Hi there, re your comment at Human vestigiality, the image doesn't seem to have been deleted and it doesn't look like it will [ (discussion)]. Can I replace it in the article for now? Tim Vickers ( talk) 17:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey Richard - thanks for pointing out the link to "conservapedia" - If I remember correctly, I just tossed a link in there to indicate that I wasn't spouting off about something that can't be found elsewhere... Not to present something as fact. I'll find a different source if you can remind me where I linked it. I know the conservapedia site is less than credible. I'm just beginning to learn how this all works... Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FloridaJarrett ( talk • contribs) 10:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Richard, I have been uploading all my images not in Commons (didn't know this was wrong), thank you for the advice.
ZoofanNZ ( talk) 07:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Richard, I checked out The Power of Movement in Plants from the library to make a few scans of my own. I have neither the time nor ambition to scan all 196 figures or even all 592 pages, but while I have the book, are there any particular pages/images that I should scan for future use? - tameeria ( talk) 03:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me, didn't realize. Keilana| Parlez ici 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the insight. I've had a time trying to figure out the correct etiquette for everything. Re: Isthmus, I thought the same thing, but that was the article's first example of a geological barrier. Also, upwellings are an example of a geological barrier, though not solid, it still acts as a virtual barrier. Therefore, I feel it might be better to say "geological barriers such as upwellings" instead of and.
I welcome your thoughts. - JasonSpradlin82 ( talk) 13:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Champions Of The Magnificent City.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot ( talk) 21:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Go on, remove those pop culture sections! I hate those things XD delldot on a public computer talk 10:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Taifar ious1 22:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree with the claim of evolutionism not being taught in Pakistan HE. Although, Creationism is taught as part of the Religious education, Evolutionism remains intrinsic (though not very distinct) part of scientific knowledge in universities (one of the reasons why we won't find many sources). At intellectual level, there have been attempts in the past to link the two by the mathematician Mashriqi and others. In recent times, the likes of Pervez Hoodbhoy have been struggling to bring about such dialogues by translating prominent books into Urdu through NGOs. The difference from Turkey is that the situation has not been made much public, as yet!-- Isles Cape Talk 19:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. I didn't originally add the chimp photo to The Life of Mammals article, but I'm sure the reason for deletion was that no rationale was given. One small screenshot per article would be okay as long as a rationale is given in each case and it definitely illustrates the accompanying text. As regards critical reception, etc., I agree that more could be added but citations are sometimes hard to come by. Chris 42 ( talk) 19:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your concerns. I will keep an eye out in the future :) CWii( Talk| Contribs) 21:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Discussions with you (and others) at Template:SubArticle have been productive and enjoyable. I'm busy for a few days, but please ping me if you don't get a response after that! I'd be glad to continue to help. Geometry guy 23:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I replied to your post on my talk page. D-rew ( talk) 00:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
In re: citing wikipedia as ref.. Ah, ok. This I did not know. Thanks for pointing that out. Agreed, the Monarch article is terrible but I have not the time nor resources to take it on. Nickrz ( talk) 14:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The first three were a trilogy and then the others followed. I'll have a delve into Attenborough's autobiography when I get a bit more time and see what I can find. :-) Chris 42 ( talk) 13:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi again. While Attenborough does not refer to the first three specifically as a trilogy, he does state (when discussing The Private Life of Plants), "The time had come for me to change tack. I had made three major series covering three main aspects of animal history. [...] But the fundamental basis of animal life on this planet had been largely ignored." The trilogy, out of necessity, does give an overarching view of the animal and plant kingdoms, and The Living Planet in particular deals with environments and their inhabitants, including plant life. So the article introductions as they stand are not incorrect: Plants is a specialised survey — it's just that Attenborough dealt with all their different groups in one series instead of the separate ones devoted to the birds, mammals and reptiles, etc. Also, the reference to the trilogy in the David Attenborough article was there long before I started expanding the 'Life' articles and the text has remained unchanged, so nobody seems to disagree with it. In addition, it's referred to as a trilogy here, here and here. Chris 42 ( talk) 18:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Richard, if you're still interested I've now finished my translation of this article from the German FA - sorry it took so long! Enjoy, -- YFB ¿ 19:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your message about the page in question. I will keep an eye on that page and make sure to fix it better in the future. Bobo . 15:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've learned a few things from your "common mistakes" section. Thanks. There is one thing I keep correcting that you may want to add to your list (as said in Wikipedia:Tree_of_life#Article_titles):
Pro bug catcher ( talk • contribs). 03:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Richard. Though the concepts are similar, I believe that {{ Request edit}} was created at the suggestion of User:Jeffrey.Kleykamp in September 2007 specifically to address conflicts of interest. Are you thinking of a broader concept than the one Kleykamp proposed? I know that the name of {{ Editprotected}} sounds similar. Since Kleykamp's idea appears to be COI-specific, shouldn't WIkipedia:Requested edits, if it is needed as a redirect at all, point to a COI-related page? I realize this is not an earthshaking issue; I was just searching around for documentation and I came across that redirect. EdJohnston ( talk) 14:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Richard, When you get a chance, can you look at the additions to the talk page by LoveMonkey? I've already had a revert war with him on the talk page, and I've decide that, as long as it's on the talk page, I'm not going to worry about it, but if you have any thoughts on this, they would be appreciated. Either he's way off the mark, or so brilliant it's beyond me. Edhubbard
Thanks for your input. Generally the people I've been advising haven't been handing out any warnings at all. I'll suggest that template to them in the future. xenocidic ( talk) 01:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Would you like to have rollback? It's more efficient for some anti-vandalism purposes than tools such as Twinkle.- gadfium 07:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Richard001. I have nominated the article Richard Dawkins for the FA status. Can you make some contributions for the article? Your help will be appreciated. Regards, Masterpiece2000 ( talk) 03:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you clarify what you meant when you added the word some? As defined on plant and green algae, the plants include all the green algae. I'm not sure whether you are defining plant differently, green alga differently, or what. Kingdon ( talk) 03:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, sorry about that. I misread the version history and thought he just added in line breaks, not realizing he broke the Etymology header. -- MacAddct 1984 ( talk • contribs) 14:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Might I suggest using for the WP Animals banner? I replied on the above talk page, but I don't think the image currently being used works particularly well. Justin chat 16:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you please explain your inclusion of the Potlatch and Penis links in the see also section ? I am failing to comprehend how they relate to the subject at hand. -- Mad Tinman T C 19:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I answered your question from January in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Books#Book title redirects. I hope this helps. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 01:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
You're quite right about the arthropod article. Not sure what I was thinking there, definitely not an A-Class. Pity though, it could be easily. IronChris | (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Why do you insist that a redirect should be deleted? If the book is notable, then create the stub for it. In the absence of that, a redirect makes sense for those who search for the (notable) book and get to read about its author in the meantime. -- ZimZalaBim talk 04:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello Richard, I see you are keen on starting a genetics project, have you seen WP:MEDGENP? Currently ticking along but I have suggested expanding the project on it's talk page recently since it has a few contributors, but needs more to be fully active. After looking at all the various definitions of genetics / (human/ medical/ standard) medical genetics does cover a lot of the material anyway, so seems a good place to work from towards a full genetics project... please feel free to add any thoughts to he project's talk page ... oh and keep up the good work :) Leevanjackson ( talk) 19:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Your contributions are sought at WT:FICT#Guidelines and consensus, to try to determine whether the inclusion of spinout articles without real-world coverage has consensus support. Percy Snoodle ( talk) 10:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder, Richard. I'm always learning! AC+79 3888 ( talk) 10:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Richard, since you put it that way, its virtually impossible to disagree. As you are familiar with the working habits of undergrads, time is always in short supply. Nonetheless I will attempt to revise the input on that topic at a later time as advised. Also the addition to the Cladophora article was in my own words. I was looking through article while formulating study notes and lecture summaries and paraphrased an interesting bit of information in one of my prac manuals. Unfortunately I couldnt find the reference and just moved on. Not too sure if its the work of one of my lecturers or what but the words are mine. Speaking of which, a majority of the botany articles could use vast improvement in terms of subject material. Anyway i digress, thanks for the tip! ( Edebraux ( talk) 09:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC))
err ... thanks for your (rather confusing) message Richard (001). I'm not sure if it was pitched as a general castigation of my contributions, or a back-handed compliment thereof, or even somewhere in between. Anyway, I'm rather busy IRL and don't have too much time to shift those images to Commons right now, but feel free to do so yourself. After all, this is a wiki, and if you perceive a problem, then you're welcome to fix it. -- Cactus.man ✍ 23:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Richard,
As you know, I am expanding the Infanticide article. I will continue to expand it according to my sources. There is a kilobytes limit in Wikipedia however. There's also that rule: to avoid content fork. Since there's already a hatnote in the Infanticide article referring to the Animal infanticide article, I'd like to cut and paste the whole section of animal infanticide into that article. But you are more familiar with the subject of infanticide among animals than me. Would you like to do the cutting & pasting? I still plan to add about 50 more kilobytes of info in the Infanticide article. Therefore sooner or later, per WP policies, any editor will do the splitting anyway.
Regards,
Cesar Tort 17:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm totally lost! I have to find out how to create a wiki in a way that only certain users can access and/or edit an article. I have been trying to figure this out for over 3 weeks. I really would appreciate your help. Can you help me please?
Thank you.
Rantrom 01:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The reason I reverted to the redirect to Island biogeography was because it had been that way with no comment since July 2006. You are correct that there is no speedy criteria that fit; that's why I removed the speedy tag. ... discospinster talk 15:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
What I meant was that the article should discuss the link between the price of petroluem and the effect on inflation as well the link between stagflation rather than just have a link in the see also section or captions. I will get around to it after I find some references. Sorry for the not being clearer, does that make sense? - Shiftchange ( talk) 07:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
FYI, people are discussing the idea of a Wikiproject Genetics here: WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Genetics. It'd be great to hear you thoughts on the points brought up. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 22:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Check the Batesian mimicry discussion page for explanation. — [ Unsigned comment added by 128.189.229.166 ( talk • contribs) on 01:07, 21 April 2008.]
Please see page, clarification required. Andycjp ( talk) 03:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I found a malformed, incomplete FAR at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Free will when checking the category. If you intend to submit this to WP:FAR, please read all of the instructions at the top of the WP:FAR page and complete the process correctly, including notifications. Thanks, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I notice that you've kept an eye on this article, and I think it really needs your help. It's all the same to me whether you accept or reject the dysgenic hypothesis; my impression is that most of the editors just aren't familiar with what's in the scientific literature where such familiarity is badly needed. Harkenbane ( talk) 05:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right, Richard. Thanks a lot!! Best regards from Mexico City!-- correogsk ( talk) 08:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I've created the Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics page, please join if you're still interested! At the moment it's pretty bare looking, but I figured everyone could chip in with things to add to the page. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 18:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I was too short regarding the lead of the article, which has traditionally been my problem in trying to upgrade an article to GA class. I have included additional information, and it is now 2 paragraphs. I didn't want to go into details explaining every climate type in the lead, because I was afraid the lead would become too long. It's now 2 paragraphs. Thegreatdr ( talk) 03:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You don't seem to provide any rationale. The redirect seemed useful (I reached this myself and was going to (re)create it before I saw the deletion history note. What other use could a template for a book cover have? Free covers wouldn't need such a template. Richard001 ( talk) 04:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Richard. Per your 12 March 2008 request, I added assessment parameters to Template:Fishproject. Best. GregManninLB ( talk) 07:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Richard, I am aware that I push the envelope. However, I strive to do so in a respectful way.
On population size, by saying that the ‘answer’ is somewhere in the middle, I feel I am merely pointing out the obvious, am setting the stage so to speak, so that someone else might make progress.
On the ‘dilemma-fication’ of ethics, I don’t feel I did that part as well, but it’s the same goal: setting the stage so that someone else might make progress.
Since Parfit published Reasons and Persons in 1984, has there been any progress regarding average vs. total welfare? At all?
And I ask you to please reread your post to me. In part, in part, you spoke to me as if I were a child or social inferior.
And I would suggest a pause. When I post something that in your judgment detracts from the article, please pause and see if anyone else deletes it. If you find that you’re the only person deleting my postings (which is merely one possible future situation) that would probably not be a real constructive situation. FriendlyRiverOtter ( talk) 23:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I assessed it that way becuse I thought it met the overall standard at the time. Articles and standards change. If that has happened: change the rating. If you just disagree: change it. If you can't come to me with something constructive: don't bother. Be positive! Inge ( talk) 11:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've taken your advice and done the first archive of my talkpage. Thanks for suggesting it. I read the how-to page, but there's something I don't understand. The new page has a redlink at the top, suggesting that I have no user page, but of course I do. Do you know how I can fix that? BrainyBabe ( talk) 19:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand. Rectify what situation? Hyacinth ( talk) 17:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Great, you think articles should be referenced. You seem unable to choose between whether its your opinion or my obligation. My opinion is that people should be polite and informed. Have you noticed if I have created any articles with references? (or you could dig into the history of Wikipedia:Citing sources, I'd suggest looking at the talk page history showing 500 edits at a time) On the other hand, I think that in 1/2 the time that you have spent discussing this issue with me you could have verified for yourself that the term "Duchenne smile" or "play smile" is used in two different resources outside of Wikipedia. For example:
As I attempted to point out earlier: you still don't know I didn't just make it all up and would have to verify any information you questioned for yourself anyway. One could argue that is one's intellectual responsibility. Perhaps it is one's actual responsibility as a subsequent editor according to Wikipedia:Citing sources. Why don't you tell me? Hyacinth ( talk) 00:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You didn't just get the wrong person, you got the wrong attitude. I would probably be less upset if you where able to prove this "responsibility" you assert. Wikipedia:Citing sources: "Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is policy, says that attribution is required for "direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." Not for ALL material. Hyacinth ( talk) 23:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to get in a debate with you but I just need to say I hope that you will open your eyes one day and see that God is real. Then you can be forgiven of your sins and will be accepted into the holy land. That sounded so corny. But I must tell because I care about everyone including you even though I don't know you but I must tell you that God is real. You can believe me or not. I'm not going to try and change your mind. You said you're a Strong Atheists so I probably couldn't even if I tried. I just wanted you to know that because I don't want another one (you) to burn.-- WillC ( talk) 08:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I will try to add some article summaries during the next few days. If you have some spare time, please feel free to have a go yourself. -- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
As you know, WP:COI strongly discourages editors with a personal interest in a topic from editing that topic. So I haven't added anything to the article, and don't plan to, nor to take a position on notability. As for reviews, you'll find a bunch at www.gopedia.org; which (if any) any rise to the level of WP:RS I'll leave up to you and others to decide. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Some while ago you wrote on the talk page that you came away "not really having any conclusive idea what the rain was". The page is now under review as a Featured Article.
A friend had introduced me to the red rain in late 2005 - he's a 'committed' believer in panspermia. After reading Louis & Kumar's 3 papers, the CESS paper and a whole load of articles I came to the conclusion that the cause was incomplete incineration of chemical waste at the Eloor industrial zone.
A paragraph that I'd added to the Wikipedia's Red Rain 'Conventional Theories' section was removed, as 'original research', though it remains in the schools version, http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/r/Red_rain_in_Kerala.htm, even after I'd added a reference to Jack Szostak's work on lipids and montmorillonite clay (which plausibly explains Louis & Kumar's observation of 'reproduction'). I thought I'd trodden the line quite carefully.
"More plausibly, the suggestion has been made that the red raindust was the result of incomplete incineration of chemical waste at the Eloor industrial zone, the particles being formed from microparticles of fly-ash or clay which coalesced around an aerosol of partly burnt organics as the incinerator plume cooled. The chemical composition of the raindust matches that of burnt organics plus clay; the fallout pattern matches with the prevailing winds; and various organic chemicals will form cellular structures which replicate in the presence of clay."
I hope that there isn't an effort underway either to re-launch, yet again, the 'spores from space' story or to keep the lid on the pollution problem by asserting the CESS research, and hope that you might take a look at the article again.
You can reference me through letters I wrote, http://www.corporatewatch.org/?lid=2520 and http://www.downtoearth.org.in/new_letter.asp?currentpage=3&foldername=20061031
The paper I started to write stalled, or rather I stalled. But please let me know if you would further details. I would be interested in your comments. Sadly, incomplete incineration still rings true and the other hypotheses haven't got any better. Davy p ( talk) 04:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Your request has been performed. Please not that the Category created my be deleted within four days unless populated. Adam McCormick ( talk) 03:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I do understand the handicap principle. And if stotting is an example of an antipredator adaptation, then it makes no sense to assert earlier in the paragraph that it "increases the risk of being caught and killed by the predator" when just a few sentences later, in the cited example, stotting is shown to reduce the risk to gazelles of being caught and killed by a cheetah. So stotting would seem, intuitively, to increase the risk, but if it's an antipredator adaptation as the article suggests, then it decreases the risk. My edit is completely consistent with the succeeding sentence, which calls stotting an "apparently maladaptive behavior". -- Lazar Taxon ( talk) 13:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey Richard,
You've got quite an impressive personal page. I share similar beliefs and try to add as much as i can contribute towards betterment of Wikipedia. BTW i created this article on Tux Typing which is quite useful for kids and is open source in nature, just like Tux Paint.
I reckon it deserves to have its page. And i've tried enough to add as much information. If i can i'll do improve it as and when i see something. Hope you understand. Kudos to your work, Cheers! User:Randhirreddy 06:11, 29 May 2008
I have made the change you requested and added some additional documentation. Please let us know if there's anything else I can do. Adam McCormick ( talk) 14:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have revived an erlier discussion you participated in at WT:VAN. Please reply there if you care. — AjaxSmack 01:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess it's a valid concern, but it's not worth my time to fix it. If queries have been ignored until now, there's no reason to expect someone to answer them. Yechiel ( Shalom) 16:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think your template is fixed now. Please can you check it over and pop over to WP:RT and mark it as resolved if you're happy. As a note, needs-taxobox and needs-audio should also work now too. Hope this helps, Gazimoff Write Read 01:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for helping on The Gene Bomb article. a few months ago I tried to start an article for the movie Ratopolis and did not get very far on making the article stick. Could you take a look and make a few suggestions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Septagram/Ratopolis Septagram ( talk) 01:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Noticed your edit at Dysgenics. Actually, it might solve some problems to go ahead and create an article on the book (problems of how to mention it here on WP without throwing an article out of balance). It's certainly notable enough--as one can see from the many book reviews and the awareness of many editors that the book exists. If you create the article, I'll try to back you up through the inevitable nomination for deletion (not that my input will count for much). -- Anthon.Eff ( talk) 00:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I should have mentioned: please don't be surprised if my contribution to the article is to say something mean about the book. That I favor the article doesn't necessarily mean that I favor the book.-- Anthon.Eff ( talk) 00:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I have made an important proposal for the project here .We are looking forward for your comments and suggestions. You are receiving this note since you have made a similar suggestion earlier -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 05:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I've restored the image. Sorry for the delay; I totally missed your message. Maxim (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, yes, I would be happy to photograph Richard Lynn (and presumably to release the image into the public domain?) I live in the Hotwells area, within very easy reach of the city centre and Clifton areas, and have my own transport if necessary. Replies on my talk page are fine, but if you want to dive straight into email, you can find a contact link for me at the bottom of all pages of my personal site. gothick ( talk) 18:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
If you can spare time, please give your opinion on the THH talk page!
A user has deleted the 'Quotes' section near the end of Thomas Henry Huxley, and I would like some opinions on this. The content is listed on the Talk:Thomas Henry Huxley page (section 18).
Obviously, such a section is unusual, but there are good reasons for having it in the case of THH. It improves the biography by making it easier to understand the man: this would not be true of most scientists, but it is true of Huxley. I don't think it contravenes the 'Wikipedia is not a directory' policy, and if it did I would argue that policy should be a guide, not an absolute. Options, it seems to me, are:
1. section deleted, as now is
2. section reinstated, as was
3. section shortened and reinstated
4. create a linked page 'Huxleyana' to put it in, flagged on the main page
5. put it in Wikiquote (I am against this, both on grounds of remoteness (being on a different system, and little used, and on grounds that Wikiquote has developed into s place for longer excerpts taken from web sources)
6. Or, are we into a more comprehensive reorg with a view to shortening the article?
Same user changed character of the Biographies section. This is a less significant change.
Macdonald-ross ( talk) 19:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dysgenics.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) 03:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Restored. Maxim (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations, an article you created, for deletion. I have explained why at the discussion page. Your opinions on the matter are welcome there, and you are also welcome to edit the article to address any concerns. Thank you for your time. El on ka 04:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This article might be of interest: Joel, D.M. 1989. "Mimicry in carnivorous pitcher plants — fact or legend?" (PDF). Carnivorous Plant Newsletter 18(1): 12–14. Mgiganteus1 ( talk) 01:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Richard. IF you are experienced with working with commons and flickr, can you investigate the flickr user who took photos of Clarke and Lara Bingle because from the dates he put on the pic, I'm wondering whether he just pulled it off some website and stucka random date on it. Thanks, Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 05:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Richard, I am going through Category:Wikipedia requested diagram images and I am noticing your edits all over the place, so I guess you have an interest in diagrams, too. I was wondering if you are aware of the w:Philip Greenspun illustration project?
After looking at your Commons userpage, I guess you are not an illustrator yourself -- might you be interested in the organisational side of PGIP? If you think you might be, please drop me a line (either wiki or email). thanks, pfctdayelise ( talk) 19:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
_____ Wikipedia requested images ______ | \ | \ Wikipedia requested diagram images Articles needing images | Chemistry pages needing pictures
Yeah sorry about that. I guess I just wanted to raise the issue but didnt have any strong feelings one way or the other. Montco ( talk) 03:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
What kind of diagram were you imagining here? -- pfctdayelise ( talk) 16:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, Talk:Pseudogene? -- pfctdayelise ( talk) 17:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
And also Talk:Protostome. How can you have a diagram for a whole class of creatures? -- pfctdayelise ( talk) 17:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Richard, I usually upload to commons now, trouble with old uploads is that I don't keep any record or watchlist them, so it's pot luck if I find them. Many are effectively obsolete now, with better images available, so some probably would be better deleted. jimfbleak ( talk) 05:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Richard001 I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.
Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!
The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject ( talk) 07:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Ghah, I just missed him. He spends Jan to July in Vic so he won't be back till December. I'll try then. As for the photos, I haven't uploaded anything here in years. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest. It is in Sandypoint State Park, Md, USA. Docku Hi 10:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The August 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. MeegsC | Talk 01:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Wilhelm Weinberg.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI ( talk) 10:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Richard, you posted a request for a diagram for this article. I selected it as part of PGIP -- see here. It's not clear for the illustrator what diagram is required. Do you have access to the diagram you mentioned in Biology? If so, it would be very useful if you were able to post a copy of it somewhere (eg. photobucket...) for an illustrator to use as a reference. thanks -- pfctdayelise ( talk) 01:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I am not 100% certain, but the two species are pretty much split based on geography, which means if it was seen in Cantebury as the name suggests makes it a Red-bill. But I am not even sure how certain how certain the split is. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I've added a detailed summary to the Tern image jimfbleak ( talk) 12:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. :) I'm working the copyright problems board and came upon Image:Imran Khan Ni Nachleh 2007.jpg, which you tagged for violation on August 10th. I just wanted to ask you, when you tag an image or article for a copyright problem, to please notify the creator or uploader. There is a handy little notice you can use on the template itself which makes this easy to do. This is important to make sure that all contributors understand our copyright policies. Thanks for pointing out the problem with this image. :) I've notified the uploader and will process it accordingly if verification of release is not forthcoming. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
You probably know all of this already, but welcome anyway! : )
Hi, and welcome to the Birds WikiProject! As you've probably guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of bird-related topics.
A few features that you may find helpful:
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any experienced member of the project; we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! MeegsC | Talk 08:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello Richard,
I noticed you had created the article Evolution of morality as a redirect to Evolutionary ethics. I was doing some research online and though the two topics are related, I felt there was a some distinction in the subject matter. So I have added some content to evolution of morality.
Regards Frowanda ( talk) 04:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Discussion about redlinks problem <-- That was few months ago. Now I guess you done it (even you've forgot it completely), but take a minutes visit that link and tell me what did you do for fix that since March 2008 (to nowaday, if something wrong). Thanks. nnq2603 Talk 02:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Please. Spelling shouldn't be so.....creative. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just a heads up that I've put a couple of links on my talk page that suggest Darwin had drawings done by a Thomas Wood from Hampstead Road, NW [London, presumably], so that seems more likely than the American chap. . . dave souza, talk20:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm in two minds about that now, on one hand the genetic engineering, artificial selection and computing are certainly practical applications, so since the original version said "Understanding evolution can have practical applications, as well" this was wrong, however, this could be corrected if you were to change it to "Understanding phylogenies can have practical applications, as well", which is probably what you meant to say? Tim Vickers ( talk) 15:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Richard. I was trying to archive Talk:Death and idk, it seems I've screwed it up royally. If you would be so kind as to pop over there (my contributions may also be useful) and have a look and fix it, and explain what I did wrong, it would be much appreciated. Thank you. Carl.bunderson ( talk)
Response to Your bot request. After looking at it I believe that it would be better done as a User script. I have constructed the following api query which tells me:
Among other bit of information, however since I'm not experienced using JS with the API I'll defer it to WP:US/R. — Dispenser 06:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you created this page by putting it in Category:Images of birds. Did you do this because you thought this was a file here on Wikipedia (I make edits like that by accident occasionally)? If that wasn't the case (if you can even remember), I don't really see any reason to categorize the file here when the file is at Commons, especially since Commons already has its own (and far better) category and gallery system; after all it's not a featured picture or anything.
Actually, now that I look at another file, Image:Bird.parts.jpg, I see you have done that same, so I guess it was done deliberately. I'm not sure that we have a policy on this, but I'm guessing the consensus is not to create pages by adding them to such categories. Do you object to "deleting" such images? Richard001 ( talk) 09:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Conservapedia Main Page.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.Thank you. ViperSnake151 23:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Uh... so what is an OTRS permission? -- Helenalex ( talk) 01:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Richard. I was thinking. You might want to invite my office mate, Matthew Auger, in the Math Department at the University of Auckland as well to the Auckland Meetup 4. His username is Matthew Auger. He's been seriously contributing to Wikipedia for longer than I have. Thanks! HowiAuckland ( talk) 20:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The
October 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk) 00:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
To Andycjp and others who might be interested. This notice is being sent to inform you that Andycjp’s disruptive editing has been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (AN/I): [1].
-- Hordaland ( talk) 20:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Richard, all of my videos should have your category added now. Aviceda talk 20:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey Richard, thanks for the offer of transferring - I have just started expanding Golden Monarch and have 5 days from now to expand it and get it on T:DYK, so would be extremely grateful if you could do that image first, and I will do Hooded Butcherbird next. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I have replied to your question on the redirect of Spontaneous Generation (before realising that you are an experienced wikipedian!) Basically, it could do with a page of its own and I have put my thoughts on the page in your discusion paragraph. IceDragon64 ( talk) 21:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I have now created the page by the simple expediant of copying the SG section from abiogenesis and editing the links. The section in the abio. article can be reduced now, as the abio article is too long. It needs various pictures etc, but its there, ready for your friend to work on!
IceDragon64 ( talk) 14:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I am a biologist. It's not a career, it's just what I do. I study biology for fun. -- Vuerqex ( talk) 13:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I am a biologist! Vuerqex ( talk) 01:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Richard: Do you mind sending me a brief note containing the gist of what you think I should say in the newsletter about the Flickr photo situation? Just so's I get it right! : ) MeegsC | Talk 10:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ?
User: Shotwell suggested (on my talk page) "I would endorse a WP:EXPERTADVICE page that outlined the wikipedia policies and goals for researchers in a way that enticed them to edit here in an appropriate fashion. Perhaps a well-maintained list of expert editors with institutional affiliation would facilitate this sort of highly informal review process. I don't think anyone would object to a well-maintained list of highly-qualified researchers with institutional affiliation (but then again, everyone seems to object to something)."
We could start with that if you would agree ... - could you help to push his idea through Wikipedia bureaucracy ? Cheers, Apovolot ( talk) 17:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The May 2024 issueof the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by TinucherianBot ( talk) 07:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Restored it.-- Maxim (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Richard0001,
Having made a quick check on the history of Nectar I noticed you've made several contributions to the article. I recently nominated an image I added to this article, Image:Australian painted lady feeding closeup.jpg at FPC. One recurring argument, and one which I disagree, is that the image in question has no encyclopaedic value in this article. I was wondering if you, as an editor of the article in question, could help resolve this issue? Thanks,-- Fir0002 01:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, though I must admit I am quite surprised as I am usually pretty slapdash when it comes to getting images (I used to be terrible at creating cats for them in Commons). Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Leave it with me, I'll check which is most common
jimfbleak ( talk) 07:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
About the images that you requested from "Michael Woodruff" on flickr. He has left a message on my talk page on commons. Please see my talk page on commons. Snowman ( talk) 21:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Marlith (Talk) has given you a kitten! Gifts of kittens promote Wikilove and holiday spirt. Hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and raise the holiday spirit! Send kittens to others by adding {{ subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Marlith (Talk) 04:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I can't keep track of what I upload where! Between Flickr, Facebook and the Commons... I dunno, I sometimes forget to do upload something somewhere. I usually make sure that Wikipedia has an image if the species hasn't been uploaded here before, and I did upload one of this species before. I don't know why it never got attached to the correct article, I usually do that too, but I notice the taxonomy has changed and that may explain it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Richard, thanks for the link - I remember that now; it jumped at me when I read the article. And I think you're right - it should be made as clear as possible that the theory can logically only apply to exact copies of genes and not to alleles; it's pretty integral to the gene-cented view and any layperson reading the article needs to know that. So yes, I'd be in favour of your new wording. Cheers, AC+79 3888 ( talk) 10:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I originally uploaded the image as a PD, given its age. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Richard.
In regards to your audio and video inquiry, I would like to get an image of the river otter's inhabitation range map in the article, if possible. There is a good photo at the IUCN Redlist page on the river otter that indicates the animal's distribution throughout North America. Here is the link: http://maps.iucnredlist.org/map.html?id=12302 . I believe the image could be well-suited in the Distribution and Habitat section of this article.
Thank you and best regards, Wikitrevor ( talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.205.155 ( talk) 01:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
It seems that you were involved in editing the article. I am curious what happened to the gatekeepers of the article? if you or anyone knowledgeable of the topic could just put it in the watchlist it would be great (I don't have much time to edit it or argue in talk page about the new editors' recent modifications). Regards, Thantalteresco ( talk) 18:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Richard, just wondering if you'd wanna take a look at Antipredator adaptation, as I've changed it quite a lot over the past few days (mostly logged out), and I saw you've edited it a lot too - Anxietycello ( talk) 14:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Hans Eysenck.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- FairuseBot ( talk) 06:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)