User talk:JerryFriedman/archive 2

The reason I changed it is because I thought "Hylia" was probably much more famous for the fictional place than the bird, considering that its article wasn't even started yet. Plus, that was the only other meaning of "Hylia" there. However, if you think otherwise, then I would suggest redirecting Hylia to Hyrule and placing an {{otheruses}} tag on top which links to Hylia (disambiguation) instead of just making Hylia a disambiguation.--_ZXCVBNM 19:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's one of the more famous series in video gaming, so it's probably notable, but it's not in good condition. It needs a lot of fixing.--_ZXCVBNM 20:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that you, as a contributor to List of fictional books, might want to add your opinion to this discussion of the possible deletion of List of fictional books within the Harry Potter series.--ShelfSkewed Talk 18:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a completely unrelated note, I wholeheartedly endorse your style tips. My own bugbear is "currently". If the verb in the sentence is "is", then "currently" is superfluous—except, of course, in sentences like this one and the one before. Regards --ShelfSkewed Talk 22:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that there are supporting references out there, but that they are in academic journals or conference papers that are hard to search online, unless you have access through a university to one of the subscription academic search engines. I wish I had more time to make it to one of the university libraries nearby and do a thorough search, but I just don't. I keep hoping that some college-student WP editor with time on his/her hands, and a library a block or two away, might take the initiative. I noticed that at least two of the editors promoting this deletion--including the nominator--are heavy contributors to articles about video games, so they have endless online sources. I think that they don't understand that it's sometimes not so easy to find sources for literary topics outside of simple author biographies and book reviews. --ShelfSkewed Talk 04:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a brief intro to the list to help defend the notability of it. See what y'all think. --Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 05:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Greyish" because I picked that up from the redlist.. IUCN uses "e" throughout... (Does a Wikipedia policy actually exist for one or the other? What I see in articles is entirely arbitrary it seems) As for the accent, the original verb fui does indeed not have an accent (as I wrote it) but I was not sure about the name - the call ends in -iiiii (see link in article) and in a Spanish transcription, that would be "í". So I checked it out and Salvadoreans themselves seem to prefer it with accent (only the name): "Lo llamamos "dichoso fuí", por que su trino parece decir eso....." [1]. The entire business

As regards the footnotes, the present state is still controversial, being the result of a unilateral change by one user pushing the ChMoS. When you get the first case in which of two references at the end of a paragraph, one sourcing the entire paragraph but the last sentence and the other sourcing the last sentence only you'll know why I prefer "European" style to the more ambiguous Chicago Manual style ;D Dysmorodrepanis 05:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jerry, you credit me with being better informed than I really am. I made no conscious decision regarding this (sub)species, I imagine that HBW has added it since the Wikilist was compiled, so I have no view at all on this. Jimfbleak 05:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jerry, I'll knock the snipe off the list when I next edit it (a couple of mynas to write first) - there is material out there, which is quite interesting, but we can't even do a taxobox without a binomial. Jimfbleak 05:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to help you. With non professional cameras (as my) the megapixel is high but the detail not really good at full size view. I think if you try resize it to a smaller size (min. 1600*1200), it may can be enough sharp for QI. Good luck (if you can please reply at commons) --Beyond silence 13:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On October 16, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kerguelen Shag, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Red-chested Goshawk , 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.

--Allen3 ^talk 23:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Finsch's Flycatcher-thrush, 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.

--Carabinieri 14:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Blue-throated Piping-guan, 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.

--Royalbroil 12:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jerry, your article about Pablo la Llave is great, but I change somes things. He wasn't director of Madrid Botanical Garden. He worked with Mociño but never in the Garden. I change too the name of Nueva Expaña Expedition (Madidi is in Bolivia). You can see the list of Garden's directors in the book:

Colmeiro y Penido, Miguel. Bosquejo histórico y estadístico del Jardin Botánico de Madrid, 1875 http://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/spa/Libro.php?Libro=758, p. 84

Excuse me my bad english

kind regards Mirtuscommunis 21:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jerry

Thank you for write me in spanish, i try to reply you in english. The link concern to the digital library of Madrid Botanical Garden: http://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/ing/index.php, and it run (i can see well), i don't understand why you cannot open with acrobat.

In the book of Colmeiro p. 83, is the list of Garden Director's and it wasn't La Llave. In this momment (1809-1814) was director of Garden Pablo Boutelou, a french gardener, because all botanists and the director Lagasca had gone into exile: José I, brother of Napoleon, was the king. Mociño and La Llave was "afrancesados" and worked with freedom in Madrid with the Expedition's cientific collections until the end of the Peninsular War (Guerra de la Independencia). The Botanical Garden and the Natural History Museum are two separated institutions, each one with his director, and La Llave work in the Museum like deputy director (thank you for the correction) but no in the Garden. I see the link to "Historia antigua y moderna de Jalapa..." but in this matter have a mistake.

No me importa que me tuteen, en España prácticamente lo hacemos todos, gracias por las correcciones, y disculpa otra vez mi espantoso inglés, encantada de encontrarte entre estos botánicos y naturalistas.

Saludos Mirtuscommunis 12:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Jerry, Jimfbleak (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is always going to be a problem with these old sources, the Bible history link suggests that swifts and swallows were often confused, although the writer is clearly no ornithologist. Interesting about the testicles! Jimfbleak (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, sorry for any confusion. I've been doing a lot of cleanup on disambig pages recently, via Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup. The relevant Manual of Style is at WP:MOSDAB. In a nutshell: We shouldn't use refs at disambig pages, since they're just navigational tools. If you want to add sources, they'd be better at actual articles. Let me know if you have questions?  :) --Elonka 05:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of 2 possibilities:

• I picked it up from some informatics paper
• I picked it up from some timaliid paper.

Either way, it's probably possible (as opposed to "moved in" for example) but yes it's unusual. I have changed it. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to do more, but I had a work email asking me to make changes in a report for disclosure tomorrow in a legal case. I'll put a bit more on probably tomorrow. Jimfbleak (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few more bits - there's not a huge amount even in Fry et al. The range is fine - surprised there's no article for Stanley. Jimfbleak (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think almost all kingfishers have a watch and swoop technique, whether the hunt on land or in water - the only obvious exceptions are the nocturnal Shovel-billed and Hook-billed sp. Jimfbleak (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you seem to have guessed, I uploaded this picture when it was released under a CC license, and shortly afterwards, the author changed the license to "all rights reserved". However, the Creative Commons website clearly says[2] "every license is not revocable", so it's legal to keep it. But, as you say, there's a better pic now, so it's no big deal either way. --Raoulduke47 (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what similarities you see between Rook and Skat and Pedro, to justify mentioning them in the Rook article, while other trick-taking games are not mentioned. They seem awfully different to me, so I thought I would check on your justification. Thanks. Nik-renshaw (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The official rules say "Rook Bird card," and most of the article seems to be rather heavily borrowed from the rules that come with the modern version. I've tried to reword things to make the article more clear and self-standing, but it still relies heavily on the language of the Parker Bros rulebook.

So, is the primary similarity that you identify between Skat and Pedro and Rook their status as a trick-taking game reliant on taking only certain cards worth points? Because, while much of Rook's rules is existent in the other two, the bidding systems and play seem to me (from what I could understand of the painful articles on the other two card games) to be quite different. So, I think it might be most beneficial to the Rook article to merely point out their similarity based on that fundamental element of the game, than to just broadly say they have similarities. Let me know what you think. Oh, and feel free to reply here. I put your talk page on my watchlist for the time being. Nik-renshaw (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from being played for points rather than just tricks, the features I see in common with Skat are the widow (Skat, nest) used by the bidding side and that the point values of the cards depend on rank but not suit. Pinochle has the same features but I didn't mention it because of the melding, which I gather is an important part of that game. The features I see in common with Pedro are the use of the 5, the optional use of the joker, the play in partnerships, and the auction method, although the auction method may not have been part of Pedro in 1909. (It's not in my source, The New Complete Hoyle, by Morehead, Frey, and Mott-Smith, 1956 edition.) The ace and 10 are the highest-value cards in both Skat and Pedro, though in Skat the 10 is also the second-highest in rank. (A, 10, K, Q...) So as I said, almost everything in Rook is in either Skat or Pedro. However, Rook dispensed with the ridiculously complicated scoring system of Skat (which I don't completely understand) and the second deal of Pedro.

So how much of this information do we want and what's the best way to say it?

By the way, I'm playing fast and loose with the nomenclature. Wikipedia's Pedro is pretty much MF&M-S's Cinch—their Pedro doesn't have the second deal, the "off-suit" 5, or the partnerships—but I've been using "Pedro" for both. (Wikipedia's Cinch is almost the same as MF&M-S's Auction Pitch. At least all these games are descended from All Fours.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to keep the scientific nonsense at a minimum, but have updated the taxonomic section fully now (although I managed to do so without logging in, hence by IP). Rabo3 (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I have stayed clear of the problematic situation for the South American taxa (especially A. o. ochrocephala), which arguably could be split into two species (PSC), but that has relatively little relevance for A. oratrix. Rabo3 (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JerryFriedman! I just changed the main picture of Neotropic Cormorant, for one I felt looked better (specially when zoomed). But now I have a worry: I have no experience whatsoever in bird identification, I put the picture just because I noticed that the only listed Cormorant species for Venezuela is the Neotropic Cormorant, and the picture in question is from a Cormorant, and it was taken in Venezuela. I checked a picture in the article were you said that you could distinguish individuals from this species, and I thought you would be kind and have a look at the new picture just to be sure I'm not mixing species. I feel confident that the picture is good enough to do an identification, but I don't have any good sources (or experience) to do it. Thank you very much for the help, and feel free to lecture me about being careful about my editing :) Wilianz (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muy agradecido por tu ayuda, Jerry. Glad you liked it! Wilianz (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about adding locations, I will do it from now on. Yes, it's Poland indeed. I do love how people eventually identify the plants and animals I take photos of :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Carmen cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wing-In-Ground effect vehicle should explain the Wing in Ground effect (I agree it is a somewhat confusing title). Emoscopes ^Talk 17:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The March 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) 18:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The April 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) 00:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :) thanks for droppin by.. its not to often when you see someone from up north on wikipedia. I live in Española as well.

... TomSalazar _Chat?! 12:12 MT, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

May i also add that you picture gallery is quite amazing. I love your photography! :]

... TomSalazar _Chat?! 10:08 MT, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats great! I'am a big fan of photography i take some myself but sometimes its not all that great. Ya that is totally true i understand what you mean and i know for one it was named a town i just cant seem to find a darn source man. And if thats not the problem you should see this kid from taos is starting an edit war so i'am trying to settle things and it just isnt working. Ya pretty crazy on my side haha so are you a teacher?

TomSalazar Chat?! 11:24 MT, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

oh nice..thats sounds nice man! Well i was going to Kansas University for awhile but there is just no place like home ..so i'm at UNM now its not anything like kansas but if keeps me close to family and friends it works. I actually do plan on running for something in the future i was thinking something in albuquerque. But now i'm just so busy sometimes.. and now especially that election season is here.

TomSalazar Chat?! 9:36 MT, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

On April 16, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vireo (genus), 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jerry, Jimfbleak (talk) 05:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The May 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) 00:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was correcting a mistake, not noticing the quotation marks. Shouldn't there be an explanation of why the spelling suddenly changes? Or am I missing something? Rothorpe (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The June 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) 13:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Do you remember what source(s) you based Robinia neomexicana on, some years ago? It could be combined with the sources that are cited there now. Also, there are some disagreements with the present sources that should be straightened out. Thanks. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was too long ago. I suppose I had a passing interest in other Robina species, after I planted an R. hispida in my yard. — Eoghanacht ^talk 12:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're planning a significant expansion of lark I could scan some of the chapter and email it to you. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The October 2025 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. --Addbot (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HBW. I went and checked it and it has nothing to say specifically on the Jamaican species, but it describes the family generally as chatty. Also describes the wing snapping and whirring that I don't think I added. I was in the process of destubbing that article when I got distracted by something else. I really should cite what I've added at some point. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, the HBW had no qualifications with that statement. I guess the answer might be here [3] although I have no idea where to find that paper or if it is even in English. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Unlike HBW to drop the ball, but I guess it did. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at Clements, and normally I wait until the AOU or the ABA acts before I make the change, but since I was there, the IUCN and Bidlife International have already made the change, so I decided to be bold. Looks like a matter of a short while before everyone conforms.......Pvmoutside (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jerry:

from a North American perspective, Clements is the standard the AOU and the ABA usually are guided by when they make taxonomic changes (Clements followed by AO followed by ABA). I took a look at the Wikipedia operating rules governing bird taxonomy (found it in Wikiproject Birds). North America it says is governed by the AOU. Now I realize the AOU has yet to make an official change regarding the grouse, I suspect it will given Clements has already made the change, and as I mentioned above, the AOU overwhelmingly follows Clements. Since Clements, Birdlife International and the IUCN (the org who classifies species status-LC, V, NT, T, CR, EX) have aready made the changes, I thought it would be safe to make the change. I've also looked at other bird species pages, and the Wikipedia taxonomic rules are abided by petty loosely on some pages (i.e. some of the parrots), so I thought it OK to proceed and change the grouse. Thats one of the problems with open systems. The AOU should be meeting soon (within 3 months) to update North American changes. My guess is the change will be made then. If you would like to view Clements updates on line, go to http://www.birds.cornell.edu/clementschecklist. Hope that helps clarifying.....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jerry, I've been mulling over your idea of adding my mailing-list stuff to the Birding article and I think this might be the way to go, it should be small enough not to be a headache and hopefully not deleted first up by irate academics. If I put it on here could you have a look-over and let me know if I'm on the right-track? Aviceda talk 05:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jerry, for letting me know about the new AOU supplement. You are right, AOU did not act on Spruce Grouse. Some organizations have made the change, as I previously mentioned. If it makes you more comfortable, I could revert, but I really think it won't be a big deal, since Skuas, Gulls, Terns and Skimmers are still not changed on some lists from last year, and other (mostly recent controversial or undecided taxonomic entries are inconsistent. I ended up changing US and Canada, US, MA, HI and FL lists with the skua change as well as updating the new AOU stuff, but no time to work on other lists. Hopefully others will take up the charge.Pvmoutside (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The August 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. MeegsC | Talk 01:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the work on the article. You've elevated a simple disambiguation page to a useful treatise.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be a couple of hours until I can check Hilty, but if it wasn't that, I'll root around to see. I didn't take the nightingale comment as a criticism, it's just one of those pages that accumulates trivia. jimfbleak (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that article, inc breeding, is from Hilty 279-280 jimfbleak (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it's Birds of The Gambia, but I'll check later jimfbleak (talk) 05:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(later) Barlow, Clive (1997). A Field Guide to birds of The Gambia and Senegal. Pica Press. pp. 128–129. ISBN 1-873403-32-1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) and is used year after year. Empty nests may be used by other species e.g. Barn Owl. jimfbleak (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I notice that you are a photographer and live in the Española area. Do you own any more high-quality photos of Española that you would be willing to upload to Wikimedia Commons? We have a few at commons:Category:Espanola, New Mexico (three of yours are there already), but could use more, especially of Española Valley High School. We have an editor on those pages who has been uploading images that are suspected or proven copyright violations and usually low-quality. In theory if we had high-quality images on these pages he would be less motivated to upload copyright-violating images. Thanks for any help you can give. --Uncia (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Striking and Picturesque Delineations of the Grand, Beautiful, Wonderful, and Interesting Scenery Around Loch-Earn, 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.

Cirt (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The October 2025 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) 07:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Carmen_cover.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Garion96 (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did saw the rationale, but I also saw that it is a novella published in 1845. It should be possible to find a public domain cover of that. Basically any cover of a pre 1923 publication/edition. Garion96 (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not that it is replaceable now, but that it is possible to replace. Which means that this image should not stay until a public domain image is found. Since File:Carmen aquarelle Merimee.jpg is there, this is an even worse example of unnecessary fair use. Regarding the template notice, I tagged about twenty images that time so I did not write a different note to each editor from whom I tagged an image. The template message is perfectly suited anyway since this image does violate a criterion for non-free content. In this case criteria #1. Garion96 (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, "an even worse example". Without the existence of image File:Carmen aquarelle Merimee.jpg on commons it still would be replaceable. I indeed did not know that the image could be found on the web, but I did know it was in the public domain. Garion96 (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

diff - Early bird gets the worm? ;-) Thanks for the language clean up - looks much better after your edits! Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 20:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and I appreciate your doing the hard work!

My question now is whether to have "Mohoidae" in the taxobox, or retain "Meliphagidae" until the AOU and the world-list makers change. If they do—sequencing more of the genome could suggest something different. Another option is "Meliphagidae (or Mohoidae)". My feeling is that we should be, if anything, slower than the AOU, which has an embarrassing history of reversing itself. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, excellent point. I'm editing out of my area of expertise, and I suppose it's showing. In plant taxa, small changes like this (compared to the big changes like the APG II system, which take years to claim wide acceptance) are generally accepted quickly and there really isn't an external authority like the AOU to determine if the name should be valid. Do whatever you think is best, of course. Note also that I did alter the categorization to Mohoidae. Perhaps you might also want to temper my language at honeyeater - I removed the five species from the list, which I think is going to be listified in its own article, so you may want to replace them and leave a note next to them as in other entries discussing the proposed new classification. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 13:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We need photos to illustrate articles about Española and articles about some of its features. The are some photos on Wikimedia Commons at Commons:Category:Espanola, New Mexico.

• Espanola, New Mexico only has one photo (taken by you). Usually city articles are illustrated with photos of:
  • public facilities (such as City Hall, county courthouse, sports centers, any impressive City parks). We already have a photo of Richard Lucero Center.
  • tourist attractions: Is there a historic downtown that is photogenic? Historic churches or missions such as Plaza de Española are always good. Museums are good too.
• Española claims to be "Lowrider Capital of the World" and a photo of lowriders cruising or showing off their cars would be good.
• photos of local schools, if there are Wikipedia articles on them. Usually an outside photo of the building or entrance is enough. We have photos of Española Valley High School, although it might be nice to get one of the Gym interior. We could use photos of McCurdy High School, Española Military Academy, Northern New Mexico College, James H. Rodriguez Elementary, and Carlos F. Vigil Middle School.
• Museums

Whew! The list looks overwhelming, but anything you could provide along these lines would be helpful. It's best to upload the photos to Wikimedia Commons so all Wikipedias can use them. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It was good to see your improvements to Laughing Falcon. But in the sentence "It lays one or two eggs according to some sources or always just one according to other," "other" doesn't work. Did you mean it to be "others" or "another"?

Fixed. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why do you put scientific names after the common names of taxa? I understand that's done in print to eliminate ambiguity and help people look up references. But here, a reader who wants to know the scientific name can just click the link. So the scientific name seems to me to be simply extra words and a particular obstacle to casual readers, except in a few cases where it's helpful to show that two species are in the same genus or some such.

Yeah, I had a lot of such cases in the last days, so it kinda became a habit. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi from a very snowed-in White Rock. No, I don't know the story behind the high tree line, but I've read about it in several places. It would be nice to get that documented. Maybe something to do over the end-of-year closure at the lab... -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the article on Tree line has been expanded significantly since the last time I looked at it, and it's quite interesting. Independent of any sources for my statement (which I've still not got back to), it's clear that the "unusually" high tree line in the Jemez and Sangres is almost entirely a function of latitude, combined with the curious trivium that there are very few high mountains in the world between 35 degrees north and the equator -- except for the Himalayas, which of course are anomalies from any number of points of view. So an "unusually" high tree line of 12,000 feet is what would be "usual" for other mountains at this latitude, if there were any. (Where does the 12,000' number come from? Lots of hiking in the Sangres and Jemez, the latter of which are entirely below tree line -- but that's original research!) In light of this, possibly some sprucing up (so to speak...) of the language in those articles is indicated. -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is what is happening here what I think is happening here? 198.163.53.11 (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP spam from a City of Winnipeg network. Make what you will of that. . dave souza, talk 22:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they resemble them in build, but you wouldn't really confuse a Ptarmigan or a Capercaillie with a chicken in terms of plumage. No big deal, restore if you're not happy. jimfbleak (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 22:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks for your history of dedication to this article; minor question-- the summary of this last section of the novel is considerably shorter than the other three (which doesn't nec'ly indicate a need to bump it up to parity), and like the previous section summary, it omits any mention of Meris and Zirek as co-escapees from Bekla... should they be spliced back in, esp. wrt their identities as Sencho's assassins? Meris is already in the abbreviated list of characters at the end of the article, but it seems marginally misleading to suggest that Maia, Zenka, and Anda-Nokomis escape from Bekla as a party of three people, rather than five. Wombat1138 (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 21:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a comment on my talk page from way back, I altered your version of Lermontov's Dream. Well, actually, I did way more than alter it. Szfski (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jerry, much obliged.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 15:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 06:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 13:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and questions about Teachable moment#Political use. I tried to respond candidly and fully at Talk:Teachable moment. The simple fact that you din't understand after the first read-through is proof enough that I need to figure out how to address a number of unintended flaws. Your interpretation of my words makes plain that I was wrong in ways I hope to parse more carefully. --Tenmei (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The August 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 –xeno ^talk 02:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Just letting you know I'm doing a GA reassessment of this article, seen at Talk:Cylindropuntia imbricata/GA1. Not too much to do, but it does have to be done. Wizardman 02:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jerry, while not absolutely confident with the phonetic notation, I would render it as: dʒəkɑːnɑ, stressed on the middle syllable. I must warn though that I'm not a first language English speaker, and have a habit of transferring my native phonetics onto other languages. That's how South African English came into being I guess. But I do believe that many people here would pronounce it dʒəkɑːnɑ or dʒəkɑnɑ (i.e. ja-KAH-nah). Will listen out other versions. JMK (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jerry. What exactly was this edit supposed to mean? Is it "occasionally called erne or ern, especially in reference to the White-tailed Eagle" or that "sea eagles are rare birds, except the white-tailed"? Any clarification is most welcome! Cheers. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 19:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note - the honest answer is that I can't now recall redirecting montane forest to cloud forest, but I see that the original redirect was simply to forest which wasn't very helpful. There should probably be a separate article distinguishing the two, but in the absence of an article on montane forest the redirect to cloud forest is more helpful than to simply forest.

The cloud forest article starts "A cloud forest, also called a fog forest, is a generally tropical or subtropical evergreen montane moist forest", so I guess I wasn't far wrong. I've done a very quick Google search on "Montane forest", but can't find enough to really help me to decide what the difference is.

Just to confuse, this article[4] includes the phrase "High montane forest, above 6,600-10,000 feet (2,500-3,000 meters) in elevation, is often manifested as cloud forest".

Sorry, not being a biologist, I'm not sure I can be of more help. Perhaps you can put out a request to have someone create the separate article. Cheers. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jerry,

You were right. I left a fuller explanation on the talk page.--Steve Pryor (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding the addition you made. What exactly does the cited book say? I was aware that many scholars think the adultress story is a later addition, but I'd be honestly surprised if it was most scholars as you've written (rather than a substantial minority). JoshuaZ (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. That's very interesting. Good to have that cleared up. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding the status of the Nazgûl being an undead being, Tolkien's use of the term Undead Flesh does not give a good enough reason to include the Nazgûl as members of the Undead category as the two meanings don't correlate, they are just similar. There is a massive contradiction in the text of the Lord of The Rings if that where to be applied, as the Nazgûl are not dead, a key factor in the inclusion in the commonly accepted meaning of "Undead". Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JerryFriedman. You have new messages at Deor's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Came across this usage in the HBW (also on some websites) ! Shyamal (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Storks also practice urohydrosis, which involves defaecating directly onto the legs, thus favouring heat loss through evaporation." (p. 441)

"Urohydration, the practice of defaecating on the legs in order to lose heat by evaporation, is commonly used by most species, and tends to leave the legs stained white." (photo caption on p. 449)

from Elliott, A., 1992. Family Ciconiidae (Storks), In Handbook of the Birds of the World. Vol. 1. eds J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott, J. Sargatal. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. - I think we need to find that paper by M P Kahl and assure ourselves that the etymology is correct. It could of course be that HBW made a mistake. Shyamal (talk) 07:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that Kahl coined it with the spelling "urohidrosis". Email me if you want the original paper. Shyamal (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing some tidying! Arikk (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there JerryFriedman, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:JerryFriedman/The Pitcher Shower. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]