User talk:Lee E Harding

Welcome!

Hi Fortidens! I noticed your contributions to Reindeer 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

Happy editing! Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022

Hi Fortidens! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Reindeer that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

My mistake. It's not a minor edit. I published a revision to the genus Rangifer in a zoological taxonomy journal and was advised to re-write the relevant Wiki pages. But it will take some time to get through it all. Lee E. Harding, leeharding@shaw.ca. Fortidens (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Reindeer

Welcome to Wikipedia! Your expertise is welcome here. I do have some cautionary thoughts for you to consider. Expert status does not trump collaboration. (We had to block a Nobel Prize laureate because he thought his expertise gave him greater status than other editors .)

We also have some WP:MOS considerations, especially WP:LEAD. The lead is not a summary of the topic, but a summary of the existing content of the article, and it should not contain too much detail. The lead now contains far too much detail.

You may benefit from reading my essay: Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section.

My main contribution to the reindeer topic was inspired by my hunting experiences. Reindeer hunting in Greenland.

Good luck. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Valjean. I don't know what " WP:MOS considerations, especially WP:LEAD" are but I'll investigate. I'll shorten the lead. I'll read your essay.

You hunted reindeer in Greenland? Oh--Caribou. They're in North America. Do you have any photos of live ones?

I've hunted caribu from BC to NWT, and eaten other subspecies, coursesy of my Dene and Inuit colleagues. 2604:3D08:D17D:FA10:FD7C:E253:9E40:A378 (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

The terminology thing (caribou vs reindeer) is basically that from Greenland and eastward they are called reindeer, and in North America they are generally called caribou. We have chosen to use "Reindeer" as the title for the main article and mention the terminology differences there. It's kind of like the main article for "Dog". There are numerous species of dogs and reindeer that get grouped into their two main articles. Like with dogs, all reindeer/caribou are basically the same animal, but with minor differences. The scientific names don't always follow this geographical difference. In Greenland, some of the reindeer and imported caribou have interbred, and they are all called "rensdyr" by the Danes. The English translation is "reindeer". The word "caribou" doesn't figure at all in the Scandinavian languages. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

So you know how tasty they are. That was our main red meat for the three seasons we lived in Greenland. I lost what pictures I had in the Camp Fire (2018), but one picture of our main campsite is at the opening of the hunting article. We used that campsite each year but also hunted in other areas. I wish I had taken more pictures because they would approach quite close. Very curious critters. The closest was five meters. That was my very first day hunting any big game, and I shot three deer that day. I had shot my second deer and two others were curious and approached closer and closer. I was far up a mountain and our campsite was just a dot in the far distance. I knew it would be hard work just carrying this one animal, so I told myself I wouldn't shoot them unless they got closer than about five yards away. They did. They just stood there watching me gut the deer I had just shot. So I slowly wiped my hands on my pants and picked up my Sako .30-06 rifle, aimed at the top of the head of one of them when it bent down for a bite of grass and dropped it. The other one decided that something was wrong with this picture, and it wheeled around and took off. That was quite the day. Another time I got four deer in one day. Those experiences left a lasting impression. Even now, decades later, I can mentally retrace some of my steps on hunts. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll re-write the lead and move some stuff to sections below.

I'm having trouble with Citations: I can't see how to add more than one author. Please advise.

Thanks. Lee Fortidens (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I would be very happy to help you with citations. I use a basic citation template that can be tweaked. It's a standard template that is also used at the Yadkard citation tool. The tool works fairly well, but sometimes it doesn't, so the product should always be double-checked before using it in an article.

Here's a typical citation with two authors that looks like this:

• <ref name="Yourish_Buchanan_1/26/2019">{{cite news |last1=Yourish |first1=Karen |last2=Buchanan |first2=Larry |title=Mueller Report Shows Depth of Connections Between Trump Campaign and Russians |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=January 26, 2019 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/26/us/politics/trump-contacts-russians-wikileaks.html |access-date=October 24, 2019 }}</ref>

That source is related to the subject of improper Links between Trump associates and Russian officials. In November 2013, in Moscow, Trump apparently discussed his plans to run for the presidency with very influential Russians. One notable one described their plans and how Trump would not have been elected without his help. Another tweeted her support, and that tweet is still visible. So, long before Trump made these plans public to Americans, he was planning with the Russians and knew they would help him. In 2014, Russian intelligence began their hacking operations against American targets, political parties, and election systems. Then seven different allied intelligence agencies began to notice something very suspicious that alarmed them. They routinely monitor known Russian agents (IOW they bug their communications), which is their job, and in the process, they discovered these spies were talking to people working for Trump. They realized that a future presidential candidate was working with Russians and getting their help, and that was a serious threat to democracy, so they shared their info with U.S. intelligence, and then U.S. intelligence did their own work and found even more info of the same type, some of it conversations right in the Kremlin. They had a double agent who had free access to Putin's office and could view documents on Putin's desk. After Trump was elected and started sharing classified information with Russians, the CIA had to quickly extricate this agent and his family from Russia. Since then, all allied intelligence agencies have curtailed their sharing of information with U.S. intelligence, at least while Trump was in office. Our national security may never recover. This obviously weakened our alliances and made the world more unsafe in the face of Russian aggression. Putin was happy and Trump doesn't care.

Feel free to contact me. BTW, are you Danish or Norwegian? Fortiden means "previous time", as in "the olden days". I speak Danish fluently. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I speak only English and Spanish. "fortidens" is the subspecies name of one of the Caribou subspecies.

Yesterday I edited all morning only to have my edits lost (I think) when I got an error that someone else was editing the Rangifer page at the same time I was. But I think more likely I just bobbled some keys or did something wrong. Anyway, I exited without "publishing", although I did save a copy as a Word document. Can this be pasted into the Wikipedia page?

Also, while editing the table of subspecies, I accidentally deleted the photo (not mine) of a Newfoundland caribou, <200px-Woodland_Caribou,_Newfoundland.jpg> and could not see how to put it back (saved it first on my hard drive).

Lastly, I uploaded two images of caribou to the table, but later got a message from one of your colleagues with instructions on how to attach a Creative Commons license, which I am in the process of doing. -Lee Harding Fortidens (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, welcome to the world of glitches and frustrations that are normal here. Accidentally losing edits is very frustrating. I recommend that you make small edits and save, repeated ad libitum. That way you won't lose much, and other editors can better figure out what you're doing. If you make large edits, it can be confusing for other editors and they may just delete the whole thing. This is normal practice as other editors have a right to question and reject edits. Whenever that happens, take the matter to the talk page and start a discussion about that exact content. When a consensus is achieved, you might be able to restore the accepted version. Collaboration is the key. Just make sure you don't treat articles as if they were your private blog or website. They are the production of many editors' hard work. Controversial articles can be a nightmare. Look at the top of my talk page. There is an image there with some text about the collaborative process. My first few articles were immediately deleted, so I know about frustrations.

Are there any specific problems you'd like help with right now? Make a numbered list (use hashtags that automatically create the numbers) I can work on. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I notice you haven't restored the original lead yet after you added a huge amount of content there that violates our guidelines for a lead section. If you don't do that very soon, I'll have to revert the article back to the version before your first edits. I'd rather avoid that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I just now (10:15 AM Pacific Time, 18 November) finished restoring my edits to the text that were lost yesterday. This includes a much shorter lead, which was based on the previous (before my first edits) lead, but updated with recent revision of genus. Much of the material in the previous lead, which was probably too long already, I edited/updated and moved into the new sections: Description, Status, Human Use, Naming, Evolution and Taxonomy. However, I notice that some of these new sections, following the (renamed) Species and Subspecies sections, overlap with previous (before my edits) sections . I will eventually get to those and reduce redundant text (or sections).

After waiting for the last "pending" edits to be accepted, I will tackle the table under Species and Subspecies (again!).

Okay? Fortidens (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Valjean, I don't understand why you deleted all my days of edits and restore the previous version. I thought I followed your advice to shorten the lead. True, the shorter (1 paragraph) version I put in did not capture all of the sections of the main text, but there are several below the table in Species and Subspecies that are badly written, outdated, or redundant with the newer information I put in above that section. My interest is in straightening out the taxonomy (which is why I spent nearly 2 years researching and writing the revision of the genus published in ZooKeys), so I don't intend to replace the subsequent sections on biology etc., except to reorganize the sections that need it. Then I plan to tackle all the linked pages to other Rangifer topics. This is a big commitment I've made in the interest of conservation of the several species (which in Canada is being hampered by inaccurate naming) and of science generally. Please advise.

Meanwhile, I will start on the table under section heading Species and Subspecies. Lee (leeharding@shaw.ca) Fortidens (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

When did I do that? It looks like you are the one who shortened the lead. I have made only three very small edits to that article recently. Here's your edit summary: "Shortened lead to 1 paragraph; added new section headings (and slightly revised text) for Description, Status, Human Use. Minor edits in sections Naming, Evolution and Taxonomy. Did not dare revise the table in section Species and Subspecies after yesterday's fiasco."

See the revision history and provide a diff (the url for the edit) to where I "deleted all my days of edits and restore the previous version".

BTW, an article of this size and importance can justifiably have a lead that is 4-5 paragraphs. Just keep out too much detail. Try to summarize (very short mention, such as a sentence, phrase, or even just a word) the topics of each section. This diff shows the article (and lead) as it was immediately before you started editing the article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry if I got over-excited. I keep getting these errors when I try to "publish" the changes that there's a conflict with another editor, and then when I follow the link to "resolve conflict" I can't see how to resolve it. I know caribou pretty well, and am a long time user of Wikipedia, but editing is a whole new ball game.

Today again it seemed that I had lost hours of work on the table; but maybe it was just "pending". One thing I've learned is to quit editing after not too long, and then don't touch it again until the next day.

Thanks for your patience. Fortidens (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I understand. Editing is indeed complicated at times. Make small edits and then save them before too much time has gone by. If there is an edit conflict, copy and save what you did to some other place like Notes or Word (I use an email to myself), back out of the editing window without saving and look at what the other editor did, and then try again. It takes time, but you'll get the hang of it. Because my knowledge of HTML and wikimarkup (which is much simpler and preferred here) was rudimentary (from my days of using WordPerfect), I learned by analyzing what other editors did and then copied their methods. Before that, I couldn't figure out "how to make it look like that". If you have disagreements with another editor, never try to force your preferred version. Instead, take it to the discussion page and work it out there. Don't hesitate to ask me for help of any kind. I've been here since 2003, so know my way around, although far from completely. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Valjean. I'll do that and re-read the "how to" instructions.

Someone improved my terse lead, for which I'm grateful. I'll expand it a bit as I progress and all the sections (new and revised) fall into place.

I'm going to re-do the table in Species and Subspecies again today, having lost all my edits yesterday. 2604:3D08:D17D:FA10:F952:F79C:AA61:B1D3 (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

1. 22 Nov, 1624 hours Pacific Time: I'm getting lost on the Rangifer page. It seems to have fallen down a vortex of conflict errors. Yesterday and again today I lost 2 more whole mornings when my edits disappeared (unless they still exist somewhere), and I had failed to keep a copy in Word. I hate to just ask for help when you've already given me plenty guidance, but the brief instructions like how to resolve conflicts don't make any sense to me. I try, and generate more errors.
2. In the last 2 days, I updated taxonomy (and some other sections that needed work) on pages for Caribou Populations in Canada, Dolphin & Union caribou, Peary caribou and Arctic caribou (disambiguation), seemingly without trouble.
3. Can I create a whole new page? I think there should be one for Greenland Reindeer.
4. Thanks..(from Lee)

Fortidens (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, to prevent loss of data, I suggest you prepare your edits in a subpage. Then you can make simple uncontroversial edits directly to the article, or for more controversial stuff, take what you have on the subpage and propose it on the article's talk page. Try editing this sandbox: User:Fortidens/Reindeer. That's in your personal userspace. It's a redlink now, but the moment you edit and save it, it is created and the link turns blue, with a history, so nothing is really "lost" when changes are made or deleted. You can always look in the history and recover previous versions. You can create more subpages by just creating a link and then editing it.

When you say "create a whole new page," are you talking about a whole new Reindeer article or one for Greenland reindeer? That is currently covered by Barren-ground caribou, the type found in Greenland, although that article only mentions Greenland once. We do have articles for several other rangifer sub-species, so if you want to create one dedicated to those in Greenland, that might be an interesting article.

As far as creating a whole new article to replace the current one, absolutely not. We work in a collaborative environment and no one owns any article. We respect and preserve the work of other editors and do not trash their work by replacing it with what we consider a better article. Instead, we tweak articles. See WP:Preserve. Yes, in the process we may end up deleting some of the additions of some other editors, but we don't look at an article like our playground or private website. We look at it as the work of others, and changes should be made in a collaborative manner, a little at a time. I think you should start by working in your new sandbox with a view to improving what we already have.

Another idea that's not impossible is to retitle the current article Rangifer (genus) (found on the disambiguation page Rangifer and currently a redirect to Reindeer. We do that for Canidae. Both articles would deal with a clade. We use both common names and species names for articles. Which to use is a decision made by a consensus of editors, so such a change would have to be thoroughly discussed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I meant a new, short page just about Greenland Caribou/Reindeer, as there is for several other species and subspecies, as you say. People may wonder what makes it so different as to be elevated to species level. Fortidens (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Go for it!. You may want to develop it in a subpage first. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

? I tried twice to develop pieces of former Rangifer, now Reindeer (section below the table) on a subpage but it disappeared, or at least I can't find it. I haven't tried to edit Reindeer for several days (gun-shy, I guess), but I want to wrap this page up and will try to replace that section with a new one (being careful to not self-promote and to give valid credence to previous views) and deal with other comments of reviewers. Fortidens (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

If you can't find it, try your contribution history. That will tell you where you've edited. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Identity

I suggest you be more careful when you edit. Never edit while logged out as that creates a new account using your IP. Use only your Fortidens username. That way there will be no confusion and all your edits will be collected in one contribution history. We don't want any suspicions of illicit sock accounts.

Also, since you have already revealed your identity, would you be averse to moving your account to a new username with your Lee Harding name? Unless you have serious enemies, this may not be a problem. When I say "move", that means a special process, not just a transfer of content. When done properly, all your contribution history will be preserved and moved to the new name. If you wish to do this, I can help you.

I notice that you haven't made any comments on the reindeer talk page. You should get involved more there as you're a subject matter expert and some of your edits are discussed.

Another thing is your conflict of interest. You must be very careful to not promote your publications. Let others do it after you suggest it on the talk page. I don't want you to get into trouble for self-promotion. How have your views about species and subspecies been received in the scientific community? Are there any contrasting views? That is a topic that might be interesting to document here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:34, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

1. Sorry-didn't realize I was logged out for that one.
2. Yes, I'd be happy to go by my real name. Please advise.
3. reindeer talk page? Where? I've been clicking on links until I'm blue in the face and have seen "talk" but never saw a page with such a discussion.
4. Yes, I was trying to avoid citing myself, but it is like quicksand: feels good going in, but it's a trap that's hard to get out of. I'll go through and eliminate self-references, to the extent possible. I haven't noticed anyone pushing back on my taxonomy, but then this is my first purely taxonomic paper. (I was the writer under contract for the 2004 and 2015 COSEWIC assessments of Peary Caribou that first recognized the Dolphin and Union "herd" as barren-ground caribou.) The Canadian biologists and caribou geneticists have been crying for a revision for years, but (a) few really understand the rules and processes of zoological nomenclature, and (b) those under contract to the federal government resist change (this is partly legal: Environment Canada backed itself into a corner in 2003 by inventing new names for caribou ecotypes and then listing them under the Species at Risk Act, making it difficult to update terminology).

Thanks for your continuing support. Fortidens (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

To change your username properly, apply at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. User:LeeHarding, User:Lee_Harding, User:LeeEHarding, and User:Lee_E_Harding are all available. There may be other available options if you so desire. It's an easy process. I'm on my third username after choosing to abandon previous usernames I got tired of. A previous username was User:BullRangifer. My earliest work (between 2003 and 2005) was IP work and is not included in my contribution history. That's sad.

Your work on rangifer taxonomy is valuable and interesting. It sounds like you have an uphill battle. You may have enough material to make up a full article on the Taxonomy of rangifer. Mind you, not just "your" taxonomy. In it, you could document all sides of the issue, and your work would get its proper place. Again, COI can be an issue, but I can help you thread that needle. You can start in your own sandbox at User:Fortidens/Taxonomy of rangifer.

I'm a retired healthcare professional, so I didn't have anything to do with your branch of science, but I'm still interested. I'm always learning. Things like the work of Siddhartha Mukherjee, the Pulitzer Prize winning author of The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer, fascinate me. All great minds fascinate me! I guess that's why I'm a Jeopardy! fan. This very recent NPR Fresh Air interview is great: Siddhartha Mukherjee On A Revolution In Cell Biology. He's starting to actually cure cancer, sometimes instantly, and he's not a quack. He also touches on the three general unifying theories of biology (17:15): Evolution, Cell theory, and Genetic theory. No one who denies any of them is a real scientist. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Every article and userpage has a "talk" page. This is one of them. They are not part of the encyclopedia, but are where editors do their work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Valjean, (1) 2 days ago I applied for a new username, User:Lee_E_Harding , but apparently it hasn't gone through yet. (2) I've left Rangifer alone for a couple of days until it settles down. (3) I thought I posted a proposed re-write of a section within Rangifer on the Rangifer talk page, but it is nowhere to be found. (4) in my "sandbox" I posted a comment to whomever is listening that I plan to write a page for Greenland Caribou/Reindeer, but there have been no responses that I know, and now I'm not even sure how to find my sandbox. You know, I have a PhD and 3/4 Century on this planet, but this makes me feel like ... well, a pejorative better left unsaid. Oh, and a warning message says I am not logged in, but I am. 2604:3D08:D17D:FA10:B8DF:9634:8B0F:7A69 (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Your username should be changed soon. It's manned by busy clerks, so it sometimes takes several days. Be patient.

We each have a sandbox, and there is a tab for it. I pinged you when I left a comment there. I have shown you how to create more custom sandboxes. While everything here is visible, only those who know that sandbox exists will notice it. Otherwise, someone watching your contributions may notice it. Otherwise any calls for help there will go unnoticed unless you ping someone. There are several ways to ping other editors. Using someone's username works like a ping, so if you (1) write Valjean, (2) sign your comment, and (3) save your edit, I will get a ping. Note your signature must happen in the same edit. Adding it later will not make the ping work.

As you can see by your signature, you're not logged in. That's an IP from a sender in Vancouver. So editing as an IP is less private than editing as a registered user. Your location is exposed. So when it says you're not logged in, believe it. Back away, login, then make your edit. We've all forgotten to login. I choose to stay logged in. On rare occasions, usually after a major software update, I get logged out and have to login.

You keep you from getting overwhelmed, you may need to concentrate on one job at a time. Decide what it is and then let me know. I'll be happy to help you. Your knowledge must not be wasted. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:55, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Reindeer noses

I have another question. I have seen images of many reindeer/caribou and noticed that their noses can vary. The 16 I shot in Greenland tended to have broad, flat, and wet noses like cows, while images of others show more pointed and hairy noses. Can you enlighten me? Their curious but skittish behavior also reminded me of cows. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

What about reindeer noses? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Reindeer noses: See my section in Rangifer on Evolution. "Modern" reindeer/caribou, that is, the latest Beringian-Eurasian edition, which is Eurasian tundra reindeer and North American barren-ground caribou, have expanded nasal cavities to pre-heat more air so they don't freeze their throat and lungs. But there are variations within each type (modern and primitive). Peary caribou and Svalbard reindeer have extreme versions: short muzzles with a sort of hump between nose and eyes. Lydekker (1915) described Greenland caribou skulls as " skull with an elevated frontal region." Allen (1908): Greenland caribou "condylobasal length, [the standard measure for length of skull] 368 mm., which is greater than in arcticus and considerably more than in the little pearyi." This is why I think thre should be a Greenland caribou/reindeer page.

I'm going to try to change my username now. Fortidens (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires attribution

Hi. I see in a recent addition you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. It's also required under the terms of the license. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa. But I've lately been editing several caribou and reindeer pages, to update the taxonomy according to a recent revision of the genus Rangifer. I may have put the same phraseology into more than one page, explaining some aspect of taxonomy that was relevant to both. Can you please tell me to which page you added the addribution, and the page that the duplicated material came from? Thank you. Fortidens (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Congrats...

with the new username. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Tnx. Making progress. Now just little things on the main Reindeer page. Lee E Harding (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Taxonomy

Note there are several questions below. Unlike you, I am not an expert, so am asking for clarification. The current lead at Reindeer says this:

"Reindeer, known as caribou in North America, are deer in the genus Rangifer. Traditionally, reindeer were thought to be one species, Rangifer tarandus, with about ten subspecies."

Is the phrase "reindeer were thought to be one species" still accurate? "Thought" implies doubt. Aren't they one species, with several subspecies?

The following articles use the following taxonomy:

• Finnish forest reindeer: Rangifer fennicus fennicus
• Svalbard reindeer: Rangifer tarandus platyrhynchus
• Peary caribou: Rangifer arcticus pearyi
• Porcupine caribou: Rangifer tarandus granti
• Dolphin-Union caribou: Rangifer tarandus groenlandicus and Rangifer arcticus That's confusing. Which is it?

If they are all subspecies of Rangifer tarandus, shouldn't all subspecies be described in the format Rangifer tarandus "whatever"? It seems to me there needs to be some standardisation here.

Come to think of it, Rangifer is the genus (not species), with tarandus the species, and the third part of the name the subspecies. We need to reword the article! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

In the new revision of the genus Rangifer, there are six species, five former subspecies having been elevated to species: Svalbard reindeer Rangifer platyrhynchus, Eurasian tundra reindeer R. tarandus, and Eurasian forest reindeer R. fennicus. Greenland reindeer R. groenlandicus, Arctic reindeer R. arcticus, and woodland caribou R. caribou. I edited pages to update the taxonomy for Reindeer, Peary caribou, Porcupine caribou (no longer granti, but an ecotype or herd of barren-ground caribou), Dolphin-Union caribou, Reindeer disambigulation, Reindeer distribution and Caribou Herds in Canada. I have started by not finished pages for Svalbard and Finnish Forest reindeer. I plan to write one for Greenland caribou. I wonder if some pages somehow reverted to earlier versions? Or maybe someone "corrected" my corrections? Lee E Harding (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Uh oh! That may mean I screwed up with this edit. Please fix anything I've broken. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Valjean. I've been working through the various pages, fixing things as I see them. I just added a section on Evolution to Finnish Forest Reindeer page and will soon add sections on Taxonomy and Ecology.

I tried to edit the IUCN status/taxonomy box in the Peary caribou page, but screwed it up. It may take a while for IUCN to update its taxonomy. Should I try to discover how to edit these boxes, or wait until IUCN catches up? Lee E Harding (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I looked at the page after your last edit and it looks okay to me. Your changes are there. Your edit summary (Help! I tried to update the Taxonomy/IUCN status box, but I think messed it up.) seems to indicate a problem. Is there still something wrong with it?

Maybe there's another problem. What organization is the most "official" international organization for taxonomy? Is there now a conflict between your edit (Rangifer arcticus pearyi) and what is listed elsewhere (Rangifer tarandus pearyi)? That conflict can be problematic if it is based on your own research that is not currently adopted by the world scientific community. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi again, Valjean. There will be a conflict until the international zoological organizations catch up to my new revision of the genus Rangifer. It may take a while. IUCN is an obvious one. Others are GBIF (the Global Biodiversity Information Facility—is an international network and data infrastructure funded by the world's governments and aimed at providing anyone, anywhere, open access to data about all types of life on Earth), CITES (Convention on Trade in Endangered Species: lists species by English & Latin names so that parties to the convention can pass domestic laws to protect them), iNaturalist (not an "official" taxonomic registry, but widely used by professional and amature naturalists; it follows IUCN's taxonomy); UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, UNEP-WCMS; Mammal Diversity Database (MDD: "...your home base for tracking the latest taxonomic changes to living and recently extinct (i.e., since ~1500 CE) species and higher taxa of mammals") a service offered by the American Society of Mammalogists to list all species of mammals by their currently accepted names; International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). My paper on Rangifer is registered with ZooBank, "an open access website intended to be the official International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature registry of zoological nomenclature. Any nomenclatural acts need to be registered with ZooBank to be "officially" recognized by the ICZN Code of Nomenclature"--Wikipedia, so it is official, but that doesn't mean that ICZN will officially adopt my new names. And even if it does, any biologist or government official may ignore it. I have it on my agenda to write to IUCN, GBIF, CITES, UNEP-WCMC to let them know about my paper. But it will take time for this new revision to be adopted by these agencies, and longer for the scientific community to catch up. In my wiki edits, I have tried to give credence to previous nomenclature by mentioning the revision and/or saying "Rangifer newname, formerly Rangifer oldname." Lee E Harding (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, that appears to create a problem for you, especially because of your inherent COI. (It violates WP:OR, WP:COI, and "unduly self-serving" use of primary sources.) You must not use your own terminology if it conflicts with existing RS. Any mention of your work should be minimal and modest. Please go through your edits and fix that. Failure to do so can result in sanctions and embarrassment. (Controversies at Wikipedia risk mention in the press and/or scientific community, and that sometimes results in reputational damage, so be very careful here.) When and if the international community updates their taxonomy by adopting your changes, only then can we cite those RS as a backup for content here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Valjean, I understand the problem, but it would be tedious (besides discouraging) to undo all the new taxonomy. Is it not enough that I explained in each case that a given name is result of a new revision, while giving the older name in the form of "Rangifer newname (formerly R. oldname)"? My reason for undertaking this solid month of work was to help bring the new revision attention of people who work on caribou/reindeer and who work for the agencies I mentioned above. Beside, I included a lot of evolution and archaeology in the wiki articles that I couldn't in the published Zookeys paper, the purpose of which is to convince doubters and hasten acceptance. I certainly don't want to be in a COI situation (any more than inherent), nor to embarrass Wikipedia. There must be a way (formula, style, format...) to introduce this revision without running afoul of optics & policy. Lee E Harding (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

One more thought. I gave you the "bad news" side of the equation. The "good news" side is that my paper was published in a top zoological taxonomy journal. The editorial board knew it was a big change and they met to consider if they should publish it even before sending it out for peer review, and again after. The ICZN registered it as a statement of taxonomic record. It is as "official" as one can get in this field. But it still takes time to percolate through scientists, science managers and science communicators. So the conflict is not that people disagree (although some may) but that there may be more than one name in use for each taxon for a while. Lee E Harding (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the best way to resolve this situation, but maybe you should mention the primary/historical terms, and then mention yours last, and not as the preferred or official names. Just avoid any promotion of your terminology. Mention them as an alternative to existing names. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

:I just wanted to echo what Valjean says. We should be using the easily sourced names as given by ICUN and others. It can very difficult for experts editing on Wikipedia. For example some editors seeing this will focus on your username and the name of the person in the reference. They will jump straight to thinking that your aim is to promote a new naming scheme without understanding what is going on. Have a quick look at Wikipedia:Expert editors. It is not a rule (policy) but just an essay that lays out some problems you may face. However, neither Valjean or I want to discourage you from editing. At this point I feel that Wikipedia needs more input from experts and non-expert Wikipedians need to accept that. And yes as my username suggests I do live in Cambridge Bay. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather Uqaqtug, cc: @Valjean: Cambridge Bay! Then you know the Dolphin & Union caribou well! Okay, I'll restore the obsolete (I'm teasing you; one can't see the wink in a text message) Latin names and put a succinct summary of my revision lower down. But some of the caribou names in the pages were already wrong before I started. Example: R. t. granti as a name for the Porcupine Herd was never accepted by the experts--whom I'll cite when I change it to R. t. groenlandicus--but widely used in Canada and Alaska. Other examples: R. t. terranovae (Newfoundland caribou) and R. t. caboti (Labrador caribou) have been accepted internationally since 1991, but not used much in Canada, where they are called ecotypes of woodland caribou, mis-named as R. t. caribou. So I'll change them to the internationally accepted version and note their names in Canada. This will take a while for me to go through all the pages. Okay? 2604:3D08:D17D:FA10:403A:F82E:2D0A:A446 (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Good. You need to make that your top priority and get it done quickly. Otherwise our usual option takes effect, and you don't want that. That would be to mass revert all your edits so all the articles you have edited are returned to their versions before you edited. That option is the simplest and quickest method and is often used when fixing problems is too difficult. Since you know the subject and are acting in good faith, we'll give you a few days to remove all changes to taxonomy terms based on your own work. We have to insist on using the independent (of you) extant secondary sources we have used, so restore those versions. (Then later changes can be discussed.) Your work may get some mention, but in a very conservative manner based on secondary sources that mention your work. Are there such sources? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. One other thing. Try and remember to log in. Having an account and editing while logged out has its own set of problems. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 01:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

If I did, it was accidental. Sorry.

I'm continuing to restore taxonomy to internationally accepted subspecies of Rangifer tarandus. Reviewing page Reindeer today. Tnx.

There are a lot of pages related to reindeer & caribou. Question: what about pages in other languages?

Btw, I never visited Cambridge Bay or Victoria Island. Saw them often from the air en route to Melville & Bathurst Islands etc. Lee E Harding (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping up with this. I have a question: Are reindeer/caribou the most numerous Cervidae species? If so, this should be added to the article, with sourcing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Not sure. There are a lot of white-tailed deer in North America & South America. I'll try to find a source. Lee E Harding (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I just don't recall any other deer species occurring, much less migrating, in flocks that number in the hundreds of thousands. "The Taimyr herd of Siberian tundra reindeer is the largest wild reindeer herd in the world, varying between 400,000 and 1,000,000; it is a metapopulation consisting of several subpopulations — some of which are phenotypically different — with different migration routes and calving areas." That's an awful lot of deer! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your addition of the taxonomy at Barren-ground caribou. Shouldn't that also be used at the main Reindeer article? I also made two changes but am unsure if they are correct. Feel free to fix them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't see anything wrong except that Pliocene was misspelled. I made minor copy-edits. I'd like change the subspecies map because it is wrong: it does not show all species that are accepted internationally (Mattioli 2011) and does show some that are wrong. I've made a new map in ArcMap to look as close as possible to the existing may, but with the subspecies correctly labelled (and the Canadian government "Designated Units", DU). Am I allowed to change the map? How? Lee E Harding (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess you could upload the image to Wikimedia Commons and then use it in the article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Redlands

I see you were educated there. I come from Loma Linda, a neighboring town. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Loma Linda? I had guessed you might be Danish, since you hunted in Greenland and prefer reindeer to caribou. Lee E Harding (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Police Trail (April 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Wikieditor019 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Police Trail and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Wikieditor019 (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Lee E Harding! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Wikieditor019 (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Police Trail has been accepted

Police Trail, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

AntientNestor (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Reference 5 in Police Trail.

Is there any published source for your "Recollections" footnote (reference 5 at time of posting) in Police Trail? It doesn't have to be easily accessible (see WP:OFFLINE). Wikipedia:Attribution#Citing yourself is allowed. Thanks.--AntientNestor (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: First Bend of the Yangtze River (June 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:First Bend of the Yangtze River and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:First Bend of the Yangtze River

Hello, Lee E Harding. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:First Bend of the Yangtze River, 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) 15:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)