Welcome!

Hello, Eliezg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• 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:Questions, 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!  --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:SherwoodAndersonPortrait.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't tell me you're still at your office? Well done on the Kurils! --TeaDrinker 07:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again? --TeaDrinker 09:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Matua.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Eliezg! I'll certainly look over the Nikolskoye and the nature reserve articles. Regarding the spelling issues: having done a bit of research, it looks that "Commander Islands" is the name most used in English, so I'll move the article accordingly. As for the nature reserve, it should probably be moved to "Komandorsky nature reserve" for the same reason—we should be using English, and "zapovednik" is just a romanization of the Russian word meaning "nature reserve". Please let me know if you have any objections. And, of course, thank you for your contributions—as your userpage righfully mentions, the area is remote and scarcely populated, so good quality information is hard to come by. Keep up the good work! If there is anything else I can help with, please don't hesitate to let me know. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting me on Siberian Tiger. "Extant" is a new word to me, I thought it was a typo. You learn something new every day on Wikipedia. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, regarding your comment here, the details of talk page etiquette are at Wikipedia:Talk page and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. There's generally some hesitancy to remove other people's comments, but I think those were so far out of whack they were probably just vandalism. Removing them was the right thing to do. Cheers, --TeaDrinker 08:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the fine Wikipedia tradition, a barnstar.

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		In recognition for all the fine contributions, ranging from composers to animals to authors. Fine work! TeaDrinker (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On 7 December, 2007, a fact from the article Kutkh, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is as you say - individual bird species are capped, groups are not, all scientific names are capped except species, but only genus and species are italicised. Therefore the Purple Woozlum Wooslumia purpurea is a species of woozlum in the Woozlumidae family of birds is correct. I copyedited Kittiwake, and changed the spelling of colouration since the rest of the article is in Brit Eng. Jimfbleak (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

incidentally, if you are going to the trouble of doing in-line refs, why not use cite book, cite web, cite journal etc formats? They are a bit fiddly, but then format automatically, and are pretty well obligatory at GA and FA status. Jimfbleak (talk) 10:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. Personally I would like to see you un-recuse yourself from the article. David seemed to admit after my second comment that he was being excessive towards you and you seem to know a lot more about Chamberlain than I do. I just have the article on watch because of a general watch on all the WP:Wagner articles and noticed your original comment and the revert by David in the article page and decided to add my 2p-worth. As I said he's not someone I really knwo anything about and he's not someone I really want to put energy into researching.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me second that wholeheartedly, I'm afraid that without your participation the Chamberlain article will deteriorate. You make excellent and insightful arguments, which you have every right making on the talk page. While it may be distasteful there is as much honor in defending Wikipedia policies and guidelines on that page as there is on the pages on Ghandi or Martin Luther King. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your votes of confidence, but I'm sorry I can't and I won't edit this article because I can't handle grappling with this guy - things he say just don't make any sense and have gotten pretty personal. I made a final statement/observation on the discussion and have spent WAY too much time and energy on this as it is. My own real-life work is suffering (to say nothing about the projects on Wikipedia I care about) because of this. Honestly, I think I have to grudgingly agree with David that I am at this point too involved to be "fair". Hopefully there are enough reasonable people out there that something will be done, because I really think the article borders on offensive (it is only slightly redeemed by it's incoherence). It's just frustrating that anyone in the world that googles "Houston Stewart Chamberlain" sees the following endorsements: [1]. I can't express how awful I find the word "natural scientist" in the first link. But like I say, I'm spent. Thanks for writing, - Eliezg (talk) 12:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before you leave for good, please have a quick look at my comment on the article talk page. I really think that if Wikipedia policies are applied, the material in question will come out. After that, have a Nice Cup of Tea and a Sit Down, forget about it for a day or two, remember that Wikipedia is not that important, and by all means focus on something else for a while. Will it be alright if I call to you for assistance with this after some time has gone by? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More comments and a new edit by me at Chamberlain. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note, I'll take another look. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind note. My own experience is that given sufficient time, and continued involvement from all concerned editors, these things have a tendency to work themselves out. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if you can help.

I've been expanding and cleaning up the Zebra article. I was wondering if you think the Ecology and Behavior section is representive of all the zebra species' lifestyles. I noted the difference between the Grevy zebra and the other two zebra's behavior but are their differences between the Mountain and Plains zebras that should be noted or put into their repective articles? Also there are some behaviors I attributed to the Plains zebra and I don't know if it would describe the other two as well.

Also since the name "Zebra" does not describe any specific taxon but just black and white striped equids, should the information in Zebra be spread to the different species' repective articles?

Thank you

Bobisbob (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reponse. I already went ahead and moved most of the detailed info in Zebra to Plains zebra. But the general details are still there. I feel it is important to put detailed info on the species page since "Zebra" doesn't not describe a taxon like "Elephant" or "Orangutan" does. In the case of the latter two: most of their info is on their main pages and not the species pages.

Bobisbob (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are editing Bangladesh Liberation War to fix the copy. I have worked on the article in the past and still am interested to work on it. If there's any help you want, please, feel free to ask. I come from Bangladesh, and may be able fill in a few gaps there. Mike Young has done a great job of reorganizing the article, but it still needs quite a bit of copyfixing. Great that you have started on. What else... Oh! I am so speechless!! Thanks, dear, thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I too was brought up on a staple diet of Russian fairy tales, along other stuff. Nice to know that you like the King on my user page. About you question - yes, it means "the beautiful forest". If you have time on your hand, may be we can collaborate on the Sundarbans article. My health these days has become a deterrent to serious work that needs attention on my own, but with help and guidance I still feel able enough to work on article development (well, if you need help in turn, I'm ready volunteer as far as I can). Sundarbans is the current Bangladesh Wikiproject Collaboration, and there is a possibility that others would join in when the work begins. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 12:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki member 2007 (talk) Thanks for the info ! My teacher mispronounced Johann and I was FURIOUS when she told me that Wikipedia supported her claim . I , thinking that Wikipedia had done so , changed it . I am so glad that SOMEBODY actually cares . THANK YOU ! Wiki member 2007 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, responding there: horizontal axis of both images represent years. Vertical axis of first graph is measured in individuals, and axis of second graph is measured in thousands of fells. By the way, thank you for your efforts in promoting Sea Otter to FA. :) — Kalan ? 17:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eliezg! This picture was just so cute that I had to put it on your talk page! Happy weekend to you :) - Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eliezg. Over here a while back you mentioned you had some PDF files that you could share. Can I belatedly take you up on the offer? If you have any other sources that you think would be useful/interesting, I'd love to see them as well. I'm at klaquot at gmail dot com .

After mulling over the structural ideas that you suggested I think they mostly make good sense. I think the Diet section would be a good addition. Best wishes, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll set this up here - feel free to nominate and foraward to any other editor interested in furry critters. We'll see how it flies and I'll drop a note in the signpost.

Nominating key articles is ok, even if you can't work on them. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		For your fine research and thoughtful comments which have made Sea otter a much better article. With gratitude, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 04:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't know anything about siberian or russian names (or folklore) on polar bears would you...? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That must hurt. Poor bear. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, he's a hardy fellow. After all, he's been gamely dignifying breath mints while stranded in Central Siberia for how long now?.... Eliezg (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(laughing hard) Oh right, it's the species that can interbreed with both black and brown bears, and give birth without waking up. They can do anything! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sending this to all the wikiproject:mammals participants. There's a naming guideline up for discussion on the talk page, and the more people get involved the more valid any consensus drawn. Ironholds 19:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A reply to that question about Northern Fulmars that you asked long, long ago. Should be fairly easy to get ahold of an image of one of the dark-morphs, seeing as a large majority of birds from the Pacific are dark morphs. You could probably get it from a wildlife website. The only reason I don't do it is because I'm terrible with image policies, but I've been trying to edit articles about birds also. ISmellDonuts (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This wonderful photo seems to be available only on English Wikipedia? Could you please upload it to Commons, so that it may be used in other languages? Thank you. --Hordaland (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick, thanks! I've informed Nitramus, the author of the original of Sleep (non-human), Sömn hos djur. Perhaps s/he'll add the photo to the Swedish article. I'll be sure to add it to the two Norwegian versions.

As to sleep, I'm interested in humans and their circadian rhythms but keep getting sidetracked into the fascinating animal kingdom. --Hordaland (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should pay attention to this article. This edit replaced a paragraph that was badly written with one that is false and in places incomprehensible because the terms don't make sense. What in the world does the word "values" mean in this case????? And to say it associates probabilities (plural) with "a random event" (singular) is clearly false. In the mean time, it ignores what probability distributions actually are. "The values must cover all of the possible outcomes of the event" misuses every important word within the sentence, and could only be written by someone who's heard the various words and ignores completely what they mean. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made an attempt to make a comprehensible first paragraph in response to several comments (see above) regarding the original lead's technical and incomprehensible nature. It was an initial stab and I am glad it is improved. It was based on attempts I've made in a university course I teach on quantitative methods in ecology that combine statistical methods with mathematical modeling to introduce the concepts of random variable and the probability distributions that describe them to students for whom such concepts are unfamiliar. It is nice that some of the sloppy use of the terms in the introduction have been disambiguated. In the sentence: "The values must cover all of the possible outcomes of the event" was meant to reflect the fact that the distribution is defined over the range of possible values for a given random variable. Thus, the roll of a fair die is, as I meant it, the "outcome" of an "event", the "possible values" of which are 1,2,3,4,5 and 6, and the associated probabilities of which are 1/6, 1/6, 1/6, 1/6, 1/6 and 1/6. The combination of possible outcomes and associated probabilities define the probability distribution. I would be interested to know more about the misuse of my terms. Thanks for you passionate concern about the quality of this obviously important article. Best, Eliezg (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're misusing the word "event". Events are the things to which probabilities are assigned. An event is a subset of the set of all possible outcomes. Throwing a die is NOT an event. Getting either a "5" or a "6" is an event. That is completely standard usage. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eliezg! It is good to hear from you; I hope the movement work has been productive. I will take a look at the ecology article when I can (which is probably two am local time, when I get most of my editing in). If you have seen the Theoretical ecology and Theoretical biology articles, they are likewise in a similar state. Are you going back to the land of coffee and beer this summer? --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eliezg and TeaDrinker, your devotion to tackling these most vexing challenges is an inspiration (and a cause of wonderment as to how you have time for anything else). When you find yourselves back in the land of coffee and beer and Quantitative Ecology, let me know. -IGTaylor (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Wolverine (animal) a different title by copying its content and pasting it into Wolverine. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:StellerSealionFamily.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:StellerSealionFamily.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:StellerSealionFamily.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for one month. --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eliezg,

Wanted to let you know that I looked at your Ecology lead. The version I had posted earlier was still young - I tend to go over my writing again and again. I had just laid out a trail and returned to it. I used your lead comments to help conceptualize ways of making the lead simpler - which is now posted Ecology. Would appreciate your feedback/comments - do you think the new lead is suitable? I am still working on the other sections and hope to have this completed before Christmas - I plan to use this page for an ecoliteracy project I am running at my school.

ThanksThompsma (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eliezg,

Thanks for your feedback on the ecology lead. I decided to finish the rest of the article first. Once completed and I will return to the lead and will present less of an esoteric overview by incorporating some of the more practical aspects that you identified. However, it is interesting to note that most ecology text books take the esoteric approach. The article was in such bad state to start with and it is a huge task to put this together. I'm moving onto the section on behavioral ecology next - might be away for a bit, my plate is starting to pile up.

I wrote the conservation biology page and have contributed to evolution so there is lots of opportunity to link the two topics to the ecology page. Moreover, I like the ecological health benefit angle that you suggested. I am particularly fond of this topic in context of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and value of natural capital contributing to human well-being. The new journal Ecopsychology also paints an interesting perspective in this regard. Take care! Thompsma (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eliezg. Just thought you might be interested in contributing to the article on sustainability. Regards. --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Eliezg, I took a look at the narwhal page. It does seem to be hit with vandalism every couple of days. I will add the page to my watchlist and if it seems to get worse, I will protect it. You're right, a cool animal like the narwhal is likely to continue to be the target of vandalism; hopefully we can keep up (permanent semiprotection is best as a last resort-sort of thing). Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you sold me on it. Semiprotected. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eliezg ! (I apologize too for my frenchy « angliche ») Thank you for your encouragement, and your triple help (on my talk page, the walrus one and... for the english article !). For the Allen's book, I'll already got it, thank you anyhow. For the mistakes, I'll try to correct the article as soon as possible. You know, I'm not a marine biologist but just some sudent on the internet, typing in my pajamas like everybody else ;) Regards, Totodu74 (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS:I haven't notice that you were the author of three of the pictures I use around this animal (2 for walrus and Kutkh ) : Good job ! this one is very cute

Just giving you a heads up that your image (along with its caption) was just featured on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show. « ₣M₣ » 01:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)