User talk:Gimly24

Hi Gimly24! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Acroterion (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you go to the article's talkpage and leave the notes there, including specific page numbers for the material you've added? It's not really the done thing to leave informal commentary and non-specific suggestions or links to broad sites that don't concern the narrow focus of the article. I will be glad to help with formatting the referencing - Wikipedia doesn't make it easy - if you can give us the detailed reference locations, as you would cite in a college paper. Facebook pages are rarely cited or linked to - see WP:EL. Acroterion (talk) 00:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll add references a little later this evening.Acroterion (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2022 brought a lot of scientific stuff to strengthen Yellowstone wolves genealogy and stories, especially wolves number 832F (O-Six), 302M, 21M, 42F, 472F, 113M, 755M and 926F to name important ones (as to wolves having a wiki page or being important in those that have). See 302M and O-Six for the new sources of informations and stuff their lives. Cheers ! Gimly24 (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gimly24, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Introduction tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome.  Fettlemap (talk) 00:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you ! Gimly24 (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While editing Wikipedia these days is a steeper climb than back in the day when someone could just write about [Blue] (in 2001) Blue (now), we always (or should always) try to help new users. Over 20 years the sourcing policies have become extensive, so don't worry about not immediately knowing what's a valid reference or how to format, these things come with time. You clearly are helping to improve things, so don't worry if other editors take issue with things like Facebook sourcing and so on. I wrote the original articles, and am happy to see someone take an interest in them and to update them based on current scholarship - so please be encouraged. I will be happy to answer questions as they come up and as time allows. You've found your way to my talkpage, so that's a good step, and now you know about article talkpages. Acroterion (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed lol. I will for sure if i have any questions. Thanks ! Gimly24 (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, alphas, beta, omega wolves is pretty much dead. L.D Mech, with which i did communicate a few times recently, made a video on youtube about it a while ago. « Alphas wolves ? ».

Dominant breeder, breeder, second ranking male, subordinate males. Gimly24 (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely want to use current terminology rooted in scholarship - and my knowledge is based on general reading rather than an academic focus, so suggestions from a subject expert are welcome. Just remember that referencing one's own research is almost always discouraged, since it's a form of original research - we get a lot of people who think they're experts or who have a pet theory, so that's one way of screening them out of a user-generated knowledge base - see WP:Randy in Boise. However, as that essay points out, real experts are still welcome - see all the links below the text.

I'll return to the article and the reports you provided and see if I can work out some updates when I'm feeling a little smarter - it's been a long day. Acroterion (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Mech was the creator of the terms "Alphas Wolves" in his Book "The Wolf" (1970). With years of research (this is more than 50 years in his case, his thesis dates from 1962), packs dynamics and organisation got thouroughly studied and it was demonstrated that females lead the pack, not the males.

That previous concept of alphas was dropped around 2008 by every expert or so. You could even see it in the way the Yellowstone Reports are written.

"we get a lot of people who think they're experts or who have a pet theory, so that's one way of screening them out of a user-generated knowledge base - see WP:Randy in Boise. However, a that essay points out, real experts are still welcome."

yes, that is true. Although, he had nearly 50 years of research done then [in 2008] and around 60 years of research made on wolves now. But you're right. Gimly24 (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do you space your replies ?

            like it isn't hitting the space bar many times, right ? It must be easier... Gimly24 (talk) 02:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do not know how or why it did the weird rectangle darker box.Gimly24 (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You indent by putting colons in front, by convention one more colon than the last comment in the thread. Spaces kust give you that Courier look and the gray box. It's a quirk of Wikimarkup.

Don't get me wrong on scholarship - sticking to reliably published academic research (there's a lot of unreliably published academic research) is where we want to be, and we use previous research to inform current research. For medical articles, it's a constant issue. It's a process, and always will be. In this case, a brief footnote might be in order to clarify current and anachronistic terminology- but that's a even harder formatting issue, so I will have to help with that if you can give me a reference to back it up. Acroterion (talk) 03:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's still enough unclear to me to make you change anything. But here's the video I was talking about, if you are interested, the title of the video is : "Alpha" Wolf? which you can find on Youtube (wikipedia doesn't allow me to post the link)

It would be still foolhardy to try to correct a immense population of internauts, especially for such a popular animal. I guess the page "grey wolf" must have a tons of edits by weeks. I was just saying the alpha/dominant breeding males/females for your informations "not as a straight no no" Gimly24 (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OH yes, i came by hilarious unreliable wolf studies hahahaha. 118 kg grey wolf bs in some ukrainian papers.Gimly24 (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that it would help if you had a reference that discusses the terminology shift, so we can mention it in a footnote in the O-Six article, since much of the coverage uses the older term.

I’ll sign in tomorrow, I’m signing off for the evening. Acroterion (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'le see for the reference. The video is there (But of course that ain't the reference). I will look for a reference tomorrow shortly but not too much.Gimly24 (talk) 03:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://wolf.org/headlines/44265/ ("Why alpha wolf is misleading") and this article on the International Wolf Center is likely the study that explains exactly what we are looking for. https://www.wolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/267alphastatus_english.pdf Gimly24 (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look. Acroterion (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you made this article, you should review the species it was split from and ensure all of the information there is correct to the more strict sense for it, and if there is information that is relevant to the new species, move it over. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will do that. Thank you for mentioning it :) Gimly24 (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at it again tomorrow. I don't want to copy-paste the description given in Desert woodrat#Description. I could for general length estimate and color tho. Gimly24 (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the citation supports, eh? :) - UtherSRG (talk) UtherSRG (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, of course. lol :) Gimly24 (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can I use description from the Townsend 1912 paper where he described the species ? Or is this too old ? I think it's good to use but I need someone else opinion on it ! Thanks and enjoy your day :)

Gimly24 (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes! That's surely ok! But in your own words. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome ! I will look at it after an edit i'm going to make on Caenolestes convelatus. Gimly24 (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I made some modifications. I didn't use Townsend description, because he was comparing with a species/population (Neotoma intermedia gliva) that isn't a current name used for any species... But in Patton et al. (2008) they did a small diagnose section and classification history so I added those two sections (moving/modifiying what you wrote to another wording about it being once considered a population of N. lepida. I hope it's correct ! Tell me if it isn't and if you have any other suggestions. Thanks much ! Gimly24 (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again :)

Now that the Nubian ibex page is greatly expanded, I submitted it the WikiProject Mammals/Assessment page to be reassessed for quality. Currently it's rated as Start-Class, but I hope it's detailed enough for a higher rating.

Do you know someone who could take a look at it?

Thank you, and I hope the lab work is going well! Bbreslau (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m busy right now. I will answer to your questions later :) No offence Gimly24 (talk) 18:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbreslau I could rate it as a C-class article, and possibly propose it as a B-Class IMO. But i never rated any article except those I made from Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/Missing mammal species, and "almost by default", I (we) would rate them as low-importance and stub-class articles.

I compare it to some others Ibex species pages. Alpine ibex is GA (Good article) (with a logo of a circle with a + in it on the upper right of the page).

@UtherSRG tagging you here. Am I able to change the rating of such an article (Nubian ibex) from Start-class to C-class, and i've seen talkpages of animals with "this page has been proposed as ""-class article, but it isn't reviewed yet. I think i saw that on a talk page of a C-class article that was being proposed to be raised to B-class, and was awaiting a review of some sort.

Are C- and B-class rises needing big reviews like how Talk:Japanese Serow had before gaining GA status or it less strict and can be modified without much review/assessment ? Thanks in advance for your input on this. Gimly24 (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for taking a look at it! I hope we can find a good way to assess it. Also, let me know if I can add some additional information in order to increase the quality further Bbreslau (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is a formal "move to C" or "move to B" process like there is for GA. I know Stub has just the bare bones, Start has some meat.... I guess C has some flesh? XD - UtherSRG (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the information and answer Uther :)

@Bbreslau, the Nubian page rating is now C-Class and proposed for B-class. See talk page of the article. Cheers Gimly24 (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!! I appreciate the time you're putting into all of this :) Bbreslau (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course :) Thanks for bringing that article in our view again ! Have a nice day. Gimly24 (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You added an reference to Andean caenolestid and then removed it. Now that you have had a chance to review the reference, do you want to restore it? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi Eastmain, not really.. there is some morphometric data on the species in it but it talks more about other species of the genus Gimly24 (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gimly24. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Monodelphis peruviana, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That draft serves no purposes now. Gimly24 (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gimly24. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of national parks acronyms, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gimly24. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of national parks acronyms".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]