User talk:Jimfbleak

Andean and Lesser Flamingo, Andean Goose, Bahama Pintail, Bean Goose, Black Swan, Cape Teal, Common Shelduck, Coot, Moorhen, Coreopsis, Emperor Goose, Lesser Snowgoose, Mute Swan, Whistling Swan, NeNe, Red-billed Whistling Duck, Red-breasted Goose, White-faced Whistling Duck, White-fronted Goose, White-headed Duck.

Hi Jim, did you know about this website: http://www.yankeegardener.com/birds/. It contains drawings of some North American birds; not perfect IMO, but better than nothing. The copyright notice on that site is: While the specific content of Fifty Birds of Town and City is in the public domain and therefore free of copyright restrictions, please be advised that this website, including its graphical arrangements, fonts, sounds, and additional pictures are protected by U.S. copyright laws, and all rights are reserved. So we may use the pictures, which were taken from the book. I've just added this source to Wikipedia:Public_domain_image_resources -- Cordyph 07:58 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hello Jim, please check the new Image:Bird.paigntonzoo.500pix.jpg. I think it is much better than that we have in Motmot --Franz Xaver 10:31 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I checked http://darnis.inbio.ac.cr/ubis/find.html - "El pecho y la parte superior del abdomen varían entre verde con un leve tinte oliváceo y oliva ocráceo." say that the colour of the plumage is varying between green with an olive tinge and olive-ocre. There should be no male/female differences in the family. However, I am not sure about Momotus aequatorialis which has been separated from Momotus momota only recently. --Franz Xaver 14:05 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi jim. I cant see why you had any trouble with grouping together an arrow and a picture. Here's what I tried. I went to europe and right clicked on the picture, then selected copy. I went into word and selected paste, thrn drerw an arrow, rotated it, selected the arrow and the picture and grouped them together. It worked like a charm!

Oh I just thought of something. What version of Word are you using? If it's later than office97 the default formatting for pictures is in line with text rather than wrap around. If that's the case then you need to change it. I'm working from memory here {It's school holidays so I'm not at work}, bit i think you need to right click on the map, select format picture or format object { I forget which}, pick wrapping, then set it to square, {or anything as long as not in line}. Hopefully that should sort it out but if it doesn't then:

Word can't as far as I am aware paste a transparent selection, so you would need to paste just the arrows into an image editor, use the lassoo tool to select just the arrows then paste them as a transparent selection onto the map. { that's what it's called in Paint Shop Pro anyway, you may need to experiment)
A quick 'n dirty hack that's got me out of jam before is to position everything in word as you want it, taking care that the overall size looks good then hit the "print screen" button on the keyboard. This copies the entire contents of the monitor to the clipboard. Paste this into an image editor and crop.

I hope this helps, Theresa knott 22:43, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I've looked through my remaining duck pics from Slimbridge and there are only three that have no article yet. They are Cereopsis (Cape Barren Goose), Emperor Goose and Swan Goose. I'll keep watch for any article appearing then add in my pic.
Adrian Pingstone 20:58, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that there's one duck I cannot identify. I've really tried, going back and forth through the Slimbridge leaflet of duck pics but nothing remotely matches. I also have just one duck book I bought a few weeks ago but again no match! (Photographic Handbook of Wildfowl of the World by Malcolm Ogilvie and Steve Young, pub by New Holland), a fine book but why doesn't it have my duck!

I don't want to use you as a "duck identification service" so if it's too much work be sure to let me know and I'll send the pic to Slimbridge.

Here it is: Common Eider

Thanks, Adrian Pingstone 21:30, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Dear Jim,

Just a problem I would like to report: yesterday I created a new article about the island Poros. While it is accessible through a wiki link from Greek islands, it is impossible to find it through Search.What could be wrong?

Kostasge 14:22, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Jim. Many more on the way, when I get a spare moment. I think you wil love my White-fronted Chat, which will probably wind up in honeyeater.

I've started work on the birds of prey, Jim. Currently there are about six different entries, none of which agree with any of the others: Falconiformes, Accipitriformes, Accipitridae, Falconidae, Falcon, Bird of prey, Raptor. A major mess! For the sake of simplicity and because it provides a sensible starting point, I'm lumping most of them into Falconiformes (but making appropriate mention of other schemes as I go along). I know we discussed this before and decided to go with 2 orders, but I've reneged as (a) it's easier to write this way, and (b) I gathered that you were not too fussed about the two alternatives. Anyway, feel free to switch it around if you want to. My inclination is to deal with the odd-bods as follows:

Osprey: In its own family, part of Falconiformes. (i.e., the expanded traditional Falconiformes that includes hawks, eagles, Secretary Bird, and the rest.)
New World Vultures: Order Carthartiformes, family Carthartidae. This, at the cost of adding yet another order, provides a compromise between the American grouping of them with the storks, and the rest-of-world grouping of them with the other raptors. (I'm less sure of the wisdom of this, so please let me know what you think. I can easily revert it without loosing any of the other changes.)

Sing out if I tread on your toes with this! Tony

PS: do you have one of your magic species lists for the Falconidae by any chance? -- Tannin

US

You are checking to make sure things you are labling "US" or "American" are actually from the United States, right? --mav 06:12, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Deletion

I've just noticed that you have deleted quite a few things this afternoon that have not been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, and which do not fall into any of the 7 classes of articles exempt from being listed, as set out at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. I've undeleted a few pages and listed them on VfD. I think that at least some of them can be salvaged. Please could you read the deletion policy page before deleting anything else? Thanks. If you would like the deletion policy to be changed, please feel free to bring up the matter on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. -- Oliver P. 16:13, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've just noticed that you have not deleted quite a few things this afternoon that should not have been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, and which do fall into at least one of the 7 classes of articles exempt from being listed, as set out at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. I've deleted a few pages and mentioned the fact on VfD. I think that none of these could have been salvaged. Please could you read the deletion policy page before not deleting anything else? Thanks. If you would like the deletion policy to be changed, please feel free to bring up the matter on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. -- Angela 19:35, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

undeletion

Please see wikipedia:votes for undeletion - a user has requested undeletion of some articles on nursery rhymes you deleted - could you respond there? Martin

Thanks. Martin 09:35, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ex Post Facto article

I've amended your removal of the reference to the US Constitution. I speak as a Brit too, but I thought it was relevant. See the associated talk page also. -- David Martland 08:45, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

RE: Antidepressants

I don't think it would've reached my intended target had he read it :). He seemed hell-bent on turning every alphabet page into a list of antidepressants despite being asked not to a few times. -- Notheruser 19:20, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

RE: Wendy McElroy

Jim, I just read your reply to my message on my talk page (I think it is). Yes, Wendy's mentions of American constitutional issues has fooled me too. However, as I have verified with her today that she is Canadian. If she were an American she probably would not bother to include news items about Canada.

BillBell 21:24, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

And thanks for the tips about using these talk pages. (Almost omitted that.)

BillBell 21:26, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi Jim, I feel increasingly uncomfortable with the way deletions have been carried out recently. I'm worried that newbies are frightened off before they get a chance to turn into valuable contributors. If someone has just discovered Wikipedia and has just made their first attempt at posting something, why does it have to be erased immediately and, even worse, labelled "junk"?

I'm in particular talking about User:194.7.209.66 and their three Wienerisch texts. I've taken the trouble to write them (see User talk:194.7.209.66 -- or has that been deleted as well?) and ask them to consider rewriting their texts, but there is no point in doing so if, a few hours later, on the same day, someone else comes along and deletes their effort. Why the hurry as if our lives depended on it?

All the best, KF 16:14, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hey Jim --

After you renamed a couple of the pages I'd written on various chemical compounds, I was curious if any consensus existed on naming conventions for chemical compounds on the Wikipedia. I mean, obviously, in some cases the systematic name should probably not be the page title (like water vs. hydrogen oxide, formaldehyde vs. methanal, acetone vs. propanone, etc.)

What I had been doing was to take the Google poll, and then look in the Merck Index and if the two agreed on the most common usage, use that name. But if there has been an established consensus on another method, I'd like to know.

Hey Jim,

Your article on Frigatebird with a redirection Frigatebirds.

Should't the text be placed on Frigatebirds with a redirection on Frigatebird to Frigatebirds ?

The article indicates that it is about the family Frigatebirds.

Best wishes BrianHansen 14:17, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

I am not absolutely certain if the ostrich and penguins share the hollow bones of other birds. I have been so far unable to find a definitive answer to this question. --Jose Ramos 07:51, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hello Jim, I found another image for Least Sandpiper which seems to be clearer. I had already been looking for a while when I got your note. Thanks, Big Iron 10:37 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Please voice your opinion on deletion.

21st Century Transcendentalism is not a religion and does not advocate (request belief, membership or anything else) anything; it stands for religious rationality in the 21st Century. If Wikipedia can describe what atheists, Christianity, Islam, Bokononism thinks then why can not I as a 21st Century Transcendentalist describe what I think? Bias, maybe?

?Transcendentalism Today Org.? with Kurt Kawohl as its founder has been accepted by and is a member of: IONS - Institute of Noetic Sciences, World Interfaith Congress, United Communities of Spirit, Alliance for Spiritual Community, Interfaith Voices for Peace And Justice, user:kkawohl

Jim, pls note Wikipedia style is to use IUPAC group numbers, not old style -- thx, 194.51.2.34 17:09, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In regards the page I put up on Tax Reform, you were right. It was US-centric. Good call. I used the education reform page as a basic template. I am still figuring out how some of these things can be written about. At second blush, it does seem that, since taxes have been a fact of human existence for more than a few thousand years, more could be said.... Any suggestions or edits would be appreciated. RayKiddy 06:36, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Nice to see you still beavering away on the birds, Jim. I'm flipping around here and there adding a little to this a little to that of late. Some birds, some mammals, and who knows, I might do an aircraft or two again before too long. Very little spare time at the moment (I gather that you are as busy as a dog with two tails also) but no matter. Bit by bit we are achieving things. Best -- Tannin

Gah! I just tok 20 minutes to figure out if I should add two letters or not (Balena or Eubalena). It seems that your book is correct. Don't you love taxonomy? Tannin

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your corrections and addition to the article on Tarifa, I included your addition on the observation of migrating birds to the dutch version as well! Flyingbird 19:45, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Sadly the Whooper Swan pictures I have access to weren't quite as good as I hoped...(I spent my time glued to binoculars, forgot how far away they were) I have put one on that page anyway to invite your comment. If you prefer the drawn version then I am happy to revert. Pete 21:36, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi!
I've just added an Emperor Goose to the taxobox. My pic shows a brownish goose but the text says grey. Presumably summer plumage? I'm quite confident my colours are correct. Just thought I'd check with you.
Adrian Pingstone 08:44, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi,

Considering you have edited in the whales area in the past, I thought I would let you know that I have started a Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans. It is rather sketchy at the moment - any and all contributions welcome! Pete 23:16, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi, please do not add anniversaries to the main page w/o a recent day link and context. It's frustrating for readers to click on the link and not know why it is listed as an anniversary. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Selected Articles on the Main Page. (I'm trying to get births and deaths promoted to a low priority as well: Wikipedia talk:Selected Articles on the Main Page.) --Jiang 03:56, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi Jim - Glad to see you are interested in whales and birds - so am I. As you are a style maven, can you please clarify why you have changed every mention of "bowhead whale" in its own article to "Bowhead Whale"? I find it to be odd-looking at best.
Also - I do not believe it is US-centric to mention a species being listed as endangered in the US. I would much rather you had added other countries' actions to this article, than deleted that of the US. This change has created an awkward duplication and reduced the useful information. Perhaps you will reconsider. NuclearWinner 4 Sep 2003

Jim, on White Stork I've changed the taxobox pic to one of my own taken at Bristol Zoo a few weeks ago. I like the pic you took off the Danish Wiki but I have this "thing" about always giving the reader a bigger pic to look at or use for a project or for a childs homework. As usual, please revert me if you don't like what I've done. So that the original pic is still available I've parked it at the bottom of the article. (I am user 82....... if you look at the History, I forgot to log in)

Jim, it's Adrian again. On the Greater Flamingo article the Latin name is given as Phoenicopterus roseus. But Bristol Zoo's information board and an internet search say Phoenicopterus ruber roseus. Who's right?
Adrian Pingstone 22:09, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)