Jump to content

User talk:Fama Clamosa/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Human Journey

did you click the introduction? It is only about half done per a contributor but sufficient for inclusion now. please restore if you agree.

Help with dermatology-related content

I am looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with our new Bolognia push 2009!? Perhaps you would you be able to help us? I could send you the login information for the Bolognia push if you are interested? ---kilbad (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sincerely honoured by the invitation, but I'm afraid my primary interests are the human/primate locomotor system and evolution. I can't imagine I will ever be able to contribute substantially to dermatology-related articles. But thanks a lot and good luck with the task force. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Pseudomyrmex ferruginea

Updated DYK query On February 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pseudomyrmex ferruginea, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks for the note. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Cleaup for Mission10X article

Hi,
Please note that I have cleaned up the Mission10X article and re-posted the same. On analysis it was discovered that the unwanted changes were made by anonymous users, which included removing neutral citation sources and citing direct sources. Please let me know if the cleanup is fine, or whether further action is required.
Also, please advise if we can go ahead and semi-protect the article.
Thanks & regards

Such1981 (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article per WP:MOS and removed the notes. However, as far as I can see, the article still looks like it has been copy-pasted from the sources the article subject would choose itself. There are plenty of statements on what this organisation wants to achieve, but virtually nothing on what it actually has achieved, and absolutely nothing on how important others think this organisation is. So, in my opinion this still reads like an ad. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I can understand the problem you are trying to state - will work accordingly, and update the same. Secondly, I have some information on the achievements, but I am looking for proper neutral citations to go with them. The previous citations updated by some annonymous users were direct links which were not neutral sources. So I removed them. Such1981 (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing references and WP:BRD warning

Please do not remove references as you did on Shroud of Turin. And please note that WP:BRD can not be used on WP:BRD again, hence you can not apply WP:BRD to WP:BRD. The WP:BRD page specifically states that: The BRD cycle does not contain another "B". It stops after the "D". Your revert is a clear violation of WP policies. History2007 (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

User: Uvmcdi

Please stop removing good addition as SPAM. Several that I have looked at have been good. This is also very BITEy. Why are links to a collection of complete texts of original correspondence by the subject of the article inappropriate? Rmhermen (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what article you are talking about, but have a look at Special:Contributions/Uvmcdi and Special:Contributions/132.198.152.29. This contributor is only adding external links, nothing else; has been reverted independently by several others; has been automatically tagged "repeated addition of external links by non-autoconfirmed user", and has been warned not to add more ELs several times. I might be BITEy, but this contributor definitely needs to read WP:EL (and was invited to do so as 132.198.152.29) and should absolutely discuss this briefly before continuing. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted your removal of contributions to baler by Uvmcdi. After reviewing the external link added, the content is historical to the article topic, and is not advertising. DMahalko (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Primate

Hi, you reverted my change to Primate and said "see talk." I explained my change on the talk page, and there has been no response to it as yet. -- Cjensen (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There are two ongoing discussions regarding that image on that talk page. Please read those arguments and revert your own revert. Thanks. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Extended content
==It's okay to center image captions==

There is nothing in the Manual of style or the Wikipedia Policies stating not to center image captions. There is also no rule against centering image captions in Manual of Style - Captions.

Per Manual of Style - Captions:

There are several criteria for a good caption. A good caption 

  1. clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious.
  2. is succinct.
  3. establishes the picture's relevance to the article.
  4. provides context for the picture.
  5. draws the reader into the article.

Different people read articles different ways. Some people start at the top and read each word until the end. Others read the first paragraph and scan through for other interesting information, looking especially at pictures and captions. 

===Examples of articles centered image captions===

Examples of articles centered image captions that I did not center:

There is no consensus to leave everything identically in Wikipeida articles, which discourages innovation and improvement. Having to obtain consensus for minor edits that clearly improve article quality isn't in the guidelines or Manual of Style.

Please read:

"Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things."

96.41.164.58 (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC) 

===Significant precedent for centering image captions===

Furthermore, there is precedent for centering image captions. Here is some data from the Wikipedia help desk archives: Centered caption:

How do I center a caption under an image thumbnail? Dr. Kamarei (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC) 

   <center>caption text</center>. – ukexpat (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you center a caption? I have inserted images with captions a couple of times, and the captions automatically justify to the left margin. Is there a way to center the captions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voiceperson (talk • contribs) 20:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it's necessary to center except perhaps on a page-wide panorama. It is not specifically prohibited by WP:CAPTION so I guess it's OK - take a look at the {{Center}} template. – ukexpat (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Use <center>This caption is centered.</center> Gary King (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Template caption not centering properly

Please see {{Earthquake}} at 1968 Illinois earthquake. It is not centering the caption properly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The caption was centred in the right column of a table. I changed it to span columns. Perhaps instead it should be put into the caption parameter of the image. —teb728 t c 07:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
==Wikipedia Image Policy==

These are the actual Wikipedia policies regarding images. These are the Wikipedia defaults, and your statements below in this case are false, opinionated, incorrect, subjective and not Wikipedia policy whatsoever.

Per Wikipedia Manual of Style (Layout) - Images:

Examples where adjusting the size may be appropriate include, but are not limited to, the following:

* Lead images, which should usually be no wider than "300px" ("upright=1.35").

* Images in which detail is relatively unimportant (for example, a national flag), and which may need smaller sizes than usual.

* Images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart), and which may need larger sizes than usual.

* Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image. 

===An image should generally be no more than 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels ("upright=1.8") wide, so it can be comfortably displayed next to the text on the smallest monitors in common use; an image can be wider if it uses the "center" or "none" options to stand alone.===

96.41.164.58 (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC) 

===Wikipedia defaults===

You keep redesigning Wikipedia pages to fit your own preferences. Again, please stop! To change Wikipedia's default layout, log in and change your personal preferences. Some visitors read Wikipedia pages on hand-held devices and are unlikely to appreciate you scaling images to 450px. Other contributors use various skins to set their layout preferences (including caption alignment) -- They probably won't appreciate finding your design on every second page. Furthermore, Wikipedia's default image caption was once introduced in order to make thing easier (i.e. not having to use HTML); see Wikipedia:Image markup with HTML. The default layout is there for consistency -- Wikipedia is not MySpace. So, please stop, now! --Fama Clamosa (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Rollback Right Given

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. The Helpful One 18:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, that was very fast. I'll check those links. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response about deletion of Youtube links. The reasons you gave were about copyright, and guidelines about relevance. I did not understand which of these you thought were violated. One of the ones deleted was a google video on youtube, and clearly did not violate copyright. The relevance issue is of course debatable. I think it is good to discuss these before deleting links, especially in the absence of any clear-cut bans on putting video links on articles, which seems to be the case. cihan (talk) 01:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Flexing

I just undid your revert of my edit to the muscle contraction article. Please leave it as is. Let me explain: the flexing page currently redirects to muscle contraction. I would rather edit that redirect page so that it takes people directly to the dance article but I can't because the original flexing article (before it became a redirect) was nominated for deletion and the result of the AfD discussion was to turn it into a redirect to muscle contraction. This is why I changed it back. Please do not revert it. Thank you. // Gbern3 (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I change the template to the more appropriate {{Redirect}}. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
That message is much is much better. I didn't know that template existed or else I would have used that one instead of {{about}}. I just learned something new. Thanks for your changes. //Gbern3 (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In the future please mark dead links with {{dead link}}, instead of just deleting them like you did at anchor bolt. Thanks. Wizard191 (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the note. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Weight training / breathing

I made the edit on the Weight training article about breathing that you reverted recently. Would you refrain from reverting, if I got the proper citation? Thanks. (Interestingly the article already cites the book I was referring to.) [1]

Matthias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.25.45 (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Eh, hi. I've no idea why I reverted you there. I must have confused your edit with another. Sorry about it. I reverted myself and helped you with the reference. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Why does the reference say something about knees? (Is it because you recycled the old reference that was about the position of the knees?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.25.45 (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I recycled that old reference. Please let me know if you need help correcting it. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking for free work

Hi, I will be upfront: I am trying to get you to do work for free. Given that you are interested in anatomy and just edited Computer generated imagery, I would like to hint that getting Skeletal animation cleaned up and worked into that or into computer animation will be good. That whole series of articles needs help. I am going to be cleaning up some of those articles, but any help from those who know more about anatomy will be appreciated. On that note a paragraph or two on how medical schools may be using these could be good to have in those articles. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I've added that article to my watchlist, I'll see if I can help it. However, as far as I know,
  1. the article is not really about anatomy. The "bones" used for "skeletal animation" rarely represent real bones. For example, a single "bone" can be used to represent both real bones in the forearm, while a "bone" floating outside the "arm" can be used to control the movements of the wrist or all fingers.
  2. the technique is not often used by medical schools simply because of the lack of realism and/or the costs associated with producing such detailed realism. A perfect example is the YouTube link I added in Plantar plate (should probably be removed). Animated human bodies in films are often "realistic" but rarely anatomically correct.
--Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That is a valid point in itself that the article is missing: "These models are usually not anatomically correct". So if you can find a ref for that, it will be the first ref in the article. At the moment number of refs = zero. But there are a few scattered items that need to be mentioned anyway, Medical simulation seems to be about physical / virtual reality. Is that article even remotely correct? It mentions training. I have no idea if that is correct.

What I do know is that I used to have a copy of Gray's book on anatomy (not that I tread it much) but about 2-3 years ago, as I was cleaning things up I threw it away, because anything I needed was on the web. So the future of anatomy is online. What I also know is that the article Human anatomy does not include the word computer. I think that should change. A simple game like Bodyworks Voyager – Mission in Anatomy is of course a start, but Visible Human Project has only 3 references. The Living Human Project has more refs, but these articles are scattered all over the place. As a start it would be nice to have a "template" of some type so people even know that they exist. Now they are all hidden articles.

I wonder if Computer facial animation has to have models that are anatomically correct. How far are these ones? There is also Facial expression that mentions muscles but again, it should probably go into the template of some type. Scientific Computing and Imaging Institute includes images of a torso rendered pretty nicely. Is it anatomically correct? if so, there is some good work out there that needs to be united.

And of course Virtual patient is waiting in the lounge of the ER room, waiting for medical help.

So anyway, maybe a template to tie these articles together, then we can see what can be done. History2007 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

J, that's a lot of articles (needing attention) to unite into a single template. I guess a target article is what you need. I tried unsuccessfully to think of one, but maybe a template headed by
Human anatomy in computer simulations
is what you need. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps so, but I do not know enough about what goes on in the field of anatomy to write that from scratch and I was mostly looking for a few paragraphs in the computer articles. Maybe Wikiproject medicine or Wikiproject anatomy or something is the place to ask. I will think about it. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I might have a look at those articles (but don't keep your breath). I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I can help you with that template. I tried to imagine a way to organise them but failed. Good luck! --Fama Clamosa (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
No worries, what you pointed out was that the skeletal models are not anatomically correct and that was useful anyway. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Dear Fama Clamosa,

Could you please give me a favor and explain why the link to our scientific community webinar that covers such topic like: steganographic security schemas, steganalysis approaches for hidden data allocation is a conflict of interests?

Do you think it is possible to keep it as further reading? Because we can see just simple examples of hidden images or link to the projects that use steganography in that section. From another hand we are doing research in this area during last 5-7 years and would like to share our knowledge with people all over the world, that's the reason we'd like to have a link to us.

Why do you think that it is a bad link and it is not possible to keep it? Is 'Further Reading' better section for that link?

Kind Regards, dr. Siarhei Tsikhanenka ByScientist (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You have a WP:COI, not that site. You've already presented your arguments on Talk:Steganography where you've been answered. As it is today, the further reading section needs clean-up because contributors like you have been adding to many links. If having that link on that page is really important to you, you might consider contributing to the article using your site as a reference. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Now it is clear and works perfectly good for me! I'm sorry that I'm new here and my activities have caused a bit work for you and other watchers. Nevertheless, I'm willing to help to make Steganography article better and like to consult with you whether it'll be fine to create a new section devoted to Steganographic key schemas directly on Wikipage? Also we will restructure our site and will present not only webinar there, so in this case we can say that Steganography article from Wikipedia is referred to our scientific community web portal research results?ByScientist (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Evil

I am being serious. Like I said, content is inappropriate (enough so that "too lazy to analyze" is a good argument) and doesn't seem fixable. --Wikiloop (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Again no, "too lazy to analyze" is never a good argument to delete sourced content. If you wish to delete that again, please provide an argument. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

WHY DELETE???????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.182.166.26 (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


Water Opossum in French Guiana

According to it's IUCN Red List profile page it is found in French Guiana. That's why I put it in that category

Eh, OK, but (1) you misspelled "Guiana" "Guinana" and (2) Water Opossum is a marsupial. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
...and marsupials are an infraclass of mammals. I was wrong there. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Western World editing

What Elephant seal? I only changed things in the western world article. This is a shared IP therefore Im not responsible for other people's stupid changes. All I want to do is add the map of the world that shows the greatest extent of the definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.69.195.30 (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Your changes have been reverted again. Please read WP:OR. And if you do not want to be associated with those other contributors and their edits, consider creating logging in. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I am going to make a nice new map and provide sources and everything. Once I do that, can you please upload it on my behalf, if you dont mind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.69.195.30 (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not. Being able to upload files is one of many reasons to create an account. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh? In that case I'll just request an upload in the main page. Cheerio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.69.195.30 (talk) 12:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay I made an account...

Cant upload anything! :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoAbkal (talk • contribs) 12:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That's because you are not an autoconfirmed user yet: for most users on en.wiki, accounts that are more than four days old and have made at least 10 edits are considered autoconfirmed. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah okay, thanks for clarifying. By the way, is there a friends list I can add you to? Well if there isn't, I added you to my watch-list. :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoAbkal (talk • contribs) 12:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No friend lists on Wikipedia. And please: (1) sign your edits on talk pages using ~~~~ and (2) before adding that map or any other maps again, consider discussing it on the article's talk page first. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, no problem. BoAbkal (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you removed an external link that I added to Civil Engineering (and I think some other professions) to the relevant area of www.myninetofive.com (MyNineToFive_Civil_Engineering ). A number of professions have external links to sites relating to pursuing a career in the profession. I think that a link to MyNineToFive is a valuable addition in helping people considering entering the profession continue their research as the site consists of user generated content, making it quite appropriate for a link from here. I have added these thoughts to the talk page of the appropriate article but think that the respective articles would benefit if the links were replaced en masse, are you able to do this? --Natasha 81.154.224.36 (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The relevant guideline here is WP:EL. Make sure your site is not "normally to be avoided", and don't miss the "Advertising and conflicts of interest" part. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the Muses article needs to be developed. A link to nearly 200 photos of the Muses depicted in painting, sculpture, and mosaics is not spamming. This gallery is the most extensive collection of images online. It is worthwhile for wikipedia users to be aware of this. Wikipedia's guidelines to external links does not outright forbid linking to Facebook, particularly if there is a resource such as this gallery. In general there ought to be considerably more external links in this still anemic article. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyHelper (talk • contribs) 10:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

References for giant otter

Hi. I am the one trying to add pertinent information and pictures to the Giant Otter article. I do this on behalf of the Instituto Araguaia. We are a non-profit environmental organization from Brazil, and we operate a research station inside a protected area in the Amazon, where there is a large otter population - we estimate it is one of the largest remnant populations in the world. We have started a permanent giant otter monitoring program there, and are due to present first results at the IUCN's XI Otter Colloquium at Pavia, Italy. Until then, most of our data is unpublished, and on a paper would be cited as "personal communication."

That said, none of the information we are entering into the article is controversial. I can find alternate sources for much of it, as it is widely reported in the otter literature (not necessarily online, though), but there are items relating specifically to the otters we are studying, such as the months when pups are born and first emerge from the den. Other than referencing our organization's web site, how can we provide references for such observations?

Thanks,
George (Rio Cicica)
Instituto Araguaia

Rio Cicica (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Answered on User talk:Rio Cicica. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Early Human Migrations

Why not add original research? This is the best way to make a point, by quoting already existing information. You need to be open to criticism of the work, if it is yours. What gives you the right to make decisions as to what can or can't be quoted? The information that I have introduced is public domain and I have given a valid link to that original article. This is accepted scientific practice. While not qualified in this area, I DO hold tertiary qualifications and am capable of making a rational decision as to what fits the evidence supplied. And what I have seen in may articles does not support the one wave of occupation of Sahul. Arthur Harris. (Rferau) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rferau (talk • contribs) 06:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Minstrel Show

I added an External Link to "Minstrel Show" to an article about the autobiography of a woman who lived through the Great Depression and performed in such shows. You removed the link to an article that appeared in Stay Thirsty about this book [*http://www.staythirstymedia.com/201007-047/html/201007-little-hot-mama.html]. I respectfully request you reinstate the External Link on this page as it is an important, authentic resource for historical study concerning a period that was seldom written about. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Srl40214 (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Srl40214

Copy pasting

I have left a reply to your note suggesting I was just copy-pasting information on my Talk page. I hope you find my respnse satisfactory. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I've posted about this at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Acceptable_quoting, per further discussion at John Hill's talk page. —innotata 19:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

In notes, after you removed my edits, you said to identify reliable sources. I added references from Cambridge, Arizona State University and others. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulbraveheart (talk • contribs) 17:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

External links for Fotopedia on Laos' page and other pages

Hi,
Thanks for your message.
I apologize myself if a I broke any rule of usage for External Links. I'll stop my action today concerning these links to Fotopedia, and I'll spend my free-time for Wikipedia improving otherwise the articles.
As a companion site of Wikipedia, Fotopedia is a site purely dedicated to photography art, and I try to be good to provide some Wikipedia articles with external links having a direct relationship with some page of Fotopedia, but it seems that I was wrong.
It should be noted that Fotopedia is a very well stable site, having today more than 756,000 photos linked to almost 52,000 Wikipedia articles, I don't think so they need a promotion by the usage of external links in Fotopedia.
Anyway, my initiative was personal, and it was not any trade promotion, both more than I am a simple member, albeit busy, of Fotopedia site, and having no legal responsibility within the site.
Regards,
Nilson (Nme94) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nme94 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

About "Penrose staircase"

Hello,
You delete an external link about "Penrose staircase", but I respectfully request you reinstate the External Link on this page  : "If the link is relevant, helpful and informative and should otherwise be included". So, I suppose I should make this : "please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it". I am sorry.

About my link :

  1. Is the solicitation being made anonymously through the use of a template or Category? NO.
  2. Is the solicitation being duplicated across many articles at the same time, particularly when the articles relate to different topics? NO (except the french page).
  3. Is the source controversial, such as being non-peer reviewed, old or polemic? NO.
  4. Is the source a commercial one? NO.

Have you seen the three pages ? It's really about impossible staircases (with links and references to wikipedia in the second one), with personal photographies and drawings of impossible staircases.

Sincerely.
AmbiguousFigures — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmbiguousFigures (talk • contribs) 20:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Salut,
No I didn't visit your pages (I did now). The main reason I removed your links was (1) your user name is the same as the name of the site (see WP:COI) and (2) your main contribution to the English-language Wikipedia is precisely that; adding links to your pages.
The main reason for not including a link to that page is that it is not written in English. The relevant guidelines here are: WP:NONENGEL and Non-English-language sites. Your page looks interesting. Translate it to English and add the link back again.
Thanks --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello,
Thanks for your response. Indeed, I must read the guidelines. Sorry for the lost time.
Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmbiguousFigures (talk • contribs) 13:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Human Leg

Wikipedia articles are to be written from a neutral perspective. In that case, the perspective that evolution is the cause of the human leg is distinctly slanted toward a secular humanist or atheist position. Would it not be better in an article regarding the human leg to describe the human leg? The suggestion that I submitted eliminates this slant, thus making it more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.221.126 (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Hand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flexor retinaculum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Arago

- have reverted your edit if only because is a pain to have to relocate the correct addresses and links made within the edit, although won't be preceding to conflict if the resultant response is contrary to this comment.Drift chambers (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC) The reverted references are correct ; were corrected from the addition of templates showing failed verification Drift chambers (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No, they were not. Most of your references referred to entire books or articles. I wasted a lot of time to figure out what pages to look for. Again, have a look at the advises on your talk page. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

logged out, to sleep Drift chambers (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Not Trying to Send Spam

Hi,

I'm sorry if you think the external link I posted on the Elephant Seal article is spam. I was not trying to post spam. I am new to wikipedia and thought that the link fit the posted wikipedia criteria for external links. The article I linked to is from the World Book Encyclopedia, and I thought it was pertinent to the Elephant Seal article. I will be more careful not to post something that anyone may think is spam in the future.

-Sean Kelley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.125.137 (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No problems and, again, welcome to Wikipedia. The relevant guidelines for external links are on WP:EL. "Sites that require payment or registration" are "normally to be avoided". Thanks. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Deltoid muscle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chiasm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

User Drift chambers

reverted your revertion on the basis of Dispute resolution: Focus on content - When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Drift chambers (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC) & Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress Wikipedia:Editing policy : Try to fix problems Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing cleaned up on the spot, or tagged if necessary. If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do it, but preserve any content you think might have some value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage Drift chambers (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

feel you've been bullish in reverting again if only due to "cleanup mess" not really adequately describing the removal of 32926 bytes inc. Newton's actual work, especially since there doesn't seem to be anything there to clean, sure would appreciate some guidance from yourself on cleanup if at all possible Drift chambers (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC) thinking of reverting your revertion as there doesn't seem to be any harm to the article and maybe you might communicate the parts that need cleaning and / or perhaps clean them yourself , because doesn't seem to be a mess, although if there is an alternative improved format for the information am not not sure as to how this would look and also since the information is of interest and sheds light on the previously written contents i.e. is the actual material of the subject's religious views think really was too harsh to remove all this for a supposedly messy organisation. Please be more specific. Thanks Did notice that the revertion was at 04:50 hours so perhaps tiredness caused an error on your side, if this is at all likely please don't proceed to threaten me with being blocked altogether again as although the stress caused was helpful in some way at the time (i.e. good) is although not productive in the long-term (i.e. bad [2] [3] > [4]). Drift chambers (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Please just stop. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Ulnar collateral ligament of elbow joint, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radial collateral ligament (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Dryolestoidea, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rostrum and Therian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

In vitro

In vitro fertilization

Uh, sorry, fairly new here -- but where those links you just added supposed to be there? I was going by a previous revert and WP:NOTDIR, so I reverted those edits. Thanks CarniCat 17:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

what did i do wrong

Hi Fama. You reverted my recent contributions in Toxicology, In vitro and In vitro toxicology. Is your concern only that they are similarly worded, or that the conents are similar? If your issue is that the content is similar, I cannot avoid it since they are key information that must be added as disclaimers to give a more accurate picture of these similar topics. Otherwise, the information is skewed in favor of animal-testing, which is very outdated (not to mention merciless). In order to progress, we need to highlight current developments and not dwell on outdated practices/ideas/beliefs that animal testing is absolutely good and necessary for people. In other words, I'm concerened that you have an issue with the content (I can change and reword so that they are not technically "spam.") The point is that my disclaimers are necessary to make the picture whole for each of those articles. Also, the new developments I try to point attention to are what keeping up-to-date on the same precise subjects is all about. Thank you for your advice. I just feel misunderstood and unfairly/falsely accused of vandalism, etc. I hope you don't mind answering in my talk page. Thanks. (I did not log into my account when I made my contributions to those pages, because i needed a more confidential username. I doubt I can change it, though.) Michtsai (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi,
You have been adding an external link to a range of pages, blanking content while you do it, and used multiple IPs to repeat this behaviour. Try to find consensus on the talk page or start a blog instead.
--Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
From whom do I need to actually receive consensus? Is it you, if you are the one reverting? I think you are assuming that my actions are not valid, but you give no reason or basis for your not liking my edit. All Edits = changes eother plus something or minus something. According to your thought process, you seem to be suggesting that we are not allowed to remove inaccurate or unnecessary verbiage...if you practice what you preach, you should not be allowed to remove mine? I feel you have an issue with my content, not my action...If indeed you have an issue with my action, then you are abusing your authority, but you really are just another editor. We are all equals aren't we? ...however, you seem to speak as if you know better. I resent that, to be quite frank. You are not an admin. And you ought not to assume that I do not have knowledge of the subject to know enough to be able to tell that something unnecessary, misleading or incorrect is on the page. I also know that my external link is highly valuable to the content as I explained repeatedly to no avail. You are the road block so I'm trying to talk/dialogue with you... to get your consensus. Otherwise, you'll just keep being a road block, no? With all due respect I say this earnestly. Thank you. Please do not abuse your abilities or I will have to find wasy to perhaps put some restrains on you. I hope you understand where i am coming from. thanks. If I am missing something still, please address my concern that you have an issue with the content? If no, then your suggestion means you will have an issue with any new content or alteration, based on your rule. I will try to have patience with you, for my own sanity. Michtsai (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, I did not even blank out or delete any single letter from my latest edits and you still reverted them. Please be careful what you do, and you need to assume good faith. That is one of the biggest rules in Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
If not, no edits will ever be made to where they are appropriate, by your standards, especially when so many similar pages are out there, you can't avoid trying to fix the same mistakes in similar pages. Do you see what I'm trying to say? I hope you'll reply to my talk page so I will know when you do send me a response. Thanks so much.Michtsai (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Let's start from scratch. From the very latest edit you did to Toxicity, what happened to make you revert it? Thanks.

3RR warning

Your recent editing history at Abductor pollicis longus muscle shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Taylornate (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit war and vandalism

You report me for vandalism for a legitimate merge, and less than an hour later you actually vandalize an article in retaliation? Please explain.--Taylornate (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read this essay, and adjust your language accordingly: Wikipedia:Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I read the essay and I don't understand where you are coming from. How is this not vandalism? Not once has anyone asserted that the article he blanked should not exist.--Taylornate (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
My comment was actually directed at both users; the definition of vandalism is purposefully defacing something for fun. For fun. Like replacing every instance of the word "jesus" with "penis" or writing "michael is gay." Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
That essay gives a definition and then goes on to editorialize. The part about fun is editorial. His page blanking was vandalism according to the definition given: Willful damage or destruction of any property with no other purpose than damage or destruction of said property.--Taylornate (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
1) I'm not going to cross talk on another user's talk page, 2) no it wasn't. You can listen to me or you can ignore me like you're continuing to do, I don't really care, but you're wrong. It's at WP:NOT#VAND. Take it to WP:AN and see how many long-term editors will agree with you on that; you'll find approximately zero. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Extensor digiti minimi muscle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Lateral epicondyle and Intermuscular septa
Extensor digitorum muscle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Lumbricalis
Extensor pollicis longus muscle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Interphalangeal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Abductor pollicis longus muscle. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating talk page guidelines (WP:TPO), as you did at Talk:Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 April 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 16:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Edit warring on muscle articles

In the light of this discussion, please be warned that any further edit-warring on any of those muscle articles will be met with blocks. Please seek dispute resolution via the steps outlined at WP:DR if you cannot get a consensus on the relevant article Talk pages. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

hello Sarchia Banokay (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi and thanks. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Snout, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rostrum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Page move Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand

I saw an unusual move which I have undone. The move of content from article space to user space left large numbers of links from article space to the user space version. If I was in error, it is still undoable, but I'd rather err on what I perceived as the safe side.Novangelis (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the redirect mess is the result of Taylornate's edit war a few months ago. It's still there after your edit. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I've cleaned-up the mess now. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Sort of. Now there is just one link to user space, still one too many. I've referred this matter to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents since this is unusual. (It seems like a deletion without discussion.)Novangelis (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Digital Physics

Fama, I re-added the link without saying anything other than what other similar links to Zuse's original paper located in other personal webpages say, exactly as they are is the new one. This new re-edition is an important improvement to Zuse's almost illisible original paper so I hope you agree this link is very relevant. Thanks. Otherwise feel free to reword as you may consider appropriate according to the other sources.

Also, how come that just under the link I added to Zuse's original paper there is a link to a company page of a software developer with no much relevant information about digital physics. That is definitely outrageous marketing and goes unnoticed while editors are prompt to delete new meaningful content as the one I kindly added from experts in the topic. 217.16.12.15 (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You are adding links to a blog; per WP:RS, that is the problem. If there is a paper use {{Cite journal}}. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome

I saw you added your name to WP:WikiProject Evolutionary Biology - looking forward to seeing more of your positive influence on our articles. Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 11:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to drop by as often as possible. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vinculum (ligament), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chick (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

RE: Infobox location

Respons from post on my talk page: Hi. Short answer no. I can see I moved the infobox in coccyx and I remember doing it in one more article but I can´t find it at the movement. I general i moved the infoboxes a bit up only for cosmetic reasons, so feel free to revert it. You can respond either here or on my talk-page. --JakobSteenberg (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Astaracian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tethys (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Your Reverting of my Wikipedia Corrections

Hello,

I have reverted your reversion of my corrections to the Cro-Magnon article. Your action was wholly unjustifiable.

I have also cited sources for my changes to the Neanderthal extinction hypothesis article.

Your concession to error will be noted and appreciated.

Thank you kindly.

Kapture-N-Kill Commando (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No, you added a cocktail of unreferenced stuff and outdated opinions such as "possessing a more harmonious and dolichomorphic character". This is the 21th century, have a look around. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ma'am (I am assuming you are a female because your behavior and choice of words are very effeminate),

There is nothing "outdated" or "opinionated" about the fact that the French Cro-Magnon remains are disharmonious and brachycephalic. The Cro-Magnon remains from France, as correctly stated in the original article, have very short, broad faces, and when combined with their very tall cranial vaults, this creates a markedly disharmonious appearance when compared to, say, the Predmosti remains, which are dolichocephalic (long and relatively narrow headed).

I shall revert any unjustified and irrational reversions you make to corrections that I make in the future.

I remain, Kapture-N-Kill Commando (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Monday on Wikipedia: there are reasons to assume your corrections will be ephemeral. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Images by Anatomist

I consider these images to be useful. Why are you removing them? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyway restored the image in question. Happy to discuss. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, very useful. But, per WP:IG, not dozens of them on each anatomy-related page. There are categories on Commons for that. I invited Anatomist90 to add a caption to explain the relevance of those "slides" but I was ignored. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Phalanx bone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interphalangeal joint (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

ANI

You brought my name into a discussion on ANI without notifying me. This is clearly inappropriate. Please explain.--Taylornate (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Dissections

Having one or two dissections is a good idea. Having cut open living human being the dissections are a much closer match than Netter even though Netter and stylized images are beautiful.

What I would propose is one or two disections with a link out to commons. We of course need to get better captions.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I doubt most readers have problems with dissections. Lets keep this discussion on Anatomists talk page. Might be easiest. I have it watchlisted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Changes

I would just like to apologise for forgetting to use a reference when editing. When it comes to Orca as I have stupied marine biology, It just annoys me that we use a slang term for them in Killer Whale and I just wish that Kids grew up knowing the correct name for them. As it is written in alot of books and even broadcast on some docs that Killer Whale is a nickname shortened from Killer of Whales as that is what a few Pods do.

But again I am sorry

Reaper-NG (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


Dissections

Some of use consider them useful. Thus restoring again. Please get support for your removal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maboko Island, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Crane and Mole rat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hand, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Abductor digiti minimi muscle and Flexor digiti minimi muscle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Turtles

Hi, I'm a user that focuses on trilobites. I have no particular knowledge of turtles. I see you recently are very active in editing the turtle article. As this article is protected, I would like to suggest a possible edit.
The suggestion is to amend in the lead the passage: "Like other reptiles, turtles are ectotherms", to "Like all other extant reptiles, turtles are ectotherms". This would be more correct, as at least the dinosaur subgroup Theropoda is commonly considered warm-blooded. This still leaves the problem that birds are theropods and not extinct. Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Fama Clamosa (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Reliable source for this claim? Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 15:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Plus no ectotherm content in article; see WP:LEAD. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 15:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Sun Creator: Right, (1) there was no ref for the statement present in the article and (2) both this contributor and the new statement made sense to me. When it comes to references, I found Warm-Blooded Marine Reptiles at the Time of the Dinosaurs in Ichthyosaur. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Please don't send me junk messages.

Please don't send me junk messages. I don't care what you reported me on. 184.153.187.119 (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! You made a mistake deleting the links I added about building parabolic solar reflectors (unless you work for a profitable oil company, of course. In that case, it would be more convenient for you would be to delete the links indeed). I won't insist though. Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brody1878 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Astrapotheria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diastema (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained revert

Hi Fama Clamosa, I was just wondering why you reverted my edit of Peace movement? Thanks. nagualdesign (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the venue for meme-ish quotes, animated GIFs, and other think-worthy stuff. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Meme-ish quote?! Einstein was a notable and well-respected peace activist. The quote is entirely appropriate for the article (IMO). You mentioned animated gifs (which this isn't) - so is it the form factor of the quote that you don't like? Would it be more acceptable if it were included as plain text? And I don't understand the phrase, 'think-worthy'. nagualdesign (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Right, if you want to improve that article, explain why Einstein (or Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Rosa Luxemburg, Jesus, Barack Obama, or Marilyn Monroe) should be mentioned using reliable sources. Don't "decorate" articles, expand them. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Einstein features on the List of peace activists for reasons that I hope are obvious. His command of language is also famous. Similarly, Martin Luther King provided many notable quotes which would be suitable for inclusion. (I'm not sure about Jesus, Barack Obama or Marilyn Monroe!) This isn't simply "decoration", as you put it, this quote and others like it succinctly delineate the thought process of the anti-war/peace activist in a way that normal prose does not. And it's a bit pointless to ask for reliable sources. Am I to find a source that states that Einstein's quote, or others like it, is appropriate for inclusion?! I see no sense in that. But I'll just leave it there. I haven't the energy to combat editors with strongly held opinions who, instead of assuming good faith, point out the bleeding obvious (WP is an encyclopedia) or link to words that anyone with a brain understands (meme), which smacks of assuming stupidity IMO, or take an impatient tone (right..) when responding to perfectly reasonable comments or questions. Perhaps I should just suggest that next time you revert an edit you take the time to fill out the edit summary. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Crenatocetus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Type locality
Makaracetus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rostrum

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

For you!

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
For your great work on signatures of U.S. military leaders —Ed!(talk) 02:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I SVGed that signature pseudo-automatically in GIMP/Inkscape. The other images were too lowres. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fama Clamosa. You have new messages at Gilo1969's talk page.
Message added 00:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 GILO   A&E⇑ 00:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Toxodonta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diastema (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

About Our Anonymous "Friend"

No matter how many times we block or revert it, our cat-spam vandal will return and continue attaching categories to articles it thinks are appropriate, whether or not they actually are. Perhaps we should make the best of an annoying situation, and adjust or make the categories as necessary?--Mr Fink (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, some of the categories the vandal adds are so mindbogglingly inane so as to make banning it therapeutic... "Love animals"???--Mr Fink (talk) 03:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
imho, the only way to deal with persistent vandalism is persistent reverting. This IP is not even trying to (1) communicate, (2) explain edits, or (3) change behaviour. Semi-protecting some of the affected articles might be another way to proceed from here. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. We can page-protect category pages, can we?--Mr Fink (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, category pages can be edit-protected, but to my knowledge there is no way to prevent anyone from adding pages to those categories. This IP user apparently returns to some pages regularly. For example, Largest organisms has been tagged {{very long}} since 2011, and our IP keeps copy-pasting more trivial content from other Wikipedia pages. (I've added {{rewrite}}.) Having that page semi-protected and then cleaned up would make it clear that this is not the way to contribute to Wikipedia. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, semi-protecting all [[Largest... ]] articles would probably do the trick. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Since it's an Indonesian IP, it maybe the work of "Megafauna man"--Mr Fink (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys. I have protected Largest organisms and related pages. Might I suggest opening a request for comment? It's a great way to quickly get consensus for changes, as RFCs are centrally posted, and uninvolved editors will come and comment on the issues. WP:RFC -- Dianna (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Tanks Dianaa, for now let's see if a new block and those semi-protections is doing the work. A RFC is the next step. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

creationism on abiogenesis

There is apparently a coordinated campaign to include creationist arguments in the page on abiogenesis. I removed it. You reverted my removal. Please pay closer attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.142.52.96 (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Your deletion included one reference to an article in Nature; how is that creationism? Your deletions also include referenced criticism of UMKC-SOM; in what what way are you affiliated with UMKC? --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The Nature paper is being misrepresented, and I'm just trying to clean up the mess that these accounts are causing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.142.52.96 (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, removing a valid reference but not the attached content is neither going to help the article nor resolve the problem with all those... "new editors". It is still not clear to me how your edits (including removing a bunch valid {{Citation needed}}) is "removing creationism" from the article. You might want to (1) find a larger consensus on the talk page or (2) try a WP:RFC. Even if all those "new editors" are creationists, your contributions this far are not obviously helpful. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Or request a WP:SEMI. ̣--Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Note: I requested a semi now. Let's work this out. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I think you need to read a little more carefully about what was being done. The creationists are just adding "citation needed" tags to uncontroversial plain facts. Those tags are not valid at all. Requesting a "WP:SEMI" will not help because they will just keep spamming new accounts. I don't know how to "work this out". Creationists are not amenable to rational thought. 131.142.52.96 (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

1. A few wikipedia users are opposed to "citation needed=May 2013". Apparently, according to them, this counts as creationism. Wikipedia encourages others to cite sources. 2a. Misinformation: Sol Spiegelman aimed to find the simplest LIFE FORM by taking advantage of evolution's natural selection process. His new life form, Spiegelman's Monster, had a genome with just 218 bases. Manfred Eigen built on Spiegelman's work and produced a life form with just 48 or 54 nucleotides.[55] 2b. In what manner i "life form". What justification do you give for referring to 218 nucleotide base pairs as a "life form"? that is clearly not consensus. SpazAbiogenesis (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpazAbiogenesis (talk • contribs)

There are different kinds of semis. Limiting edits to auto-confirmed users would very likely exclude most of the contributors to that page (including you of course). I'm looking at the page history now. When would you say the creationist campaign started? --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
March 27? --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
There have been issues for a long time, but the latest campaign seems to have started in earnest on May 15. Perhaps going back even further might be good, but I can't tell. The version before May 15 looks okay to me. 131.142.52.96 (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, comparing to the March 27 version, I think the May 11 version has more improvements (the March 27 version defines abiogenesis inappropriately referencing "inorganic compounds", for example). My version only differs from the May 11 version in that it includes one additional reference.

Thanks. I still think full protection would be best to prevent the older accounts that were registered on May 15 from wreaking havoc. 131.142.52.96 (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Babiacetus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diastema (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For writing Babiacetus - a lovely article. Ironholds (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! --Fama Clamosa (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Qasr el Sagha Formation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • is common in the middle of Qasr el Sagha, but there are few other specimens of archaeocetes whales (the only exception being the enigmatic "''Prozeuglodon stromeri''", named in 1828 based on

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Qaisracetus

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Paleocoordinates

I'm not seeing that paleocoordinates are backed up by reliable secondary sources. When one does a Google search without Wikipedia results, there are only 51 results. I'm worried that they constitute Original Research. Abductive (reasoning) 18:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I get the paleocoordinates from the Paleobiology Database. For example, the paleocoordinates in Qaisracetus are found here, and as stated there "coordinate stated in text". In this case in the PDF linked to in the article's reference section. In many other cases the paleocoordinates are said to be "measured on map". --Fama Clamosa (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
That database looks like a wiki itself. Is it? Abductive (reasoning) 00:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Not to my knowledge, and this case the information was added by Mark D. Uhen, who (in my world) is a famous palaeontologist. There is slightly more information in Paleobiology Database. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tillodontia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pachyderm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fama_Clamosa/Archive_1&oldid=1142998333"