User talk:Wuschl

Welcome!

Hello, Wuschl, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Jwinius 23:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leiopython

Hi Wuschl! I saw your edits to the Leiopython article, but felt it necessary to revert a number of your changes. First of all, here at Wikipedia we primarily follow the taxonomy for snakes available through the ITIS online database, sometimes using the New Reptile Database (NRDB) as a secondary source since ITIS is not yet complete. This way we don't have to argue about which species are valid or not; we let the experts at ITIS and NRDB decide for us. Anyway, ITIS does not currently mention any other species or subspecies for Leiopython, which is why we should not claim anything to the contrary. If you've found a publication that describes any new (sub)species, please add that to the Taxonomy section of this article... with a reference!

References are very important around here; I saw that you added the Hubrecht reference, but did not supply references for your other changes. In addition, you removed/modified information that was referenced, replacing it with information that wasn't. That's not the way to impress people at Wikipedia. If you want to add new information that conflicts with existing information, either add it separately, or replace it with other referenced information. However, your should only resort to the latter if your new information is from a more authoritative source... and you're very sure of yourself!

Anyway, I hope this doesn't discourage you from contributing, but it's important that you know how things are done around here. See you around! (PS -- You can answer here if you wish, as I've temporarily added your talk page to my watchlist). --Jwinius 23:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really ought to be more communicative. Again, your latest edits lack proper references. In particular, where did you get the names "white-lipped python" and "D'Albertis' python" from, and why is it false to refer to it as "D'Albert's water python"? We have a reference for that name, so how can it be false? If the name is simply misleading, explain that in a new Common names section, kind of like in this article. Furthermore, who says its occurrence on Normanby Island is dubious? McDiarmid et al. (1999) don't think so. Or are these your own conclusions after reading Boulenger (1898) and Koopmans (1982)? --Jwinius 18:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'd prefer it if you answered here, as it keeps the conversation in once piece. On the subject of common names, there are no correct names or incorrect names, same as there are (almost) never any official common names. All you can say is that some common names may be at times more popular than others. So, if Mehrtens (1987), which was quite a popular book in its time and still still often quoted in the literature, mentions "D'Albert's water python" as a common name for this species, then it is just as valid as any other common name for the species. What's more, this name has a proper reference, while your names do not (yet) have one. Just saying "These are standard common names that are used for ages now!" is not a references or reasonable argument. That does not mean that your names are wrong, but if you continue to write articles with that attitude, then you are bound to end up making many more mistakes than necessary. Besides, you don't want other editors to come by and start slapping "Citation needed" tags on this article, do you?

Regarding the geographic dispute, you may very well be right, but unfortunately your conclusion still falls under the heading of "original research", which is not allowed at Wikipedia. If you have no better sources of information, we can't second-guess Dr. McDiarmid's conclusions, since collectively we editors here at Wikipedia are all nobody (which is also, once again, why those references are so important). On the other hand, what we can do is rewrite the section so that McDiarmid's geo. range info for this species is called into question, based on your references. That way, we'd be leaving it more to the readers to make up their own minds. Does that sound reasonable to you? --Jwinius 00:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]