This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Welcome!
Hello, Mgiganteus1/Archive 4, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Bachrach44 23:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Nessie Barnstar
Thank you for editing Cryptozoology article to Wikipedia standards! Gniniv (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
On 3 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Microhyla nepenthicola, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at an ANI thread, regarding an issue with which you may have been involved, here. Thank you ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Promachoteuthis sloani.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 04:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Automatic taxobox on binomial name
{{automatic taxobox
| image = Psychedelic frogfish 08Am6A1b.jpg
| image_width = 240 px
| taxon = Histiophryne psychedelica
| binomial = ''Histiophryne psychedelica''
| binomial_authority = [[Theodore W. Pietsch|Pietsch]], Arnold, & Hall, 2009
}}Alright, thanks for the notice when you reverted. I assume the problem was just the visual one. Before I commit the edit, how does this look? Bob the Wikipedian(talk • contribs) 00:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I added the category "Species without scientific names" to File:N. sp. Sumatra.jpg and three other pictures you uploaded to Commons. Is it possible that when these species are formally described, we'd know about it and be able to recategorize the pictures? —JerryFriedman(Talk) 05:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
There was no hurry on your reply, and I'm glad you're following this. I hope to know when the undescribed species I uploaded gets described, but unfortunately, I don't know about the others I categorized. Anyway, the category is available for exciting pictures like these. —JerryFriedman(Talk) 20:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Helping out
The Helping Hand Barnstar
Thank you, so much, for assisting a new user with Marcello Catalano - fantastic. Chzz ► 05:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm doing some research on the environmental impact of the Three Gorges Dam in China; I read in that article that the Baiji is "functionally extinct." When I read over the article for the Baiji, though, I found this change http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baiji&oldid=389333568, where you removed the extinct species box from the baiji article.
Do you have some sources that definitively indicate whether this species is extinct? I'd greatly appreciate anything you might have.
You sir, are good. Much appreciation with the formatting fixes you did to Painted turtle. Much smoother, much prettier. Thanks again. :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Responded on my talk page.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that capitalization fix on The Power of Movement in Plants-- I never remember to do that right! And for my typo you caught earlier... --Araucana (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Nepenthes petiolata2.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The Terminator
I won't be reverting you there, but for the record "make love" is not a euphemism! It's a poetic expression, and that's not at all the same thing. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 05:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I was intending to move Myanmar Snub-nosed Monkey to Myanmar snub-nosed monkey, when I spotted your earlier edit note: "mammal names often are [capitalised], especially those of more obscure species". I have never heard this before, except where the animal's name contains a person or place name. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? Regards, Bazonka (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
rv Moomin
"rv; author was Swedish-Finn". Well, I am completely aware of this. Tove Jansson being a Swedish-Finn means, to be precise, that Swedish was her mother tongue and that she was a citizen of the Republic of Finland (from 1917). The books were written in Swedish and were later translated (by other people) into Finnish, and into English, German, French... The Finnish names and book titles are products of translation just like the English or German ones. With this beginning of this article an impression is given, that the Finnish names would in some way be "original", even more so than the Swedish one, which is certainly not the case. // 90.190.125.134 (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for the hasty revert and thank you for the explanation. I agree with your reasoning and have reverted myself. mgiganteus1 (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I have restored Moomin to the way it was before User:90.190.125.134 edited it. This article and all Tove Jansson related articles are heavy targets for nationalistic edit-wars between pro-Swedish and pro-Finnish editors (90+% of the time from single-purpose IP accounts from Northwestern Europe). The concern displayed by User:90.190.125.134 for which language version is more "original" or more "official" is stereotypical of this petty issue. Although the argument for listing the Swedish translation before the Finnish one certainly has some weight to it, I believe that the order of these translations was determined alphabetically so as to avoid bias (F-for-Finnish comes before S-for-Swedish). Either way, the complete removal of any mention of the Finnish title is certainly not warranted. The books were written in Finland and they were written in Swedish (by a Swedish-Finn woman) and this is the English Wikipedia. All three languages (English, Finnish, and Swedish) are appropriate for translations and an alphabetical order avoids bias. If an editor wishes to alter the consensus version of the article (as it stood before 90.190.125.134's edit) with respect the nationalistic aspects of it, then they are welcome to do so at the talk page of the article. -Thibbs (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Apart from any other argumentation, which I won't get into, the common, stereotypical biased view of the Finnish versions as being the "original" ones is maintained by this part of the article. Finnish as a language (not relevant) and Finland as a country (highly relevant) are confused with each other in this bias and in the discussion on the relevance of Finnish in this context. But more importantly, if you look up the revision history, after the discussion you had on the talk page in the Spring of 2009 the order between the languages was clearly (1) Swedish, (2) Finnish. Although this is still a quite strange solution, I could agree on that one. However, this solution was later changed in various directions by various edits, among others by "single purpose IP accounts", and these edits were never reverted or changed. My point is that there has never been any consensus on the version you call "consensus version", but on an - in this respect - quite different one. // 90.190.125.134 (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
As I noted before, your argument that the Swedish name should precede the Finnish one certainly has some force to it. I disagree with you that the order of the translations in the first line implies that the books were written in Finnish first, and frankly I believe the order of these names is only primarily a concern for nationalism-minded editors, however you may be correct and in the interest of assuming good faith I'd be willing to entertain the suggestion that the order of the translations be reversed if you would be willing to make a suggestion at the appropriate talk page. Cluttering up Mgiganteus1's talk page does neither of us any good. Please suggest the change on the Moomin talk page and then we can discuss it in an open and transparent manner before all editors. -Thibbs (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I was going to merge the others where appropriate, as I think that these names have been made up by Wikipedia editors - unless of course I can find them in reliable sources, eg the few reliable books written on the subject. Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I just see that you reverted my edits to several carnivorous plant magazines (actually, some while I was editing, which I didn't notice up till now). There has been a long-standing consensus to call academic journals "journals" and other periodicals #newspapers" or "magazines". There are some archived discussions at the WPJournals talk page, for example. Likewise, the "journals" categories are for academic journals, not magazines. Hope this explains and that my edits can now be restored (which I'll leave up to you). Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey there. Saw this conversation and was wondering when a magazine becomes an academic journal. Of all the CP publications, I would argue that the Carnivorous Plant Newsletter is an academic journal. It regularly publishes peer-reviewed research. An informal perusal of the most recent issues I've received show at least one of the articles among the handful in each issue is peer-reviewed original research. That seems to make it an academic journal, not a magazine. What do you think? Rkitko(talk) 02:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Paper
Sorry about the change at Carnivorous Plant Newsletter, earlier. The size of the paper is a nice piece of descriptive information in the context of going from a stenciled product. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
No need to apologise. This is all very much subjective. :-) mgiganteus1 (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
1.) The term is "Branchial" heart, 2.) I doubt you could ever write an article about something that only gets 432 unique Google hits, 3.) this is the only page on the whole project that even mentions such a thing. I forgot to put the rationale in when I used unlink. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
With regard to your reversion of my edits to Drosera regia, what "inconsitency" in formatting are you concerned about? My edits added a number of additional PMIDs/DOIs/JSTOR links, which I don't want to lose. Rjwilmsi 00:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Can you quote the specific part from WP:Fauna name that is relevant to naming this Santanachelys. Thanks. Regards, SunCreator(talk) 00:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Regards, SunCreator(talk) 00:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Reverted. In fact, given there are grounds for retaining this form as it uses two initials - will discuss with colleagues. It's just a shame that it does not agree with the authority form originally used to publish the author for the first time. Attenboroughii (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Bigfin squid May 2001.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Bigfin squid May 2001.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Bigfin squid May 2001.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bigfin squid May 2001.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Caesium spelling
Even more important than your explanation here, Wikipedia's formal style-guide picked that as the standard spelling to use...you can just point at WP:CAES. DMacks (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Heya, since you probably know a lot more about it than me (and taxonomy in general) heh, I'd like to ask you opinion on where to place Belemnotheutis. Whatever gets decided will also affect other articles (Acanthoteuthis and possibly Phragmoteuthis and Permoteuthis as well). I'm going crazy trying to figure out which authority is more widely used.
There are three classifications AFAIK:
A separate order Belemnotheutida, by Engeser and Reitner 1981 (used by authorities like Donovan and Doguzhaeva)
A suborder (currently used), by Doyle et al. 1994
Under Phragmoteuthida by Sepkoski, Jr. 2002 (though Acanthoteuthis remains in Belemnitida for some reason)
Further compounded by two different spellings of the family: Belemnotheutidae and Belemnotheutididae
Whatever decision made will affect the classification of probably the rest of belemnoids given automatic taxoboxes so it might be best to take this into a wikiproject discussion but I can't decide whether to ask in Wikiproject Cephalopoda or in Paleontology. Can you please advise? Thanks.--Obsidi♠nSoul 15:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmk, thanks. Paleontology is not specialized either, so I may not get a reply, they're more focused on vertebrates. :( But I'll try, hopefully an editor somewhere specializes in belemnites and is watching that talk page. At the moment I have to revise the restoration again tho. >.< Heh. --Obsidi♠nSoul 16:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I had hid the references in Avatar's article. Allow me to explain why.
You see, Wikipedia's all about getting information. Let's see this from the point-of-view of a person (who doesn't know much about Wikipedia and isn't a Wikipedian) who wants information about Avatar.
He's read the article and he's scrolling down to the External Links section of the article. He has to then scroll down a quarter of the page, literally! It's highly improbable that he gives a damn about the references. I mean, References are mostly for us Wikipedians to confirm the validity of the statements.
Now if it's hid, the section becomes smaller and it can still be viewed like a normal References section without any problems at all!
What say? Halemane (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, It wasn't a collapsible list. It was a scrolling list. Even the links between inline cites and the reference list work if it's a scrolling list. That's why I don't happen to see what the problem with a scrolling reference list is.
And, I'm just a few months old on Wikipedia. And, you have been here quite a while and have done thousands of edits. Please do make me understand what's wrong with a scrolling list. I'm just a budding Wikipedian and an eager learner : ) Halemane (talk) 16:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
On 16 February 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Belemnotheutis, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 150-million-year-old ink of the extinct, squid-like Belemnotheutis(artist's rendition pictured) was used to draw a picture that paleontologists called "the ultimate self portrait"? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hello Mgiganteus1. To answer the question you've asked in your edit summary, I have absolutely no idea why the NOAA website would be blacklisted. It did however report as a blacklisted site while I was formatting the refs with the Reflinks tool. I usually remove anything that reports as such, in an effort to keep my edit as clean and as "on-track" as possible, but have no problem with the fact that you've restored it... simply because I can't provide a reason beyond my trust for the tool. If I'm able to come up with any answers on the Reflinks talk page, I'll make sure to let you know. Have yourself a great day Mgiganteus1, and happy editing! :) -- WikHead (talk) 08:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
You're most certainly welcome. If you're interested in viewing my question and/or any feedback it might generate, feel free to keep an eye on my post at User talk:Dispenser/Reflinks#Blacklisted reports. Cheers! :) -- WikHead (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
comeover to the talk page, if you do not response i will ask you to be blocked for vandalism, im the only one participating on the talk page, such reverts are a waste of the participants time--Lutfi.Saad (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I noticed your request in the edit summary to have all instances of Archaeopteryx placed in italics in the Maxberg specimen article and have done so. I've also removed the CE template, as the missing italics, according to your summary, were the reason for it. I'm just wondering what prevented yourself from placing all five occurances of Archaeopteryx in the text in italics rather then place a template. Either would have taken about the same amount of time! If you want a job done, why don't you do it yourself rather then complain about it and wait for somebody else to do it? A bit of non-constructive attitude, don't you think? Calistemon (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't the person that posted the Japan entry on "the big one" but I resent your reckless deleting of it. You do not own that page or any other page. If you really think it absolutely needs a citation, why not CONTRIBUTE to Wikipedia, instead of just hacking away at it. Here's a good starting place: Google this in quotes: "the big one hits japan". The first result begins with the sentence: "I spent most of the first 18 years of my life in Japan and the idea of the Big One striking was as much a part of life as eating and breathing." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.55.119.102 (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Tank Man
I wouldn't class the Sunday Express as a "reliable source". This tabloid "newspaper" seems to be the only source claiming the Tank Man as Wang Weilin. -94.193.172.19 (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Alien 2 (Italian film)
Tell me please, where you found a "little connection" to the Alien in this film? Where is no any Helen Repley (watch "cast" in imdb), no any space ships from the first movie (watch this movie), so where you found it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.33.26.116 (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Bristol Stool Scale: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Thank you for reverting vandalism. Please remember to warn the user, as you forgot here.Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T/S 03:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Italic title
You maid Epitaphium italic, ok. What's the rule then for the composer's other work Bright Angel (Waterhouse), where only part of the article name is a title. This is just an example for many operas, symphonies, plays, you name it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HSV-2 Swift-side.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Common Good (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Sea Serpent
How about being a little politer in the future, as edit sumamries such as this [1] are unconstructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.108.136 (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the message [2]. Best wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.108.136 (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
THIS ALSO APPLIES TO YOU: STOP REMOVING OTHERS' COMMENTS YOU DON'T LIKE, SIMPLY ADD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.12.115.90 (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that, heh. Reading more about its morphology in text and seeing more illustrations, I might have to change some details on my restorations. The paddles seem to be the wrong shape and they're apparently diagnostic for the genus. Plus minor fixes, shape of coxa ear, division on sternites, scales, etc. Should be easy enough, but I'll finish the text first, heh. And yep, that seems to be the correct illustrations.-- Obsidi♠nSoul 02:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
On 24 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Palaeochiropteryx, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the many examples of extinct 48-million year old batgenusPalaeochiropteryx(life restoration pictured) found in the Messel lake may have drowned after being rendered unconscious in flight by poisonous volcanic gases? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. 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 uploading File:Nepenthes rajah glands.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Eurypterus
On 29 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eurypterus, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a fossil of the extinctsea scorpionEurypterus(restoration pictured) was once thought to be a catfish? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi, I noticed you created wikilinks for Hummer's Giant and Eden Black, do you plan on creating pages for these 2 cultivars? --Etincelles(talk) 16:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I've been noticing that you've been deleting my edits when I place the Carnivorous plants of New Guinea out of Asia, I placed them in Australasia and you removed them, I placed them in the Malesian region and you removed them, New Guinea isn't in Asia, New Guinea is very distant from Asia, just because you don't like it you remove it, placing Carnivorous plants of New Guinea in the Category:Carnivorous plants of Asia is completely wrong--Jaguarlaser (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey! I just got an e-mail from a friend who wondered about the language in the Heliamphora heterodoxa article that you wrote. It currently reads, "Heliamphora heterodoxa was thought to be the only species of Heliamphora growing in the Gran Sabana, until H. sarracenioides was discovered." I'm not familiar with this area, but I was told that Gran Sabana is the entire region where the tepuis are, so it doesn't make much sense. Is that correct? If not, could you clarify it? Thanks :-) Rkitko(talk) 01:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Which one?
You have write in user talk:Gsarwa under section June 2011, but I don't understand which one you mean? Please give more information. Thank you so much.Gsarwa (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your information. I have made contributions for more than 1,000 articles and also some of new articles such as Pecatu, 3G (countries), ASEAN Exchanges, etc, but certainly all of them should be improved anymore. To copy one or two lines, if I don't mistaken is allowed, but certainly to make a new wording is more appropriate. Thank you again for your attention.Gsarwa (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you again for your information. I'll try to reword as I can.Gsarwa (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, my bad. I was seeing the status of Giraffa camelopardalis ssp. peralta in IUCN via a google search. Thanks for your advice. --Pixeltoo (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I just took out your "undo" in the Largest organims page as you didn't see the sources was already there: Epicyon. I took information out of the wikipedia page.
As the previous number that were there, they weren't justified by sources. They do not correspond to any of those on the official page, and more importantly, they can't correspond to any true data as the Epicyon isn't a species but a genus. If you take a look at Epicyon, you will read ( like i did before ) that there are 3 species categorized in the genus Epicyons: Epicyon aelurodontoides, saevus and haydeni. I didn't put random data, i just made the data correspond to the one that wikipedia already had in a specialized page wich i believe is part of the wikipedia prehistoric gate. It doesn't feel right to see that this "largest organisms" page doesn't give data corresponding to other pages, and not even give sources for those number. 101kg and 89kg? Where did that come from? It isn't even worth mentioning if you look at the weight of some moloss dogs. But well, there was no sources, it wasn't even corresponding to the epicyon page and well... Epicyon is a genus. It's like saying like the Genus "Panthera" as a 180kg weigh and then refuse to admit the existence of "panthera leo" ( lion ) and "panthera tigris" ( tiger ) saying a "panthera" is a jaguar or a leopard suffuring melanism. What we are talking about here isn't a species, or un subspecies (like panthera can be both Genus and subspecies), Epicyon is a Genus and nothing more.
LoL i just saw your other "undoing" , you like that don't you? Too bad all the link i made to other wikipedia page are all about Data that actually have sources ; The Haydeni weight like the wandering condor
wingspan are both given with sources - i must admit i didn't bother Copy/paste them, but i will from now on as apparently "you can't take a wikipedia page as a source even if the source is actually in the page
linked. But well, the funny fact still is that when you did your "undo", you just got the unsourced numbers back and got rid of the sourced one.
--Nicolasticot (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Obviously I didn't overrun the information, difficult is, to some people, to tell that important differences, so I collect all-most-important of them on one place. How do you mean it is “unencyclopedically” worded? That is troop of true and scientific-confirmed information. Would you tell me how to pre-word that text? Alexdiscussion 22:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:The Terminator (DOS)3.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Terminator 2- Judgment Day - Chess Wars.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Terminator 2- Judgment Day - Chess Wars.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:The Terminator 2029 3.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:The Terminator (DOS).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:The Terminator- I'm Back!.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I know it's been years since you posted on my talk but I felt the need to reply as I am getting back into Wikipedia. I don't know if the parenthetical referencing is "much preferred" as you said but I'll leave them. I could tun them into inline citations of clickable footnotes because they are way more common and look better, make for easy reading but if you prefer the parentheses I won't fight you on them. I made some further edits to page Nautilida because that page is sloppy as hell with choppy sentences and the like, also added some links. If you agree with me that this page could you some work feel free to help clean it up, like I said I think clickable footnotes would look way better. Crazyskipp64 (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Micronecta scholtzi
On 10 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Micronecta scholtzi, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the penis of the Lesser Water Boatman Micronecta scholtzi creates mating calls of 99.2 decibels, making it the loudest animal on earth, scaled for its size? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Since part of the back and forth at {{Aliens}} with Barsoomian, please take the time to comment at the discussion that spawned at Template talk:Alien#Alien vs Hunter.
I finally remembered where we got the information from: [3] and [4] Fossilmall. Unfortunately, the pages do not have references, themselves. I do know that the webmaster is approachable.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
A great set of articles you have created on Nepenthes. They've always fascinated me, but even more so since I saw N. macfarlanei in the wild in Malaysia last year. I hope to get the Genting Highlands on my next visit to Malaysia (for work, alas, so little free time), using the Bourk (2003) reference you included in the N. macfarlanei article as a guide. Thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hullo. I'm currently expanding the article on bigfin reef squids. I'm wondering if you would be willing to collaborate? I'm planning this to go through DYK then hopefully GA. While I'm fairly good at sniffing out sources, I kinda suck at putting them all together. LOL. Since you're more familiar with cephalopods, you might be able to spot glaring errors or whatnot more easily than I could. Thanks.-- Obsidi♠nSoul 18:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Please note the discussion here (1#Lots_of_content_removed...twice.3F) and note that the issues were resolved. What was removed weak and colloquial language, unsourced opinion, repetition of information now found elsewhere (Kraken in popular culture) and excessive use of what is essentially the same image. If these changes have resulted in a reduction in the size of the article, then it was necessary in the interests of keeping the article at encyclopedia standard. In the spirit of collaboration I implemented some of the technical changes you made, and would be happy to assist with others. I'll also advise Bob the WikipediaN that another pair of eyes may be needed. That said, please, no more blind reverts to material that was already removed and does not meet encyclopedia standard (e.g."Later developments of the Kraken image may be traced at Kraken in popular culture".) Thank you. PurpleHeartEditor (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Once again I must direct your attention to the comments raised here (1#Lots_of_content_removed...twice.3F) as you haven't handled this well. You reverted another user's change, but then apparently decided to perform a mass revert to the weaker material that has already been cleaned up. Instead of going to the Talk Page, you then kept reverting and did not address the points raised. If you had read the comments, you would have noted that I had already incorporated several of your suggestions into the improved version. Now, I am going to suggest that the page be protected, and we continue to discuss, as the article in its current form is far from satisfactory and changes will be necessary. There must be an argument for why weak material must remain, not why revised, encyclopedic material is unnecessary. Regards PurpleHeartEditor(talk) 04:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
You now need to stop attempting to edit the article in question ([5]), as an accord must be reached at the Talk Page. It is not appropriate to be doing this during the resolution process, and there are several issues that need to be addressed. Thank you PurpleHeartEditor(talk) 11:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Two things
Greetings. Firstly, I would like you to read the comments at (1#Lots_of_content_removed...twice.3F). I've tweaked the article and refined it again, but now consider it to be done pending any new material. The important thing to note is that information is not blatently repeated, and as such the mention of the giant squid is now in the Fact section where it belongs, as separating fact from fiction is a logical extension the article. There is now an expanded lead, and it reads well (also being a style used in other mediums to help pad out the lead).
Secondly, your recent reversion of Kraken (roller coaster) was, speaking frankly, poor form and also dumb (as uncivil as that may sound). Once again, you need to pay attention to the edits and stop making blind reverts that show no ability to read the situation. By reverting, you wiped legimate links I sourced (including one that featured footage of the ride from a more reputable source), restored poor language and grammar and undid the corrected text (that again, had sources. You questioned it, then I fixed it, then you undo it!), restored unsourced statements and also a large chunk of text that violates WP:NOR. There is also WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:TRIVIA. I also checked no less than three other rollercoaster articles and none of them go into this kind of detail about the ride - hence WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Finally, there is the image issue: it should be obvious that the article - in corrected form - cannot sustain three pictures.
Then there is your claim in the Edit Summary - (rv yet another undiscussed article culling; you've already been reverted by two different editors so please gain consensus on talk page before attempting further removals). This is a somewhat silly comment given what I've just outlined above. You haven't been the voice of reason here. There is often no need for consensus (certainly not on everything), particularly when one editor is working to improve the article and make it encyclopedia standard. All the edits were quite legitimate. All of them. I sourced the claims and reworked the language as I am a writer - something many editors are not (hence the need for changes). Yes, there can be Talk about types of changes - by all means - but the article cannot stay in its current form. Please understand that.
This needs to stop. To judge by the Edit Summary, you only chose to involve yourself with this article because I was editing it. Please note this WP:BATTLEGROUND.
Now, I am going to continue to rework the article, but do not expect any further blind reverts as these are counter productive. By all means add to the article and ask questions, but study what is happening first. Thank you. PurpleHeartEditor(talk) 04:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much Mgiganteus for giving us a "heads up" on this, without your note these changes might have gone on for weeks before we noticed them. These are all well-meaning changes, and the taxonomy has been revised in that direction, but it needs to be changed from the top down not from the bottom up. Many thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Nepenthes saranganiensis.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
re: October 2011
Hi, and thanks for the notice.
I tried to move the page but it did not work... What should I do now? As I noted in the pliosauroidea page (to which redirected "pliosaur", and moved the talk), pliosaur or Pliosauria are not valid names. What should I do to move the page? Rnnsh (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the information! Rnnsh (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello Mgiganteus1/Archive 4! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey
Hi Mgiganteus,
I hope this finds you well. My name is Matthew Roth and I'm a Storyteller working on the 2011 fundraiser with the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco. In past years, we've relied on Jimbo to carry the bulk of the fundraising weight and he's done very well helping us hit our yearly funding targets. This year, however, we're broadening the scope and reach of the fundraiser by incorporating more voices and different people on the funding banners and appeals that will start running full-time on November 7th. We're testing new messages and finding some really great results with editors and staff members of the Foundation. You can see the current progress of the tests here. I'm curious if you would want to participate in an interview with me as part of this process? The interviews usually last 60 minutes and involve a number of questions about your personal editing experiences, as well as general questions about Wikipedia and its impact in the world. Please let me know by emailing mroth (at) wikimedia.org. Seascapeza recommended I contact you. Thanks! Matthew (WMF) 19:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
A number of edits have been made to Cadborosaurus willsi. None of the new information has been cited to any references. Should the information be deleted.Msruzicka (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The media file you uploaded as File:Frederick William Burbidge.png appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source),
or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.
It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media
clearer.
Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).
If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: {{subst:usernameexpand|Mgiganteus1/Archive 4}} will produce an appropriate expansion, or use the {{own}} template.
If this is an old image, for which the authorship is unknown or impossible to determine, please indicate this on the file description page.
The statement "what has been said to be the wealthiest non-royal family in Saudi Arabia" is way too general. A better statement is "one of the wealthiest non-royal families in Saudi Arabia" B. Fairbairn (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, you made an edit to Sansevieria with the summary "rv unexplained family change for consistency with taxobox/other articles" but actually the family was correct (and fully referenced), so I've restored the original. I'm not sure what you intended. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I want to stop by and say I saw the nice work you did on the carnivorous plant book articles. They look fabulous and definitely fill in a gap on our coverage. Thanks for your effort on those. I've been a bit absent and maybe I'll get back to creating more articles soon. And an FYI, I noticed that some of the Nepenthes articles utilize a hidden synonyms section, e.g. Nepenthes maxima. If you didn't notice the discussion at Template talk:Taxobox#Collapse synonyms, you might want to weigh in. Cheers, Rkitko(talk) 19:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, i just took a look at the revision of Tendaguru Formation you did. your summary said the edit was vandalism, but i went to the article for The Archbishop (Dinosaur) and it seemed legit to me.
thanks
-Ryan shell (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The Kraken Barnstar
The Kraken Barnstar
For your work on cephalopod and cephalopod anatomy articles. :) -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I noticed your recent undo of my contribution to phylogentics. Although we might argue about your grounds for stating that the topics are too different, even though the root of the term is the same and the origin is the same and they mean generally the same thing and are only aplied to different fields of science, I would like to thank you for your input instead. I was actually looking for some feedback on the matter in the first place. So, I only logged in for some information (I am travelling at the moment), but when I get back (in about 2 weeks or so) I would love to create a new page on phylogeny and from there link to phylogenetics. However, this would mean editing the redirect and re-examining the phylogenetics article, as it is now (because the introduction is mostly about phylogeny and not phylogenetics). Although I am having a few ideas, I would love to work this out with your help. I am really new at this (I have only been editing a few articles in the last month) and I would definately appreciate the help and feedback. So, if I promise to create the page and do the work and then show it to you so you can give constructive feedback and edit where needed, would you help me out on this matter?
I have returned from my holiday and I remembered your undoing of my contribution. I also noticed you undid my ontogeny contribution. While I can understand you editing out my phylogeny contribution, I cannot understand you removing my ontogeny contribution. The difference is that phylogenetics is definately about eugenetics, while phylogeny is a broader term. So, the two would need to be separated. In the matter of ontogeny, this is not the case, there not beng a page on ontogenetics...if this term exists at all (I am interested in psychoanalytics, not biology). I would appreciate it if you would replace my contribution to ontogeny,and help me out with creating a page on phylogeny.
Hello again, since you have not replied on my talk page, I will place this contemplation here:
I will say that stuff like this is really only applied in deeper investigations. Psychology usually ends at the pain over a divorce, or the attempt to mediate between two lovers or some such innocent stuff, while medical investigations usually end at finding some ailment or applying cirgery, both building logs as life progresses. The research into family origins and genetic development is done for different reasons. Biology itself can investigate, for evolutionary understandings and in psychiatry people investigate. Both involve the physical and the mental properties. In fact, this is the difference between psychiatry and psychology (psychiatrists hold both a physical and a psychological doctors degree). So, it should go together imho.
I am not sure who to discuss it with (for some peer feedback), since psychology would, out of it's normal function, seperate it from the physical attribute. IMHO we should make one page explaining both, from there linking to the separate disciplines. I can reach no other conclusion to tell you the truth. Are you inclined to change your initial opinion, that both disciplines should be separated?
Hey, I'm trying to translate Utricularia genus entries to Chinese. But most of these entries are missing the root interpretation, such as List of Utricularia species's sections and species. Could I get your help about that?乌拉跨氪 (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. It's Chinglish. For instance in Nepenthes alba: “The specific epithet alba is derived from the Latin word albus, meaning "white", and refers to the colour of the upper pitchers." I just want to know the specific epithets and sections meaning in Utricularia sections and species.乌拉跨氪 (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help so much. But it may lack the Sections meaning. Is there some informations about this part? 乌拉跨氪 (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
An award for you
Golden Wiki Award
In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.7.109 (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you
The Modest Barnstar
You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 67.80.64.128 (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:
Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
Hi
I'm writing in French the page Dionée and I would like to use the cover picture you put on wiki commond but I don't no how to do because is under licence.
I'm part of the society.
French wiki http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dion%C3%A9e
Can you explain how I need to proceed ?
Thank you Carnico— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.198.226.162 (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
WikiThanks
WikiThanks
Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.2.12 (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I have resolved most translation problem of Utricularia specific epithets with your help, but few specifics and sectios meaning are still unclear becouse it is new or uncommon. They are:
Thanks a lot for saving me trouble of importing the photos from PLoS ONE to Commons. Could you please convert this video to a free format and upload it as well. I'm not allowed to install a decent video converter on my current computer. Many thanks, ליאור • Lior (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Alien (1986) - Alien queen.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Alien (1986) - Alien queen.jpg. 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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Bristol Stool Scale: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Thank you for reverting vandalism. Please remember to warn the user, as you forgot here. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) T/S 03:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
3.gif){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading File:Alien (1986) - Alien queen.jpg. 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).
_-_Alien_queen.jpg){kind=link}