I saw the article that you posted on the Japanese Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the wording is a mess, and I could not understand your Japanese. When you created it, did you use machine translation? The quality of machine translations is usually very poor, and machine translations to Japanese are almost never useful. If you post articles with machine-translated Japanese to the Japanese Wikipedia, most of your translations will be deleted. They will still be deleted even if you post them many times. Please stop posting machine translations here.
When translating articles for the Japanese Wikipedia, you must also be careful to obey Wikipedia's content license, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA 3.0). To fulfil this license, you must include the name of the original article and the timestamp of the revision that you are translating from in the edit summary box (the small white box underneath the edit window). If you don't do this, your article will be deleted.
If you continue to post machine translations, you will be blocked from editing. If you want to post in Japanese to the Japanese Wikipedia, please find a native Japanese speaker, or someone with near-native Japanese ability.
Please stop being so rude. What exactly is the problem? I do not add prolix prose as you may have noticed, usually just (well-sourced) nomenclature, conservation status etc. Please be more specific. Which edits could you not understand? Which articles? Have you read Phaedrus? Laniger ring any bells? And don't worry, I don't post any of your accusatory machine translations, or particularly use such things. Would you rather the bird lists etc were incomplete? Rather than having another user add IOC-endorsed 英名•和名•学名？ Why such animosity? Is everything ok? I could start flagging issues with your edits - talk about pot calling the kettle black - but it might be better to collaborate constructively as it seems we share an interest in this area? --Maculosae tegmine lyncis（会話） 2021年5月12日 (水) 17:45 (UTC)[返信]
次にIOC World Bird ListのMultilingual Versionですが、出典は確認されていますか？日本語の出典10個のうちCheck-List of Japanese Birds, 7th Revised Edition（日本鳥類目録 改訂第7版）および学術誌に掲載された3論文（フクロウ目・アホウドリ類の和名に関する試案＜2004年に日本に分布するアホウドリ類をキタアホウドリ属とすることを提唱したが、少なくとも2012年の日本鳥類目録 改訂第7版では採用されなかった＞・メボソムシクイ種群）の計4点を除けば、残り6点は「専門家のものですらないものを含む個人サイト」が出典となっています（例: oosato.org/cgi-bin/jpn2spccgi のリストは 別の出典である www.eonet.ne.jp/~saezuri/ から引用したと記述している。後者のリスト作成者は自分たちを鳥類の専門家ではないとしているetc…）何を出典としたのかほぼ明記されておらず、また新称を含む（新和名を提唱）という記述すらあります。端的に言えば日本に分布しない・フクロウ目ではない鳥類の和名を除いて、信頼できるものではありません。また出典としている日本鳥類目録 改訂第7版および論文は既に日本語版において個々に出典を明記したうえで用いている、わざわざ信頼性の低くなるMultilingual Versionを用いる意義がありません。もっとも日本鳥類目録 改訂第7版の分類とて、近年の分類と比較すればだいぶ古いもの（IOC World Bird List v3.1）なのでそのまま活用できないものも多いですが。Multilingual Versionの他言語（ハンガリー語・フランス語・ポルトガル語）においてはWikipediaを出典にしたと記述しているものもあるので、このようなものを利用するわけにはいかないでしょう（Multilingual Versionの出典が、Wikipedia:信頼できる情報源のオンラインや自己公表された情報源の利用などに抵触する）。
なお亜種から独立種となったものに対し亜種の和名を根拠なく種の和名とする編集も繰り返していらっしゃいますが、独立種となった場合に和名が変更になる例も多くありますのでおやめください（例:Meles meles anakuma亜種ニホンアナグマ→Meles anakumaアナグマ、Gorilla gorillaゴリラ G. g. beringeiマウンテンゴリラ G. g. gorillaニシローランドゴリラ G. g graueriヒガシローランドゴリラ→G. beringeiヒガシゴリラ・G. gorillaニシゴリラなど）
@Maculosae tegmine lyncis At least, Jobling does not support your statement and was superfluous. I suppose you had to cite only Uchida & Shimazaki (1987). --Eryk Kij（会話） 2021年6月7日 (月) 18:45 (UTC)[返信]
Hello, thank you, but no, that is far from the case. The Key to Scientific Names/Jobling is not superfluous because (a) it is an online source, and so available to and accessible by all; and (b) it gives the Greek terms δεινός and ὤψ, which is the key bit of information. I then linked these to the relevant Wiktionary pages, so that readers could see for themselves the range of meanings that, as you know, words have. Sympathetic strings etc. The Japanese is potentially superfluous, but perhaps useful for those who don't remember their English from school... The Uchida & Shimazaki is perhaps the locus classicus for etymological interpretations by Japanese scholars, but can be tendentious. Provision of both - or perhaps also the Jobling hard copy, for the benefits of fixity - is the most secure, helpful, and informative. Anyway, have some really promising-sounding 学名・和名・英名 dictionaries, promising tens of thousands of bird & mammal taxon names, on order from kosho, so back soon, Maculosae tegmine lyncis（会話） 2021年6月7日 (月) 20:18 (UTC)[返信]
@Maculosae tegmine lyncis Thank you very much, now I understand what you meant at least on this topic. At least in jawp, citation of a source that does not directly refer to what we want to write should be avoided, since many of us (users active in jawp) tend to regard such an act as deceit. If there are two sources and they explains differently from one another, we have to clarify strictly who supports what. In this case, the following way seems to be the best solution:
Unfortunately, I cannot currently check Uchida & Shimazaki, so please replace the above "(...)" with the etymology they actually interpret. --Eryk Kij（会話） 2021年6月8日 (火) 06:23 (UTC)[返信]
(If you think a policy to have an etymology section in taxon articles is possible, then much fuller accounts including all kinds of textual amendation would be possible...) --Maculosae tegmine lyncis（会話） 2021年6月8日 (火) 07:17 (UTC)[返信]
こんにちは。テスト投稿を拝見しました。残念ながら、通常のページでのテストは、差し戻しまたは削除されます。テスト専用ページWikipedia:サンドボックスの使用をおすすめします。このほか便利な機能をいろいろ紹介するガイドブックもご参照ください。
荒らし行為はやめてください。
