| Revision as of 02:56, 5 March 2014 editCYl7EPTEMA777 (talk | contribs)463 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:19, 5 March 2014 edit undoDbrodbeck (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,171 edits →Talking bird (cognition)Next edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| *'''Delete''' consensus was very clearly that a single article is sufficient. ] was asked to clean up their draft of the article before it was considered for moving to the mainspace, as it did not contain substantial independent or coherent material. However, they failed to prove that such content could be provided. ] just "parrots" ]. ~ ] []] 02:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' consensus was very clearly that a single article is sufficient. ] was asked to clean up their draft of the article before it was considered for moving to the mainspace, as it did not contain substantial independent or coherent material. However, they failed to prove that such content could be provided. ] just "parrots" ]. ~ ] []] 02:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::Articles about theory not deleted,but this not theory and this proved so hard that nobody could criticize (but even articles about theory not deleted),content deleted DogCrissy and likely you his accounts,this flood and already not trolling and just very terrible speciesism-- ] (]) 02:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC) | ::Articles about theory not deleted,but this not theory and this proved so hard that nobody could criticize (but even articles about theory not deleted),content deleted DogCrissy and likely you his accounts,this flood and already not trolling and just very terrible speciesism-- ] (]) 02:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::It also might be the case that people had no idea what you meant. Your English, as demonstrated here, is not that easy to understand. I have no idea what 'DogCrissy and likely you his accounts' for example, even means. ] (]) 03:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:19, 5 March 2014
Talking bird (cognition)
- Talking bird (cognition) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article can simply have its content merged with Talking bird (mimic). There is no need for a separate article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- If you take a look at {https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Talking_bird_(mimic)#mimic_vs_utter_in_lead_sentence} I think you will see that Talking bird (cognition) is a WP:POVFORK. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete consensus was very clearly that a single article is sufficient. User:CYl7EPTEMA777 was asked to clean up their draft of the article before it was considered for moving to the mainspace, as it did not contain substantial independent or coherent material. However, they failed to prove that such content could be provided. Talking bird (cognition) just "parrots" Talking bird (mimic). ~ Boomur 02:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Articles about theory not deleted,but this not theory and this proved so hard that nobody could criticize (but even articles about theory not deleted),content deleted DogCrissy and likely you his accounts,this flood and already not trolling and just very terrible speciesism-- CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- It also might be the case that people had no idea what you meant. Your English, as demonstrated here, is not that easy to understand. I have no idea what 'DogCrissy and likely you his accounts' for example, even means. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Articles about theory not deleted,but this not theory and this proved so hard that nobody could criticize (but even articles about theory not deleted),content deleted DogCrissy and likely you his accounts,this flood and already not trolling and just very terrible speciesism-- CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)