User talk:Res2

August 2015[edit]

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Am new to editing and still learning, so thank you for your help. I will incorporate edit summaries forthwith. A particular challenge I've encountered is the frequent requirement to switch back and forth between article and edit panes as proofing in the edit pane is more difficult due to its limited formatting. This results in an inordinate number of edits (often only one or two minor word changes) and a subsequent slower editing process. Do you have any pearls that might aid in this regard? RES2 14:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey there, sorry was away. I'm not sure I follow. Are you referring to continuously clicking on the "edit section" link? In that case, since you have many edits in mind anyway, you can click on the top-right "edit source" option which enables you to edit the entire article in one go. Or in you your case, since you're changing names, you could try the "edit" option which uses visual editor (it has a very good search-and-replace option).

Additionally, I would recommend you to post on Talk:Human evolution (click on the top-right "new topic") regarding your changes if you feel people might demand a further explanation or just for historic value. This will explain talk page etiquette. Let me know if I can help you any further. Happy editing, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I see that you already posted on the talk page and someone has replied too. Good job. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ugog Nizdast, commentary much appreciated. I saw that there were two ways to simply edits, via individual section vs. whole article. The frequency was more related to proof reading challenges in the edit pane where all the raw format code, link data, and references are included inline in the same font, etc ... I will further explore the visual editor, but was reticent to engage a find-and-replace mechanism for fear of inadvertently changing a valid usage instance. On a separate note, I have no established user page and as a complete neophyte to WP editing I don't really warrant a "brag sheet" about me, but I also don't want to appear to have some sort of hidden agenda or obscure motivations for edits. I read through the WP userpage data and I visited your user page (hope that's not an infringement) and saw that you have userboxes. My question is how do I incorporate them into my userpage? Thanks for your guidance. RES2 17:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh and indent while replying like how I did (see talk etiquette). Userboxes can be found at Wikipedia:Userboxes and it's mentioned there how one goes about adding them. Personally, I made my userpage to make myself more accessible to others and to keep a tab on my contributions too. Reasons may vary to have or to not have. But then again, it's not necessary and I know of many veterans who don't have one. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Hominin" replaced with "Hominan" by WP:SPA - OK or Not?[edit]

FWIW - possibly relevant posted comments are included below:

Copied from "Talk:Human evolution#"Hominin" replaced with "Hominan" by WP:SPA - OK or Not?" as follows:
"Hominin" replaced with "Hominan" by WP:SPA - OK or Not?
Among other edits, seems "User:Res2 (talk | contribs)", (WP:SPA?), is replacing the word "Hominin", a defined word, with the word "Hominan", an undefined word(?), instead - is this *entirely* OK or Not? - (edited articles may include "Human evolution", "Homininae", and "Homo ergaster") - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

In any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drbogdan,

Thanks for weighing in and my apologies if I'm out of order with the edits. The question of whether "hominan" is defined is a valid one and I suppose depends on what criteria WP finds acceptable (again my apologies for prospective internal ignorance). The term is defined at http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Hominan and at http://www.worldlibrary.org/articles/hominan, and in use in journal articles, but not (yet?) in more mainstream dictionaries like Oxford or Merriam-Webster, which raises the question of whether the term is sufficiently settled to be in use in WP articles. As inconsistency is the handmaiden of confusion, my efforts here have been towards promoting consistency and began with reading the first paragraph of the Hominini WP article [1]: the first sentence describes the tribe Hominini including chimps; the second sentence then refutes it describing Hominini as only biped apes after the split with chimps. This of course led to considerably more investigation to try to understand the source of the contradiction, which led to a RFC on the subject [2]. I hope that helps illuminate my motivation for the edits, and again my apologies if they have been discharged half-cocked (I certainly won't be offended if they are all reverted). RES2 17:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments - the dictionary sources you've presented seem to be Wikipedia mirrors (ie, http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Hominan and http://www.worldlibrary.org/articles/hominan) - and may not be worthy sources for Wikipedia due to WP:CIRCULAR - yes - agreed - your edits at the moment may need to be reverted - at least until things are better sorted I would think - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! Drbogdan (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Stop![edit]

Res2: Please stop---please stop now---ie, your edit changes to the term "hominin"; that spelling is exactly correct for the usage intended and as is currently being used in dozens of similar wp articles. And "hominan" is for a different usage and is not a correct replacement for the usage of "hominin". Please meet me at Wikipedia Tree of Life Project at> 1 Confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)---where you'll find several fellow editors have been dealing intently with this issue for several months. You are welcome to join our effort. But please stop these edits and prepare to revert them---as the dictionary definition is not the usage envisioned for the word "hominin". Thank you, and regards. Jbeans (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jbeans, all edit functions permanently arrested UFN. Please advise if you wish me to revert edits; I shall be more than happy to do so unhesitatingly. RES2 17:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Done - (also, @Jbeans and Looie496:) - attempted to revert articles edited by Res2 (ie, "Human evolution", "Homininae", "Homo ergaster", "Human evolution/Species chart") to their last clean versions - hope the reverts are all ok - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RES2: Yes please do revert your edits re hominin---I thoughtt it was done---I would help help but am being watched by doctor's agents (=family and overseers) all whom threaten my typing fingers! :). (then pls goto Wp Tree of Life project as above and familiarize with the connversation there.) Thank you, and Regards. Jbeans (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jbeans, thank you for your clarification (my sympathies re your surveillance status!). The subject articles were reverted by Drbogdan (Human Evolution was then edited by Looie496). All subject refs to Hominan now appear as Hominin. Appreciate the challenges of the past and ongoing efforts to resolve the taxonomy and was previously familiar with the Tree of Life talk page contents.

Current article inconsistencies remain, but foremost pertains to bipeds: present WP classification of tribe Hominini's inclusion of chimps (not contested) and use of the term hominin in relation to bipedalism, as chimps are hominins but not bipeds.

I shall periodically review the Tree of Life talk page for progress and look forward to further developments. Thank you for your guidance (and perseverance). RES2 15:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)