User talk:Tony Wills

Hi Tony. I agree that is a better picture, but that is just our (unpublished) opinion ;-) I went with the one that had a good caption. If I had my druthers, I would use an "illustration"; it is likely that an RS has commented on one. Do you know if Gould did a zoological illustration? Anyway ... with the benefit of hindsight I can now state that my choice was right, I posted on the talk page about this. Regards, cygnis insignis 23:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It is now your published opinion ^[1]. I agree an illustration is often better than a photo, but it is hard to persuade photographers of that :-). I'll look out for one :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the inappropriate images (makes it sound dirty don't it?) from the respective articles. I'll make some more changes as they occur to me (I think it needs to be made clear that Pied Fantail is the name used for one of the morphs rather than the whole species - although it is the most common morph. I wish we saw the Black fantails in Wellington.). Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I do have the family monograph by Taylor. I will try and find time to have a look and see if there is anything specifically mentioning the NZ ranger there. I gather you had already checked out the HBW, which I also have, but if you have already checked I won't bother.--Steve Pryor (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Looking for your feedback regarding a date/time for the Wellington meetup. Happy New Year :) Lanma726 (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hedgehogs in New Zealand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zealandia (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) 11:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Registax 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you kind little bot for following me around and spotting my typos, I'll recomend that you get an extra allocation of oil for all your hard work ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Tony Wills. You have new messages at Talk:House Sparrow.
Message added 15:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—innotata 15:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you not see the existing link to Wiktionary? The box at the top right? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. If people are looking for "whitehead" in this context, they propably already know what it is (they've been told they have "whiteheads"), and are looking for more information, not the dictionary definition. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The new link you added, comedo, provides that. The earlier one, to pimple, didn't, which is why I had removed it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The orginal entry that you removed also linked to Acne vulgaris, which mentions whitehead in the second line of the article. The pimple article indeed doesn't have the word whitehead but does include blackhead - this is perhaps a deficiency of the article rather than an error in disambigurement :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That definitely didn't fit in with WP:DABMENTION. Whoever is looking for "whitehead" would expect that we take them to an article that at least mentions them :) Ideally you'd create some logical redirect such as whitehead (comedo) or whitehead (skin) or whitehead (pore) or whatever seems the clearest, and then link that from the disambiguation page. That way, if ambiguous links are made in other articles in reference to this term, people who disambiguate them don't have to use unintuitive pipe links ([[comedo|whitehead]]), instead they can use that ([[whitehead (skin)|]]).

BTW you should tell people on top of your talk page that you'll respond to messages here, not elsewhere. I happened to check your user talk after replying, but I would have missed it otherwise. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave it to someone who actually is interested in whitehead (skin) to do that ;-). As for wiki talk protocol, I can't imagine why people carry out conversations across multiple talk pages, and figure that if people are at all interested they will check back sometime :-). For that matter I suppose this conversation should have taken place on Talk:Whitehead, but that's my mistake :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a link to a discussion or guideline on sorting in bird-by-country categories? There wasn't any consistency in the first place (see Category:Birds of Japan, hardly any are sorted by common name) and most of the sorting by common name happened in 2007, so I assumed it was out of date. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'hardly any sorted by common name', as that is the default (they are sorted by the name of the article, which is the common name)? The piped sort attributes that you removed try to sort by the type of bird (eg goose in your Japanese example), which is more useful than sorting on the common name which is not very standard between countries. For a relevant discussion see - using "defaultsort" saves having to do it for each category, you just add a "piped" sort to the exceptions. eg

For the Kelp gull one would add

{{DEFAULTSORT:Gull, Kelp}} [[:Category:Larus|Kelp gull]] [[:Category:Birds of New Zealand]] [[:Category:Birds of South Africa]] [[:Category:Birds of South Australia]]

You could {{DEFAULTSORT:gull, Kelp}}, and that would add an additional category group of lowercase "g" (whereas all the birds not yet sorted by type but starting with "G" would be in a different group under that capital "G") - but probably best to discuss before starting such a new convention.

Deleting long standing entries without an edit comment or discussion, doesn't seem to be appropriate. Also separating other than trivial edits from the downcasing edits would be useful otherwise they will be overlooked due to the wave of those edits going on at present (ie help people maintaining those pages by putting non downcasing edits as a separate edit). --Tony Wills (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks as if it's been undone. I have to say that Lepidoptera pages seem to show a complete disregard for MoS, with a mix of binomials, capped common and lc common names. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all your work getting lists of common species observed in naturewatchNZ for the #NZspecies Editathon. I VERY much appreciate it! I'll begin working my way through it both for the Editathon and also for future Wikipedia work. Ambrosia10 (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see the response to your "range of focus" talk section of focus stacking. I've added my reasons for the changes. If you agree, please unrevert. Let me know of any other concerns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Focus_stacking#.22range_of_focus.22 Thank you. Edmarchant (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I have been unable to find a reliable source that states that focus stacking is a digital process, or even a computational process. Have you had any luck?

I've responded to your 28 June 2016 input to the "range of focus" talk section of focus stacking. Do you have an opinion for the best phrase to use instead of the undesireable use of "depth of field"?

Edmarchant (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry didn't see your update, have replied there --Tony Wills (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

New response. If you agree you should make the appropriate changes. There is a third item (picture caption) for improvement that you might want to consider.

Edmarchant (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aplysia argus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reunion. 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) 10:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I don't want to get into an edit war, especially over such a nice article, but please have a look at MOS:SEEALSO where it says (inter alia): As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." ... I can't see why this would be an exception to this general rule, which seems to work quite well elsewhere in Wikipedia? Best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

If you don't want to get into an edit war, then don't re-remove content, then enter discussion afterwards, it's an 'I know best' approach and doesn't go down well ;-) But I think the discussion should go to the talk page of the article so I will start one there :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't go down well? Neither did your strangely smug and hostile response to a friendly edit. But I think I will leave you to it with your article. Enjoy. DBaK (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry that you thought that was strangely smug and hostile. But generally if I change something, and it gets changed back, I discuss first rather than trying to insist on my change. So sorry again if my response sounded really hostile, the ';-)' (crooked smile or wink) and ':-)' are trying to keep this discussion light - obviously I failed :-(. It appears that I'm out of practice at wiki communication :-). --Tony Wills (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)