User talk:Daniel Cavallari/Archive 30

Invitation

I was happy to see you have been making contributions to various gastropod pages and even a new article, Melo melo. So, even though this may be a bit premature, I am giving you this invitation:

I've noticed your edits on pages relating to Gastropods; perhaps you'd be interested in joining WikiProject Gastropods? If you would like more information, please visit the project page or the project talk page.

Welcome again and best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Howdy to you too!

Hi David, thanks for your kind and friendly reply. And thanks so much for signing up with Project Gastropods; we have so few active contributors, and so much work to do. It is great to have another person on board!

I have to say that your English prose is very good indeed, but even so, I guess it not quite perfect, so I will be happy to check anything you write and polish it up, if and when it needs a bit of attention. Let me know when you want some writing checked.

Oh and by the way, at Project Gastropods we are trying to use only the taxonomy of Bouchet & Rocroi from 2005 [1] in all of the gastropod articles. This is especially true of the taxoboxes. It is a little tricky to get the unranked clades into the taxoboxes. I have been deleting earlier taxonomy for the time being and maybe soon one of us will start inserting the more up-to-date versions. I don't know if you have access to a copy of the B&R publication?

Also if I can help you at all with learning your way around Wikipedia, please do let me know. There's still plenty of stuff I don't know how to do, but what I do know, I will gladly share with you. You are doing phenomenally well for someone who just started a few days ago!

Here is a badge that you are entitled to as a new editor, you can put it anywhere you want to, like for example on your user page, or you can of course delete it if you don't like it:

This editor is a
Novice Editor
and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Caribbean tropical zone fauna

Just wanted to say that I am studying the same marine faunal zone as you are in. I am currently studying the Caribbean marine fauna of the West Indian island of Nevis, in the Leeward Island chain of the Lesser Antilles. I have found over 500 species of shallow water marine mollusks on this very small island, and those are almost all shelled species. I have more species that that even, but many of the micromollusks are very difficult to identify. I am working on a book-length paper about the fauna of that island. Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Heya to you too! Yes, there are indeed a lot of species in common between the Caribbean Sea and Brazil. Thanks for the offer, help would be most welcome. You can email if you like, by using the link on the left in the "toolbox" when you are on one of my pages. I am a serious amateur or semi-professional, currently a volunteer at the AMNH, and was a Field Associate at AMNH for 2 years 2006-08. The AMNH malacology section has been closed for 3 years unfortunately. You can see what I have published over the years at: [2]. I worked at the MCZ as a curatorial assistant for 2 years in 1980, and taught at Yale for one semester. I think it's great you are working on a book on conchology and the curation of shell collections. We need that. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Byne's disease at [3]

Ah yes, that's a really great idea for an article! It's a fascinating subject! In fact it is so interesting that I am thinking we could try to do a "Did you Know?" (DYK) on it for the Main Page perhaps. To see what "Did you Know"s are, take a look on the lower left area of the English Wikipedia Main Page at [4]

Because we may want to submit it as a DYK, you may want to work on it first on a subpage of your main page, that way it will not appear in "mainspace" as an actual article until you are really ready to post it there. If you don't mind, I will go ahead and create a subpage for you, so that you (or both of us) can work on it there if you want to. But don't rush, if you want to work on Strombidae first, that is fine of course.

Best, Invertzoo (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I set up a subpage for you. It's real easy to make one, you just put this piece of code on your edit page [[/Subpage]] and then, after you save, you will see a red link to it on your user page. Then you just go to where the red link takes you, and start putting in text. You can create as many subpages as you want or need.

Oh and I emailed you. I will explain later how you could have contacted me first (or anyone else) via email (assuming the person has supplied an email address to Wikipedia.) Best, Invertzoo (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

E-mailing on Wikipedia

I have just realized that you are in fact too "new" to be a confirmed user, as it has not been a month yet. Because of this, there are some things you can't do yet, and maybe this is one of them, but anyway in a few weeks you will be able to, even if you can't right now, so here goes:

A number of users on Wikipedia provide an email address, but some don't. If a user has not provided an email address you cannot email them, but if the user has provided one then it is quite easy to do.

If you are on the User page or Talk page of a User, look all the way over on the left, below the WIkipedia logo. The first section below the logo is called "navigation", then there is the search slot, then "interaction" and then "toolbox". If you look in the listings under "toolbox", in cases where a user has provided an email address, you will see that the fifth line down is a blue link called:

• E-mail this user

If you click on that link it will take you to an email page. Try it with my talk page or user page and you will see what I mean. Feel free to send me another email.

If you look in that same place on the User page or Talk page of a person and there is no listing like that in that spot, then they have not provided an email address.

I hope what I said makes sense. Invertzoo (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Daniel, in about 3 weeks' time you will be able to do that.

Oh by the way, just a small thing, but try to remember to sign your messages by putting this at the end: ~~~~. (Your previous message to me here was signed by a piece of robotic software called "Sinebot".)

I have to say that I have not got round to reading Shelton's full paper carefully yet: I just skimmed over it. As you can see, I have been writing text without using references to back it up. That might be laziness on my part, but it is one way to write and it ends up with pleasant prose to read. Other people write an article by finding a useful piece of info in a reference, and then adding it with the ref in place, as they go along. Perhaps that is the better way to proceed. Anyway, we can take our time with this article, no hurry, but if we are going to try for a DYK, we will need to get references in place in the intro section. In particular, whatever fact(s) we end up wanting to use for the DYK hook, that fact or facts must be soundly referenced, and as early on in the article as possible.

Oh, and on-line references are easier for WP editors to check than print only references. All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

I wanted to just say that sometimes when there is an IP address like User 203.89.172.66, it may actually be a computer in a school or library where many different kids use it, so it isn't always one person doing the vandalism. (But sometimes it is all coming from one person of course.)

In any case, when you need to find out what to do about something like this (or any other Wikipedia thing that might have an "official policy") you go to the Wikipedia search slot and write "WP:" and then without a space write "Vandalism" or whatever else you need info about, and you will see there is a link to a policy page, or sometimes several different policy pages.

If this person or address has been responsible for repeated vandalism despite several of the more serious warnings, then a block may be put on the address to prevent people from editing from it.

An administrator can block an account that has repeated vandalism.

I hope this is helpful info. Invertzoo (talk) 12:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Archival versus non-archival materials [5]

Hi Daniel, Yes, a table is a good idea I think. However, I hope we are not using up all of the nice ideas which would otherwise appear in your book-to-be? Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I started a table of archival and non-archival materials. Right now it's not very beautiful or very complete but I guess it's a start. Invertzoo (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Old images

Hello Daniel, I changed license in images File:Strombus gigas Kiener 1843.jpg and in File:Strombus gigas Duclos in Chenu 1844.jpg from PD-author to PD-old and I have added dates. It is clear now, that these images are public domain and there is no need OTRS permission for these two images (so I deleted the permission link). It would be fine if you could provide full citations of books, but I understand that that it is no always easy if you get the image from secondary source. Thank you for contributing wikipedia and have a nice day. --Snek01 (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Eustrombus gigas article and Bynes question

Yes you are right, wow it really expanded fast just recently, and now it starts to look quite respectable!

Congratulations on your upcoming Bynes paper. As for the Bynes article, it is pretty much ready to go up I think, what do you think? When we want to put it up, we can just use the "move" function which will keep the page history intact. Of course, if it would be better for you, we can certainly wait till your paper comes out first, no problem.

And what do you think, should we entitle the article Bynesian decay or Bynes disease? Goodness knows a lot of people still call it Bynes disease, even thought it's not a very accurate name. Bynes disease makes for a more catchy hook I guess, for the DYK submission. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As for the article title question: Certainly google is not any kind of acceptable authority as to how commonly-used a phrase might be, but for want of anything better, I looked it up on google:

• There are only 281 hits for "Bynesian decay"
• There are 904 for "Bynes disease"
• There are 2,180 for "Byne's disease" with the apostrophe

That might indicate that the condition is still probably more commonly known as Byne's disease. Of course I knew right away what you meant when you called it Bynesian decay, but prior to that I had only heard it called Byne's disease. Invertzoo (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Posted today Invertzoo (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Gastropods Barnstars

		The Gastropod-star
		For all the good work you have already put into ProjectGastropods, I award you, Daniel, this Barnstar. Congratulations! Invertzoo (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

		A piece of Jimbo's star
		For the hard work that Daniel has already put into helping make WikiProject Gastropods as great as it is, I award you a nice-sized chunk of the barnstar that Jimbo gave us on July 25 2009 at Wiki-Conference New York. This piece of star has a diamond in it! Invertzoo (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Bynes

Yes, I think you certainly could put a series of photos in, if you feel that it shows the development well. That is actually why I put in a picture of an unaffected shell, so people would be able to clearly see the difference. As you may have noticed, I also mentioned that this was artificially produced. (Maybe I am wrong, but I do think the effects actually look more violent and rapid than it does in most of the shells I have seen that have developed it naturally over longer periods of time.) Nice to have you back! Best, Invertzoo (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, Thanks for your note. Yes, Project Gastropod is going very well right now. Have you looked at the project page and project talk page recently? They have quite a lot of new info on them. As you can see from the top of my talk page, I will be away for 2 and a half weeks starting this coming Friday. I shan't be on the Wiki much if at all during the time I am away. But I will be back in the second week of September. Good luck with everything during that time. Invertzoo (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Geomalacus maculosus

Hello Daniel,

could you please add information from Portuguese source to article Geomalacus maculosus, please? It would be very good, if you could add every missing information from that source (this one [6] mentioned in the article). Especially focus at: conservation status in Portugal (if there is any special conservation status), distribution in Portugal (but there are not yet announced Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) for this species probably), habitat details for Portugal and generally for Iberia.

Could you also verify information added by myself from this Spanish source [7], please? Focus on habitat in Spain and on anything, that is missing in the article.

If there are better Portuguese and Spanish sources than I have proposed, feel free to add them. There are color drawings, but if you know about free color photo, let me to know. Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You did it great, thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Barnstar This Barnstar is for you because you are a good wikipedian. --Snek01 (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for helping with assessing and other cleanup!

Hi Daniel, It is really great having some help with these necessary tasks. Because of you it is going much faster, and that is encouraging! Many many thanks! We are gradually pulling the whole project into better shape. It's very rewarding! Invertzoo (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Anthinus henselii

(read after vacation): Hello Daniel, could you check nomenclature/taxonomy of Anthinus henselii, please? It seems that there is instable nomenclature for this species that causes chaos. I think, that it is everything all right in the article, but it would be better, if you could read it also. Thank you. Name of the article is based on List of non-marine molluscs of Brazil. --Snek01 (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, we can improve nomenclature according to the Simone 2006. I have no this book. Do you own the book? --Snek01 (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have few tasks for you to verify from the book:

Verify name/synonyms for:

• Discus alternatus
• Anthinus henselii
• Mirinaba curitybana. Hirinaba curytibana seems to be three times spelling error.

Which species of these genera lives in Brazil? Add them to the list.

• Drepanostomella sp.
• Wayampia sp.
• Laevapex sp.
• Pallifera sp.
• Milax sp.
• Guppya sp.

If you have time:

• add generic reassignments (new. comb.) to the list.
• And all species of slugs; I have counted that there could be 110 species of slugs, but it seems too much for me.
• authority for few species, that have no authority written in the list.

Have a nice day. --Snek01 (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Stub tags

Hi Daniel. I noticed you added stub tags to some of the articles I started. Thank you. I forgot to do that. I went over the rest and added tags where needed. I may have missed a few. Say hi to Brazil for me and keep up the good work. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Distribution of Eustrombus gigas

Hello Daniel, there is a map of Eustrombus gigas that shows distribution also in Brazil, but it is not mentioned in the text. Is the image incorrect? --Snek01 (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Though I must confess I have never seen and individual of E. gigas or even an empty shell here in Brazil, I know at least three references which may confirm this, and they would be:

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Strombus_gigas.html

http://www.strombusgigas.com/

Martin-Mora, E. (1995). "Developmental plasticity in the shell of the queen conch Strombus gigas." Ecology 76: 981-994.

Those are trustworthy references, so I presume it is correct then. This info should be added to the article's text. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

About Powelliphanta species

Hi Daniel thank you so much for all of the assessing you've been doing. I think we should halt for a while on these last 41 because I am trying to decide what to do about them. I wrote to JoJan and to Snek like this:

"Please take a look at the unassessed articles page here [8] and also do a search for Powelliphanta, and scroll though the list of names that it pulls up. As you can see, when GB created all the Powelliphanta species articles, he included a number of unnamed ones (unnamed in 1972 that is!) that were referred to by location words instead of species names. It's a mess really. And then he also created a huge number of subspecies articles for that genus. What do you think we should do with this mess? Invertzoo (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)"

So also, Daniel what do you think we should do? Invertzoo (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I also asked User:JoJan what he thought about this. I think a listing of those unnamed species in the genus article is really probably sufficient for the time being. I should point out though, that a lot of these Graham Bould articles originally had quite a bit more content in them. The extra info was deleted as a Copyright Violation. The info can however still be found in the edit history, if any of us are curious as to how much of a description there was in the original Powell book from which it was copied. This is true of all of the Graham Bould copyvio articles, not just the Powelliphanta ones, so anyone who wants to expand one of those articles can do so easily by completely rewriting the deleted info. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As you may have already seen, Snek thinks it's OK to leave them with the weird names that they currently have, because slowly science is catching up with them apparently... Invertzoo (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's leave them as they are and assess them all, then. To me it hardly matters anyway.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

All the full assessments done for gastropods project - phew!

Thank goodness! Well done! Massive clean up completed! Now I would like to work out which are the 2368 articles that need (only) their importance assessed. Invertzoo (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a bot for this task?

Yes, actually a bot can not only create a list, but can even in theory actually insert these importance assessments based on what level taxon the article is about, but we have to put in a formal request, and we need to show a consensus of editors backing up the request, otherwise our request may be ignored. Snek has tried twice to get various tasks like this one performed by bots, but the requests have been ignored so far, I think because not enough of us project gastropods people left notes on the bot request page saying yes, this is a good idea. If you look back in the archives of the Project Gastropods talk page you will find the messages where Snek described these bot requests. I think in order to get people to back up the request we would need to ask people indiividually if they would do so, rather than leaving a note on the project talk page. Invertzoo (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Cypraea mappa

Nice! You might want to think about this as a "Did You Know" article? Invertzoo (talk) 22:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well then, why not Susan? =) I believe it would be an interesting thing to do. I don't know much about DYK's though, so I'd need some help with this.

Speaking of which, I believe our Bynesian decay article may be as well ready to go. I've tried to edit the pictures to demonstrate the series of transformations ocurring to a single shell over time, but I failed miserably in obtaining good and somewhat didactic photos. Anyway, this can be done later. So if don't have any objections by now, I think I'll move it. I'll wait for your answer on that matter before I do it. Best wishes! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

OK on both questions! However you may not want to start the two articles on exactly the same day as then they will be competing with one another to be chosen as a Did You Know. So, you are OK with the table of archival and non-archival materials, at least as it is for now? Invertzoo (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I sure am. It's fine enough as it is. So if they would compete, I believe the oldest article should be first. Let us move the Byne's Disease (i believe that would be the title) article. May I?--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well actually I should explain that the older article is the map cowry article, which went up today. The Byne's disease one is not actually an article yet, because it has not been in article space at all so far, it's been on a subpage of a user page. It's still a red link as you can see. Invertzoo (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The DYK "hook" for the map cowry could perhaps be, "Did you know that... the map cowry Cypraea mappa, is collected for its shell and as a food item" although the ref link you have for that fact doesn't appear to be the right page exactly...?

And maybe we need one more ref to make the article seem more respectable.

If you can come up with a better hook for the map cowry, let me know. We already have an OK one for the Byne's disease article. But perhaps you want to think of another one as well?

Invertzoo (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I will be going to bed fairly soon now, but I will help you with the DYK submission tomorrow. Invertzoo (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know on the map cowry

A Did You Know for a new article has to be nominated very soon after the article was created, as you only have a few days when it is still considered "new."

I went ahead and did it, as it is already getting a bit late today and I did not want to leave it till tomorrow. Hope you don't mind. Here's the easiest way to do the process when you are a beginner. I recommend you open four windows in your browser when you do this.

1. The page with the article you want to nominate,

2. The page where Did You Knows are nominated, here : [9]

3. The page that has the easiest template to use for the nomination, scroll down a bit to see it: [10] This page also has an excellent, very detailed, explanation of what you can or should put in each of the slots. The guideline is right below the template itself.

4. And also a subpage of your own userpage for drafting so you can try it out there before you put it on the nomination page.

So: you make a copy of the template from 2 and put it on 4. Then you fill it in using information from 1. Once it is filled in, you try preview and see how it looks. It should look nice and well-put together like most of the other nominations on 2. If it looks good to you, you copy it from your subpage and insert it on 2, making sure that it goes under the heading of "Articles created/expanded on September 23rd" or whenever it was that the article first appeared in article space.

Hope that my instructions are clear enough. Maybe you can use them in a day or two when you launch the Byne's disease article. As for a picture, it is best only to use an image that looks really good at a small postage stamp size. Don't use an image at all if you don't have one in the article that would look good and clear when it is tiny.

Sometimes it is good to offer one or two alternate "hooks" rather than just the one.

OK, any questions?

Invertzoo (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

About small improvements to the map cowry article

I think you may want to check the link in the one reference you gave, because when I tried it, I did not find any info about C. mappa.

I also think you may want to find one more reference or add more info from another reference.

Best, Invertzoo (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that it is most often known as Leporicypraea mappa. There is some info here: [11] and it lists various mentions in popular shell books. It also has a range of nice images. At any rate it would be a good External link.

And if you do a google search for Leporicypraea mappa, there is quite a lot of info of varying quality.

Invertzoo (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

One easy way to find articles with no importance rating

There is a list here of all the stub articles. [12] Almost exactly half of them have no "importance" rating and no "needs photo" or not. Perhaps you and I can start at opposite ends of the list and meet in the middle or something. When you have some time of course and if you are still willing. Very best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it will, but we can take our time with it. There really is no hurry. Also please don't feel that you have to do this, if you would rather do other stuff that's great too, really! Maybe when Anna is less busy she will be willing to do some. If someone wants to help with this, they can be assigned two or three letters of the alphabet. All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll start from Z, and proceed upward. This will take quite a while! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Oh, one question before I forget about it: How do we rate the endangered species articles importance? Would a IUCN vulnerable species article be high importance? Are there standards to follow? --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good question! We could ask a few people in the project (on the project talk page or on their individual talk pages) what they think about that, and try to see if we can get a consensus, which is the Wikipedia way to do things. To be honest though it might be easier to just stick to the simple rule which we have already been using and that is: if it's a species or subspecies it's a "low", if it's a genus it's a "mid", if it's a family or above it's a "high" and if it's a massive group like "snail" then it's of "top" importance. It's a crude system but it's easy. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Cypraea arabica and Strombus lentiginosus

Let me see if I can get around to checking these tomorrow to see if the text can perhaps be rewritten some more if it needs it. Invertzoo (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The DYK nominations for Byne's disease and Map cowry

Hello Daniel, I have nominated Byne's Disease article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on September 24, because it was last(!) day for nominations. Feel free to alter or modify the sentence if you like. And especially feel free to add also other ones when you will write another so excellent article. --Snek01 (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much Snek!! I apologize to you and to Daniel, I was not keeping a close eye on the calendar! I really appreciate your doing that Snek. Next time however, we will try to coordinate things better so that we are not running a DYK up against a DYK of yours on the very same day! Anyway thanks again! Invertzoo (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello to Daniel from me. Hi Daniel, the DYK nomination for Byne's disease is here: Template_talk:Did_you_know#Byne's disease. As the title of the article I put disease with a small "d" according to the Wikipedia Manual of style. I also wrote an alternative DYK hook for it that I think is a bit more "hooky" in the sense of intriguing. I hope you think it is OK. Also I wanted to say that it is a good idea to keep an eye on the nomination on that page every day, to see if anyone comments on it. Right now there is a backlog, so things are moving slowly, but if someone has a comment about something that needs fixing, it's good to get onto it right away, although usually they will leave a note on your talk page letting you know that. All very best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's also a good idea to keep checking on the map cowry DYK nomination at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on September 23, Best, Invertzoo (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are some DYK rules:

• Only very new (or recently 5x expanded) articles can be nominated.

• A "new" article is one that is less than five days old when it is nominated. This does not include how long it was being prepped on user space, only how long it has been on article space (blue linked).

• A nominated new article must have a minimum of 1,500 characters, not including taxobox, lists, table, caption etc. You can use this java tool to check the count [13].

• An "expanded" (rather than new) article must have been 5x expanded, use same tool to check word count if you are not sure.

• The fact or facts in the hook must have (in the article) an inline citation to back up the fact, and the ref link must come right after the fact used.

• The hook should not be longer than 200 characters, including spaces.

• If you want to, you certainly can continue to fix up the article after you have nominated it. You also can continue to fix up the hook, or suggest other alternate hooks, until they are accepted or not.

• If your DYK nomination is accepted, you will not get a notification of that right away, although if you watch the nominations page, you will see it gets one or more green check marks. You will however get a note on your talk page when the DYK runs on the Wikipedia main page. However each set of DYKs currently only runs for 6 hours, so it could be up on the main page while you are asleep and gone by the time you wake up. They will however also leave a nice tag on the article's talk page saying that it was a DYK.

• Your nomination will just disappear from the list at some point. If it has been accepted, it will be in a queue and will appear a few days later. If it is not accepted, you may have already seen that it got comments to that effect on the nom. page.

Phew, I hope this is helpful! best, Invertzoo (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both. I was quite busy those days... Birthday celebrations and everything (today is my birthday =) !). The Bynesian decay article turned out to be a very good one indeed. Susan helped me a lot with that one! Let's hope it will be chosen. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Snek's DYK nomination of Phyllodesmium just got the OK for the same day, and so they may not want two mollusk-related things on the same day, but you never know. Fingers crossed that they take it, because it really is a fine article. Invertzoo (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Your birthday today!

The 3 months on wiki Happy birthday for your over 3 months on wiki! --Snek01 (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow! Have a really happy one!

A very happy birthday from me! Invertzoo (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Michal! Thank you Susan! :´) If you wanna know, those were some of the best compliments I've got today --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixing up the gastropod stubs

I finished my first page of As, the first 200. Althought it is quite a bit of work fixing them up, it is quite rewarding to see them improve one by one. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Map cowry

On October 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Leporicypraea mappa, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

\ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!!!

The map cowry is the top DYK on the Main Page right now, and it looks great! I hope you get to see it during the 6 hours when it is up there! All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

One or two things about stubs

Hi again Daniel. Thanks so much for working on the stubs. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't you say you were going to start at Z and work forward? Currently I am following along behind you on the A listings. Also may I suggest a couple of things? You can remove the invisible tag that says "this article was started by Polbot" because that is in the edit history anyway. On extinct species you can put a dagger by the species name in the taxobox and in the intro. That is an indication that the species is no longer with us. You can take a look at Angrobia dulvertonensis to see what I did there. As for me, I will try to remember to add the ExtinctionTalk template on the talk page of other recently extinct species, thanks for that.

Best, Invertzoo (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Byne's disease

Oh, right now it looks as though the Byne's disease article is going to make it as a DYK! Also I will be very glad to assist in any way that I can in order to help it get good article status! Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Susan! It will surely get GA status in no time. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Cypraea arabica and Strombus lentiginosus

I apologize that it took me so long to get around to reading and checking these two shell descriptions against the source you used. First I fixed up the prose a bit on both of them. Then I checked and decided yes, you have rewritten them enough for this not to be plagiarism or a copyvio, however, if I may say this, you will need to make sure you continue to rewrite this much or more in the future on other articles, so that you don't gradually slip back into being a bit too close to the original. Probably that would not happen as you are very conscientious I think. All my very best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, I'm relieved! I'm always conscientious while writing those articles, that's true. They wouldn't be of any help to the project if they were to be deleted because of copyvio problems! Thank you for reviewing those, you are kind as always. Best! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually you are the kind one Daniel, if I may say so, you seem very nice indeed. And just so as you know, when we do find copyvio in an article, we try to save the article and just surgically remove the copyvio. Unfortunately we had to do that just this spring with 1,000 gastropod article about New Zealand and Australian gastropods. Maybe you have noticed the copyvio info on the talk pages? Almost all of those articles still need the content replacing by rewriting the parts that were deleted. The rewriting can be done by using the edit history to find the text that was deleted and then rewriting it. But just even tagging it all and then deleting it all was a mammoth task. Most of the work was done by a team of people from a WikiProject dedicated to finding and fixing Copyvio. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)