You have been taking numerous listed references, which were used in writing articles, and lumping them under external links headers. I just wanteed to mention that there -is- a difference between something used as a reference and something that is merely an external link for further reading. Not all references need have a direct footnote attached for them to be a valid listing. - Dawson 16:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah.. I see you have corrected my edits with regard to the sensitivity of the pit organs... obviously my source was one of the ones that mis-quoted your more original source ...... I guess thinking about it, 0.003 centigrade differential sensitivity would be rather over the top and produce too much 'noise' in the system to be useful to the snake. It would be interesting to compare the pit viper organs with those of the Boidae which I believe are along the jaw line. regards Doctorpete 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you did a fine job with Crotalus tortugensis. I like to see at least something under 'external links' so that a user has some other site to look at; besides, I wanted to show that a picture was available because none was on the Wikipedia page. Thanks, Stepp-Wulf 02:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
Good work on these articles. I disagree with the styling, which in my opinion violates WP:MOS, but I will leave it. Good work. Aquarius • talk 01:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to improve the flow of the disputed passage. I think you've done a very good job on the article so far, which is why I approved it as a good article. I don't want this dispute to turn sour. My view is given in full on the talk page, and in the absence of further independently verifiable evidence from reliable sources, will not change. Can we put this to rest? Regards, Samsara ( talk • contribs) 13:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your last edit to this particular article, it sounds like you and Jschowin may be more familiar with this subject than I am. However, what you claim to be the case is somewhat at odds with the cited reference. Nevertheless, I'd be more than willing to leave your edit uncontested as long as you supply a clear reference: a book, an article in a journal or even a web page. But, please don't leave it like it is now: so many Wikipedia article contain inaccuracies because people do not cite their sources. Besides, the way things stand now, it looks like we're saying the cited reference says something that is does not. -- Jwinius 17:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
A little cheeky putting some dummy edits in the antivenom page, guess that will stop me from moving it back anytime soon. Its a tricky situation but most places are now using antivenom (might take a while for the dictionaries to catch up), even the Americans appear to be using it more and more now, i.e. you changed The Miami-Dade Fire Rescue Antivenom Bank to antivenin whereas its correct name is actually antivenom [1], Cheers Mr Bungle | talk 23:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you please help review the article for its FAC? Also, I'd also like help expanding the lead section, seeing that you are an active member in WP:AAR. bibliomaniac 15 BUY NOW! 03:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
and |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help)" -- which will give you a reference for your taxonomy. Hope this helps! --
Jwinius
10:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Thank you for your help. I shall see what I can do to fix it up. bibliomaniac 15 BUY NOW! 01:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I have a reference. It's an article from a Mormon magazine. Here --> http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/000609serpent.html As for the chest height thing, I swore I read that somewhere. Just remove it. I'll re-add it if I ever find a believable reference, which as you said is unlikely. Abyssal leviathin 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi I used a Smithsonian Ins. Book my friends making up the citation when he gets a chance. I know you can't just go around putting w/e up. Im curently in school to become a zoologist. When its up ill send you a message.
The article has made it GA. I would like to thank you for your support right from its inception till its GA review. Thanks. Your contribution equals mine. Regards, AshLin 22:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The Amphibians and Reptiles Portal I'm glad to announce that The Amphibians and reptiles portal ( P:AAR) has been created and is ready for you to use. This portal covers any subjects related to amphibians, reptiles, herpetology, as well as WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. Purposes of the portal
Thank you for reading. If you have any questions, please leave them on the portal talk page or my user talk page. -- Melanochromis |
-- Melanochromis 06:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jaap,
This snake and I live in the same part of the world. We know it as the Bamboo Pit Viper. I can give you the oldest and newest references I have and they too list this name and no other:
The same common name is used in Romulus Whitaker's Book and JC Daniel's books which are at my home in Pune. I have never heard of the common names mentioned here. I suggest that these may be removed and 'Bamboo Pit Viper' placed in lieu. Logically a common name should be in actual use to be mentioned and this particular spp of Trimeresurus is found only in peninsular India. So an international author quoting a supposed common name holds less water than the local lists and references. AshLin 05:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a nice picture. Thanks, AshLin! However, I do have some news for you on this topic. It seems that many recent publications now prefer to use the term "pitviper" as opposed to "pit viper." If this turns out to have become a trend within the herpetological community, then I guess we ought to follow suite or give priority to those names whenever possible, i.e. "bamboo pitviper" over "bamboo pit viper" (if we have references for both) and to use "pitviper" in the text instead of "pit viper." -- Jwinius 14:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that on 8 July 2007 you removed the wlinks from the authors on the synonyms in the taxobox in the article Agkistrodon contortrix. What is the reasoning behind that? -- Bejnar 17:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jaap,
Nothing at all. I just felt in the opening statement about a species, its common handle may be used for better presentability. This does not affect the fact that there are other common names. As per WP:MOS the opening para is supposed to summarise the article. So including the prominent common name in the first line is not something objectionable. In most articles, you would find the common name figuring in the opening line. So whats wrong with that here?
As far as giving equal treatment for all names is concerned, is there some kind of inequality here if we use the commoner one? I've informed you about the actual practice on ground in the country it occurs. I've also given you just two of possibly many references. I've never heard of the other names at all - so how can they be common? I agree that I may not have heard about them - I have not edited them out or taken any action at all towards them. They continue to figure in your common name list.
Is it your contention that all the common names deserve equal weightage? That would be true if we had no way to see the ground situation. Since I've given you a feedback (with references) about the situation in India about Indian snakes, surely there is some weightage to that! Well, Daboia russeli is found in other countries but I thought that Russell's Viper would be the common epithet in all countries.
If you feel so strongly, go ahead and revert the edits, but I do not see where I have gone wrong. BTW my main motive was to improve the readability, so even if some other english name is used, the aim is still achieved. However I believe that the common names I placed in the opening sentances for Daboia russeli and Trimeresurus gramineus represent in reality the commonest and most widely used names so I placed them in the opening sentance: in other words - it was a good faith edit to make the opening sentance better, which I felt I was entitled to as an editor. If you disagree please revert - I will not contest the point.
Well, as far as my overall work towards snakes is concerned, I would love to do more but I've got two killing projects on hand the 1000+ spp of Indian butterflies and 10,000+ spp of Indian moths - so I edit on snakes very occassionally mostly to place images I have - I sorrow over the state of Indian Cobra and many other articles, but I'm fully focussed on Lepidoptera at the moment.
In good faith, AshLin 17:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi -- is there a reason for placing a disambiguation page in a Category? For instance you placed the Congo disambiguation page in Category:American pit vipers by common name. I thought a disambiguation page was supposed to hold no content and to just be a pointer to the content, which implies that such a page shouldn't be in a category. Wouldn't it be better to have an article called 'List of American pit vipers by common name' which has entries such as:
linking to the articles under the scientific name? I removed the category from the Congo disambig page thinking someone must have accidentally pasted the category into the wrong page, and then I thought, perhaps it was deliberate and I've upset an accepted practice I'm not aware of? Regards, Rexparry sydney 04:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know much about templates - they came on board after I became an administrator, and I haven't caught up. - DavidWBrooks 20:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with the step you took at adder of removing most of its content and merging it with adder (disambiguation). Now adder is a hybrid article/disambiguation page, which is out of keeping with the Manual of Style.
I would, however, agree with moving adder (disambiguation) to adder and what was at adder to adder (snake). Would you endorse that approach?-- Father Goose 22:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jaap,
Please look at [ [2]]. Perhaps your inputs required here!
Regards, AshLin 03:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
How would you recommend reconciling Category:Vipers and Category:Viperidae? Yet another Polbot category ... -- Prove It (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your revert, I would like to note that the formatting adds little of value to the reader and just clutters the appearance of the page. Furthermore, listing the common names in that floating space above the body of the article seems simply odd to me. I might also point out that it is marginally uncivil to revert a good faith edit without discussion. Please endeavour to exercise a greater collaborative spirit in the future. Chromaticity 16:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thought you might be interested in this... -- Prove It (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Lycodon jara, a pet of mine, has its genus missing from your List of snakes. Please post me details of the tragedy :-( . Regards, AshLin 17:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Family | SSotWv1 | No. of ITIS genera | No. of NRDB genera |
---|---|---|---|
Acrochordidae | Y | 1 | 1 |
Aniliidae | Y | 1 | 1 |
Anomochilidae | Y | 1 | 1 |
Atractaspididae | N | 12 | 12 |
Boidae | Y | 8 | 19 |
Bolyeriidae | Y | 2 | 2 |
Colubridae | N | 175 | 304 |
Cylindrophiidae | Y | 1 | 1 |
Elapidae | N | 61 | 60 |
Loxocemidae | Y | 1 | 1 |
Pythonidae | Y | 8 | - |
Tropidophiidae | Y | 4 | 5 |
Uropeltidae | Y | 8 | 8 |
Viperidae | Y | 32 | 36 |
Xenopeltidae | Y | 1 | 1 |
Anomalepididae | Y | 2 | 4 |
Leptotyphlopidae | Y | 4 | 2 |
Typhlopidae | Y | 6 | 6 |
Total | 328 | 464 |
Hi Jaap,
Check out the images. Whats the things under the anal scale visible in the rat snake image.
Regards, AshLin 13:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jaap,
We're in commonwealth territory with Echis carinatus so British English spelling applies here. The spellings glare out at me for correction! As Wikipedia policies articles about things in British English regions should be in that form. Please comment. Regards, AshLin 15:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jaap,
I've some material for lizard scales, but enough for a stub only. Crocodilians also would have some material forthcoming. Don't know about testudines. So should we have reptile scales or scales for each group?
Regards, AshLin 15:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
(cont'd orig. conv. on Derek.cashman's talk page)
Ok! Shrumster 15:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, tried out your snakeskin here. Any suggestions? AshLin 19:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This is covered in wikipedia's guideline for citing sources ( WP:CITE), which covers the general formatting for the individual citations, as well as where to put them and what to name that section. There's no real set rule, but most articles that I have found either put sources in a section called 'references' or 'notes' (for 'footnotes'), though I prefer simply calling them 'references', as it's the format that I've used in scientific papers that I've published in the past. In my experience, footnotes are used in some journals and publications to put short lists of references at the bottom of each printed page, and then the references would be listed in alphabetical order at the end of the article. This, IMHO, doesn't seem to apply to wikipedia, since it's not a printed page, but a single web page; individual printed pages are irrelevant, and a single list of citations at the end is sufficient. But I've noticed that there are some that like to hang on to their precious footnotes (usually, the wikipedians that tend to be in the english/"grammar nazi" crowd), so I generally don't complain at those that do. I've found articles to be split almost 50/50 between the 'references' and 'notes' formats.
Regarding making a large number of repetitive changes, I would recommend looking into using AutoWikiBrowser, which is a semi-automated wikipedia editor that makes a lot of these repetitive tasks a lot easier. Cheers! Dr. Cash 17:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree strongly with your decision to reclassify the three species of short-tailed python back to subspecies of Python curtus. I did check out the ITIS pages, but I have it on the authority of one David Barker (renowned herpetologist and blood python breeder) that they were elevated to full species status in 2001, and I have a reference for his article and I believe I added one or at least an external link for his and his wife's site. A growing number of professional and amateur herpetoculturists, myself included, also classify each snake as a full species. Also, yes, I'm absolutely sure the picture I submitted of a red blood python is a brongersmai rather than a red curtus. Curtus is black or very dark brown, hence the common name "black blood python." 68.119.40.31 20:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Inthesun
Hi Jwinius,
I'm glad you like the formatting, and am impressed at the large amount of articles you formatted. I'm sorry I couldn't have helped more.
One way we could solve the disambiguation-link problem is similar to the way the article 307 it is formatted where it just adds more on the same line:
Only in your example Pythonidae it would look like this:
but that way the common names might not be noticed by some readers, even with the bold format.
We could place the common names first like this:
I have also seen situations where it takes more than two lines like this (slightly different from the one in the page history):
although it still could look a little awkward. Also, I'm sorry about the delay in replying. I haven't had Internet access recently. Happy editing, Tim Q. Wells 05:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I do like how you admit you violate official policy when you name articles. However, I don't like that you single-handedly decided to move several pre-existing articles to their scientific names, without so much as a post for a proper discussion.
If you want to affect WP Policy, do so through the proper channels. Making wide-spread changes, without discussion AND in violation of official policy is bullying your position, not arguing it. Jhall1468 03:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Reverting good faith edits without discussion is poor form. I'm using a layout similar to that of the Cane Toad and other WP:AAR articles that have become featured articles. It may be frustrating to have to revert 350 snake articles, but the issue at hand isn't about ease of edits, but proper form. The article that you reverted was a good faith edit, and more importantly, removed your violations of WP:LEAD. Again, your enthusiasm is great, but you can't run around making controversial modifications to articles, often in violation of standing policies, and then revert them when someone brings them back into proper policy. Jhall1468 16:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
You're very perceptive. Do I feel lonely sometimes? You bet. In situations like these, misunderstood and underappreciated too. But, one learns. Regarding the scientific name conflicts, that's an easy one to solve: agree to use a single taxonomy first (see this AAR discussion from last year). Without that decision, the situation can be pretty hopeless. We (I) selected the ITIS taxonomy for snakes and was backed up by a professional herpetologist ( User:Dfcisneros). ITIS may be conservative, but it's the most authoritative taxonomic source for snakes there is (just right for WP). Now I can always defer to their authority and the arguments disappear (e.g. #Blood python articles). If I spot any obvious errors or omissions in the ITIS online database, I contact them about it and eventually things get fixed. Only then do I change the WP articles. Cheers! -- Jwinius 02:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You added: Known only from the type locality on the island of Trinidad, although it is known from many locations on the island of Tobago to the T. trinitatus article. This seems to contradict itself - either it is known only from the type locality, or it isn't. Guettarda 05:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Please be polite on talk pages and avoid criticizing users personally. It might be appropriate to take a short break from Python regius and let everyone's emotions settle down; this one article isn't worth this much grief.
You don't appear to be a big fan of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, so I have a suggestion. How about making a WikiProject Snakes as a daughter project to WP:AAR? I know this would be a lot of work, but I'm willing to help out. People do a lot of pointing at guidelines, so instead of saying on your talk page that you have your own way of doing things, it might be easier to simply create a project that has its own way of doing things. Personally, I'm pretty sure that very, very few snakes have one single English common name, so I'd be willing to agree that the snake species articles should all be at their scientific names. One reason I'm suggesting this is that the snake editors specifically seem to agree with you that scientific names are better, but, of course, this approach could backfire and lots of pro-common name editors could populate a WikiProject Snakes. Enuja (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jaap,
Can I request some input from your software for drawing synonyms.
My requests are basically for snake articles I have illustrated, to which I proposed to add the snakeskin as I move along :-
I have recently got a copy of Whitaker & Captain, and my collection now stands as follows :-
Some great news. Malcom Smith, being pre-independence, has crown copyright rescinded to PD. User:Shyamal confirmed this by email from HMSO (I think). So I'll be able to add line-diagrams of the scale pattern of a large number of snakes. He's done a monumental work on snakes of India, Southeast Asia and China in that volume.
Oh, another request, would it be possible to get your hands on a PDF of Wüster's new genome based recharacterising of Naja naja into many distinct species?
Best wishes
Regaeds, AshLin 04:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
just thought I would let you know that the requested pagemove resulted in no consensus:
Talk:Python_regius#Requested move.
Tim Q. Wells
01:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there,
You really ought to be more communicative. Again, your latest edits lack proper references.
Ok, if you think so, then just delete thing I posted!
In particular, where did you get the names "white-lipped python" and "D'Albertis' python" from,...
These are standard common names that are used for ages now! Lots of things in the article are without proper references and actually nobody cared about it yet!
...and why is it false to refer to it as "D'Albert's water python"?
It's quite simple. The name was in honor of D'Albertis and not D'Alberts. The ICZN requires an additional "i" for latanisation of the name, and therefore the common name is also D'Albertis python and not D'Alberts python!
We have a reference for that name, so how can it be false?
Well, perhaps you think every reference is correct, it is not! Sometimes people, even scientists use wrong names or omit valid names and so on.
If the name is simply misleading, explain that in a new Common names section, kind of like in this article.
That's what I thought I did!
Furthermore, who says its occurrence on Normanby Island is dubious? McDiarmid et al. (1999) don't think so.
Roy McDiarmid and the other authors had lots to do with the book. They can not cross-check every reference for each species or synonym anyway. McDowell (1975) stated to assign Bara Bara to the Normanby Island, which is, in fact not true. It's a town on the mainland and the two references given support that as well (apart form Google earth)...
Or are these your own conclusions after reading Boulenger (1898) and Koopmans (1982)? -- Jwinius 18:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
However, I get fed up with this now. By the way, I have a systematic revision of the genus passing the peer-review process, and there will be lots more to write about this genus and the species described in future...
Cheers, Wulf --unsigned: Wuschl ( talk) 21:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
For my original posts regarding this issue, see User talk:Wuschl#Leiopython -- Jwinius ( talk) 14:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Fauna Barnstar | |
To recognise your unique contribution in creating a pocket of excellence in Wikipedia, specifically, wikis about Viperidae. Thank you for setting such high standards and quality of work.
AshLin (
talk)
13:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
|
Thanks, guys. I had never attached much value to these barnstar things, but what makes all the difference is the people who give it to you. I am honored. -- Jwinius ( talk) 20:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
See User:EncycloPetey, he has a dashboard of plants on his user page with neat little buttons telling whether the article is stub/start etc. Thought it a very good idea. For info please!
AshLin ( talk) 14:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jaap,
We need a taxonomy section as a major step in rounding off this wiki. Could I request you to consider this task?
AshLin (
talk)
12:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dysmorodrepanis! I'm sure you mean well, but what is the purpose of the vague references to "PacificScience61:36" that you recently added to Vipera ammodytes, Trimeresurus and Bothrops atrox? It looks like a reference to a scientific journal; have you found some interesting articles in it? (PS -- Please answer here, as I've temporarily added your talk page to my watchlist). -- Jwinius ( talk) 11:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a paper about introduced Small Indian Mongoose ( Herpestes javanicus auropunctatus). These snakes are mentioned more briefly. It says:
In 1910, the small Indian mongoose was introduced to three Croatian islands to control the horned viper ( Vipera ammodytes). In the same year, it was also introduced to Okinawa to control the habu pit viper ( Trimeresurus flavoviridis). The effects of these two introductions on the local snake populations have not been studied.
The small Indian mongoose was introduced to Martinique and St. Lucia (dates of introduction unknown) to control the fer-de-lance ( Bothrops atrox), a venomous species of pit viper (de Vos et al. 1956). Some authors blame (or credit) the mongoose with the extirpation of this snake on those islands (Barbour 1930, Nellis 1989), but it is uncertain whether mongooses actually attack these snakes in the wild. Hinton and Dunn (1967) stated that mongooses are commonly killed by the fer-delance in ‘‘fighting pit’’ shows, but Nellis and Everard (1983) believed that the mongoose usually wins.
References are:
Pacific Science is available on BioOne 2. Some universities already have it and together with asking the authors there is a fair chance to get hold of one of these. They had a similar review on the Brown Tree Snake recently. Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 20:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hays WST, Conant Sheila. 2007. Biology and Impacts of Pacific Island Invasive Species. 1. A Worldwide Review of Effects of the Small Indian Mongoose, Herpestes javanicus (Carnivora: Herpestidae) Pacific Science - Volume 61, Number 1, pp. 3-16
Actually, by themselves I'm not sure your references -- Barbour, 1930, through Nellis & Everard, 1983 -- would be that relevant in these snake articles either. On the other hand, once we have those sections on predator species and can add info from Hayes & Conant (2007), adding these other references may make more sense. -- Jwinius ( talk) 21:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to assume you know what you're doing (since my biological knowledge is minimal) when you've requested the deletion of a lot of redirects you yourself created. They seemed legitimate to me, but I'll give credit to your knowledge of your specialty and delete them for you. I'm just a little curious as to why, but no need to respond if you're busy. Accounting4Taste: talk 02:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy to help with respect to the message you left on my talk page; frankly, it will be a great pleasure to do something other than new page patrol, which constantly angers people. This is a nice repetitive task that will lower my blood pressure!!! Accounting4Taste: talk 04:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Check out Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#I think I need some help from someone who can create a bot; I went and asked for help in automating the task you needed help with. I was referred to a tool found at WP:AWB; if you think this is the appropriate solution, I'll gladly place your name on the list for you to get access to the tool. If you don't think this is the appropriate solution, I'll move to WP:BOTREQ and work from there. I hope this helps; I do think there must be a better way than making these changes by hand!! Accounting4Taste: talk 06:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I am baffled by your tag of the article as a CSD R3. See Talk:Mapepire_Balsain. Guettarda ( talk) 19:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there: I just checked and found that a user has offered to take care of the conversion. (I left him a thank-you note.) The only part that would remain after that is to delete the old categories through WP:CFD. I haven't ever done that, but I'm betting there's a way to have them deleted as a batch. Do you want to take care of it? I'd like to see how it's done for future reference, so I'll keep an eye on the process if you handle it, or take care of it for you. Accounting4Taste: talk 05:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
(Note the capitalization.) Could I trouble you to read the last note on my talk page, follow the two links to other talk pages, and tell me what to do? Whatever is going on here, it's beyond my knowledge of what is the appropriate capitalization for a taxonomic redirect. I have no idea if these individuals are working with you or against you, but I trust your judgment. Many thanks in advance for your kind attention to this. Cheers, Accounting4Taste: talk 17:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I thank the two of you for coordinating on this situation, which is beyond my scientific knowledge. When you come up with a determination that suits both of you and may require my assistance, I'm at your service; just leave a note on my talk page. Accounting4Taste: talk 01:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jaap:
Nice of you to pop in like this. I emailed you (it was returned many times) to say your calendar was mailed. Do you have an alternate email address?
Oh..I have a few new species I have not photographed much yet if any at all.
Ovophis pictures:
Ovophis okinavensis, Ryukyu Island Pit Viper and male
> I also notice you added four Porthidium that I had not seen before.
> Which species would that be, P. porrasi?
The last 4 are Porthidium lansbergii rozei. For some reason the others are Picado's Pit Viper (Atropoides picadoi) and are misfiled. Up until 1999 they were in Porthidium. And the last Crotalus pictures... C. m. pyrrhus? Yes
Cheers, 20 Jaap
Best regard,
Al Coritz AKA Vipekeeper —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viperkeeper ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there: Thanks for the note. If you could let me know exactly which changes still remain to be made, I would be happy to contact the bot guy directly. I'm going to be on vacation soon but will still be checking in about daily. Accounting4Taste: talk 07:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jwinius,
There is also
Morelia spilota cheynei and
Morelia spilota metcalfei. Also, if the article is merged, it might be good to merge this too:
[3].
Tim Q. Wells (
talk)
22:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up! Haven't been wikiediting in months but I supported the merge anyway. :D Shrumster ( talk) 23:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
And I'm also sorry that you had to do the work of those merges yourself -- I did get in touch with the bot-master but I don't know why nothing happened. I will see if I can establish a working relationship with someone who commented on the bot page in the future, to see if I can be of more help; I still want to help you if I can. Accounting4Taste: talk 20:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Could really use your help on this one.-- Mike Searson ( talk) 14:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
You have been taking numerous listed references, which were used in writing articles, and lumping them under external links headers. I just wanteed to mention that there -is- a difference between something used as a reference and something that is merely an external link for further reading. Not all references need have a direct footnote attached for them to be a valid listing. - Dawson 16:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah.. I see you have corrected my edits with regard to the sensitivity of the pit organs... obviously my source was one of the ones that mis-quoted your more original source ...... I guess thinking about it, 0.003 centigrade differential sensitivity would be rather over the top and produce too much 'noise' in the system to be useful to the snake. It would be interesting to compare the pit viper organs with those of the Boidae which I believe are along the jaw line. regards Doctorpete 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you did a fine job with Crotalus tortugensis. I like to see at least something under 'external links' so that a user has some other site to look at; besides, I wanted to show that a picture was available because none was on the Wikipedia page. Thanks, Stepp-Wulf 02:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
Good work on these articles. I disagree with the styling, which in my opinion violates WP:MOS, but I will leave it. Good work. Aquarius • talk 01:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to improve the flow of the disputed passage. I think you've done a very good job on the article so far, which is why I approved it as a good article. I don't want this dispute to turn sour. My view is given in full on the talk page, and in the absence of further independently verifiable evidence from reliable sources, will not change. Can we put this to rest? Regards, Samsara ( talk • contribs) 13:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your last edit to this particular article, it sounds like you and Jschowin may be more familiar with this subject than I am. However, what you claim to be the case is somewhat at odds with the cited reference. Nevertheless, I'd be more than willing to leave your edit uncontested as long as you supply a clear reference: a book, an article in a journal or even a web page. But, please don't leave it like it is now: so many Wikipedia article contain inaccuracies because people do not cite their sources. Besides, the way things stand now, it looks like we're saying the cited reference says something that is does not. -- Jwinius 17:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
A little cheeky putting some dummy edits in the antivenom page, guess that will stop me from moving it back anytime soon. Its a tricky situation but most places are now using antivenom (might take a while for the dictionaries to catch up), even the Americans appear to be using it more and more now, i.e. you changed The Miami-Dade Fire Rescue Antivenom Bank to antivenin whereas its correct name is actually antivenom [1], Cheers Mr Bungle | talk 23:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you please help review the article for its FAC? Also, I'd also like help expanding the lead section, seeing that you are an active member in WP:AAR. bibliomaniac 15 BUY NOW! 03:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
and |year=
/ |date=
mismatch (
help)" -- which will give you a reference for your taxonomy. Hope this helps! --
Jwinius
10:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Thank you for your help. I shall see what I can do to fix it up. bibliomaniac 15 BUY NOW! 01:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I have a reference. It's an article from a Mormon magazine. Here --> http://www.meridianmagazine.com/sci_rel/000609serpent.html As for the chest height thing, I swore I read that somewhere. Just remove it. I'll re-add it if I ever find a believable reference, which as you said is unlikely. Abyssal leviathin 21:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi I used a Smithsonian Ins. Book my friends making up the citation when he gets a chance. I know you can't just go around putting w/e up. Im curently in school to become a zoologist. When its up ill send you a message.
The article has made it GA. I would like to thank you for your support right from its inception till its GA review. Thanks. Your contribution equals mine. Regards, AshLin 22:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
The Amphibians and Reptiles Portal I'm glad to announce that The Amphibians and reptiles portal ( P:AAR) has been created and is ready for you to use. This portal covers any subjects related to amphibians, reptiles, herpetology, as well as WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. Purposes of the portal
Thank you for reading. If you have any questions, please leave them on the portal talk page or my user talk page. -- Melanochromis |
-- Melanochromis 06:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jaap,
This snake and I live in the same part of the world. We know it as the Bamboo Pit Viper. I can give you the oldest and newest references I have and they too list this name and no other:
The same common name is used in Romulus Whitaker's Book and JC Daniel's books which are at my home in Pune. I have never heard of the common names mentioned here. I suggest that these may be removed and 'Bamboo Pit Viper' placed in lieu. Logically a common name should be in actual use to be mentioned and this particular spp of Trimeresurus is found only in peninsular India. So an international author quoting a supposed common name holds less water than the local lists and references. AshLin 05:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a nice picture. Thanks, AshLin! However, I do have some news for you on this topic. It seems that many recent publications now prefer to use the term "pitviper" as opposed to "pit viper." If this turns out to have become a trend within the herpetological community, then I guess we ought to follow suite or give priority to those names whenever possible, i.e. "bamboo pitviper" over "bamboo pit viper" (if we have references for both) and to use "pitviper" in the text instead of "pit viper." -- Jwinius 14:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that on 8 July 2007 you removed the wlinks from the authors on the synonyms in the taxobox in the article Agkistrodon contortrix. What is the reasoning behind that? -- Bejnar 17:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jaap,
Nothing at all. I just felt in the opening statement about a species, its common handle may be used for better presentability. This does not affect the fact that there are other common names. As per WP:MOS the opening para is supposed to summarise the article. So including the prominent common name in the first line is not something objectionable. In most articles, you would find the common name figuring in the opening line. So whats wrong with that here?
As far as giving equal treatment for all names is concerned, is there some kind of inequality here if we use the commoner one? I've informed you about the actual practice on ground in the country it occurs. I've also given you just two of possibly many references. I've never heard of the other names at all - so how can they be common? I agree that I may not have heard about them - I have not edited them out or taken any action at all towards them. They continue to figure in your common name list.
Is it your contention that all the common names deserve equal weightage? That would be true if we had no way to see the ground situation. Since I've given you a feedback (with references) about the situation in India about Indian snakes, surely there is some weightage to that! Well, Daboia russeli is found in other countries but I thought that Russell's Viper would be the common epithet in all countries.
If you feel so strongly, go ahead and revert the edits, but I do not see where I have gone wrong. BTW my main motive was to improve the readability, so even if some other english name is used, the aim is still achieved. However I believe that the common names I placed in the opening sentances for Daboia russeli and Trimeresurus gramineus represent in reality the commonest and most widely used names so I placed them in the opening sentance: in other words - it was a good faith edit to make the opening sentance better, which I felt I was entitled to as an editor. If you disagree please revert - I will not contest the point.
Well, as far as my overall work towards snakes is concerned, I would love to do more but I've got two killing projects on hand the 1000+ spp of Indian butterflies and 10,000+ spp of Indian moths - so I edit on snakes very occassionally mostly to place images I have - I sorrow over the state of Indian Cobra and many other articles, but I'm fully focussed on Lepidoptera at the moment.
In good faith, AshLin 17:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi -- is there a reason for placing a disambiguation page in a Category? For instance you placed the Congo disambiguation page in Category:American pit vipers by common name. I thought a disambiguation page was supposed to hold no content and to just be a pointer to the content, which implies that such a page shouldn't be in a category. Wouldn't it be better to have an article called 'List of American pit vipers by common name' which has entries such as:
linking to the articles under the scientific name? I removed the category from the Congo disambig page thinking someone must have accidentally pasted the category into the wrong page, and then I thought, perhaps it was deliberate and I've upset an accepted practice I'm not aware of? Regards, Rexparry sydney 04:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know much about templates - they came on board after I became an administrator, and I haven't caught up. - DavidWBrooks 20:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with the step you took at adder of removing most of its content and merging it with adder (disambiguation). Now adder is a hybrid article/disambiguation page, which is out of keeping with the Manual of Style.
I would, however, agree with moving adder (disambiguation) to adder and what was at adder to adder (snake). Would you endorse that approach?-- Father Goose 22:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jaap,
Please look at [ [2]]. Perhaps your inputs required here!
Regards, AshLin 03:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
How would you recommend reconciling Category:Vipers and Category:Viperidae? Yet another Polbot category ... -- Prove It (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your revert, I would like to note that the formatting adds little of value to the reader and just clutters the appearance of the page. Furthermore, listing the common names in that floating space above the body of the article seems simply odd to me. I might also point out that it is marginally uncivil to revert a good faith edit without discussion. Please endeavour to exercise a greater collaborative spirit in the future. Chromaticity 16:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thought you might be interested in this... -- Prove It (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Lycodon jara, a pet of mine, has its genus missing from your List of snakes. Please post me details of the tragedy :-( . Regards, AshLin 17:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Family | SSotWv1 | No. of ITIS genera | No. of NRDB genera |
---|---|---|---|
Acrochordidae | Y | 1 | 1 |
Aniliidae | Y | 1 | 1 |
Anomochilidae | Y | 1 | 1 |
Atractaspididae | N | 12 | 12 |
Boidae | Y | 8 | 19 |
Bolyeriidae | Y | 2 | 2 |
Colubridae | N | 175 | 304 |
Cylindrophiidae | Y | 1 | 1 |
Elapidae | N | 61 | 60 |
Loxocemidae | Y | 1 | 1 |
Pythonidae | Y | 8 | - |
Tropidophiidae | Y | 4 | 5 |
Uropeltidae | Y | 8 | 8 |
Viperidae | Y | 32 | 36 |
Xenopeltidae | Y | 1 | 1 |
Anomalepididae | Y | 2 | 4 |
Leptotyphlopidae | Y | 4 | 2 |
Typhlopidae | Y | 6 | 6 |
Total | 328 | 464 |
Hi Jaap,
Check out the images. Whats the things under the anal scale visible in the rat snake image.
Regards, AshLin 13:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jaap,
We're in commonwealth territory with Echis carinatus so British English spelling applies here. The spellings glare out at me for correction! As Wikipedia policies articles about things in British English regions should be in that form. Please comment. Regards, AshLin 15:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jaap,
I've some material for lizard scales, but enough for a stub only. Crocodilians also would have some material forthcoming. Don't know about testudines. So should we have reptile scales or scales for each group?
Regards, AshLin 15:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
(cont'd orig. conv. on Derek.cashman's talk page)
Ok! Shrumster 15:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, tried out your snakeskin here. Any suggestions? AshLin 19:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This is covered in wikipedia's guideline for citing sources ( WP:CITE), which covers the general formatting for the individual citations, as well as where to put them and what to name that section. There's no real set rule, but most articles that I have found either put sources in a section called 'references' or 'notes' (for 'footnotes'), though I prefer simply calling them 'references', as it's the format that I've used in scientific papers that I've published in the past. In my experience, footnotes are used in some journals and publications to put short lists of references at the bottom of each printed page, and then the references would be listed in alphabetical order at the end of the article. This, IMHO, doesn't seem to apply to wikipedia, since it's not a printed page, but a single web page; individual printed pages are irrelevant, and a single list of citations at the end is sufficient. But I've noticed that there are some that like to hang on to their precious footnotes (usually, the wikipedians that tend to be in the english/"grammar nazi" crowd), so I generally don't complain at those that do. I've found articles to be split almost 50/50 between the 'references' and 'notes' formats.
Regarding making a large number of repetitive changes, I would recommend looking into using AutoWikiBrowser, which is a semi-automated wikipedia editor that makes a lot of these repetitive tasks a lot easier. Cheers! Dr. Cash 17:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree strongly with your decision to reclassify the three species of short-tailed python back to subspecies of Python curtus. I did check out the ITIS pages, but I have it on the authority of one David Barker (renowned herpetologist and blood python breeder) that they were elevated to full species status in 2001, and I have a reference for his article and I believe I added one or at least an external link for his and his wife's site. A growing number of professional and amateur herpetoculturists, myself included, also classify each snake as a full species. Also, yes, I'm absolutely sure the picture I submitted of a red blood python is a brongersmai rather than a red curtus. Curtus is black or very dark brown, hence the common name "black blood python." 68.119.40.31 20:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Inthesun
Hi Jwinius,
I'm glad you like the formatting, and am impressed at the large amount of articles you formatted. I'm sorry I couldn't have helped more.
One way we could solve the disambiguation-link problem is similar to the way the article 307 it is formatted where it just adds more on the same line:
Only in your example Pythonidae it would look like this:
but that way the common names might not be noticed by some readers, even with the bold format.
We could place the common names first like this:
I have also seen situations where it takes more than two lines like this (slightly different from the one in the page history):
although it still could look a little awkward. Also, I'm sorry about the delay in replying. I haven't had Internet access recently. Happy editing, Tim Q. Wells 05:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I do like how you admit you violate official policy when you name articles. However, I don't like that you single-handedly decided to move several pre-existing articles to their scientific names, without so much as a post for a proper discussion.
If you want to affect WP Policy, do so through the proper channels. Making wide-spread changes, without discussion AND in violation of official policy is bullying your position, not arguing it. Jhall1468 03:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Reverting good faith edits without discussion is poor form. I'm using a layout similar to that of the Cane Toad and other WP:AAR articles that have become featured articles. It may be frustrating to have to revert 350 snake articles, but the issue at hand isn't about ease of edits, but proper form. The article that you reverted was a good faith edit, and more importantly, removed your violations of WP:LEAD. Again, your enthusiasm is great, but you can't run around making controversial modifications to articles, often in violation of standing policies, and then revert them when someone brings them back into proper policy. Jhall1468 16:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
You're very perceptive. Do I feel lonely sometimes? You bet. In situations like these, misunderstood and underappreciated too. But, one learns. Regarding the scientific name conflicts, that's an easy one to solve: agree to use a single taxonomy first (see this AAR discussion from last year). Without that decision, the situation can be pretty hopeless. We (I) selected the ITIS taxonomy for snakes and was backed up by a professional herpetologist ( User:Dfcisneros). ITIS may be conservative, but it's the most authoritative taxonomic source for snakes there is (just right for WP). Now I can always defer to their authority and the arguments disappear (e.g. #Blood python articles). If I spot any obvious errors or omissions in the ITIS online database, I contact them about it and eventually things get fixed. Only then do I change the WP articles. Cheers! -- Jwinius 02:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You added: Known only from the type locality on the island of Trinidad, although it is known from many locations on the island of Tobago to the T. trinitatus article. This seems to contradict itself - either it is known only from the type locality, or it isn't. Guettarda 05:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Please be polite on talk pages and avoid criticizing users personally. It might be appropriate to take a short break from Python regius and let everyone's emotions settle down; this one article isn't worth this much grief.
You don't appear to be a big fan of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, so I have a suggestion. How about making a WikiProject Snakes as a daughter project to WP:AAR? I know this would be a lot of work, but I'm willing to help out. People do a lot of pointing at guidelines, so instead of saying on your talk page that you have your own way of doing things, it might be easier to simply create a project that has its own way of doing things. Personally, I'm pretty sure that very, very few snakes have one single English common name, so I'd be willing to agree that the snake species articles should all be at their scientific names. One reason I'm suggesting this is that the snake editors specifically seem to agree with you that scientific names are better, but, of course, this approach could backfire and lots of pro-common name editors could populate a WikiProject Snakes. Enuja (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jaap,
Can I request some input from your software for drawing synonyms.
My requests are basically for snake articles I have illustrated, to which I proposed to add the snakeskin as I move along :-
I have recently got a copy of Whitaker & Captain, and my collection now stands as follows :-
Some great news. Malcom Smith, being pre-independence, has crown copyright rescinded to PD. User:Shyamal confirmed this by email from HMSO (I think). So I'll be able to add line-diagrams of the scale pattern of a large number of snakes. He's done a monumental work on snakes of India, Southeast Asia and China in that volume.
Oh, another request, would it be possible to get your hands on a PDF of Wüster's new genome based recharacterising of Naja naja into many distinct species?
Best wishes
Regaeds, AshLin 04:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
just thought I would let you know that the requested pagemove resulted in no consensus:
Talk:Python_regius#Requested move.
Tim Q. Wells
01:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there,
You really ought to be more communicative. Again, your latest edits lack proper references.
Ok, if you think so, then just delete thing I posted!
In particular, where did you get the names "white-lipped python" and "D'Albertis' python" from,...
These are standard common names that are used for ages now! Lots of things in the article are without proper references and actually nobody cared about it yet!
...and why is it false to refer to it as "D'Albert's water python"?
It's quite simple. The name was in honor of D'Albertis and not D'Alberts. The ICZN requires an additional "i" for latanisation of the name, and therefore the common name is also D'Albertis python and not D'Alberts python!
We have a reference for that name, so how can it be false?
Well, perhaps you think every reference is correct, it is not! Sometimes people, even scientists use wrong names or omit valid names and so on.
If the name is simply misleading, explain that in a new Common names section, kind of like in this article.
That's what I thought I did!
Furthermore, who says its occurrence on Normanby Island is dubious? McDiarmid et al. (1999) don't think so.
Roy McDiarmid and the other authors had lots to do with the book. They can not cross-check every reference for each species or synonym anyway. McDowell (1975) stated to assign Bara Bara to the Normanby Island, which is, in fact not true. It's a town on the mainland and the two references given support that as well (apart form Google earth)...
Or are these your own conclusions after reading Boulenger (1898) and Koopmans (1982)? -- Jwinius 18:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
However, I get fed up with this now. By the way, I have a systematic revision of the genus passing the peer-review process, and there will be lots more to write about this genus and the species described in future...
Cheers, Wulf --unsigned: Wuschl ( talk) 21:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
For my original posts regarding this issue, see User talk:Wuschl#Leiopython -- Jwinius ( talk) 14:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Fauna Barnstar | |
To recognise your unique contribution in creating a pocket of excellence in Wikipedia, specifically, wikis about Viperidae. Thank you for setting such high standards and quality of work.
AshLin (
talk)
13:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
|
Thanks, guys. I had never attached much value to these barnstar things, but what makes all the difference is the people who give it to you. I am honored. -- Jwinius ( talk) 20:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
See User:EncycloPetey, he has a dashboard of plants on his user page with neat little buttons telling whether the article is stub/start etc. Thought it a very good idea. For info please!
AshLin ( talk) 14:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jaap,
We need a taxonomy section as a major step in rounding off this wiki. Could I request you to consider this task?
AshLin (
talk)
12:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dysmorodrepanis! I'm sure you mean well, but what is the purpose of the vague references to "PacificScience61:36" that you recently added to Vipera ammodytes, Trimeresurus and Bothrops atrox? It looks like a reference to a scientific journal; have you found some interesting articles in it? (PS -- Please answer here, as I've temporarily added your talk page to my watchlist). -- Jwinius ( talk) 11:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a paper about introduced Small Indian Mongoose ( Herpestes javanicus auropunctatus). These snakes are mentioned more briefly. It says:
In 1910, the small Indian mongoose was introduced to three Croatian islands to control the horned viper ( Vipera ammodytes). In the same year, it was also introduced to Okinawa to control the habu pit viper ( Trimeresurus flavoviridis). The effects of these two introductions on the local snake populations have not been studied.
The small Indian mongoose was introduced to Martinique and St. Lucia (dates of introduction unknown) to control the fer-de-lance ( Bothrops atrox), a venomous species of pit viper (de Vos et al. 1956). Some authors blame (or credit) the mongoose with the extirpation of this snake on those islands (Barbour 1930, Nellis 1989), but it is uncertain whether mongooses actually attack these snakes in the wild. Hinton and Dunn (1967) stated that mongooses are commonly killed by the fer-delance in ‘‘fighting pit’’ shows, but Nellis and Everard (1983) believed that the mongoose usually wins.
References are:
Pacific Science is available on BioOne 2. Some universities already have it and together with asking the authors there is a fair chance to get hold of one of these. They had a similar review on the Brown Tree Snake recently. Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 20:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hays WST, Conant Sheila. 2007. Biology and Impacts of Pacific Island Invasive Species. 1. A Worldwide Review of Effects of the Small Indian Mongoose, Herpestes javanicus (Carnivora: Herpestidae) Pacific Science - Volume 61, Number 1, pp. 3-16
Actually, by themselves I'm not sure your references -- Barbour, 1930, through Nellis & Everard, 1983 -- would be that relevant in these snake articles either. On the other hand, once we have those sections on predator species and can add info from Hayes & Conant (2007), adding these other references may make more sense. -- Jwinius ( talk) 21:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to assume you know what you're doing (since my biological knowledge is minimal) when you've requested the deletion of a lot of redirects you yourself created. They seemed legitimate to me, but I'll give credit to your knowledge of your specialty and delete them for you. I'm just a little curious as to why, but no need to respond if you're busy. Accounting4Taste: talk 02:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy to help with respect to the message you left on my talk page; frankly, it will be a great pleasure to do something other than new page patrol, which constantly angers people. This is a nice repetitive task that will lower my blood pressure!!! Accounting4Taste: talk 04:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Check out Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#I think I need some help from someone who can create a bot; I went and asked for help in automating the task you needed help with. I was referred to a tool found at WP:AWB; if you think this is the appropriate solution, I'll gladly place your name on the list for you to get access to the tool. If you don't think this is the appropriate solution, I'll move to WP:BOTREQ and work from there. I hope this helps; I do think there must be a better way than making these changes by hand!! Accounting4Taste: talk 06:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I am baffled by your tag of the article as a CSD R3. See Talk:Mapepire_Balsain. Guettarda ( talk) 19:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there: I just checked and found that a user has offered to take care of the conversion. (I left him a thank-you note.) The only part that would remain after that is to delete the old categories through WP:CFD. I haven't ever done that, but I'm betting there's a way to have them deleted as a batch. Do you want to take care of it? I'd like to see how it's done for future reference, so I'll keep an eye on the process if you handle it, or take care of it for you. Accounting4Taste: talk 05:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
(Note the capitalization.) Could I trouble you to read the last note on my talk page, follow the two links to other talk pages, and tell me what to do? Whatever is going on here, it's beyond my knowledge of what is the appropriate capitalization for a taxonomic redirect. I have no idea if these individuals are working with you or against you, but I trust your judgment. Many thanks in advance for your kind attention to this. Cheers, Accounting4Taste: talk 17:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I thank the two of you for coordinating on this situation, which is beyond my scientific knowledge. When you come up with a determination that suits both of you and may require my assistance, I'm at your service; just leave a note on my talk page. Accounting4Taste: talk 01:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jaap:
Nice of you to pop in like this. I emailed you (it was returned many times) to say your calendar was mailed. Do you have an alternate email address?
Oh..I have a few new species I have not photographed much yet if any at all.
Ovophis pictures:
Ovophis okinavensis, Ryukyu Island Pit Viper and male
> I also notice you added four Porthidium that I had not seen before.
> Which species would that be, P. porrasi?
The last 4 are Porthidium lansbergii rozei. For some reason the others are Picado's Pit Viper (Atropoides picadoi) and are misfiled. Up until 1999 they were in Porthidium. And the last Crotalus pictures... C. m. pyrrhus? Yes
Cheers, 20 Jaap
Best regard,
Al Coritz AKA Vipekeeper —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viperkeeper ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi there: Thanks for the note. If you could let me know exactly which changes still remain to be made, I would be happy to contact the bot guy directly. I'm going to be on vacation soon but will still be checking in about daily. Accounting4Taste: talk 07:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jwinius,
There is also
Morelia spilota cheynei and
Morelia spilota metcalfei. Also, if the article is merged, it might be good to merge this too:
[3].
Tim Q. Wells (
talk)
22:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up! Haven't been wikiediting in months but I supported the merge anyway. :D Shrumster ( talk) 23:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
And I'm also sorry that you had to do the work of those merges yourself -- I did get in touch with the bot-master but I don't know why nothing happened. I will see if I can establish a working relationship with someone who commented on the bot page in the future, to see if I can be of more help; I still want to help you if I can. Accounting4Taste: talk 20:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Could really use your help on this one.-- Mike Searson ( talk) 14:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)