User talk:RN1970

I just wanted to say nice work on Discus (fish). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! RN1970 (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and here I'm sitting in Cape Town, too ;) Cheers, mate. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it can happen to everyone. Cheers, RN1970 (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your edits on the brown pelican. I hope we can take it all the way to an FA. Since I am relatively new to editing bird articles, would you be able to help me on taking it to an FA? I would gain much more experience for other bird species in the process! Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityavagarwal (talk • contribs) 02:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. I see you've already done a lot to improve it and it really isn't that long from FA. There are several people in WP:BIRD that are active in FA making and I see you're already active there. Otherwise I'll spend some time on it later this week when time allows. Regards, RN1970 (talk) 09:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In excitement, I even forgot to sign my previous comment. Seeing your interest in pelicans, I figured you might also like to make the brown pelican an FA. Thanks a ton for all your time and trouble! I hope you have a wonderful day/night! Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your improvements to Wadden Sea. You said " added better map to text (was in infobox before, but appears the new only supports the less useful [in this case] pin map)". This isn't really correct (if I looked correctly). The map was used as an image in the old version of the infobox[1]; you can still replace the image that is there with the map if you prefer that one at the top of the infobox. When the infobox was migrated to Wikidata, it used a different image[2], which is the one I copied to use in the current infobox. I added a map (which you further improved) so that now we have both a map and an image. Using the other map as a map is indeed at the moment not possible, but this wasn't possible in the old version either (as far as I know). Fram (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional info, it's appreciated. RN1970 (talk) 10:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you didn't understand the reference to my pseudo. Better look again and think!! Also you misread the edition and didn't see that the references were included elswhere. I understand that you may be disappointed by the changes especially if you are the one who added the repetitive comments on taxonomy. Also so sorry for not signing my previous commentsaeblmr 20:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thescarid (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, I fully understood. I understand how you repeatedly have made changes that do not match the refs (indeed, often directly contradicted by the refs), have provided "false refs" (refs claimed to support info, but when checked they do not) and now claim that you had included supporting references elsewhere (you had not): Talk:Sparisoma cretense. Let's not split discussions. RN1970 (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I am signing my contributions correctly. At least I am including the tildes as instructed. Perhaps there is a better way to do this? Maybe you could adivse? kind regards - and don't talk things so personally !!!!≥ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thescarid (talk • contribs) 14:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To sign comments you should add four tiles at the end of your comment: ~~~~

Yes, there is a better way to do this. You add something to an article, you make sure it matches the refs. Also, don't delete comments by other people, like you've done here and elsewhere (indeed, I already explained signing in the comment you've repeatedly tried to delete at Talk:Sparisoma cretense; you should consider reading it instead). It is interesting that when your removal of my comment repeatedly was reverted and you were warned aboit this, another completely new user with an "interesting" name suddenly appeared and repeated your edits. RN1970 (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped a notice at ANI - ANI/Sockpuppetry & disruptive editing by User:Thescarid. I think this behaviour has gone far enough now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Elmidae, it is appreciated. I see the editor+socks have been blocked. RN1970 (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dactyloidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Type locality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. RN1970 (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Archolaemus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Araguari River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. RN1970 (talk) 10:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Burntcoat Head, Nova Scotia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Periwinkle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. RN1970 (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Monterrey platyfish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Juan River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. RN1970 (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sicyases sanguineus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amphibious (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. RN1970 (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saying, "150+, 170+...." is the same as just saying "150+" the lowest estimate is what we are looking at here and the Library of congress has a higher bench mark. At the end of the day from the source information the library of congress might also be larger then 200+ it never has a top bench mark. That is why it conflicts. I do not want an editing war that is why I'm asking you to return it back to its correct form or respond to me, ether is fine.

side note, we are also the only google response on the front page who says the British library is bigger, that usually is a good indicator that we are wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viridiss (talk • contribs) 19:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow reply.

Wiki relies on WP:V and there are WP:RS sources that support 150–200 million for the British Library, so that is what the wiki article says. I would strongly object to anyone insisting on only listing the 150 number. It would contradict WP:NPOV, a core policy on wiki, by deliberately choosing to overlook sources based on no valid reason that I can think of. If only one is listed, there is a much stronger argument for 200 million than 150. The ref for 150+ million is old, around a decade if not more (wayback confirms that numbers in ref haven't been updated at least since 2009). Recent refs, like this from a month ago, say 200+ million.

Both these mega-libraries have grown fast in recent decades and it continues. It's also easy to find old refs for the Library of Congress, like this from 2005 that says 110 million. In 2012 it was 151–155+ million (they list both numbers), in 2016 it was 164+ million (the number currently in the wiki list) and the most recent number, from 2017, has 167+ million. However, a related problem is that no single definition of a "library item" exists, and we have no way of knowing if the different libraries use the same definition. The British Library's year review specifically highlights this problem. Later (in this month) I will add a few sentences to the article about the problem and why both Library of Congress and the British Library have been called largest.

Please remember to sign your comments. This is done by adding four tiles (~~~~) at the end of your message. Regards, RN1970 (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the response, sorry about not signing Ill try to do that. My argument is not to take away the 200 mil but simple put the library lower since the meaning is the same. with both being murky on size as you mention it also would be prudent to look at staff and area size for which the library of congress is way bigger. And you are right that both are called the biggest however we are very much in the minority with saying the British library is. I agree we need to have something talking about how murky it is but it seems inappropriate to have the British library higher when the size in the areas of staff and budget are so much bigger even if we can not tell about the size of items and with one having an Approximation ranging 50 million is hardly is a justification to say bigger because the higher end is bigger even if their is confusion on what is defined as an item. Thank you again for your response. Viridiss (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to put a note that I simple have a disagreement about putting the British library over the Congressional one. Honestly I think the best way over all is to have nether on the top and simple it say that it is a contested topic, now that i think about it. However I do not know how this could be accomplished and if it can not then I think we are better off just putting the Congressional one over for the reasons stated. But best think in my opinion would be to have nether as sole #1. Viridiss (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Epimeriidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hydroid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. RN1970 (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Oldest lake. Since you had some involvement with the Oldest lake redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hoy, I was just reading about the earless monitor lizard Lanthanotus borneensis, while looking at the use of the term "monitor lizard" and see you contributed to that article. There is some discussion on naming at Talk:Monitor lizard if you interested in bringing another perspective. cygnis insignis 04:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Saddleback toad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anura (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. RN1970 (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mongolian toad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North Korean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved RN1970 (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, noticed your work on Marine iguana and did a little copyediting. Wanted to ask a question regarding this line in Marine_iguana#Reproduction_and_life_cycle: "Other factors involved in the female's choice of partner are the display frequency by a male (especially head-bobbing) and the quality of a male's territory." The article doesn't mention what types of displays males do for females (I saw male-to-male displays, but not male-to-female displays), and it's not certain from this statement what exactly determines the quality of a male's territory. Wondering if you could clarify? bibliomaniac15 19:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bibliomaniac15: Sure, I just added a bit more. If you prefer another wording/format/order than what I added, feel free to ce it. RN1970 (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great additions! That answers my question most satisfactorily. bibliomaniac15 04:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the R0 of COVID was lowered to 3.28 with the current source in the article, is this correct? Does the current source override the CDC source? I find it hard to believe the virus could spread so rapidly with an R0 of 3.28. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem: My only edit to the article was this, so I'm guessing the question was intended for the editors that changed the R0 or someone more involved in the article. However, without looking very deeply into the source material, it does seem that Australia's Department of Health, which I would regard as WP:RS, is based on multiple studies, whereas the article in the CDC's journal Emerging Infectious Diseases (i.e., although CDC controls it, it includes studies made by many sources, as long as they go through peer-review), is based on one study of the initial outbreak in China. A handful of other studies, also mostly based on the initial outbreak in China, have resulted in anywhere from ~1.4 to 6.5 (average 3.28; I presume this is the basis for the number by Australia's Department of Health) and WHO have listed it at 2 to 2.5. I think the most reasonable would be to provide the average multi-study number also used by Australia's Department of Health, or provide a full range (as already done for some other diseases in the table), using several WP:RS sources. However, this is up to people with greater involvement in the article than me. RN1970 (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RN: You recently edited pelican (here) with the comment "correction, per IUCN ref (note also that wintering often is near-coast, or sometimes even on coast)". However, the reference after your modified sentence isn't the IUCN, and the ref that IS there doesn't agree with what you've changed the sentence to say. Can you please update one or the other so that it's correct? Thanks. MeegsC (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I missed the separation between two refs. I've added the HBW ref too, which provides more detail. There are actually also 3 small, irregular breeding colonies in the inland Mexican state Durango, coastal Tamaulipas and coastal Texas (details). Most sources overlook them, especially the Mexican, and adding that amount of detail is perhaps a bit too much for the Pelican article table. RN1970 (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hello, could you help me to create this article? 10:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.28.211.78 (talk)

The article for CJ The DJ was created years ago. I've never edited that article or any related article, and my knowledge about the subject is non-existent. I'm not sure what you're asking me to do, but if you're looking for help in editing you can check Help:Editing. Regards, RN1970 (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Olm for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Romalea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Genetic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. RN1970 (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]