User talk:Mark-mitchell-aldershot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Mark-mitchell-aldershot, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! StaticGull  Talk  12:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issue with Henry Thomas Ward Allatt[edit]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Henry Thomas Ward Allatt, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.redcoat.info/Ireland16.htm. As a copyright violation, Henry Thomas Ward Allatt appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Henry Thomas Ward Allatt has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Butseriouslyfolks 21:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mangled characters[edit]

One of your edits has mangled several non-ASCII characters. Perhaps you may wish to investigate which of the programs you use is reponsible, and to check if your edits to other articles haven't caused similar problems. · Naive cynic · 10:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Pangonia[edit]

A tag has been placed on Pangonia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Closedmouth (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Thank you for adding to List of entomologists. This and the related List of botanists by author abbreviation tend to be missing a number of names, so all help is greatly appreciated!

« D. Trebbien (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox rank entries[edit]

Hi there, I noticed your numerous additions of intermediate ranks to the taxoboxes. The additions are perfectly fine, but it would appear that most are not informative. It helps to know the infraorder when you are looking for instance at the level of orders and classes but not when dealing with genera or species. Although there are a large number of entries in the taxobox template, they are not all required to be filled. Shyamal (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will further point out that in many of the articles in question, those ranks were specifically and intentionally REMOVED by other editors (myself included), and you are now unilaterally - and without discussion - reversing all of those edits. You can save yourself - and future editors (who will, I can guarantee, come along and remove those ranks again) -time and effort by letting incomplete taxoboxes stay as they are and focusing on things that are legitimately needed in these articles. Your point on Shyamal's talk page about ranks between order and species is more in keeping with this (that is, that would be more useful and informative), but I notice that nearly none of your recent changes has been below ordinal level. Dyanega (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I may add to this - I tend to add "superfluous" ranks too (there are no superfluous ranks, or arguably ranks more important than others). But if someone objects, they can simply be outcommented using <!-- --> which works fine in taxoboxes. The additional ranks are helpful when writing about the evoutionary relationships of taxa; checking out related groups otherwise becomes a highly distracting click-fest. Personally I don't mind if the information is not displayed, but I think it should not be deleted. For Coleoptera, Diptera, Hymenoptera etc it is highly helpful in any case. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have been warned already. Putting so many "superfluous" ranks is disruptive. Please stop. Dysmorodrepanis' suggestion of "<!-- -->" would work fine, but your're not using it. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 01:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Empidioid flies[edit]

Actually I just did this so I could do this ;-), namely to get at least a redlink for the 3 genera I have some info about, so I could annotate that (see article source). You might want to check out with the Entomology Project folks instead; I don't think that I have another source around at present so my work there seems done for the time being. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hybomitra[edit]

Hi there, Mark :)

Thanks a lot for the explanation, I had no idea the absence of brackets had any real meaning. I seldom come across lists in which all entries aren't formatted in a standard, so I thought that was the case. Thanks for taking the time to undo my edits. However, I am not sure why afterwards you restored the links to Zoltán Szilády, but not the other ones I added, or for that matter the other edits I did to the page, namely:

  • Uncommented the subphylum field
  • Added commas to all "name, date" pairs, for standardization
  • Changed the alphabetical order in H. caucasi and H. caucasica

As well as any other details that might have escaped in this quick analysis I did. Perhaps it would be easier to you to undo your reversion, and then, comparing my revision with the previous one, simply removing the brackets when necessary, since I believe all the other changes I did to the article were improvements (unless you tell me otherwise). I can even do that my self to spare you the hassle, since I was the one originating it anyways :)

Cheers, Waldir talk 09:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for restoring the edits :) I have added a comma that I think you left out unnoticed, right after H. tarandina :) Cheers, Waldir talk 18:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ams logo.PNG)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Ams logo.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Corethrellidae[edit]

Updated DYK query On January 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Corethrellidae, 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) 15:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diptera[edit]

I notice you recently wrote on my talk page and then deleted it. Was there something you wanted to discuss, or did you change your mind? Please don't simply revert my changes without discussing them; they were all made for good reasons, which I would be happy to explain. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was hoping you would discuss the problem. Since that appears not to be the case, I'll give you the answer that I had prepared before you deleted your last message. Hopefully, it will save you some wasted effort:

I'm sorry, but I can't see any reason why this "level of detail" should be necessary. It adds nothing to an article to have every minor rank listed. These should, by common consent at WP:TOL and its daughter projects, only be included where they are genuinely informative about the subject of the article, which means only where the subject of the article is at a similar rank (see WP:TX). A genus may reasonably have information about what subfamily it falls in, but (zoological) sections have no place in a species article, for instance. Species belong to a genus, and the article on that genus can fill in any details about suprageneric placement. The {{taxobox}} is meant to be a summary of the general placement of a taxon, and any expansion from the major ranks (kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species) needs to be carefully justified. In all these flies, that justification is entirely lacking.
As to the categories, please read WP:CAT. Where an article is placed in a subcategory, it need no longer be placed in the parent category. Otherwise, high-level categories like Category:Arthropods would be so huge as to be useless. All the fly articles are still in Category:Flies or one of its subcategories. This is how categorisation has always worked, and the only way it could possibly work. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my reply to your last message on my talk page. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to add that this has been mentioned in the past but perhaps the rationale for not including every rank can be unclear for those who are not aware of taxonomic literature and the state-of-art. It may perhaps appear like having the village, county, district, state and country for every village in the world, but where it radically differs is that taxonomy especially higher level is periodically updated/changed and although the order is going to stay, the ranks between that and the species are in flux. The number of families is small enough and these can be updated for changes in superfamily, suborder or for contained ranks but trying to update 1000s of species boxes for a change in the higher level is downright meaningless. This should be a senseless bot work once the taxonomy is resolved but afaik things have not changed radically since this. So essentially species level articles need merely the order, family and at best subfamily or tribe while family or order level articles can have other ranks (the ones that are likely to be in flux). This would make sense in terms of long term maintainability. Shyamal (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, I thought we had come to an understanding. It must be clear to you now that the community as a whole does not want all the minor ranks in taxoboxes, even of flies and beetles. Myself and Shyamal have said so here explicitly, and jimfbleak has said so at your other account, User talk:62.56.108.94. In the past (above), Dyanega and Pro bug catcher have said so, too. No-one has agreed with your point of view; it contravenes Wikipedia policy and the will of the wider community. Please stop adding in the extra ranks immediately. I would also appreciate it if you could help me in removing them from the articles where you have added them. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is edging on a needless edit war, more constructive to discuss it on WT:ARTH. Shyamal (talk) 10:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck? I went to the taxobox of Bactrocera tryoni to find out if it was the same family as Drosophila melanogaster and left after completely forgetting what information I was seeking. A taxobox is something someone can read with a quick glance to gather information, it's not a laundry list of a thousand hierarchial ranks, and it's not an article in and of itself--it's designed to be usable. If it is 20 ranks long, it's not usable. This is not usable. --KP Botany (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Melophagus ovinus[edit]

Updated DYK query On February 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Melophagus ovinus, 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) 21:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

Please discuss your changes to species taxoboxes on the article talk page first. In addition, if you decide that you want to change the current community consensus about the amount of information available in taxoboxes, please discuss this with the community first at Wikipedia talk:Taxobox usage. At this link you can propose your changes, get feedback from the community, and support should the community consensus be in favor of your editing style. Until then, stop adding so much information to taxoboxes, as their current design is a quick guide, and your editing style defeats that intention.

Also, this warning should serve as notice to stop with the changes until community consensus is reached or I will ask that you be blocked from editing until you have obtained community consensus for your changes. --KP Botany (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Catherine Franklin[edit]

Notice

The article Catherine Franklin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable topic. Claim of notability is based on changing the law, but actually they didn’t.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Tomentum (anatomy)[edit]

Notice

The article Tomentum (anatomy) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

dictionary definition WP:NOTDIC

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. rsjaffetalk 23:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mark-mitchell-aldershot&oldid=1139540101"