Dger

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

It is entirely inappropriate to call the f-number by the variable f, since f is universally recognized as the symbol denoting focal length. F-number doesn't get its name because it is f. It is called f-number because it is a ratio of f, and because it is commonly written preceded by f/ to form an expression of the aperture diameter. Balazer (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Actually, f (in italics) is universally recognized the the symbol for frequency. Any letter can take on any meaning if well defined within the equation. Dger (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just a quick note on some of your recent edits - after much discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Amphibians_and_Reptiles, we settled on several standard sources (mostly ITIS) in order to allow stability. Until there's some level of 'official' change, we try to maintain taxa in accordance with that database. Cheers! Mokele (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, sorry to bug you again, but I just noticed you're in biomechanics, as I am (though you're much farther along in your career than I am). I started WikiProject_Organismal_Biomechanics, which includes some topics applicable to humans (such as biarticular muscles, gait, force plates, muscle contraction, etc.) So far it's slow going, because so many of the articles are in poor shape. We've got a to-do list on the main page, and I figured you might be interested. Cheers, Mokele (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just happened to spot your query and thought it might help to chip in. Having seen them both in their heartlands where the two do not overlap, it seems easy but there are recent observations that suggest that they overlap in some area and here they are said to be a bit tough to separate by the number of stripes (as their older names would suggest) but the calls appear to be quite distinctive, the northern (aka five-striped) has a chipping call while the three-striped (southern) is distinctly squeaky. The geographic distribution is a clue within the ranges although some recent surprise sightings from outside the range have been noted. Location would help a lot. Shyamal (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Shyamal. DGER is asking about this img particularly, which I have requested for renaming as Northern Palm Squirrel. It was previously on the Indian Palm Squirrel article. In this case, your squirrels shot in Agra, Delhi is almost undoubtedly the Northern one. The Three-striped Palm Squirrel (Indian Palm Squirrel) is endemic to South India and Sri Lanka. The IUCN entry for the Northern Palm Squirrel mentions the fact that the southern limits of this squirrel are a bit hazy, and there seems to be more and more overlapping areas found. But, the northern limits of the Indian Palm Squirrel are quite clearly the central indian hills and your squirrels are photographed far norther than that. Hope this helps. prashanthns (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. They certainly seem like northerners! A rather large congregation too! Shyamal (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The August 2009 issue of the Bird 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.

Newsletter delivery by –xeno ^talk 02:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dger. If you want to revise taxonomies on Wikipedia, as you did for the Polygonia genus, there are two things you need to do before you change the text. First of all, you should seek consensus for the changes at the appropriate WikiProject, in this case, Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera. Once you have gotten consensus for the changes, you need to get the articles moved to the proper names before updating the article text. Otherwise the text of the articles doesn't match the article titles, and it just becomes a confusing mess. Kaldari (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the advice on changing names in the Polygonia genus. I am still learning how to work within Wikipedia. I have found that there is a great deal of confusion concerning naming, both common and taxonomic, so there may not be a 100% agreement among users. I will post a note to see if we should use the term Nymphalis or Polygonia for the members of this subgenus.

How long should one wait before reaching a consensus? What if a consensus isn't reached? What if there are no responses to the discussion? I have had very little experience with the discussion pages.

Cheers. Dger (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

You'll definitely get a response. Usually, the problem is too many opinions rather than too few :) Usually the way it works is after a proposal is made on a project page, people will discuss it for a few days and then the discussion will die out. Once the discussion is over, it's usually apparent what the consensus is. If no consensus is reached, no changes are made to the articles. Hope that makes sense. Let me know if you need any further assistance. BTW, oftentimes individual projects will have specific taxonomic references that they use as standards. For example, WikiProject Mammals uses Mammal Species of the World, Third Edition. For WikiProject Lepidoptera, LepIndex is considered the authoritative source for taxonomy. According to LepIndex, Polygonia is a genus rank rather then subgenus.[1] Kaldari (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

You may prefer to discuss taxonomic changes henceforth. Funet's useful but has gaps of info. LepIndex is outdated in many cases! We really have to depend upon a mish-mash, so I suggest we be rather conservative and stick to accepted names except where taxonomic revision has been done recently which is widely accepted. AshLin (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dger,

I know you are a relatively new user, but can I just point out a few types of edits that you have made which I think aren't inline with the Manual of Style. You have made some edits to number ranges (eg Eastern Blue-tongued Lizard) where you have used two consecutive dashes—30--60 cm. The wp:dash plainly says no to this construct (Wikipedia:MOSDASH#Other_dashes). It suggests an en dash instead or the word 'to'.

Also try to exercise care when converting unit of measurement, such as at American Black Bear. The use of references and the {{convert}} template can help to minimise such errors. The sad thing is that nobody noticed or cared that such a large error had been introduced to what is, one would assume, a relatively popular article. I am sure the mother bear would have noticed giving birth to cub ten times normal weight!

Do you have a reference for BIPM stipulating the symbols used for mass (and others) in formulae such as at Moment of inertia?

Thanks for all your input to many articles so far. Bleakcomb (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

For a casual exchange on user talk pages, just creating a top level heading and then placing your responses below is sufficient. No need to copy the other users responses. Between two users they can usually follow the thread split between two user pages. If it becomes more complicated, the exchange probably shouldn't be on user talk pages. Some users use {{talkback}} templates, though I haven't ventured there yet.

My comment about the symbols used was the edit summary that you left for the edits. The summary mentions SI. I thought that BIPM only spoke on units of measurement, their names and symbols; not about the values and their symbols if you understand what I mean. 'm' maybe the correct abbreviation for mass, but I wasn't aware that the BIPM told us that.

When you say the {{convert}} template gives incorrect spelling of units are you referring to American spellings or something else? Errors we can usually fix. Bleakcomb (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ahoy there! We're conducting our annual purge of the participants list for WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, in an effort to make sure our members stay current with events at the WikiProject. If you would like to renew your participation with the WikiProject, simply drop by the participants list and re-add your name to the list in alphabetical order using the following format: {{user|YOUR USERNAME HERE}}. Also feel free to add your specialties or points of interest. If you don't have the time or don't feel like rejoining, then ignore this request; you can rejoin at any time you'd like. Cheers, bibliomaniac15 00:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Very nice photo, I recently lost a large male C. similis I've had as a pet for a long time...he was 30 years old, interesting lizards!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think your two images "Anax junius.." are misidentified. Please do not replace taxobox images of documented specimens unless a higher quality image is available. Nickrz (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

You are right about the images. BTW, I was under the assumption your image was being deleted. I notice that the renewed image is again markered for quick deletion because of copyright problems. Have a look yourself. DGERobertson (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

   Hello, Dger. You have new messages at Miesianiacal's talk page.
  You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{MTalkback}} or {{MTb}} template.

--Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for you helpful edits to bird articles which I've been picking up from my watchlist.

However I've removed Bank Swallow from the Sand Martin taxobox. It's bird project policy to have only one name in the taxobox, with alternatives given in the lead sentence, and redirects from the other versions. Even if that were not the case, it's a bit selective to add the US name but not the Indian name, and having three names (more for some other species) in the taxobox would be getting a bit congested.

If you are not happy with the above, can you raise it at the bird project page since I'll be away for a while and won't be responding to my talk page, many thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Check out the changes I made to your edits on Chacma Baboon and Yellow-spotted Rock Hyrax. Cheers! - UtherSRG (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dger, just letting you know that this edit you made to Ottawa has been reverted. There was a pretty major discussion on the talk page (Talk:Ottawa#Population 2) and on the Canadian Wikipedians' notice board (Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 12#Calgary/Ottawa population updates) on how to present city populations, stemming from a dispute over whether Calgary is bigger than Ottawa. The result was that the intro should always list census data, as it is considered to be most accurate, as well as statscan estimates if available. If you disagree with this, feel free to bring it up on the talk page, but the discussions made it pretty clear that including both is most effective. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello there Dger! Since you are just about the only person actively working on butterfly articles, I like to ask you if you would be interested in making some species articles. I recently found a digital version of "Field Guide to Butterflies of South Africa" and I am systematically working through the species and am also including the info from funet as well as making missing genera pages. I'm now at Pseudonympha gaika, but since there are about 660 species in South Africa according to the Field Guide, this is going to take a long time. If you are intersted in helping out, I can upload the Guide and send you the link. Cheers and greetings from the Netherlands! Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Great you want to help out! I started at the beginning and are now on page 70. I think it would be easiest if I complete the Satyrinae species first, since I did a large portion of them already. I was thinking about doing the Hesperiidae next, but if you prefer doing these that would be fine with me.. Anyway: I dont know with (sub)family you are most interested in, please just choose whichever you want..! Nice to see you also have some pictures! We dont have that many pictures from African species it seems. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I found some photo's of unidentified species on Flickr too. Would you be capable of identifying them or would you know someone who would? See: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dkeats/ Ruigeroeland (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I will give it a try. DGERobertson (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

The licence this flickr user uses is ok for wikimedia commons, so we can upload them! Yeah, I had that warning from CorenBot too sometimes.. Don't worry about it.. There is no copyright on a list of names, just remove the message..! Great work on the genus page by the way, looks great! CheersRuigeroeland (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you could add the flighttimes

Could you do me a favour? I am missing page 382 and 383 in my digital copy. Would you be willing to add the species or missing info that is on that page? I think the species I am missing are Metisella aegipan, Metisella malgacha and Metisella metis, or are there more on those pages? Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I looked at the pages and they do contain only the three species that you mentioned. I also noticed you already created the pages for these species. What additional information do you want added? DGERobertson (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you could add the finer distribution of the subspecies, the flight times and food plants if they are not added yet. See Spialia agylla for the info I add to subspecies if I can find it. Thanks in advance! Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Done DGERobertson (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm, seems I'm missing some more pages. I made stubby articles with the info I could find online, but was not much. Could you add info to the following species too? Spialia paula, Spialia mafa, Spialia confusa, Spialia colotes, Platylesches picanini and Platylesches tina. Sorry about this, I thought I had the whole book! Anyway, I'm also working on a list of species from SA. I have it on a sandbox page for now. I will let you know when it is done..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Will do. I did one already. I may finish the others shortly but I am leaving for 2 weeks of holidays. I will try to get some butterfly and bird pictures from a wilderness area in northern Newfoundland. DGERobertson (talk) 15:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Have a good holiday! And happy photographing. It seems our work on SA butterflies has been noticed, User:Michaelwild is also helping out now with some great pictures and a great article. Ruigeroeland (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

They are done. DGERobertson (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just to let you know: Hesperiidae are done, I'm moving on to the Heliconiinae next. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ah, and the country list is also done. See: List of butterflies of South Africa. It is still a basic list with only the species, but it's a start. Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

You inspired me. I finally did the List of butterflies of Canada. DGERobertson (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Great work! I added categories and linked to the list with moths of Canada I made some time ago (which is not finished by the way, I have no good sources for some of the families, especially the micromoths, so if you would know a good source that would be great) Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you made a truck load of species today. Nice! I was wondering if you could handle page 244 and 250 of the field guide as well, because I am missing these. Cheers Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Will do. DGERobertson (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Done. Eriksson's Copper was already done. The term Erikssonia needs a disambiguation page as the name also refers to a fungus genus. DGERobertson (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Will look at the disambigution later. Would you mind doing another page I'm missing? Its page 288. Should contain: Lepidochrysops balli, Lepidochrysops littoralis and Lepidochrysops poseidon? They already have a page, but require expansion with the regular info. Seems we are almost done! Just a question: if I'm done with the Lycanids, which should I do next? I noticed you are working on both the Nymphalids and Whites. Furthermore, would you like me to help you add species for your List of Canadian Butterflies after we finish with South Africa? Would be a nice next project perhaps? Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I did the page. I was not being systematic with my edits. I was just picking genera that I had an interest in. There may be more that need to be done.

Sure it would be valuable to do up all the Canadian butterflies. There is an on-line site with relatively recent authoritative information. I have the paper version of the book too. I may be going on holidays again in northern Ontario. I hope to get a few butterfly pictures while there. It is amazing to find butterflies whose underwings match the bark of trees. They virtually disappear when their wings fold together. DGERobertson (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello there, welcome back! Hope you enjoyed your holiday. I noticed you created the page Lycaena hyllus, but the description seems to be about Lycaena phlaeas, a species that already has a page.. Maybe they are synonyms, but would you mind having a look? Ruigeroeland (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for noticing. I think what happened was that I overwrote a new article with an older one. It has been fixed. By the way I found a Flickr group that specializes in wild African butterflies. It is at: http://www.flickr.com/groups/africanbutterflies/ DGERobertson (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Great work and a great find. Will have a look in this Flickr group if there are images we can use..! Cheers Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, and thanks a lot for creating the Colotis stubs. I've found though that Commons doesn't have any entries for some of the species you posted, nor does Wikispecies, so you may want to be careful with adding those templates. What does sometimes work though for scientific names on Commons is to use {{commonscat}} rather for categories, but you may want to check that separately for each article. Keep up the good work, De728631 (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I will look into that. What is the difference between {{commons}} and {{commonscat}}? DGERobertson (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

{{commonscat}} opens the category associated with the name while {{commons}} only searches the commons database for the name, which requires the linked name to appear in either the name or the description of a file. And that's not always the case, so commons might come up with no result while there is in fact a category of the same name with some images. De728631 (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I will try it if commons has nothing. DGERobertson (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just a heads up, I placed a {{db-g6}} tag on Dger:sandbox since it seems you have corrected your own error. Cheers! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Great work! I have been somewhat busy the past week and will be this week and the next, but will pick up the pace after that. I see you already started the Canadian species. I will start with the Skippers. Cheers and you deserve this as much as I do, so:

		The Wikiproject Lepidoptera Barnstar
		For all your work on adding species from the List of butterflies of South Africa and many other contrbutions to Project Wikiproject Lepidoptera. Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Sympetrum costiferum, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/bio/insects/drgnfly/libefam/sycos/sycosfr.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dger. I saw that you made several edits saying that this file is a Saffron-winged Meadowhawk. For one thing, it isn't. It isn't so easy to identify it with a picture but I saw it from all sides and it is a Cherry-faced Meadowhawk. Also, it has just gotten a valued image promotion under Cherry-faced Meadowhawk. So in the future, please ask me before you start changing categories of my images and their descriptions. Best, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your image is awesome but there are a number of field marks that indicate it is a not a Cherry-faced Meadowhawk. According to my sources (see en:Sympetrum_internum#References) the legs must be black. Your image has striped legs that are indicative of the Saffron-winged Meadowhawk. Another difference is the lack of black triangular markings along the abdomen. Again this is indicative of the Saffron-winged Meadowhawk. Check out the sources listed above or the pictures under the "External links". Cheers. DGERobertson (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

The legs don't seem striped to me. However, if you are right, then that means my image has been promoted to valued image in the wrong scope! Thanks for the help, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

The striping is supposed to be lengthwise. The main point is that they are not all black, etc. It is possible that a mistake has been made in your nomination. It is recognized that it is nearly impossible to distinguish some meadowhawks in the field. DGERobertson (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello friend, I was wondering if you would be interested in collaborating on the Painted turtle article with me over the course of the next couple of weeks/months?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Dger. You have new messages at NYMFan69-86's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ditto. Regards.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ditto again.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Question?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dger, do you know how to access the painted turtle related content from this source. If we can view all of what it says about painted turtles the article will write itself (I've used the same source for two other turtle articles, its very precise and has a lot to offer).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not in my library. I checked it out online and it is fairly expensive. DGERobertson (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay...standby.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Many questions raised on the talk page...--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

User:NYMFan69-86/Sandbox. Started rewriting reproduction section here with some of the new sources...may be a good place to begin.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I found a pretty strange yet effective way to view the pages from the Ernst and Lovich "Turtles of the U.S. and Canada" source...I just need your e-mail so that I can forward you the 50+ screenshots!!!!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Due to the Ernst source, expansion of the Reproduction section is going smoothly. It may need another pair of eyes for things like flow, grammar, etc.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I did do some editing yesterday. Will review latest changes too. DGERobertson (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

The section looks good, still some construction to be done...images to be found/rearranged/words to be w-linked.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

The image of this subspecies has been removed from wikicommons...do you know of another that can be uploaded?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

No. This problem has occured before. There aren't many pictures to choose from. By the way, we should keep pictures of the plastron somewhere. This is maybe why we need separate articles for each species. DGERobertson (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've been reading the Ernst source and they basically just ignore the subspecies issue. In their text they point out differences as they arise (like the table I put in the reproduction section). We should be fine if we follow that source than add supporting information from other sources. I whole-heartedly agree that those pictures should be included, however, those were in strange spots. Perhaps they could be put in the description section. Oh...before I forget...did you get the e-mails of the screenshots?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes I got the screenshots. Thanks. Another thing we could use is a map showing the distribution of the four species. I noticed a picture in the Commons that is from Minnesota. It probably is a Western. I am trying to make an ID but the picture isn't the best. DGERobertson (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Ernst book has a fantastic map, if you're good with photoshop... The good thing is that arguably the hardest section is out of the way! NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

The problem is to identify the various subspecies areas. So far I haven't seen such a map. I haven't tried making maps for Wikipedia yet. It doesn't look too difficult. I just need to figure out the easiest way. DGERobertson (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

True, but if Ernst keeps it ambiguous...we can keep it ambiguous. If we can upload a map similar to that than, in the distribution and habitat section, say specifically where each is found (just like a sentence each), than we should be fine.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is there an accessible link for the "Orenstein" ref (end of first paragraph under Ecology and behavior)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

No idea. DGERobertson (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Should I remove that information? I can add content from the other sources, but not from that one as of right now.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hide it until we can find an appropriate ref. So far I couldn't find one. DGERobertson (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I'll continue work in my sandbox. Nice images!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

The first source is inaccessible, however, it is currently citing only two things that I personally have found in other sources. Do you mind if I remove it (it's also only in the lead)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sure. No problem. DGERobertson (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

You can throw in an image of the plastron now. I just wanted some expansion to take place before the page became more pictures than anything else...NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sure I will look into it. BTW I changed your raccoon picture. The one you had was so pathetic looking and the new one looks like the raccoon was actually searching for a turtle. DGERobertson 00:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Haha...a little scrawny I suppose.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I submitted the article for peer review.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good luck. DGERobertson 18:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Just looking for general help/suggestions for now.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you're struggling with the map, you could likely ask NuclearVacuum over on wikicommons (he did this other map for me...nice guy). Or perhaps before you do that, you ask at the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

 

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Speyeria edwardsii, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/bio/insects/butrfly/famnymph/spedf.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

The bot must have gone haywire. This was NOT a copyright violation. Dger (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dger, stumbled across this image File:Belted Whiteface.jpg. Just put it into Painted turtle, it works fantastically. Do you know if it occurs within the range of our little turtle?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ah...sorry, disregard. It was in there for a while but things got jumbled around and now it's been replaced with a larvae picture.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Recently created project, we could really use your expertise.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I signed up and will help out when possible. Dger (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

At WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, in which you are listed as a member, we're working on a pretty massive backlog (1000+ articles!) of unassessed articles. We would appreciate it greatly if you would help assess the articles in the link. It's simple to do!

1. Read over the article.
2. On the discussion page, look for the {{AARTalk}} template. Add in a "class" and "importance" parameter if the template does not have them already. Example: {{AARTalk|class= |importance= }}
3. For the class, fill in the article's quality using the WikiProject's quality scale: stub, start, C, B, GA, A, or FA. Most unassessed articles will probably be stubs or start class articles, and definitely B or lower.
4. For the importance, fill in the article's importance to the WikiProject using the importance scale: low, mid, high, or top. Most unassessed articles will probably be low or mid importance.
5. Then you're done!

It's not a difficult task, but there's a lot to get done. Our hope is that we can chip through the backlog and assess every article within the auspices of the project. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 00:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I will contribute to the effort. I already tried doing a few. Dger (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dger, the English WP has two articles about the same species. I am not working on the English WP, but on the German WP. Therefore, may be you should organize to remove this redundancy. Greetings from Berlin, Germany. -- Engeser (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for noticing. I will look into the matter and get it fixed. Dger (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's fixed now. Dger (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Greetings. -- Engeser (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello WP:TURTLE member, the project needs your help. We have recently created a portal (Portal:Turtles), and would like you to choose two or three captivating turtle images for its "Selected picture" section. These images must to be chosen from commons and have a small (three sentences or so) paragraph describing the species in the picture. When you have several that you like, please place the images and a possible caption on the portal's talk page (Portal talk:Turtles). Thank you so much project member!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Will do. Dger (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I won't be reverting your moving of however as it really doesn't matter but I don't agree with it. Sentences can start with "However" or "But" and in many cases it is the correct thing to do. As you've already posted that Strunk and White's analysis is suspect you are at least partly aware of the situation. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have used this rule from Strunk and White for many years (decades if you must know) and I do agree that it is not universally accepted. In this case, I had already changed another part of the text and I felt we should be consistent. Another editor said that it did not need to have a comma after it, but editors are in agreement, I believe, that it must have one when used as "nevertheless". I think we are not too divergent on this matter. Cheers. Dger (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your edits are fine. I don't mind them at all and it was my mistake to not spot your comma change. My only interest was for you to re-think the idea that "However" can't start a sentence. You may find of interest an however vs but discussion between some major editors on the use of 'But' to start a sentence not long ago. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. Of course many writers violate grammar rules often to great effect. I will keep an open mind but I do feel Wikipedia needs to follow a scholarly approach being that it is an encyclopedia. Whether the "however" rule is scholarly is the problem. I will not be a pest about it. Cheers. Dger (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

We are doing a push to get 10 turtle GAs (or FAs, FLs) in two months. how about grabbling an article and making it your baby and participating? If you want help, others can join in, or if you like to really run it as your creation, that is fine too. Or whatever blend you prefer. there are some real "plum" turtle articles that could be turned into GAs (notable, sources available, etc.). In any case, you'd be part of an effort and could share victories and commisserate setbacks together!

[2]

TCO (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please use edit summaries; you forgot to do so in your recent edit to International System of Units. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

If you read the guidelines carefully, there is no blanket prohibition of adding youtube video links. It really looks like you are just undoing my edits just for the heck of it. --Agamemnus (talk) 08:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I did read the guidelines carefully. How did your insertion add useful information about snapping turtles? Are pigeons a usual food source of snappers? Dger (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It shows that snappers can eat just about anything. Are snappers a usual source of food for herons? Do you have any information whatsoever to back up one or the other? It seems you are biased against snappers for some reason. QUOTE:

"I agree with Matt. Great Blue Herons are beautiful birds and need to feed to stay alive. Even if they were the ugliest aninmals in earth they still need to feed and progagate their species. Small turtles are well known as a food source for various birds. It may not look pleasant to a human eye but to a bird's eye it is normal and natural to capture various creatures for consumption and life. I congratulate the photographer for capturing such a difficult image."

So this is what I say: "Common snapping turtles are beautiful turtles and need to feed to stay alive. Even if they were the ugliest animals in earth they still need to feed and progagate their species. Birds and other small animals are well known as a food source for common snapping turtles. It may not look pleasant to a human eye but to a turtle's eye it is normal and natural to capture various creatures for consumption and life. I congratulate the photographer for capturing such a difficult video."

Yes? --Agamemnus (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You never said before that you referenced the blue heron article for your stance on herons eating turtles. Now you are saying that common snapping turtles don't eat birds, and that they don't eat outside of the water. That's just not true. First of all, they will eat outside of the water if they are hungry enough. Second, snapping turtles' tails vary. Female tails are much shorter, and the ratio of tail size to body size decreases as they grow. A snapping turtle big enough to eat a pidgeon would be an adult with a smaller ratio of tail to body size than a juvenile or baby. Regardless, this is clearly a common snapping turtle in the video. Its long protruding neck and head attest to that. The tail is obscured by the mud. Third, the URL of the website doesn't mean squat in evaluating the content -- nice red herring. Fourth, you have no evidence that turtles are a common food item of blue herons -- only that they feed on them, so you can't say that being an "uncommon" food item is a reason for not including the video. If you don't remember, you rejected that rationale yourself when I offered it! Fifth, here it is, straight from the article: "Snapping turtles are omnivores, consuming both plant and animal matter, and are important aquatic scavengers; but they are also active hunters that prey on anything they can swallow, including many invertebrates, fish, frogs, reptiles (including snakes and smaller turtles), unwary birds, and small mammals."--Agamemnus (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

If you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that that was a common snapping turtle, I think it's okay to leave it in...no Dger?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ok, first of all, adult snapping turtles have a smooth shell. And now here's the higher quality source on youtube. The face of that turtle is that of a COMMON SNAPPING TURTLE. HAPPY? Are you going to ask me to learn Portugese and translate the reporter now?!?!?! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhGZ5XUW27E--Agamemnus (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I know I'm late to this party but I just wanted to point out that the species in the video is not a Snapping Turtle at all. It is Phrynops hilarii, a species of sideneck turtle (pleurodire) filmed in Brazil. This particular incident, as well as others, were published in the september 2009 issue of Herpetological Review (PHRYNOPS HILARII (Hilaire's Side-necked Turtle). FEEDING BEHAVIOR. Volume 40 Issue 3 Pages 336-337 by Clovis S. Bujes). . Matt Keevil (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

MacMed^talk_stalk 00:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

>Please stop your disruptive editing of Common Snapping Turtle. Your addition of someone else's video violates many common rules for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. In fact, you are the one who are making disruptive editing as you are the person who removed the video in the first place.

I think you need to look at what you are editing. I modified the video after I found the source. After more research, including using google translate, I found that it is probably not a common snapping turtle, but a Phrynops Hilarii. However, all that research should have been done by you, and then you would have had the right to remove it. PS: You seem to just love to pile up accusations, forcing people to do your legwork for you. PPS: A link does not constitute original research. --Agamemnus (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Totally wrong. It was up to you to source the addition. The concept that pigeons are a food source for the Common Snapping Turtle was original research since it is not documented in the literature. Dger (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Once again, it's not an "addition". The article states that a food source for common snapping turtles is "unwary birds", not "unwary birds (with the exception of certain birds that Dger fancies aren't palatable by turtles, like pigeons)". If you have an issue with that statement, start by removing that instead.--Agamemnus (talk) 09:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your statement, earlier: "Pigeons are NOT food sources for turtles". Proof to the contrary, via Google Translate: "In the environment where they live reptile, the competition for food is great. This explains the stress the animal out of the water (which usually feeds) and corner doves. It can be painful to see the bird most sentimental part of the menu of quelídeo. The biologist, however, suggests that the course of nature must follow normally. In this case, this mechanism also serves to regulate the number of pigeons... This has to be seen as something natural. It's like a lion catching a zebra. Do not go to save the dove!" source--Agamemnus (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

How long before you stall progress on a different article? You put in a bad video of the wrong turtle and you have the audacity to say it's Dgers fault? How dare you. Cite what you include...jeez, common sense. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just to let you know you forgot to substitute the vandalism warning template you posted at User talk:129.25.27.219#April 2011. As I'm sure you know, this sort of template should be done as {{Subst:uw-v3|Cancer (constellation)}}, not just {{uw-v3|Cancer (constellation)}}. Regards, Richard New Forest (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I didn't know that. I could use some guidance as to why. I have posted a number of these with no previous such warning. What is the difference? Cheers. Dger (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

It still works if you don't, and eventually a bot comes along and substitutes it. You've probably not been reminded before because no-one has bothered. I think the idea is to limit processor demand, as an unsubstituted template has to be calculated every time it's viewed, and a substituted one is just text. Some templates are always substituted and some never. This guidance explains it more fully: WP:SUBSTITUTION. Regards, Richard New Forest (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Dger (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Red Herring made me smile. (I just used my Chef's Knife...have lost 70 pounds by emphasizing veggies!) TCO (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I always look for the humorous side of these discussions. Dger (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello, my name is Marissa.User:NYMFan69-86 has suggested that I get in touch with you when tackling the Wikipedia project. Our teacher, Mr. Butler, has told us that several Wikipedia members have caught on to the project and will often help other students. I'm not sure if you have noticed in years before,or if User:NYMFan69-86just knows you are very good at Wikipedia. My teacher also said that we will need all the help we can get. I am a bit intimidated at this point, with all the formatting and what not. But any help I can acquire now or down the road I will be more than happy to accept. If you are willing to help, I will get back in touch once we start the articles if I seem to be stuck. Thank you for your time reading this! Marissa927 (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dger, since you have made a lot of NA butterfly articles, you will probably know this, but to be sure I will post it anyway... Did you know all text on the Butterflies and Moths of North America website is Public Domain and thus can be copied to wikipedia without too much rewriting? I didnt know it until just now... This might speed up article creation for NA butterflies considerably... See the FAQ page of the website: [3], "Can I have permission to use photographs or text from this web site?" "Photographs - All images on this web site are copyrighted, and they cannot be copied, reproduced, or used in any way without the author's permission. Usage fees may be charged. Contact information for photographers is available by contacting us." "Text - Written information contained in the species accounts (such as identification, life history, habitat, range, etc.) are public domain. We ask that you cite this resource when using information from this web site." Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I will look into that source. Dger (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When you recently edited Cathedral of Santo Domingo, Cusco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quechua (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

You were right to question this and I'll change the text.Lamas reduced the number of Morpho species without saying why.In fact synonymies (in any taxon) are seldom explained Funet being no exception.The problem is Le Moult and Real (with it's many faults) remains the standard work hence "many authorities". De Vries has faults too.Web names are variously derived and EOL and NHM opt out altogether (for many Valid name = Valid species so this term does not help in the least) I'll put something alng these lines on the articles talk page. Modified it can then replace the unrefed text.All the best and a Happy New Year Notafly (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC) PS. What do the Japanese make of all this I wonder.Reply

Thanks, unfortunately I'm going to be away for a few days, but usually someone on the bird project picks these up Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

[4] Please be careful with macro substitutions, respect WP:Engvar, do not copyedit image names, do not change reference titles against the sources (no matter the spelling) and check your browser for international font support before saving such edits - it takes time to fix them later. Materialscientist (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Changing article titles per IOC defying WP:Engvar is tricky and does need consensus developed at the article talk or/and WP:BIRD. Note these links [5] [6] "the committee encourages each author and publisher to select whatever spelling of these words is deemed appropriate". Materialscientist (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have no preference for gray or grey and my major concern is consistency within the article; if there is no clear benefit for a change, I tend to be conservative because such changes require tedious adjustments across wikipedia. Anyway, if the article is titled Gray Jay then the correct procedure is to build consensus to change the article name (e.g. WP:RM) and only then change the article text. Materialscientist (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Forms "in vivo" are rarely the best images we have. Especially that you want to impose, which is medicocre quality. One that is implemented is the type species for the genus. Thank you for your understanding. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Observe the quality criteria of scientific description. An image "in vivo" is not intrinsically superior to a naturalized specimen. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! European and UK taxonomic status changed in 2011. I will send you the sources some time this week —GRM (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. The sources need to be very strong as the references in the article are already generally accepted. Dger (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

The species name "vaualbum" is a nomen nudum, i.e., published without description or an indication and as such it is unavailable for scientific nomenclature. Reference: Kudrna, O. & J. Belicek. 2005. On the ‘Wiener Verzeichnis’, its authorship and the butterflies named therein. Oedippus, 23: 1-32 p. joe.belicek@shaw.ca 68.151.58.221 (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that information but we still need a proper reference to its current bionomial name otherwise we leave it until one is established. As above in the previous note, (Aglais io) Wikipedia needs reliable sources. Dger (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Thanks for telling me. I will verify this. --Cephas (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I believe you found an incorrect image of Fort Beauséjour or the image of a different fort. Check the brochure at the Parks Canada site here: Fort Beauséjour–Fort Cumberland: Une Histoire / A History It shows several layouts of the Forts (Beauséjour and Cumberland) that are all five pointed. The image you have submitted does not match. Please do not revert again unless you have proof the model is accurate. Dger (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I just explained myself in Talk. This picture of the model was taken inside the Fort Beauséjour museum. Even the drawing shows an uneven five star fort, and your link shows a building similar to the one inside the model. Prove me different or phone the museum.--Varing (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

The picture of this model was taken inside Fort Beauséjour museum. If you disagree, phone the museum. Furthermore, look at this drawing of the fort, it has five unequal distant points. Even Dger's link shows a building inside the fort similar to the fort model.--Varing (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

The link, towards the end of the presentation, shows an aerial photo of an uneven five star fort. Even one side was dug in, like in the first model photo. Better to have a closer look my friend!--Varing (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Looks very even to me. Dger (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.2.116 (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dger, I noticed that you cut off the redirect from Chrysiridia riphearia to Chrysiridia rhipheus, and you included C. riphearia in the Chrysiridia article. I wonder if you could clarify, is there a recent change to separate these species?

I only ask because Chrysiridia rhipheus is going on the front page in about 15 hours, and it says "The genus Chrysiridia is entirely African and the only other species in the genus is the East African C. croesus." So if there's a discrepancy we can clear up, let's do it soon! :-) Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 08:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dger, its been some time, but I would like to point you to an amazing source for African butterflies located at: http://atbutterflies.com/downloads/. These are .doc files that seem to have descriptions on all African butterflies. I started working on some Pieridae species already, but seeing there are about 4000 species (we made 700 South African already though) I was wondering if you would be up for a second round of "African Lep"-article creation..? Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

That is an enormous challenge. I am rather busy right now with academic matters but I may be able to help in a month or so. Cheers. Dger (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

No worries, I have started making some articles. If you have time and can chip in in a month, it would be greatly appreciated! Cheers Ruigeroeland (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've undone your reversion of my edit. You may wish to look at why on the talk page, Talk:Center_of_mass#Expected_Value. 70.113.68.242 (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

What exactly is wrong with the parantheses in authority citations used for example in the taxobox binomial authority field at leopard? This is a very common practice, and I know it's recommended in some form by the ICZN (I'd like to hear from you anyway, so I won't go to the trouble of checking just now). —innotata 22:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Reply

 

Hello, Dger. You have new messages at Innotata's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, I think your photo of a female Common Whitetail (Libellula lydia) is actually a female Twelve-spotted Skimmer (Libellula pulchella). Note the straight yellow abdominal stripes, they should be white (usually) and zigzagged in a Common Whitetail (the Common Whitetail wiki page says this too). Both are in range for Ottawa. Compare with these Bugguide links:

http://bugguide.net/node/view/603 http://bugguide.net/node/view/3407

you can also compare with your own photo of a female Twelve-spotted Skimmer.

Thanks CYRIC (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for noticing. I corrected the image and taxobox. Dger (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just a small note on this. All the ones in square brackets were suspect (user:Dclees added this initially). Mostly junior synonyms and alike. I haven't made a thorough check, but many of them are invalid names that should be removed. RN1970 (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

It looked like typos from a cut-and-paste. We should the suspect ones. Go ahead if you know which ones should be removed. Cheers. Dger (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

If someone hasn't already directed you here, then someone should. Cheers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've been working on a small game built around animal quizzes and I wanted to let you know I've used some of your pictures.

I found your pictures here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Banded_Mongoose.jpg I attributed this picture as described on that website: D. Gordon E. Robertson with this link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dger and also added a link to the license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pristimantis_achatinus,_Tambopata_Lodge.jpg I attributed this picture as described on that website: D. Gordon E. Robertson with this link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dger and also added a link to the license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Muskrat_swimming_Ottawa.jpg I attributed this picture as described on that website: D. Gordon E. Robertson with this link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dger and also added a link to the license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

I hope you're happy with it, please let me know if this is not the case. You can find the game here: http://apps.facebook.com/animalalbum Or through here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/AnimalAlbum/156339584490672

Kind regards, Garfunkel Jansen (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Thanks for taking the pictures and making them available.

Hi Dger! Thank you for your corrections to my two photos mistakenly posted in "Eueides isabella". I have transferred both of them in "Heliconius ismenius". They seem to me more precisely "Heliconius ismenius telchinia". Do you think it is correct?

Ciao. Hectonichus

There is a fundamental problem in your operations on images. We are part of an encyclopedia. The topics should be seriously. This is the only way to get us scientific institutions. In the case of entomology we get a butterfly and describe it so that it can be recognized. This is not the case with in vivo images you want to keep. In this case you show a butterfly panama. Now there are two distinct subspecies and the image you show does not differentiate (Heliconius sara theudela and Heliconius sara fulgidus. The butterfly image is mounted that of the species reference, it is she who must be shown first. That said without animosity or polemical spirit as we share a lot in common.   --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC) PS :Désolé mon anglais n'est vraiment pas bon...Reply

Both have their place and are useful. But to take the students shows them mounted specimens before release into the wild. Whatever the discipline: entomology, botany paleontology we always start by studying collections.

But in fact it is just a detail. We are both scientists and we will see rependre knowledge is freely around the world. If we want to continue: we must raise the level. I totally agree with you this is not a place for our publication, but we need to attract other scientists. We must convince the museum to let us work with them. They open the doors of their collections. This is the meaning of my statement. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm wondering how you went about getting your spider photos IDed. In particular, are you sure that this is A. trifolium and not a variant of A. marmoreus, and that this is D. tenebrosus and not D. scriptus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LMByer (talk • contribs) 23:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Probably: Weber, Larry. (2003) Spiders of the North Woods. Duluth, MN:Kollath+Stensaas, 104-105. Dger (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Dger. You have new messages at RockMagnetist's talk page.
Message added 02:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

RockMagnetist (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

What ISO and BIPM think the standards should be is irrelevant. Bold italics for vectors are emphatically not standard practice in published physics material, and it is inappropriate to execute rapid-fire conversions of the formatting in physics articles. The matter is currently being discussed here and I have (again) reverted your changes at angular momentum. Zueignung (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes - please do comment there before making any more changes. Thanks. Maschen (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Bank of Canada audit review board should seriously consider investing the Bank of Canada reserves of Nation's government bonds into a different investment portfolio. The new GAAP quantitative easying Central Bank definition defines quantitative easying as the amount goverment debt owned by its Central Bank; inotherwords the Bank of Canada balance sheet needs to be reformed as its central bank zero bookvalue balance sheet standard interferes with the right of Canada to particiapate in quantitative easying.

Bank of Canada Balance Sheet is audited by KPMG by the way and it states 8.3 million. --Prettyladieslover (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

The amounts listed as of 26 Nov. are clearly stated on page 13 of the 2011 statement. Where did you get your number from? I could not find it in the cited document. Dger (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Professor. I was wondering if you have any thoughts on the notability of the Total Immersion article. While there are plenty of web references for the technique, I am having difficulty finding "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:GNG. There are a few references in the article, but only #10 touches on the actual technique and it's not a good one in that it is a blog post and primary source material. Many of the others mention swimmers supposedly connected with the technique without direct mention of TI. My thoughts are to stubify the article after finding one or two reliable secondary sources that at least have a good definition. Location (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I only stumbled upon this article after looking at ChiRunning; it is in even worse shape than Total immersion. The only reliable references were ones I put in to refute some ridiculous statements. I don't know of any peer-reviewed articles on the techniques outlined in Total Immersion. I conducted a Google Scholar search and found nothing useful. I agree with you that the article should be properly referenced. The only primary source would appear to be a book by the author of the technique (Laughlin). Dger (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

... this. Thanks :-) - DVdm (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that long overdue page revision and best regards Notafly (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I noticed your changes so I decided to finish them all. Cheers. Dger (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Would you care to share your opinion about the composite/single infobox image issue here? I would really appreciate it. Thanks! --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Good evening Thanks for that move.Robert aka Notafly (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for that appreciation. And warm regards from Ireland.Robert aka Notafly (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for improving the English of an article- Horizontal versus vertical - even if it will probably be deleted! Shanker Pur (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Would you please explain why you have created a "Further reading" section at "International System of Units" and put references in it; works used in the creation of the article do not belong in "Further reading". Jc3s5h (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I did not create the "Further reading" section; it was already there. The so called references were not linked to any point in the text so they cannot be considered as references. They are sources of information. You should notice that every other reference in the "References" have a specific point in the text that they "refer to". The items in "Further reading" are general references that readers can use. Dger (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

You did not recognize that some footnotes, such as #26, "^ SI brochure, op cit, p 110", refer back to the SI brochure that you moved to the further reading section. I have undone the revisions. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dger Hmmm Colias - a lot of names not a lot of sense. I put a note on the talk page of the Colias chippewa article after adding some brief notes. There seem to be two entomological Korshunov's by the way and I'm chasing this. What I do know is that Y.P. Korshunov knew how to charge for paratypes (often in very long series).Notafly (talk) 16:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC) PS> See here also [7] I am sure the picture amendment is correct but those are Korshunov's labels not mine.Reply

 

Hello, Dger. You have new messages at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Plastingia_naga.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AshLin (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals#Olingos_and_Olinguito for upcoming changes to these articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I didn't mean to revert your changes: I meant to revert this one vandal IP's edits, who has been inserting spurious information into numerous articles, primarily by adding or changing erroneous fossil ranges. --Mr Fink (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Bombus affinis, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Bombus auricomus. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Velocity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Displacement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

You do realize that dinosaur (dinosauria) is a taxonomic ranking right? Evolution cannot make something evolved out of a taxonomic rank. If it did, humans would not be apes. Birds are dinosaurs and are classified as dinosaurs by science, as they belong to the taxonomic rank dinosauria and are specifically maniraptors, along with their cousins such as the dromaeosaurs (such as Deinonychus, Velociraptors and Utahraptors) The Mummy (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

First, let's keep in mind one of the pillars of Wikipedia—Editors should treat each other with respect and civility. Yes, I am aware that birds evolved from a dinosaur but that does not mean that they should be called dinosaurs. Why would we even need the word "bird"? Taken back far enough all animals have a common ancestor but it is helpful to give certain groups a name to distinguish them from other groups. Dger (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I reverted your revert, and went on to add the clarifying info. See if you agree. Dicklyon (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

That's better but I am still uncomfortable with the word giving. Dger (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Now that you have my point, feel free to try a better wording. Dicklyon (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dger, the first part of the translation is right, but the rest isn't. You find the complete translation here [8]. I left the translation because it might cause permanent trouble in this article. If anyone is interested in the translation he might look it up (see ref), but those people probably won't do that anyway. See you. -- CaTi0604 (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Despite everything, you seem to be optimistic. Okay, no risk no fun :). See you. -- CaTi0604 (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I don’t understand why some Wikipedians get their rocks off throwing around baseless accusations without regard for the feelings of their fellow contributors. You reverted my Feb.5th edit to Canada lynx without messaging me beforehand, without attempting to solicit any context for the post, and assuming bad faith — which is counter to the spirit of this enterprise and to the five pillars of Wikipedia. You accused me of vandalism which frankly I find deeply offensive. I don’t know what your story is — maybe you’re some kid who doesn’t know any better, but on this site it is vitally important to work towards consensus, and act in a spirit of mutual trust.

I was attempting to add a folk name to the introductory paragraph on the animal in question, a mundane event one would think. My sources are attached below:

• Sea of Slaughter. Mowat, Farley. Douglas & McIntyre, 2012. (p182–183)

• Discoveries of America: Personal Accounts of British Emigrants to North America. DeWolfe, Barbara. Cambridge University Press, 1997. (p70)

• Giant Cats — Legend of the Clementsvale Lucifee. Coleman, Ed. Annapolis Spectator. March 14, 2012.

• Rural Rides. Cobbett, William. London, 1830. (p279)

— Muckapedia (talk) 5^e fév. 2014 23h19 (−4h)

Hi Dger, thanks for messaging about reverting changes I made on Wolverine! The changes I made were in attempt to repair vandalism (eliminating some infantile gibberish in the text and deliberately broken links in the right-hand box), so the reference to being "not constructive" is a little bit lost on me in this case... Unless I somehow managed muck it up. However and in any case, I am grateful for vigilance, so cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.157.125.113 (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Per the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_46#Piero_Scaruffi_-_Final_Verdict_on_using_him_as_a_source_in_reviews there's a very clear consensus here that Scaruffi is not to be used as a source in music/album articles in any capacity. Do not add his reviews to review charts or his opinions in reception sections. It is a wp:self published source. Since this is a long running dispute, any contributor warned by the situation and who doesn't respect it, would encounter sanctions and could be blocked from editing. Thanks. You've been informed because you used this source here. Woovee (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm working on an educational videogame with which I'm trying to build a bridge between animal awareness and Pokemon fans among others. It started out as something small and I contacted you before but it's getting bigger and more professional so I wanted to make sure you were ok with it.

It's regarding these pictures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Banded_Mongoose.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pristimantis_achatinus,_Tambopata_Lodge.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Muskrat_swimming_Ottawa.jpg

I would like your permission to use them under those licenses with the following attribution: D. Gordon E. Robertson, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dger

Also, because I want to make sure there's no misunderstanding, you are the original photographer correct? It sometimes happens that another person simply takes a picture from somebody else and uploads it to wikipedia with a license to distribute. That is why I'm asking.

There is more information on the game here, including a short video that tells a little bit about the background: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/238178285/animalalbum

I also have a demo version of the game available so you can see for yourself in what way the pictures are presented: http://dromedarydreams.com/index/demo/0-8

Please let me know if I have your permission, if the pictures are yours and if you want a different attribution.

With kind regards, Sjors Jansen (all.animalalbum@gmail.com) Garfunkel Jansen (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sure feel free to use these images. They were all taken be me. Dger (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much! I'll do my best to turn it into a great game Garfunkel Jansen (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you had uploaded an image to the Aeshna eremita article. I was wondering if you knew if File:Unidentifed dragonfly.jpg was also a Lake Darner? Thanks. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 22:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've uploaded a second image, File:Unidentified dragonfly 2.jpg. This one is dead but is from a different angle. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 03:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Great thanks very much. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 05:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dger, I have reversed your changes to this article. The image you inserted is not a paper wasp. Regards, Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Again, because those are not "paper wasps". All papers wasp are of the genus Polistes (please see this article: [9]. And the poster is also a FP. Alvesgaspar (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Bfpage |leave a message  14:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)== October 2014 ==Reply

 

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Moment of inertia. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
You should have taken this to the talk page after you were reverted the first time. You ignore the BRD mention in the edit summary when you were reverted a second time. So, now you've been reverted a third time. Discuss it on the tak page and see if you can get anyone to agree with you. I doubt that you will have any luck, because we're not claiming that angular momentum is being perfectly conserved. Meters (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Greetings! I would like to know if you would consider going over some of the edits that you have made recently to improve the Monarch butterfly on its talk page. Nothing major, just styl-istic discussion.

  Bfpage |leave a message  14:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think I am sending you a message, Gord. I have met with the person I am doing the wiki bio on so am ready to launch, I think. see if I can get off this. Hmm sign off with Sandraolney (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Great! Guess I did it right, more or less. Thanks for letting me know. I have done quite a lot of the easy stuff on the sandbox, using your template. Now I need to pay attention to referencing etc. Sandraolney (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Gord - thanks! I am working slowly! I haven't got to reference as yet but will soon.

Question: I want a full spelled out version to appear when the reader floats the mouse over the acronym - e.g., when s/he reads "DipTP" I want to float the box saying "Diploma, Teacher in Physiotherapy". Do I use the piped link form like this: DipTP? I saw it somewhere but darned if I can find it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandraolney (talk • contribs) 21:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I totally forgot about the wiggles! Sandraolney (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Spruce may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• are often killed, and larger plants may become too deformed for planting. Outbreaks involving < 30% of spruce seedlings in seedbeds have been traced to seed lots in which only 0.1% to 3% of
• The word "spruce" entered the English language from the [[Polish]] name of [[Prusy]] (the historical region, part of [[Poland]]. It it became ''spruce'' because in Polish, ''z Prus'',

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Gord. I have one thing more I should do - then it would be great if you put it on. I believe I named a page Malcolm Peat when I didn't know what I was doing, so I guess it might still exist somewhere? I will finish up the little change tomorrow, then you can put it on. After that I will deal with the picture and corrections. Many thanks.Sandraolney (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

There is no Malcolm Peat page so there will be no problem adding your page. Tell me when it is ready. Cheers. Dger (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Gord Sure took me a long time to do a repeat reference for Canadian Physio Assoc. I think it is OK to go now. Thanks for your help. Not sure what happens from here.Sandraolney (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Got a nice note from Malcolm who is really appreciative. I told him you had helped me a lot. Also, he set it along to the dean, with whom he had just had lunch, and the Dean replied back to him "Fabulous, what a treat to read. As we said at lunch, it is hard to estimate just how impactful your career has been...to so many." So thanks again. (I am about to add the PMID numbers to the medical journal references.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandraolney (talk • contribs) 18:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

On 6 July 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Microlophus albemarlensis, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that biologist Robert C. Stebbins once dosed Galápagos lava lizards (pictured) with radiation and tracked them with a Geiger counter? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello
I've been chasing down edits by User:GammaCepheus001 and his pair of socks; I've been reverting them, on the premise that cheats should not prosper, and as such I've reverted changes here to the conversion templates. However I would be pleased if you could review this for me as you will know more about the subject than I do. If I have undone changes which are actually worth keeping, please see it as a good faith edit and feel free to undo what I have done there. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC) cReply

Xyl 54, thanks for the notification. I've already had a look and I think User:Dunkleosteus77 caught the one edit that I would have retained as well. The conversion template significant digits changes we've got now, so far as they were done within template syntax, are good to stay, I guess. Cheers -- Elmidae (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I changed the main image as usually, the main image should be, if possible, of a complete animal, rather than a part of one. My image shows the legs and tail. Quality is of course subjective, but my image also appears sharper. I do not believe there is any difference between males and females (from a photo anyway). Happy to have a third party adjudicate... Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

• The problem with lizards is they can have very long (and boring) tails. You may not have noticed that the colours are almost reversed in the females. I believe that is worth seeing. Cheers. Dger (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Hello again - I'm afraid everything I can read says that the only difference is that the males' colours are brighter. I can find no reference online to your comment that 'the colours are almost reversed in the females'. Are you sure that your female is a Ameiva ameiva? Might it be a different species by any chance? I'll copy the debate to the discussion page if you like. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • Anything is possible with this species. I did find some other pictures similar to mine, in particular see here at the Reptile Database (3rd picture). It is also possible that it might be an A. atrigularis but that species has also been a synonym of A. ameiva or it may be a new species. I can't recall where I got the information. It may have come from the naturalist guide we were with in Peru. I will do some more sleuthing. Dger (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • See also [[10]]. Dger (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • I did some more checking and found out that A. atrigularis is only found in Venezuela. I have come to the vague conclusion that the females of A. ameiva are indeed differently coloured so I stand by my images; however, I do recognize that several sources do not agree. Perhaps a better authority will appear that can clarify the situation. I keep an open mind. Dger (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just to let you know I've undone your edit for two reasons: 1) this is (surprisingly) the usual British/Australian spelling of the word, goes with words like 'decoration'; and 2) it is used consistently in the article, so your edit introduced an inconsistency. The best-known textbook on the matter, "Adaptive Coloration in Animals" by Hugh Cott (Cambridge University, England) uses this spelling, so we can be comfortable with it. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

My spell checker shows it to be in error; curious, but not worth disputing. Dger (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I was too hasty - and perhaps a little unlucky in that the preface to the SI brochure - which I thought should be authoritative - had "Système International d’Unités". I should have looked at the French version of the page instead! NebY (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

It happens. No damage. Dger (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey - I was wondering what happened here? SQL^{Query me!} 23:20, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

An error. I corrected it. Cheers. Dger (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've gone ahead and deleted the page in that case. SQL^{Query me!} 23:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks

Hello. I am not sure if you're aware of the fact that a single picture that you made is used to illustrate what apparently are two separate species: podocnemis lewyana and podocnemis vogli. Maybe you could clarify? Thanks.

Thanks. Fixed. Dger (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dger, why did you remove Category:Bird genera from this? Phoenicopterus is a genus of birds. If it's because it's a redirect, see WP:INCOMPATIBLE: it's not appropriate to have a title like Flamingo in the category, which has many other redirects when the genus name isn't the article title. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dger, I see you changed the caption from median wasp to hornet. Only thing is, the wasp there is a median wasp, complete with yellow "7"s on its shoulders, and without the rich reddish-brown thorax of the hornet, among other things. Hmm? Chiswick Chap (talk)

I looked a bit deeper and I agree. I have reverted the changes. Thanks for noticing. Cheers. Dger (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most geography, wildlife and women articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 55 African countries, so should be enjoyable! Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African wildlife articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance. If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing any article related to a topic you often work on, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Might be a good way to work on fleshing out articles you've long been meaning to target and get rewarded for it! Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello Dr. Robertson, I noticed that earlier this year when you were improving List of birds of Canada (thank you for that), you added a {{Featured list}} tag to the article. It was removed today by another editor and I looked into the process. Featured lists must meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and are then selected by going through the process at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, so it's not something that a single editor can decide. If I can help you get List of birds of Canada up to featured status, I'd be happy to. Keep up the good work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I wasn't aware that the Featured List template was copied to this list. Feel free to try to obtain it if you wish. I can help if you need any information. Cheers. Dger (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Dger, could you explain why you reverted my edit on the Hamadryas baboon? I removed it from the category "Mammals of India" because it is not native to that country, and I'm not sure why you undid that. B14709 (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oh dear. Sorry about that; I understand why it was reverted now. I forgot to turn off a Chrome extension that converts all mentions of "god" to "Nicolas Cage", and my edit was affected. My sincerest apologies. B14709 (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I was specifically trying to adhere to this: Wikipedia:External_links#Rich_media - Immigrant laborer (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. I have never seen this before. I reverted my change. Thanks for the heads-up. Dger (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I understand your desire for Canadian spelling in a Canadian list. However, the species' common names are stated to be those of the American Ornithological Society, which uses American spelling. If you want to use grey, I suggest that you alter the introduction to something like "Common and scientific names are also those of the Check-list but with Canadian English spelling.

Regarding the shrike, yes, great grey is a species, but I know of no record of it in Canada now that northern shrike, Lanius borealis, has been split from it. If you have a source for any records, please add the reference.

Craigthebirder (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

Articles that you have been involved in editing—Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity—have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Nessie (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Your edit at White-tailed deer did exactly what mine was supposed to have done. No idea what went wrong, but thanks for mopping up after me !  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   08:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps you can help me: did I identify File:Red-eared slider × yellow-bellied slider on a rock.jpg correctly? I'd like to know before adding the picture to the article. Alexis Jazz (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I think you are correct but I am not expert enough to know what such a cross would look like. Dger (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I asked you because you were on the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Turtles#Participants. I've asked someone else on the list to confirm. Alexis Jazz (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andrew Haydon Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I believe you're the only active editor listed in the participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Organismal Biomechanics. Unfortunately, it seems the project has fallen completely silent over the last several years. I'm wondering if you'd have an objection to closing down the project (i.e. marking it as defunct) and changing the talk page tags to point to other relevant projects. Potential up-side of doing this would be that when editors go to the talk page of a related article, they would be directed only to relevant active projects. The potential down-side is that a biomechanics-specific talk page would no longer exist (though the one we currently have isn't being used) and tools that use the talk page tag (like the article assessment and quality table on the project page) would no longer be available. As you are the only listed project participant who has edited recently, I'll wait for your response before doing anything rash. I hope all is well; happy editing. Ajpolino (talk) 05:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Black-fronted warbler requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CrazyBoy826 16:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Using {{redirect}} does not create a redirect. Instead, use #REDIRECT [[<page title>]]. CrazyBoy826 16:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I forgot how to do a redirect. Haven't done one for some time. Dger (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ottawa Field-Naturalists' Club, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply