User talk:Macdonald-ross/Archive 10
|This 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.|
|← Archive 9||Archive 10||Archive 11 →|
- (http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Palaeoproterozoic&hideredirs=1&hidetrans=1) Palaeoproterzoic links without redirects.
- (http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Paleoproterozoic&hideredirs=1&hidetrans=1) Paleoproterzoic links without redirects.
Page "Paleoproterozoic" should be moved to "Palaeoproterozoic". It is reversed for the redirect page. That is "Palaeoproterozoic redirect page" should be moved to "Paleoproterozoic redirect page". 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC) 9:24pm 05/12/2013 EDT.
- Actually, we do have a page on peanut butter! Click here: peanut butter. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
RfD Templates[change source]
Hello Macdonald-ross, I've deleted Template:NBA Street series and the like. You'd commented on how you wish they could be QD'd. I have deleted them early due to Wikipedia:QD#T2. Suppose they can all be QD'd through that. Kennedy (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hominidae /Hylobatidae...?[change source]
Hello, Macdonald-ross, you recently added another classification of the Hominidae. This classification lists Hylobatidae/Hylobates together with the "Great Apes" as they are called. At the time you didn't link Hylobatidae. I created a very short stub (say basically that Hylobates is basically one of the families of Gibbons. I would be grateful if ou could take a quick look, as this is not my subject of study. DeWP lists the Hylobates together with en:Hoolock gibbons (under N.N). As I remember, the Gibbons were "Smaller Apes"/"Monkeys"? - Anyway, would be grateful if you could have a look at the stub I created... --Eptalon (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I used ICS 2013 for Historical geology here is the source ICS . I placed the correct dates into the article. Below my comment is the correct dates from ICS. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 1:42 16 April 2013 (UTC) 9:42pm 04/15/2013 EDT.
- When you revert the dates like for example start of Triassic is 252.17 is then reverted by you to 251.1 but you should reverted to 252. If decimal is over 0.500 round up for 1, if under like 0.499 round down to 0 not 4 or 8 or -3. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:04 16 April 2013 (UTC) 9:04am 04/15/2013 EDT.
Any spare time?[change source]
Heya. Nice job on "Gravitational field" yesterday. Do you think you'd be up for merging the duplicate articles Gravity and Gravitation? It's okay if you haven't got the time; just thought I'd ask. Osiris (talk) 04:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, Mac! I've located about 30 instances of duplicate articles in the last few days and I've been working on merging them together. Some of them are easy enough to handle, but Gravity would have been a bit beyond my skill so appreciate the help. Osiris (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Vandal IP[change source]
- That is what I am perplexed about! I did not see it in my contributions, this might seem stupid. But can you again report the user this time by using Twinkle? And I will be more specific this time, I saw a line of selections and information of the IP Address's contributions and I selected 2-4 boxes. So, that's all I can get!! --Aaqib Hola! 18:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I've posted on Simple talk about the placement of those navigational templates on the geology articles. The thread is here if you're interested. Hopefully we can decide on some sort of convention and use it consistently. Osiris (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Proterozoic is narrower then the images below it. Please keep the page Ediacaran (and Hadean) the way it is. The page doesn't look bad to me. The template doesn't really dominate the page as it did before I cut the Precambrian piece off the template. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:54 22 June 2013 (UTC) 5:54pm 06/22/2013 EDT.
Macdonald-ross undo on Music[change source]
- I assume you refer to "rhythm" at the start of the intro. The sentence refers to rhythm as a concept. That is written in the singular, and the other concepts in the sentence were also in the singular.
In general, I think it's best to put queries or comments on the talk page of articles, because that lets other users see the discussion. I notice all comments on the talk pages of articles which are on my watchlist. Cheers, Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello Macdonald-ross[change source]
Re. Ediacaran[change source]
You shouldn't put Template:Proterozoic at the bottom of the page next to the nav template. This is not the 1st time I saw you putting those templates at the bottom. English Wikipedia uses these types of templates for Epochs and Stages (e.g en:Template:Cretaceous). So they have 3 on each page, 1 on top and 2 on the bottom (1 is a footer and 1 is the nav). Plus they put the template on the top corner, and I place our templates (e.g [[Template:Mesozoic) on the top corner. I think you should put it back and move on from there. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC) 8:51am 06/17/2013 EDT.
- No. That template interferes with the flow of the text. The text has priority. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- Why do you keep on reverting. This is the 3rd time you reverted. If I put the template back. Nothing changes, only the 2 images move down. This means the template is no longer interfering the text. The 2 images have the same width as template. I want you to put the template back and leave it the way it is. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC) 1:48pm 06/23/2013 EDT.
Congenital defect[change source]
Birth defect and Congenital defect are fine-looking articles, but they're both referring to the same thing. I've merged more than a dozen of these duplicate pages in the last few weeks. Most of them were pretty easy, but this is one with which I could use some help. Eptalon wrote the first one, you wrote the second one, so I'm posting to both your talk pages. I know I got you to do another merge recently, but if there's any chance you're willing to handle this one too please feel free. Osiris (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment on Lugia2453's talk page[change source]
Tiger shark[change source]
- Well, the answer is yes, certainly. However, try and make sure the changes are improvements, not just "I would have done it differently". Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The reason I changed the Characteristics section of Sharks is because of the fact that it did not have any references for the section. You said that I could change the article of Tiger shark since it did not have any references, so that is why I thought it would be fine to change the section. Marcus20 (talk) 06:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Well, Shark is a central page for the whole group, which makes it specially important. References should not be removed, but all changes to established text need reasons, and changes to important pages need good reasons. "Established" means it is stable, in good order. Changes to basically good text needs a reason: if in doubt, discuss it on talk pages. That's what they are there for. As I'm sure you have discovered, almost nothing can be changed on main English wiki without discussion. I think that goes too far, of course, but you have been a bit free with your changes, haven't you? Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mac. I'm not sure whether you saw it, but I responded to your post on Talk:Animal regarding the merge. Can we examine the pros and cons of going forward with that? Osiris (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Nelson Mandela GA[change source]
Hey Macdonald-ross. I've been working a lot on Nelson Mandela and I think it's a worthy nominee for a Good Article. Can you please leave any suggestions about the article that I can work on. You can write them on the article's talk page. Thanks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I wish it well, but I have little time at the moment. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
FYI, I have no problem with linking or copying over the other discussion. Also, which chemistry articles are you talking about? I might be able to fix them up a bit. Sunrise (talk) 06:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Big Forests Weekend[change source]
The Big Forests Weekend has now finished in all times zones. Thank you for your contributions to the Big Forests Weekend (BFW). We have created 36 articles and made 152 edits to pages already created, 8 redirects and a few disambiguation's as well. For more information on edits and articles check the organization page. I hope you had fun and that we will have another Big Weekend together! The contributor with most edits was Peterdownunder which beat Auntof6 with one edit.
List of all edits by all users[change source]
Peterdownunder : 66
Auntof6 : 65
Macdoanld-ross : 40
Reception123 : 25
Chenzw : 12
RfD nomination of Common misconceptions[change source]
An editor has requested deletion of Common misconceptions, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2013/Common misconceptions and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Eptalon (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
you are among the users who contribute most to this Wikipedia, several times we have agreed on issues. I think you have much of the mindset of some of these other users, which can also delete pages, and ban users. I know it might look like hat-collecting, but have you thought about applying to get those tools? - I am just wondering, because I think getting them would be rather easy for you... --Eptalon (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Well, thank you for your kind remarks. Although I am a little bit tempted by the extra powers, all the same I am really 'Mr Content', I add content and edit pages. I also contribute to some discussions. Basically, I don't really think the wiki needs more admins. It has some very good ones already. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mac. Was there any particular reason for leaving hidden content in
- I've removed it. What was worth keeping is now in Origin of Life. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Grypania date[change source]
I made a correction in the Eukaryote article regarding the age of Grypania spiralis from an iron mine near Negaunee, Michigan, and received the message on its talk page, but did not know how to respond or how to give a citation. I have made several corrections to various geology articles, and thought it would be good to have the newer, more accurate date than the one you have. Your citation was the 1992 paper by Han and Runnegar reporting the discovery of these specimens. Please make the change I attempted. The later citation is at http://cjes.geoscienceworld.org/content/39/6/999.abstract. There you can see the newer date and the basis for it. Numerous websites retain the original date, but considerable progress has been made in the Paleoprotoerozoic chronology in the last decade, including discovery of the Sudbury impact layer, which is a very useful marker bed. I appreciate that you expect a reference.
- Thank you very much, that was just what we needed. I have made changes to both articles. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mac. I noticed that you reverted here and I'm wondering whether to do the same with the other edits made by that IP. Was the information wrong? He or she also made edits to Grey wolf and Lion, mostly changes to measurements that appear to be quite definitely wrong. Osiris (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- With respect to Tiger, the page is for tigers as a whole, and as it lists lower down, we have pages on every subspecies. The IP introduced information about one of the subspecies which was out of place and unreferenced. So I judged that it was not an improvement. The main issue with this user is that s/he is not giving reliable sources, and is giving the impression of being a bit out of control, making too many doubtful changes too quickly. We have had cases where IP vandals change numbers because they are so difficult and time-consuming to check. I reached no conclusion about this user. In the past I have said these things to IPs of uncertain motivation:
- Changes should not be made on the basis of "I would have done it differently".
- Changes to an established page need explanations and reliable sources.
- 'Original was OK' or 'change was not an improvement'.
- Of course, many changes are improvements; I am only talking about these borderline cases. One way to proceed would be to revert everything which looks suspicious, and put a note of his talk page about the need for explanations and reliable sources. This kind of user never discusses on talk pages, but that is what they should do if they wish to get a point of view across. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Probably a good-faith contributor then, but I had to be sure. I ended up removing most of their additions anyway, because it was dubious and unsourced. I replaced most of the measurements with referenced data. I'll post a note to their talk when I get a chance tomorrow. Osiris (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)