User talk:Richard001

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I generally post or reply on a user's own talk page, and prefer that other users reply here as I often neglect to watch their talk page. Please add comments to the bottom of the page.

Archives
User talk:Richard001/Archive User talk:Richard001/Archive 2

Contents 1 T. W. Wood 2 Applications 3 Death talk archives 4 Image cross checker - Bot request 5 Image:Aplomado.JPG 6 Image:Conservapedia Main Page.PNG listed for deletion 7 Rodney 8 Matthew Auger 9 WikiProject Birds October newsletter 10 Notice: AN/I 11 Bird Videos 12 transferring bird images from flickr 13 Spontaneous Generation 14 Biologist 15 Flickr photos 16 Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such)for Science related articles 17 WikiProject Birds November newsletter 18 Image:Banner kiwi3.gif 19 Input requested at WP:FPC 20 barnstar 21 Larks 22 Images 23 Happy Holidays 24 Monkey Business 25 Re: The Selfish Gene edit and question 26 Logrunner 27 North American River Otter 28 Infanticide 29 Antipredator adaptation 30 Image copyright problem with File:Hans Eysenck.jpg 31 Bird navigation template 32 Orphaned non-free image (File:Rsnzlogo.gif) 33 Request 34 Category:Invertebrates 35 Quote mining 36 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 37 WikiProject Birds February newsletter 38 Newsletter tip 39 DYK for The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms 40 You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron 41 Image copyright problem with File:George Gaylord Simpson.jpg 42 WikiProject Birds March newsletter 43 TfD nomination of Template:Attribution needed 44 New article stubs or userspace stub? 45 Bird newsletter template 46 Possible proposed Wikiproject of interest 47 WikiProject Birds April newsletter 48 Missed the last meeting in auckland 49 Hello 50 New image project 51 DYK for Scolypopa australis 52 Copyright on recordings 53 File:DavidLange.jpg 54 WikiProject Birds May newsletter 55 A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies 56 WikiProject Birds June newsletter 57 GA reassessment of The Botanic Garden

[edit] T. W. Wood

Hi, just a heads up that I've put a couple of links on my talk page that suggest Darwin had drawings done by a Thomas Wood from Hampstead Road, NW [London, presumably], so that seems more likely than the American chap. . . dave souza, talk 20:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Applications

I'm in two minds about that now, on one hand the genetic engineering, artificial selection and computing are certainly practical applications, so since the original version said "Understanding evolution can have practical applications, as well" this was wrong, however, this could be corrected if you were to change it to "Understanding phylogenies can have practical applications, as well", which is probably what you meant to say? Tim Vickers (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I tend to avoid the word "macroevolution" wherever possible, since some people use it to mean evolutionary forces that act above the species level, such as species selection, others to patterns and trends in evolution, such as Cope's rule, and others to mean "evolutionary changes that produce new species". Tim Vickers (talk) 23:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Death talk archives

Hello, Richard. I was trying to archive Talk:Death and idk, it seems I've screwed it up royally. If you would be so kind as to pop over there (my contributions may also be useful) and have a look and fix it, and explain what I did wrong, it would be much appreciated. Thank you. Carl.bunderson (talk)

Death, eh? Haven't been watching that one for a while now. It's not immediately obvious to me that you have done anything wrong, or if you have it seems that it has been fixed. Just look at what other people have done when making an archive and you should be okay. We should probably put a template at the top to link the death archives together too. Richard001 (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems to have straightened itself out. It was just that the link still looked red after I made it, so I was confused. But all's well. Thanks again for examining it. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image cross checker - Bot request

Response to Your bot request. After looking at it I believe that it would be better done as a User script. I have constructed the following api query which tells me:

Imagerepository

local is uploaded on EN, shared if on commons

Pageid

If exists it mean that there's a local image description page

Among other bit of information, however since I'm not experienced using JS with the API I'll defer it to WP:US/R. — Dispenser 06:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Aplomado.JPG

I noticed that you created this page by putting it in Category:Images of birds. Did you do this because you thought this was a file here on Wikipedia (I make edits like that by accident occasionally)? If that wasn't the case (if you can even remember), I don't really see any reason to categorize the file here when the file is at Commons, especially since Commons already has its own (and far better) category and gallery system; after all it's not a featured picture or anything.

Actually, now that I look at another file, Image:Bird.parts.jpg, I see you have done that same, so I guess it was done deliberately. I'm not sure that we have a policy on this, but I'm guessing the consensus is not to create pages by adding them to such categories. Do you object to "deleting" such images? Richard001 (talk) 09:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. That was probably just my inner librarian kicking in, trying to organize bird images or something. But you're right, it's redundant to Commons. Do what you want! A²Kafir (and...?) 14:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Conservapedia Main Page.PNG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Conservapedia Main Page.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ViperSnake151 23:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rodney

Uh... so what is an OTRS permission? --Helenalex (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I forwarded the email which gave me permission to use the pics on Wikipedia, and which said they were non copyright, to the English Wikipedia permissions email. --Helenalex (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Auger

Hi Richard. I was thinking. You might want to invite my office mate, Matthew Auger, in the Math Department at the University of Auckland as well to the Auckland Meetup 4. His username is Matthew Auger. He's been seriously contributing to Wikipedia for longer than I have. Thanks! HowiAuckland (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Birds October newsletter

The October 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notice: AN/I

To Andycjp and others who might be interested. This notice is being sent to inform you that Andycjp’s disruptive editing has been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (AN/I): [1].

-- Hordaland (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bird Videos

Hi Richard, all of my videos should have your category added now. Aviceda talk 20:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] transferring bird images from flickr

Hey Richard, thanks for the offer of transferring - I have just started expanding Golden Monarch and have 5 days from now to expand it and get it on T:DYK, so would be extremely grateful if you could do that image first, and I will do Hooded Butcherbird next. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have passed on the request. Will transfer them as they become available. Richard001 (talk) 08:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spontaneous Generation

I have replied to your question on the redirect of Spontaneous Generation (before realising that you are an experienced wikipedian!) Basically, it could do with a page of its own and I have put my thoughts on the page in your discusion paragraph. IceDragon64 (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have now created the page by the simple expediant of copying the SG section from abiogenesis and editing the links. The section in the abio. article can be reduced now, as the abio article is too long. It needs various pictures etc, but its there, ready for your friend to work on!

IceDragon64 (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biologist

I am a biologist. It's not a career, it's just what I do. I study biology for fun. --Vuerqex (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I study biology as well, but that doesn't make me a biologist as far as I'm aware. Richard001 (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I am a biologist! Vuerqex (talk) 01:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you're the smartest person in the world I guess you know better than I do. Richard001 (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flickr photos

Hi Richard: Do you mind sending me a brief note containing the gist of what you think I should say in the newsletter about the Flickr photo situation? Just so's I get it right! : ) MeegsC | Talk 10:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Got to go now, but I'll get back to you on this one. Richard001 (talk) 10:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Richard; that'll work perfectly. MeegsC | Talk 08:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such)for Science related articles

Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ?

User: Shotwell suggested (on my talk page) "I would endorse a WP:EXPERTADVICE page that outlined the wikipedia policies and goals for researchers in a way that enticed them to edit here in an appropriate fashion. Perhaps a well-maintained list of expert editors with institutional affiliation would facilitate this sort of highly informal review process. I don't think anyone would object to a well-maintained list of highly-qualified researchers with institutional affiliation (but then again, everyone seems to object to something)."

We could start with that if you would agree ... - could you help to push his idea through Wikipedia bureaucracy ? Cheers, Apovolot (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Birds November newsletter

The July 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by TinucherianBot (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Banner kiwi3.gif

Restored it.--Maxim_(talk) 14:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Input requested at WP:FPC

Hi Richard0001,

Having made a quick check on the history of Nectar I noticed you've made several contributions to the article. I recently nominated an image I added to this article, Image:Australian painted lady feeding closeup.jpg at FPC. One recurring argument, and one which I disagree, is that the image in question has no encyclopaedic value in this article. I was wondering if you, as an editor of the article in question, could help resolve this issue? Thanks, --Fir0002 01:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] barnstar

Thanks, though I must admit I am quite surprised as I am usually pretty slapdash when it comes to getting images (I used to be terrible at creating cats for them in Commons). Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I have only recently started creating categories for new species I upload myself. We have so many images to upload that it can be argued that those details are not so important. Richard001 (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Larks

Leave it with me, I'll check which is most common

jimfbleak (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

About the images that you requested from "Michael Woodruff" on flickr. He has left a message on my talk page on commons. Please see my talk page on commons. Snowman (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for putting my right. I jumped to the conclusion that he was "M Woodruff" because of the image that he was pointing to. Now I realise that he is a new user getting used to the ropes. Some of his images that the new user has uploaded need a tidy up. Snowman (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Holidays

 Marlith (Talk)  04:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monkey Business

I can't keep track of what I upload where! Between Flickr, Facebook and the Commons... I dunno, I sometimes forget to do upload something somewhere. I usually make sure that Wikipedia has an image if the species hasn't been uploaded here before, and I did upload one of this species before. I don't know why it never got attached to the correct article, I usually do that too, but I notice the taxonomy has changed and that may explain it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I plan to. I should rummage around, I'm sure I have more monkey shots I could upload. I have to admit I tend to lose interest in uploading shots when the species already has images. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: The Selfish Gene edit and question

Hi Richard, thanks for the link - I remember that now; it jumped at me when I read the article. And I think you're right - it should be made as clear as possible that the theory can logically only apply to exact copies of genes and not to alleles; it's pretty integral to the gene-cented view and any layperson reading the article needs to know that. So yes, I'd be in favour of your new wording. Cheers, AC+79 3888 (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's true. I suppose it only holds if we defined a gene based on its amino acid sequence... it runs into problems when two different nucleotide sequences code for the same amino acid sequence (or even a slightly different amino acid sequence if function is totally unaffected). So it's a tricky one. I certainly don't think the "similar genes" should be re-instated because it's too vague, it seems to imply "genes coding for similar amino acid sequences" generally, independent of function, so I think it's pretty misleading. Perhaps just qualifying the statement by adding that the alternative genes must code for an amino acid sequence that ultimately is identical functionally? How best to word it is another matter! AC+79 3888 (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Richard, the text currently reads: gene sets "helping" copies of themselves in other bodies to replicate. What do you think about maybe putting something in parenthesis like "or genes with the same phenotypic effect", so it would read: gene sets "helping" copies of themselves (or genes with the same phenotypic effect) in other bodies to replicate? I think this clarifies it nicely without over-complicating things. --AC+79 3888 19:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Logrunner

I originally uploaded the image as a PD, given its age. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It's from John Gould's The Birds of Australia. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] North American River Otter

Hello Richard.

In regards to your audio and video inquiry, I would like to get an image of the river otter's inhabitation range map in the article, if possible. There is a good photo at the IUCN Redlist page on the river otter that indicates the animal's distribution throughout North America. Here is the link:http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/12302/rangemap. I believe the image could be well-suited in the Distribution and Habitat section of this article.

Thank you and best regards, Wikitrevor (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.205.155 (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infanticide

It seems that you were involved in editing the article. I am curious what happened to the gatekeepers of the article? if you or anyone knowledgeable of the topic could just put it in the watchlist it would be great (I don't have much time to edit it or argue in talk page about the new editors' recent modifications). Regards, Thantalteresco (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I've virtually stopped watching articles myself. If you mean infanticide (rather than infanticide (zoology)) I haven't really had that much to do with it. Richard001 (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Antipredator adaptation

Hi Richard, just wondering if you'd wanna take a look at Antipredator adaptation, as I've changed it quite a lot over the past few days (mostly logged out), and I saw you've edited it a lot too - Anxietycello (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with File:Hans Eysenck.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Hans Eysenck.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bird navigation template

Hi Richard: I'm finally back on-line after a long time away (work!) and find that an edit you made here removed the Birds Outreach department (plus a number of other things) from the project's navigation template. Was there a specific reason for doing that? It means that those who aren't current members of the project can no longer easily reach our newsletter, and that the "welcome" banner isn't easily available for those who want to welcome new members. MeegsC | Talk 14:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not intentional. A friend pointed out I had screwed up the colour too; I thought that was all. Richard001 (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (File:Rsnzlogo.gif)

You've uploaded File:Rsnzlogo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Hi there, in response to a question about ecological niches on the evolution talkpage, I've added a paragraph on ecology to Evolution#Adaptation. However, as a molecular microbiologist I'm very aware that this isn't my subject. I noticed your comment on the ecological niche talkpage and thought this might be more your kind of thing. If it is, could you check what I've added and correct it/expand it if necessary? Many thanks Tim Vickers (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm planning to reread this article so I'll take a look when I do. Richard001 (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Invertebrates

I was about to recreate this category when I noted you had deleted it previously. However, there are a number of subcategories for it nonetheless. There are eight invertebrates by location categories (see here) and several others, e.g. Category:Extinct invertebrates and Category:Fictional invertebrates. It would also be suitable for e.g. Life in the Undergrowth, which is about invertebrates. Unless these are all to be deleted, shouldn't the parent invertebrate category be recreated? It doesn't have to be used as a taxonomic parent category; in fact a note cautioning not to do so might be appropriate. (Please respond on my talk page, or notify me of your response here if you like) Richard001 (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As a parent category for the existing "Inverterates by …" or "Invertebrates of …" categories, it could make some sense. It is only as a taxonomic category that it would be absurd, as you have spotted. I'd be concerned as long as there's a risk of all animal phyla except one being shoved into Category:Invertebrates by over-zealous editors. One solution would be to create the category as you suggest, with a note that it's not to be used as a taxonomic category. However, I suspect the better solution (although a lot more work and perhaps more contentious) is to replace the existing invert-based categories. Just as it makes little sense to have the main taxonomic hierarchy include the group "invertebrates" (containing all but one phylum and 99.9% of all taxa), so it doesn't make sense for more specific categories. I have had a look at Category:Extinct invertebrates, and, having created Category:Extinct insects, only two species were left directly in the invertebrates category. Creating a separate Category:Extinct annelids and either Category:Extinct crustaceans or (better, in my opinion) Category:Extinct arthropods would equally solve the problem (as would simply accepting a couple of unclassified species in Category:Extinct animals). Category:Fictional animals looks to be a similar situation. As a biologist, the division of all animal life into mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates seems very chauvinistic; the more appropriate system is to divide by phylum and then by class, etc. Overall then, I think the invertebrate categories should ultimately be removed. I haven't done it yet for Category:Extinct invertebrates, but I'm happy to do so. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Quote mining

Since you've contributed to it in the past, I thought you might want to look in once more on the article's present state and current RfC. arimareiji (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Vertebrate Josiah Wedgwood II List of works on intelligent design New World quail Artaxerxes III of Persia Martin Lichtenstein North American landbirds in Britain Frederick DuCane Godman Endemic birds of eastern North America Endemic birds of Madagascar and western Indian Ocean islands Scimitar Oryx Endemic birds of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Endemic birds of Australia Raymond Bohlin Coucal Robert T. Pennock Creator deity Natural science Endemic birds of New Caledonia

Cleanup Mallard Parrotbill Megatherium Merge Creation Memetics Phylogenetics Add Sources List of Western Australian birds Grosbeak Islamic creationism Wikify Sanky-panky List of birds, Yuma, Arizona (low deserts, river, elevations) Escrow Expand Petroicidae Broadbill Lady Elliot Island

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Birds February newsletter

The February 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. MeegsC | Talk 22:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Newsletter tip

Hi Richard: Thanks for the tip! I'll put it in March's newsletter... MeegsC | Talk 22:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to make a regular contribution in this area, though don't be disappointed if I fail to do that. Richard001 (talk) 06:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms

On February 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Hello, Richard001. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Article Rescue Members are not necessarily inclusionists, all wikipedians are warmly welcome to join.~~~~

[edit] Image copyright problem with File:George Gaylord Simpson.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:George Gaylord Simpson.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Birds March newsletter

The March 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Attribution needed

Template:Attribution needed has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Odie5533 (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New article stubs or userspace stub?

Good question. Here's the exact wording (from Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Editing, Creating, and Maintaining Articles/Creating a New Article#Reliable Sources):

One of the most common complaints from authors of just-deleted stubs is that they expected their article to be left in place for a while, so that other editors could contribute to it, eventually expanding it into a real article. In fact, there's no such policy of mercy for new stubs: The stubbier a new article is, the more likely it is to be deleted. If you think a topic is important enough to deserve a new article, then you should be willing to spend enough time finding information—from reliable sources—so that the article doesn't begin life as a stub. Otherwise, the article will quite possibly reach the end of its short life being a stub, and you'll have wasted your time and the time of the editors who deleted it.

The standard for an article being "Start" class is pretty low: something on the order of three paragraphs and two (reliable) sources. That doesn't seem to me to be an unreasonable threshold; if an editor can't find that much information, why would he/she think that a subject is actually notable?

It is true that really experienced editors - a famous episode involving Jimbo Wales comes to mind here - have a pretty good idea of what notability is, and when such an editor puts up a stub, it's a good idea to help expand it rather than to delete it (or propose it for deletion). Unfortunately, a large percentage - if not the vast majority - of new articles are added by inexperienced editors, and the survival rate now, for new articles, is something like 50% (that we don't actual measure and track this, over time, is part of the non-quantitative culture of Wikipedia). If inexperienced editors stopped putting up stubs, I think that relatively few important articles would remain in userspace (after all, Wikipedia isn't really about article counts, it's about useful articles), and lots of non-notable subjects would remain in userspace forever. And that would reduce the workload of new page patrollers and admins.

Or, to put it differently, way too many new editors expect other editors to spend lots of time defending and expanding stubs, because their stub, they think, probably is notable (though they haven't spent the time, or have spent the time and failed, to find reliable sources). The problem is that most of the time, the new editors are wrong. Thus it's unreasonable to expect experienced editors to spend time doing anything other than a cursory review a stub that of a stub that is proposed for deletion (CSD, prod, or AfD), because most of the time, an exhaustive search for reliable sources simply isn't going to find any/enough. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I also note that Teratornis has posted a long response to your question at my user talk page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bird newsletter template

Hi Richard: Per your request on my talk page, how does this template look?

v • d • e WikiProject Bird newsletters 2008 March  · April  · May  · June  · July  · August  · September  · October  · November 2009 February  · March  · April  · May  · June Category · Portal

Have a look at this as well, and let me know if you think it should be placed elsewhere. (Don't pay too much attention to the newsletter content yet; I still haven't updated much since last month's!) Also, do you think I should display it collapsed rather than showing? MeegsC | Talk 01:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Possible proposed Wikiproject of interest

Hi, I've noticed your edits to Animal Locomotion, and was wondering if you'd be interested in the wikiproject I'm proposing, Wikiproject - Organismal biomechanics, which deals with, among other things, animal locomotion. A list of the pages I plan to have within the project scope are on my userpage. Happy editing! Mokele (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have enough knowledge/interest/time to join such a project. I would suggest dropping the 'organismal' part of the name since the bio- prefix pretty much entails that it concerns the mechanics of living things. Also, you could broaden it to cover all of biophysics perhaps (it could then be the intersection of the biology and physics projects). Good luck! Richard001 (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Birds April newsletter

The April 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. MeegsC | Talk 16:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Missed the last meeting in auckland

Finally logged on with my user name to find a message inviting me to the auckland meet last year. Shame. Would have liked to have meet some fellow interested wikpedians. anothertime maybe. Always forget - how do i sign off again? Give this one a try. Not too sure either if this is the right way to communicate to you. take it easy. Funauckland (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hello, some time ago, you added "Expand on Wikiquote page and then link to it." on the Talk:Insects/to do, can you expand on that? Bugboy52.4 (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved that page to Arthropod to allow more quotes (e.g. one on a barnacle), so that's not directly relevant to the insect article. By the way, it's best not to use 'hello' as a heading but something more specific to your message. Cheers. Richard001 (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New image project

Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects Wikipedia:WikiProject Free images, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Scolypopa australis

On May 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Scolypopa australis, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

∗ \ / (⁂) 11:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

... that fluffy bums suck on passion vine juice? Best DYK hook I've seen in ages!!! :) --candle•wicke 15:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to write one on autocoprophagy for next year's April Fools Day DYKs... Richard001 (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright on recordings

FYI, I've given an answer to your question at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Copyrights on audio and video files. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 14:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:DavidLange.jpg

Restored; I'm watching the file. I'll give you a few days to add the FUR. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Birds May newsletter

The May 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 06:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Birds June newsletter

The June 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 13:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GA reassessment of The Botanic Garden

I have conducted a reassessment of this article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have a few concerns about the prose, which you may find at Talk:The Botanic Garden/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)