way to send you a hypertext article ("Colugos: obscure mammals glide into the evolutionary limelight," by Robert D. Martin, Journal of Biology. 2008. 7:13 doi:10.1186/jbiol74)?--Wloveral (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I see I'm out-voted on this question. Bill is also there and "functioning" along with (I am guessing) John and Sam (so you can tell if your neighbor is a surface-to-air missle). Cheers, --Wloveral (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, but could you have a look at Canus?--Wloveral (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are coming full-turn on this. Please see my comments for you and recently starred Neelix on my talk page. Cheers, Bill--Wloveral (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DOI bot

Thanks a lot for spotting the bug at Ceratopsia. There was one bug with the bot, and one with the Cite journal template. The bot is now fixed; the template is awaiting the attention of an administrator, as its protected status means I can't make the necessary edit. Happy editing! Smith609 Talk 15:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Hey bob. Could you review my comment here? Thanks! WikiZorro^sign 11:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HI

Hi, I forgot to reply to your message. Yes, I'm Back. SimpsonsFan08 ^{talk Sign Here Please and get Award} 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Megaceras briansaltini

Nice scarab article. The describer, Brett C. Rattcliffe, is now at the University of Nebraska, but he worked several years with me here in the Amazon. I must admit that I found the article by simple new page visits, and I did not notice your attached user name. I still do not know all the ropes for article tagging. Would you have a look at new page Vulgaris. It is another case of mangled taxonomy in that the species epithets are used for redirects.--Wloveral (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did see the discussion you pointed to, and it conflicts with just two things: what a species name is in binomial nomenclature and "partial title match" in WP disambiguation. The latest disambiguation page to use mangled nomenclature is Migratorius, but there are better things in life to do than deal with these. Cheers, --Wloveral (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC) ... Stop the presses. I just saw Rubecula. --Wloveral (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today was a slow day, mostly due to a bus strike that kept folks at home--even those who would not board a Belém city bus to save their lives. My students did get to the lab at the museum, but then it was a struggle for them to get to where they could catch a ride home. The fallout of the fight between the governador of the state of Mato Grosso (the king of soybeans) and the new federal minister of the environment is that we researchers ave lost our in with the ranchers in whose forest reserves we have a project. The Xingu River basin is looking bad, and we may well lose it to deforestation and erosion--something I would never have imagined when I stayed with the Kayapó Indians some 33 years ago. My two sons finally got back this Monday morning after taking off for the weekend in São Paulo and Curitiba on a crazy 50 dollar airling promotion. Tomorrow looks to be more of the same. The question is: do I create 1,200 articles for neotropical butterfly species now or do I get their photos first?--Wloveral (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice pterosaur article--and free, too. PLoS is an initiative I support. Many thanks. BTW, have a look at disambiguation page T. nivalis. I am awaiting the page II that separates King George II, Queen Elizabeth II, and Pope John Paul II.--Wloveral (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Update: Pages S. nivalis and R. nivalis just created, to dismabiguate among species of plants that would have the same abbreviated scientific name. Cheers, Bill --Wloveral (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Signature

You're welcome - no problem! -- Natalya 12:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Hi Bob,

Thank you so much for the barnstar. It will serve as a great encouragement to me.

Happy editing!

Neelix (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:StewieGriffin!

Users have the right to remove material from their own talk pages. Your warning and replacement of previously removed material was inappropriate here. --Onorem ♠Dil 13:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Twinkle warning is for article talk or other people's talk pages. See this section of the userpage guideline for more. He probably shouldn't have changed the header...but that's fairly minor, and certainly not worth a level 3 templated warning. --Onorem ♠Dil 13:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

		The Thank-you Barnstar.
		Thank you for caring when i retired. I might come back. GOODBYE.RETIRED

Jokes

23 happy clowns enter a small, novelty car but at the end of their trip only one sad, little clown leaves the car.

A passerby ask, "what happen to all your friends?"

And the sad, little clown says very bluntly, "well, I had to kill them."

Shock by the clown's confession, the passerby ask, "well, why would you do something like that?"

And the clown replies, "because...they started turning funny."

Two sisters get into a fight over three men. At the end of the fight, the sisters decide it is best to cut all them in half.

Meojive (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statustop template: alternate updating method

SoxBot V has been taken offline indefinitely, therefore {{Statustop}} now uses a semi-manual updating method taking the status from Special:Mypage/Status. You can use the Qui monobook script written by TheDJ to update this page at the click of a button.

Certain parameters are no longer used, so you may wish to check the documentation of the Statustop template to ensure you are using it properly. Please feel free to drop by my talk page with any questions or concerns or to report problems. Happy editing, xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 13:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]