User talk:KimNiels

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, KimNiels! Thank you for your contributions. I am Enwebb and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Enwebb (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy templates[edit]

Hi, you can't change the classification of a taxon by changing the link field in a taxonomy template so that it doesn't match the title of the template. If you want taxon A to have taxon C as its parent rather than taxon B, then you edit Template:Taxonomy/A to have |parent=C instead of |parent=B. If you need more help, leave me a note on my talk page. Peter coxhead (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: Hello. Thank you for pointing this out - I am new to Wikipedia and still figuring things out. The order for Dall's porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), and probably all cetacean species then, is incorrect. I imagine I would have to change the templates then as far back as Artiodactyla. Is this correct? I'm not sure I have permission to make that edit since those templates are semi-protected. The correct order is Cetartiodactyla (so I need to change it!). Thank you for any help you can provide. KimNiels (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: Hello again. I think I have worked around the template issue by creating a box using the up-to-date order for cetaceans. If this is still incorrect, please feel free to let me know. KimNiels (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't create manual taxoboxes to adjust taxonomy. Yes, the correct approach is to go far up in the taxonomy templates, and link to Template:Taxonomy/Cetartiodactyla. However, you should seek consensus for this by opening a discussion at WT:MAMMALS, since I note that Cetartiodactyla is a redirect to a page that treats the order as Artiodactyla. (I'm not a mammal editor, so I have no view either way.) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a collaborative project[edit]

That's an inconvenient reality we all have to deal with. You can't just remake an article, with a long history and a lot of content by many contributors, to please yourself. Don't you understand this? If not, you may not be suited for this project. An edit war here is not to anyone's benefit. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the new edits are streamlined, clear, accurate, properly cited, and up-to-date - not to suit myself, but to suit the reader. most of the information is taken from the original contributions, just re-organized under clear headings so that the same topics are covered on all marine mammal species pages (much like a print encyclopedia).KimNiels (talk) 05:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the situation. Out of 81 sources used before (with at least one duplicate), you threw out 75, saved 6, added 11, so now we have just 17. Forgive me for not believing that you evaluated each of the 75 that were discarded. So, to restore the efforts of previous contributors, someone will now to go through all of those and re-evaluate them and add them back piecemeal. Much as I respect the efforts of experts to contribute to Wikipedia and help save this unfortunate species, and much as I would hate to discourage anyone with genuine expertise from contributing here, I find the approach taken in making these drastic changes problematic. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your input. To your point, this is about the vaquita and not about the people editing the page (certainly not about me). All of the information is accurate, and of course, more sources are welcome. The point of eliminating citations was to streamline and cite only the best quality ones (hopefully peer-reviewed) for each bit of information. I will pass on these concerns to the committee though because the end product should definitely reflect the collaborative efforts of both the scientific and Wikipedia community. Thank you,KimNiels (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022[edit]

Your edit to Important marine mammal area has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. NonsensicalSystem^(error?)_(.log) 09:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]