User talk:Invertzoo/Archive 1

ARCHIVE PAGE 1: August 2007 to November 2007

taxobox

Hello, thank you for your cooperation. Please use image caption for description of image in taxobox. See for example Helix lucorum article and how to do it. --Snek01 20:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Snek. To be honest, that's actually what I was trying to do, and what I thought I did, but I guess I was in too much of a rush and did not do it right... Invertzoo 13:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello

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.

-- Nashville Monkey 03:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Nashville Monkey, I did sign up for the project. I am a relatively new user, so I don't yet know how to do the hierachical organization of articles, and so on, but if there are other things I can do I am happy to help. I am good at research and writing. Let me know if you think of something specific I can do. Invertzoo 13:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Coney Island Mermaid Parade

Nice expansions on the Coney Island Mermaid Parade. Thank you. It was nice to meet you last Sunday as well. Happy editing! --Knulclunk 03:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Knulclunk! My pleasure. You know I love Coney Island... It was nice to meet you too! Good wishes...Invertzoo 13:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Superworm

Hey, Just wanted to thank you for help with spelling on the superworm page! Best regards, --81.234.166.158 09:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC) (Swedish)

You are very welcome! I came across your article as a random one. By the way, I did a bit more smoothing of the prose this morning. I am from England originally. Best regards to you too, Invertzoo 13:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Nevis Peak

Hello. You've seem to know alot about Nevis. I do alot of additions to the St. Kitts and Nevis pages, but my knowledge on Nevis is limited compared to the information i have on st. Kitts. please improve the St. Kitts and Nevis pages with information for nevis similar to the page for nevis alone. Also, please imporve the article on Nevis Peak which i started but have been unable to add information to. thank you!

OK anonymous, (Jenson Morton I presume? You forgot to sign your note). Thanks for setting up the Nevis Peak page and getting it started. Yesterday I wrote a few paragraphs about Nevis Peak, and gave a couple of references for the info. By the way, it is really easy to research these things using Google, you don't really need to know a place in order to be able to write about it. As you may already have noticed, recently I have done some work on other St. K & N pages, such as the parish pages for Nevis. Invertzoo 13:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Nevis article

Dear Invertzoo, I'm so happy to see you at work on the Nevis article again! One thing though: the lead is getting very long now, maybe too long (see Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Lead_section). The lead is supposed to be a short summary of the main points of the article. I'm rushing out to do some errands in real life, so I can't edit right now, just having my daily peek here, but if you could find the time to move some sections from the lead (for example the detailed sections about what the sand is made up of and about where there are springs and wells), that would be really great. We, or some other editor, can then move that detailed info to a sub-section under Geography, maybe called something like Water resources or something, with additional info such as this quick summary of chapter "9.2 Water Resources" in The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). “Chapter 9: St. Kitts and Nevis. In Programme of Action for the sustainable development of small island developing States (SIDS POA). United Nations, 2003-09-29. Retrieved 7 September 2007):

The major source of potable water for the island is groundwater, obtained from 14 active wells. Water is pumped from the wells, stored and allowed to flow by gravity to the various locations.

The section in the lead about the name "Nevis" may also need tightening, updating and some of the more detailed parts moved down to the History section. BTW, have you read Wilson's Dangerous Waters: Carib-European Interactions in the Caribbean 1492-1700 from 1990? There is a nice, long discussion about when the name "Nevis" first appeared, and about how the island was initially called St. Martin by Columbus, a topic touched on by several other scholars as well, so we don't necessarily have to use him as a source, of course). Rush, rush. Best regards and later, Pia 22:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Pia, Nice to meet you. I gave the Nevis article a very quick read and very minor tweak today that's all. However, I do agree with you that the whole piece could use some major sorting and re-working in terms of organization. If I think I can do something and if I can summon up enough enthusiasm/desire to do it, I can perhaps try to have a first small go at it this weekend maybe, or at some point during the next week.

No, I have not read Wilson's 'Dangerous Waters', although I was in email contact with Wilson himself a couple of years ago about an interesting artifact that was found by an amateur on Nevis.

I must explain that I am pretty much a total newbie editor here, and I am still very much learning how to do various things, but I will try to do what I can bear to do with "Nevis" after a careful look and think...(I usually just run in here and do the things that I enjoy the most, but a whole lot of them. I like to write, and I like to rewrite other people's stuff if the prose is gimpy. Reorganization however can be very time-consuming when done well, and requires a lot of thought and analysis. Sigh.) Anyway, thanks and best wishes to you Invertzoo 00:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Invertzoo, nice to meet you too! Sorry, today was hectic, so I had no chance to log on until now. Working together is much more fun than doing things alone, for sure. I'm happy to see you active and I think you are doing very well for a "newbie" ;). I also think that it's important that you take the time to read (or skim) through the Wikipedia:Style manual and Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles when you get a chance, as well as a couple of Wikipedia:Featured articles (or to get this one in a perfect shape, you'll need to check out featured articles in geography and places). That way you'll get a quicker grasp on what's considered good/great/appropriate etc on Wikipedia. I will need to take a step back to the original version in some sections of your latest rewrites of the article, I'm afraid, because right now, the lead is way too short--we went from one extreme to another. Also, very drastic changes, like complete new section heads everywhere, should be done carefully, after checking what links to the article from other articles. Otherwise, if people have linked to one of the standard sub-headlines, like Geography, from another article, the link will not work. The basic organization of the article pretty much followed the formula used for the other Caribbean islands and in the other geography related articles, so a complete reorganization like this may create some initial confusion and may divert too much from the standard set in other articles over time and may make it lose its current B-class rating (see discussion page to access the rating system). But don't be discouraged if you see some of your writing gone temporarily: your rewrites can be found in the history of the article, where they are saved forever and can be accessed one at a time, so your work is not in vain and can be inserted again. What is moved around now can easily be put into place again, but I think it's best done in smaller increments. Best wishes and later, Pia 03:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I may go back to simply doing what I like to do and seem to be better equipped to do, which will enable me to learn all the other stuff I need to know gradually, at my own rate... Invertzoo 14:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes Invertzoo, you're so right: It's incredibly time consuming to pick up on different styles, spelling conventions, etc, etc. Those of us who have had to work on different continents, in different languages, can definitely attest to that. Wikipedia is a voluntary activity that MUST feel pleasurable, fun and rewarding to a person in a personal way. Please never feel that you need to concentrate on something that feels boring or like a premature step. All types of editing are needed, in many different aspects around Wikipedia, so there is always something to do. One thing though: sometimes even simple language related editing can be a little complicated, which you will notice as you go along. The main reason is that Wikipedia editors edit from differet locations, all over the world. In professional life, you adapt to wherever you happen to be working at the moment (AP style, Chicago style or any of the other academic writing conventions, etc, etc), well aware that there are different conventions in each individual corner of the globe, and, sorry to say, you know in advance that you have to deal with professional editors who often feel like their own area's conventions are natural, set in stone and the only correct way to construct text and that the rest of the world needs to "get with it". This is unfortunately reflected sometimes on Wikipedia as well and causes revert wars, often over stuff like for example British English versus American English spelling conventions (which is why I added a note to the top of the Nevis article). One example of a frequently reverted word in the Nevis Wikipedia article, caused by different spelling conventions, is the word "artefacts"..that particular word has been changed maybe ten times, because it is normally spelled "artifacts" in the US. For British and Australian occurrences of this word in professional publications, see for example [http://www.highbeam.com/Search.aspx?q=artefacts&st=NL&nml=True&t=&a=&count=10&offset=0&sort=RK&sortdir=D&pst=INCLUDE_ALL&cn=&storage=ALL&display=ALL&sponsor=ALL&docclass=ALL&relatedid=&bid=&embargo=False this page.) What I meant to say with all this rambling is this: editing should be done with an open mind and with consideration given to the fact that personal preferences might not be shared worldwide, and therefore, just editing text where there is no obvious grammar violations or other faux pas (such as repetitive sentence structures, choppy transitions or obvious spelling mistakes) might not serve any purpose in improving an article and can even cause unnecessary friction. With that issue in mind, it may still be useful for you to check out Wikipedia's own style manual before you roll up your sleeves and dig in to do some voluntary work, even if you are just going to do spelling and grammar fixes, etc, especially so that you can focus on changes that are valuable to the project and won't be reverted by someone who feels differently about a particular grammar rule, spelling convention, etc, etc. Best wishes, good luck and happy editing, :) Pia 19:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you again, Pia. By the way are you part of Project Caribbean? Actually I have already read the style suggestions, and all the other guideline pages you suggested when I first started in on WP, but I did re-read them today for what that's worth. However, I think I just need a lot more time to get used to WP. You may not know that I only started in mid-July of this year (!) and then I was away completely for 2 and a 1/2 weeks in August, so I have had literally only about 4 to 6 weeks to begin get used to all this! I think my best way is just to go ahead and learn as I go along, which is a system that has always worked for me. You are absolutely right that keeping it enjoyable is of paramount importance, otherwise one loses interest and drops out. Invertzoo 20:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Truncatella (mollusk)

Thanks, Invertzoo, for adding that introductory sentence to the Truncatella article. A definite improvement! Tim Ross 23:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Hi Tim, Thanks so much. I wonder, are you part of Wikiproject Gastropods? In any case, I have recently been going around to a lot of the gastropod stubs and articles, putting in introductory sentences that are intelligible to nonscientists. Invertzoo 23:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't really know there was a Wikiproject Gastropods, but I suppose I should have guessed that such a project would exist. I'll check it out, and probably sign up. Thanks. Tim Ross 12:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well either way, I hope I see you around on some of the gastropod pages anyway, or other mollusk pages. Invertzoo 21:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Belated welcome!

A rose for Invertzoo.

Belated welcome Invertzoo! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Sorry about not giving you a proper welcome before. I thought the Wikipedia Welcoming Committee had already visited and been deleted. By now, you are already a real worker bee, with lots of wonderful edits. Congrats on your 750th edit! I'm not sure if you need these anymore, but here's some pages worth reading. Best wishes, Pia 22:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  The five pillars of Wikipedia

  How to edit a page

  Help pages

  Tutorial

  How to write a great article

  Manual of Style

Hi Pia, thanks for the late welcome. I guess I snuck in to WP in July and no-one noticed. Invertzoo 12:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC) .............................................................................................

|

|New York City Meetup

Next: Saturday November 3rd, Brooklyn Museum area

Last: 8/12/2007

The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a Wikimedia New York City local chapter. Hope to see you there!--Pharos 20:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Pharos, I did sign up as likely to go. Invertzoo 23:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Project

Hello, I think that template WikiProject Gastropods should be at discussion page. --Snek01 03:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Yes that would be a good idea. Do you have a suggestion for a template? Invertzoo 13:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought not like this [1] but like this Talk:Aciculidae. OK? Thank you. --Snek01 17:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, now I see what you mean! Before I did not know what you were talking about. OK fine, no problem; I will do that in future. Is it good to put on every gastropod articles, even the stubs? If so I will go ahead and put it on the talk page for every gastropod article...

And perhaps can you and I (and maybe others) talk about the idea of a standard way of organizing the article content for the gastopods maybe?? That might be good. Invertzoo 21:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Paragraphs

Hi InvertZoo, Between you & me we'll sort out all these mollusc articles!! A couple of points - I think 'Range of Distribution' is a tortology, I think just 'Distribution' is fine. Also, in paragraphs, only the first word is capitalized. Let me know what you think. Cheers GrahamBould 08:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Graham, Thanks for checking on that Busyconinae (I suppose Snek fixed it) and thanks for the encouragement, we can all use some encouragement. Yes, I am currently trying to go through all the gastropod listings alphabetically and clean them up a bit. Then I might try to tackle updating any of the taxoboxes which need it, according to the "Southern Synthesis". And then to work on the categories I guess....

Are you working on anything right now?

Invertzoo 14:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As a Kiwi, I'm concentrating on NZ molluscs - I think I'm the only one doing this. Also improve whatever I come across, where needed.

Keep up the good work. GrahamBould 18:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

And can I ask whose scheme of taxonomy are you using? I've been trying to use Beesley et al, the Southern Synthesis, but all the gastropod taxonomy is so all over the place right now.... Grrrrrrrr. Invertzoo 23:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not a biologist at all, just an interested amateur naturalist, with 50 years diving experience. I seem to have arrived at a time when DNA analysis is overthrowing the old taxonomy. I use Powell's bible NZ Mollusca 1979, but it is a little dated now, & ITIS, & any other sources that help. My opinion is that it is better to get the articles written, even using the old taxonomy, than have no article. Even if the taxonomy is wrong it is easy to move/correct. There is even something in Wikipedia (but I can't now find it) to say that you don't necessarily have to use the latest information, as long as what you do add is referenced properly. There is another thing - I wonder whether the extra words after 'Species' or 'Genera' are needed in your section headings. I don't think so, but if you are going to add them, then be aware that there are thousands of articles already without these words. It might be easier to leave them out. There is also something in Wikipedia (again, I can't find it) that says that very short articles don't need paragraph headings. I've adopted your convention on this (split into sections) on the premise that hopefully these short sections will be expanded by others eventually. Together we'll do it! GrahamBould 07:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you again Graham, I agree with you that it's better to get the articles written and then let some brave soul try to fix up the taxomony, when and if it ever stabilizes a bit. (This gastropod taxonomy chaos has been going on for at least 50 years, even before DNA became a tool, but nowadays the disagreements are more extreme and broader in scale than ever before.) Like you, I am a serious amateur, but I have been in the profession too, in a minor way, on and off, and am currently a Field Associate at the NYC museum. Yes you are correct that it's a WP guideline that very short articles don't need section headings, but I am making an attempt to standardize the gastropod articles, hoping as you say that that: 1. people will fill in what's missing, and also 2. that people writing new articles will be inspired to include all the categories of information, and organized it in a clear and logical way. And the reason I started adding those extra words on the species list heading was an attempt to make it more intelligible for someone who is not a biologist or even an amateur naturalist. It's also an attempt to make things clearer for the people who are reading WP on their cell phones and blackberries, as is increasingly the case these days. When you can only view a little bit of text at once it might be nice to have a reminder which taxon you are looking at.... As for thousands of entries, the gastropods alone on WP are already some thousands, but I am at the "g" listings already and plan to go through the whole lot. I don't expect other people in other zoological areas to adopt the same conventions necessarily. Thanks for your input. it's a pleasure to read your articles. I am learning a fair bit about the NZ fauna! Maybe I will buy that book! best to you Invertzoo 12:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Inviidae at Cypraeoidea

Hi Kev,

Can I ask you where exactly you found the family "Iviidae" as a part of Cypraeoidea? Is this a fossil family? If so we should indicate that. Since I have been unable to find this family among living mollusks, and because when I google it I get only Wikipedia-derived mentions, I am temporarily deleting the reference until I have some more evidence.

I very much look forward to hearing from you. Thanks, Invertzoo 13:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the web-page I retrieved the info from has changed and no longer mentions "Inviidae" at all. At this point I'm have no complaints if it is removed. Kevmin 23:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. good. Invertzoo 00:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)