User talk:NYMFan69-86/Archive 5

Thought you might be interested ....

... in this review I'm currently going through: Talk:Olivia Shakespear/GA1. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK

You deserve a piece of this:

TCO (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I...I do? But I did no expansion of the article? I really just got my first DYK!? And we got FA!!! NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like congratulations are in order

You did well, you should be feeling very proud.[1] Malleus Fatuorum 03:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Malleus, I do feel proud. Thank you so much for all your help throughout the entire process (from PR a few months ago to now). You have some hardware coming your way.  ;-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hardware? I hope it's not cash on delivery. :-( Is it a gun? I could use a gun. (Actually I couldn't; I've never even held a gun and never want to, I just wanted to appear to be macho). Malleus Fatuorum 03:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha, the package should be on your stoop. Your too good Malleus, too good.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations NYMFan - I'm happy it all worked out well. Don't forget that great AP teacher who started you down this path - he will be proud of you and your efforts. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yay to that. I hope that Jimmy Butler will be able to take some heart from this. Malleus Fatuorum 03:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much Truthkeeper88, he is not lost in all this. I owe it all to User:JimmyButler, the visionary as I like to think of him. And I truly hope your situation turns around for the best. You probably don't need to be told this but don't let all that discourage you. I've read some of your work, truly top notch. Thank you again, your words are deeply appreciated. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

And just think of the example you're setting for the current crop of AP bio students - a hard act to follow. Thanks for your kind words. I'm not discouraged, but am very busy in real life for a little while. I'll bring that page back to review as soon as I can. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This year's crop has come and gone, the products: Little Tunny and Mauritian Tomb Bat. Nothing to scoff at although Im hoping for a second semester surge. And good for you, that article will get passed soon enough, it's certainly there. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Wooohaah! So pleased! Little surprised it was passed right now. I was going to put in a biased support. Definitely the right outcome, and no surprise that it passed after Malleus supported and the the disruption on Truthkeepers GA. Role on the next FA! :) Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

gratutious advice (user page)

Think if you reverse the blue and orange in lower half (make it like the upper half) will look better. the blue conflicts with the hide button and is just kinda blinding. But not trying to dis your bling.TCO (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha, advice always welcome friend. I originally had it that way but that made the drop down menu and the backround of the page both orange; you couldn't really tell the menus were there. I'll play around with it, maybe a third color is necessary. And it certainly doesn't help that I'm colorblind! NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe white or a really light shade of grey or yellow, for the blue box. It really was not meant critically though. Look at my trainwreck of a userpage. Although the talk is kinda straightend out. Am up to 2 archives even.TCO (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought you would never archive that thing.  ;-) And thanks again for the advice, truly no sweat. You should see how I dress! NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not completely incorrigeable. I just have my rough edges. But you hang out with Malleus, so you are used to the bad boy types! TCO (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I even have all the old crap (from how I got permabanned) loaded up. But you are really very gentlemanly for not getting into wikidrama and wikipolitics. My slovenly dressed peacemaker! Good job with the Dane, too. Very cool of you to spend the non turtle time! TCO (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well thank you.  :-) And your scarred past here has been all but wiped clean I would imagine: taking an article to FA in 2011 (a harder time to do so than ever before) shows the other editors you're serious about your stuff (and your turtles)!!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Synonyms

Do you know how to read synonyms from Fritz (http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/851.pdf). We list what Fritz lists without the ex-errore,nomen and in error(?). Also for a mono-species do with list the synonyms of the genus? I noticed the Alligator snapping turtle had one genus Synonym listed. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been using Rhodin sometimes and Fritz other times for synonyms. I suppose that's the wrong thing to do. For some reason they seem markedly different. Let's use the Alligator snapping turtle as an example. Rhodin lists three Generic synonyms (page 000.92) while Fritz lists four with a whole bunch of Specific synonyms. I suppose we have to figure out which is the authority (I would say Rhodin, most current). For monotypic species I would list all generic and specific synonyms offered by reliable sources. I would imagine painted turtle has dozens more then the ones we list (but that's okay, most are probably centuries old and used by only a handful of people). What do you think about all this? Who's the authority? NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I've noticed that Fritz list what Rhodin lists and more besides. I think it's a question for User:Faendalimas. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll ask him.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Category in archive page

User talk:NYMFan69-86/Archive 4 has the Turtle category attracted to it. Can you remove it or let me know the issue. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what's the issue? What exactly do I have to remove? You can do it if you want, I'm just not sure what you mean. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Now sorted, it was to do with a navigation box automatically adding the Turtles category to every page it was one. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll be fine with whatever you want!

We can cut all the sections out (just do a revert, or edit them out manually). I just wonder if we are putting ourselves in more of a box than we need to. Maybe the FL people won't mind the extra text, maybe even like it. But I put in a question over at FLC. Also, this is part of the reason, I wanted to take "List of" out of the title, even though I still want to head it to FL.TCO (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey I put NC in a more prominent position! I moved it up!TCO (talk) 06:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I just kept messing with it to see if I could get it to "work", not to disobey you. I really am totally cool with you reverting to a much older build. Honest! Nothing is "lost" from the old way, and even from the new stuff (it's all in diffs). I still wonder if we retitled it from "List of..." (as we were planning anyhow, to appease SunC) to "U.S. state reptiles", if that would make the concept exploration, the article-ishness, seem less odd. Also, see this discussion here (and an example that has more text): [2]. But again, I'm totally fine with stripping down all the grass I grew!  :-) TCO (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the new style fine (older one better, but this one's cool too), I just don't the wiki policy on this. Lists, as far as I can tell, shouldn't really have multiple sections in the lead. I always thought the lead was a few paragraphs explaining the content of the list in full (the concept, history of it, trends, interesting parts...blah, blah, blah). Also, I'm used to seeing just one picture up there, not totally sure any other then the map are totally necessary. I don't know though, this is all stylistic, opinion. I'll check the guidelines and such on this ("should it be any less of a list if it doesn't have 'list' in the title?"). Also, sorry I've been so absent, I've had a hell of a week if you know what I mean.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hang in there. Over-Internetting can even cause real-life issues if you are behind on work, school. Take care of that. You are a good guy, wish you the best.

Feel free to revert. Realio! Do it! I dare ya. See if you like it better.  ;-)

Was a little worried that you were mad at me playing with the toy too much again. It's addictive like a video game!

I think since there is no separate article on state reptile, just changing the title will REALLY help make it have less of a "huh" factor. Really help deal with what is bugging ya. It's pretty justified to change the title. Like when we linked to it from lead of C.picta, it was really more the concept of "state reptile" and that word (for a foreigner) that we were addressing, not the "List of" aspect. It still is totally an FL and I checked with the leader of the FL process and all. It's pretty normal actually. They have examples of it. It's really fine. They love us, said "you are among friends". Not "too much article". Even the DYK rules kind of require you to go in that direction to get a List DYK (it's all judged on prose addition, nothing wrt list part). Of course if you think the content is low value, cut it, just from being low value. But I think tweaking the title will make it all cool.TCO (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's cool man

Take care of real life. They're not paying you for the Wiki-ing. Everything will be fine. Maybe some article dawdle a bit. Maybe they improve. Worst case a few crufty changes go in (but they can all get smoothed when we get back into it).

Any of the stuff we have can and will get a new draft before submission. I know there is stuff to fix, but it's an iterative process. I gotta do some RL stuff, too, but it is positive. Spotted turtle is better than it was a couple months ago. Same with state reptile.

TCO (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks man. I'll be on quite a bit today (Friday), tomorrow, and Sunday. I know I'm the reason we haven't fine tuned everything and submitted yet, it's not a good feeling. Why don't you do a solo nomination? I really haven't done enough work on that list to be a co-nom. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheer up, damnit! Disagree on co-nom. Take care of RL. TCO (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I'm just chipper! This is your baby TCO, time to take her home.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You are rocking, man! Keep kicking ass! I'm off to put more gravy on top of the painted turtle. Had an image approved. I'll come back to SR and give it TCO-work, but let me give it a break for a day or two.TCO (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks man. And go for it. They may have to make a classification above FA just for painted turtle!!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for U.S. state reptiles

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Now What?

The Diamondback Terrapin is a plum waiting to be picked. Just saying....--JimmyButler (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Spotted turtle actually. Started some expansion (been really busy lately). I thought Terrapin would be a great article for the AP Bio project: popular, interesting, important etc. In any case, just read your message on the project page. Interesting... --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I remember my AP bio. Best part was the co-ed trip to Wallops Island. Was early November but really warm weekend, so we could even swim and stuff while doing the collecting and all. Terrapin would be a no-brainer for the kids since they can go visit with a ranger and maybe even snap pictures for upload. Others that could be cool would be all the state symbols (flower, tree, reptile, bird, etc.). Or other things nearby like the alligators in Manteo and red wolves (except I think they are really coyotes, but who cares). Thinks like the horse article. It's got that cool Virginia Dare quality to it.TCO (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be awesome if the students went out and took pictures of what they were writing about. Certainly would solve our image problems!! Problem is generating interest, or at least making sure they understand this project is serious. I don't really know what can be done about that.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I know all kinds of tricks for things like that. It's not just the grade stick...

Definitely play with the picta layout

I wasn't the one who put them on the right (I was actually strict alternating.) It kinda goes without saying, this being wiki, but definitely play with it. And size and all that. I'm thinking right textboxes look better though.

I want to get this DNA paragraph wrapped up. It's going into tax and evolution, somewhere.

Thanks for the comment on the gallery. Obviously others did the work, but I got some good help, no?

TCO (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, I can't believe you're still trucking with that article so hard! It's polished, it's done. You're adding icing on a cake that's 100 ft tall with icing! Na, just messing with you. You've taken initiative and that's admirable. Have fun and I'll be around (although I'm not much help with images and such).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Map's in the article now

I know you wanted a full width map (and to show intergrade regions). I kinda resisted at the time, but it's in there now. Seems justified. So I guess you were right.

I have it sized at 800 px. Think this is reasonable for the huge majority of readers (reads fine on a laptop). Going smaller to accomodate devices and such would defeat the purpose. People on Iphones can scroll. swipe that finga...

Want to get it to FP as well...TCO (talk) 01:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That map is so good it's not even fair! Try for FP, it's that awesome. Sizing and everything look good, love the caption and color inter-gradation key. Truly awesome stuff.  :-)

What do you say we just submit state reptiles for FL, I think any remaining kinks can be worked out during the process, no?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine if you want to submit it and fix stuff as FLC brings them up. It would actually help me if you mothered it through (fix errors, tell them "no" when you disagree, etc.) And give you a chance to get into content. If I had time, these are what I would want to do (not pushing, just getting it off my mind):

• all the image stuff (ticky tacky but doable). And I'm not relisting them a third time. ;-)
• Finish off the nb style reffing for the Biology section. It's a little laborious, but might as well. (I wasn't pushing this, but someone wanted it, so figured might as well.)
• Ask Wehwalt to re-CE the prose.

TCO (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool, we can tackle these say this week and submit by Friday? I can probably do the nb Biology stuff, what needs doing?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Basically bring the ref from the list below and put it against where we say a state named something. You can see how I did it for the first para. If it's just a couple states, may not need to do an nb for bundling (I had to with 15 turtles). Check out History. We may need to put some up in there as well. And, fark, Geography. If you look in my sandbox, I actually made a list of all the states and the refs for them. Helps for cutting and pasting, especially a long list.TCO (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll go review his play. I owe him several. Need to work down my tab. Right after that, will ask him to do a ce. So we get that moving. I won't pre-ce it, will just get him in here. Think the prose is close anyhow.TCO (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool, will look at ref and nb stuff in the next two-three days. Maybe we can get someone else if you're uncomfortable asking him? Malleus?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. You ask.TCO (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Bah, knew you were going to say that. ;-) Sure thing man, I'll ask him. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

NYM, I can't promise to work on it to a deadline. I need a little bit of break and to work on things when I feel like it. I'm going to get Wehwalt's article done, then that's it with obligations. I think I did enough for Minglex (although he can use continued help, hint hint). I was going to work on someone's GOCE science article, but I took my name off the request and threw it back in the queue. Same with Myrrha. Or even picta. I know each could benefit from a thorough CE, but I'm going to rest. Or turtle racing or spotted. I will just play with them if I feel like it. If you want to through state reptile over the fence, feel free. The way my mind works, I wouldn't, but I am totally fine with you doing so. Sometimes I can promise to push to a deadline. They can be motivational. But I just need a break. this is all unpaid...TCO (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, you've been working your fingers to the bone since No-vem-ber!!! (Probably before that as well, but that was before we stared collaborating). I'll hold of on State Reptiles, I've been unbelievably busy lately. Take care of everything else you have to. We'll meet back up sometime in the (near?) future. And yes, Galapagos is on my radar. I have yet to give that the serious review it deserves.  :-( NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

request to help with Galapagos Tortoise

Can you please make the Pritchard monograph (ref 10 now, may change a little, but has refs to "p") into an anchored ref? And when Minglex gives the page numbers, make the citations? Por favor? TCO (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Por supuesto. I'm sorry to everyone reading this that I've been so inactive. Been busier than anything: midterms. This weekend is looking like a Wikipedia weekend though.  ;-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

state reptile

Can you see the article through review (at least for Sat-Mon)?TCO (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm in the heart of mid-term week. I'll contribute as I can. We'll get this thing passed come hell or high water!! NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll have time late Monday night. Don't sweat it. They have been slow to come in with comments.

Do a good job on the schoolwork. 99 yo herp Hobart Smith and I are email buds now. I kid you fucking not!

Hahaha, nice!! That man has to have an incredible amount of wisdom in that brain of his.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

anchor 2003 edition please

Can you please anchor the 2003 Shearer and Shearer edition and make the citations (I think 54 and 67) link to it? TCO (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm on it!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

stuff

1. Didn't mean to step on you with delinking gopherus. If we link it though, ought to link the other genuses. Prefer not to link all the species, since it becomes a mess (and there is all the Latin too), but genus articles will cover the subordinate species. Whatz you think?

You're fine.  :-) I see no harm in linking all the genera. The species definitely not.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I will link the genuses if you think that is value add. Just want to link ALL (so parallel structure).TCO (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Right. I don't think it takes anything away from the article (or, excuse me, list), but we don't have to put them in. Oh, and if the genus page is really bad or unhelpful I think we can leave out a link to it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done TCO (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

2. Shearer and Shearer. I'm thinking we should just convert all to the 2003 edition. I can usually google or amazon book the pages. (sometimes not). If not, we need to anchor the 2003 edition (it's confusing people).

We could convert them all, if you're willing to do the drudge work. I think it's okay to have both (I'm rearing to anchor the other one). If people are confused by that I could only imagine how they are grappling with all the Ernsts over at picta!!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

We should at a minimum anchor them all. But I really think we should bite the bullet and convert all to 2003. Feel bad about your work, and it still moved us forward! I just think we should google/amazon book it all (pages will change) and fix it all. If needed get the new book from ILL, but I find if you wait a few days, all the pages are viewable.TCO (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm just thinking back to the Ernst days, each addition offered something different. That's not really the case here; it's a list that continuing to be put together, making the newer addition more valuable. I don't really see a need to change it, but we can, I'll help.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's do it. I feeeeeeel this is the right way.  ;) TCO (talk) 01:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

3. what do you think of this content addition request (endangered status)?

I think this would be a welcome addition. I can do all the work, would just use this website. It's easy enough; you type in the scientific name and it spits out what status it is (would take me maybe a couple of hours to do them all). Do you think the content addition is necessary?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I am up for it. Feel it is a significant amount of work. But does add value as a lot of these species really are pretty endangered. Just didn't want to do it and then have some yahoo say change it back. If you can get cracking on the content, that will help. I am sure there will be work to do with formatting and the like, but get it going (see my thread on this in article talk, also).

We'll flesh it out on the talk page with the reviewer who brought it up, see if, first of all, we can see what he/she wants exactly and how we would have to do it (like you've already started, the reference formatting for them is a big question).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

AGreed. Just start dumping the ratings and a refs in talk. It will end up in some sort of table field (and we will write a little para on it as well). Think our reptiles tend to be more endangered than dogs or such, so is worthwhile. PresN or TRM or RexxS will help us with the table.

4. The rest of it is all stuff I can deal with (sentence case and the like) either by doing what they want or explaining why not.

Let's go with the two different editions for now (may need your help)

Should be good, take a look.

I recreated all the page numbers (grr) for 3rd edition, and made the entries for the two editions read the same. Please don't put in a page range (Since we call out page numbers on the refs, not needed. It ends up biting us in the ass on book biblio listings as we may use other parts of the book in future, like with Ernst). Also if we start converting to 2003, let's not lose the page numbers.

TCO (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that (thanks for letting me know). And thanks for putting in the pages, looks nice!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Galapagos refs

Hi, thanks for offering to help. I'm afraid I'm not sure where to start with Sasata's comments- many of the references I don't know where to find the publisher or location. The title case/sentence case is taken verbatim from the article in all the references that I've put up so far. How should I go about this? Minglex (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Galapagos Tortoise is in the same position Painted turtle was in when we submitted for FAC: references in need of some attention. Sasata is very good at reference formatting. I recommend leaving him a message; ask him what you need to do to satisfy him. It will be a lot of drudge work...I'll help. Once you get through it you will have a heavily weighted support on your review page.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think a lot of it can be done by Google and Amazon viewing to get publisher and location info. For Pritchard, we need to anchor that and call out page numbers (it;s a key ref, book length, etc.) If you don't have a hard copy, get the InterLibraryLoan request in yesterday! All the rest of it, we can muddle through and help you. You will learn cite templates and sentence case and all that. (copying the format of article titles is a bad idea as they all vary, and in some cases even use all caps, better to decide what we will use in the article and make format same always, not just cut and paste).TCO (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This will be a lot of work; many things need to be sorted through and meticulously corrected. I left Sasata a note, maybe he could get us started with some article talk page discussion...--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, here are the Pritchard 1996 page referencess, I would appreciate it greatly if you could advise on the best way to format them: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gal%C3%A1pagos_tortoise&oldid=417826043

• a: p49
• b: p50

I couldn't find this tag. Could you point out where it is in the text?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry it was in a collapsed subspecies box but actually the two pages 49 and 50 are one continuous list of subspecies. Minglex (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. Would you mind snagging this one for me?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• c: p17
• d: on p49 claims that californiana is An unused named to be suppressed by petition to ICZN, does not explicitly use words 'nomen oblitum'

Put in a citation needed tag, you may need to find another source.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering about: Chelonian conservation and biology: journal of the IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group and international bulletin of chelonian research", IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group (University of California) 2: 620, 1997. I think it is your addition, but I'm just getting back the wikipedia page when I search for it in Google. Minglex (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, if it has the info you need.  :-) I don't remember putting it in though, maybe TCO?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who put it in, but I can get it no problem on the web or Google scholar with the title as the search term (not the text, but references to it and a purchase arrangement via BL. Try varying your search terms a little more before giving up! P.s. Just get rid of "nomen oblitum" (it is an affection, anyway, for this style of article for a general reader...just use the normal wording without the Latin). I would still wikilink the concept.TCO (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• e: p63
• f: p49
• g: p47
• h: p65 author speculates on an example of tortoises being moved between islands, does not state explicitly, possibly not accurate enough for reference

I reworded this sentence slightly to show that it is more of a specualtion on the author's part. I think you should be covered but if you want to remove it or find a different source feel free.  :-) --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that.Minglex (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• i: p65: not an appropriate reference as it relates to the issue of a single specimen being collected, but not to whaling or sealing logs. This is covered already in the accompanying ref on this sentence.

I just removed it...is that cool?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely.Minglex (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• j: p65
• k: p65
• l: p65
• m: p18
• n: Should be changed to the Sulloway 1984 reference, which explicitly states that Darwin saw no live tortoises on the island.

I made the switch. The source needs reformatting though (Searson was doing some work, maybe he can do this one).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• o: Cannot find the reference in the text. Strike, as adequately covered by adjacent reference
• p: p59

Minglex (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay Minglex, we can tackle this. The first thing to do is make sure we have a 100% correctly generated source (verify this is true please, come to me with questions if any arise). Next (after all the publication info and what not is correct), the reference must be anchored because so many different pages are used. I can do this no problem. After that It's not too bad, I/we just have to go in and change all of the individual citations to the Harnvb style (do you know how to work with this style citation?). Let me know when you're comfortable with the source's information and such. Glad to help out Minglex!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I will stay out of it for a while. Need to push SR over the goal line. Maybe this is good divide and conquer. You really helped Mottenen with reffing. If there is anything tricky, ask Gold Hat for help. He is also very fast as well.TCO (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Gold Hat? And I'm game: divide and conquer.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

He helped us a bit on Painted turtle. He is a whiz at all the Harvnb stuff. Kinda like Malleus, in that he is a content stud, but you should stay out of his kerfuffles with the admins.TCO (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha, alright then, I will. Thanks.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

100% correctly generated source? I'm not sure what this means. I have personally looked at each page to verify that it says what it claims to in the accompanying text. I can learn the citation style if necessary, should have some time this week. Minglex (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I just meant we need to make sure the reference has all the correct information ant that the reference is complete. Sometime tomorrow or Wednesday I will have time to anchor the source and switch over the citation style. Hang in there, sorry I'm so busy and inactive. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in so much time, I will be working through the night in a final push now. Minglex (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't mention it. Go get 'em man, you can do it.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just seen the news, thanks very much for your substantial contributions and support throughout! I look forward to working with you again in the future. Minglex (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome Minglex, truly phenomenal work you did.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Victory

Put another star on your page, man. Really fun working with you! I know I kinda grapped it at the end, but you did a huge amount in the middle and definitely deserve to put this scalp up on your personal totem pole!

This user helped promote U.S. state reptiles to featured list status.

TCO (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You did it man!! I dragged that article to Mt. Everest and you put it on your back and hiked it to the top. You sir are a champion. Such a great worker.  :-)

Sandy is getting all salty over Galapagos tortoise. Time to put her in her turtle place...;)TCO (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, we should do all we can. I am free tomorrow for once (also right now for a little bit).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Push the refs, I will work on the prose. Been holding off, since no one was giving me love, but time to help the cause.TCO (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I will do what I can, don't have access to a lot of them but I will polish the citations to show that there's still activity.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I will work on the prose if you say, you want it. Otherwise, I'm on to some snapping turtle. I don't mind Kiernan. I've learned to laugh at him. I fix like 99 errors and introduce one and he kvetches. But now, I just let it chap his ass. TCO (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hahahahaha, you're too funny! You can handle the prose. I really don't see that many reference problems with Galapagos anymore. They look pretty clean, no? Maybe I'll ask Sasata. You go get that snapper!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) OMG so ORANGE! And it is my favorite color, temporarily blinded, but I digress. At this stage of your education you really need to know how to spell Champagne! LOL! Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha, oh no! My cover's blown! I'm supposed to be the innocent college kid who doesn't even know how to spell the names of alcoholic beverages! :-D NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if we have to capitalize it though. At least on this thuggish, non-UK, non-EU side of the pond.TCO (talk)

Sounds like I really screwed the pooch on this one. XD Maybe we should change the capatilization, idk though, oh, and I can change the spelling. Haha.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not traditionally capitalized in English. Certainly not in American English. Same with cognac. Both are regions in France, but the names are used lc by now. TCO (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You're the expert! (Joke, please don't take offense).  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I just Googled it. I thought you whippersnappers were all Internet-savvy?  ;-) Of course our Wiki article has a French bias and uses the capitalization, but customary usage is not. It's varied though. And there are other types of wine that keep the uc. Still think lc would be a bit more normal (like in a newspaper or a book or the like). But Wiki is an easy place for advocates or language reformers to try to drive usage.

(talk page stalker) I am delighted to make the acquaintance of two gentleman with a sense of humor in this morass called Wiki ;-) Now ONE of you change the spelling of champagne! It haunts me LOL! And, no, it is not capitalised, that was for emphasis. You two make me smile! TYTYTY! Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 21:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

— DocOfSoc • Talk • 21:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I was funnier before I got permabanned. After a couple years away, had to hand in my testicles to be allowed back. A bad enough fuckup and they will let Will Beback eat them.TCO (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a time for fun and play in almost every situation. I find I learn something new every day here, especially with TCO around. His nuggets of knowledge are just splendid. I changed it on the user page, not the talk page (yet). Feel free Doc!  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Common Snapping Turtle video

I decided I don't want to deal with this person (Agamemnus) anymore. I don't believe his arguments hold much weight and I don't believe the video belongs on Wikipedia. The video looks staged, is very poor quality and has no provenance. It has very little value in an encyclopedia. My experience is that other editors remove YouTube videos, however, the one that shows how to get a snapping turtle across a road has value. I never said turtles don't eat birds in fact they probably take ducklings from below but what good is it to see one catch and drown an adult pigeon? If the video goes back a third time I won't remove it. Cheers. Dger (talk) 01:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I actually have no idea what Wikipedias policy is regarding YouTube videos. I was hoping he wouldn't be able to prove it was a snapper then we would have to take it out. It is a pretty poor video all around; much better (scientific) ones can be had. Sort of stinks though, I know an editor who really wants to advance that article, I think Agamemnus is going to be a difficult roadblock.  :-( NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. One other thing I noticed was the video's "author" is from the Netherlands. Where did he find a snapping turtle there? I think it is a European pond turtle of some sort perhaps a European Pond Turtle. Dger (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The Netherlands? Oh wow. I didn't think it was a snapper either. We should leave it out, it's a bad video for several reasons. Were you planning to work on that article? NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This person is just feeding you lies. I found another video (which Dger refused to do, preferring instead to just blank things that he doesn't approve of) that seems to be the source and higher quality. After much searching I found that it is probably not a snapping turtle, but he should have done more work instead of just removing edits that he didn't like.--Agamemnus (talk) 07:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Turns out it wasn't a Common Snapping Turtle after all. Just as we suspected. Dger (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Agamemnus, you should have done more work/research before putting the video in in the first place. I can't go find a video of a painted turtle, put it in the bog turtle article, then blame everyone else for not taking it out. That's ridiculous. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Woops

This may interest you. http://www.qwiki.com/q/#!/Bog_turtle http://www.qwiki.com/q/#!/Painted_turtle Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 12:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's cool. What is that cite? Do they do that for every article?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)