Nice edit removing the deforestation thing. I was going to do it, but I didn't. No excuse sir. -- Milkbreath 18:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Cool! Congrats, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, I am sorry to have had to nominate this page into which you appear to have put a lot of work into (among a lot of others) for deletion. My main beef is that it seems well a little over cooked and reads like an article from one of the mags cited. perhaps the more gung ho aspects can be sorted? Albatross2147 12:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

bah, Baby Gender Mentor went through the same uproar when it was on the mainpage. I've noticed not a single complainer has actually presented an example of "overcooked" or advertorial text. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi again

Gee - this is getting to be a bit of a saga. Please don't think I am a deletionist or against the subject matter as such. Indeed I think the subject matter probably has merit it just that the style is somewhat over the top in my opinion which it may turn out, is not worth a cracker in regards to this article.

I know what it feels like to have an article listed - it seems like someone is stealing your child in a way and all you can do is yell and try to mount a counter case - all pretty useless in some cases.

For the record I have no problem with knives - indeed I have given (quite illegally in this State!) appropriate knives to my daughters who are Scouts and I carry one myself when I unchain myself from the office and go bush.

I am deleting the comment on the images BTW although I notice others have picked up some issue there. Albatross2147 04:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

No probs, just happy to help. Ive made a small knack of fixing up small bits of redundancy in FA's and FAC's. Keep up the good work there, its a shame someone put it up for AfD, theyve got it dreadfully wrong. Twenty Years 16:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi, I'm a bit confused upon looking at Image:ElbowStrike.jpg. Was the image licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License? -- Iamunknown 19:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Re: this comment - I hope today's events don't discourage you. It's a good article, and you shouldn't let others' misbehavior get you down. Raul654 19:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Hey, Mike, let 'em rant. Sometimes this happens on mainpage (maybe their baseball teams aren't making the playoffs :-). The worst they can do is bring it to FAR, where it will sit for a month and then retain status, since it meets criterion. I think by responding to them, at this point, it's only fueling the flame. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Aye, it's a decent article. It's a shame Emerson isn't more widely known outside of his particular niche, or there'd be more fuel for a "criticism" section. In any case, if you do fancy starting up articles on the two subsections mentioned, I think the practices you used in making the main Emerson article would be fine – virtually every TFA relating to living people or popular culture ends up with idiots shrieking "DELETE!!! DELETE!!!". Just don't let 'em hold you back from continuing to make quality contributions :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄ _(c) • 20:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

sorry if it came across as a personal attack i was just being sarcastic, a British thing. i have removed it now. have a good day. John John joskins 20:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Do you really abide by the Rule of St Francis? Do the USMC let you wear your tunic instead of their uniform? How do you handle being paid, given that you cannot receive money directly or through an intermediary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.73.6 ( talk) 21:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I answered you on your talk page. Apparently, you know even less about Third Order Franciscans than you do about the Marine Corps or knifemakers.-- Mike Searson 21:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I never claimed to know anything about knifemakers or the Marine Corps. I know that Secular Franciscans have been around since the thirteenth century and were then known as the Brothers of Penance, but not much else. To be fair, your badge says "Franciscan" rather than "Secular Franciscan". Don't be too prickly because of the hassle you're getting about Knife Guy- but of all the things that thirteen million people could be edified about, why should it be him and not, say, secular Franciscans? Not that I don't like knives. They're really pointy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.73.6 ( talk) 22:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

They get like that in part because you come across as hyper-defensive. I appreciate the time you must have put into the article- but as someone who has a real life with real achievements, does it really have any importance beyond its significance to you? To be frank, both sides of this argument epitomise to me the problem with Wikipedia- lack of proportion on one side and baboons on the other. Ah well. Why don't you go have a pint of Guinness and forget about it?-- 86.150.73.6 22:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC) -- 86.150.73.6 22:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

weapons are pro-life? Too Old 22:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Does writing an article about a knifemaker (or fending off vandalism and personal attacks on that article) mean someone is obsessed with weapons?-- Mike Searson 22:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

a) I have not made personal attacks on the article in question. b) I have not vandalized anything. c) I see on Mike Searson three images of guns and a reference to hunting and another to law enforcement as your prominent interests. I have, except for a brief time when I was 18, 60 years ago, never owned a gun, nor felt any need for one: it was an adolescent aberration. I assume that by "pro-life" you mean "anti-abortion" to some (perhaps total) extent. If I were to say I was "pro-life" I would mean that I abjured taking the life of any living thing except as I needed to preserve my own. I am not a vegetarian, after all, and, if I lived, as I did for one winter, in northern Minnesota, I would probably find that I needed to shoot my one deer a year for economic reasons. I view hunting for "sport" as equivalent to bull-baiting in the ancient Roman "games": uncivilized. Too Old 03:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I answered you on your talk page, sir...do not try to bait me or turn wikipedia into a discussion forum about your beliefs or mine. Have a nice day.-- Mike Searson 03:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I apologize for hurting your feelings. Too Old 03:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I was hesitant to edit it myself, since it was possible Emerson studied something his teachers actually called Jodo. Glad to help. Excellent article. Iconoclastodon 23:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm happy to help. As an editor I deal with the reality of Wikipedia being infested with powder puffs and intellectual frauds on a daily basis, but I found this attempt to delete an article that meets featured article quality standards to be particularly egregious, especially considering the totalitarian motivations behind said attempt. If you would like my input anywhere else, do not hesitate to ask. -- Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I write this imbibing a half of Guinness and half a dozen Pacific oysters... I have lived and worked in Ireland myself for some years and it was great. How do you get to be a citizen of both the US and the Republic? I thought you had to renounce foreign allegiances when you became a US citizen as Rupert Murdoch did.

Cheers

Albatross2147 09:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

If you're a born in a foreign country to parents who are citizens of the US, you get dual citizenship (not always - depending on how that country's citizenship laws work - but almost always, I think). Once you turn 18, you have to choose which one to keep permanently. I know this because that's what happened with a friend of mine, who was born in the UK Raul654 15:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Please see this article. "Lede" is the correct (or at least a correct) term. -- Orange Mike 17:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for helping out with cleaning up the prose in the Emerson article. I didn't realize it until you did it but as a knife collector "Art knives" means something different than it would to the average person, "decorative" might seem more fitting to folks who only know knives by what's in their kitchen drawers. Thanks also for the level-headedness and your honesty per the AFD, even though I don't agree with it; I know you were put in a tight spot by a vocal minority. For what it's worth, I have never had an objection to cleaning up prose in the article; only people removing citations and references, very few people will pitch in and help...most prefer to wave their arms and throw rocks. Regards-- Mike Searson 03:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for leaving me a message! I appreciate your honestly also.

I just made more edits to the intro-- tried to make it flow a bit better, and took out some of the more advertise-y language. I took out the sentence about him being a sought-after instructor, etc, because the article doesn't talk any more about that. I also don't think the guitar line should be in there because there's only another sentence or two about that in the entire article.

Really, the article needs to be more about the man and less about his knives. W.marsh put it best on the talk page: "A proper encyclopedic biography puts a person in a historical context, compares him to his peers, explains his legacy.." .. and the article is far from doing that at this time.

Anyways.. these are just my ideas. I'm going to bed now. :) -- Fang Aili ^talk 03:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Gosh, you're really getting hammered at the FAR. Don't lose heart. I definitely think the article needs improvement, but I also believe you truly want a good article on this guy. I keep reading over the article, trying to think of the best way to improve it. For one thing, I am thinking more and more that the knives section needs its own article, just because it is so long and detailed. More thoughts later. -- Fang Aili ^talk 18:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC) reply

You said before that another editor said that Ernest Emerson and Emerson Knives should be merged, and then they were.. but I don't see why it should be that way now. Eh. Well, I just wanted to acknowledge that you originally had them in two separate articles and that it was a good idea. :) -- Fang Aili ^talk 18:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I changed it back i just dropped my stapler on my computer and it rolled back all the edits when i was reading it. i changed it back already and sorry 'bout that. Shawnpoo 04:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I have started a featured article review for Ernest Emerson at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ernest Emerson. Your contribution would be appreciated.-- Nydas ^(Talk) 17:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Ernest Emerson has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for catching the punctuation error on Jamaican iguana!-- Mike Searson 21:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC) reply

No problem, Mike. :) There are millions of these errors; I'll never run out! Happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 21:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Glad to help. Something I didn't fix but prob needs a second look is the opening words: "Bartsch's iguana or Booby Cay Iguana..." - presumably this needs to be either "Bartsch's Iguana or Booby Cay Iguana" or else "Bartsch's iguana or Booby Cay iguana" - but I'm not sure which one it should be. HeartofaDog ( talk) 22:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC) reply

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 10:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Please do your homework before you can call anything "Vandalism"/"Nonsense".King cobras indeed prove their dominance by standing upright and trying to put their head over the other.If you have doubts consult national geographic or discovery or any encyclopedia.If you still think its not true kindly enlighten me with a reference which shows otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shekarzicklin ( talk • contribs) 13:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Are you aware of the fact that he is a verified phony veteran? Are you aware of the fact that all his claims regarding 'real world experience' in special operations (experience that influences his knife designs) are false?

Read the link you edited out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.64.124 ( talk) 12:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC) reply

On 19 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Galapagos Land Iguana, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Wizardman 17:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Welcome! Tiptoety 00:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Haha, I cheated. I did a cut and paste from the Galápagos Islands page. Have a good one. Esradekan 00:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC) reply

On 20 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cyclura cychlura figginsi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Andrew c  ^[talk] 22:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Mike! Just to let you know that I love good quality knife makers too, but maybe I am a bit more partial to antique Japanese swords, Arabic steel, medieval weaponry, Sheffield blades, all which are currently seriously under-represented! Cheers! Excalibur 23:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello! About the iguana: you are welcome! I think Animal Diversity Web has some very compehensive data about many species, plus it often has animal sounds. Always satisfied to make Wikipedia more authoritative. Smithbrenon 16:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC) reply

You're very welcome! J. Spencer 14:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

On 25 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cyclura rileyi cristata, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Andrew c  ^[talk] 01:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Does being blocked mean blocked 'permanently', sir? I would hate for that to happen as I have received so many accolades for my work. Just check my usertalk page! Keep trucking! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.146.137.33 ( talk) 03:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

As a member of WikiProject Catholicism I wanted to inform you that some members of Wikipedia believe that most Roman Catholic Bishops do not merit an article on Wikipedia. Since I am unaware of a position on Wikipedia on this matter I decided to bring this to your attention. The three articles on bishops are up for AfD, they are: : John Joseph Nevins , René Henry Gracida , and Felipe de Jesus Estevez Callelinea 20:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Good job on Green Iguana, thanks for the work and contributions, also, Wizard photo.-- Adio11 05:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I felt we needed a pic that shows more of the lizard's body, but I'll let you decide the main pic from now on. Bobisbob 22:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for pointing that out! I've changed it to say "exists almost entirely on carrion". Also, thank you for your support at the Turkey Vulture FAC. Cheers, heyjude. 01:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm real glad you liked the rhino iguana photo, Mike. I have quite a few more photos of them from that one population, but they don't seem needed too badly in the article. My only other Cyclura picture is of a captive C. nubila caymanensis. I just uploaded that one. Tim Ross 10:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry to hear that the I.d. is not clear on the camenensis! I'm a snail guy, myself, and have only modest knowledge of herps, so depended on the label on the Cyclura's pen at Hope Gardens in Jamaica. Please eject the photo from the caymenensis site, or add an appropriate warning about the identity to the caption -- whatever you think is appropriate. Tim Ross 18:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Really odd that you should ask about the tree snails, Mike! That's exactly what I'm at work on right now. I was quite surprised when I realized their lack of coverage in Wikipedia. I should have something out in about a month covering the whole genus, although I'm having some difficulty getting the quality lillustrations I'd like. Tim Ross 20:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC) reply

No problem. Only issue I can find is the Godzilla movie reference, which another user has noted as a possible issue on the talk page as well. If a source can be found, then add it; otherwise, remove it, which would be ideal if, in fact, we're talking about marine iguanas and not green iguanas. Once this is taken care of, I think the article can be promoted to GA. Dr. Cash 04:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the comment on the Randall Made Knives article - much appreciated. I am going to add about their museum also eventually. Semper Fi! FieldMarine 13:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply

On 5 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lesser Antillean Iguana, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Carabinieri 19:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC) reply

It is a great article, and I am happy to help with it. In fact, many of the Iguanidae articles are excellent, and I have begun to move some of them over to Veropedia as well. You may like to see this and this. It was the Veropedia parser that found the disambiguations and use of "it's". Great work. If you think of any other articles that we should add to Veropedia, please let me know. Danny 00:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

We would love to have you on board. If you go to the main page, you will see a tab that says Contact. From there you can get right to our chatroom, via the CGI:IRC portal. Once you are there, we can make you an account. Danny 00:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

We have a few of your articles up already, and would love to have you on board. You can find the link by clicking About. Otherwise, please drop us an email and we will create an account for you. Danny 00:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I just finalized what is at least a preliminary Liguus article, Mike. Much, much more can obviously be said, but at least a start. Some pictures showing the live animal or the snails in habitat would be especially nice. So, too, of course, would be some photos of the other taxa. Anyway, you may like to take a look. Tim Ross 15:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there, Mike. I noticed you passed Jim Bowie as a Good Article today, but it looks like you forgot to add it to WP:GA :) You also appear to have forgotten to fill in {{ GAList}}. Best, Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 18:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Whack him with a wet noodle, Fv :-) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Mike :) Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 20:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Mike, I made some other changes there (adding the oldid and topic). I don't participate in GA, but I clean up their templates when the articles come to FAC. There's a list of the topics in the userbox on my userpage, and the oldid is found in the diff of the version you reviewed. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks Mike, for the beautiful barnstar! I'm still going to keep plugging away at those reptile pages when I get a moment....it's so much fun to read so much about them :) ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 20:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I noticed that you removed a link from the page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_geckos to a site with useful information about leopard geckos as well as a care sheet. The reason I suggested this link is because this breeder in particular has offered a wealth of information to their clients and often answers a lot of questions to owners and prospective owners of geckos which helps them learn how to care for their pets or breeders. I see that you removed the link claiming it was removed because you removed commercial links to breeders and dealers. The problem, though, is that you left up several links that offer information but are clearly also breeders and dealers. Almost every link in your list of external links is a link to a breeder and/or dealer where you can purchase a gecko. Why is it ok to link to certain sites where we were just trying to provide a link directly to a page with useful information? If you are going to remove one link for being commercial, you should remove them all. I appreciate an explanation to this and would like to know how to get my link back in. If you are not going to add my link, then I would expect you to be fair and remove links to the other breeders.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.30.65 ( talk) 18:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Great. As long as you have a correct ref it's fine but please provide a ref. Joelito ( talk) 19:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Disregard previous message. I see you have a ref from father Sanchez's website. Excellent site. Joelito ( talk) 19:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

That's great that he is providing images for Wikipedia to use. He has one of the largest picture collection on Caribbean species. Joelito ( talk) 20:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Mike. Sorry about my abrupt revert of your previous edits on this page, but according to the on-line ITIS taxonomy, which it was decided that we would follow for snakes in WP:AAR over a year ago, P. m. pimbura is a synonym of P. m. molurus. The checklist that this information comes from (also cited as a reference), McDiarmid et al. (1999), which mentions that Stimson listed this species in the synonymy of P. m. molurus in 1969. Even the bleeding-edge NRDB taxonomy does not recognize P. m. pimbura and includes this name in the species' synonymy.
The reason for following the ITIS taxonomy is that it's widely recognized throughout the herpetological community as the most authoritative taxonomy available for snakes -- almost everybody's research is based on it these days. ITIS may often be slow to reflect the latest research, but that's because it's very conservative. This is good for Wikipedia, since we don't want to have to be making taxonomic changes to our articles all the time. Dr. McDiarmid, which spends much of his time working on the next volume of the checklist, also insists on high-quality research and likes to wait for a consensus to form before the makes any changes to the database. So, it's important that you leave things as they were, because otherwise the synonymy and the cited references don't work. Cheers, (PS -- Please answer here, as I've temporarily added your talk page to my watchlist). -- Jwinius ( talk) 16:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Noted, I may be a bit biased as I bred Ceylonese Pythons and Indians (burmese, too among others) for 10 years. I'm attempting a major rewrite on snake and caught that one in passing. Put it back how you think it should be...maybe a small section of molurus with a nod to pimbura in the future if not a subspecific section?-- Mike Searson ( talk) 17:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

In my last version of this article, I mentioned P. m. pimbura in a new Taxonomy section; this is usually the place for this kind of thing. For example, have a look at Daboia#Taxonomy. It would be nice if you could add a reference there for the sources you have that recognize this subspecies nowadays.

As for rewriting snake, I wish you lots of luck. I did Sea snake a while back, and that took me 7-10 days of solid research and writing (offline). Keep in mind that to do this properly, you should work as though the article were titled "Serpentes", since what you're actually describing is a suborder of the order Squamata. The article should start with a description of what sets these reptiles apart from the other members of this order. General characteristics should be left in or moved to the "Squamata" article, or even to Reptilia. If you really want to make your work stick, you'll find references for *everything*, and try very hard to use books and scientific papers by respected authors for this purpose as opposed to other pages on the web written by God knows who. Visit a local library or local university if necessary: you'll be able to find books there, unless you want to buy them yourself (expensive). Oh, and don't forget to make heavy use of in-line footnotes; take a good look at "Sea snake" to see how I did it. Cheers, -- Jwinius ( talk) 17:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

You did an awesome job on sea snake, if I could do halfway as good as that, I'll be impressed! Right now my goal is to more or less source what is there. I've rewritten some of it, deleted some and added a few new things. I am not a big fan of online sources. myself. On obscure subspecies sometimes its all you have(I wrote or rewrote all of the Cyclura articles, Blue Iguana being the best of these and in some cases it was all I could find). I'm going to try and do a proper taxo section later in the week. As for sourcing, I'll start with the books, move to periodicals (Iguana, Copeia, National Geographic, etc) newsletters, etc. I've been rewriting lots of herp articles written like caresheets (check Green iguana) and think we can do alot better on snake as well as a few others.-- Mike Searson ( talk) 18:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Sea snake is a good article, but that's just because I was willing to put in the effort. There's no reason why you can't do that as well. It's like I say on my user page: "Never assume anything. Don't just write what you want because it's probably correct, but research the subject properly and quote (without plagiarizing) from a reputable source." I didn't always do that. Take a look at Bitis gabonica the way it is now and the way it was on the 22 June 2006. I wrote the earlier version too, and many others like it, but after a while I just couldn't stand that way of writing anymore, so I rewrote them all. It may not be easy, and it sure is time-consuming, but it's definitely more rewarding! You also learn a lot in the process just by reading. By the way, I got a lot of the information in Sea snake from Mehrtens (1987); a book that I see you have as well. Cheers, -- Jwinius ( talk) 19:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the kind words. Leads on WP are usually so bad that any good writer can improve them. Leadwind ( talk) 05:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Mike,

just trying to figure out how this place works... I put some links to my forum and someone took them down... so I signed up.... What are the rules of this place... can't I put links to my forums? I have no advertising and is is probably the best source of info on the web for Rhacodactylus...

Allen

I am not even sure if this is like a PM, or it gets published somewhere LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allen Repashy ( talk • contribs) 17:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you! I have more pictures of juvenile iguanas on the ground, but I thought their tree-dwelling nature was the most interesting thing to observe. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ ( contrib) 20:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi! Thank you for pointing out the difference between iguania and iguana. Very careless on my part! I will put notes under Pogona (the Bearded Dragons) where it belongs. Thanks for your help in clarifying this point. I should have known the difference - we used to have Green Iguanas in our garden in Trinidad when I was a kid. Cheers, John Hill ( talk) 02:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Dear Mike:

I wonder if you would take a look at the notes I just wrote on Komodo Dragon vs Komodo dragon on my talk page where I discuss my preference for capitalising the main parts of common English names of animals? I know there is no definate convention on this (except for birds - for some strange reason) but it does seem to me that Komodo Dragon is prefereable to Komodo dragon (or, even worse, komodo dragon, or just plain dragon), Red-bellied Snake to Red-bellied snake and Tasmanian Devil to Tasmanian devil.

I think Wikipedia should have a policy on this (and not just for birds) to improve consistency and reduce confusion. Do you agree? Any thoughts on this? Do you think I should push this further at the Wikipedia Village pump or with the Administrators? many thanks for your opinion. Cheers, John Hill ( talk) 04:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Mike, once again. Yes, I agree with you - Fry et al. are a bit hard to read and it is difficult to separate out what is new and what is not - especially for a non-specialist like myself. However, the article does contain some genuinely new material - especially about Monitors. I really appreciate your help and advice. Best wishes, John Hill ( talk) 06:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Mike,

Its very nice to see {{ citation}} being used to format references properly, but please don't use the url= attribute in {{ citation}}s to refer to search engine space. When you have a doi= number, then that is all you need. An appropriate link will be generated automatically, and will also be self-correcting when the location of the article on the web moves. If you don't have a doi= number, and the article is not available in its entirety on a specific website, then don't link to it.

Also, in the Frye et al article, you used the id= tag for something that id= can't deal with. The id= is the id of the work, for example an ISBN number (try "id=ISBN 0-85883-554-4" to see what happens). Incidentally, the "nature04328" you provided for id= is part of the doi=, without which the DOI is invalid.

As such:

{{citation | last = Fry | first = Brian G | last2 = Vidal | first2 = Nicholas | last3 = Norman | first3 = Janette A. | last4 = Vonk | first4 = Freek J. | last5 = Scheib | first5 = Holger | last6 = Ramjan | first6 = Ryan | last7 = Kuruppu | first7 = Sanjaya | title = Early evolution of the venom system in lizards and snakes. | journal = Nature (Letters) | volume = 439 | pages = 584-588 | year = 2006 | doi = 10.1038/nature04328 }}

is all you need. That produces:

Note how the link was automagically generated. Now, because Nature does not make its articles available on the web to non-subscribers, if you wish to provide a link to the pdf, then use this target for the url= field, which is the link that google scholar lists.

Thanks again for using {{ citation}} to properly format references. Please leave me a message on my talk page (or on Template Talk:Citation) should you ever need help with the stuff. -- Fullstop 16:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply

On 30 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cyclura ricordi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Royalbroil 21:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC) reply

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Mike, it's been a long time since I've studied biology. I know a lot more about how to right a good lead than the details of zoology. I need someone with a strong bio background to look over my shoulder and make sure I don't accidentally say things that are outrageously wrong. Thanks. Leadwind 05:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Let me know if there's ever a page you need particular help with. Leadwind ( talk) 05:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Mike, I like improving the presentation of information in interesting articles, but my special interest in the biology pages is making connections among organisms along evolutionary lines. The medieval way of viewing a snake is that it's an animal with certain defining features. The modern way of viewing a snake is as an animal that's evolved to exploit various niches and resolve engineering problems (how to fit two kidneys into an elgonate body, etc.). I'm interested in following back snake to reptile, reptile to amniote, amniote to vertebrate, etc. The worst article with the most potential along these lines is Egg (biology) apparently written by bird enthusiasts. It should be Egg (bird). If you can shine some light on Egg, that would make me happy. I figure we can expand the "other eggs" section for now, because as near as I can tell this page really is the only place on WP to talk about eggs in general. I bet you could say a lot about reptile eggs? Leadwind 14:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

On 4 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Doris M. Cochran, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Carabinieri 13:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Mike, followed your edits in Snake. Would you consider adding a taxonomy section? There is no section on taxonomy of snakes nor are there any facts about the various snake families in the wiki. AshLin 16:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Even if you don't want to plunge in, a post on talk:purgatory in support of my efforts would be appreciated. Leadwind ( talk) 20:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

In an edit made to the article you stated that Taínos consumed Green iguanas. Since green iguanas are not native to the majority of the Caribbean I would like to know if you have a reference for this information. Thanks, Joelito ( talk) 18:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply

You made the edit on the Taíno article. See diff [1] Joelito ( talk) 00:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply

No worries. I wasn't reprimanding you or anything. I just wanted to know if you had more information than I did. So I will just say that they consumed members of the Iguanidae family. Joelito ( talk) 00:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I removed from the King Cobra article racist and profane language. It had nothing to do with the diet of the animal. Sorry if doing that offends, but someone needs to make sure that this information source isn't being filled with profanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.67.233 ( talk) 05:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Your Imperial Majesty, I particularly liked the lizard articles. Sometimes there's been a problem over at the cat article with editors attempting to deny that feral cat predation is a problem with endangered species. You probably have plenty of references in that area. Perhaps you could help? Best regards and happy holidays, Durova ^Charge! 18:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Since the talk page for the MEU(SOC) pistol doesn't seem very active, I thought I should ask you the question as you are one of the most frequent editors. How many different versions are there of the MEU(SOC) pistol? I'm guessing that the one pictured is the original; it doesn't have Pachmayr grips like most of the others I have seen. Also, newer versions have front cocking serrations, a new hammer, and Novak sights. Possibly a new section could be set up for this? Because currently, it isn't very clear in text what defines an MEU(SOC) pistol. Hayden120 ( talk) 07:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot ( talk) 23:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't know if you are interested, but I could use any of your comments here. Thanks, Happyme22 ( talk) 02:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply

On 6 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ctenosaura similis, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- PFHLai ( talk) 05:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos * ( t· c) 15:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply

The M1 carbine article is currently on lock down. An administrator has requested some discussion from memeber of the Firearms Wikiproject. Can you take a look? Sf46 ( talk) 19:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply