User talk:Tigerhawkvok

Welcome!

Hello, Tigerhawkvok, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair 07:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was very impressed by your picture in peer review so I decided to make an edit because I am fairly confident that this picture is FP material. For the edits I darkened the picture overall then darkened the blown out parts of the snake to get all the detail. To emphasize the dessert terrain I lightened the background. The reason for downsampling is that the people judging FPC are very strict on their sharpness so I added a layer of light sharpening and downsized it to make it appropriate. I hope you like the edit. BTW I was looking at your profile and saw that you're also majoring in physics. I'm in the class of '11 so I have a bit to go in the physics community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorrocha (talk • contribs) 19:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Tigerhawkvok! Your image Image:Gopherus agassizii.jpg was the Random Picture of the Day! It looked like this:

Random picture of the day

A Desert Tortoise, state reptile of Nevada

Image credit: Tigerhawkvok (talk · contribs)

. - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 11:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per your edit attempts on the Lemur article, your comments read: "Most recent phylogenies accept lorises and lemurs as a type of monkey, as distinguished from "simians"." I would like to know what "phylogenies" you are referring to. No academic literature for at least several hundred years has referred to lorises and lemurs as "types of monkey". They are "prosimians", which means "before monkeys". In fact, "monkey" is not even a very good term since the group of primates it describes is parayphyletic (not a single coherent phylogenetic group). Not all primates are monkeys. Since we're talking about simian vs. prosimian (as opposed to strepsirrhine vs. haplorrhine), then the order Primates is divided into: 1) simians, which includes include monkeys and apes (and implicitly humans), and 2) prosimians, which includes lorises, bushbabies, lemurs, and tarsiers. I hope this clears things up. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said so yourself -- conventionally, "monkey" is paraphyletic. However, if lemuriformes, lorisiformes, adapiformes, or Aye-Ayes accepted as monkeys, the only monophlyetic way to define monkeys includes all extant primates. The piece I read may have been a speculative phylogeny, however. Tigerhawkvok (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Monkey" is a paraphyletic group because it excludes apes (including humans), which evolved from that clade. The lemurs (and the Aye-aye), lorises, tarsiers, and adapiformes have nothing to do with it. Within infraorder Simiiformes, there are the platyrrhines (New World Monkeys) and the catarrhines (Old World Monkeys and apes). Apes are not considered monkeys, which creates the paraphyly. I hope that explains it better. Eventually we'll write articles for simian, monkey, and ape that better reflect this. Sorry we haven't gotten around to it yet. However, the Primate article, which is a featured article should mention this. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly sure I've read at least one instance that called at least all of anthropoidea "monkeys", but I'll have to find that. I know that my copy of Benton 2005 supports your position, calling platyrrhines and cercopithecoidea "monkeys", and excluding hominoidea from that phraseology. Tigerhawkvok (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aurochs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extant. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]