MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 60d) to User talk:Kevmin/Archive 2. |
|||
Line 169: | Line 169: | ||
:::If the information is good and the information is verifiable, then it should be added to the pages where it is pertinent. However what is the source of the information on the site you are linking to? --[[User:Kevmin|<font color="#120A8F">Kev</font>]][[User talk:Kevmin|<font color="#228B22">min</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Kevmin|§]] 22:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
:::If the information is good and the information is verifiable, then it should be added to the pages where it is pertinent. However what is the source of the information on the site you are linking to? --[[User:Kevmin|<font color="#120A8F">Kev</font>]][[User talk:Kevmin|<font color="#228B22">min</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Kevmin|§]] 22:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
==Plasmodium== |
|||
Your edit on this page was unhelpful at best. I do not know if you can count or can be bothereed to count. There are approximately 250 species of plasmodium known to date. I have been able to place only ~100 of these in the subgenera. You deletion of 150 species in the listing IMHO constitutes [[vandalism]]. These species have taken several weeks/months t track down and I have been working on that page for several years. I believe your actions constitutes vandalism in that you have deleted information with full knowledge that your actions were doing so. You have aggravated this offense by claiming a level one warning. |
|||
You do have a long record of useful work on Wikipedia and for that you are to be thanked. That having been said it is a matter of some concern that you would behave in such a fashion. If you genunely do have a useful suggestion on how to improve this page without resorting to wholescale deletion I would be very happy to read of it. |
|||
Wikipedia as I understand it is about finding generally consenual method of improvement and not about issuing threats. [[User:DrMicro|DrMicro]] ([[User talk:DrMicro|talk]]) 09:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::It is a specimen which is part of the World Museum of Man and the page is part of the museum's online exhibit.--[[User:Maurymary|Maurymary]] ([[User talk:Maurymary|talk]]) 23:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Maurymary |
::::It is a specimen which is part of the World Museum of Man and the page is part of the museum's online exhibit.--[[User:Maurymary|Maurymary]] ([[User talk:Maurymary|talk]]) 23:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Maurymary |
Revision as of 09:23, 22 November 2010
If I posted on your talk page, you can reply on your talk page and I'll be watching your page. This makes it easier for both of us to keep everything in context. Thanks.
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Thanks for Clarification
I just wanted to thank you for your help with the Dire Wolf on the Alsatian Shepalute page. Nice additions! shepaluteprez 9:17, 5 August 2009
Trilobite Fossil Range
Hello, Kevmin. Thank you for erasing my mistake in the Trilobite Fossil Range. I thought that I had a trilobite fossil in my room from the Eocene! It turns out, it was a shell fossil! JRLivesey May 2, 2010 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Electromyrmococcus
Hello! Your submission of Electromyrmococcus 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! Smartse (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Trochodendron drachuckii
-- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Linden Tree edit
I was wondering why a reference to a comical sketch about the potent fragrance of the Linden Tree is not a 'notable' reference? My reference to it was not the first time this has been added in the 'literary references' section, and I feel this is an example of people trying to add a valid reference (which is surely the point of Wikipedia?), but cannot understand why it is not allowed? Please explain, as I'm sure we can come to some cumpromise? best, IKnowsBetterIDoes —Preceding unsigned comment added by IKnowsBetterIDoes (talk • contribs) 18:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of references to Tilia trees out there. to be added to the article it should be particularly notable to the cultural awareness of the genus and not just a funny passing reference that involves the word cum, sorry. --Kevmin § 20:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Electromyrmococcus
-- — Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks...
...for your contributions to the pig articles! Chrisrus (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Whether it's rude to point out Peccary ignorance
I hardly think it's uncivil to point out that one's line of argument betrays they don't know much about peccaries and is best countered by suggesting that someone learn a bit about them. Lots of people don't know much about peccaries, and there's no shame in it. So pointing out that the line of argument that the statement "peccaries are not concidered true pigs by experts" is a subjective matter of opinion, that is a subjective matter of opinion; pointing out that this line of argument is best dealt with by doing just a tiny bit of research on peccaries is not uncivil. Anyone who studies just a little bit about peccaries knows that the statement "peccaries are not concidered true pigs by experts" is not a matter of opinion, but an uncontrovertial statement of fact. Accusations of uncivility on my part are not warrented for having said words to the effect of "learn something about peccaries, a simple google search will suffice". Chrisrus (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Cruschedula
--The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Fossil fungi
Hi, I enjoyed your new additions on the four genera of fossil fungi. Are you interested in collaborating to make all four good articles? Sasata (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- I would be happy to collaborate! Please let me know what would be needed to improve the articles as needed. --Kevmin § 06:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Great! My plan: I'll read the Hibbett and Poinar papers myself over the next few days, copyedit the articles, and perhaps make some additions. I'll do a lit search to see if there's any other papers mentioning the genera (for example, the ISI Web of Knowledge says Hibbett et al. has been cited 31 times since its 1997 appearance, so maybe there's some stuff that could be added). Any kind of pictures would be nice, maybe some photographs of extant taxa that are thought to be similar to the extinct ones. I could also try sending an email to the authors and see if they'd be willing to release any pics for these articles. If everything goes smoothly, and reviewers are willing, we might be able to get these to GA before they make their appearance on the front page. Sound good? Sasata (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. It appears that the discovery of Palaeoagaracites antiquus in 2007, which the authors claim is the oldest fossil agaric, renders the current DYK hook inaccurate. I see it's already been put into the prep area; perhaps we should request the hook be removed temporarily, long enough to write an article on this fossil and alter the hook. Do you have access to the article? Sasata (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ohhh, nice find! I have downloaded the article and will start working up a page for it in my sandbox right away. Definitely if we need to we should see if the hook can be delayed and Palaeoagaracites added.--Kevmin § 20:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have altered the authorities. Will continue working on the other articles in the meantime. Sasata (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Protosialis casca
-- — Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Archaeomarasmius
-- — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Aureofungus
-- — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Coprinites
-- — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Protomycena
-- — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Palaeoagaracites
-- Shubinator (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Heliobatis
--The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Paleopsephurus
--The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Collenia
You can have the Collenia article. It's been sitting at a stub sentence for 3 years, so I did not realize that expanding the article would be an issue. There are plenty of other articles where I can work. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please AGF! I have at no point claimed the article as "my own". All that I did was readd that Collenia is a genus and ask if you had a reference which stated otherwise. If so feel free to add it to the article!--Kevmin § 06:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
50
50 dyk... award notice :D
DYK for Metacarcinus starri
--The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Tabbed browsing
I use firefox, and it doesn't work. I created an account here, then usurped my current user name here, and I tried to do it at commons, also, because the user name has no edits there, but their bureaucrats are completely arbitrary, and when I was signed in at commons, it signed me in on en.wiki with the same user name I used at commons, therefore signing me out of my en.wiki user account.
I can't spend any more time on it, though. It's frustrating to make a fair request, have it denied for an arbitrary reason, then see another user get their request granted by the same admin, even though the arbitrary reason applies more to them than to me. In the meantime I could have uploaded a few dozen top quality micrographs for use all over wikipedia, helped the categorizing, etc. It's very frustrating when editing gets roadblocked for no good reason.
Thanks for taking the time to make a suggestion. --Kleopatra (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Protomycena at GAN
... thought you should know (you're the co-nom!). Cheers, Sasata (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, cool! I didn't even get there before the GA review was completed, but your reworking is looking great as always, thanks! --Kevmin § 10:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Appianoporites
The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Margaretbarromyces
The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Quatsinoporites
The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
removal of Bison antiquus ancester skull image link
Hi,
Why was the World Museum of Man Steppe Bison skull link removed? This is of value, I feel, because it shows the ancestry of the Bison antiquus as the page states in Wikipedia: "During the Pleistocene Ice Age, steppe wisent (Bison priscus), migrated from Siberia into Alaska." --Maurymary (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Maurymary
- The link is not really needed as we already have a number of Bison priscus fossil images in wikicommons that can be used for illustration. I didn't see anything on the external link that made it a notable inclusion in the Bison antiquus page. --Kevmin § 22:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Plasmodium
Your edit on this page was unhelpful at best. I do not know if you can count or can be bothereed to count. There are approximately 250 species of plasmodium known to date. I have been able to place only ~100 of these in the subgenera. You deletion of 150 species in the listing IMHO constitutes vandalism. These species have taken several weeks/months t track down and I have been working on that page for several years. I believe your actions constitutes vandalism in that you have deleted information with full knowledge that your actions were doing so. You have aggravated this offense by claiming a level one warning.
You do have a long record of useful work on Wikipedia and for that you are to be thanked. That having been said it is a matter of some concern that you would behave in such a fashion. If you genunely do have a useful suggestion on how to improve this page without resorting to wholescale deletion I would be very happy to read of it.
Wikipedia as I understand it is about finding generally consenual method of improvement and not about issuing threats. DrMicro (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
That was one of my concerns. There doesn't seem to be an actual museum, only the website.--Kevmin § 19:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)