User talk:HCA

Thanks for the explanation. Are there four reliable online sources you would suggest? Or do I need to go to the library? And if so, do you have suggestions there?

Here's some I found. Oddly, it's harder than I thought to find the right level of resources - much of what's online is either too simple (geared at kids) or highly technical (and sometimes behind a paywall). Anyway, here's some I found: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/obl4he/vertebratediversity/lobefinned_fishes.html http://www.gwu.edu/~darwin/BiSc151/Tetrapods/Amphibians.html http://revcom.us/a/066/tiktaalik-en.html http://www.devoniantimes.org/who/pages/lobe-fins.html Devonian Times is particularly good, IME. HCA (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HCA has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as HCA's day! For your expertise in herpetological articles, enjoy being the Star of the day, HCA! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 01:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Fauna Barnstar
		For your excellent work on Herpetology-related articles. The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks!

I saw your report at WP:AIV. I have created Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sharry99. ‎ If you are confident of the existence of other socks of this editor that are already blocked, you could add them to the category, per instructions at the top of the page. This is handy for record-keeping, and can form part of the evidence in future sock cases. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Science lovers wanted!

Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi this article is really in trouble, but with huge interest in terms of pageviews, apparently a single-celled creature which propels itself (apparently) with four flagella. Wondering if you might point us to better sources. It was in the news recently with a (possibly hyped?) story about how it is one of Earth's oldest living organisms, possibly an ancestor to humans and evolutionary clue, and lived only in a lake in Norway (which we originally thought was Lake As but we think we've got the lake down now via redirect). If you have free time to help we'd be grateful, thanx.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm pretty clueless about protozoans. I'd likely be more hinderance than help. HCA (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway. You are most knowledgeable about muscles and such and I thought the flagella might come under your area of expertise. Do you know anybody here at Wikipedia who might help?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reported an ip for making a BLP, on WP:ANI , he mentions your name as one of two people that have reverted him | Check here for it, it's labeled as "Legal Threat or Now" . Perhaps you can shed more light on it. Looks like it may be Australia's "Snake Man " himself based on his edits

"....We are all Kosh...."  <-Babylon-5-> 17:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's almost assuredly him. He has a reputation for roving the net to both promote his ideas and threaten legal action against those disagreeing with him or criticizing him. He's edited WP many, many times before, mostly either his own WP page (either to sanitize it or engage in promotion) or a few snake taxa he's "published" on (his taxonomy is legendarily awful, to the point that Nature itself identified him by name as an example of why amateur taxonomists are bad for science). His most recent "dispute" (which resulted in vandalism of my talk page a few hours ago) concerns the genus names for the white-lipped and reticulated pythons, which he claims to have re-named (the revisions have not been accepted by any workers in the field). Contrary to his wishes, WP:Amphibians and Reptiles adopted a universal policy of using the (relatively slow and conservative) ITIS database for snake taxonomy, in order to prevent us from having to move pages and redirect links every time a paper is published. While Hoser's antics have certainly not endeared him to me, my reversion of his most recent edits is purely a policy matter. HCA (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I feel compelled to ask "Who are you?"  ;) HCA (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understood my edit here:[1] I didn't add those terms; instead, what I did was move that paragraph from below in order to form a more logical narrative flow. If you believe "Neither term is used correctly", then that paragraph should be deleted. Your reversion here:[2] simply moved it back (and removed link: evolutionary relay). ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my bad, I guess I didn't look thoroughly enough. Anyhow, I've edited it again to correct the parallel evolution example and remove the "evolutionary relay" bit, since the term seems to be almost never used and apparently means something quite different. HCA (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for resolving problems with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing#Euthanasia. David F (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted this out-of-process some time back. I'm not utterly convinced that it doesn't meet notability requirements, so I'm putting it through AFD. You are of course welcome to comment. Mangoe (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat puzzled by this and other reptile reverts where you've used a similar argument (only speaking about the taxonomy; not other things you reverted there). Looking at WP:AAR#Taxonomy, it is clear that a specific source only has been chosen for higher level taxonomy (the infrequently updated and by now highly out-of-date ITIS). At lower levels none has been chosen. That leads to one of the core wikipedia policies, WP:NPOV (e.g., subsections "Good research" and "Balance"). We now have clear evidence that Rhacodactylus sensu lato is problematic, resulting in the validation of Correlophus. Publications presenting comparable evidence for the opposite view (all in Rhacodactylus) are lacking. I note that the lead author of the 2012 paper is Bauer, the top authority on this group, and that the single most complete online database (reptile-database.org) has followed the split too. The recently described C. belepensis would present an additional problem if sticking with one genus. We'd have to disregard it entirely; adding it as the only species of Correlophus would be WP:OR (no one has suggested the genus is monotypic) and adding it as R. belepensis would also be WP:OR (no authority has placed it in Rhacodactylus).
In summary, I'm struggling to find any good argument for keeping the two genera together. While user:Chevyrumble55 certainly should have provided a source when he made the changes, based on your edit summary it appears you were aware of the source, but disregarded it. However, beware that Chevyrumble55 made a spelling mistake: Corellophus instead of the correct Correlophus. If you insist on preserving the outdated taxonomy, please note that Chevyrumble55 removed the two Correlophus (chahoua+ciliatus) from the species list in Rhacodactylus, and modified Diplodactylinae too. I'll leave possible edits dealing with these taxonomic issues to you and other editors. Regards, 212.10.95.175 (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on reptiles. I'm trying to improve some of the articles, and it helps to have someone make sure I don't make a bad edit. Please check out my revision. Leadwind (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HCA. You have new messages at Talk:Kinesiology#Baron_Nils_Posse.
Message added SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Thank you for your love of snakes and substantial authorship of the Burmese Python article.

Could you find it in your heart to allow the article to mention that Burmese pythons are snakes that grow quickly to large size, and have proven capable of attacking and seriously injuring or killing infants, children, and adult humans (including experienced snake handlers) as ably detailed by the Humane Society report, Humane Society. "Constrictor Snake Attacks" (PDF).?

This factual information will not help sell any snakes, but it is salient to unsophisticated potential snake buyers who rely on Wikipedia for useful information. Its omission leaves the article reading like sales talk for buying one of these wild animals, which the article describes as attractive and popular.

The HSUS is an advocacy group, one that has the explicit goal of ending all exotic pet ownership, from Burmese pythons to betta fish. Extremist animal-rights organizations like the HSUS are not a reliable source, and cannot be used on WP.

Furthermore, the excessive focus on their dangers is out of place - WP is not here as a pet guide, either for or against any species. You don't see any such notes on the pages for wolves or ocelots or sharks, so it doesn't belong with Burmese pythons. HCA (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To underscore the rarity of lengths over 5 metres, might Wikipedia's Burmese python article mention this 2013 find, which by subtraction reveals that the previous record in Florida was less than 17 feet long, and thus not much in excess of 5 metres / 16.4 feet, if at all?

... individual specimens over 5 metres (16.4 feet) are rarely encountered.^[1] For example, an 18-foot long 128 pound Burmese python found in the wild in Florida in 2013 besting the previous record by more than a foot.^[2]

Something like this would be an acceptable addition, yes. Even better would be a source for average or median wild size; the skin trade's records may actually be the best bet for that. HCA (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening:

Please allow me to share an article with you. Maybe you will find it interesting:

http://www.naturapop.com/home/southern-limit-of-the-distribution-of-the-green-anaconda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.2.207.74 (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you very much, I fixed it. After long search of Matlab codes for the Hill-type muscle model, I failed to find it. So I made it by myself, and I am sharing the codes in my website. I wish many Biomechanics researchers can take a benefit from them. Thank you again, and have a nice day~ -Mok- Yunyoungmok (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know whether Cuvier's dwarf caiman could be called "Cuvier's wedge head caiman" so I consulted Google and found this, which gives wedge head but does not mention Cuvier. However that is not a reliable source and I thought this one much better. It gives common names "Dwarf Caiman, Cuvier’s Caiman, Smooth Fronted Caiman, Musky Caiman" and does not mention "Cuvier's wedge head caiman". The Reptile Database does not mention it either. So I propose to change the sentence to include several vernacular names and think you should provide a reference if you want wedge head to be included. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So "wedge head caiman" seems to be largely confined to the pet trade (where I'm familiar with it), while in the trade "smooth-fronted caiman" refers to trigonatus. This raises the interesting question: if it's used widely but not in anything that meets the "reliable sources" criteria, should it be included? The problem is that most technical works will simply rely on scientific names (and, indeed, many specialists in the pet trade do too), and less technical RS are extremely uncommon because crocodilian keeping is a rather niche hobby - (there's only one printed book on the topic, AFAIK). HCA (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would like to open talks about the last revision you reverted. I acknowledge you have been active in the terrestrial locomotion article. But I will appreciate it if you explain the grounds for reverting that edit. Thank you. Mre env (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because constructal "theory" is fringe at best, useless at worst. No organismal biomechanics researchers ever use it, and the predictions are so vague as to be totally uninformative. HCA (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how familiar you are with publications in Constructal Law and Theory. Have you read the paper ^[3]. On the matter of being called "fringe" it may be a misconception with "new".Mre env (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this non-peer-review paper with no actual experiments, just hand-waving math and a clear ignorance of the basics of biology? Like this sentence "And the force output of the muscles of runners, swimmers and fliers conforms with surprisingly little variation to a value of about 60 newtons per kilogram", which is a) incorrect (muscle force scales with cross-section, not volume), and b) incorrectly assumes that because force per cross-sectional area is constant in vertebrates, it's reflective of a mathematical law, when in reality it can and does vary tremendously (by a factor of more than 10x) in invertebrates and the constancy in vertebrates is likely a developmental constraint (probably lack of paramyosin). The walking section is just as bad - the authors totally ignore elastic energy storage in tendons during walking, a concept which has been around for a good 30+ years at this point, and is known to be a significant factor in cost of transport.

The figure of a bird's CoM during flight is emblematic of the problem - it's a mathematical fiction done to make your calculations easy, as opposed to actually putting real birds in a real wind tunnel and actually measuring the CoM oscillations. That the supposed "calculations" include frequently dropping or approximating terms simply means you can tweak it until you get what you want.

Until the "theory" makes an a-priori prediction with zero data, one that significantly differs from other current theoretical frameworks, and then does an actual experiment, it's not worth talking about. It's all speculation and post-hoc analysis until and unless you can make a falsifiable prediction and test it experimentally. And no, "to within an order of magnitude" is not 'close', it's just plain wrong. If I predict frogs can just 70 feet instead of 7, that's wrong, end of story.

No falsifiable experimental test = not worth discussing. Period. HCA (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I am not familiar with the peer-review process of that periodical. At this point, I respect your assessment for Wikipedia.Mre env (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On List of examples of convergent evolution you thinks not related species looking the same is mimicry, not convergence. The information and ref is from utexas.edu courses on Convergent Evolution, that describes it as Convergent Evolution, not mimicry. If it was only behavior HCA would be correct, but this DNA that give these species the same look. Asking you not to undo edits, with correct ref links.

From http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/Convergence.html The University of Texas at Austin, Convergent Evolution. by Eric R. Pianka

• Eastern coral snake (venomous) and Scarlet King Snake (non-venomous), look alike, yet are not related.ref:

• The Viceroy (butterfly) and Monarch butterfly look very much the same, but are not related.^[4]

Telecine Guy 21:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I guess you saw that I posted a note on JWCornett's page as he'd been adding refs to books by J.W. Cornett on various pages. Do you think these should all be reverted? I ask because he also added facts and cited them from these sources; a bit flaky, but not purely advertising, I think.

BTW you might be interested in the new WikiProject Animal Anatomy. Or maybe not. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I lean towards deleting them all; I doubt this is primary research, so we can find alternative references elsewhere, and the listed "publisher" doesn't even have a website, suggesting it's largely self-published. Additionally, all of the additions I saw were largely excuses to cite the book, which, regardless of the validity of the information, is pretty self-promotional.

I'm already on Animal Anatomy, since it overlaps so much with the Organismal Biomechanics project, though I've not had much time for substantial editing lately. Definitely a good idea - a lot of the anatomical articles are extremely human-centric. HCA (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I checked the website, though: http://naturetrailspress.com/ does exist, and Cornett is not its only author. You're surely right about the primary research, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed stuff promoting him from a couple of articles and I see you have also. You might be interested in the discussion at [3] which led to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mak Yuree. Dougweller (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_body "There's oxygen in a lot of solid stuff in the human body" . You do know the molecule of water? Two hydrogen atoms for every oxygen molecule? So hydrogen would be most of the body with a 2 to 1 ratio.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_water#In_humans . --Mark v1.0 (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go read the second sentence of Composition_of_the_human_body. These values are based on mass, not moles.HCA (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was confused. This image helped me understand. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Two_pie_graphs_about_the_composition_of_the_human_body.png --Mark v1.0 (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello HCA, I noticed you removed my yellow rat snake pic. I didn’t understand the reason why? If you Google “Florida rat snake,” there are several of the same snakes pictured there??? It is a different type, subspecies. I’m no expert on snakes, but I can match my photo with those and tell no difference. Please explain. Thanks! GEOGOZZGEOGOZZ (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your photo is of a Florida yellow rat snake Pantherophis_alleghaniensis, but you put the photo on the page of Spilotes pullatus, the tiger rat snake of South & Central America. HCA (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just wrote a quick fix for the second lead paragraph of muscle contraction. It's posted in Talk:Muscle contraction. Please take a look and let me know what you think. It is not meant to be permanent but a quick fix to the current second lead paragraph. Cheers danielkueh (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you deleted the text "neither ray-finned nor lobe-finned fish" twice? If you're going to delete the text, you ought to at least read the citation, since it backs up the deleted text. It's kind of sloppy to delete the text, but leave the citation in place. (unsigned)

If you read the citation carefully, it does not support the statement I deleted, though it is poorly phrased and not a very good citation. I'll swap it for a more useful citation. HCA (talk) 11:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

for the meaning of extant. didn't know. --Pjacquot (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comment on my article renaming suggestion at Talk:Python regius. I would like to make you aware of the other recent similar move requests that I haved filed, in case you may have valuable comments on those. The currently open ones can be found listed at WP:RMCD, and one that I withdrew can be found at Talk:Vipera palaestinae. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They all look good; the only one I've heard an alternative for is the ball python. HCA (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing them. I will probably submit more of those as time moves forward. I don't want to push too much for non-scientific names, but I have the impression that a lot of the snake articles are using scientific name titles for species that have colloquial names that are much more broadly familiar. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be able to help at Talk:Pantherophis. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really didn't mean to sandbag you with that comment about your previous edit. I just happened to discover it right after your reply on that Talk page. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; my views evolve as evidence does. At the time of that edit, the support for Pantherophis was from a mtDNA study, which isn't ideal for such deep time divisions. There have been subsequent studies with nDNA, but since I no longer work with that genus, I've let my familiarity with the literature slide. HCA (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue that you may be able to help with is discussed at Talk:Gaboon viper#Annoying "venomous viper". —BarrelProof (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HCA, you reverted my addition of some ball python care sheets on the Python Regius page this week. I'm curious why these were rejected as not a "how to" guide while most of the other resources under this section are also care sheets? Thanks! If this wasn't the appropriate way to ask, I apologize, but I didn't know how else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jplehmann (talk • contribs) 11:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, all the care sheets need to go too, I just haven't gotten around to it. HCA (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that sounds like fair and equal treatment. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.37.202.94 (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Rana vs Lithobates". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 21 September 2015.

Hi, I was surprised to find that Insect flight does not have its own article. I note from the article history that Insect flight was redirected to Insect wing back in 2012 (with a bit of an edit-war, it seems). This does seem quite a curious choice - a wing is an anatomical structure which (among other things, like advertising and mechanical protection) supports flight, so the topics are logically separate; and if we're prepared to admit that flight is the primary function, then flight would be the natural parent article. The material on flight is quite long (it was over 27,000 bytes at the time of merge), so it would make complete sense as a separate article, where at present it is a remarkably long and technical subsection, covering the mathematics of aerodynamics which can scarcely be argued to be an aspect of anatomy. All in all, I'd instantly split the section off as its own article, but I'd be curious to know the reasoning for the merge, which does not (at first glance) seem to have been discussed much. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no idea what happened there. Looks like there was a lot of back and forth between various users, and I must've gotten confused and reverted the wrong thing. I've de-reverted now. HCA (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, very good. I'll try to do something sensible to Insect wing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sorry about the mix-up, I can't recall what I was thinking at the time. Or, in the words of the great Professor Farnsworth from Futurama: "You can't expect me to honor what year-ago Professor said! That guy was young and foolish!" ;) HCA (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're all human. Though I do have my doubts about one or two wikignomes! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Rana vs Lithobates, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rana vs Lithobates, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

Er I think you got this wrong. My edit was absolutely fine. It was me who created squatting position in the first place so im not sure why I would vandalise "my" own article.--Penbat (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history shows you made an addition of a ridiculous, pseudoscientific concept. Such laughable nonsense has no place on WP, regardless of whether you made the page or not. HCA (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree and i find it pretty offensive to have an edit done in good faith being treated as vandalism. If you look at a google search on polarity theory you will see that it is active properly organized form of alternative therapy, see for example American Polarity Therapy Association. Stone had degrees in osteopathy, chiropractic and the natural therapies. He developed polarity therapy based on this and published quite a few books on the subject. It is WP:POV for you to decree that it is "laughable nonsense". Would you say the same for homeopathy, magnet therapy, reflexology etc ?--Penbat (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just started doing a bit of digging on "polarity therapy" and this academic paper suggests that polarity therapy helps with cancer-related fatigue.--Penbat (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polarity therapy is at least a step ahead of, for example, homeopathy, magnet therapy, reflexology which as far as I am aware have absolutely no credible academic support at all but still exist on Wikipedia which undermines your "laughable nonsense has no place on WP" stance.--Penbat (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's "alternative therapy"; if it was proven, it wouldn't be "alternative", would it? Your cited study is a mere pilot study, which fails to use double-blind methods, fails to placebo-match, and has a very small sample size. Until and unless you can show me a double-blind, placebo-controlled study with a sample size of several hundred, it's nothing but quackery with no plausible physiological mechanism. Or perhaps direct physical measurements of this "energy" it claims to "balance". You can make it a page elsewhere if you must, but it no more belongs on "squatting" than magic crystals should be featured on the quartz page. It falls firmly under WP:FRINGE, and if you disagree, I'm sure you'll have no problem producing the sorts of evidence I requested above. HCA (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The study I mentioned above was a randomized controlled study. It is most likely impossible to do double-blind trials on polarity therapy as it involves physical manipulation not taking a tablet which can easily be interchanged with a placebo. I have also already mentioned homeopathy, magnet therapy, reflexology which have no known plausible physiological action but that is not entirely the point. Would you call homeopathy, magnet therapy, reflexology WP:FRINGE? What about acupuncture which also has no known plausible physiological mechanism. The scientific support for acupuncture exists for some conditions but is weak, although it is still in many cases used by state health authorities such as the NHS in the UK as treatment. Some UK state NHS GPs refer their patients to homeopaths with public funding. Where exactly do you draw the line with your WP:FRINGE? Including "polarity therapy" in the squatting article makes no claims either way about its effectiveness in general, it is only mentioned in the context of squatting. The cite you have used to state that polarity therapy is quackery is based on one person's opinion based on no cites more recent than 2002. It is not a definitive view. Whether or not something has any known plausible physiological mechanism is not a reason in itself for dismissing something as worthless and unworthy for scientific study, as for example, acupuncture. Polarity therapy is at least considered worthy of scientific study.--Penbat (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, every single one of those is WP:FRINGE, only because there's no official designation of WP:BULLSHIT. Lack of a mechanism is absolutely a reason for dismissal - otherwise I can claim the NIH should give me a grant to study whether cancer patient outcomes can be predicted by observing the motions of turtles 300 miles away. Even if I found a correlation, it's much, much more likely to be a false positive (type 1 error) than real, because of the lack of mechanism. That various "health authorities" have either been suckered by this nonsense or capitulated to their massive lobbying efforts (turns out selling pure water and lies has low overhead and high profits) is irrelevant. And if they can't design a placebo, they aren't trying hard enough - consider just having people do squats, without any energy nonsense, as well as leg presses, to remove the potential effect of light exercise and postural changes. I see no reason your study doesn't simply show the effects of a small bit of exercise.

My criteria for "not fringe" is a) a statistically significant result on a large, double-blind randomized test, preferably shown in repeated studies and subject to meta-analysis to correct for Type 1 & 2 errors and b) a plausible physiological mechanism. My bullshit detector sounds a huge alarm when I see a) claims that some method can cure a huge host of physiologically unrelated ailments (cancer, viral infections, arthritis, depression), b) relies on unknown and largely mystical mechanisms ("energy"/chi, chakras, "water memory"), c) is accompanied by claims of "supression" by "the medical establishment", and/or d) claims to have originated from "ancient traditions" (either directly or because the creator had an epic journey to go learn them). But I'm willing to be proven wrong: see my "not fringe" criteria.

Frankly, the reason I labeled the edit as vandalism is that I'm used to advocates of assorted crackpot theories showing up on various pages to promote or at least increase visibility of their pet delusion, whether that's creationism, Aquatic Ape hypothesis, or alternative medicine. And at the moment, I see no reason polarity therapy does not fall under "crackpot theory". HCA (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your comment, I think you reverted the wrong edit of Boa constrictor. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, my bad! Good catch! HCA (talk) 10:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than just reverting an edit, can I suggest that if you identify a problem you also fix it? You left behind an ambiguous link, where you clearly new what needed to be done. PS: Wavelet analysis is a special case of vector decomposition, but I agree that linking to wavelet analysis (or wavelet transform is better.Klbrain (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your page on Raymond Hoser is nothing more than hate and rubbish. Edits correcting the lies are reversed and your page alleges criminality by Hoser, for which he was cleared more than a year ago. Either delete the page or fix it. We know who you are and you will be outed as a liar if need be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.77.110.195 (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First off, it's not "my" page - I've not added any actual content on the page itself. Second, any addition needs to be sourced. Link to a source and the edit can be made, but that is a basic rule of Wikipedia - no source, no edit. Finally, if you want the page gone, go ahead and start deletion proceedings. I fail to see why you're complaining to me about any of this; all I do is see if the edit has a citation, and roll it back if it doesn't. You may as well blame the tides for ruining a sandcastle. HCA (talk) 11:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you are having hassles making the move request. I tried move requesting an article once before and vowed I would never do it again! Best of luck, and Happy New Year.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up the user you recently warned over the Raymond Hoser page is also vandalising other pages. The Myuchelys page was section blanked and had other edits done. It is not the first time this user (talk) has been warned. The Myuchelys page was protected for 6 months last year because of this persons edits. He has deleted your comments from his talk page, i have added a warning for vandalism. His contributions : 114.77.110.195 also uses 101.170.213.64. It may come to a point where more is needed. Faendalimas ^talk 18:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have one question for you; are there indigo snakes found in North Carolina? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.12.38 (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, if you've seen a large black snake, it's probably a black rat snake. HCA (talk) 03:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the Florida bog frog page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Wood frog page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your work defending the Wiki. I'm having a discussion with an IP on garum and would be glad of your opinion there. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo HCA,

I'm an author of the German wikipedia and have used the great image named Lungs of Protopterus dolloi.JPG (Link) for our article about the notochord.

The file was uploaded by an user named mokele, which seems to be a former name of you.

However, it is a pity that this very useful picture is only available with its English labeling. Are you able to upload a version without labeling or just with numbers? It would fit then so much better into any non-English-wikipedia.

Best wishes, dreisam 18:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreisam (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but I think the unlabeled version must've been lost. It's unfortunately been several hard-drive crashes since I uploaded it, and it must've not been recovered in one. Sorry. HCA (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey HCA!

I see you undid my revisions on Gait Analysis. I understand if you are against chiropractic and OMT, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but if I were to re-include my addition with sources would that constitute a good edit? Just because it is your belief that chiropractic and OMT is a pseudoscience doesn't mean there isn't scientific data about the fundamentals of these practices that have proven results. It's a topic for another time, but chiropractic of the last 20 years is nothing like the docs who have been in practice longer than that. We are very focused on biomechanics and restoring active and passive ranges of motion, and gait analysis is one of the key systems of diagnosis DCs and DOs employ. There are studies that show the positive effects of chiropractic and osteopathic manipulations on the sacro-iliac joints to improve instances of dyskinesia in the pelvis. If I were to include them in a future edit, undoubtedly they should be allowed? In the meantime I have updated the page again. I have included four different studies that show improvement in gait after OMT or adjusting, so certainly these will suffice as good sources that show DCs and DOs utilize gait analysis heavily (regardless of whether or not you agree with them as professions in the first place).

Semmendinger (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I disdain chiropractic, the current edits are acceptable. Just be sure, however, that edits conform to WP:NPOV and avoid WP:UNDUE. HCA (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I will be sure to remember this in the future - thank you. Semmendinger (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HCA, I noticed that you deleted a posting from an IP address at Talk:Wing. We both recognize how inappropriate both the form an content of that posting was for a talk page. However, I wonder whether deleting it was appropriate. I would have chosen to respond to it, explaining the rules of Wikipedia. Your thoughts? I'll watch this page. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 21:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, you can restore and reply if you want. I just don't have time to deal with creationist nonsense, especially knowing that they never listen. HCA (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HCA,

I'm curious why you reverted the TaxonBar from the Coelacanth page? I think having the links to standard taxonomic identifiers is useful for linking observations about species together. I recognize that adding taxonomic identifiers to all species pages has been mildly controversial, but my impression is that adding the TaxonBar to species pages on case by case basis is acceptable. For example, Arabidopsis thaliana has it. Best, Momeara (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, it got caught in the revert of an unexplained reference deletion. HCA (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is in response to a reversion you made in the wiki article about birds hovering.

Video of a white tailed kite performing at a show, hovering in still air during a demonstration, despite the relatively heavy tether attached to it's legs (the demonstration starts at 1:10 into the video):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnbndA0Rjfg

I live in southern California and fly radio control gliders as a hobby. One of the locations I visit is Kite Hill, the location and nearby community named after the white tailed Kite. I have personally witnessed a Kite hovering against a slight tailwind (so technically hovering and flying backwards) for over 20 seconds. Normally the wind comes from the south, blowing up the hill, but in this case, the wind was coming from the north due to a "Santa Ana" condition. I assume that Kite was used to being oriented downhill, despite the tailwind condition. In near zero wind conditions, I've seen Kites hover for over 30 seconds.

I've also seen Osprey's at nearby Laguna Beach, also hovering in near zero wind conditions (no perceptible cross wind or updraft), but they normally only hover for a few seconds before diving. Unlike a Kite, the Ospreys apparently sight fish near the ocean surface during normal flight or partial hover, and my guess is they hover only long enough to get a fix on the fish and setup a dive. It appears they could hover for longer, as they have more than enough energy to dive underwater, use their wings to resurface out of the water and either fly away with a fish or fly back to their hunting altitude which is around 80 feet at this particular location.

In both cases, but more impressive with the Kites due to their longer hover times is that since they target a ground object during a hover, they remain nearly motionless relative to the ground despite any wind. Rcgldr (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:Chiswick Chap and I will be working on Lizard for GA sometime soon. Would you like to join? We could use someone with experience in reptiles. LittleJerry (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can try to help out. I'm crazy busy as usual, but I'll chip in when and where I can. Remind me if I forget, and I'll see about adding some information on locomotion. HCA (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just so you know, I plan on writing about their ecology, social behavior and communication. LittleJerry (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Alex Shih^Talk 00:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to add: I understand why you corrected my edit. At first I was very confused about that piece of information on the BCI page.

TIA Crystalbamg (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm working on a whole lot of evolution articles (and trying to get the more important ones to Good Article status, quite tricky with the historical ones as hardly anyone wants to review them). Flying and gliding animals is potentially quite an important article — you stated that "The evolution of flight is one of the most striking and demanding in animal evolution, and has attracted the attention of many prominent scientists and generated many theories", and added that they fossilize poorly and infrequently. I'd like to improve the referencing for the article, and wondered if you could suggest suitable sources, for instance for the Evolution and ecology and Biomechanics sections? It would be much appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For more accessible sources, http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/enter.html is a good overview. For more detailed sources and papers, http://hs.umt.edu/dbs/flightlab/default.php https://berkeleyflightlab.org/ http://combeslab.ucdavis.edu/ and http://www.brown.edu/Departments/EEB/EML/ are all excellent. HCA (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind a comment here, but I've just read that article again and I felt the need to share my conclusion with someone - it's complete and utter bullshit from start to finish, isn't it? I can see why there might have been very little academic critique of it - because most people probably consider it as just too stupid to spend valuable time on. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It's vague to the point of being Rorschach Test, overgeneralizes an occasional phenomenon to universality, has no clear predictions (beyond "increases"), has never been rigorously put through falsification tests, and makes asinine assumptions about "optimization" and "continual progress" about biological evolution. I first encountered it a decade ago, back when I was an MS student, and it smelled like horseshit even then. HCA (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or is the following self-contradictory?

"The lightning bolts that flash across the sky generate a tree-like structure because this is a good design for moving a current (electricity) from an area (the cloud) to a point (a church steeple or another cloud). The circulatory and nervous systems of biological creatures generate a similar tree-like design because they too are moving currents from a point to an area and from an area to a point."

For the analogy to hold, a lightning bolt would surely need to start in a dispersed pattern in the cloud and converge on to the point at the church steeple - ie upside down from the way it actually is. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So from what I've read, there's actually some real physical basis - in systems where flow rate is modulated by some resistance to flow, spontaneous patterns will generally follow the path of least resistance, whether electrical current or fluid flow, and will often "prune" or "redirect" automatically when lower-resistance paths become available. That much is uncontroversial. The problem is proclaiming this as a "universal law of nature" rather than just an interesting property of some systems, and over-enthusiastically applying to biology based on false assumptions about how evolution works. HCA (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and his "universal" law often suggests the opposite to what actually happens. If biology was compelled to follow the path of least resistance by a law of physics, the giraffe wouldn't have such an apparently silly laryngeal nerve. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that the "constructal law" can even be formulated as an engineering principle, it apparently doesn't work. XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, thanks for the link! HCA (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, came across your user page because of a discussion on an RM which made me want to check out the user page of what I perceived as an intelligent writer who really "gets" Wikipedia's accomplishments and goals. What I found was someone who has written and contributed a large amount of excellent pages on topics in your knowledge area. Thank you, nice work. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I try to do what I can, given my time limitations. HCA (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added a citation needed for the specific statement that, prior to 2013 DNA testing, coelacanths were believed to be transitional between fish and land animals (i.e. tetrapods), and removed the citation needed for the less specific statement coelacanths were believed to be transitional at some point in the past. This change was reverted. Why does the more specific (dated) statement in the DNA section not require a citation, but the less specific statement require one? If the specific statement about “prior to 2013” had a citation, we would not need another citation saying that coelacanths were once considered transitional. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coelacanth&type=revision&diff=818436729&oldid=818346377 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:252:D44:78F:60D4:1C6E:ADE0:3AA5 (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, this edit was technically not made in good faith, as the IP is in a range being (ab)used by an IP-hopping vandal who editwars by inserting and reinserting erroneous data into articles, and appears to be wholly uninterested in discussing anything, to the point where the vandal may have reading comprehension problems.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Regardless, I'm hoping the edit summary will actually prompt some discussion about a more cohesive revision of the species status. HCA (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you win. I chose those colors for a reason. I don't like jarring contrasts. I will get to the changes soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemonsqueezey (talk • contribs) 15:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, HCA. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Organismal Biomechanics articles with anthropocentrism requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Organismal Biomechanics articles needing attention requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Organismal Biomechanics articles needing photos requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Forcevelocity 2.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused graph, lowish-resolution, unclear encyclopedic use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]