User talk:Kevmin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

License tagging for Image:Torbernite1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Torbernite1.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

List of minerals

Regarding azurite edits. I think if you examine the List of minerals article, you will find it does not claim to list all minerals for which there are Wikipedia articles - it is not comprehensive. Also the big list is linked there and needn't be linked in individual mineral articles. Thanks, Vsmith 21:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Grossular_Garnet_Macro_1.JPG

What make you think it is not Grossular_Garnet? It was discussed here and there was no definite answer, but it was leaning toward Grossular. It if you disagree with identification, could you tell me what you think it is so I can change the name? --Digon3 ^talk 20:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Triangle shaped faces that are prominent in this specimen are extreemly rare and do not occur in the arangemant of faces on your specimen. This is most likly to be quartz which has terminations that look exactly like this compair the specimens shown in the [[1] gallery and the [[2]] gallery at mindat. Colorless garnets are extreemly rare.--Kevmin 21:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for Ammonite Stuff

I just wanted to thank you for helping to flesh out some of the ammonite stubs! <333 Abyssal leviathin 03:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Phamton Crystals

I created a page called Phantom crystal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_crystal Would you mind editing it? Thank you! Neptunekh 03:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Cypraeoidea

Hi Kev,

Can I ask you where exactly you found the family "Iviidae" as a part of Cypraeoidea? Is this a fossil family? If so we should indicate that. Since I have been unable to find this family among living mollusks, and because when I google it I get only Wikipedia-derived mentions, I am temporarily deleting the reference until I have some more evidence.

I very much look forward to hearing from you. Thanks, Invertzoo 13:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My Fault

Sorry about that one. I was slightly careless. Lack of sleep is a bad thing. lol Do you know of any recently updated scientific articles on T-rex or Giga??Mcelite (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite

Scale information

Hi. I am sorry that you removed my additions to a number of mineral articles. It is imporant that an idea of scale is given on images within scientific aricles. This is a fundamental concept, otherwise how are readers to know if the object was, say, 1 millimetre or 10 metres across. It is quite legimate to noted the abscence of this information. I am even more dispointed regarding the actions of an aministrator in relation to my edits. Rather tahn engaing in debate this admin, Dreadstar, accused me of vandalism, threatened me and the blocked my edits. I would have been more than happy to discuss my edits with yourself, the adminstrator and anyone else. This I understand the "Wikipedia way." However this administrator has simply proved what many others have suggested, that admins use theier "powers" for their own enjoyment and to massage their fragile egos rather than for the benefit of Wikipedia. I have now changed by IP address and would still be happy to discuss the need for scale information on the images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.222.195 (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Your changes to articles on Ediacaran fossils

A rough consensus has developed that many of the Ediacaran fossils cannot be reliably assigned to any current kingdom, and should be left unassigned generally at any point above the Genus level. I'm not going to revert you, but don't be surprised if other editors do revert you. -- Donald Albury 21:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ferry County NRHP

Hey, good job on getting these filled out! Murderbike (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, what good timing. I've been busting my butt getting the Pierce County list filled out, your article does a lot to help. And your citations look fine. Oh yeah, I think Sabalites is still an article that needs writing, not my area of expertise though. I'll see if I can't dig up some sources on those last FC sites. Cheers! Murderbike (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, this book has a couple sentences about the school. Not a lot of detail, but it's a start. this one has a picture, maybe more? my library doesn't have it. Murderbike (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This book has info on the Barstow Bridge, and my library has it. I could photocopy the relevant pages and send them to you if you want. I suspect it also has info on the other bridge. Murderbike (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I fixed some minor things in the carousel article, looks pretty good now. As well, I photocopied the pages out of that book having to do with the two Ferry County bridges. If you want, I can mail them to you. I would do the articles myself, but I've bitten off a big project in completely overhauling the NRHP lists with a new table. Let me know if you want those pages. Murderbike (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Smilodon merge

Hi. You recently suggested that Smilodon articles be merged. On that article's Talk page, I mention that at least one member of WikiProject Mammals told me that "every species warrants its own page." I have no idea whether this is the consensus of WikiProject Mammals or not.
In fact, now I think that I'll post to them and ask for a firm declaration on this question. I personally don't care how we do it, but I think that we should be consistent with all Mammals articles. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Nautilus

Wrong age-- nice catch! :) It's people like you that we need more of on Wikipedia! Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of the Dagger

Logically, you are correct. I don't know of any wikipolicy - if you come across one, please let me know of it. My view is that "enthusiastic use" does no harm - if you feel differently, feel free to revert. I suppose the one advantage "enthusiastic use" could have is that if the dagger is used only once for a high-level taxon, it could be overlooked by casual readers.WolfmanSF (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Aquamarine

I made a change to the aquamarine page. I thought it was weird that 1) people reading the article would have no idea what the value of the gemstone is. (You indicated that was why you removed it: "Wikipedia is not a price guide" ). 2) I thought it was necessary to include something about aquamarine treatments. So why was that part taken off? I am a bit new to wikipedia: I would like to contribute and I have read the guidelines, but if my contributions are taken off, I guess I need to understand better to avoid wasted time. Thanks (Smartstar10 (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

Horses

Hi Kev, I see you are putting a courageous effort into the re-linking thing. One suggestion is that WP MOS policy that we only need to wikilink and article the first time it appears. May save you some effort. I am still unclear on the reason that we break apart Equidae and Equus (it sounds like most Equidae are all extinct ancestors of the modern horse, but I am not really clear on this; like I freely admit, I am not a taxonomist). I really, really, really don't want to have to re-link all these articles again later, so what I need is extensive reassurance that you really DO know what you are doing, OK? (smile). Montanabw^(talk) 22:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Miohippus

It's great to see that the article I added an image to less than a year ago has evolved again! Thanks for locating a better image. The skull is a lot more useful than the paleobiome with 10 species in it. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Kev, just so you know, Una and I have a long "history" that includes a WQA, an AN/I, a mediation on article content, and many, many article disputes. I do not intend this to be in any way a personal attack on Una nor do I have any desire to stir up yet another round of same, but I just wanted to let you know that this is out there. I really hope that this old stuff does not start up again, but I also don't want any innocent third parties such as yourself to be dragged in unawares! (smile). Montanabw^(talk) 01:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 16:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Kev, I am NOT upset at you. Somewhere in the mess of that talk page, I decided that I had come around to your way of thinking on the matter that if there needed to be a taxonomy template different from the main one, that was fine. I'm unhappy now because while I could live with the renaming, I just didn't want the old template removed from hundreds of articles, particularly without any real discussion about it. Montanabw^(talk) 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Kev, once again, I am not criticizing you. (Mutual Chill?) So far your edits have been constructive and well done. You have previously been gracious in answering my questions about taxonomy, an area where I have not had much study, and until recently, you have done so with courtesy and patience. I DO have concerns with another editor you know of, who has an extensive history of inserting inaccurate, unsourced, WP:FRINGE material into the horse articles and then viciously attacking anyone who challenges this material. This same editor DOES sometimes also make constructive edits and can, occasionally, engage in successful collaboration. However, due to the fact that both good and bad edits can come from this editor and she can make massive numbers of edits in a remarkably short time, that editor is under close scrutiny any time she appears at WPEQ. Sometime innocent parties get caught in the crossfire, and I apologize that this has happened to you. Montanabw^(talk) 04:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Refactor?

Hi Kevmin. Did you mean to address me here? --Una Smith (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Otodus obliquus page move

Responding here, as well as on the Otodus obliquus talk page.

As far as I know, there is only one species of Otodus. There is a possible nomen dubium(spelling?), Otodus subserratus, that is now believed to be Carcharocles aksuaticus instead. There is a weakly serrated (morpho)species, Otodus/Carcharocles. aksuaticus, but that is a transitional species. Furthermore, there was an Otodus appendiculata, but that was renamed into Cretalamna appendiculata.Spotty11222 (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sighing

I knew it. We started on horse taxonomy and edit war begins across a zillion articles. Not your fault, by the way, I'm just whining because I wish I knew how to keep people from reinventing the wheel. Sigh... Montanabw^(talk) 23:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Equus ferus ferus and Tarpan

I have tried to untangle the taxonomy of Equus ferus ferus from the question of what is a Tarpan. The versions prior to Kim's reverts are here and here. Would you take a look and tell me if it works for you? --Una Smith (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Haplophrentis a mollusk?

Hello Kevmin,

It's good to see other people interested in hyoliths! It looks like you've edited the pages about Hyolitha in general and Haplophrentis in particular to classify them as mollusks, and cited the reference of Wotte 2006. While I'd like to think the mystery of hyolith affinities has been solved, Wotte's paper doesn't seem to present any new evidence that they are mollusks, or really address their classification at all. Have I missed something?

A recent paper implies that their classification is still contentious, saying "One opponent view holds that hyoliths may be reasonably accommodated under the Phylum Mollusca (Malinky and Yochelson, 2007 and references therein), whereas another supports separate phylum status under the name Hyolitha (Pojeta, 1987 and references therein)" (p.147).

Unless we have some compelling new evidence, it may be best to suspend judgment about where hyoliths fit in the tree of life.

Cheers, Cephal-odd (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

References

Good to know, I think that inforamtion about both opinions should be added to the, very, meger section about taxonomic placement in at least the Hyolitha article. As you have the more recent article (and access to the article?) could you expand it?--Kevmin (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Navtemplate Question

Hi Tombstone, as the one I was pointed to for coordinating the Navtemplates, I was interested in the decision not to include extinct taxa. Could you link me to any discussions regarding this decision, Thanks. --Kevmin (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Back in January of 2008, there were hardly any mammal templates except for {{mammals}}, rodents, primates, and maybe one or two others. They were all different and haphazard, so I set out to organize all of the mammal pages into templates and standardize all of the templates, see User:Tombstone/Mammal templates.

A few other editors did a template here or there (including User:Scottalter), but all of the mammal templates follow the same format I developed back in January/February of '08. In creating the templates, I ran into several problems: the order articles had different taxonomy than the family and genus articles, some mammals were listed as both a species and subspecies, etc. User:UtherSRG was the biggest help and over at WP:MAMMAL it was decided that MSW3 should be the primary source. Therefore, in doing the templates, I followed MSW3 pretty much to a tee. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/Article templates/doc for the standardized guidelines I am following (I developed that from feedback from various editors and User:UtherSRG). Note that most of this was developed by being bold and seeing what the reaction was when the dust settled, so I can't really point you to a formal discussion.

As you know, MSW3 only includes extinct species form the past couple of hundred years or so, and does not provide common names for subspecies, so it was hard to include such animals on the templates with much certainty. But the main reason I decided to leave off extinct species and subspecies was SPACE! Those templates would be so massive they would serve no purpose. The impression I got from feedback and observation was that most WP readers are satisfied with extant mammals on the templates.

My plan was to first finish the extant species, then go back and create templates for subspecies of the more popular species (brown bear, tiger, etc.), and then go back and do extinct mammals. And then do birds, and then do reptiles, and then do amphibians, and then do AAAAAAAAAAA!

So if extinct species are included on the {{Perissodactyla}}, I would have to oppose because it would be entirely inconsistent with the rest of the mammal templates; I am a huge believer of consistency, simplicity and standardization on these templates so that, for example, a student in a biology class would know exactly what to expect from navigating via these templates. I would, however, be all in favor of creating a new template for extinct species (which I was going to volunteer to do, but see others have already taken this upon themselves). Hope this sheds some light on the mammal templates, Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Megalodon

Hi Kevmin. I happened to notice your sandbox on Megalodon. Quite by coincidence, that has come up in a WikiProject Plants discussion here, about how various taxonomic communities handle form taxa. Care to comment? --Una Smith (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Realgems.org - a useful website for Wiki users?

Kevmin, you wrote: "The information present in your webpage is already covered in more detail by the information on this page and is references. Thus if your page is not being utilized as a reference, and its amin purpose is driving up visits to your site, it is link spam."

Let me explain why I am doing my best to support the Wiki mineral and gemstones pages: I always thought that Wikipedia is a worldwide online resource for information and education. Therefore I added external links to my own website on a lot of Wiki pages/projects. I did that from July 2009 until December 2009 without being accused being a "spammer". Then, in December, the Wiki "spam robot" found out that there were too many links added, and announced it as "spam". Since then all my links were deleted by someone, and my Wiki "homepage" blocked so that I couldn't respond to accusations. Then I changed my nick into "F.N. Berg" and started to inform Wiki admins about the real aim of my link additions: to serve the world with a lot of gemstone images!

You say "The information present in your webpage is already covered in more detail by the information on this page and is references..." Let me explain why I still think that my links were a useful addition to these mineral / gemstone pages: On all Wiki pages which deal with gemstones or their minerals (like sapphire, ruby, rare gems etc.) one can only see the mineral data, perhaps sometimes enhanced with one gem image. The links show only websites which provide mineral data and mineral images. No faceted gemstones images which surely are of interest of Wiki users. Therefore I thought it would be helpful to add links to Wiki mineral and gemstone pages so that Wiki users can see a lot of faceted gems - in addition to the Wiki images!

No "driving up visits to your site..." because I do my site for free, for educational purposes! I pay my website traffic costs myself, no sponsor, no asking for financial contributions like many other sites.

Therefore I think that the deletion of all my external links was unjust and not in the Wiki founder's sense.

F.N. Berg (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Australodelphis

On the front page on March 7.

Gatoclass (talk) 10:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to Meetup/Seattle6, a focus group

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page . Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Your updates on my subpage.

Thank you for fixing the link, but I would prefer if you do not edit my subspace again. Instead, contact me about it on my talkpage. Thank you. Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's alright; you didn't know, and were only trying to help. I can't say that I wouldn't have done the same thing. And I must thank you for your tip on the Paleobiology Database! Thanks! Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

My bad...

Sorry about the red links thing, I didn't know... My bad. EscapeByMusic 02:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EscapeByMusic (talk • contribs)

Allegations versus facts

Hi... I've reverted this header change. Please do not revert me back, as surely you can agree that the original header is an allegation, not a fact, and it's a bit of well-poisoning as well. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to say that the Linked instances of Montana's responses that Una posted DO qualify as ad homonym and so she WAS biting both Buttermilk and Una. The change should be noted in the AN/I. I am also very much aware that Una come on strong BUT in my opinion many of her suggestions are dismissed out of hand as "just Una trying to create chaos again" (to paraphrase Montana. This is NOT conducive to getting things done and many times from you do not seem to be responding with a open opinion. In the current AN/I several posters have posted instances that have NOTHING too do with Una but EVERYTHING too do with poor behavior on Montana's part. However the concentration is ONLY on the fact that Una made the initial post and everything else is being completely ignored. I have asked a number of times for feedback regarding the other incidences and Montana's own admission of "snippy" reactions. THESE are the issues which always seem to be ignored! See why it looks very much like a biased opionion from several respondents. The two people who have not had any experience on the matter stated that htere are deeper issues which should be looked at.--Kevmin (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are the quotes Una linked:

"An accurate statement of the facts is not an ad hominem attack, and you know it. I archived about two years of chat, mostly resolved, or else just a rehash of the same eternal arguments. I left the current discussion since 1/1/09. You are just out to cause your usual round of mayhem as usual, and I suggest you take it elsewhere. A couple months ago you were getting after me for criticizing your advocacy of fringe, abusive riding methods and bit use, now you're egging on the animal rights crowd. It's clear you have no real interest in this topic other than your usual pattern of stirring the pot and I'm sick of your behavior. Montanabw^(talk) 03:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)"

"Una, in light of your past history, which involves single-handedly causing chaos and destruction almost everywhere you go, (which has resulted in more than one AN/I filed on you, in addition to the one you filed on me that backfired and bit you in the backside) I find that remark amusing. Normally you shut down progress on any article you work on until everyone agrees with you. Once again, You and Buttermilk both have your little POV fork to play with that I have utterly given up on having any role in whatsoever. On this article, I would appreciate a true consensus, which means ALL major factions get a chance to weigh in. As to you, Buttermilk and myself, that means yes, if all three of us agree, then we probably have a sufficient consensus of the major viewpoints. Right now I am only able to get online here a couple times a week, and while I am willing to collaborate, I would very much appreciate that major edits be made with consensus. Hence, again, Buttermilk has made massive edits without consensus which I now am reviewing and fixing. See you in a few days. Montanabw^(talk) 02:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)"

"Buttermilk, please just go play with your own article. If you think you have some outstanding work there, PROPOSE it for inclusion here. Some of it is getting to the point where it would be a good addition here and it could be considered. In the meantime, show some respect for those of us who have been in the trenches of wikipedia for a while. I've been on wiki for three years now, I have over 12,000 edits. Leadership is EARNED, not claimed. Montanabw^(talk) 03:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)"

Could you please explain how the boled sections are NOT Ad Hominym attacks? I admit that na does not respond well BUT these responses from Montana are NOT isolated incidence but happen whenever anyone does something which Montana does not approve of. In the work I did with her on some of the equine articles she implied that I was making personal attacks when I responded critically too some of her posts. She retracted the statements when I clarified what I was saying but this is a typical response from Montana. She will make an accusatory threatening or down right mean (as with buttermilk) statement and then apologize quickly if when called on it. I feel this type of editing behavior is NOT good for long term editing. I can point to several instances where she has chased off knowledgeable editors who would have made valuable contributions to articles because of her imposing my way or the highway attitude.--Kevmin (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see them as ad hominem, but that's a difference in opinion we have. However, and more importantly, I also don't claim there is no issue there at all. If Montanabw is problematic enough to actually be a problem, an RfC or other dispute resolution should be pursued. I don't deny that. Do you deny that there is a problem with Una, that whereever she goes, there are issues, controversy, unsupportable moves, acrimony, and so forth? In short, disruption? Una is by far the bigger problem here, and until you acknowledge and admit she is a problem that needs attention, you will not have any credibility with me. Take that for what it's worth, we're both repeating ourselves now I think, absent any change in your position. ++Lar: t/c 19:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No I do not deny that she is controversial, I just don't think that any action she takes on issues like Montana's behavior should be automatically reversed as "Una trying to create problems", which is what has happened here. You yourself have just admitted that Montana has a problem but have gone on to say that because it was Una that brought it to AN/I the issue should be dropped without ANY talk. That is not an appropriate response to an issue. One should look at each situation separately and not "o its Una lets just ignore it".--Kevmin (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying any of those things. But repeatedly bringing Montanabw to AN/I is not the way to address the issue, and Una is not the person to address it. Which she has been told before already. Start an RfC on Montanabw if you feel strongly about it. One has been started (in draft form) on Una already. It will be interesting to see how that comes out. ++Lar: t/c 21:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: your recover of Tantalite-Fe,Mn and Columbite-Fe,Mn

Thank you for copyediting. Could you please explain reinstating ferrotantalite, etc. articles. Off course, those Fe, Mn- rich varieties of tantalite and columbite are fully legitimate. No question. But. Their articles are much too poor and there is no manpower to keep all 3 articles Fe-tantalite, Mn-tantalite and tantalite up to date. Thats why I merged them (same for columbite) into one main article, keeping all (Fe-, Mn-) names preserved. So, why did you revert that? After removing my redirects, the reader will not get to the main article (e.g. tantalite, and will only see the poorer versions (e.g. ferrotantalite). Best regards. NIMSoffice (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Template state

Hi,

I've modified Template:Manganese minerals so that the state parameter is still adjustable, but is collapsed by default.

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 10:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Length of Aphthoroblattina

You removed the 50cm length off of the Aphthoroblattina article, and you said on the talk page that you found on some reliable sources that the length didn't come close to 50cm. If you find the proper length, could you put it on the article (with a reference of course)? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ground Sloths vs MegalonychidaeTwo-toed sloth

I have undone your reversal of my edit to Megalonychidae There are seven families of sloths, all under the subordor or Folivora. These seven families are:

• Bradypodidae (three-toed sloths) - extant
• Megalonychidae (two-toed sloths) - extant
• †Megatheriidae (megatheriid ground sloths) - extinct
• †Mylodontidae (mylodontid ground sloths) - extinct
• †Nothrotheriidae (nothrotheriid ground sloths) - extinct
• †Orophodontidae (orophodontid ground sloths) - extinct
• †Scelidotheriidae (scelidotheriid ground sloths) - extinct

The only members of Megalonychidae‎ are the two-toed sloths, which is why I have redirected the page to that article. Please be clear that current classification shows that the Megatheriidae (two-toed sloths) are a different family from the extinct families of ground sloths. 14Ave (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

See Megalonychidae‎ talk page--Kevmin (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Italic titles

Hi, thanks for your efforts to correctly italicise titles! I just wanted to point out that in some cases, such as Charniodiscus, you could have achieved the same results by correcting the format of the genus name in the taxobox - with the added benefit of fixing the taxobox at the same time. In other cases, e.g. Charnia, the title was already italicised without the title! Best wishes, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Prionomyrmex vs. Nothomyrmecia. Trying to conceal published information?

Why reversing the correct name Prionomyrmex to its older synonym Nothomrmecia? The reference by Ward & Brady (2003) given by you is obsolete and was demonstrated wrong by two unanswered papers by Baroni Urbani:

Baroni Urbani C. 2005. Phylogeny and biogeography of the ant subfamily Prionomyrmecinae (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Ann. Mus. civ. St. Nat. "G. Doria", Genoa 96: 581-595.

Baroni Urbani C. 2008. Orthotaxonomy and parataxonomy of true and presumed bulldog ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae). Doriana 8, N. 358: 1-10.

Without documented refutation of the arguments by Baroni Urbani Prionomyrmex is the sole valid name.87.18.66.188 (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for Clarification

I just wanted to thank you for your help with the Dire Wolf on the Alsatian Shepalute page. Nice additions! shepaluteprez 9:17, 5 August 2009

Taxa names

This is just a clarification of taxon names formatting. Please remember that only taxa of genus level and lower are ever italicized. All taxa above the genus level are regular font. --Kevmin (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the note on formatting. I'm going back to correct all errors. Noles1984 (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Selenite etc

Hi Kevmin. I think I agree with you about merging Selenite (mineral) into Gypsum, especially if we also merge the relevant parts of Alabaster as well. --Una Smith (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Una, I agree the gypsum related sections of Alabaster should also get merged into the Gypsum article. The selenite (mineral) article is in reality just repetition of information from the gypsum article and unreferenced information.--Kevmin (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Ptychodus.jpg

I noticed you created the page with Ptychodontidae. I know the bottom row of teeth are Ptychodus, but the top row certainly doesn't. It looks more like a Squalicorax sp. than a Ptychodus. Can you confirm this? --Spotty ¹¹²²² 15:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Spotty11222, it took a fair amount of searching but I found a pdf of the original paper and confirmed the upper two teeth are indeed Squalicorax curvatus teeth (in the paper as Corax curvatus). I have updated the description of the image in commons. --Kevmin (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

OK! Thanks for taking the time! --Spotty ¹¹²²² 18:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

My Pleasure! --Kevmin (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dieter Korn

The article Dieter Korn has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No claim to notability - no references on which claim may be based - and even uncertain if a historical or current figure (i.e. whether WP:BLP applies). Not edited since 2007.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Naming Conventions. RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.

This is to inform you that removing exceptions to the use of "most Common Names" as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sapphire

Given the seriousness of cut'n'paste copyvios, I think it was inappropriate for you to restore the material I deleted - much less to demand a "reference" when I'd provided a clear one (US Patent 6447938). I've done the deletion over, and added a URL for the patent abstract, from which the deleted material had been taken word-for-word. I hope that'll satisfy you. Do note that I'm not claiming the patent was infringed as a patent (which would raise plenty of issues, of course); I'm saying that the actual words of the patent document were cut and pasted. Copyright, not patent, violation. Even if patent documents were public domain from a copyright perspective (which I'm pretty sure they are not) it would be inappropriate use of the source material. Those paragraphs don't even make any sense in the context of the Wikipedia article where they were pasted, where it starts out talking about the general idea of silicon-on-sapphire IC technology and then in mid-sentence switches to the specifics of "the present invention." 216.59.252.65 (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing Mammals Tag

The removal from the European Otter seems to be a mistake on my part.I thank you for the revert, however in saying that it would have also been nice if you could have rated the article. In regards to the Giraffa jumae it is better suited to the other wikiproject scopes. Once again if you made the effort to revert do you not think u could have spent a further few moments rating the artcle????, Thats the problem i am facing, 300+ articles that were tagged and never rated. I completed around 150 tags last night so forgive me if i make 2 or 3 mistakes, maybe if some people spent more time helping and less time complaining it would work better. ZooPro 23:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't rate that articles because I do not rate articles in general, either ones I write or ones I edit. I do not feel I have enough knowledge or experience to make the decision on how important and what quality an article is. Please also try to remain civil, Thanks. --Kevmin (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Genera & species

Hi Noles, Just a reminder that wp: paleontology is for extinct taxon articles to stop at the genus level and for species levels to redirect to the genus. Please merge the information in teh Hipparion species articles you created into the genus page and make the species pages redirects.

Thanks, I've been informed incorrectly and have seen many done with more than one species. Repairs (redirects) done and increasing data on genera article instead. Noles1984 (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Paleontology vs Archaeology

Yup, closer reading was required. The catchall "Natural history museum" is the best choice. Thanks for catching that, though I see it's close to home for you. Looks like a cool place. dm (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Araucarioxylon arizonicum

Hi. As nominator, you may close the request to move Araucarioxylon arizonicum. Would you like to do that? Once it closes, I can request that User:Una Smith/Araucarioxylon be moved. --Una Smith (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

IMA?

IMA sets all gemological terms??? Hmm yeah.. I'm going to need a citation that. I'm a GIA grad and I've never even heard of the IMA. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say GIA supersedes them. --98.232.181.201 (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I would ask that you actually read the International Mineralogical Association page. Like other hard sciences; botany, zoology, chemistry,etc...; it is the overseeing authority for mineralogy, and as such, has jurisdiction of the official names of minerals, including minerals that are used for gem purposes. While part of a related field, the GIA doe not have authority over what the valid name of a mineral is, the IMA does.--Kevmin (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Calamites

Nice images -- thank you! jaknouse (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, it was my pleasure.--Kevmin (talk) 12:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

North Island Giant Moa

I hope I didn't offend you as I reverted your reference changes to this article. I ahve been working on the birds for over a year and it seems as if the footnote/reference style of referencing is prevalent throughout. speednat (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The inline citation style is the dominant system for ToL topic including wp:Birds as shown by looking at the wp:b FAs such as Black Vulture, Procellariidae, and Emu. The Dinornithidae footnotes style is a relic of expansion by a single user in 2007. Note also that the revert removed the citations I added per your cn tag of the synonyms. --Kevmin (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize I had reverted your reference, However I did revert one more time, and I hope this does not bode poorly for our working together in the future. I do not believe that the footnote/reference style is antiquated and neither is it "not" the prominent style as most articles I have edited in the WP Birds have used it. Finally per WP Reference style it states both that it is the most popular style and if there is a dispute to use the form used by the first editor that used a style, which was me.

I am not trying to bang egos with you, however, before I started editing, I looked over the styles and ease of reading (IMHO), and which was more readily used, and decided which one to use from that info. speednat (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Understood and I wont revert the cit. style again. However I would note that inline citations are considered a form of footnotes and that the sections "Inline citations" and "Footnote system" but state that inlince citations are the footnot style that is now required by wikipedia FAs and recommended for all articles, as opposed to the shortened footnotes sytle that is used in teh Dinornithid articles.--Kevmin (talk) 10:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The rule is: keep the citation style an article already has, unless it is seriously confusing etc. I use a style similar to the Dinornithid style for most articles I work on (Gadwall and Crested Shelduck, for example; it is based in the Oryzomynini style) and the style at Chestnut Sparrow for a few. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Lithornis

Hey, I appreciate your interaction with me last time, regarding the North Island Giant Moa. To make sure you don't think of me as a steamroller, I want to talk before doing another revert. I noticed you recently made a change to Lithornis by changing the taxobox under species to say see text. Is there a specific reason that you did this? Is there a rule for number of .... to avoid long looking taxoboxes, or this a personal preference. I felt it didn't detract from the look of the taxobox but still added a lot of easy to interpret info by leaving the list of species in the box. I had been making changes to other "see text"s and listing the list of species in the box. Let me know what you think. Again thanks for your attitude. speednat (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for the delay responding, school started this week so its been busy. The "see text" edit was mainly a personal preference. I many extinct taxa known only from fossils there tends to be debate on which species are valid and which arent so its better to discuss them in the text explaining which are valid, with are debated and which are not valid. Having the taxa in the infobox doesn't show which are which without putting in more then the infobox is meant to cover.--Kevmin (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Aelurodontina

I do not maintain that Aelurodontina is Aelurodon. I'd like to see separate articles for the tribe and type species. Would you agree that it is confusing? The map is for Aelurodon but without a specific article, the tribe had to suffice. Noles1984 (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean for the subtribe and the genus? There was an article for the genus until July 09 when you moved it to Aelurodontina citing Wang et al 1999 as synonymzing the two names. I have put in a request that the article now at Aelurodontina be moved back to Aelurodon. I dont think there is enough information on a subtribe level article and would suggest that it be covered at the Subfamily or at most Tribe level.--Kevmin (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Aurochs

Hi - you just tagged three new stub articles for merging into Aurochs. Could you please explain your reasoning at Talk:Aurochs? I've created a section there for discussion, and also done the corresponding merge-from tag which you'd forgotten. Thanks. Richard New Forest (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Chendytes

I'm no admin: you could have made the move. I decided to do it before the end of the week after seeing this at Talk:Talpanas. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Im not either, and thus I dont perform these types of moves as I dont know how to keep the article history with the page. --Kevmin (talk) 21:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand that. It is quite easy to move pages really. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in... It is indeed usually easy, but not if there is already a page with the target title (often a redirect). If there is, that page must first be deleted, and that's what needs an admin (as Kevmin implies if you just copy and paste the article to the other title, the page history is lost).

If the move is uncontroversial, the procedure is simple: create a section on the talk page of the page to be moved, place the "move" template there, with reason, and the move will automatically appear on WP:Requested moves; a worthy admin will soon do the requisite. The move template has to be done right, as a substitution: it explains how here. Richard New Forest (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining it better then me Richard, this was the reason that I tagged Chendytes, it was a redirect to Laws diving goose and thus a cut/paste move would sever the edit history of the page from the article text. --Kevmin (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I left a note in the North Islamd Giant Moa section above. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Lithornis

I am not sure exactly why I got started on these articles. I will stop, since they will probably just get deleted. Thanks for the heads up.speednat (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kevmin. You have new messages at Template_talk:Taxobox.
Message added 22:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tim1357 (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Amber fossil

Hi Karl, do you have a reliable source for the age of that fossil? Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not, however do you have reason to doubt the caption of the image?--Kevmin (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have no idea what the age is, or what type of amber, and I'd like a reliable source for it. According to WP:V, every item on wikipedia which is challenged requires a reliable source. Crum375 (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you propose verification that the amber in this image is or is not Baltic amber? As for age of baltic amber that is Eocene per this, this, and this article

Im moving the discussion to Talk:Fossil--Kevmin (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Scaphohippus

I commented and proposed an alternative hook for Scaphohippus at DYK: here. Ucucha 00:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Concerning Horse Evolution Talkpage

Just to let you know, I deleted that the thread on Talk:Evolution of the horse, as, essentially, it's just a soapbox for UseYourGreyMatter, and had no actual suggestions to improve the article, aside from possibly deleting it for being "flawed."--Mr Fink (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

Hi Kevmin, I just came across one of your articles at newpage patrol, and was surprised to see that an editor who has been contributing articles since 2006 hadn't already been approved as an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of rectifying that. ϢereSpielChequers 00:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool! I probably haven't been tagged before due to the esoteric and obscure nature of the articles I write. Somehow extinct snakeflies do not seem like the next Obama article ;)--Kevmin (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it's more the pace you work at. People who create a dozen near identical articles in an editing session tend to become autoreviewers after three or four sessions, people who do one article at a time often don't get noticed for years. ϢereSpielChequers 12:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thumbs up

I came across your great articles on fossil insects and just wanted to say thanks for the great work! I am working on living insects (moths and butterflies) and while doing so, I stumbled on this site which has info on fossil Lepidoptera, might be interesting for you? http://www.leptree.net/fossil_catalog Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I wanted to get some raphidiopteran articles that were below family level and have been plowing through the papers I have access to. I may take a look at the Lepidoptera as there are not many known in the fossil record at this point and they might be a nice change of pace from snakeflies.--Kevmin (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The evolutionary grammar

The evolutionary thought has mature from Haeckel's linear gradation to Cladistics. Despite this fact, a lot of people mistake the current scientific state of mind with the old gradation, e.g. man evolved from chimp, chimp from lower species, and so on. Thats why I think we must be very carefull with the expression "evolve from" and similars , which, among the majority of wikipedia users, refer to outdated concepts. Besides, even if it's supported by evidence, every scientific "fact" (quoting your edit summary) must be considered as an assumption. Fatapatate (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please supply a couple of references to the modern usage of the terms "evolved from". From what I know modern thinking is not "Man from chimp" its "Man and chimp from common ancestor". Why are the facts an assumption?--Kevmin (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Man and chimp from common ancestor" : exactly (although if you accept the hypothesis of a monophyletic Life, this proposition is a tautology), so you would write "Man evolved from primates"...do you see the problem here, the majority of readers would understand that Man evolved from present monkeys. And it's to avoid this misunderstanding (which is very common I can assure you and furthermore brings to the fact that the average guy won't say yes if you ask him if Man is a primate), that "evolved from" is not a good formula in that context. A great book written by one of my professor (that insisted on the fact that you must not say "evolved from" : The Tree of Life: A Phylogenetic Classification (Harvard University Press Reference Library, 2007), Guillaume Lecointre, Hervé Le Guyader

Sincerely, Fatapatate (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Tell yo Mama

...I left her this barnstar.

(moved to userpage)

Cool, my first barnstar! I have put each article up for dyks also so they will get main page exposure in the coming weeks.--Kevmin (talk) 04:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Breed Name Change

Hello Kevmin. Thank you for changing over the Alsatian Shepalute article to American Alsatian. It has been reverted by Rapido and there is now discussion about the reliability of this name change. I'd appreciate your input and help in the discussion about whether there is enough information on whether the name change is valid at this point. Thank you for your help. Shepaluteprez (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Microberotha

Could you add page numbers to the citations, perhaps with the {{rp}} template? I'm trying to review the article for DYK, but it's a bit harder without page numbers. Nyttend (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Done--Kevmin (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I know very little about biology of any sort, so I didn't know how to look through this document properly without the page numbers; I've checked the references and cleared it for DYK. Two questions — (1) The source says "Cache Creek" instead of Cashe Creek, so I've changed it; but do you think that it should go to Cache Creek (British Columbia), a stream, or Cache Creek, British Columbia, a community? (2) I don't understand the point of "The presence of an unbranched "Rs" vein and the absence of the outer gradate series of crossveins in the forewings." Could you add some verbs? Nyttend (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool, the Hat Creek site is between the communities of Cache Creek and Lillooet so i switched the link. I have also expanded on my sentence fragment. The two characters are key to separating the new genus from other members of the Berothidae family.--Kevmin (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Nannochoristidae. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ..::Abb 615::.. 04:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi abb615, I do not know why the page was saved as blanked, as it was most certainly not what I was editing the page to do. You beat me to the revert button. I have been having some issues with the editing process for about an hour now, so it may be related to that. By the way, thanks for the welcome but I have been an editor on wp for about 4 years now... --Kevmin (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

yeah the welcome is a default for the script im using, and i got a little confused after seeing your talk and user pages; any idea why you have these editing problems? ..::Abb 615::.. 05:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Im not certain what is happening. I habitually try to preview edits before I save and for the last hour or so about half of the time I end up with a blank preview area without any text rather then the page with my edits included. The Nannochoristidae page was a accident as I hit the save page button out of habit instead of backing out of the blank preview I have been doing. Its weird. P.S. I just had it happen while trying to preview this edit!--Kevmin (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

wierd ..::Abb 615::.. 05:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Augochlora leptoloba

Hello! Your submission of Augochlora leptoloba at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Nesagapostemon

moved Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Augochlora leptoloba

moved Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Leptofoenus pittfieldae

Moved Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Roystonea palaea

Moved Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Palaeoraphe

Moved Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sequoiadendron article split

Greetings,

I actually agree with your idea to create a separate article for the genus sequoiadendron separate from the species. We could move the "species" article to either "giant sequoia" or the full scientific name. In actuality, however, that is a separate issue from what I took issue with. The vast majority (virtually all) outside sources call this very commonly-named tree "sequoia" or "giant sequoia." As the scientific names have been confusing (the coast redwood or sequoia sempervirens was once considered part of the same genus), it only makes sense to name the article what the average person looking up more information would be looking for. Of the two common names, one is a shorter form of the longer, and "giant sequoia" carries a disambiguation advantage that would make it the proper choice.

I do realize that Wikipedia is often populated by walled gardens where groups of editors often have a certain "flavor" with what they edit. I do think, however, that when talking about something so extremely popular with children and common people, it would make sense to go with the common name. Even when talking about this tree outside its natural habitat, in Spain, we see:

http://tree-species.blogspot.com/2009/03/giant-sequoias-at-la-granja-de-san.html

"Giant sequoia" is basically the term used.Ryoung122 08:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Eoplectreurys

Moved Materialscientist (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Dinopanorpidae

Moved Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Dinopanorpa

Moved Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Dinokanaga

Moved Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Araneagryllus

Moved Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Chuckanut Formation

Hi. As the major contributor to the Chuckanut Formation article you should be aware that I am proposing some major changes to the article, including a change of reference style. (See the Talk page.) I have not heard any objections yet, which I will be taking to mean there are no objections. Please let me know (before I get even more heavily invested in this) if you have any objections, or even suggestions. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Termitaradus mitnicki

Moved Royalbroil 18:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Trochodendron nastae

Moved Materialscientist (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Trilobite Fossil Range

Hello, Kevmin. Thank you for erasing my mistake in the Trilobite Fossil Range. I thought that I had a trilobite fossil in my room from the Eocene! It turns out, it was a shell fossil! JRLivesey May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Chendytes

Was Chendytes monotypic? I thought C. lawi was one of a few species, the last to go extinct. —innotata 17:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything I find points to Chendytes being monotypic, do you know what some of the other possible species are named?. Though if it is not the amount of information still warrents a single article per WP: paleo guidelines from what I am seeing.--Kevmin § 17:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'll see if I can find anything some time. —innotata 19:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Abies milleri

Moved

Thanks for this one, cheers Victuallers (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikilinks

Sorry, disagreed. Even templates for extlinks have a special field "authorlink" to provide wikilinks to authors, see eg template:cite book and some others. I have seen this done in huge number of places. I am going to revert you, unless you show me the rule you followed. Hryhorash (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Dillhoffia

Moved — Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)