Wikipedia

User talk:Invertzoo/Archive 66

< User talk:Invertzoo
Latest comment: 10 years ago by EdwardsBot in topic The Signpost: 26 June 2013


ARCHIVE PAGE 66: June 2013

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

About the Queen Conch image

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

G'day Invertzoo,

There was recently some confusion amongst editors at the Photography workshop surrounding a previous edit request that you made. Mostly regarding wiki procedural issues, but it also included some differences of opinion over how to interpret your original request. It's occurred to me that we may have been a bit silly in not having asked you to 'please clarify' as you likely know what you meant better than we do.   So —in the spirit of 'better-late-than-never— when you requested:

"Please take out the reflection and the brown background markings on the lower left corner of this otherwise beautiful image."

...in regards to this (unedited) version of "File:Sea shell (Trinidad & Tobago 2009).jpg", did you intend "the reflection" to refer to the light source reflections on the shell itself (i.e. 'highlights' on the shell) or just to refer to the reflections on the background surface below the shell?

Also, how do you feel and what are your thoughts about the current (edited) version of the image?

Thanks for your time and attention, --Kevjonesin (talk)

p.s. — I also left a link to a stylized version on the Conch talk page. --16:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


Hi Kevjonesin! G'day to you too! Thanks for asking. In my original request I meant the reflections on the glass surface that were below the shell in the same area as the brown geometric bands. I thought that the reflections/highlights on the shell itself were just fine. I really like the current edited version, I do. You are welcome to copy these comments onto the workshop page if you like. (Your slightly surreal version, which is shown on the talk page of Conch is very pretty indeed, but almost overwhelming. Would make a great backdrop at a shell show or similar.) Invertzoo (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice to meet you too

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Greetings from Germany

Very nice to meet you too, thanks very much for showing us round. I hope we can do something together in future, do you know if there is publicly available list of the objects on display in the museum? --Mrjohncummings (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hope you are enjoying Germany. Happy to try to do something in the future if we get the chance, assuming I am not too busy with my mollusk research. As far as I know there is no list of objects on display in AMNH, but I will try to double check that with the Exhibitions Department. Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Lobatus gigas

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Susan! How have you been? I haven't been very active as of late, but I see you've been working on Lobatus gigas quite often! Are you thinking of making it our second FA =)? Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

After seeing you go through the whole thing with Dog conch, I must say I am quite frightened of the FA process! Most of those Lobatus gigas edits came about firstly because of wanting to make it clear that one shell (five views) had been modified artificially, and then secondly because I was adding the very nice (recently cleaned up) image of an adult shell with an intact lip. And thirdly because I went back to Flickr and worked out which island the big shell pile was photographed on. I hope we don't have too many shell images in that article now? Maybe I should take out the second one further down that shows a shell that has been similarly modified. Invertzoo (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I can't blame you, the FA review is truly a frightening thing... One could say it takes a specialist (or several) to succeed, specially when it comes to scientific topics. But the article is very good now, I think! It could pass, but there are a few problems. Last time I looked, there were ~450 articles on Strombus gigas. Imagine the reviewers asking us to add the missing articles... Practically impossible! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
It seems one needs to be a specialist not only in the subject itself, but a specialist in the Wikipedia Manual of Style too! And yes you are right that a FA needs to include all of the available information on the subject. Yes, right, 450 different articles.... I suppose each one includes some info that the others do not have. Sigh. I suppose one should try to do an FA on a snail that not so much is known about! Invertzoo (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I think I have a better image of a Queen Conch shell that has been fished. I will try to find it and upload it to replace the image of three shells from Guadeloupe, which is not so good. Invertzoo (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Isn't it odd to think that a single species may never find its way to FA? I mean, no one would have the time, patience, knowledge and privileged access to be able to compile all the necessary info. Maybe with massive team work, but then... It would still be messy. Too bad. Lobatus gigas is one of my favorite subjects... Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Well if you like, at some point when we both have some time, you and I can at least try to get it up to FA. You are right that it is already a very nice article. Plus it is a very significant species that people would benefit from knowing more about. Invertzoo (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

NYC Wiki-Picnic: Saturday June 22

  Great American Wiknic NYC at Prospect Park  
You are invited to the Great American Wiknic NYC in Brooklyn's green and lovely Prospect Park, on this Saturday June 22! We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck :) -- User:Pharos (talk)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hexaplex cichoreum

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Appreciating your comments here. JKadavoor Jee 18:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for letting me know Jkadavoor. I left a note. Invertzoo (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Ifremeria nautilei

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Susan. I've just been working on the species Ifremeria nautilei and I think it contains an exceptional item (Warén's larva) that could become a DYK. Perhaps you want to look into it. Thanks. JoJan (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at the article, which is very nice. I added to it a bit. However, I think it would need more words to be eligible for a DYK. If I have the time I may try to work it up into a DYK, but unfortunately I am very busy right now IRL so it may turn out that I cannot to do that. Thanks as always for all your very good work, Invertzoo (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alviniconcha 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:
  • These and another genus and species in the same family (''[[Ifremeria nautilei]]'' are the only known currently existing animals whose nutrition is derived

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Invertzoo/Archive_66&oldid=1168301853"