This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user in whose space this page is located may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Snowmanradio/Archive_12.
Delichon
It looks as if congratulations are in order! Asian House Martin and Asian House Martin are both imageless, but photos of both species have been posted on Flickr. Do you think that you could persuade the photographers to relase an image for the wiki articles? Thanks 08:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC) This unsigned edit by User:Jimfbleak.
I have sent two requests. If you sign with three of these characters ~~~, then you get the date without the name, so please remember to sign with four. Snowman (talk) 09:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find that most flickr photographers do change their licences for the wiki. After my request and when the new image is shown on the wiki, I reply providing a url to the wiki article, so the flickr photographer can see their photo on the wiki. Sometimes the flickr accounts are inactive and then I do not even get a reply. Are there any particular house martin images that you are interested in? Snowman (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you've got Asian too, thanks! It was really just a matter of getting at least one good image. I'm hoping to get Delichon and its three species up to featured topic. Common House Martin is at FA already, so we need two GAs and an FA from the other three. For FA you have to have an image, and it's too early to decide the best bet for FA, although I suspect it's Asian. Jimfbleak - talk to me?14:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the translation of Linnaeus' description, the rest is just synonyms from other texts. It's in the reference, you can move to caption if you prefer, but it will make it rather lengthy. I cropped the page as it is so that it had the Tree sparrow text and the page heading, I can't see the point of having the whole page for this article. The facsimile text is a free download, although can't remember form where! Jimfbleak - talk to me?07:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've read it. If we're going to keep these in the Birds project, then ALL the farmyard breeds be in the Birds project -- and there are hundreds more that were never part of the project. I don't have one of those AWB programs, so I'm not going to volunteer to move them all into the project. I'll return the 12 I moved out, but somebody else will have to do the rest. MeegsC | Talk01:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category redirect
I reverted your redirect of "Category:Nestoridae", because I saw no reference to any discussion, and it did seem a little illogical. If there was discussion, please restore the redirect while linking to the discussion in the edit summary. If there was no such discussion, but you still think the redirect is correct, take it to WP:CFD. Debresser (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I had to get off the computer in a few minutes, so I asked the users who had last been editing pages on my watchlist. As for those Maltese sparrows discussed at WT:BIRD, it turns out they do split into two groups with different behaviour: I'll add the details to Italian Sparrow some time. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! I just uploaded some of my zoo photos last night, this morning I thought "eh, I'm not happy with the quality of these two bird photos, but first I'll check if Wikipedia needs them for articles". As I pull open Purple-naped Lory I find a familiar photo! Since there was a decent photo there before, I probably would've removed the Wikipedia photo if you hadn't done this. I do think the other photo is much better quality than mine, but since you wanted to use it I'll leave mine up on Flickr. :-) -- Madeleine✉✍15:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS - when I've taken other people's appropriately-licensed photos from Flickr for Wikipedia articles, I've left a thank-you note as a comment on the Flickr photo. This is also a good idea, to make sure that the person feels appropriately attributed (since attribution is required). I think you should consider doing this. Madeleine✉✍15:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a photo has a "free licence", then it can be used without providing the author any feedback. However, I always provide the author a link to the relevant wiki pages when he or she has kindly changed the license to be wiki friendly following a request. I think that the advantage of your parrot photo for the infobox is that it shows more of the two parrots than the previous image - the front of one and the side of the other. It is a bit dark, but I tried to brighten it with a photo pack. The other image is still on the genus page. Have you got any more parrot photographs? Have you got a photo of the White-naped Lory or any of the other rare parrots at San Diego Zoo? Snowman (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it is not necessary. I am suggesting it would be polite and nice to do so in the future. If you look at my userpage you should see that I'm an experienced Wikipedian who has authored major articles and contributed some significant images. It encourages people on Flickr who have chosen to default to a Wikipedia-compatible license to continue doing so, and it helps to confirm that attribution has been done properly. If you're going to be nice to people who *don't* default to the ideal license, shouldn't you be even nicer to the people who *do*?
Personally I would have liked to see a comment because I have been a significant contributor to Wikipedia and chose a default Wikipedia-compatible license for my Flickr photos. Giving me positive feedback encourages me to continue contributing to the community. I do not have more photos of birds from the zoo trip; I am not familiar with birds, I don't have a very good camera, and I don't live in San Diego (I am visiting from Boston). Madeleine✉✍18:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I expect everyone has their own opinion about photographs. I think that the new one I added to the article shows the full length of the bird well and is in sharp focus. The previous image shows the back of the eagle and looks rather fuzzy to me. The actual pixel size is irrelevant. Anyway, it is probably time for a change in the infobox image. Snowman (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are both good images. I think that a photograph of the back of the bird is a more specialist image than the infobox should show. I have cropped the new image for the infobox, so the eagle appears larger in the infobox. The new cropped image is probably a more conventional infobox image now, and its probably an improvement. You will see on the "Parrot" article talk page that a rotation of infobox images is discussed for that article and is currently taking place, and I think infobox image rotations may be taking place occasionally on other popular pages too. I think that the choice of images for the infobox on the Bald Eagle article could be discussed on the Bald Eagle talk page. I think it is a good idea to rotate the images from time to time. The best resolution image is not necessarily the best image for the infobox. If you feel strongly about it, then put the original image back, and perhaps we could get a consensus on what image to show in the infobox or a rotation. Snowman (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was cropped with GIMP. It is free downloaded. It takes a bit of practice to use it, and I am still learning what it can do. Unfortunately, it does not stitch photos together. Snowman (talk) 09:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Snowmanradio! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 28 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
What do you mean? I said, I can't find them. I will however, suggest Shyamal use them alongside some websites and papers as a source for svg images. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Snowmanradio. You have new messages at Innotata's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I was showing a user the correct capitalization. You see from my clear edit summary that I was applying the correct format. My edit was necessary because of this edit earlier on that page by a user that applied an incorrect format. There is nothing wrong with showing an editor the guidelines. I combined this edit with explaining to the editor about the guidelines - also see the information I relayed to the user here. The box Boxcrawler bot also does this this, but it does not cover the WP Bird pages. Uniformity of style is encouraged on this encyclopaedia. Snowman (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not getting back to this earlier. That page doesn't say that it should be corrected, and frankly I think there are better things to do on Wikipedia than "fixing" these things. But there are also better things to do than complaining about it, so I'll stop. Ucucha15:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In non-breeding plumage (these are winter pictures) the best criterion is size, which is hard to judge in lone birds, although males tend to look bulkier and more often have redder bare parts. Birds with extensive white on head and neck are almost always males. Most birds in the UK in winter are males.
first image is labelled as female by the photographer, who could make the size comparison, so I have no reason to doubt that - no contraindications.
Second bird looks small, I'd say female again, but not certain
group although looks as if all males (no size difference)
Action shot looks like two males, with the pigeons as a size indicator
final bird - a male, looks bulky and red-billed
I don't think we have a winter female, so it might be worth replacing one of the two winter males in the article with the first image, where I'm happy to accept the photographer's call. I'm not sure whether the last image of the stream is better than the existing non-breeding males, I'm happy for you to make the call on that.
Two had already been uploaded by another user. There are a lot of Ruff images on flickr now - have you seen them all to make a selection? Snowman (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow, two pictures of "Yellow Macaw" have been addedto Macaw. They don't look like any macaw I've seen, and there isn't a species of that name, but I know nothing about parrots. Are they genuine, hybrids, Photoshopped or what? Jimfbleak - talk to me?15:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is right, Guaruba guarouba - nice images of a rare parrot, but not a macaw - rename is under way and when renamed I plan to show the image of the whole parrot on the species page. Snowman (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know a great deal more about image stuff than I, so I was wondering what I should do about the photos at Crowned Eagle. The taxobox image File:Crowned Eagle.jpgis hosted on wikipedia and has the same name as a much more useful image on the commons. I would just move the image to the commons and delete it here, but some questions have been raised about the license. Thoughts? Sabine's Sunbirdtalk19:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged the image on en wiki as possibly not free and due process will take its course, and the uploader has a chance to reply; although, that user account looks inactive. The problem of using the commons image will be solved if the en wiki image is deleted after two weeks or if there is a better image to show from somewhere else. I guess that a bird like that should have some creative commons photographs available possibly on Flickr or Picasa. If there are not any available, then may need to rethink how to show the commons image on en wiki only if the en wiki image is kept. My guess is that the en wiki image will be deleted. I note that the uploader has had a number of images deleted. Snowman (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the en wiki file from fotobucket was deleted on 6 March and the commons image with the same name is visible. Snowman (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably receiving this because you have significantly contributed to one of our pages. If you are not yet a participant in the Worcestershire project, now is the time to consider joining - it might help you get some assistance on a page you feel particularly attached to.
Here goes for the second irregular news bulletin...
First GA in 2010
We finally got over our euphoria over the Malvern, Worcestershire promotion to Good Article status. The GA sets a benchmark for the quality to be targeted for other articles in the project, and clearly demonstrated how important teamwork is.
Recently founded
A lot of work has already been done since the Worcs project was started, including the recent tagging of the talk pages of all the articles about people connected with Worcestershire, keeping spam and vandalism at bay, and welcoming new editors on their talk pages.
Experts needed!
The Worcestershire project mainly concerns settlements. It's generally agreed that the immediate priority now is to improve the articles that shiould be the flagships of the project, namely Worcester, and Worcestershire which are some of the articles in the worst state.
Meet up
Kudpung has booked his flight from Asia and will be back in Malvern from 1 April for a month, and looks forward to meeting up with as many Wikipedians as possible, especially those who work on the Worcs project.
NEWS
Two major debates are raging on the 'pedia and we have been cautiously taking part.
In for a shake up is an accumulation of nearly 50,000 totally unsourced articles that may end up on the cutting room floor after a period of grace. As a project, we can help by taking a look at those BLP in the county and doing what we can before the axe falls.
citations
A war almost broke out over citation formats, but a mature approach from Worcs project members prevented any physical injury. There, are only three basic rules for citations: 1. All articles must have them. 2. Consitency of format throughout an articles. 3. Changes to the format require a consensus. We are not obliged to use citation templates, and WP:LDR might not be such a good idea while chunks of text and/or their references are being copied and pasted around related articles in the county. In any case, let's always discuss what we have in mind HERE.
new project pages
The project main page has been pruned to be cleaner, and much of the support material has been transferred to dedicated pages. New usefull banners and templates have been created, and shortcuts to the new pages that also include a side bar navigator and a brand new easily edited To Do list.
new participant
After all the hints getting him to join, we now welcome User:wotnow !
sysop (admin)
Our only admin has resigned his tools. It would be great to have an active admin as a member of the project. If you think you would be able to cope with all the responsibility adminship involves, checkout WP:RfA and nominate yourself. Nobody needs to have a high edit count or to be an expert in all areas, but being active, having a reasonable overview of the workings of the Wikipedia, and a decent level of maturity, are expected minima. The process is not painless, and is worse than a British army promotion board! Alternatively you can always nominate another user.
Would you like to join the WP:WORCS?? Please enter yourself at WP:WORCS! - new editors are always welcome!
Happy Wikying, and thanks to everyone else who has contributed to our articles.
New project resources
Before making any major edits to articles or stubs, please be sure to read the new WP:WORCS/HowTo.
Urgent tasks are now listed at: WP:WORCS/ToDo. It should be referred to often, and will be your main stop for most maintenance tasks. We recommend keeping the page on your watchlist.
Most project pages now have brand new side bar for easy navigation. (Thanks, GyroMagician).
Priority Articles==
The top priority articles have been identified as probably being:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, so we can concentrate our efforts on these first. Priorities are not set in stone and if you would like to discuss changes, please join in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Worcestershire.
Other priorities:
The recommended priority by kind is for creation/improvement of complete articles is:
Places in the county
Schools in the county (Particularly susceptible to vandalism - please keep them on your watch lists if possible).
Transport in the county
Notable buildings/objects/geo features/AONB/Heritage sites, etc. in the county
History in the county
Industry & Commerce in the county.
People in the county - NOTE: These all need the Worcs project banner adding to their talk pages, and assessing.
County related articles about things not actually in the county, and/or other related projects.
Monitor The watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Infoboxes Some of our articles need their infoboxes completing infobox.
References Please remember that the list of stubs needing expansion is always in need of attention. Please take a look and see if you can help. One small edit, such as adding a reference section and reference, to an article each session would make a big difference. If you are uploadiing an image, be sure it has a correct FUR, and that you have preferably already created a link on the page where you want it to be.
Moves, merges, and multiple edits Please be careful when performing articles moves and check if anyone seems to be in the middle of doing the same thing. If he; she, or they are, stop and have a chat about it. Otherwise you may be unintentionally duplicating or reverting each other's work. This is particularly important if an article is currently under a GA review. image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR.
In regards these very images... I added File:House-Sparrow4.jpg to the article just a couple of days ago which you duly removed saying that you thought File:House Sparrow, England - May 09.jpg was better ... well both are very good images and are of a high quality, I was actually just about to nominate them both on WP:FPC and suggest that whichever is selected as the FP should stay in the article... IMO the fact that it's sitting on a man made object is not so detrimental with a species that, in many countries, doesn't exist outside of man-made environments. cities etc. I did upload it with the intention of nominating it ... what say you? Shall we let the FPC process decide which is better. Benjamint11:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could try nominating your images; their FP nomination is entirely up to you. Have you got an image showing both a male and a female House Sparrow in the same image that would be a good infobox image. The images have to be in an article for FPC on the wikipedia, but they do not have to be shown in an article for FPC on wiki commons. Image selection for an article is a different matter - sometimes a consensus on the talk page is needed.Snowman (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly why I came to you, after it has been promptly removed from the article It would never make it through FPC. I'm suggesting that we leave both in the article for the period of nomination and then the FP stays. I don't feel that a consensus on the talk page is an accurate judgement because many users are unqualified to discuss IQ (... as some of the image suggestions above clearly highlight). And seriously, both of the photos in question are far superior to Peter's ... how about we make it a Delist & Replace as well. Benjamint23:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be good practice to remove a featured image from a page with out good reason. If you did add your images to the House Sparrow page, then I would not removed them during the time you suggest. If they were removed by someone else, then you could try adding them to the Passer page instead. Snowman (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer a combined picture with male and female in the infobox, and it is easy to indicate in the caption which is the male and female. The trouble with separate images is that they are often have different scales. For the House Sparrow infobox images the female looks bigger than the male, which looks odd to me. Snowman (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
February 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Busch Gardens Tampa Bay, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does the name "Busch Gardens Tampa Bay" appear on the official website? I can not find it there. I have started discussion on the talk page. Snowman (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that your edits that I have seen are appropriate and that I think that you have shown good judgement in your comments on photographs. I noticed one of your edits (here) in which you say "... but these short articles layered with pictures annoy me a little." The aim of my message on your talk page was to ensure that you are aware of the discussion of WP birds and the guideline at WP:IG, so that you might be a less annoyed presumably with image galleries. WP Birds is in the predicament of having to write over 14,000 articles and have opted to show a gallery of selected images when available even on Stub articles. Snowman (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pp... pp?
As I assume you know, English isn't my native language, but just in case I still want to check this AWB edit with you. While occuring [sic] isn't up for discussion, I do wonder about the use of lower case "pp" after a full stop, e.g. "Silver Pheasant (Lophura nycthemera). pp. 533..." instead of "Silver Pheasant (Lophura nycthemera). Pp. 533...". Due to the unusual citations sometimes needed for HBW, they have an example in the intro of each volume, and they also use the upper case version. Please reply here, rather than on my talk. Thanks. • Rabo³ • 02:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that I am not aware what your native language is, but I am aware that your English is very good. There are userboxes for user pages so that readers might know a little about editors. I have several userboxes including a language userbox on my user page. Snowman (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for noticing that. I have changed it back. I was trying to fix the step in the first column just before Martial Eagle, which has returned with the long format. Can that step be fixed? Snowman (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The artwork has some merit in its own right, so I doubt if it would be deleted. You could add to the image description what it does not look like to reduce misinformation. I think that a poor quality image can be deleted providing there are better quality images. Although, old photographs of places with dates are kept. Snowman (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The two Cape Sparrows is a good image. I think if it did not have the blurred bird in the background it would be fine. Of course, reviewing images is subjective and people say different things according to their own perspective. There are a wide variety of comments and opinions - all valid from each individual reviewers point of view. Some might say that this picture has a boring background, and that the birds are only standing on the ground and are not doing anything very interesting. Some reviews might be disappointed with a bird that has not got vivid colours. Some reviews might think that the shadows are too harsh (even though the sun can be expected to be overhead in Africa at that particular time) and recommend that the picture should have been taken later in the day when the light is softer. Some reviews might say that this is a common bird where they live, and that such a common bird that is easy to photograph should have a better image. I think the FP could go either way. My guess (70:30) is that it will fail, mainly because of the blurred bird in the background. The images are supposed to be in focus as you can read in the criteria for an FP. However, from a scientific point of view, I think that it is better than many FPs. You could try the peer review for images, but the responses tend to be few. Snowman (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. What should I do with the Afghan Snowfinch image? I'm really inclined to ask to have it deleted, as it resembles nothing. I think I'll do that once Shyamal completes his image. As for the featured pictures, I don't think I'll submit them, though I think they really are of that quality. The objections you have or project from others seem ridiculous to me, somebody with little knowledge of photography, graphics, etc. —innotata21:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewers are entitled to their own views and opinions. I doubt if the Afghan Snowfinch would be deleted. You could add to the image description what it does not look like to reduce misinformation. Snowman (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I don't understand you. Where did I say something that would cause you to comment "The reviewers are entitled to their own views and opinions"? What is the use of an image like that supposedly of the Afghan Snowfinch? Should I add to the image description something like "this does not actually represent the Afghan Snowfinch or any other bird"? —innotata21:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The artwork of a Afghan Snowfinch has many non-scientific uses. Amending the image description could reduce misinformation. You could start a deletion discussion, if you want, but I doubt if it would be deleted. You could discuss it with the author/artist. I can not predict the replies that you would get. You seem concerned about possible misinformation in the artwork, so try something appropriate, see how it goes, and then depending on the outcome you might like to try something else. Snowman (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've contacted the user who made the image, but I don't expect a response: the user seems to have created an account to upload the image. I don't know what artistic value the image has. —innotata21:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possible pix
Hi Snowman: Found this guy's photos on Flickr tonight, and see that they appear to be CC licensed. Some of them look worth importing, if you're willing! (The handful I checked aren't in Commons.) MeegsC | Talk03:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a lot of the flickr photographer's work on commons (find by searching his flickr name). If there are any requests please write a list with external links to the image with a 100% certain identification, with any aspects of the location or image that need special mention in the image description, and indicate male, female, or juvenile were relevant. It might be best to put a general request with your list on the BirdTalk page - just in-case others are interested in doing any uploading. I might not always offer to upload images on request, but I might this time, because the images that you indicate in the flickr photoset look good. Snowman (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I was uploading the two photographs of a Turkey Vulture flying I noticed small watermarks in the lower left corners. I have removed these watermarks on the two vulture images that I uploaded. Snowman (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of Flickreview template in the commons image documentation add {{Flickreview}}, and after a day or two a bot will check the actual flickr licence and either "pass" or "fail" the image. Similarly add {{Picasareview}} for images from Picasa. Snowman (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
searching Commons for flickr user
You might already be aware of this, but this Flickr user's photostream seems to be nothing but images stolen from other Flickr photographers and released on a CC license. I tried searching the Commons for his name and got no hits, can you double check to make sure we have not uploaded this guy's stolen merchandise? I am contacting some of the original photographers to make them aware of this so they can report him and his images will not show up on our searches. Cheers. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk21:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incredibly good photographs of Lear's Macaws can be found elsewhere. As far as I am aware I have never uploaded from that photo-stream. The basic commons upload guidelines recommend checking the photo-stream and camera specifications of the photographer prior to upload. So, if a bird is in a jungle, then other photographs are typically also seen in the photo-stream that are taken with the same camera of the same place on the same day or at about the same time of year. I am not sure who has the copyright of the images that you refer to, and I think it is noble of you to make enquiries about these images. I recall that User Rabo3 did a clean up of images on commons and got a lot deleted, but I am not sure if they were these images or some other images. Snowman (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I always worry people find these things a bit patronising to receive, but you are doing/did a really good job on the page and I really enjoy watching the programme so I thought I'd give you this. steveking8922:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Your PPR submission had been lying dormant for months, so I nominated it at FPC here. Feel free to add support as co-nominator since it was your PPR nomination that brought this to my attention in the first place. Thanks. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I was hesitant to nominate it at FPC, because of the questions asked about seaweed farming on the peer review page. Do you know what the picture shows? I would be happy to be co-nominator. Snowman (talk) 08:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because you've contributed to FPC either recently or in the past, I'm letting you know about the above poll on the basis of which we may develop proposals to change our procedures and criteria. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with daws
Hi Snowman. Just wanted to personally apologize for assuming you would be watching the Jackdaw article closely. And to thank you for not (mis)treating me the same way and for letting me know about the present conversation and changes. Thank you very much !
— Paine (Ellsworth'sClimax) 08:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am watching over 4000 pages, so I tend to prioritise inspections to changes made by red-link user names and IPs, and some selected articles. Snowman (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification requested
Hello, Snowmanradio. You responded to my request for a bird ID with a comment on the image license. Does the copyright need to be fully surrendered simply to post a Flickr link? I've already changed the license specs on the Flickr account as I'm not too concerned with the copyright on those images, I'm just asking because I want to learn more about image policies. Thanks Tiderolls15:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jill Phipps. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Phipps. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comment indicating that he is notable. Would you be able to help with expanding the article? I really know nothing about the subject or his field of work, so I'm at a loss for trying to write the article. I just happened by it and thought, "Oh, this looks notable. It shouldn't be deleted because of copyright violation (the original issue)." Could you help? Or suggest someone who can? PrincessofLlyrroyal court22:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the Great Britain template is for fauna of Great Britain, and the Ireland template is for fauna of Ireland. They can't really be grouped together, different biogeographical entities. Cheers, Jack (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great Britain has never ever in history included any part of Ireland. Great Britain has only ever comprised of England, Scotland and Wales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.233.229 (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Snowmanradio, because you contributed to FPC's recent review, I'm letting you know that the results of the poll have been posted. We appreciate your contributions to the first stage and hope you take part in this next step, here, to move towards implementing several changes to the process. Regards, Maedin\talk18:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Birds of Tasmania
Snowman I did try and scour flickr using 'Tasmania + wader' looking for licenced images we could use, which got an oystercatcher image. If you can scour flickr with other combinations of 'Tasmania + whatever bird for some tasmanian origin photos I'd be grateful as I am trying to find ones taken in Tasmania. I am going to be busy the next day or so. Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Snowmanradio has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Snowmanradio's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Snowmanradio!
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
Hi Snowmanradio, and thanks for your detailed reviews on both the above FLC and the Tasmania birds FLC. One request: can you clarify what your position on the Leicestershire and Rutland birds list's promotion to FL status? I'm reading through your varied (and detailed) comments, but I'm not sure of the progress. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your recent edits have taken out some referenced material, and in some places you have changed the context to something different to what is in the sources.Snowman (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added some references but I don't think I removed any. Certainly I removed no relevant ones. I copy edited the article, but what I removed was tangential life history stuff like his grandfather teaching to use the lathe. Since that was not mentioned again farther down in the article, I thought it was all right to remove such info. I admit I don't understand the genetics being discussed very well, but this is how I learn new information. Would you be willing to correct any mistakes? (We could co-nominate the article). Or I could just nominate it anyway, and get helpful feedback that will teach me more about writing articles. Best wishes, MacDaid (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it is up to GA level at the present time. I will put back some relevant information that you have taken out. Snowman (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I appreciate your help. It's turned out to be a very interesting subject. Because this awarding of the Nobel Prize was not "controversial", it is not written about in all the Nobel Prize books. Another articles I have worked on is Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine and Gerty Cori. Care to give me any feedback on those? Best wishes, MacDaid (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've discovered that the information you placed in the "Early life" section is not in the citation given. Perhaps you can remember where it came from and add the missing citations. I looked for the Baptist Church in all the biographies/autobiographies and it is not mentioned. Also that fact that " At school he was one of the best pupils, although not at the top of the class." is not in the citation given. Where are there citations for the importance of music in his life? That information, with good citations, would be an interesting addition. Best wishes, MacDaid (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a wiki guideline to add original research, and this addition is not my original research. Where is this transcript that you have seen? I am certain that what I have added to the article (and you have removed) was in the radio broadcast. Snowman (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not linked a transcript - my references are sourcing one episode of the BBC radio series and the url is to a very brief BBC webpage for the episode of the series. Snowman (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the only link there is to a transcript. I guess someone else put it there. You need to provide a transcript to any audio versions of the truth. MacDaid (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know what you are talking about. I see no link to a transcript of the BBC radio program in the "Early life" section, and you have removed my inline references to the url of the BBC webpage in this section. Please provide the url to this transript here to reduce confusion. It is not necessary to link to a transcript of a radio show on the wiki. I quoted the radio interview with him. Snowman (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that was referenced. In any event, you need something more than your interpretation of what the radio show said. Do you have a transcript? MacDaid (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was most certainly referenced; see version on 17 June 2010 prior to your edits. The reference at the end of the section is the source for the section except for the first line which has a different inline reference. I quoted a 45 mins radio show. The material that I added to the article was not my interpretation of anything. My additions to the article were what Evans said in the radio show. Snowman (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the link. The link above does not contain the necessary information that was in the article. Everything needs a reliable source reference, and not your interpretation of the reference. Thanks! MacDaid (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The information that I added to the article was in the radio show and not on the webpage. The BBC is a very reliable source. I would like to repeat that what I added to the article was not my interpretation of the radio program, but was factual information that was broadcast. Snowman (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat that the link you give is not to the video but to a transcript that does not reference things like his grandfather and the Baptist Church. Please provide a link to the video. Otherwise, we just have to take your word for it, so it is Original research. In his extensive autobiography, referenced in the article, Evans mentions none of this. See [1] If you have and episode transcript, such as this one used as a citation for another article on a completely different topic (for illustration only), that would be great.[2] As far as your mention of the article version prior to my editing it,[3] please point out the link to the video itself or to a transcript of the video in that version of the article. The only references to the BBC that I see in that version are http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3357677.stm and http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/desertislanddiscs_20080217.shtml Best wishes, MacDaid (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Madeira Firecrest
Thanks for edits, I've been away for a few days, so apologies for the delay in responding.
I've added a date for the formation of Madeira.
I've changed the edits to the colonisation, which I think obscure the intended meaning. There is no reason to think that an archetypical species was involved. In the Canariea and Azores, the Regulus taxons present now are still subspecies of Goldcrest, so their ancestor could only have been the Goldcrest, not an unknown archetypical extinct species. Although the Madeiran species is now split, it is very similar to Common Firecrest, and I haven't seen anything suggesting that its ancestor was not that species. In the absence of any fossils to suggest otherwise, it is speculative to suggest an alternative origin (it's possible that the ancestral Goldcrests and Firecrests differed in minor detail from the extant subspecies, but we have no evidence of this, and they would not have differed enough to be a different species from the extant European forms) Jimfbleak - talk to me?06:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the other point is that their may not have been single colonisation events, especially in the Canaries, where different islands have different ssp,. Jimfbleak - talk to me?06:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Snowman. Please see my discussion there. Just wondering why, given that we have multiple featured lists that are bullet-formated, as this one was previously. I genuinely find your format ugly (no hostility intended), though I appreciate that's eye of beholder. But the table heading redundancy point is inarguable. Is there a clear benefit you can point to?
I have nominated Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Busy
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
List of antbirds
Rather than just slapping a tag on the above article, which was formerly part of antbird and only split out because that article was going to be too big, you could have added some links. If you really felt that it needed some more links to it. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk09:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re this edit: agreed that the word "Manchester" should be removed, since it's not part of the station name; but in {{Infobox GB station}} we normally take the words "railway station" as read, and omit them. Thus, |name=Deansgate would be correct. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted vandalism a while ago at a time where there was a lot of vandalism on the page. I apologise for accidentally reverting interwiki edits as well. Snowman (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Schools
Hi Snowmanradio. This is a generic message so please bear with me if you are already aware of the situation. In early September changes were made to an infobox template that affected the display of hundreds of school crests/logos in the UK schools infobox. This is now being taken care of and you may find the discussions on this page interesting: Template talk:Infobox UK school, do however leave a message here or here if you come across any that are still not displaying correctly. If you are still actively interested in schools and and are not already a member, and would like to help out on school pages and school templates, you may wish to consider joining the WP:WPSCHOOLS project where you can also stay abreast of developments by adding its talk page to your watchlist. Happy editing!--Kudpung (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref's
Before removing a citation of mine like this, even if unusual, please consider asking me. They are of course not "un-removable" just because they're mine, but I might be able to add a bit of info, as in this case where it appears you missed the location (distribution limits between ssp's easily available in literature – San Isidro, Santa Cruz, Bolivia = a town at approx. 1600 m. above sea level near Comarapa in the arid central valley of Bolivia; irrelevant, but Red-fronted Macaws are frequently seen nearby). Even if the only location we had was "Bolivia" and we didn't know about the eye-ring, it can easily be ID'ed: As widely reported in literature, the only other ssp. in Bolivia (nominate) has far more blue to the face. You can never be sure books that cover entire bird families are correct when it comes to colours of bare part (eyes, eye-rings, legs, etc), as they often rely on old museum specimens where they are not preserved, and the authors rarely have any field experiance with more than a relatively small percentage of the taxa treated. Wild adult A. a. neumanni always have this distinctive orange-yellow eye-ring. Here's another. Cheers • Rabo³ • 04:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Flickr image was a good find. What you may have missed is that the Flickr photographer kindly released the image for use on the wiki, after I spent a fair amount of time communicating with the Flickr photographer and uploading the image to commons. If I recall correctly it was the only image the Flickr photographer would release, and I think that it is a splendid addition to the wiki. It is now in the infobox for wiki readers to see. I am not doubting that you are ornithology is correct. However, trying to think from the point of view of a new reader to the page; if they saw a brown blackbird in a garden they would not think that they are all brown in the area, and this single image does not suggest that the parrot subspecies "always have this distinctive orange-yellow eye-ring" in the locality, and it would be bad science to suggest that a whole population can be gauged by looking at one bird. I think that the ref to the Flickr image is not adequate to explain all of the preceding line, so I deleted it the in-line citation to the image and put a cn tag in its place. Actually, I guessed that you were watching the page and would have seen the change when I made it last January, and I was expecting you to replace it with a reference from a textbook or journal. Snowman (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely keep a watch on pages; even pages I have on my watchlist. In this specific case I can't provide a ref. from a book simply because it doesn't exist, and in all likelihood won't exist until the publication of the Bolivian field guide that still is some way from publication (I know he'll include it). You are of course correct that the photo ref. can be questioned, and if you feel it is too problematic, please do remove it, but then consider removing the entire comment about the orange-yellow eye-ring. Unfortunately there are many similar cases (e.g. distinct deep orange eye-ring in adult Touit melanonota).• Rabo³ • 20:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Goldcrest nest
Snowman, I was thinking about the old print of a nest, when it occurred to me that I had a book from that era, and, lo and behold, when I checked, it was the one the print was from. I've changed the source of File:Antique-bird-nest-eggs-goldcrest-engraving-print-c1852-2068-p.jpg accordingly. Now that it is properly sourced, I think it's a better image than the current one (shows the eggs, and the nest looks more convincing), but I'll leave it to you whether to change it back Jimfbleak - talk to me?16:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I slightly prefer the nest on the conifer tree and it is higher resolution. The other nest looks like it has ivy around it and I do not know how often than would happen. The eggs do not look layered in that nest. In-the-round I would not have any objections if you did show the ivy-surrounded nest on the page. Snowman (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Snowman: I wondered about the wing on the White Stork taxobox pic too. But the current photo shows a captive bird with a badly damaged beak (it's missing a lot of the upper mandible), so I don't think that one's a good choice either! I think we need to put the word out that we need a good photo of an adult. MeegsC | Talk00:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowman, please read Wikipedia:CAPTIONS. It describes, in pretty clear detail, what sort of details are useful in captions. The point of them, according to the article, is to make the reader curious and to draw them into the article. Putting the location of every shot is not necessary; it should be reserved for exceptional circumstances, like that great shot of the huge flock migrating over Israel. Location is important in that case. For the others, that's what the file's description page is for: if readers want to know who took the picture or where it was taken, they can look there. And only putting the location (with no other information except something blatantly self-explanatory, like "Wading" or "A young bird in the sun" or "Sitting on a branch", to use some of the examples from existing articles) is certainly not going to make readers very curious! I don't want to get into an edit war with you over this, so I'd prefer to work together to improve these captions. But I feel strongly enough about it that I will raise the issue on the article's talk page if my expanded captions keep getting removed! MeegsC | Talk15:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have already started a discussion on the bird talk page, see discussion on Bird talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#Captions for photographs. I do not think that you should remove the location in captions, and particularly by replacing the location with unreferenced information. There are two subspecies of the White Stork and so the location indicates the subspecies. The location is important for other reasons and the guidelines indicate that readers will want to know where photographs are taken at Wikipedia:Captions#Tips_for_describing_pictures. Snowman (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for including unreferenced information. I haven't yet had a chance to add everything in my reference materials (got tired of edit conflicts while last working on it), so will put the additional information back in the captions once I've done so. BTW, the location of these photos only indicates the likely subspecies. I grant you that it does indicate the one most likely to occur, but never with 100% certainty. Since they can be determined with certainty only by measurements, you cannot truly tell them to subspecies using a picture. (Breeding birds on nests are an exception: they're more likely to be the "right" subspecies.) Birds wander, particularly when not breeding, so a flying bird, or a bird in a river, or a bird on the wintering grounds could be either subspecies. Just FYI! MeegsC | Talk17:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
_Alt.png)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
