User talk:WolfmanSF/Archive4

I was wanting to add a new section to the Megatherium article. The section would be titled "Possible 16th Century extinction and Survival". I told you that I would cite more sources later, but I would like to point out that I have been reading plenty of books on this as well as watching plenty of documentaries on the History Channel, Nat Geo Wild and the Science Channel featuring the world's top scientists and many of them believe that the Megatherium is still alive and is the Mapinguari, a Crypitd that dwells within the Amazon Rainforest. Also, there are scientists that believe that the Megatherium went extinct in the late 16th century. Which is also why I am making 2 list articles that are titled "List of Possibly Surviving Species" and "List of Species with a Possible Later Extinction". In the new section called ""Possible 16th Century extinction and Survival", I would post the links to the articles, but I am having a hard time trying to cite them. Peace ☮ Keeby101 (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the material you are preparing would be more appropriate for a cryptozoology article rather than one of the regular giant sloth articles. Note that there is already a list of cryptids and an article on the mapinguari. The possible survival of any type of giant sloth into recent times, while an exciting prospect, has essentially zero probability. These were big slow-moving animals that couldn't run or hide very well. While well able to defend themselves in close quarters, they would have been very vulnerable to spears and other missiles. You might consider adding a few more realistic science-based articles and books to your reading list, such as:

• Steadman, D. W. (2005-08-16). "Asynchronous extinction of late Quaternary sloths on continents and islands". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 102 (33): 11763–11768. doi:10.1073/pnas.0502777102. PMC 1187974. PMID 16085711. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Martin, P. S. (2005). Twilight of the Mammoths: Ice Age Extinctions and the Rewilding of America. University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-23141-4.

Hope you find them as interesting as I did. WolfmanSF (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals#Olingos_and_Olinguito for upcoming changes to these articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Have you been taking just a wiki-vacation, or a real vacation? WolfmanSF (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I changed jobs and moved. I think I'll have time to do this a bit more regularly again. When do you think would be a good time to make the article moves? - UtherSRG (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could go ahead and move the articles now. Then we could fix up the genus article as needed. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subfamily is outdated? If so, we (you) should fix the family page. What's the source you have that says to nix it? - UtherSRG (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multiples sources of phylogenies based on genetic data:

• K.-P. Koepfli, M. E. Gompper, E. Eizirik, C.-C. Ho, L. Linden, J. E. Maldonado, R. K. Wayne (2007). "Phylogeny of the Procyonidae (Mammalia: Carvnivora): Molecules, morphology and the Great American Interchange". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 43 (3): 1076–1095. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2006.10.003. PMID 17174109.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Eizirik, E.; Murphy, W. J.; Koepfli, K.-P.; Johnson, W. E.; Dragoo, J. W.; Wayne, R. K.; O’Brien, S. J. (2010-02-04). "Pattern and timing of diversification of the mammalian order Carnivora inferred from multiple nuclear gene sequences". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 56 (1): 49–63. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2010.01.033.
• Helgen, K. M.; Pinto, M.; Kays, R.; Helgen, L.; Tsuchiya, M.; Quinn, A.; Wilson, D.; Maldonado, J. (2013-08-15). "Taxonomic revision of the olingos (Bassaricyon), with description of a new species, the Olinguito". ZooKeys. 324: 1–83. doi:10.3897/zookeys.324.5827.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

indicate that coatis are most closely related to olingos, raccoons are most closely related to ringtails and cacomistles, and kinkajous are a sister group to the rest. While no one to my knowledge has yet published a new set of subfamilies to take this into account, I don't think we should present the old ones that contradict this phylogeny (and which are no longer taken seriously), at least not in the genus article taxoboxes, where they are optional in any case. Regarding the Procyonidae article, the subfamiles should I think either be ditched or contrasted with a proper genetic phylogeny (I'm working on the article at the moment). WolfmanSF (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rock on, then, man! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, indeed, all three come to the same conclusion. However, all three also do no testing on Nasuella. Are DNA samples of that genus too hard to come by for over 6 years? Speculating, it seems likely that the two subfamilies will stay, but their membership will change (Potos in Potosinae, and all the rest in Procyoninae). Likewise, tribes Procyonini (Procyon and Bassariscus) and Nasuaini. Perhaps no subtribes. Damn, it would have been good if Helgen 2013 had included Nasuella, to show that its addition doesn't throw off the previous results. Then he could have formally restructured the family. Oh well. Ok, enough speculation. We could remove the family listing from the article and replace it with a tree that shows the modern understanding, and include a note explaining that the three sources that produced the tree did not include Nasuella in their tests. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Helgen et al. have already tested Nasuella DNA sequences and found that it nests within the genus Nasua. (See the end of the Nasuella article.) WolfmanSF (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... tricksy coatis hiding from us. So, he was bold enough to say that Nasuella should probably be regarded as a synonym for Nasua, but held off on doing so. What would be the alternative? Resurrect one of the synonyms for Nasua (Coati, Mamnasuaus, or Nasica... but only if one of those was originally applied to narica)? Erect a new genus? Ok... I guess he did the right thing... not enough evidence to make the call as to three genera or one. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For all we know, Helgen and others may already have started work on MSW4, where all will be revealed... WolfmanSF (talk) 05:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked , and that is indeed happening; see bottom of this page. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, we knew they were working on it: Mammal_Species_of_the_World. However, as with the previous editions, it should be the accumulation of previous data and shouldn't be creating new taxa, or reassigning taxa. *shrugs* - UtherSRG (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of taxonomic authorities working on the reference, I tend to think an effort will be made to resolve obvious problems by the time the new edition comes out. We'll see. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was getting ashamed that apparently we did not have an article on the Echimyidae until you made one today, but it turns out we did have one—it just got deleted accidentally during a sentence-casing operation. See User talk:Materialscientist#Spiny rat.

Thanks for noticing the issue, though! It looks like this happened because we had two different articles distinguished only by case: "Spiny Rat" on Rattus praetor and "spiny rat" on the Echimyidae. That's a terrible situation to have. Ucucha (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and absolutely, I should have looked before moving. I have restored the deleted content in User:Materialscientist/Sandbox (without edit history, just the last version for quick reference). Materialscientist (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that there is also a Category:Spiny rats, which so far I believe contains just the species in Echimyidae. Maybe it should be moved to Category:Echimyids or something. Also the plural "spiny rats" currently redirects to Echimyidae. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Materialscientist fixed the redirect and I've nominated the category for renaming (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_7). I'm also going to fix the links that still refer to spiny rat. Ucucha (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the currently listed links to "spiny rat" appear to come from the Template:Rodents, where I've already removed it. The updating of links from templates seems to be slow. WolfmanSF (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I removed some other links from templates. Once those are all gone we can see how many links remain to be fixed. Ucucha (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you guys realize just how funny the above dialogue is? Send it to Robin Williams immediately!!!  :) Billyshiverstick (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi "Wolfie" thanks for being so cheerful and making the revert. I'm not sure what got into me, as I'm usually more concerned with syntax and I respect the whole source idea, limitations and all

we all need to be bad once in a while

That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it. Is there a way to just send someone a message, or is adding a topic on their page the only way?

PS: Ironically, I do think that after its useful life as a probe is finished, it does become space garbage, hazardous even, as it could land on an extremophile day-care centre on an asteroid causing great harm to the locals.

However, it is also still functioning as an "ambassador" of sorts, so purely labelling it as garbage is a bit harsh, and of course, UNSOURCED. Don't you think we humans think a bit much of ourselves at times? One man's gold record is another's trash... :) anyways - thanks Ben

Honestly, I think that even without the gold record it could end up being the centerpiece of a major alien museum somewhere (perhaps one devoted to examples of primitive technology).

You can email a user using the "Email this user" link in the "toolbox" on the left-side navigation menu of a user page if both you and the user in question have set their user preferences appropriately. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email

In my case, however, there could be a considerable delay before I check that particular email account. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Your copyedits are much appreciated! Thank you!! Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You recently reverted by song reference to Pygmy Marmosets as being trivial. I think that it is far from trivial - the fact that a popular song should reference a relatively obscure animal is interesting as a cultural point in the 'image' of that animal and for anyone trying to find a cultural reference to a Pygmy Marmoset the slight obscurity of the reference will make the discovery of the animal's appearance in such a song all the more valuable. Is it possible to reconsider your decision? Meanwhile I hope I'm writing this comment in the right place - I'm only an occasional contributor and not 100% sure of the etiquette. Best wishes and bravo for all your obviously hard work on Wikipedia ~~Malikbek~~

Hi Malikbek. See WP:"In popular culture" content#Good and bad popular culture references for a discussion of what sorts of popular culture references are considered acceptable. Do you think your example satisfies the criteria given? WolfmanSF (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:"somehow we need to format the galleries so you don't need to scroll to read the captions"; I believe the formatting you are looking for is setting |lines= in {{gallery}} to the maximum number of lines needed for the captions. In fact, I was under the impression that this caption scrolling issue was already resolved. — Reatlas (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think one problem with that "solution" is that the maximum number of lines needed varies with the computer monitor. Of course, even if the setting is correct, someone can come along and lengthen a caption. What advantage(s) does the gallery template have over the tag to compensate for this disadvantage? WolfmanSF (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this immediate scenario, footers, a border around the whole gallery, central placement, and not having to migrate over all the formatting. Now it's already been moved though, wouldn't saying that it needs to be changed back. — Reatlas (talk) 10:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, those are minor advantages coupled with a major disadvantage. However, there's no reason the template couldn't be recoded to allow turning off the scrolling captions feature. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you are making a series of edits to Sea. I'm not sure if you know that User:Cwmhiraeth very recently brought it to FA status in an exceptionally lengthy discussion, and that it is about to be featured on the front page. I'd ask, therefore, that before making substantial changes, such as removing paragraphs and rewriting sections, we have a proper discussion of the proposed changes. I would like please to reinstate the paragraph you have just deleted, at least until after the article has appeared on the front page, unless there are the most pressing grounds for changing it. With many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. It is due to appear on the front page tomorrow, November 2nd. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed the paragraph on ocean acidification—which I consider a topic of exceptional importance—on first looking over the article, so I added one under "Marine pollution", then noticed the largely redundant paragraph already present (originally without a heading, under "Seawater"), and so deleted the one I had added. However, I would like to make a few edits to the existing paragraph, mainly to strengthen it by adding a bit more material and a few more references. Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. We think that will be fine - it all looks very sensible - but we'd appreciate discussing changes first. Front page appearance is tomorrow. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't think my edits will be too objectionable. If you see something you don't like, revert it. I won't start an edit war. WolfmanSF (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's on the front page now, and we're fending off the sillies, so it's a sensitive moment. Glad of your efforts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit has unbalanced the lead. I appreciate that you feel strongly about the topic, and the edits to the main body of the article look fine, but adding a long paragraph to the lead like that gets the balance wrong. Can you please not make major changes like that to an article's lead while it is on the main page? I reduced the detail here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had little advance notice that this article would be featured. Given that the process of ocean acidification represents a major threat to the biosphere as well as to the welfare of our species, according to nearly all informed scientists, I don't think 3 sentences added to the intro is unbalanced. Anyone who doesn't find this situation scary doesn't understand what's happening. WolfmanSF (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with parts of what you are saying here, but shoe-horning that level of detail into the lead of sea when it is featured on the main page is not the right moment. It would be better to get ocean acidification to FA level and have that featured on the main page. The sea article is viewed by millions every year, so the moment when it appears on the main page is only a small amount of the views it will get. There is much more work to be done on this and related articles. If you want to have more detail on ocean acidification in the lead section, please start a discussion on that on the article talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you are miffed that I have violated protocol by editing the introduction while the article was featured. However, there are exceptions to every rule, and for the reasons stated above, I strongly fell this is/was one of them. If you can't admit that this might be true, then I think you have lost your sense of proportion. The present mention of acidification in the introduction is inadequate because it doesn't mention the cause of the change, or indicate that this is a major threat to life in the oceans.

As for the accusation that my edits "unbalanced" the introduction, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Currently we have 3 sentences on salinity and one on acidity, while the latter is a far more important and less appreciated topic. Even with the addition of 2 more sentences, the paragraph in question is shorter (in terms of either words or characters) than the following paragraph on waves and currents. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a section at Talk:Sea#Ocean acidification to discuss this. Carcharoth (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please don't add the looooog caption again in the article. Its creating problem for GA review. The article is my heart and I want to give it at least a GA. Please don't do that again. I f you have any problem regarding the subject, discuss it with the reviewer in his talkpage.
Regards
Benison talk with me

Please provide a link documenting how it is causing problems with the GA review. I can't imagine why it would. Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the GA review comment was not about the current caption, which is not particularly long - there are lots of longer ones out there (see this one, for example). The GA review was also critical of captions that are not informative. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, now Voyager 1 is a FA candidate.. Hit a support if you like... Herald talk with me 15:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would kindly ask you to respect the copyright terms for the usage of images from JPL. They provide these images with very reasonable terms and it is a basic courtesy to respect these terms. Kindest regards, Tony Mach (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The credit for all images in Wikipedia is given in the author listing of the image page, obtained by clicking on the image. It is entirely superfluous to repeat that in the image caption. It is also superfluous to say "Courtesy" in the author line of the image page. WolfmanSF (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree. By electing to download the material from this web site the user agrees: … 2. to use a credit line in connection with images. Unless otherwise noted in the caption information for an image, the credit line should be "Courtesy NASA/JPL-Caltech." … [1]. Use a different caption, if you don't like the "Courtesy" – but JPL's term ask you to use a credit line in your caption. Anyway, I will leave this alone for now, as this will be solved for all JPL images – one way or the other (or so I hope). Tony Mach (talk) 09:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, you write in your revert summary: "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted". Well, it is not NASA material, it is JPL material – and it is "otherwise noted" as I have hereby pointed out to you FOR THE FRICKING SECOND TIME. Tony Mach (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, JPL is a NASA center and as such their policies regarding image use are those of NASA. The generic, boilerplate request for credit you refer to means only that they want appropriate attribution to be given along with the image. In print medium or in web sites without a specific mechanism for doing so, adding such attribution to an image caption would be appropriate. Wikipedia has a different, and better, mechanism for giving attribution, as you know, which involves the page obtained by clicking on an image. This satisfies the "in connection" requirement of JPL's request. "Courtesy" is equivalent to "Author:" so there is no need to add it to the author line of a Wikimedia Commons image page.

The caption referred to in JPL's attribution request is the caption on the Planetary Photojournal web site page for an image. They are not demanding attribution in the user's image captions! WolfmanSF (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd vote for doing away with "splendid isolation" because A) 'splendid' isn't very objective (what qualifies the isolation of a location as splendid) B) 'splendid' isn't encyclopedic, as it implies that the isolation is/was a positive thing (whereas the isolation was just a thing, neither positive or negative)

Finally, I'd almost want to remove 'isolation' altogether, in addition to 'splendid', as they come immediately after saying that South America was an island continent. While "isolated island continent" risks redundance, "island continent, whose 'splendid isolation'..." embraces redundance, no?

(Also, should using direct wording from book titles be an objective (or even sub-sub-objective) of encyclopedic text?)—140.153.24.26 (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If using the word "splendid" in this context was the idea of just some Wikipedian, I would agree with you. However, the book whose title is alluded to is one of the most famous ones on the subject. George Gaylord Simpson, an eminent zoologist, chose this wording to emphasize his view that this isolation provided a fascinating natural experiment in evolution, in the same way (although not to the same degree) that discovering life on another planet would. I don't think there is anything too nonencyclopedic in mentioning the views of authorities. Also, I don't think the wording is excessively redundant; if you take "splendid" out, it reads well. (Just knowing that a land mass is an island doesn't tell you how isolated it is.) WolfmanSF (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helo WolfmanSF, I was woundering what website/tool/scrip you are using to make Citation bot create templates as {{Cite doi/10.1111.2Fj.1748-7692.2010.00438.x}}. I could not find out where this could be done. (t) Josve05a (c) 21:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can just paste in this example and modify it: <ref name="Example2006">{{Cite doi|10.1146/annurev.earth.33.092203.122621}}</ref>

The template is described here: Template:Cite doi. If you "jump the queue" after creating the citation, a bot will autofill the citation fields. Sometimes you won't see these changes in the article for a few minutes or until you make another edit to it. I usually change the "year" field into a "date" field and make other edits (italicizing Latin species names, adding journal links, etc.) as needed. WolfmanSF (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:Crater Lake winter pano2.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 23:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2012 VP113, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Biden is believed to be an eccentric frozen pink dwarf? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2012 VP113. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

On 16 April 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rings of Chariklo, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the minor planet Chariklo has a ring system (artist's rendering pictured), making it the smallest body known to be surrounded by rings? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rings of Chariklo. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

slakr^\ talk / 08:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Typing 151 parsecs to lightyears into Google gives 151 Parsecs = 492.50665 lightyears which rounds up to 493. Astredita (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Google were only using 4 decimal places in their conversion 3.2616. Astredita (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what you get for using Google rather than Wikipedia! WolfmanSF (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The semi-major axis of 0.356 AU is inconsistent with period of 130 days and star mass of 0.48. The data from the original article (Quintana et al, 2014) seems more reliable: 0.393 AU (page 3, table 2 set B). Also, the radius in the same table is 1.13, not 1.11. Both axis of 0.356 AU and radius of 1.11 Rearth may be some earlier estimates. Olvegg (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Olvegg, it looks like there are multiple values in the literature for both these parameters. Thanks for bringing that to my attention, and I'm sorry I reverted you the way I did. However, in the future please make it a practice to include explanatory edit summaries with all of your edits. This is particularly important with high-profile articles (which attract vandals) and when the reason for the edit may not be obvious. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sorry for editing without explanation. If you don't mind, I'd like to change data once again, so that they'll be consistent with each other.Olvegg (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably give the different values published, with their sources. WolfmanSF (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your values appear to be those of Bolmont et al., 2014, not those from Quintana et al, 2014. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. Two articles from the same group of researchers in the same time on the same subject is confusing ) Thank you for updating the article. I've added alternative figures in text as well. Olvegg (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tidying up my addition, I am fairly new here so not sure about referencing etc., so I hope I can learn from you! Cheeres, Toby — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobermory Womble (talk • contribs) 13:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page has reached a huge size; you should get some archives, friend. Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...your comment on the main page talk today. It's the kind of thing that I've recently turned my attention to when copyediting. Primergrey (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wolfman,

I noticed that you redirected Lacerta maxima to Gallotia goliath a few years ago. There is no mention of Lacerta maxima on that article, and I have been searching online for a connection between the two names, but without success. Do you know of any sources that indicate that these two names are synonyms?

Neelix (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gallotia maxima is a junior synonym of Gallotia goliath; all lacertids in the Canary Islands are assigned to Gallotia (see opening sentence in the latter article) although some were initially described as part of Lacerta. In the Reptarium database entries for the species described earlier, G. atlantica, G. stehlini, G. simonyi, G. caesaris and G. galloti (see the bottom of the Gallotia page), Latin names based on Lacerta are given as synonyms. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maca-Meyer et al. (2003) state in their opening sentence, "Lacertid lizards of the endemic genus Gallotia Boulenger, 1916, together with the geckos Tarentola (Carranza et al. 2000, 2002; Nogales et al., 1998), and the skinks Chalcides (Brown & Pestano, 1998), are the only reptile groups to have successfully colonized the Canary Islands..." (doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2003.00265.x) There are no members of Lacerta in the Canary Islands. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello this is classictwcfan, and I really like your article on the yellow-nosed cotton rat. However I thought that there wasn't any sexual dimorphism among this species. Maybe you could elberate on that. Thank you. (70.195.3.126 (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Done. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WolfmanSF. I found this edit you made to Roig's tuco-tuco way back on 07:16, 26 January 2011. I noticed that you used the cite template |pages= parameter for the total number of pages in the book when that parameter is only intended for specific pages or a specific page range (this is true for journals too but people often cite the total page range in that case). Since the edit is so old, you probably know this now but I thought I'd write a message just in case. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted one of your changes, but undid the revert because you were absolutely correct. I made a slight modification by adding "morphological characteristics". Atsme☯^Consult 19:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could contribute to this interesting article in a minor way. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I got confused! Osborne 17:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment withdrawn

Coconutporkpie (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that unnecessarily complex verbiage should be avoided. But this verbiage is not unnecessary; it conveys an explanation that cannot be succinctly reduced to plain English without loss of meaning. It is impenetrable only to those who aren't familiar with the terms. Anyone who is interested in understanding it better can proceed by looking up the definitions of the terms and at least gain some further knowledge. Those who are not interested in the detailed explanation can pass over the technical terms while still understanding the thrust of the argument. Plenty of other Wikipedia articles at least in places use technical language that would be meaningless to a layman. (Just think of the articles on quantum mechanics!) WolfmanSF (talk) 07:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WolfmanSF: Hello - added your excellent updated image caption for File:PIA18788-VestaAsteroid-GeologicMap-DawnMission-20141117.jpg in the 4 Vesta article to the same image in the Dawn (spacecraft) article - hope this is *entirely* ok with you - please let me know if otherwise of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, thanks. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits on the gray-tailed vole. I didn't know about the MSW3 template. It will make things a lot easier! —Gaff ^ταλκ 15:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the clean-up help on Slow loris ahead of it's TFA (today). It just dawned on me that a related article, Conservation of slow lorises, needs a small update that I can't make, and I was hoping you might be able to help. A little while back, a research article by the world's leading slow loris researcher discussed the impact these slow loris Wiki articles (and other social media) had on loris conservation. Because the article mentions me ("A. Dunkel") and my Wiki efforts, there would be an obvious conflict of interest if I were to summarize it. Would you mind helping out by adding a mention to the appropriate article? It will definitely make for an interesting edit—making note of the significance of a Wikipedia article in the article itself. – Maky ^« talk » 08:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll have a look at it, and maybe get the edit done this weekend. Thanks again for your prolific contributions to strepsirrhine articles. WolfmanSF (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits this weekend! I really appreciate the help. – Maky ^« talk » 06:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	You've been invited to be part of WikiProject Cosmology
	Hello. Your contributions to Wikipedia have been analyzed and it seems like you'd have some interest in a new project. I hope you can contribute to it by expanding the main page and later start editing the articles in its scope. Make sure to check out the Talk page for more information! Cheers Tetra quark (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link was added by a long-banned IP who keeps hopping around. It is a long ongoing WP:DENY effort. See User:Arthur Rubin/IP list. Special:Contributions/99.112.212.104 Many of the IP's edits are OK, but often seems to add unnecessary links and other stuff. Rather interesting probably has done a quarter million edits, 99%+ are reverted, but keeps on going. No problem (that I know of) with the link or restoring it. Just as long as the IP's effort was denied. It would be nice to explain the purpose of each revert, but it gets tiring... Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the following species is in a monotypic genus. Any species I am familiar with defaults to the species if the genus is monotypic. Whether or not it is featured is immaterial. It should follow protocol.....I have left a note on User:Ucucha's talk page regarding this and the article for Eremoryzomys. That should be changed to Gray Rice Rat since both the IUCN and Enyclopedia of Life refer it as such.Pvmoutside (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. My experiences come from Wikiproject Birds, where every species has a common name, which categorizes monotypic genera to species. I didn't realize scientific names work a different way.....Seems a little counterintuitive to have common names work one way, and scientific names work another.....