en User talk:Philcha Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Philcha. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Image copyright problem with Image:Veterbrate n octopus eyes.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Veterbrate n octopus eyes.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. 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 made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. 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) 10:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Image format

Hi, it boils down to two things: Scalability, and editability. SVGs are smooth at any resolution, and when properly created it's easy to edit text or move lines without having to amend the underlying layers. Further, file size is of no concern at the moment, as Wikipedia converts SVGs to an appropriately sized PNG when a user views it in an article. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 08:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Nature paper

Check your e-mail (-:

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 11:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I thought I'd updated that... Try again now through Wikipedia. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Halkieria

My outstanding issues are the same as yours! I have yet to have a thorough look at it though, I'm afraid. A busy few days ahead but I'll do what I can! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to use Talk:Halkieria -- Philcha (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Coeloscleritophorans

Hmm, I don't have online access to Lethaia before 2000 or so, frustratingly – and the three interesting looking articles all fell into that category! I'm in the library now so I'll pop up a very quick summary of the abstracts. In the meantime, I guess you've seen http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3360(199701)71%3A1%3C6%3ALCHAOC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder whether the concept of a Coelosclerithophoran clade is outdated and defunct? The concept seems to have emerged from "A comparative study of Lower Cambrian Halkieria and Middle Cambrian Wiwaxia"

S BENGTSON, SC MORRIS – Lethaia, 1984 – I'm guessing that the Halwaxiid concept has overtaken the Coeloscleritophoran idea. Though that's just a gut feeling! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the Coelosclerithophorans are fighting back, quite a feat for such shapeless bags - see NEW WELL-PRESERVED SCLERITOMES OF CHANCELLORIDAE FROM THE EARLY CAMBRIAN YUANSHAN FORMATION (CHENGJIANG, CHINA) AND THE MIDDLE CAMBRIAN WHEELER SHALE (UTAH, USA) AND PALEOBIOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS and Porter, S.M (2008). "Skeletal microstructure indicates Chancelloriids and Halkieriids are closely related". Palaeontology 51 (4): 865–879, which you sent me as a "bonus" item. Should we rename ourselves the "Interesting Times Gang"? -- Philcha (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies Concerning Dawn Scythe

I must apologize for having that image removed: on the bright side, I've been meaning to update that picture for some time, and at the moment, I'm working on redoing it. I will scan the sketch of Version 2 tonight, and let you check it over.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

[1] I'm planning to put in Wiwaxia and Odontogriphus behind Orthrozanclus, and perhaps a headshot of Hallucigenia in the background.--Mr Fink (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That is, the finished picture would include Odontogriphus and Wiwaxia: I'm going to crop them out for the taxobox picture.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

[2] comments, suggestions before I color it?--Mr Fink (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A Different Riddle

Do we have any information concerning the Permian Bowengriphus perphlegis from Queensland?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Evolution of mammals - aparently false statement

In Evolution of mammals], you claimed that "The grouping together of the Afrotheria has some geological justification. All surviving members of the Afrotheria live in South America or (mainly) Africa." This statement seems to be false, as one of the surviving species of this group is Elephas maximus, also known as the Asian Elephant, which lives in Asia. Please discuss the matter here. 194.90.113.98 (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me to look up elephant evolution. Scientists map elephant evolution says the African and Indian elephant lineages diverged about 7.6 MYA, in Africa. I'll edit accordingly. -- Philcha (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Your articles

Hi, just thought I'd pop by to let you know that I've not forgotten about you! I've not been back at home long and plan to give your queries a proper answer when I get the chance; I've a few other things to see to first, though. Also, nice work on Odontogriphus - it's a really good read! Best, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 11:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Howard Staunton and controversy

I'd prefer to keep Staunton-related discussion on the Howard Staunton talk pages. There are controversies in many articles I help edit; if you think Howard Staunton is bad, you should take a look at Chiropractic. I expect that even Daylight saving time is more controversial than Howard Staunton. Eubulides (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Small shelly fossil GA

Go for it. I think it would be worth making a note of the nomination at WP:PALAEO though - GA reviewers can typically only comment on the style, and it is possible that by raising it at WP:PAL somebody knowledgeable will provide some input. The worst that can happen would be that we received some uninformed comments. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

NB. Just a thought - User:Grahbudd is something of an expert on the small shellies. I've not noticed him on WP for a while, but if you could persuade him to comment on the article I'm sure his analysis would be hugely valuable. Perhaps it is worth leaving a pleading note on his talk page? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Staunton’s Influence

Hi. You asked me to try to slim down the "Influence" section further. To that end, I suggest changing the last four paragraphs at User:Philcha/Sandbox#Influence_on_chess_-_for_Howard_Staunton to the following:

There is little evidence that Staunton had much direct influence on modern chess. Although he introduced the English Opening, it has been called "really a twentieth century invention" that only became fully respectable after future World Champion Mikhail Botvinnik began playing it in the 1930s.^[1] Similarly, although he was an early champion of the Sicilian Defense, which is today the most popular opening,^[2] and the most successful response to 1.e4,^[3] he seems to have had little influence on how the Sicilian is played today.^[4] On the other hand, GM Raymond Keene wrote that "Taimanov revived some old, forgotten ideas of Staunton ..."^[5]

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Staunton's "spike" gambit against the Dutch Defense

Staunton and modern GMs concluded that Black gets a good game after 1.d4 f5 2.h3 Nf6 3.g4 d5!

Staunton introduced the Staunton Gambit against the Dutch Defense (1.d4 f5 2.e4!?).^[6]^[7] Although it was once a feared attacking line,^[8] it has been out of favor for over 80 years,^[9] and is thought to "offer White equality at best”.^[10] Staunton also introduced a different gambit approach to the Dutch, 2.h3 followed by g4.^[11] In 1979 Viktor Korchnoi, one of the world's leading players, successfully introduced this line into top-class competition,^[12] but later authorities concluded, as Staunton had long before, that Black could get a good game with 2...Nf6 3.g4 d5!^[13]

Staunton also advocated the Ponziani Opening 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3, which was often called "Staunton's Opening".^[14] It is rarely played today because it allows Black to choose between a sharp counter-attack and a safe line that usually leads to a draw.^[15]

Footnotes

^ de Firmian, N. (2008). Modern Chess Openings, 15th Edition. David McKay. p. p. 675. ISBN 978-0-8129-3682-7. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help)
^ Watson, J. (2006). Mastering the Chess Openings, Volume 1. Gambit Publications. p. p. 175. ISBN 1904600603. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help)
^ New in Chess stated in its 2000 Yearbook that of the games in its database, White scored 56.1% with 1.d4, but two percent less (54.1%) with 1.e4, primarily because of the Sicilian, against which White scored only 52.3%. New in Chess Yearbook 55 (2000), p. 227. A graph similar to that in the 2000 Yearbook can be found at "How to Read NIC Statistics (Valid till volume 62)". NewInChess.com. Retrieved 2008-05-07.
^ Staunton wrote that the Sicilian "... is the best possible reply to 1.P-K4, 'as it renders the formation of a centre impracticable for White and prevents every attack.' " Staunton, Howard (1848). The Chess-Player's Handbook. Henry G. Bohn. pp. p.371. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help) Also quoted at Harding, T. "The Openings at New York 1924". Retrieved 2008-06-19. However, Grandmaster John Nunn wrote in 2001 that the Sicilian is popular in modern play because "... Black is playing not just for equality, but for the advantage ... Black has to take care not to fall victim to a quick attack." Nunn, John (2001). Understanding Chess Move by Move. Gambit Publications. pp. p.57. ISBN 1901983412. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
^ Keene, R. (March 22, 1997). "Mafia connections". The Spectator. Retrieved 2008-07-13.
^ "Howard Staunton vs Bernard Horwitz, 3rd match game, London 1846". Retrieved 2008-07-01.
^ Hooper, D. (1992). The Oxford Companion to Chess, 2nd edition. Oxford University Press. p. p. 393. ISBN 0-19-866164-9. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^
- "The Staunton Gambit ... offers White considerable attacking chances." Fine, R. (1939). Modern Chess Openings, 6th edition. David McKay. p. p. 176. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
- The Staunton Gambit gives White "sharp attacking chances for his Pawn" and places the opponent at a psychological disadvantage ..." Horowitz, I.A. (1964). Chess Openings: Theory and Practice. Simon and Schuster. p. p. 611. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help) Fear of the Staunton Gambit has discouraged many players from using the Dutch. Christiansen, L. (1989). The Dutch Defense. Chess Digest. p. p. 192. ISBN 0-87568-178-6. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
- Schiller, E. (1993). How to Play Black Against the Staunton Gambit. Chess Digest. p. p. 4. ISBN 0-87568-236-7. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^
- The Staunton Gambit "has fallen out of favour for no clear reason". Griffith, R.C. (1925). Modern Chess Openings, 4th edition. Whitehead & Miller. p. p. 120. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
- "The Staunton Gambit fell out of favour some time ago and still remains so ... ." Fine, R. (1939). Modern Chess Openings, 6th edition. David McKay. p. p. 176. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
- The Staunton Gambit "is not in much favor today". de Firmian, N. (2008). Modern Chess Openings, 15th edition. Random House. p. p. 494. ISBN 978-0-8129-3682-7. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help)
^ Christiansen, L. (1989). The Dutch Defense. Chess Digest. p. p. 192. ISBN 0-87568-178-6. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^
- Staunton, Howard (1848). The Chess-Player's Handbook. Henry G. Bohn. pp. pp.381-82. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
- Alan L. Watson (1995). The Anti-Dutch Spike: g4! in the Krejcik, Korchnoi, and Alapin Variations. Blackmar Press. p. p. 36. ISBN 0-9619606-2-0. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help)
^ "Korchnoi-Känel (Biel 1979) at ChessGames.com". Retrieved 2008-08-15.
^
- Christiansen, L. (1989). The Dutch Defense. Chess Digest. p. p. 144. ISBN 0-87568-178-6. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
- Staunton, Howard (1848). The Chess-Player's Handbook. Henry G. Bohn. pp. pp. 381-82. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
^ Staunton, H. (1893). The Chess-Player's Handbook. George Bell & Sons. p. p. 182. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help)
^
- Kaufman, L. (2004). The Chess Advantage in Black and White. David McKay. p. p. 342. ISBN 0-8129-3571-3.. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
- Burgess, G. (1997). The Mammoth Book of Chess. Carroll & Graf. p. p. 133. ISBN 0-7867-0725-9. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help)

Krakatoa (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Dinosaurs & Christians

My son is dinosaur obsessed and he gets this all the time at school. Thank you for your appreciation !--Streona (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would have said that evolution shows that the account in Genesis is crap - as is the rest of the Bible. No doubt Streona's answer was much more tactful. Krakatoa (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - what do you and I know about tact? :-) -- Philcha (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Not too much! :-) Krakatoa (talk) 10:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Lystrosaurus photos

Hi, I took two pictures of a mounted Lystrosaurus murrayi skeleton in Paris, which one do you think would be useful in the article? [3][4] FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've played with the contrast and stuff too, the museum didn't permit the use of flash, so most of the pictures from there needed a bit of editing. The edited picture is here on the right, notify me if it needs more tweaking, or tweak as much as you please yourself. And yeah, if an image is inaccurate, we can just leave it out until it is fixed. I've gotten permission from that particular artist before to fix such inaccuracies on sight, but hair is a little more tricky and time consuming, so we should maybe just remove the picture for now. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree on everything, and about the artist impressions of murrayi, they both seem to have been based on the same skeletal drawing or skeleton picture, the poses are identical... FunkMonk (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Moo2BuildMenu400.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Moo2BuildMenu400.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Moo2ColonyList400.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Moo2ColonyList400.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Moo2GalaxyAndSystem400.png

Thank you for uploading Image:Moo2GalaxyAndSystem400.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Se3ShipList400.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Se3ShipList400.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Se3ColonyList400.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Se3ColonyList400.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Se3EventLog400.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Se3EventLog400.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Se3MainScreen.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Se3MainScreen.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Se3Targeting400.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Se3Targeting400.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Se3ShipDesign400.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Se3ShipDesign400.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Se3IntelScreen400.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Se3IntelScreen400.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:StarcraftPsiStorm01.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:StarcraftPsiStorm01.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:StarcraftPsiStorm01.png

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:StarcraftPsiStorm01.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Anomalocaris_Saron_200x59.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Anomalocaris_Saron_200x59.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Carl_Lewis_T_rex.png

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Carl_Lewis_T_rex.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Civ 3 Tech Tree Era1.png

Thank you for uploading Image:Civ 3 Tech Tree Era1.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Opabinia Reply

I understand: it's an older picture, and I've been meaning to fix it up, especially the jaw/head of Ottoia. (Though, by "daisy," do you mean Ottoia or Dinomischus?) You don't suppose you could email me the pdf of the report? I can't access many scientific journal sites on my home computer.

As for Orthrozanclus, I'll have the next WIP ready by tomorrow.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

One more thing: do you have any information on Opabinia's Emu Bay relative, Myoscolex?--Mr Fink (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Email reply sent.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictures recieved: I haven't encountered any problems yet, though, if any do crop up, my lawyers will get in touch with you.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know problem

Hi. I've reviewed your DYK submission for the article Opabinia, and made a comment on it at the submissions page. Please feel free to reply or comment there. Cheers, Art LaPella (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Maotianshan shales and Chengjiang fauna

Hi, Casliber - I'm begging for favours again. The content of Maotianshan shales is currently 90% about the fauna and the Talk is all about the fauna. In a discussion around Sept 2006 about the name, all participants agreed "Maotianshan shales" is a misnomer for that content, but no-one got round to doing anything. "Chengjiang fauna" is also the name used at WP:CEX - if you look at the history you will see that it was added by Smith609 befor eI signe dup for WP:CEX.

I think the most appropriate "package" would be:

Maotianshan shales remains as the main place for the geography, geology, taphonomy, history of discovery, etc. of these fossil beds. If there any significant non-animal discoveries in the area, they can be noted in Maotianshan shales until there's enough material for separate articles. After that, Maotianshan shales continues to cover the shale as a fossil bed and also links together all the articles about biota found there.
An article "Chengjiang fauna" would get all the current Talk:Maotianshan shales and, initially, all the content. I would then copy into the "shell" of Maotianshan shales the parts that focus on geography, geology, taphonomy, history of discovery, etc. of the shales. Putting the animal fossils under "Chengjiang fauna" would follow the practice of the paleo journals, which sometimes mention in their intros that the critters were found in the Maotianshan shales but after that it's all "Chengjiang fauna".
The existing redirect of Chengjiang to Maotianshan shales should remain, until Chengjiang County becomes notable for something else as well.
Then I can also set up redirects to cover the alternative spelling "Chenjiang" - I briefly surveyed the paleo literature: both spellings are widely used although "Chengjiang" is the more common.

Thanks -- Philcha (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this in all the confusion of the last few days. So you want me to move the current article to Chengjiang fauna? Just to be sure - this isn't controversial is it? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Phylogenetic lower back pain

Hi, this heavy lifting lark is a tough nut to crack. Intuitively I feel that the best approach is to restrict the discussion on each page only to the genus in question, omitting taxa with uncertain affinities. But as each taxon seems to affect the interpretation of a lot of others, this probably isn't a simple, or even a possible, task. But as the significance of most of these fossils rests with how they affect phylogenetic trees, I'm loathe to suggest that the phylogenetic discussion is removed from their articles.

I'm not sure how this would work, but how about it for a starting suggestion: We have a synthesis at Halwaxiid, and each other article restricts itself as tightly as it can to the discussion laid out in the papers focussing on that one organism, linking of course to Halwaxiid for the interested to follow up. I think that should strike the balance between individual articles presenting the case, and reducing duplication. Does it sound workable, though? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 12:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The PalAss is going to be the only cite for now. I suggest we use it and wait for someone to grumble about its validity, because not mentioning the alternative view isn't really an option I want to pursue. My notes from the conference should turn up in the next day or so, so I'll double check it then - I'm pretty sure I jotted it down carefully at the time. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

SSF Timeline

Which IE, and what specifically is the problem? Looks fine in IE7/Vista. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It may have to wait for a while, I'm afraid - I have quite a few similar things to look at which I've neglected for much longer, and also have to move to Canada on Tuesday. I'll check it out when I get the chance. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Internet has just arrived at home, so I may get the chance to play with it sometime soon. I'm incredibly busy at the moment though, so you may have to keep pestering me! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 00:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Just about - although the constancy of Wikipedia time is starting to confuse me again! I'm looking forward to my bed arriving so I can properly sleep it off once and for all.

I take your point re. the EHoL copyedit, but the repetition of "mostly" still sits awkwardly to me. I'll keep pondering... Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 11:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Opabinia

Hi Philcha, thanks for the note and the paper (I got it alright). I will be updating the Opabinia image accordingly. Cheers! ArthurWeasley (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Request to move article Molecular phylogeny incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Molecular phylogeny to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Anus

I didn't expect to get into an extended discussion of nonhuman anuses, but here we are :)

It seems that the other sexually interesting anatomy pages -- penis, vagina, etc. have a common structure. Nonhuman penises are considered within the framework of a larger page that primarily focuses on human penises. If anybody wants to read about nonhuman penis evolution, there's a section of the page that they can be sent to that's appropriate for that topic and has less material related to human sexuality. If it works there, why not use that structure here? Neiladri (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Canada!

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Slightly more informatively, I'm off to do a quick PhD under Caron. So if I suddenly become more vocal in the editing of certain articles you'll know why... Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Half Barnstar for Howard Staunton

		The Half Barnstar
		For the great work Philcha (a British) and Krakatoa (an American) were able to produce together in order to reach a neutral point-of-view in the article Howard Staunton so that it reached GA-class, I award to each of them half of this barnstar. SyG (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

		The Half Barnstar
		As explained on my Talk Page, I have rejected the Half-Barnstar kindly proffered to me by SyG. You are welcome to the whole thing. Krakatoa (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you buddy!!!

hello. i saw you editing the article on evolutionary history of life. well i wrote that article last year. i was really fed up when i saw no body coming up and helping me. after all i am just 16 year kid. and truly speaking biology is not at all my field. my field of work is visual geometry. anyway, you are doing excellent job on the article. though seeing that article as c-class really breaks my heart but i do appreciate your efforts. i suppose the geology part in that article is fine and it needs not much refinement. so can you please help in improving the other sections. i really worked hard on geology part. though i won't mind if wish to change anything. Keep it up!!! Regards, :)) Sushant gupta (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied on talk page Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

i would like to suggest that the intro needs to be fixed as per the main article. it must give a mere image of what article is about. since you are providing sections on microbiology in detail the intro must have a bit expanded para on it. rest i am glad with your outstanding work. hope to see this article back a GA soon. unfortunately real life has caught me up and i am not able to be much active here on wikipedia, else i would have also participated. Thank you, Sushant gupta (talk) 10:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

i have re-structured the article. now the article has a good flow. i have clubbed the diversification of eucaryotes section with three domain system. hope so now it looks good. Sushant gupta (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

why have you removed geology section. that was a very important part of the article. at least keep it in the article no matter it gives a brief coverage only. please alter it a bit. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Opabinia

I am reviewing your article, Opabinia, for GA. Please feel free to contact me. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:Plesiosaurus macrocephalus bg transp.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Plesiosaurus macrocephalus bg transp.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. 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 made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. 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 MifterBot. 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. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 20:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Denial of Ownership template

Hello Philcha, you seem to be the only respondent on the village pump, maintain template and ownership article, I have now made the proposal on Wikipedia talk:Ownership of articles with links to my examples : User:Leevanjackson/noowntemplate, I've added a second attempt based on your comments : would appreciate any further ones ? LeeVJ (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

3RR Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on User talk:AnomieBOT. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

As I have informed you earlier, if you cannot remain civil and constructively discuss the issue, your posts are not welcome on my bot talk page. In addition to WP:3RR, please also review WP:BOT#Bot accounts and WP:TALK#User talk pages for a greater understanding of the situation at hand. Anomie ⚔ 22:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Anomie reverts posts he (I think) doesn't like, here's a copy of the reply I've just posted at ⚔ under the heading "Your posting of 3RR warning on my Talk page":

You might do well to read the guidelines to which you so kindly gave me links. -- Philcha (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the diff -- Philcha (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What on Earth are you doing? It's his bot, and any comments on its page are intended for him. In what universe is it likely that anyone is going to look kindly on you revert warring to keep negative comments on it? Leave it be. If you must do something, take the bot's actions to an appropriate forum. Talk about lame. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I have read them. Including the part where my bot's userspace is effectively my own as the bot account is considered an alternate account of mine, and the part where I am allowed to remove any comments I wish from my user talk pages (which includes said bot's), and the part where WP:3RR does not apply to my reversions of edits to my own userspace (which again includes said bot's). Have a nice day. Anomie ⚔ 23:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

GA, FA, etc

I sure understand what you say about GA and FA. I'm just about exhausted trying to get rules of chess to GA. I'm never going to try a FA! Bubba73 (talk), 02:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

stalemate has had work on most of the things you commented on. I think it is ready for GA. I think checkmate is another one read so often that it needs to be GA, but it needs quite a bit of work to do that. And castling and en passant are read a lot too. Bubba73 (talk), 06:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Apology?

You want an apology because you are incapable of adding a reference to a page? Why? What makes you feel you deserve an apology for being incapable of clicking the edit button and adding a ref tag? That is all that was asked. You blatantly refuted the request. It is my opinion that your inability to add a ref tag is not enough to warrant an apology. -- kainaw ™ 13:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Tree topology

Grouping aplacophora and polyplocophora into crown group molluscs makes no change to the position of the Halkierids; the topology is not changed as there is no branching order given. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

But how are aplacophora and polyplacophora not crown molluscs? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was to point out their short fossil records, which are significant if polyplacophoran affinities are being posited for Halkieria. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input

The debate seems to come down to a division between people who appreciate evolution and want to see it reflected in classification, and people who only see classification as useful when it is based on superficial similarities and the 18th century Linnaean spirit. Evolutionary guidance is very, very important in this case. Please do continue to contribute - Mokele's responses may be quite harsh sometimes, but it seems that you're used to the heat. :) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I meant that you've probably dealt with heated debates before (given that you've edited evolutionary articles for a while, it seems likely, with all the Creationist tr*lls). Cheers. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Phanerozoic_Biodiversity

Hello, Look at this image,

http://personal.telefonica.terra.es/web/tosseta/Phanerozoic_Biodiversity-blanc.svg You need to save the page to your computer in order to see the image.

Talk to me in order to make corrections --Cameta (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Is better to use a SVG image, I'll send you another like your png

--80.32.46.8 (talk) 08:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I need the name of the font for the numbers in your png

--80.32.46.8 (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Part 1 is here

(after your reply, I will delete this sentence and fully dissect these words, which most people (including Philca) can't understand the meaning caused by America's poor Law School Admission Test#Reading_Comprehension ability)

Peter Ballard, if you can recommend any improvements in the way I tackled the chessmetrics situation, share them with me so I can grow as a wikipedian. I still consider myself still a newbie. I only learned the

mathLaTeXformulastuff

a week ago. I have no knowledge of protocol and administration (such as what I ventured into with WP:PROD recently). After reading your talk page, you respond to people ideally the way I would like to. Fair, respectful, and effective. Any advice you give me, I will take literally.

The 2 above indented paragraphs were cut/pasted from the section where I first replied on Peter Ballards page. I wanted to seperate them so I could expand on them. First of all, if you will assume my integrity, I made my earlier post before I checked out your userpage. When I saw that you said you are a christian, I'd like to commend you that you bear fruits of a christian. You have great courage to put that in the first sentence of your userpage, as I'm sure this fact has been used against you in plenty of ad hominems if you've ever had a disagreement on wikipedia. I was raised by possibly two of the strongest christians in america (judging by their fruits) and I have paid a great price by straying from it as I experimented with secularism. So I do have tremendous respect for true christians, and since I originally wanted your "moral judgment" simply because you treat other people so ideally on your user page, finding this out just adds one more layer of personal importance.

I hope I don't lose you in dissecting my own posts, but try to follow. Philca easily miscomprehended, and reading-comprehension is itself a horribly advanced subject. I score beyond the 99th percentile on portions of standardized tests which deal with RC, such as the MCAT and LSAT so you can first assume I'm an expert, until refuted by Philca, at reading comprehension.

First, a recent example of my analytical RC. At the wikipedia reference desk I helped someone avoid making an RC mistake.

an elucidation at the ref desk

I understand the effective interest rate in your credit card example being 34.358%=(1+0.299/12)^12. But I’m still a little confused in that APR then appears to be a nominal interest rate (in that I could divide by 12 to get the monthly interest charged of 2.49%), but you said the Wikipedia article isn’t wrong? The first line is “Annual percentage rate (APR) is an expression of the effective interest rate” which seems to say the opposite. (as far as I know it’s not possible to be both an effective and nominal rate unless if the frequency of compounding is the period). GromXXVII (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I discussed that earlier over at a discussion page somewhere. Here is the quote--The first sentence is already prone to having people miseducated. Annual percentage rate (APR) is an expression of the effective interest rate the borrower will pay on a loan which is accurate, but completely misleading, because the APR is not an effective interest rate. It is an expression for one, but not one itself. -/quote I spoke to some of the editors in finance articles, and they're okay with me saying that the line is wrong. I just didn't want to offend anyone over there. APR is a nominal rate, (and is an effective rate if and only if n=1). I am going to work with Wikipedia:FINANCE to help fix inaccurate statements in existing prominent articles. The finance articles on wikipedia are in poor shape (maybe 5 or so major ones are rife with errors) so I'm going to volunteer some time over there, even though I'm going to med-school and leaving finance behind me. It's where I'm needed the most, so I'll try and make myself compare articles to my textbooks and rule in favor of my book. At least that way, APR and the articles which link to APR will all be consistent. If someone else wants to use a source that APR is an effective interest rate, they can come behind me--I dont care. But as it stands now nominal interest rate, effective interest rate, real interest rate and annual percentage rate contradict, so I already have the permission from the wikiproject over there, to do a mass clean-thru of the pages. My 5 finance professors and all of their textbooks (5+5=10) are all consistent with each other, and I'll source all my texts, so in a few days, the articles will be clear and those negative tags will come off the tops of all 6 pages that I plan to work on. Sentriclecub (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh. I see. I was erroneously taking “is an expression of” to mean “is”. You have my thanks in advance for any clarifications you’re able to make on those pages. GromXXVII (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I use this great example, because it is recent (I'm not reaching into my bag of best posts of the year) to illustrate a perfect homologue of what Philca did, and I hope he'll eventually see what I meant.

I am trying to initiate the complete removal of all the chessmetrics content from all chess articles, except for the 3-4 ones which it is relevant on, and should be included.

When a sentence is studied in isolation, its meaning becomes so much clearer. Its that americans (and earthans) all read with little care, and don't really care about the meaning of words.

I don't actually want just the 1 page deleted, but everything deleted except its minor existence on 3-4 articles which it relevantly serves.

Without going into too much depth of philosophy, I used the expression 3-4 in both sentences. What would be a good way to test a reader's reading comprehension? To ask if the two sentences which include the same term are talking about the same thing. The answer is yes^{[citation needed]}. The first sentence subtly uses two modifiers which seem redundant, but actually mean something surprising. To understand the meaning as it stands, try to compare the differential meaning of the subvariations:

I am trying to completely remove all the chess metrics content...

I am trying to initiate the complete removal of all the chessmetrics content...

Maybe it was here, or on another discussion page, but I clearly spelled out that I know its futile, my efforts to seek my desires. My desires are indicated by I want everything deleted except its minor existence on 3-4 articles, which it relevantly serves. So those two things seem rather not identical, but contradictory! Oh what to make of this conundrum! Once you look at these quoted lines a 3rd time, you'll realize that I am trying to initiate the complete removal of all the chessmetrics content... and now a distinct seperate loosely related I want everything deleted except its minor existence on 3-4 articles, which it relevantly serves. These sentences are not quite contradictory either, and they are definitely not similar. So that begets my purpose of forewarning in my last post, another long post (this one). When you study all the possible ways those two ostentations can be coupled without meaning the same thing, and without contradicting, a bomb of logic explodes. And once the dust settles, you realize the beauty unearthed by my dear Philca. I can pursue something which won't happen, because the pursuit itself helps wikipedia!

I do want for chessmetrics to be abolished except for a 3-4 articles. But I also want what is truly best for wikipedia. I know that it is impossible for chessmetrics to be abolished except for 3-4 articles on chessmetrics. I do not know if this would or would not benefit wikipedia. However, I do know that pursuing my want will cause a change. As a indirect result of my initiation, the article improved. If I acted on my desires, my desires would not be met, thus if i was a wikipedian to help myself, I wouldn't persue a desire unless it is self-beneficial. However, I am pursuing my desire, but if I know it won't help me, then who does it help? It helps wikipedia! Thus trying to initiate a removal is markedly different than trying to remove. QED Sentriclecub (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

v 0.7 hitlist

This section for my own use only

Things I might be able to sort out - from v 0.7 articles by score (N.B. last item checked is Eumetazoa:

Title	Grade
Paleontology	Start review requested
Jurassic	Start
Chordate	Start Edited; review requested
Vertebrate	Start
Arthropod	Start Edited; review requested
Molecular biology	Start
HTML	Start
Mollusca	B (GA rev requested)
Laptop	Start
Database	Start
Uniform_Resource_Locator	Start
Software_engineering	Start
Eutheria	Start Edited; review requested
Prokaryote	Start
Vladimir Kramnik	C
Computer software	UA
Binomial nomenclature	UA
Bishop (chess)	Start
Cnidaria	Start
Microsoft_Office	Start
Relational_database	Start
Genus	Start
Graphical_user_interface	UA
Feather	Start
Max_Euwe	C
Eumetazoa	Start
Rook_(chess)	Start
Mesozoic	Start
Homology_(biology)	Start
Adaptation	Start
Subroutine	Start
Paleozoic	Start

-- Philcha (talk) 07:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the next step of the RFC?

I'm trying to learn how these things work. What is the next step, and when is it officially finished? Who are we waiting on? Thanks for the answers. Sentriclecub (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:Rhabdopleura normani 01.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Rhabdopleura normani 01.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. 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 made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. 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 MifterBot. 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. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 00:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Biological classification L Pengo.svg

The image is SVG. You can edit (or remove) the text using Inkscape, as well as easily removing or changing elements you wish. —Pengo 06:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Annotated images

I hope you got a good price for it! (-;

Also you really should have a play with inkscape sometime. It produces much smarter results than paint!

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My suspicion is that Wikiproject Pointless Beaurocracy will object to using pages from "Wikipedia:" space in mainspace articles. Categorising articles based on their absolute location is an unconventional approach: how about tagging the new images with Category:Annotated dinosaur images? The "{{Annotated image/imagename}}" approach has the advantage of making it very clear in the page code what the template is. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Mollusc synapomorphies

biltaterial symmetry
Coelom limited to small spaces around nephridia heart & part of intestine
principal body cavity haeomcoel
dorsal concentration of viscera (visceral mass)
Body covered by mantle; mantle cavity contains ctenidia, nephridiopores, gonopores & anus
mantle shell glands secrete calcareous spicules, plates or shells
heart in pericardial chamber, separeate ventricle & atria
large, well defined muscular foot, often w/ creeping sole
buccal region w/ radula
complete gut with regional specialisation, incl. large digestive ceca
large complex metanephridia (= "kidneys")
protostomeus embryos
trochophore larva, usually veliger

I guess that some traits may have been secondarily lost in some taxa.

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Box 210, p702: "Characteristics of the mollusca". Obviously some traits are common to more than one group due to convergence and/or shared ancestry.

"Flight" is a characteristic of birds, even though it has been secondarily lost in some birds. Likewise the radula. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of unlisted traits, including molecular data, which must also be included in a parsimony analysis. Phyla are difficult to define (see phylum); indeed I am yet to come across a satisfactory definition. The Bruscas' list is probably the best summary of their shared features. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Phylum" is a legacy term, has deficiencies for neontology and is broken in paleo.

I've done a little checking - well, nearly 2 hours' worth - and Talk:Mollusca#Definition lists with a

the ones I'd be comfortable with as "defining". The others I'd mention as "occurring in many molluscan groups but absent in some, most often in aplacophora and bivalves." The main source I'm using (Ruppert, E.E., Fox, R.S., and Barnes, R.D. (2004). Invertebrate Zoology (7 ed.). Brooks / Cole. ISBN 0030259827.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)) might be enough for me to get away with "... and may be features of the earliest molluscs". -- Philcha (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Why did youchange the fossil range for Orthrozanclus?" The Fossil range said "burgess Shale".545lljkr (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Orthrozanclus

Why did youchange the fossil range for Orthrozanclus?" The document said "burgess shale" for fossil range. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 545lljkr (talk • contribs) 20:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The "Fossil range" box is used to give a time. -- Philcha (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Which document? The "Fossil range" box is used to give a time, e.g. in Dinosaur it says "235–65 Ma"."

Okay, relax, the "document" I was referring to was the article itself, this article said "Burgess Shale" for fossil range, that's why I changed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 545lljkr (talk • contribs) 20:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Beaded Lizard

I have a tendency to read too fast and miss things, you caught a few in Beaded Lizard (my mind fills in the blanks when proofreading). Would you mind taking a look at Solomon Islands skink for me before I nominate it? There's been a small edit war with what I think is an author (or devoted fan) of 2 very well-written but self-published sources, that's how stuff like that gets missed. Thanks in advance.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, I'll check them out. I can't remember which, but it was definitely one of the Cyclura articles I wrote (maybe Blue Iguana) when I mentioned "it evolved from"...I got dinged on either FAC or the Peer Review, can't remember which. Anyway, thanks again for the information.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

A little over a year ago...on Blue Iguana or Cuban Iguana (can't remember which, exactly and both use the same sentence and can't find the exact quote)but I had to change "evolved from a single ancestor" to "diverged from a single ancestor".--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Mollusca

Nice work on Mollusca, Philcha! Invertzoo (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Philcha. I don't off-hand know the answer to your first question, but what I would do is: go to the page [5] and look and maybe see who out of those people is an admin, and then ask that person if a review can be arranged so as to (hopefully) raise the article from Start-class to something better.

There's nothing really wrong with the word "exterminate" or the Daleks come to that (!) (I remember them well) but in the USA the verb "exterminate" has been monopolized for many years by pest control companies/"exterminators" so in the US the word tends to mean "get rid of the nasties", whereas the local snail species were the good guys, right? Oh and by the way, I think you should stick a citation on the numbers you give for total number of extant mollusk species, because every expert quotes a different number for that. Best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I hope that you are able to get Mollusca reviewed. Invertzoo (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Skink reverts

Hello. I was just making sure they were both aware of the 3RR rule, which is a useful rule of thumb for an edit war getting out of hand, and one that hadn't apparently been mentioned yet. I intentionally wasn't just slapping the uw-3RR template on there, although looking back at how I worded it, I probably should have toned down the "warning" tone of it a bit. Thanks for the nudge. --McGeddon (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you give opinion at Talk:World Chess Championship 2008

You are the only other person who has used the talk page about the tie-break, and I'm getting filibustered and there's only 2.5 more days. The condensed story is that the sources aren't saying exactly what we want them to, but its obvious that at least one famous chess personality thinks its dumb to possibly let 660 seconds of a chess variant determine the recipient of the highest honor in chess.

All I ask you to do first is use the "next button" at the top of this page and take 2 seconds each page skimming the names and years. Chess is supposed to be the sport for those of us who didn't fare to well in high school athletics but excelled in intelligence and reasoning. I think allowing a 10% chance of having the need for the final round tie breaker, deprecates the sanctity of the lineage of world chess champions.

I'll respect either side of the opinion you provide, since it is either this or I effectively get filibustered. Sentriclecub (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I will read it carefully, and I'm 100% certain you will not be disappointed with my sunday edit. Its more of a "cleanup" of the match conditions + tie break conditions, which I plan to write it in a way that might pique an astute reader's interest, but will be done on such a infinitesimal scale, that afterwards, you and Mr. Ballard will tell me "that's it? - that's all you wanted to do?" The article will be no different, and I aim to strictly cleanup the way it stands now (5 sentences on the tie-break description? What about the 1 month 5 year rule outlined on Mr. Ballard's page?). I just plan on making an edit sunday, which is like every other edit in wikipedia. Good faithed, unauthoratitive, rescindable, modifiable, etc... You or anybody can modify it, discuss it, etc... You can even prevent it if you want to, if its a big deal to you, and you don't want me to even give it an attempt. It won't hurt my feelings, nor will it affect my willingness to help wikipedia in the future. Sentriclecub (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:Wikidraco scholasticus.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Wikidraco scholasticus.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. 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 made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. 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 MifterBot. 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. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 22:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurid scale charts

Hey Philcha, I'd be happy to help here--didn't know about that independent annotations template, neat trick! However it'll be some time before I can get to it--I do have vector templates for my scale charts but most of the actual silhouette files were lost in a hard drive crash last year and I'll have to re-do the tyrannosaurs. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Not seen much of you around for a while...

I guess you're still looking at the CD release articles. Anyhow, if you haven't noticed it, I thought you might like to chip in at Talk:Anomalocarid, where the WP:CEX's is thinking about article structure. Just thought I'd flag it up in case you're interested!

Best,

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deuterostomes and Bilateria

Hi Philcha. I'm not proposing a merge of the articles - I know nothing about the subject. I was just doing a history merge to fix some of the strangest cut-and-paste moves I've ever seen. The text at Bilateria started at Deuterostomes and was then moved by cut and paste, with a couple of modifications on the way, to Deuterostome, Bilatera then Bilateria, all in July 2002. A parallel article was created at the title Deuterostomia in June 2002 then moved by cut and paste to Deuterostome in 2004. Therefore I had to do many page moves and deletions to fix the page histories, which probably cluttered your watchlist. Sorry about the confusion. Graham87 03:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, "Deuterostom" was my typo, not his. I've fixed it in my above explanation. "Deuterostom" and "Deuterostome" sound the same with my speech synthesizer. User:Mav was certainly not a newbie by July 2002, but the IP user who created the misspellings might have been new to the site. Graham87 07:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Halwaxiid significance

Canada is turning out pretty well, thanks. My current mini-project is a redescription of Nectocaris, based on about 100 "new" specimens (well, they've been sitting unloved in the vaults for a couple of decades, but that's another story). It's a most wonderful beast, even if each time I think I've got it worked out I turn out to be spectacularly wrong!

I'm glad the major articles are getting some attention. Most of them have been appalling for a long time. You may find foreign language featured articles a good place to start; some time ago I translated the German version of Echinoderm with the help of Google translate, which was a pretty low-effort way to make improvements.

Anyway, Halwaxiids, if they are a valid clade, can grant us information about early molluscs that we can't get from anywhere else. Indeed, one could argue that early and unsuccessful side branches are the only interesting things in the fossil record - if something's extant today, then its fossils give us very little new information; the "weird wonders" that don't land in modern groups allow us to pad out the details of phylogenetic trees and work out how things are related - and what their ancestors may have looked like.

Their stratigraphic position is of limited relevance; if they are stem group molluscs, then the lower Cambrian gastropods tell us that the Halwaxiids have a "ghost" presence from sometime before that to their first appearance in the fossil record (i.e. the onset of BS-type preservation). If they are stem group monoplacophorans, then they will tell us something about how that group is related to the other molluscan classes. The same holds true for most of the other Burgess beasties.

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be my "take home message" for Halwaxiid - indeed I secretly suspect that Butterfield's motivation in dissenting is to avoid them silently being accepted as molluscs when in all reality we can't really say for sure what they are.

In terms of phyla, sponge touches on the basic issues but would pad out nicely; Hemichordata is little more than a stub and could be doubled in length quite easily; Echinoderm has content but not style, and there's a wealth of knowledge about bizarre early members that it would be nice to include (although this may not be in your text book!). Priapulida, the dominant Cambrian phylum, is also very sparse. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 00:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Opabinia

Feel free to tweak the images! I tried a bit with Gimp but it was tricky to get anything decent. I think the paired blobs are mid-gut glands; I think Budd's "legs" were gut diverticulae (i.e. extensions of the gut) so associated with the glands but not the same thing. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good but it's a shame to sacrifice the resolution. Is there no way you could have uploaded the full size image? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The original size was umpteen thousand wide - did you click on the image for the full version, or just save the preview on the image: page? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The Anomalocaris has its photo taken with a camera: I'm not trying to fit that under the microscope! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Mollusca on hold

I have gladly reviewed you GAN of Mollusca and have placed the article on hold. Please see the review page for a list of concerns and comments. The concerns are mostly minor ones dealing with references (not the sources, but the notes). Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during the seven-day time the article will be held for. Thanks. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 06:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have finished reviewing the article and believe that it meets the Good Article Criteria. For that reason I have promoted it. Great job and keep up the good work! Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know problem

Hi. I've reviewed your DYK submission for the article Precambrian rabbit, and made a comment on it at the submissions page. Please feel free to reply or comment there. Cheers, Art LaPella (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits

Hi. I beleive that more than one link(without overlinking) is ok since people will find more convenient to get a close one than having to search all over the page to find it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.220.215.13 (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Tyrannosauridae Second Opinion

Hey there Philcha,

I'm providing the Second Opinion Review for the GA Nomination of Tyrannosauridae.

I'm having a great deal of trouble following exactly what's going on, but from what I can see some of your criteria are a little strong, and some of it is just a touch er... 'lazy', to be honest.

1.6.3 Feathers

Should wikilink 1st instance of Dilong (dinosaur)

Why not just do it yourself? :)

Still - there's some problems that need addressing, including the fact that I'm not sure the article meets the Stability requirement of GA Status. Will do the full 2nd Op. shortly. Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 22:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Second Opinion has been provided. I'll leave it up to you now. If you decide it fails they can always appeal it. If it passes and someone objects, they can appeal it. :) Pursey ^{Talk | Contribs} 23:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor image copyright issue

Hey Philcha, just saw your tyrannosaurid scale chart (great work on getting the article to GA!). Just FYI, the original scale charts are all under CC attribution licenses which require citation when adapting them. Unless I'm mistaken yours looks like a pretty clear adaptation of my older scale charts, which in turn incorporated work by Scott Hartman etc (cited in each description). So, under the source field, rather than I created this work entirely by myself, this should read something like adapted from scale charts by Matt Martyniuk incorporating/adapting work by Scott Hartman and Greg Paul. Additionally, as stated in the license, you are free to reproduce or remix the work provided you relase the remixed work under the same license (that is, use [6] and not a public domain tag, as you've done with your version). Thanks! Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sponges

I'm not familiar with the debate, but I would personally be hesitant to accept the claims as fact - biomarkers can be very useful indeed, but until someone demonstrates that sponges, and only sponges, can produce the chemicals I'd be wary of putting too much significance to the findings. Definitely worth a mention in the article, but make sure your wording leaves room for doubt! You might find some alternative viewpoints in the "what cites this paper" links to each of the articles. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The current wording seems fair. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 23:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Precambrian rabbit

On 6 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Precambrian rabbit, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

"biologist J. B. S. Haldane replied 'Precambrian rabbits' when asked what would destroy his confidence in the theory of evolution" - classic! Royal broil 16:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Arthropod

I am reviewing your article, Arthropod, for GA and have left some initial comments at Talk:Arthropod/GA1. Please feel free to contact me with comments or questions. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted you to know I passed Arthropod as a GA. The lead was my main concern. I checked with another editor whom I respect and, in his opinion, the lead in this article was a case for WP:IAR. He and I did some copy editing which I hope is O.K. with you. Feel free to change. It is an excellent article, but will need some things fixed if you intend to go for FA. Congratulations! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Impressive work

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Either you have an army of impersonators, or you've completely taken over the Biology section at GAN! You've been doing amazing work, both contributing lots of content and giving impressively thorough GA reviews. delldot ∇. 06:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Images

Hi, apparently there may be copyright issues with uploading images that I took myself in my free time. Sounds a bit excessive to me but I don't want to make myself unpopular at the museum. I was hoping that the images would be moved to en.wiki and left under a fair use license, but the deleter either disagreed or didn't notice my request to move the images over. Hopefully he will do so soon. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Reminds me a bit of a certain other Wikimedia Foundation undertaking... Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

humor

Philcha, for once I have see an intelilegent admin, and that is you. You combine humor with informative comments, and this is what we need on Wiki. I really admire your helping hand, Thanksyou a lot.--Ariobarza (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Consist

We overlapped in taking the same action... I wish he'd desist! Can we {{uw-vandal4}} his talk page? It doesn't seem the most appropriate template. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 00:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess we can implement the WP:3RR next time. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 00:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's reverting our removal-of-content edits, isn't he? It's not the spirit of the rule, but it's the letter of it, so perhaps the beaurocracy card might work in our favour this time? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 00:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yunnanozoon and Yuyuanozoon

I've been able to find enough resources for Yunnanozoon, and I've even found a resource for Zhongjianichthys, which apparently looked like an eel-like, doe-eyed and club-nosed version of Myokunmingella, with reduced fins for a benthic lifestyle. This month and last month, I was wracking my brains on trying to get references and resources for all of the vetulicolians, which are regarded by some as being closest to the stem deuterostome, so I can a matched set, so to speak. Earlier this week, I was first able to finally find a (very small) picture of Yuyuanozoon, and then on Wednesday, Acta Geologica Sinica sent me a copy of the report on it, which had a wonderful black and white photo of the fossil: the 2 primary reasons why it's considered Vetulicolia incertae sedis are because of its unflattened (in life) tail, and because of the gill filaments coming out of its gill openings. You mind if I send you the pdf files I've gotten for it?--Mr Fink (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've just proved how little I know about Yuyuanozoon! Yes, please send the files. --Philcha (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

And whatcha think of Yuyuanozoon so far?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the pointers, and I know how absorbed you are at the moment with sponges.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

need another pair of eyes

Hey, glad to see you're still involved at Wikipedia. I've been working heavily on an article called Grand Theft Auto clone. I remember you had been a big help on the 4X article and helping to improve the prose and organization. I could really use a copy-edit, if not just another set of eyes who can help identify the problems. I've been looking at the article for so long, it's kind of hard to identify to take a step back and see the issues. Even just a quick skim would be helpful, if you don't have time for anything more thorough. Randomran (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll bet my eyes are worse than yours :) I called on you partially because I knew you'd spent sometime away from VG articles. Being an outsider will help a little. Plus you always challenged 4X to reach a higher standard of prose, where I'd have settled for something sloppier. Do what you can. It's much appreciated. Randomran (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in! That's some pretty sound advice. I remember how 4X got to be such a strong article. Randomran (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

GA review

No, it's me being torpid! I thought I'd get it done this weekend but things got a bit hectic. I'm intending to give it a careful review this coming week, but I'll pass this back to somebody else if that's too slow for you. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Got a bit more done, reading well so far! Tim Vickers (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sperm Whale

File:Mammal barnstar.png		The Mammal Barnstar
		For the extensive work and excellent guidance in reviewing the Sperm Whale article, so that this important article could regain its GA status, I hereby award you the Mammal Barnstar Rlendog (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Danilot (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Still got that book?

You asked a while back about other phyla that could use a facelift. I neglected to mention Annelid, which is lacking an awful lot of detail! You may be able to supplement it with images from (out of copyright) doi:10.1002/jmor.1050070203; if you let me know of any that you'd find useful I'd be happy to do some digital enhancement. Best, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I particularly enjoyed the adverts Google decided to display alongside that reference. Are my man boobs really too large?

Referencing existing content is always a time-consuming pain. If you leave around a few ^{[citation needed]} tags I'll try to fill a couple in when I get time. Otherwise I guess it's a question of thinking up some good keywords for Google Scholar, Scopus or Web of Science. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Bouncer

Ah, that explains. The last person I'd ask for help regarding information on the bouncing profession would be somebody with a master's or similar. Guess I was wrong, eh? The Cake is a Lie ^{T / C} 21:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Mollusca

Hi Philca, As far as I can tell, the paragraph use in Mollusc does not contravene any of the WP MOS guidelines:

"Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. Overly long paragraphs should be split up, as long as the cousin paragraphs keep the idea in focus."

"One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs."

It seems to me that intro sections are one place that often really can benefit from short paragraphs, because ideas or themes are not developed there, but merely stated so that they can be developed later on in the body of the article.

Very best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

AIV report

Hey, I noticed this, and thought I might notify you that generally editors are not blocked until a final warning has been issued. The report is also stale, as blocks are not a punishment; you might want to read WP:GRVAN. Have a nice day! :) — neuro^(talk) 19:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

GA pass

Congratulations! A few minor things to still tidy up in the review, but this is an excellent article so I feel GA is very well-deserved. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of one of your images in a book

Hello,

I was hoping very much to use your splendid illustration

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Jaw_joint_-_mammal_n_non-mammal.png

in a book of mine which will be published next year by Hodder: The Selfless Gene: Living with God and Darwin.

The version in Wikimedia is too small. I wondered if you had a bigger one that we could use. Of course you will be fully attributed.

Perhaps you could reply to tweedpipe@aol.com

Many thanks and all best wishes.

Charles Foster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.153.192 (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Title change discussion for November 11, 2008 incident off Somalia

During the deletion discussion for November 11, 2008 incident off Somalia, you suggested that the name of the article should be changed. I have now started a title change discussion (which can be found here: [7]) for the article, and I was wondering if you could contribute to it. Thank you very much in advance if you do so. Thanks for reading. BlueVine (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Marriage Privatization

Dear Philca, You showed some interest in an article that I wrote titled Marriage Privatization Model. That article has been deleted and I accept the deletion. I was bold and wrote a second article meant to address some issues that came up during the deletion review of the first article. Despite a similar title the articles are substantially different. The second article titled Marriage Privatization merged the first and provided a greatly expanded discussion referencing multiple views from a variety of notable writers on the topic dating back over a decade. The second article was deleted on the same day as the first with no AFD discussion. On the 25th of November I brought the second article up for deletion review. So far it has only received one review. The review is a deletion endorse proposed in a way that I believe has unfairly suppressed further discussion. Stifle has suggested that the second article seems a mere copy-paste of the first with little additional material. I find it hard to believe that anyone who has read both articles could honestly claim that the second is a mere copy-paste of the first. You have given constructive feedback on the topic in the past, and you provided supporting reasons for your feedback. So, I only request that you read the second article Marriage Privatization and contribute to the deletion review debate (I assume that administrators have access to deleted articles). I will accept whatever opinion you have. I just want a fair and unbiased review in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I don’t believe that the second article has received that in any sense. Thank you for your time and thank you for your assistance to new editors! Regards, Hermesmessage (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Hermesmessage

Hi Philca, Thanks for your response. I somehow just assumed you were an administrator. No, there was no review for this article and I am not getting any sense that anyone has actually read the second article. This is why the process is frustrating me so much! Thank you for your advice. I am still learning how Wikipedia works. I have created the following sub-page if you have any comments. User:Hermesmessage/Marriage Privatization Best, Hermesmessage (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)Hermesmessage

North Sea

Hey, I was unable to access that PDF you mentioned in your North Sea review: British Isles in the Age of Exploration. I can only get the one page preview. I'd appreciate a chance to take a look at it whenever you get a chance.

Also, the first stage of your input was very helpful (I hope my responses didn't come across as defensive or unappreciative). I'm looking forward to the rest. :) Not to start nagging you... yet. Jieagles (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I also added a note to the GAN. Thank you for taking the time to look at the article, many helpful and comprehensive ideas. Looks like many of your concerns have been dealt with. What thinks you of my proposal to add the more detailed information regarding exploration and formative coastline changes to the article History of the North Sea and then re-summarise the article into the main article North Sea?SriMesh | talk 04:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello there, will keep puttering at adding the maritime trade and military history notes yet tomorrow night, did some citations and revisions tonight. Thank you again for all your advice and assistance throughout the GA review. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 03:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Hello again. I think the notes brought forward at GA are pretty much accounted for one way or t'other. I put it through for spell check and MOS check again. Do you have more comments about the North Sea or how is the article faring now in your humble opinion? Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 03:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Left a note re references on the North Sea GA talk page. Checked and opened all of them. OSPAR keeps changing / removing / re-titling their pdf files, which is frustrating as they have some of the best numbers and facts. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

GAN Question

Hi Philcha, you seem to be pretty active in GA reviewing, and so I have a question: I reviewed rickrolling the other day, and put it on hold, and the editors made the page look pretty good to me. However, as you can probably imagine, the page gets vandalized a lot - it just got off of semi-protection a week or so ago, and has been vandalized more than once per day since. Because of this, I'm not sure if it counts as stable or not, as I would think not, but per this, that might not be the case, so I wanted to ask for your opinion about it. Does it count as stable, or would putting it back as semi-protected make it stable, if this is possible? Thanks, Firebat08 (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for ...

your helpful comments at WT:MOS on forcing images. My understanding (I could be wrong) is that we all agree that forcing an image size inside an infobox is silly, so we're talking about lead images not in infoboxes. It's also my understanding that we all agree that anyone using a screen that's less than roughly 11 inches (28 cm) diagonal needs help from the devs in the form of gadgets that (to my knowledge) they don't currently have, to help them select the image sizes they want. We can't do anything at WP:MOS to fix that. The issue as I understand it is: taking all things into consideration (including load times and small variations in screen size), do editors want a situation where they have to make a special case in order to get permission for an upright image in the lead section larger than 140px (or 180px if not upright)? And if editors often don't go to the trouble to justify their desire for a bigger image, or they try and often fail, with the result that most lead images are thumbs of that size, will readers think it's less attractive, and will we lose readership? Will we lose professional writers who feel that those rules reflect a lack of professionalism on Wikipedia, and who would rather produce what they consider to be attractive content somewhere else? (Feel free to reply here.) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Dank55. Taking it one at a time:

Re "We can't do anything at WP:MOS to fix that" (users with small screens), I agree but I thought there was a real danger that someone would try to solve the problem via MOS, which is why I argued so vigorously.
Load times are irrelevant because they are determined by file size, not the amount of screen real estate allocated.
Re editors having to make a special case, hell no!
Re "will readers think it's less attractive, and will we lose readership", most lead images are eye-candy, so in most cases it makes little difference. However there are a few cases where over-rigid rules about lead images may make an article less good than it could be.
Re "Will we lose professional writers ...", I think you'd have to ask a professional writer :-)

I also suggest this discussion should be continued in public. I'm not making any accusations against you, but I'm all too aware of cliques on WP, and of the harm they do, especially by making non-members of cliques distrustful. --Philcha (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. My feeling was that I had used up my alloted airtime for the moment at WT:MOS, and wanted to respond to your comments. After everyone has had their say, I'll be happy to insert all this stuff into the discussion if it's still relevant. Btw, I'm the least cliquish Wikipedian I know; I talk with everyone about everything, and make it a habit to cross-pollinate ideas among different groups. I get your point, though, and I won't discuss this on your talk page again. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

articles for deletion question

Can you summarize how A methodology of determining aggregated importance of engineering characteristics in QF discusses Correlation-Based Priority Assessment please? That would help determine if the coverage in that article is "significant" per WP:N, since it's not mentioned in the abstract. Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Correlation-Based Priority Assessment, of course. I haven't yet commented there. Revelian (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Proterozoic ocean chemistry...

... is a huge can of worms. Nobody seems to agree on anything, and although it seems that things are moving to some kind of consensus there are HUGE error bars attached to everything, so don't take anything as set in stone. I'll reply to the Extinction point at Talk:Extinction_event. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he's not being entirely iconoclastic, but falling in with the Russian school; the Russians have long argued for extending the Phanerozoic back into the 'Precambrian'. I think they have an 'infraCambrian' period which goes some way into the Ediacaran. Cambrian chronology is still to be smoothed out officially, and it'll be interesting to see which way things go. It's quite an interesting topic; I guess I should do some reading and write an article on it sometime. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that most of the best outcrops of fossiliferous Ediacaran/Cambrian rock are in Russia... Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Inflammatory comments

I'm finding it difficult to see this as anything other than an attempt to provoke me by disparaging my current workplace. I don't expect you to do that again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, my response was:

I do not see how you could construe this as an attempt to provoke you by disparaging your current workplace. No company's independent existence is guaranteed 20 years in the future - there were even doubts about the survival of IBM in the early 1990s. Do not use your grumble to evade the point that editors in 2008 have no business guessing what will or will not be notable in 2028, and that applies equally to TV programmes and computer companies. --Philcha (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Chordate

Hi, Philcha. I've responded to your comment at Talk:Chordate#Image sizes - doubleimage. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 13:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Arthropod_body_struct_01.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Arthropod_body_struct_01.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chelicerata

The article Chelicerata you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Chelicerata for things needed to be addressed. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

North Sea

I have tried to re-write a number of sections pertaining to english references and sources. A goodly portion of the article on the North Sea has been translated from other wikis, and my bilingualism is limited to google translation tools. I am contacting the other north sea editors also to help on refining my re-writes. I probably need a second set of eyes to see the facts I am still missing for the citations, I have made a goodly number now. Google books helped a lot. I will use it more in the future. SriMesh | talk 23:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the article has been checked in this regardsSriMesh | talk 23:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

GA review of Varanus salvadorii

I've placed the article On hold, given the fact that you've already completed a formal review - in order to alleviate the WP:GAN/R backlog at GAN. Let me know if you have any concerns or questions on my talk page. Cheers! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

same goes for North Sea -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

and Bouncer (doorman), Sanofi-aventis international BioGENEius Challenge, and Top Gear (current format)... you're dedication to the project is to be admired, you've certainly been very helpful all across the board :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review of George H.D. Gossip

Thanks, Philcha, for all your hard work, great suggestions, and support on the A-Class review of George H.D. Gossip! He's kind of a Stauntonesque figure (albeit a lot weaker), wouldn't you say? I learned a lot of English and Australian terminology working on the article ("seat of his aunt", "King of the Wooden Spoonists", "whingeing Pom"). Krakatoa (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Opabinia

Hi Philcha, I finally made a new version of Opabinia. It is on my user page. Sorry for the long delay. Cheers. ArthurWeasley (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Adolf Anderssen review

Thank you, Philcha. I promise I will attend to the review over the next few days. --KenKt (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Back again. I've reviewed most of the article except that I need to study the lead in more detail and I'm afraid I've nearly run out of time. I'll try and do that later today. I have asked a couple more questions and made a couple of suggestions which are in the review text so if you could take a look at those that will be a great help. We are nearly there. Well done. --KenKt (talk) 08:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You'll be pleased to know that it has passed. Congratulations on a good piece of work. --KenKt (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Philcha, and greetings for having passed Anderssen to GA-class single-handedly ! Sorry I did not take the time to do a review. SyG (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Clade

Mats may be irritating, but I don't think being rude is going to diffuse the situation. He seems to think he has a valid point, and in fairness he did somehow get his waffle published (doesn't that instil faith in the Peer Review process?), which suggests that there maybe is something of substance to it. I think it's only fair to hear him out and try to get to the root of his concern; once I work out what he's on about I can re-write the article to stop other people misunderstanding the concept in the way he has. In the meantime perhaps unwatching the talk page will spare you frustration...? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 01:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Dinosaur

Just a couple of comments about your edit [8]:

Bullet points or lists are fine when communicating a checklist in personal communication (like here), but it's harsh on readability in an encyclopedia article. Why it's bad is that you make a list, then actually repeat the list elsewhere in prose (or even worse, you don't). I would revert, or rewrite, your edits.
You ask a list of questions in the part about thermoregulation. Setting aside the list issue, a bunch of questions is hardly encyclopedic. You could have written it as, "there are several unanswered questions including ......"
Missing a lot of citations, so it sounded OR.
You have a tendency to use adverbs and adjectives that are best placed in the talk space, and not within the article.

I don't mean to be a critical SOB, BUT, I think that's some of the reason you were reverted, instead of factually so. Anyways, just my two cents.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, OM, the points you make don't justify a revert - especially when the revert reduced the accuracy of the article. Point-by-point:

I think some editors have listophobia - lists and other guides to structure are widely used in Web articles. In any case it would have been easy enough to edit the content into prose.
Ditto. And the previous content failed to explain that "warm-blooded" is a complex and potentially ambiguous term.
What I added about the K-T extinction became the backbone of Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction. I wouldn't have minded if someone had said "It would be better to put the details in Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction and a summary here."
The "before" version of the article was then practically a citation-free zone, especially in the "Definition" section. As awhoel it would struggle to make B-class now.
Which "adverbs and adjectives"? And what was wrong with someone else copyediting if they concerns? --Philcha (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A bit of fun

The unfortunate condition of the front cover of my copy of MCO-2 (see photograph on that page) makes it appear that it received a pearl necklace at some point in its 95 years, and was not cleaned up thereafter. I didn't do it, I swear. Krakatoa (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wilhelm Steinitz

Hey. I've placed Steinitz on hold, and am letting you know since you're the primary author, but weren't the nominator. Most of the issues are prose-related, so it shouldn't take too long to fix, ideally. Also, make sure you keep up with nominations you place on hold, I shouldn't be seeing ones that have been on hold for a month. Wizardman 21:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

James White

Hello. I just want to say thanks for the work on the James White article. srushe (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Development of the World Chess Championship

Hi, Our roads have finally crossed :). Sorry for my two edits. First I thought the whole article was just removed and replaced by a redir, but then I saw he did an attempt for a merge. But obviously, like you point out, there was no concensus whatsoever to do so. If you think these articles need to be separated, his edits can simply be reverted as he suggests here: Wikipedia:CHESS#..._to_merge. Best regards, Voorlandt (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Phyla

Season's greetings! I mentioned the annelids because I thought they'd been omitted from the original list; I guess that evolutionary order does make sense. I don't think I have any strong preferences at the moment! Best wishes, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 12:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Bald Ibis

Thanks for taking this on, I'll be out most of today, but just two comments for now

I prefer manual conversion, and the convert template is not terribly accurate
Bird GA and FA always use Breeding as the section heading

jimfbleak (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Your Commons image re the evolution of the mammalian jaw

Hello Philcha. I am hoping to be able to use your splendid Wikimedia Commons image depicting homologies between the mammalian jaw and a non-mammalian amniote in my forthcoming book for Hodder and Staughton: The Selfless Gene. We are at proof stage, and we have just discovered that the resolution of the internet image isn't high enough. Do you have a higher resolution copy that we could use? I'd be very grateful, and of course you'd be fully acknowledged. Could you email me directly both to tweedpipe@aol.com and charles.foster@ethox.ox.ac.uk Many thanks and all best wishes.Charles Tweedpipe (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

NBI

Thanks for your thoughtful comments on the ibis. I've started responding/fixing, but running out of steam now, will continue tomorrow jimfbleak (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

North Sea

Seasons greetings and happy new year. Took some more time and added more references. Replaced some website references...tried to find reliable references or google book citations. Took out some article material not referenced. Re-wrote sections to comply to information in references available. I hope it meets GA now in regards to references at least. I tried to find every fact that was mentioned in the article and add in an inline citation for it. I tried to open every reference put on the article by other editors and make sure the statment matched the reference. This is a unique experience as the article is always changing with editor additions, but went through again. Tried to add progress in history as well. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 22:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Superman Returns

Hello. I noticed you are reviewing Superman Returns for GA-status. Anyway, I'm the main contributor and I noticed there are a number of concerns which need to be fixed. (It's not All my fault =). So, just go ahead and fail the nomination. You have my permission, and hopefully I can get that article back into shape some time in the future. Cheers. Wildroot (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

NBI

thanks for adding the images and passing the article. I've replaced the hieroglyph image with a freehand sketch, which should avoid copyright issues. jimfbleak (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

North Sea

Are you going to finish your GA review of the North Sea article? If not, I will gladly finish it for you. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 03:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, just checking. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Jim Baxter in Scotland shirt.png

Thanks for uploading File:Jim Baxter in Scotland shirt.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. 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 made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. 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) 17:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Good article nomination

Hello Philcha - you recently requested some progress on Bouncer (doorman), or you would have to fail the process. I would really like to get this over the line, and would be happy to work on this a lot during the next days.

However, as you can see on the GA page, some other user has now taken offense, and has claimed "This article needs a massive overhaul.", listing about twenty things (some pedantic details, other massive, far-reaching questions) that he wants changed. This sounds more comprehensive than "Featured article" requirements to me - he basically wants everything, and there's no promise at all that he will be happy with anything we write or rewrite. Plus, he also wants the images discarded, apparently just because we can't provide legal proof they actually show bouncers!

This is extremely disheartening - I am about to give up and say "fuck it" (excuse me). Before I do so, can you please clarify two things

a) What do YOU require to pass it as a GA - I know you already noted some things (and I would be working on these, such as (for example) doormen during Nazi times. But do you feel that any of his change demands are required in addition?

b) Can you pass or fail it, or does he have a say too? In other words, if you agreed that the article is GA, could he say "No way" and make all our work for naught?

Please respond here on your page, I will also tell the other main contributor. Ingolfson (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Evolutionary history of life

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Evolutionary history of life you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.)—RJH (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Greased lightnin'! For a self-styled non-specialist you ask some penetrating questions.

I've fixed some of the points you raised, and responded to the rest. I think the first issue we need to resolve is how big the article should become. Normally I'm a moderate inclusionist but, because of the scope of Evolutionary history of life, I thought it necessary to apply WP:SUMMARY quite ruthlessly. --Philcha (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I've updated the comments. If you could take a few moments to look, it would be appreciated.

There seems to be a natural dividing line between the initial part of the article and the discussion of multi-cellular lifeforms. I'd like to suggest a split at that point; doing so would remove most of the concerns about length and allow for continued natural growth, as it were. It may also address the issue with the length of the lead. The sub-pages could then be summarized.—RJH (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, its an important article. Please e-mail me if you need access to journal articles. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've responded to the comments you made to-day. As far as I can see there are only 2 items outstanding:

"Why nothing about the reasons for the evolution of photosynthesis?" which is part of a comment you half struck out.
Ref formatting, which I suggest is best left to last. --Philcha (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. All of my concerns have been resolved, except for the ref. formats.—RJH (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! A fine piece of work. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, and for having the patience to review such a monster. Your comments have led to some real improvements. --Philcha (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad I could be of assistance. Good job on putting that page together; it's an interesting and informative read.—RJH (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

North Sea

Hello there. Am trying something new. Does it help, before I go on and on and on. The Early History and Early modern period sections have quotations embedded within their reference citation templates to show their support for the text in question. Will start on Modern era section next. SriMesh | talk 02:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Jim Baxter

On January 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jim Baxter, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

WikiThanks

Thank you for the barnstar--it really made my week. I mentioned the AfD you talked about here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Excellent_Article_for_deletion_debates. I will look forward to seeing you on the AfD circuit, keep up the good work dear knight. travb (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Philcha, you didn't finish your comment:

"The English newspaper [[The Guardian] also printed the"

I think the current RfC you propose maybe too long. travb (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to help you. :)

I am no good at Herding cats, I get to frustrated at the fluid multiple opinions and tired of stroking fledgling egos.

Maybe its just better if I step back and let other editors argue away.

I fear by saying your current RfC is too long, and attempting to change the name only, then you may not support a name change alone.

I want to be a road to progress, not a wall. I am always worried I am being a wall. travb (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Philcha. You have new messages at Inclusionist's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your note

Hi Philcha, thanks for bringing the discussion at WT:VAN to my attention, but I'm concerned that your notes are a problem per WP:CANVASS; you state that there's a consensus, I see no such thing in that discussion. And the "tougher on vandals" wording is hardly neutral. On the other hand, I don't think ~~we've met or~~ you'd have any reason to think I'd weigh in on one side or another, so that's a good thing. I'd just recommend making sure you're really familiar with the canvassing guideline and that you're in line with it when you invite people into discussions. Thanks much. Peace, delldot ∇. 20:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, replied to your note on my talk page. Peace, delldot ∇. 21:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

North Sea

I am getting close to the refs being done, but there is now a discussion regarding refs and sub articles started here. So I am not sure which refs are going to get moved back and forth by the other helping editors. I moved some back to the North Sea article. Anyways, I will putter again with the article tomorrow, and hopefully I can contact you again. SriMesh | talk 05:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I could use your input at that link as well. I have always been of the mind that no claim or statement of fact should ever be unreferenced on an article. If I say that concerns have been raised over the ecological impact of wind turbines in the North Sea specifically, I think it should be referenced. Many thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Dale's principle

Did a quick review of this page. It has been up for review for one month right now. It still needs serious work which I assumed was obvious to all.

We could start with the first paragraph "In neuroscience, Dale's Principle (or Dale's Law) is a rule attributed to the English neuroscientist Henry Hallett Dale. Because of an ambiguity in the original statement, there are actually two versions of the principle, one that has been shown definitively to be false, and another that remains a valuable rule of thumb. The term "Dale's Principle" was first used by Sir John Eccles in 1954, in a passage reading, "In conformity with Dale's principle (1934, 1952) that the same chemical transmitter is released from all the synaptic terminals of a neurone…"[1][2] Some modern writers have understood the principle to state that neurons release one and only one transmitter at all of their synapses. Others, including Eccles himself in later publications, have taken it to mean that neurons release the same set of transmitters at all of their synapses."

The second sentence begins with because. This is poor grammar. Than it says "Because of an ambiguity in the original statement, there are actually two versions of the principle" This is not followed by what the two are. It than says one is definitely false. But I do not even know what they are yet. I presume what follows in the last two sentences are the two different forms of Dale's principle but I have now idea from the article.

It is not broken down into any structure. This should be at a peer review. Not a GA review as it doesn't come anywhere close to satisfying the criteria for GA. It needs a lot more work before it is renominated.

Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Enjoyed reading your user page

Thanks for your contribution to the quality review of the Culture article. Good to have someone else agreeing it needs sorting out.
I came to your User page and enjoyed reading it! Is there an award I can nominate it for? (!)

--AlotToLearn (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think there was an Opinionated Barnstar :-) Philcha (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

My comments

were meant for the culture talk page. When I tried to add them to the section on the culture talk page, I was taken to GA, where I did not want to go. They are now on the culture talk page, where they belong! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rotation in living systems

Ok, I've implemented your suggestions, and I think the article is much improved. Thanks for reviewing! » šᾦῥъ^{τ • ¢} 23:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for info about GAR subsuming

Thanks for explanation about insertion of new topics outside from the GAR topic. So I assume that they can go above or below the review, whatever the adder wishes. Anyway, it doesn't matter really. But it's a wild world round here! --AlotToLearn (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Golden White-eye GA

I've addressed your points. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was me that gets annoyed by increasing MOS demands. For example..... Sorry about this, it's something I forgot first time round. With refs to books, page numbers are officially required. In the the case of dictionaries etc. I think the name of the entry is more useful as it will not change in new editions etc., and reviewers of "my own" articles have been happy with this. I suppose you could use the chapter= param for this, althout I generally use the contribution= param of {{citation}} (which {{cite book}} annoyingly does not support). Either way, please identify the entry. Come again? I already consider mandatory page numbers imbecilic to the extreme. Let's see, a sceptical moron doesn't believe a fact and wants to check, so he manages to locate a library with the book in question, get to that library, track down the book using Dewey Decimal, open the book, only to fall at the last hurdle by his inability to use an index!. Only now you suggest that having been pointed to the right page they will still be stuck? Is it not obvious that the entry needed to show what Cleptornis is well, is Cleptornis? Just how dumb are our readers? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I lump all those things into a general hatred of instruction creep. But my point about not doing FAs anymore is more related to results versus effort. For the same effort I can get three or four important articles up to a decent B standard or one semi-important article up to FA. As you've no doubt noticed my area of interest is content not polish. As for making articles less techincal, it is a balance between dumbing down too much and making things to technical. As WP:JARGON states (and I hate the term jargon, it's rude) an article which defines every term, or every symbol, may be so cluttered that it is not readable by anybody. I don't use to many obscure terms, but I do use them when explaining the term would break up the flow of the sentences and they are commonly used in biology. But anyway, I've been a terrible reviewee, so I'll stop bitching now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Made it in the end. Thanks, that review was so thorough I'm wondering if it actually needs any work to pass FA! Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Philcha/Sandbox/Master_of_Orion_II:_Battle_at_Antares

Hi! I've commented a piece of text in one of your subpages because that page was listed in few categories. --FollowTheMedia (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Culture and tools

Concerning my proposal at GAi for culture ... do you already have or can you get a hold of Author: Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn's textbook, Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice and Allison Jolly's The Evolution of Primate Behavior? I think these are the nest starting points on the topic and would provide a general framework for assessing and seeing how to incorporate material from specific articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have other commitments right now. I think you have some good ideas. Of course if there are others around who can work on these sections, I will be open to that and encourage or work with them if they want. If you reach a point where you would want to write a section along the lines you suggested, you do not need to but I would be glad if you let me know as I woulod be happy to help if I can. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

North Sea

I think the GA could proceed. I noticed new content, and added citations for such. But I think if it stays somewhat stable, it should be not too bad I hope. Kind Regaards SriMesh | talk 09:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Image:Great Wave off Kanagawa - reversed.png missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Great Wave off Kanagawa - reversed.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Lasker, Anderssen and Steinitz

Hi Philcha ! I have passed Emanuel Lasker as GA-class, greetings for the good work ! Meanwhile, Steinitz and Anderssen are still waiting for an A-class review, but now they are already GA-class I do not know if this still makes sense. So do you want me to keep their A-class review open, or shall I close it ? SyG (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Rotation in living systems

I think this article needs a breather from the Good Article process. It appears to be owned. See the article talk page, my talk page, and the owner's talk page for further information. --KP Botany (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Rotation in living systems

I could use a little help here – User:KP Botany and his buddy User:Hardyplants have mounted a tag team on the first sentence of Rotation in living systems, and the sentence they're trying to install is horribly awkward, and far worse than what it replaces: "The rotation in living systems of a body or body part in the fashion of a wheel for use in locomotion is nonexistant in biological orginisms." They seem to think that the first sentence is required to use the title explicitly, and will shoehorn it in any way they can. I think it's best to get someone else involved, because KP is being supremely unreasonable and immature. As you've been the actual (and actually helpful) GA reviewer for the article, I figured you might be able to help out. Thanks, » šᾦῥъ^{τ • ¢} 04:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, the bolding and using the title explicitly is simply one, then another strawman that swpb keeps raising. Neither Hardy nor I have raised it as an issue on the article talk page. So, again, if that, like bolding, is your issue, swpb, I have no problems with not using the phrase explicitly. --KP Botany (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Award from: Article Rescue Squadron's Hall of Fame

Congratulations, you have been inducted into the Article Rescue Squadron's Hall of Fame

See the new little Life Preserver at the top of your page?

Coding:

Feel free to add more articles saved awards to your page, and to award other people this award too, for saving articles from deletion on Wikipedia. Ikip (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Gossip gossip

You once wrote, regarding the George H. D. Gossip article, that you were glad that I'd put in his intemperate remarks about his antipathy toward "Jesuits", saying something to the effect that Wikipedia was generally too boring and politically correct in excluding such remarks. Today, to my great surprise, I found that I have succeeded in getting a copy of Gossip's only non-chess book, The Jew of Chamant, by interlibrary loan. It turns out that Gossip could have written copy for Alexander Alekhine, or Hitler for that matter. In the preface to the book Gossip (under the pseudonym "Ivan Trepoff"), writes:

... Dickens and Harrison Ainsworth have well portrayed the Jew in all his revolting hideousness. ...

In England, the openly declared anti-semitism of the late Mr. Gladstone, in Germany, that of Dr. Stocker, who has declared the Jew to be the böser feind, or scourge of God; in Austria, that of Dr. Lueger, burgomaster of Vienna; ... —all point to the same conclusion—the unfitness of the Jew to occupy his present social status in European countries.

My object in the present work is to paint the rich Jew in his true colors, as the enemy of society; to show that the Jew who steals millions, can, in Europe, at any rate, defy the laws with impunity, and that he almost invariably escapes punishment owing to improper occult influences, and the mighty power of Israelitish gold.

The Jew of Chamant, p. 3.

No doubt if Gossip were alive today he would cite the fact that Bernard Madoff is out on bail as evidence supporting his thesis. Krakatoa (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sector General

Hi, I am reviewing your article, Sector General, for GA and have listed some comments at Talk:Sector General/GA1. It seems to be well writing and referenced, but I am confused by the organization as it does not seem to follow a particular format. (See my comments). Pelase feel free to contact me with questions or comments. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Culture

FYI following your suggestion I have added a detailed section on culture in primates and the evolution of culture. It needs work and I have asked some other people knowledgable about these topics to help edit what I have written, but I wanted you to know I was responding to your GA suggestion. 14:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey! I appreciate the quick and encouraging feedback. My idea is to build outward - start with the most significant views from the most notable sources - the most mainstream scholarship - and work that through and organize it and use that as a framework for expanding further, which, as you point out, can go much further than now. But I think it makes sense to do this at one place, and frankly I already feel confident that for all its limitations the article ias it stands is far far superior to the one that existed a few weeks ago (simply put, I would have told my students to avoid that article ... now I feel students can read this and learn valuable things and not be misinformed).

I think you are right that it is big and will get bigger, eventually far too big for one article. I think that it will eventually need to be split into sub-articles, spun-off from the main article.

That said, I think there is value in keeping it all together for a while longer. When people studying Dolphin language make claims about culture, they are informed by the work of cultural anthropologists and linguists working on humans. I think it is easier to start work on these cross-cutting and inter-related themes in one place, and once they are developed and stable, then to spin them off. Otherwise, we risk having an article with many links that take readers to articles that have conflicting or even contradictory statements.

So, we may differ a bit on approach but I think we agree on the ends. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you are quite right about social anthropology - except social anthropologists do not study culture (they study "society" which for them is quite distinct). Indeed, social anthropologists are sometimes critical of the concept of culture (and when they talk about culture they usually cite cultural anthropologists, most of whom are American or work in America.

I think that I have been very clear about the European (German and English) influences on cultural anthropology ... one could argue that it started as German anthropology transplanted to the US ... in fact, the article on Franz Boas makes this pretty clear ... but to add all of that information (Kant was until recently far more influential, but yes, Hegel is important too, although more for structuralism than cultural anthropology) would make this article even longer and unwieldy.

By the way I expanded the explanation of structuralism in the article. But I think for more detail people can go to the linked articles....

I would not object to someone expanding the section on 19th century origins, especially Humboldt and Herder, but I am not an expert on that and would defer to others. That said, "culture" (even "kultur") did not emerge as a specific and principal object of academic research until Boas founded the first cultural anthropology program in the US.

Cultural Studies takes different forms in the US and in the UK and one way to include more UK views would be in the Cultural Studies section. i am not an expert in this and I have tried to identify Wikipedians who are and have solicited the help fo about a half dozen, although they have not responded yet. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Valley of Mexico

Hi Philcha, Sorry I did not get back to you sooner. Sometimes I don't notice a message for a while, as when that orange banner goes off, I may not know it is signing more than one so I head for the first! Re Valley of Mexico, you put so much work into the review that it is a shame the nominator cannot be more responsive. One thing I have learned to do, especially on an article as lengthy and complicated as that one, is to check the nominator out before I do a whole lot of work. In this case, User:Thelmadatter, the nominator, has not put that much work into the article.[9] He only edited it 12 times between 2008-12-02 23:54 and 2009-02-05 01:53.

I like articles where there are lots and lots of edits by the same editors that indicate there is a responsive editor or a group of editors waiting in the wings to jump in. Usually there is a quick answer to the email notification, and if there is not (more than a day or two) that is usually a sign that no one is there. (Sometimes I can tell by their contributions that they are actively editing, but for whatever reason, they are not interested in responding.)

So, I have learned to start out with a few comments, and then get more detailed once I get a response. I see that this editor nominated the article December 12, so perhaps he gave up or got busy. It's not always bad to fail an article, giving the reasons (no response from editor) with suggestions that they nominate it again when they are ready. You could always drop him a "one more chance, please respond" notice. After that, you have done what you could.

This is the problem with the long waiting list, but in this case, I am not convinced User:Thelmadatter is in for the long haul. You could tell him that if he does nominate it again, you will keep you eyes open for it and get to it quickly (if possible).

This is my 2 cents!

Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your thorough work on making Wikipedia a better encyclopædia, I award you this barnstar. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I Not Stupid Too

I dislike those "under review" templates, as they tend to discourage comments from other editors, like you. As for the talk page thingy, it seems to be common practice to not transclude the review (at least from what I've seen) but I will do that. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... so? Just because there are few reviewers doesn't mean each article shouldn't get the attention it deserves. Fell free to review I Not Stupid Too too, as I'm far from the best. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think I'm that bad; I consider Talk:Zanzibar Revolution/GA1 a pretty good review. Thanks for the pointers though. On a completly unrelated note, I'm planning on bringing Hubert Maga to GAN soon. Would you mind reviewing it then? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Interested in a a large (but constructive!) time sink? :)

Hi Philcha, I nominated the Dog article for GA status last month, and it has sat around with the backlog. I'm worried that the size of the article is going to scare away potential reviewers, so I was hoping to find a reviewer who doesn't mind bigger jobs every now and again. User:Dana Boomer recommended you as a good reviewer. Would you be interested in having a go, or could you recommend someone who might? Thanks! --Thesoxlost (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

fav

How about a return favor? I accidentally reviewed an article (meaning it was not one I chose to review) and find myself not being very clearheaded in my GA advice. The article is Stargate (production team). Maybe you could suggest a clear direction for the article. (I am not sure what format is best; right now it is straddling.) —Mattisse (Talk) 00:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Re Léon M'ba, yes I agree there are prose issues. I believe this editor's use of automated translations of articles as a basis that accounts for some of the "off" wording. Also, in this article there are some subtle POV wordings. A "minor crime" is in the eye of the beholder. I finally failed Maurice Kouandété by the same editor. It became clear that he could not go beyond what was written; that is, he could not expand on anything. I rewrote much of the article, but I did not know the background so I could not fill in the missed tribal history etc., that would set the background for what was occurring in the article. You can work with him and see what he can do in the case of this article. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If I may say, I think that many of us have had similar problems, such as mine with Hubert Maga. Mattisse is quite right, this editor seems to be unable to expand on anything. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

GAs

Just to say thanks for your considerable efforts in reviewing GAs. I've seen you about all over the reviews and I find your feedback extremely helpful for other users and you seme to have an excellent grasp of what is needed for higher quality articles oftne in explicit detail!! Keep up the good work in reviewing Phil. Regards Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The Tinderbox

I'll leave it the way it is. I can delete the images and the quotebox and putter here and there. But I'm not going to do an "Allusions in popular culture" sort of thing or track and reference every single translation, every 30 minute animated feature film, every abridged edition for preschoolers, every puppet theatre adaptation and every television show around the world. If it fails because of that, so be it. I just don't have the time. ItsLassieTime (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

M'ba

I thought if I made a significant effort at improving the article you would extend the review time. Sorry, just been pretty busy nowadays and trying to not spend my life on Wikipedia. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Manchester Mark 1

We are clearly never going to agree on your "perspective" issue, and I am done with trying to respond to your ever increasing demands on this article. I suggest that you fail it so that it can be considered at GAR. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that there are no hard feelings on my part even though I've taken this to GAR. I just don't agree with your perspective for this article and I'd like a wider input into our disagreement. Who knows, I could be wrong; I very occasionally am. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 04:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Philcha, the way you and Malleus have agreed to disagree on this is an admirable example to all editors. At the moment the GAR has only three additional views. They haven't expressed a clear opinion about who is right or wrong concerning the emphasis of the article, but are generally of the opinion that the article meets the criteria and/or the difference of opinion does not preclude GA status. I'd like to close the reassessment as "list" on that basis, but without prejudice. It would help me to know that you understand that this would not imply your viewpoint was in error, only that the GA criteria are not so exacting. If you feel you can support a close on such a basis, that would be even better. Geometry guy 21:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Rocket Science

Just thought I'd drop you a note (in case you hadn't realised) to let you know I've finished with your concerns/suggestions at Talk:Rocket Science (film)/GA1. —97198 (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed remaining issues on review page. I tried to fix the archived URL ref but I guess I didn't do it right (I thought I did!) because it messes up in the output. —97198 (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Hope to work with you again sometime. —97198 (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested

The article, Steve Purcell, although well written, seemed very dry to me and I thought that it should include more about Purcell's work. However, the editor says that information is contained in separate articles, and that Purcell is too recent to have an "Impact", "Critical acclaim" or other critical analysis section. Here is where I always get stuck: on the what is a biography question. With out going to any trouble, could you just glance at the article and tell me what you think on the issue of a biography of an artist, in this case a comic book illustrator and animator and story writer? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genetic equidistance

Hi there, I've responded to your comment. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comments

Your comments have convinced me to avoid any further involvement in GA. It is not worth the gross misunderstanding that is apparent and that you have conveyed to me. It seems that there is no way to undo it with you. Fortunately I have a disinterested supporter and adviser as a result of the RFC against me. His view balances the outlook of those that do not look at the details but jump to untoward conclusions. This support allows me to keep my head straight in the face of the frank distortion that you describe. I would urge you to be cautious with others and be careful when suggesting someone has a mental illness. One of the accusations against me in the RFC was that I was guilty of a personal attack because I jokingly suggested that another editor had ADD. Fortunately he acknowledged tat the time that it was a joke, so I could avoid the threatened block. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Mac OS X/GA2

Just bring it up on the talk page as it's too much work to follow another conversation on our user talk pages. But, I guess those points are true to a certain extent; I'm not really adamant about them. The information sourced to Apple isn't really controversial information, it's mostly product descriptions. Gary King (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Fetus

Hi Philcha, long time no see. I don't know how I get drawn into these things, but I'm having an anal moment over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biology#Naming of article about the human fetus, where some anthropocentric is insisting that fetus should be reserved for the human fetus only. If you feel like standing up for the rights of 99.9999% of fetus-bearing species, feel free to chip in. Best, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

GAR Flatworms

Hi Philcha, I'd be willing to do a GA review on the flatworms article, I'm totally into improving coverage of science-related topics on Wikipedia. However, I probably wouldn't be able to it do justice until Monday, as I like to take my time with reviews, and for the next few days my brain will be largely focused on a tournament this weekend (I noticed you're a fellow chessplayer). If this sounds okay with you, let me know, and I'll put my name down. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize about my belatedness, but I would not call what I did a "quick-fail". I read the article thoroughly, but there are serious issues with it's content, and it's quality is not even close to B-class. It has serious organizational issues that must be fixed. I thought about putting it on-hold, but thought that given the time delay already, it was better to just fail it and let it be renominated. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be completely honest about this, part of my reasoning towards failing it versus putting it "on hold", was actually the fact that I didn't see a whole lot of activity in the article's edit history, so, given the long time delay in reviewing, I didn't think that there would be a dedicated editor willing to address the comments. So I thought that failing and renominating would be the better avenue. Another factor that went into the decision was that the article's wikiproject rating was "start-class", and I usually reserve "on hold" for article's that are at least "B-class", meaning that they're almost to meeting the GA criteria, but just not quite there yet. And I just didn't see a "B-class" article at the time of the review.

If you look at the review itself, it is most certainly not a "quick fail" (I actually hate the fact that some editors "quick fail" articles -- I see it as a cop-out and just a mechanism for some reviewers to help to reduce the back-log at WP:GAN faster without actually taking the time to review the article). And those concerns, I feel are legitimate. For one, issues with the lead have been brought up by other editors on the talk page, within the past month. And the taxonomy/classification/sub-groups section is pretty confusing to read, and should focus more on the biological classification used professionally, rather than calling them "sub-groups". If you're willing to address these concerns, I'm more than happy to treat this as if it were "on hold", and the article may not even need to be formally renominated (I might just promote it). But the issues are still serious and must be addressed before GA status. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

TMS

Hey... just so you know; I have left a few comments regarding your review of To My Surprise (album). REZTER ^TALK ø 17:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

bounds on the rate of evolution

Philcha It may be more appropriate to take this debate off-line. I cannot agree with you on the usefulness of lower bounds. Consider the following, where I have tried to emphasise the significance of lower bound.

Simple modelling, invoking nothing other than small mutations exposed to natural selection, demonstrates that a primitive optical sense organ could evolve into a complex human-like eye in a period of time ranging in duration from 1 million years to infinity [7].

I honestly did not understand your discussion of upper bounds. Call me simple, but an upper bound for the evolution of the modern eye, though not a very sharp one, would be the length of time between pre-Cambrian times and the current day.

For those who want to confound the creationists, a lower bound will never do. OTOH a (physically feasible) upper bound will.

Johnofdundee (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

References for Flatworm?

Hello, I am wondering where you got some of the information for your extensive edits of the Flatworm article? In particular, this section: "Over half of all known flatworm species are parasitic, and some do enormous harm to humans and their livestock. Schistosomiasis, caused by one genus of trematodes, is the second most devasting of all human diseases caused by parasites, surpassed only by malaria. Neurocysticercosis which arises when larvae of the pork tapeworm Taenia solium penetrate the central nervous system, is the major cause of acquired epilepsy worldwide. Infection of humans by the broad fish tapeworm Diphyllobothrium latum occasionally causes vitamin B12 deficiency. The threat of playhelminth parasites to humans in developed countries is rising becuase of organic farming, the popularity of raw or lighty-cooked foods and imports of meat, sea food and salad vegetables from high-risk areas. In less developed countries, people often cannot the fuel required to cook food thoroughly enough, and poorly-designed water-supply and irrigation projects have increased the dangers already presented by poor sanitation and unhygenic farming practises." Many thanks in advance for enlightening me! --Ooooooooo (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Love Kraft

Hi Pilcha, my mistake an error which has now been fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Leon M'ba

No, the article obviously has major flaws, which I will work on before I resubmit. By the way, would you mind running through Hubert Maga to see what I need to improve upon before I submit it at GAN? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)`

Categorisation

Hi, I noticed that {{Annotated image/Basic arthropod internal structure}}, et al., are categorised in Arthropods and its subcategories. I was wondering if there was a better way of placing it. Things like infoboxes and nav templates are well catered for, but your annotated image templates are not those. I don't a problem with File:Arthropod head problem 01.png turning up as media in Category:Arthropod anatomy, for example, but I believe the template should be categorised with others. I have little experience with non-article categories, so I hope you don't mind raising the problem instead of providing a solution. Regards, cygnis insignis 09:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Lacrosse

Thank you for your review and detailed comments. I am busy in real life so I may not get to address the issues you raised immediately (day or two). I wanted to address upfront that women's lacrosse is a separate article that covers significant differences in the two sports. The differences are so drastic (# of players, field, equipment) that it is essentially it's own sport (unlike, say, the women's version of football or basketball). Field lacrosse is a term used to distinguish between the field game and box lacrosse. I hatnoted Women's lacrosse, but based on your comments it is clear that I need to address it more directly. I will direct future comments to the GAN page, but I wanted to drop a quick note. Thanks again, and I will be able to respond fully in a couple days. Mitico (talk, contribs) 12:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Flatworm

Due to the controversy in this review, I have removed it from WP:GAN and listed it at WP:GAR, where it will get the specific attention by multiple experienced GA reviewers. I am still rather disappointed that you described my review as a "incompetent, lazy review", because it is certainly not that at all. But I digress. I think the best way to resolve this issue is for other experienced reviewers to get involved at this point. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have listed it at WP:GAR. It takes a little while for the automated bot to add it to the page, but the GAR template was added to the talk page. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please cease and desist your continued renominations of Flatworm to WP:GAN. It is inappropriate for an article that is currently listed at WP:GAR to be simultaneously listed in both places. The article has been removed from the GAN list again, and the GA3 review has been moved to the GAR reassessment review.

I am aware that there are issues with the GAR bot, because it's for some reason, still not listed on the WP:GAR page. But the article is in the GAR nominees category. I am working on getting that issue resolved as soon as possible -- I do not know what the issue is. But continuing your to buck the system is not helping. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(the following also posted to User talk:Derek.cashman

Scrap the GAR as a new GA review is in progress. I have reverted your redir as it disrupts that. In addition under the GAR rules the final decision is up to the person intitiating the GAR. In this case that is you. Since I was totally dissatisfied with all aspects of your performance with the first GA review, having you make the final decision is unacceptable. I have also reverted your removal of the new GA review from WP:GAN. You can terminate GA2 yourself. Do not interfere in any way with the GA review that is now proceeding. --Philcha (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The article has been reverted again. You need to stop slandering me on the GAN page as well. That is totally inappropriate and unacceptable for an editor. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this again, I see that no matter what I do, I can no longer be considered neutral with regards to this article by you, and I am removing myself from this process. The GA reassessment tag has been removed from the article, and I've relisted it at WP:GAN. My only request to you is that you review WP:CIVIL and refrain from slandering me on the GA nominations page, like you've done. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(copy of my response at User talk:Derek.cashman --Philcha (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

My objection to your initiating a GAR was that according to the GAR banner on the article's Talk page the final decision would have been yours. In addition your repeated removal to-day of my most recent renom destroyed the information that a review is now in progress, and therefore would have caused confusion at WP:GAN. I have therefore reverted your changes.

My comments there were not slanderous. Since the renoms for this review have, thanks to your actions, repeatedly disappeared from WP:GAN and been reinstated by me, I think some explanation was required. That I was dissatisfied with your performace is not slanderous, it is a statement about my feelings. "Tardy" is not slanderous, it is a fair description of the nearly 3 weeks' delay between your signing up to review Flatworm and your posting of comments - if you had withdrawn a couple of days after signing up, someone else might have reviewed it and we might not have had all this trouble. Since you initiated the GAR, it was appropriate to point out why this was not a satisfactory resolution. If this comes down to a formal dispute process, a blow-by-blow account will put your conduct since 5 Feb 2009 in a less favourable light than my comments at WP:GAN ever could. --Philcha (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Morphy/Staunton

To avoid clogging up my Talk page with this big issue I've moved:

The discussion of this to User talk:Philcha/Sandbox/Staunton-Morphy
Draft(s) for sections of Howard Staunton to User:Philcha/Sandbox/Staunton-Morphy

Others who wish to contribute there are welcome. --Philcha (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Molluscs

Hey Philcha, Canada's treating me well, thanks - although I've still not quite had the chance to think about a thesis topic! These things will come with time, I suppose...

I'm afraid I left the verify source note in the mollusc text because it's something which I'm pretty sure is correct, but can't back up with any documentary evidence... it seemed a bit dishonest to just leave the tag off, so I thought I'd leave it there in case any passing editor happened to be able to help out. I've not run across anything in a cursory check, I'm afraid.

Finally, I've gone against my instincts and decided that administrative tools would occasionally come in handy; one of the contributors to my request for adminship has suggested that as a frequent co-conspirator, they'd be interested in your opinion. I think it's frowned upon to personally canvas input, but as your voice was personally requested I thought I'd let you know...

All the best, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right that I've little interest in a lot of administrative activities. There are, however, some routine tasks which I sometimes find myself having to wait quite some time for administrative intervention, when I could readily and uncontroversially do them myself - the ones which jump to mind are page moves and editprotected requests at templates, as well as deleting sandbox and test pages I've created. On the impetus of these alone, it's not a great inconvenience to simply ask somebody else to do the work (but I feel a bit rude when my request rate is high). However, there are varied instances in bot development where I have been frustrated by having to wait long periods for admins to show up. There's not really a pattern to this, and the circumstances can be unpredictable; the most recent has been associated with Template:Cite pmid. Where a DOI is available, the bot should create a redirect page linked to the cited PMID, and also create the target page, at a doi-linked location. The bot had been creating the redirect, but not the target, and I needed to delete the redirect page to allow the bot to create it again. Without administrative powers I was basically powerless to test my code, and I don't like running a bot with untested tweaks - errors have a tendency to appear.

Anyway, I hope that that makes sense - it's quite a difficult situation to explain, which is why I didn't want to detail it at length at the RfA page - I wanted to keep my case relatively clear. I don't envision changing my behaviour to match the 'admin stereotype', but access to the tools would regularly make my life significantly easier, while also reducing the backlog of menial tasks for other administrators.

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Kidneys

Keep me posted on the kidneys - let me know if anybody starts to disagree and you could use some moral support! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible proposed Wikiproject of interest

Hi, I've noticed that, among your many, many edits, you've contributed to several pages that are within the scope of the wikiproject I'm proposing, Wikiproject - Organismal biomechanics, so I was wondering if you'd be interested in it. A list of the pages I plan to have within the project scope are on my userpage. A deep evolutionary perspective on issues would definitely be a plus. Happy editing! Mokele (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

deletion

Thanks, I'll have a look jimfbleak (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Date autoformatting poll

Hi Phil, I noticed that like me, you are opposed to any form of dates autoformatting. I have created some userboxes which you might like to add to your userspace to indicate your position. You will find the boxes here. Regards, Ohconfucius (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Notice

Philcha -- This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty regarding an issue with which you were tangentially involved in February 2009 -- see Can a book in Chinese and only available in China be used as a reliable source?.

To clarify, you are not the subject of this ArbCom process, but the thread in which you participated was identified as relevant by one of the parties -- see here.

You have no obligation to do anything in this context. Thank you. --Tenmei (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA process

Thanks for your praise. I'll let my head shrink a few sizes before deciding whether and how to preserve my analogy for posterity. --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Milo of Croton

Thank you! It's been a pleasure working with you. You're very perceptive and thorough...couldn't ask for anything better! ItsLassieTime (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Re ItsLassieTime

Well, sometimes CheckUser results can be surprising. In this case two different CheckUsers looked at the evidence and came to the same conclusion. Hopefully, ItsLassieTime will take the month and learn from his mistakes and return as an even more productive user. Let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

ItsLassieTime

I think that you are a sock of User:ItsLassieTime, because you both have the letters "I", "L", and "A" in your names. You might as well just admit it now. ;) CarpetCrawler^{message me} 01:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh my goodness! :O I guess I may as well report myself right now! I've been in denial this whole time... :( I plead insanity! CarpetCrawler^{message me} 07:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I love silt. What's your excuse? ;) CarpetCrawler^{message me} 07:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Mistake?

I think you left your !vote for Drilnoth's RFA on my RFA page.—Kww(talk) 15:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hate to pop back so soon. Oppose me for exclusionism if you must, but I would like to point out that the vast, overwhelming majority of my edits have been to protect, improve, and correct popular culture articles.—Kww(talk) 16:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

My RFA

Hi Philcha. Just to let you know I've responded to your comment at my RFA; if you could take a look and comment again it would be much appreciated. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Philcha. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C) 16:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

SSF...

Thank you for remarks, advices, and other! It very helps me :-) Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Thanks!

An awards from you is especially meaningful. I was about to ask your opinion yesterday about a GA article I am reviewing, and then I remembered we had somewhat of a "dustup" and was unsure if we were on good terms. I'm glad we are. Thank! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 13:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Annelids

I don't ever recall seeing a resolved phylogeny of the annelids. I'd be very cautious of basing a cladogram on a single source, especially a recent molecular one. When I get the chance, I'll see if I can track down a review article [or check Brusca and Brusca], but I'd be surprised if you could put anything other than question marks on a phylogeny!

Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Molecular clocks are to be treated with suspicion. Molecular phylogenies are usually relatively reliable. However, it takes time for them to reach consensus - phylogenies at the Lophotrochozoa-Ecdysozoa level are relatively mature, but finer division is more recent. As different types of gene can be sequenced and added to the dataset, the resolution becomes more robust and secure; different genes or data types (e.g. 16s SSU RNA etc) give slightly different trees which need to be meshed together. It takes quite a bit of reading and experience to work out just how tightly the phylograms hold together, and I don't profess to being able to produce sound judgement. A simplified version of the tree as you propose sounds sensible for the time being; hopefully in the next 3-4 years a clear consensus will hit the textbooks, but until then I don't think there is a 'killer tree' incorporating all different molecular phylogenies and morphological data; at least I have had a quick scan and can't find one, and am pretty sure I'd be aware of some proposed hierarchies if anything could be said with confidence. But then what do I know... Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Annelids: The phylo section is looking, to be frank, awesome. The second paragraph of 'family tree' is a bit cumbersome, but only because it is so packed with details - I would be inclined to trim it a little, perhaps.
Polychaetes: Might I propose highlighting the polychaetes on the tree, so that their paraphyletic nature is clearly visible? It's pretty interesting that they are so dispersed; I had no idea that they weren't supported as a clade. It kinda throws a spanner into the idea of having a separate 'polychaete' article! If you get round to it, my take would be to have a more in-depth discussion of their polyphyly there, along with a summary of the reasons that they were historically thought to be a clade (e.g. presence of chaetae).
Bryozoa: There's no reason to assume that the earliest bryozoans mineralised. If they didn't, they're tiny things that would have no chance of entering the fossil record. So no surprise that the crown group isn't represented until the Ordovician. They sound like a good candidate to be done next!
Cambrian explosion: The phyla are (arguably) more important than the C.Ex; with the 100th anniversary of the discovery of the Burgess Shale coming up in August I had entertained the idea of taking C. Ex. to F.A. status by then and trying to get it featured on the front page. With both of us diverting our energies to other tasks at the moment, this may be quite ambitious, but I thought I'd throw up the idea for your consideration!

Keep up the good work! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Knowing how much you love anthropocentricism-bashing, I've been frustrating myself over at Talk:Human swimming if you have a dull moment to spice up with some heated argument! Although I may be being won over to their point of view (shock horror!). Best, M

I agree that Burgess Shale is more relevant... but it's much more work!! I'm still dumping relevant information on the sub-pages in a very haphazard manner and feeling no closer to producing a decent summary of knowledge. Perhaps it is a more meritious project... I'll digest your comments and think about it. The FA process at Ediacara biota was relatively painless, probably because no-body cares about palaeo, which suggests that we might be able to sneak the Burgess past the nit-picking crowd...

And yes, I am keen on publicity. As palaeo isn't taught in schools for fear of offending the ID crowd, I feel I have something of a duty to get the topic into the public conscience wherever I can - especially to remind people that there's more to it than dinosaurs!! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not? We could certainly give it a go. As it's the subject of my studies, I should probably care about it enough to make it worth the effort! As it's got a smaller scope than the C.Ex, and is largely less controversial, it should be somewhat more achievable. That said, there will be a lot of new content available after 7th August - we're organising a conference which includes some pretty interesting abstracts, and I'll be taking a camera up to the sites to help in illustration... perhaps we should aim to have something complete before August, but leave room for these expansions. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. The ball's back in your court, and I'm headed home! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 23:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A request

I was wondering if you would give me a second opinion on a GAN. Nothing in depth. The article seems overly laudatory to me and not objective. I just want to check out that I am not over reacting. The article is Maxwell's Urban Hang Suite. Just give me your impression as I don't want you to feel that you have to spend your time on it. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! —Mattisse (Talk) 13:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oxidation event

An interesting paper in Science this week (link). Tim Vickers (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It caught my eye too. My thoughts: The summary is very much a 'maybe' paper. It opens the grounds for more investigation, but MIF is still somewhat in its infancy. The Science summary itself gives a good flavour of how much ambiguity remains! It might be worth including in an article as a 'current research may suggest that...' but cynical ol' me wouldn't attach any more weight to it than that. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gropecunt Lane/archive1

Hi there, I wondered if you're happy with the changes, if you wouldn't mind striking through your comments on the above entry? Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) I don't believe the current porn star FA would get on the front page anyway as it probably doesn't meet the current FA criteria. It will be interesting to see what happens if the Gropecunt article is put forward for TFA :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 14:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Jenna Jameson - poor grammar is the first thing I see. Incorrect ref formatting (a huge number don't use templates). I'm sure I could find more things but its a long article. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Cheers!

I would like to ask you if you would like to look and give your opinion on the new Articles for deletion proposal for FreeOrion. I wrote a new version article and I would like to ask you if you could vote on it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeOrion and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/FreeOrion_(3rd_nomination) . Thank you! Peer-LAN (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

On the Origin

Just a heads up that I've added a rambling comment at User talk:Rusty Cashman#On the Origin of Species on the areas I'm thinking about or trying to work on. Thanks for your help with this, dave souza, talk 21:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me Philcha that the way you've handled this review gives the lie to those critics of the GA process who claim that it's all down to one person. Kudos for that. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I responded to your question about how I think we should proceed with the FA processon on my talk page. Incidentally I agree with Fatuorum. This has been the single most useful GA review I can recall. Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Field lacrosse

It needs copy editing. It has many unnecessary, repetitious words, and the writing is clunky. Examples

The other versions, women's lacrosse (first played in the 1890s) and box lacrosse (which originated in the 1930s), are played under significantly different rules. - repeating "played"

Called the "fastest sport on two feet," a series of rules limit the number of players on either side of the midfield line, and requires the ball to be moved continuously in an offensive manner. - could you say this differently? "in an offensive manner" is wordy and ambiguous. What is the difference between "the ball to be moved continuously" and "the ball to be moved continuously in an offensive manner"?

A former Olympic sport, attempts to be reinstated to the Games have been hampered by insufficient international participation. - grammatically unclear, as the sport is not attempting to reinstate itself - A former Olympic sport, attempts to reinstated it in the Games have been hampered by insufficient international participation. - Even better would be a sentence saying who is attempting to reinstate it; ditch the passive voice.

Known as the "fastest sport on two feet", lacrosse is a traditional Native American game. According to their beliefs, playing lacrosse is a spiritual act used for healing and giving thanks to the "Creator. - Should say who "their" is. Assume it is Native Americans, but since "Native American" is only used as an adjective, it is not well worded.

These games could last several days and as many as 100 to 1,000 men from opposing villages or tribes would participate. The games were played in open plains and the goals could range from 500 yards (460 m) to several miles apart. - Repetitious to start sentences with the same wording in a row ("games"). Also, Tony1 hates that use of "would". - 100 to 1,000 men from opposing villages or tribes participated.

The name "lacrosse" comes from the missionaries reporting back to their superiors that ... This is what Tony1 called noun + ing. It should be "the reports of missionaryies" or something similar.

He established the Canadian National Lacrosse Association and created the initial written rules... "initial written rules" - created the first written rules? or initially wrote the rules? Or he was the first to put the rules in writing?

The rules he ~~established~~ - extra, unneeded words

Field lacrosse contrasts with ~~the other versions of the sport,~~ women's lacrosse and box lacrosse, in a number of ways. - it is already established these are other versions of the sport.

Women's lacrosse, a non-contact version of the sport ~~which was~~ first played in Scotland during the 1890s, plays with twelve players, longer fields, and less protective equipment than is required in the men's game - extra words. Also, how about "than the men's game requires" and avoid the passive voice.

These are the types of things I see. I can copy edit it, if the editor wants. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I read through Field lacrosse and seems to be very well done. I admit I am not a fan of the sport, so I didn't look closely at the details. But it is well written and clear, while not being overly verbose. I didn't check the references. One thing, I was not clear why the editor chose to put certain game terms in quotes, but not others. A word like "crease" may benefit from quotes, but then again, I don't know anything about the game! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Burgess

How about we move it to Cambrian fauna? That removes the ambiguity; I think the scope is appropriate. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I had considered 'soft-bodied Cambrian fauna' or even 'macrofauna', but considered these somewhat restrictive. Also, I guess we should be careful not to exclude the algae (which are flora)... Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Fossils of the Burgess Shale, then? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Watts

The first reviewer removed his/her name from the review so I thought it failed and I added the fail template. I'll look at the sources on the Wade Watts page and incorporate them some time - but right now I'm more interested in other stuff. When he runs for governor though, I will definitely work on it and perhaps renominate (just saying all of this so I can draft you for a comment in the future). Hekerui (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Philcha,

I thank you for all of your efforts and patience with the Field lacrosse GA review. The article is much improved from where it started and much of that has to do with your persistence. As your other reviews show, you are one of the most thorough GA reviewers on Wikipedia and I am happy that you gave this article your best. I feel like I have learned a bit as it progressed. I appreciate the advice and the suggestions for going forward. Thanks again, Mitico (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cite DOI

The Cite DOI family produces a standard output format, which is under development, but is consistent. When I have 30 mins to spend on the bot, it will be able to enforce this format in all the citations it uses. This has two advantages: (1) less clutter in the article text; (2) easier to edit references if they are referred to multiple times. (It also makes it easier to use the same reference elsewhere, and the 'cite JSTOR' template just converts the JSTOR identifier into a DOI.)

I'm not inclined to pick a fight over this - how about I volunteer myself to address any reviewer's concerns about the template should they emerge. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think steve walling = vantucky after a name change

see comments at the forum you posted... Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 10:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Opinion

Do you think that an article on a literary work, just like a film, comic book, video game, etc. should have a "Critical reception" or "Critical analysis" or similar section to pass GA? If you have an opinion, and I would like your honest one for my own betterment, would you weigh in on Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ali's Smile: Naked Scientology/1? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Stability on the Origin

Sorry about the number of edits, essentially it was a rewrite of the lead which had not yet been commented on, and seemed to have been superseded by the revisions to the content sections it summarises, and a large number of very small grammar or spelling fixes, mostly keeping the past tense consistent in the content section. Apologies, that's me done now and will leave it alone unless requested to make edits. My aim now is to take the lessons learnt to other articles! . . dave souza, talk 19:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

FAR

Yes, it could do with more hands, and if you would like to help raise standards that would be great. I estimate that FAR has a lag of about 18-24 months on the average FAC in terms of difficulty. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Moo2BuildMenu400.png

Thanks for uploading File:Moo2BuildMenu400.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Re "A deletionist proposal"

moved from user talk ikip:

Your "American Idol" post at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#A_deletionist_proposal was bad tactics:

American Idol is an entertainment, not a news or documentary or educational program, so it's not a reliable source. I wouldn't be surprised if someone has posted that point at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#A_deletionist_proposal before I've finished this message.
The way to make extreme deletionism look bad is to present moderate counter-arguments in a moderate way, not be as extreme on the other side.
You've deflected attention from Pixelface's thorough demolition of the proposal. --Philcha (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

removed before anyone commented, thanks for the heads up. Ikip (talk) 14:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

GAN review

I want to apologise for seeming so adversarial earlier today. It hasn't been a good day for me, I've been tied up in research for coursework most of it. I know you're acting in good faith, and so I apologise if my attitude seemed inappropriate earlier. Hopefully we can reach some form of constructive conclusion with this review. -- Sabre (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm halting this review. Apology above still stands, but I have severe grievances with your understanding of the good article criteria, and your overzealous application of WP:V. We aren't going to see eye-to-eye, so its just going to be a waste of time us continuing. I'm marking the article as having failed. -- Sabre (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll vote for 3: "Old FAs should be held to the same standard as new FAs; old GAs should be held to the same standard as new GAs. That is, some FAs and GAs should be delisted, if they do not meet the current standard." In theory that's what's supposed to happen now, but we have plenty of comments above that FAR does not apply current FA standards. --Philcha (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well kindly help out at FAR, or in the case of FAs in your sphere of interest, help to renovate them. It only takes 2 minutes to nom an ancient FAR if you are offended by it sharing the same status as a new FAC pass. I can think of a few FARs that are being partially improved and will probably scrape through by dragging its heels even though it would not pass at FAC or would be held up there until done properly. I could jump and and down about it on teh explicit articles, but then I wouldn't be able to close it and Joelr31 closes things more leniently than I do so it might be pointless if I cited all this stuff myself anyway. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

speaking of the FARC theme, there are a few that need attention. Since people are complaining about accountability.....

YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

How users read on the web

In reference to the link on your user page, it appears that I am twelve years too late. Just as with music, why is it that all the good ideas have been done before? At least it's nice to find that there's some good old-school support/evidence for my "hypothesis". Back to the drawing board again... Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Calling All Athletics Fans!} 04:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Jstor and others

Thanks for the offer. Excepting this article, if you could find anything on Chat Moss or Carrington Moss, that would be excellent. Jstor has entries on each, and other Google Scholar results lead to similar inaccessible sites with interesting material. I'm particularly after anything discussing the plant or animal life on those sites. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Have emailed you. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

[10], [11], [12], [13] - would be great Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Received, thanks. Will update the articles accordingly. Many thanks for the help! Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sam & Max Save the World

Sorry, I did not mean to step on your toes or anything, but I just completed the GA review for that article. I didn't see anyone doing it over at WP:GAN, so I put my name down there and got to work on it myself. If you have anything to add to it, feel free to do so. Again, sorry, MuZemike 19:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Helpful evidence

Hi Philcha. Thanks for contributing to the RfArb: evidence of Mattisse responding well to disagreement is particularly helpful in order to place the cases where she hasn't in context. However, I think the arbitrators would probably appreciate it if you provide some more diffs in your evidence so that they can quickly verify your comments. Geometry guy 19:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

PS. I don't have "GeometryGuy's saintlike patience" either, lol. Some editors just haven't encountered me when I'm really annoyed... :-)

Kareena Kapoor

Hi. This article has been GA for sometime. As you are one of the best reviewers on here would you be so kind as to read the article and offer some advice on how it can be upgraded to FA. Its not easy writing about an Indian actress especially from Bollywood and it is difficult to avoid it sounding like a blog in parts. It uses the most reliable sources on the subject anyway. My concern is that some people may find the article a little uninspiring. Let me know what you think at Talk:Kareena Kapoor. Best.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, very much appreciate it otherwise I wouldn't have asked. I was one of the editors along with User:Shshshsh and User:Dwaiypanc who actually promoted the Preity Zinta you have referred to to FA and we are well aware of the difficulties in doing so.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Note though that the India vs US sources debate came up over the Preity Zinta article. IN the end it was shown that the most reliable sources on the subject were those in the mainstream Indian media given that the coverage of Indian cinema in the UNited States/west is rather pale in comparison. It is about an Indian actress so the sources as in the Zinta article were finally approved of after a lengthy discussion.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was incredibly tough and people pick up on a great deal which is mostly why I don't go for more FAs than I have done as it can be very stressful. I have about 7 FAs so far but my last was actually the Zinta article because it was so stressful. Having worked a lot on the Zinta article we are aware of what is required but it will take a lot of hard work sorting it all. If the main editor of the Kareena article was here I'm sure we could work togethe ron it. As it stands I'll do my best to gradually improve it and fix those dead links etc. The Encyclopedic Britannica India is indeed the source so that should be OK.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

A word or two on the sources. The Encycklopedia Britannica published book can be seen here. Sources from the Indian media are used precisely because we cam to a consensus with other FA reviwers and in general that for Bollywood a great of other web content is found in fan blogs and commercial sites which may jeopardize reliability and integrity of the sources. This is why we rely on the Indian media and the two or three mainstream Indian websites which are considered professional. Having a source or two from New York Times for instance on how her films and performances were rated overseas is always good but given that it is about an Indian actress national sources are considered the best. For instance an article about the Indian community in New York we would generaly always use American sources and probably wouldn't even consider using any Indian based references such is the bias. Remember also that many wikipedians on here are Indian too of course although us English and Americans make up the majority.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem of course it that many websites which appear to mainstream plagiarise material from wikipedia see this for example.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

BISVietnam

Thanks for your comments. I suppose that my original quick fail was a bit brusque, but to me the fact that the article was written like an advertisement and was a substantial copyright violation seemed to automatically disqualify it from GAN, since it is at least arguable that it should be listed at AfD. If it had just been the referencing, which is not grounds for a quick fail, I would have been more constructive. I have to say that had I realised it was written by a 15 year-old, I might (just might) have been more gentle. I'll step away from this article now. jimfbleak (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, if you read the comment above yours, and my response, I can be constructive even on severely defective articles! jimfbleak (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Just seen your GAR review comments, they are very good, thanks again jimfbleak (talk) 12:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Philcha. You have new messages at MuZemike's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MuZemike 08:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Volunteer - is it OK?

I hope you don't mind that I volunteered your name in my current arbitration as a member of group of editors whose judgment I trust, since you already fulfill the role of adviser to me. User:John Carter and User:Malleus Fatuorum have agreed to help me with this issue. I aso named User:Geometry guy, who already fulfills the role as you do. My idea of having a "panel" or group of editors to advise me on judgment calls is to avoid the burden from falling on any one editor. I would like to be able to ask your advice in situations in which I am unsure, or fear that I am getting in over my head. Please let me know if this is not OK with you. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I did warn Mattisse that I may not be the best possible choice she could have made, but she bravely decided to go ahead with it nonetheless. :-)

To be serious, although I've had some difficulties with Mattisse in the past, her contributions far outweigh any of that for me. I'll support anyone with Mattisse's content-building skills no matter whether I can get along with them or not. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge 3RR into Edit War?

Hi, you were previously involved in a discussion about merging 3RR into WP:EW; please comment at WT:3RR#Merge 3RR into Edit War?. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 13:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

clades & Orthozanclus

Hello Philcha,

Inadvertantly, I made the same change twice to the Orthozanclus article, and in turn you reverted it twice. I didn't intend to start an edit war. I'm still not clear why the change was reverted, though. When you have time, could you have a look at my comment Talk:Orthrozanclus?

Cheers, Cephal-odd (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

User page

I am thinking of drawing up a "Retirement Statement". I cannot image my joy in editing articles returning, now that it seems that I am not entitled to have opions also. When I started editing articles, I did not register opinions, once I learned that AFD was a receipe for getting on sockputppet lists. However I notice the longer people are here, the more they spend chatting on talk pages rather than editing aritlces. I find I am starting to fall in that category, and for that I will dspise myself. I fell my era of productive editing has ended here at Wikipedia and would like to draft a retirement statement that conveys my thoughts without being self serving. I find what User talk:TravisTX wrote in his retirement statment rather close to what I feel. I also resent the "two tier" systme wher editors like Giano and George are protected by arbs and admins. That is intolerable to a person at the bottom end, like me. What do you think of a "Retirement page"? This would not be deployed instantly but only when circumstances become clearly impossible. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, User:FlyingToaster's retirement page was rather sad. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

FotBS

The fossils page is an easier goal, and I think is appropriate if we are still aiming for front page coverage. If we FA that then it should be relatively easy to bring BS up to speed. The stratigraphy page may take some involved editing from me!

I will hopefully have some free time to dabble tomorrow morning (I have the internet at home again!) so I'll conjure up a battle plan then. We could probably go straight to peer review then FA review to avoid the bureaucracy of GA. I have to warn you that there may be some significant reworking in the pipeline... Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Poor articles

Problem is, I realised that nominating an article for "Poor article" status and reaching consensus as it its cruftiness would actually be far more complicated than simply fixing the issues in the first place. "Poor article" status would only really be useful in situations where cruft removal and misleading material were constantly being reinstated by zealous users, and there are already other mechanisms in place to deal with them. Serendi ^pod ous 09:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be a useful alternative to deletion or merging. If an article is too notable to delete but not good enough to preserve, slapping a "BA" or "PA" shield might be a good idea. But it would have to go through the deletion process (the BA equivalent of a GA review) before consensus is reached. Serendi ^pod ous 09:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've made a clearer post over at the deletion review page. I think we may disagree on one thing. There is a difference between articles that are simply poor and articles that are genuinely bad, ie they are personal promotional essays masquerading as encyclopedic articles. BA status, for me, would apply only to those articles. Serendi ^pod ous 09:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on GAR and PR

Hi Philcha - you should provide links to discussions you refer to at RfArb. I looked in the archives and could only find brief discussions of PR and GA at WT:GAN. Am I missing something? Geometry guy 13:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Bart Sells His Soul

I'm not the nominator, but I have given the plot section of the article a complete overhaul. I did not regularily refer to your list of concerns, so some of them may still be in place. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 21:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, no rush, but when you have time, could you please revisit your review of the article? Thanks, Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 02:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry this is a school computer

Sorry about that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.202.82.181 (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

RE:GA review of Paddy Bradley

Hi, thanks for taking the time to review the article. In relation to your query on the talk page as to when I'm most active...I do most of my editing in the evening (Irish time). Derry Boi (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for not getting back to you earlier. Think I can do all I can for the time being. I've left a few questions on the review page. Thanks. Derry Boi (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn't catch the reference

Hi. I'm not sure what you were getting at w/ the "political opponents"/"enemies" bit. That's clearly a reference to something, but Google isn't clearly directing me to it. More to the point, I don't know whether that's a criticism, or... what. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

He's certainly welcome to any reservations he may have about me. I have suggested that his bout of gloating (considering its effects: blocks, drama, etc.) was somehow counterproductive. If that suggestion gives him reservations... I'm comfortable with that. I'm also pretty comfortable that most readers are not drawing the same meanings from my words that Malleus was. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Moo2ColonyList400.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Moo2ColonyList400.png. 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) 05:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

[MCO-15_page675-1] Firmian, N. (2008). Modern Chess Openings, 15th Edition. David McKay. p. p. 675. ISBN 978-0-8129-3682-7. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help)

[2] Watson, J. (2006). Mastering the Chess Openings, Volume 1. Gambit Publications. p. p. 175. ISBN 1904600603. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help)

[3] New in Chess stated in its 2000 Yearbook that of the games in its database, White scored 56.1% with 1.d4, but two percent less (54.1%) with 1.e4, primarily because of the Sicilian, against which White scored only 52.3%. New in Chess Yearbook 55 (2000), p. 227. A graph similar to that in the 2000 Yearbook can be found at "How to Read NIC Statistics (Valid till volume 62)". NewInChess.com. Retrieved 2008-05-07.

[4] Staunton wrote that the Sicilian "... is the best possible reply to 1.P-K4, 'as it renders the formation of a centre impracticable for White and prevents every attack.' " Staunton, Howard (1848). The Chess-Player's Handbook. Henry G. Bohn. pp. p.371. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help) Also quoted at Harding, T. "The Openings at New York 1924". Retrieved 2008-06-19. However, Grandmaster John Nunn wrote in 2001 that the Sicilian is popular in modern play because "... Black is playing not just for equality, but for the advantage ... Black has to take care not to fall victim to a quick attack." Nunn, John (2001). Understanding Chess Move by Move. Gambit Publications. pp. p.57. ISBN 1901983412. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

[5] Keene, R. (March 22, 1997). "Mafia connections". The Spectator. Retrieved 2008-07-13.

[6] "Howard Staunton vs Bernard Horwitz, 3rd match game, London 1846". Retrieved 2008-07-01.

[7] Hooper, D. (1992). The Oxford Companion to Chess, 2nd edition. Oxford University Press. p. p. 393. ISBN 0-19-866164-9. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[8] 
"The Staunton Gambit ... offers White considerable attacking chances." Fine, R. (1939). Modern Chess Openings, 6th edition. David McKay. p. p. 176. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

The Staunton Gambit gives White "sharp attacking chances for his Pawn" and places the opponent at a psychological disadvantage ..." Horowitz, I.A. (1964). Chess Openings: Theory and Practice. Simon and Schuster. p. p. 611. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help) Fear of the Staunton Gambit has discouraged many players from using the Dutch. Christiansen, L. (1989). The Dutch Defense. Chess Digest. p. p. 192. ISBN 0-87568-178-6. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Schiller, E. (1993). How to Play Black Against the Staunton Gambit. Chess Digest. p. p. 4. ISBN 0-87568-236-7. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[9] "The Staunton Gambit ... offers White considerable attacking chances." Fine, R. (1939). Modern Chess Openings, 6th edition. David McKay. p. p. 176. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[10] The Staunton Gambit gives White "sharp attacking chances for his Pawn" and places the opponent at a psychological disadvantage ..." Horowitz, I.A. (1964). Chess Openings: Theory and Practice. Simon and Schuster. p. p. 611. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help) Fear of the Staunton Gambit has discouraged many players from using the Dutch. Christiansen, L. (1989). The Dutch Defense. Chess Digest. p. p. 192. ISBN 0-87568-178-6. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[11] Schiller, E. (1993). How to Play Black Against the Staunton Gambit. Chess Digest. p. p. 4. ISBN 0-87568-236-7. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[9] 
The Staunton Gambit "has fallen out of favour for no clear reason". Griffith, R.C. (1925). Modern Chess Openings, 4th edition. Whitehead & Miller. p. p. 120. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

"The Staunton Gambit fell out of favour some time ago and still remains so ... ." Fine, R. (1939). Modern Chess Openings, 6th edition. David McKay. p. p. 176. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

The Staunton Gambit "is not in much favor today". de Firmian, N. (2008). Modern Chess Openings, 15th edition. Random House. p. p. 494. ISBN 978-0-8129-3682-7. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help)

[13] The Staunton Gambit "has fallen out of favour for no clear reason". Griffith, R.C. (1925). Modern Chess Openings, 4th edition. Whitehead & Miller. p. p. 120. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[14] "The Staunton Gambit fell out of favour some time ago and still remains so ... ." Fine, R. (1939). Modern Chess Openings, 6th edition. David McKay. p. p. 176. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[15] The Staunton Gambit "is not in much favor today". de Firmian, N. (2008). Modern Chess Openings, 15th edition. Random House. p. p. 494. ISBN 978-0-8129-3682-7. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help)

[10] Christiansen, L. (1989). The Dutch Defense. Chess Digest. p. p. 192. ISBN 0-87568-178-6. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[11] 
Staunton, Howard (1848). The Chess-Player's Handbook. Henry G. Bohn. pp. pp.381-82. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

Alan L. Watson (1995). The Anti-Dutch Spike: g4! in the Krejcik, Korchnoi, and Alapin Variations. Blackmar Press. p. p. 36. ISBN 0-9619606-2-0. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help)

[18] Staunton, Howard (1848). The Chess-Player's Handbook. Henry G. Bohn. pp. pp.381-82. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

[19] Alan L. Watson (1995). The Anti-Dutch Spike: g4! in the Krejcik, Korchnoi, and Alapin Variations. Blackmar Press. p. p. 36. ISBN 0-9619606-2-0. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help)

[12] "Korchnoi-Känel (Biel 1979) at ChessGames.com". Retrieved 2008-08-15.

[13] 
Christiansen, L. (1989). The Dutch Defense. Chess Digest. p. p. 144. ISBN 0-87568-178-6. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Staunton, Howard (1848). The Chess-Player's Handbook. Henry G. Bohn. pp. pp. 381-82. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

[22] Christiansen, L. (1989). The Dutch Defense. Chess Digest. p. p. 144. ISBN 0-87568-178-6. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[23] Staunton, Howard (1848). The Chess-Player's Handbook. Henry G. Bohn. pp. pp. 381-82. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

[14] Staunton, H. (1893). The Chess-Player's Handbook. George Bell & Sons. p. p. 182. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help)

[15] 
Kaufman, L. (2004). The Chess Advantage in Black and White. David McKay. p. p. 342. ISBN 0-8129-3571-3.. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

Burgess, G. (1997). The Mammoth Book of Chess. Carroll & Graf. p. p. 133. ISBN 0-7867-0725-9. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help)

[26] Kaufman, L. (2004). The Chess Advantage in Black and White. David McKay. p. p. 342. ISBN 0-8129-3571-3.. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

[27] Burgess, G. (1997). The Mammoth Book of Chess. Carroll & Graf. p. p. 133. ISBN 0-7867-0725-9. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

User talk:Philcha/Archive 4

Image copyright problem with Image:Veterbrate n octopus eyes.png

Image format

Nature paper

Apologies Concerning Dawn Scythe

A Different Riddle

Evolution of mammals - aparently false statement

Your articles

Howard Staunton and controversy

Small shelly fossil GA

Staunton’s Influence

Footnotes

Dinosaurs & Christians

Lystrosaurus photos

Possibly unfree Image:Moo2BuildMenu400.png

Possibly unfree Image:Moo2ColonyList400.png

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Moo2GalaxyAndSystem400.png

Possibly unfree Image:Se3ShipList400.png

Possibly unfree Image:Se3ColonyList400.png

Possibly unfree Image:Se3EventLog400.png

Possibly unfree Image:Se3MainScreen.png

Possibly unfree Image:Se3Targeting400.png

Possibly unfree Image:Se3ShipDesign400.png

Possibly unfree Image:Se3IntelScreen400.png

Fair use rationale for Image:StarcraftPsiStorm01.png

Image source problem with Image:StarcraftPsiStorm01.png

Possibly unfree Image:Anomalocaris_Saron_200x59.png

Possibly unfree Image:Carl_Lewis_T_rex.png

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:Civ 3 Tech Tree Era1.png

Opabinia Reply

Did You Know problem

Maotianshan shales and Chengjiang fauna

Phylogenetic lower back pain

SSF Timeline

Opabinia

Request to move article Molecular phylogeny incomplete

Anus

Canada!

Half Barnstar for Howard Staunton

Thank you buddy!!!

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:Plesiosaurus macrocephalus bg transp.png

Denial of Ownership template

3RR Warning

GA, FA, etc

Apology?

Tree topology

Thanks for your input

Phanerozoic_Biodiversity

Part 1 is here

v 0.7 hitlist

What is the next step of the RFC?

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:Rhabdopleura normani 01.png

Image:Biological classification L Pengo.svg

Annotated images

Mollusc synapomorphies

Beaded Lizard

Further reading

Skink reverts

Could you give opinion at Talk:World Chess Championship 2008

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:Wikidraco scholasticus.png

Tyrannosaurid scale charts

Not seen much of you around for a while...

Re: Deuterostomes and Bilateria

Halwaxiid significance

Opabinia

Mollusca on hold

Did You Know problem

Edits

Tyrannosauridae Second Opinion

Minor image copyright issue

Sponges

DYK for Precambrian rabbit

Impressive work

Images

humor

Consist

Yunnanozoon and Yuyuanozoon