Talk:Red-necked falcon

message: Look, Yamla, whomever you may be, you're REALLY starting to press my nerves.  I AM the authoritative source on this bird, have spent more time with them in the wild than anyone else alive.  YOUR edit is the inappropriate part, and we're about to get ugly.
Is this place about giving the world the information, or some egotist like you (who probably never had a falcon on his hand in his life) telling me about my specialty?
:Please reread WP:CITE and WP:V.  Also, WP:NOT.  Original research from the accepted authoritative source on a subject is nevertheless inappropriate for the Wikipedia.  --Yamla 21:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet again, I direct you to WP:NOR which covers this in great detail.  If you believe that original research should be accepted into Wikipedia articles, you are welcome to try to change this, one of our core policies.  However, this particular article is not the right venue.  Once you have built consensus to change the policy, then you can add your original research here.  --Yamla 21:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I wonder if those who research this bird at some future date will be pleased or annoyed by your vigil.  My guess is that they'll be frustrated by that they could have gotten first-hand info from a master falconer who trapped them and manned them and took close-up pictures, but they were denied that opportunity by a zealot and a policy that is penny-wise and pound-foolish.
This is in the Discussion page, so I'm assuming I can't be sanctioned for the expression. --JT 07:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Yamla was absolutely right in this case; if editors are allowed to put original research in articles, anybody could put in absolutely anything they like (including complete rubbish) without having to prove that what they say is correct.  (And yes, I know this happens everyday on Wikipedia; that's my point.)  This is certainly not to say that what Falc added was rubbish; he may indeed be a very authoritative source (anonymity means we can't know for sure).  If so, he should publish some of that knowledge somewhere (other than Wikipedia) so the rest of us could have access to it, and could cite it here—thereby improving the article as he wanted to do! MeegsC | Talk 11:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think WP:OWN is also a policy to be carefully read. A world authority has no more right to assert control of an article than a newbie. Publish if you want to assert verifiability. Jimfbleak 15:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further info on the subject 

message: and this pathetic stub continues to cite inaccurate nonsense because your inane rules preclude knowledge and fact. 
The birds I brought back have now been alive and producing young for 3 years.  Where are your higher authorities?  What makes some publishing house being willing to invest in a book (or a paper being published) any more valid or accurate?  The FACTS disagree with information in here.  That's first-position proof that YOUR version of this doesn't work.  But you don't need that much to realize that Academia often has its head too far up in the clouds to see reality. JT (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time goes by... 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Redneckedfalcon8nd.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion