User talk:AshLin/Archive 3

Satyrinae

I'm done with making the tribe pages. There's some smoothing out left; I'm gonna go shopping now and do that (referencing, diclaimer-ing n stuff) when I'm back. I have not removed info except some overhead (no need to precede each single genus with "genus", because if in italics and one word, it can only be a genus ;-) ). Likewise, I have moved the citations for genera which have their pages there (taxobox). It was a good list to work with; there was the odd typo (few enough) and several of Miller's genera are now synonyms. Most importantly however, Miller's genera incertae sedis have by now been assigned to tribes by the Wahlberg lab and others.

It is finished now. There is no "List of Satyrinae genera" page, which would a) restore the long list (but note the revisions from the previous list) and b) would provide the missing "Diversity" link. Dysmorodrepanis 05:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support

Hi Ashwin, thanks for the note of support at my RfA. Hey I notice that you dont use the move page option, that will move the article and talk pages and simultaneously add the redirect tag. Shyamal 15:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Namespace vio

I have moved WikiProject Lepidoptera/Indian butterflies missing images list to Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera/Indian butterflies missing images list. -- RHaworth 09:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera/Indian butterflies image inventory list. AshLin 04:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Road roller / tractor

Hi Ashlin, thanks for giving me a laugh. While I followed each road roller edit through the history I wondered what on earth you were writing about; it appeared to make no sense at all -- until I saw the picture! That has got to be one of the most bizarre vehicles I have ever seen. Very inventive.

On a more serious note, it looks like a one-off, but you list it with the types of roller, implying that there were more of these things made. Was there just one, or several? EdJogg 23:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting isn't it, I've a small quicktime video too. I snapped the image from a moving car as I was travelling in the hills. I had never heard or seen such a traction-drive before. It is probably a local automative manufacturer's modification. Since the types of road-rollers did'nt seem like a formal text book type of classification, I added it but if you feel it is not appropriate to list it there you are welcome to make the necessary edits. AshLin 08:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified the entry in the article -- readers can make up their own minds!

Would love to see the video; any chance you could upload it to Commons?

EdJogg 14:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, non-free format plus dead slow internet. Will contact you later in the year when I relocate to better connectivity. Took 20 mins to download your new message. So you can imagine. Regards, AshLin 14:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snake scales

Congratulations on the GA. It is even more fun when you get a collaboration rolling ! Btw, time to archive. Shyamal 15:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good candidate for another GA would be Glossary of Lepidopteran terms, for a start I think it should be moved to Lepidopteran morphology or suchlike. (Leave the trouble of fixing all the old links to me). Shyamal 03:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to look for the images. Btw, met Ramana (Bugun Liocichla) the other day and have given him your contact info. Shyamal 08:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo locations

Discolampa ethion has a nice new photograph which differs quite a bit from my specimen from Coorg. It would be more useful if the uploaders add more important information such as date and location for adults and plants for larvae or eggs. Shyamal 02:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA review feedback

Hi., i was travelling over the weekend and i shall go over your GA review comments and revert back to you by tuesday morning max. --Kalyan 02:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have left feedback for you on the GA review comments. In summary, i think the review comments were valid and very well described. --Kalyan 08:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good job on your first GA review. I haven't spent as much time working on this article compared to other GAs, as most of it was developed and I just added more sources. I'll work on the article over the next few days and get back to you when I'm done. I have a few comments on a few of your suggestions, but I'll mention those once I fixed everything else. Again, good job on the review and hopefully you stick around to help take on the backlog. --Nehrams2020 18:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're doing great! I'll look for information on that if possible, and will include it as soon as I can. I'm sorry I have been taking so long on this, but with work and the 4th of July, I've had some limited time. Right now I'm trying to find the result of the Russian court case with the astrologer but haven't found anything yet. If I can't find anything further then I'll just include a statement about her suing NASA and leave it at that. --Nehrams2020 06:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I have addressed all of your issues, and if I didn't I left a message explaining why. For the scientific goals, I reread the sources and other sources and determined that two of the goals were not part of the mission. The age of the nucleus would be the same as the age of the solar system, which astronomers already knew. Also, a mission leader stated that the mission was not for deflecting a comet as the spacecraft was too small and the comet too large for this experiment. I readded other goals from original sources. Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you'd take another look and if you have any more issues that should be addressed, I'll get to them as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 19:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for passing the article. Your excellent review helped to improve the article further by pointing out things that I overlooked (I'm embarrassed there were so many big things!). I hope that you continue to review articles which will help to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia. Hope to see you around. --Nehrams2020 06:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Amphibians and Reptiles Portal (P:AAR)

The Amphibians and Reptiles Portal I'm glad to announce that The Amphibians and reptiles portal (P:AAR) has been created and is ready for you to use. This portal covers any subjects related to amphibians, reptiles, herpetology, as well as WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. Purposes of the portal to act as the "main page" for editors interested in amphibians and reptiles. The portal page should contain all the common and useful links to relevant articles, lists, categories, as well as the project tasklist. As this portal is your tool, please feel free to organize, modify, or expand the Topics, Categories, Lists, and Tasklist sections of the portal as you see fit. to lead potential AAR editors to WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles as well as to educate general readers. Feel free to add more items for the "Did you know..." section. Thank you for reading. If you have any questions, please leave them on the portal talk page or my user talk page. --Melanochromis

--Melanochromis 06:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Moths

Hi AshLin, many thanks for your invitation - I'll see if I can figure out how to sign up on the project. Cheers, HKmoths 03:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smackbot

Hi AshLin. Smackbot doesn't add reference templates- it only changes their names and makes sure that they have a datestamp. The templates were added by Erechtheus in this edit.-Wafulz 16:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dated cleanup tags

Hi, thanks for your message, SmackBot does not generally add tags, but merely dates those that are already there. Regards, Also {{sources}} is now a redirect to {{refimprove}}, whreas it was until recently to {{unreferenced}} Rich Farmbrough 20:04 9 July 2007 (UTC).

Trimeresurus gramineus

Hi Ashlin! What's up with you and bamboo pit viper? I've gone to great lengths to show just how much variation there is in common names and to avoid as much as possible elevating any one name over its available alternatives, so why do you insist on doing that in this case? I don't see why this one name, or this one article, should be treated any differently from all the others. --Jwinius 17:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jaap,

Nothing at all. I just felt in the opening statement about a species, its common handle may be used for better presentability. This does not affect the fact that there are other common names. As per WP:MOS the opening para is supposed to summarise the article. So including the prominent common name in the first line is not something objectionable. In most articles, you would find the common name figuring in the opening line. So whats wrong with that here?

As far as giving equal treatment for all names is concerned, is there some kind of inequality here if we use the commoner one? I've informed you about the actual practice on ground in the country it occurs. I've also given you just two of possibly many references. I've never heard of the other names at all - so how can they be common? I agree that I may not have heard about them - I have not edited them out or taken any action at all towards them. They continue to figure in your common name list.

Is it your contention that all the common names deserve equal weightage? That would be true if we had no way to see the ground situation. Since I've given you a feedback (with references) about the situation in India about Indian snakes, surely there is some weightage to that! Well, Daboia russeli is found in other countries but I thought that Russell's Viper would be the common epithet in all countries.

If you feel so strongly, go ahead and revert the edits, but I do not see where I have gone wrong. BTW my main motive was to improve the readability, so even if some other english name is used, the aim is still achieved. However I believe that the common names I placed in the opening sentances for Daboia russeli and Trimeresurus gramineus represent in reality the commonest and most widely used names so I placed them in the opening sentance: in other words - it was a good faith edit to make the opening sentance better, which I felt I was entitled to as an editor. If you disagree please revert - I will not contest the point.

Well, as far as my overall work towards snakes is concerned, I would love to do more but I've got two killing projects on hand the 1000+ spp of Indian butterflies and 10,000+ spp of Indian moths - so I edit on snakes very occassionally mostly to place images I have - I sorrow over the state of Indian Cobra and many other articles, but I'm fully focussed on Lepidoptera at the moment.

In good faith, AshLin 17:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since as I started out writing like that myself, I completely understand your point. However, in order to avoid tedious naming disputes and to remain as objective, neutral and consistent as possible, I've come to believe that it's necessary to avoid using common names whenever possible and make no exceptions, even in cases where there is no dispute. This approach also prevents repetition within the text and keeps the introduction as tidy and to the point as possible. As for all those other articles, I know what you mean: many of them are in a truly awful state and deserve much better. Yet, we cannot be expected to do everything ourselves. We can only do the best we can and hope that others will eventually follow our example. (P.S. - You can answer here, as I've got your talk page on my watch list). --Jwinius 23:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jaap,

I must say I cant find myself in agreement with your practice of such strict guidelines. As per Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia is built up by contributing editors from all over the world. The model of WP is meant for this. People will have differing viewpoints. All the articles are built up by contributions by more than one editor. Will you revert every person who makes an edit which in your opinion does'nt fall in with your scheme of things? I must caution you that by doing that, you may prevent or discourage contribution by others. I dont think anyone who edits within WP:MOS and gets reverted would want to contribute there again. The power of collaboration vanishes. I favour a more inclusive and permissive atmosphere which állows people's contributions and also doesnt prevent you from rewriting to improve either. In good faith, AshLin 14:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with the first five sentences of what you just wrote. However, in my view WP:MOS does not help to achieve this, as it allows for those differing viewpoints to easily end in naming disputes. As you know, it actually encourages the use of common names for article titles. But remember that common names are are totally arbitrary. For example, even if you use a well-known name like king cobra, according to the law of averages it's always possible to find another person out there who will think it should be called something else (in English!). And since, as you say, Wikipedia should be here for everyone, we should do our best to avoid stepping on each others toes, for example by avoiding the use of common names as much as possible. Yes, I choose to ignore ignore official policy, but I do that in favor a system that I see as more politically correct. Then there's no need for any bickering about names and we can all get on with adding real substance to the articles. --Jwinius 16:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: PR on Harry Potter influences

The PR referred to an earlier version of this article called "Works analogous to Harry Potter." That article was a very different beast to this one. It contained a lot of unsourced material which I have subsequently shifted to a subpage called the Attic. I originally intended this article to be a kind of "release valve" for the seemingly endless comments about how Rowling "ripped off" authors X,Y,Z,1,2,3. There were literally dozens of such comments scattered throughout Wikipedia, so I figured if I could corral them into one place, then they wouldn't reappear elsewhere. However, subsequently I became a lot more sensitive to the idea of OR, having engaged in a number of very fierce OR disputes with other users, and the level of "rip off" accusations lessened. So I decided to rework this article into a more disciplined form. Because many of the unsourced comments eventually became sourced (Jane Yolen, Eva Ibbotson and that ridiculous Troll movie were all origianally just random spouting, but I managed to locate sources for them), I decided to keep them on a separate but linked page, which became the Attic. This page still attracts random spouters, but now their comments go straight into the Attic unless they can be sourced.

Anyway, here is the peer review. It was never intended to be a traditional peer review, and instead referred to a very specific problem I was having with trying to track down references to a non-existant lawsuit that supposedly took place between Rowling and Jill Murphy. Since I couldn't prove a negative, I placed a warning over her subsection in invisitext not to include a reference to a lawsuit unless they could back it up. It seems to have worked. Serendipodous 17:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tertiary extinction event

Ok, don't worry about it. I'll count your review since he's not participating in the GAC backlog elimination drive anyway. Also, even though that person passed the article. He didn't remove the article on GAC page. I'll change the article back to on hold status and leave a note to that reviewer. OhanaUnited^Talk page 17:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]]

Hi,

I spent a lot of time reviewing your article for GA. I left detailed comments but was left at the post by another User who passed your article with no comments.

I planned to do only 5 articles for GAC but do them well. This article had been specifically chosen by me for the GAC Backlog elimination drive for which I was expecting credit towards an award.

I want to know if you are going to respond to my comments. If yes, I'll be happy to remain involved. If not, then I want to unwatch the page, detach myself from this review, delete files from my hard drive and delist this wiki from my GAC backlog elimination drive review list.

May I request you to kindly let me know your mind.

Regards, AshLin 16:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't know that I should have responded directly to you. First of all, I REALLY appreciate your comments. I've request GA status on a few articles and your review was the most comprehensive, so for that, thank you very much. I intend to slowly respond to each of your points (I actually made a first pass at the lead today). Please keep watching, I'm going to tackled the article this week. Thanks again. Orangemarlin 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, like Orangmarlin Thanks for the comprehensive review of the K-T Extinction article! I have no idea how long it will take to update the text, so check back when you have a better internet solution. --Rocksanddirt 17:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Spring

AshLin, thanks for your thoughtful review of Silent Spring. I agree with much of what you say. Some of the structural suggestions seems reasonable, but may not be the only way to go; I would have to think more about those issues while reworking the article. In any case, your comments will be very helpful when someone (maybe me, maybe not) is ready to do some serious work on it. I don't think there is anyone to do that now, so I would recommend failing the GA nomination. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 16:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thank you for your thoughtful comments, I look forward to reviewing your editorial work. A couple of observations...I am a historian and so my perspective is a little different than a scientist. The controversy, such as it is, is not about the book but about public policy, specifically about the public's (via their elected reps and the bureaucratic mechanisms in the government) ability to require independent review of a commercial product not limited in scope to effacacious testing or to harm done to one species (man). That is why the scientist and the text are under continuous attack and this will continue in your proposed 3rd section. Rachel Carson did not invent an equation or discover an unknown element; she popularized a way of looking at the world - this was her great contribution and this is what is attacked usually with only a passing nod at anything scientific (whatever best answers the bludgeoning requirements of the author), no citations, etc. just unsupported and (as far as I can tell) specious pronouncements in inflammatory language by those opposed to this world view. So be advised that there will be a tendency to include long quotations that are highly POV and usually defensible under Wiki Rules (again, as far as I can tell). The fourth proposed section is another potential Tempest in a Teapot with competing claims about ddt which better belong in the article on ddt, I would think that the scope of this section would need to be modeled after wiki entries for other landmark scientific works listed in Dicovery's Greatest Scientific Books of all time; I say that without having reviewed 'Origin Of The Species' to see if it is as big a target as Silent Spring.Cronos1 22:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Silent Spring

Thanks for reviewing it. I have never read the book before, I just heard of it during a biology lecture. Since you read the book before, can you try provide the thesis of the book? I'll be able to get the article to NPOV very shortly but I got something that will keep me occupied until the 21st of July. I think I'm going to improve article's NPOV pretty well, since I never read about it, I can't be bias towards the book :P OhanaUnited^Talk page 18:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask Ragesoss who's an admin and ask for her help. OhanaUnited^Talk page 10:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review of oxidative phosphorylation

Hi there, just a note to let you know that I have shifted all work on this article onto my sandbox, to give you a stable version to review. All the best Tim Vickers 19:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind if you pass this back to other reviewers, but on the other hand, articles are meant to be written for as non-expert audience as possible - so a non-biochemist viewpoint could be valuable. Whatever you decide! :) Tim Vickers 19:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is on-route for a FA nomination, so metabolism is the level I'm eventually aiming for (and provides the background for the article), other related articles at GA level are mitochondrion (more background) and Cell (biology). I've added some ideas for future expansion to the talk page in a to-do box. I'd be particularly grateful for a review highlighting parts that are poorly-written and don't define technical terms. Tim Vickers 20:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm working on a history section at the moment, which will stand separately at the end of the article, so writing this doesn't need any changes to the main text. All the best Tim Vickers 14:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, thanks! Tim Vickers 17:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already incorporated into the article, thanks! Tim Vickers 22:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event

I think we hit all of the points that you suggested. I really appreciate your attention to this article, even if you are an engineer!!!! But of course, I'm a physician, so I guess I should paraphrase Dr. McCoy on Star Trek--"dammit AshLin, I'm a doctor not a paleontologist." Again thanks! Orangemarlin 20:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did it, Bones!AshLin 04:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do I get to count two GA's on K-T? LOL. Thanks again!!! Engage! Orangemarlin 04:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I forgot you helped out on the GA. Thanks for your kind words on my user page regarding the FA of this article. It took some work!!!!! But you helped out too. OrangeMarlin ^Talk• Contributions 04:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your first barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I award AshLin this Barnstar of Diligence for having the patience and dedication to give a careful review on the highly-technical topic of oxidative phosphorylation. Tim Vickers 17:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! :)

It'll be my pleasure, dear Ash :) Just be aware that it may take me a few days at least, since I'm currently a little swamped with requests; but I'll be very happy to work a little magic on your userpage ;) Have a beautiful day, my friend! Phaedriel - 23:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind GA review

Much appreciated. :) Serendipodous 17:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy

Ashwin, the policy guidelines are not very controversial. You can be bold and go ahead and use whatever has come up and your discretion. Cant expect quorum with five active wp leppers anyway, but you can be sure there cant be much controversy either. Shyamal 05:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :)

Thank you for your beautiful words and warm wishes on my birthday, dear friend! I took a well-deserved one-day wikibreak and spent it with my family and my friends... and actually had a beer after months of forced abstinence! :) Of course, there's no way I'd forget about you, so I saved a great, tasty piece of chocolate cake just for you - but sorry, no beer left! Again, thank you so much for taking the time to wish me well, and have a wonderful day, dear AshLin! Love, Phaedriel - 05:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply] PS. I swear I haven't forgotten about your request - just a little busy, you see... but I swear I'll have news for you real, real soon! ;)

Australian painted lady

Just popping in to offer a (much belated) thank you for identifying my butterfly photo. I did as you suggested and started a stub for Vanessa kershawi. I've only lived in Tasmania for a few years (i'm from America), and I've got a long way to go in learning the local flora and fauna. For the last few years I've focused on birds and plants. Recently I've started looking more closely at insects (especially since we started a vegetable garden). Tasmania has a high number of endemic species, and I've tasked myself with getting photos of as many of these as possible to put up on Wikipedia. Cheers KeresH 23:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --A cool night green owl 09:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I've created a List of butterflies of Tasmania, as per your suggestion. Would you please give it a look over to see if I made any mistakes? KeresH 01:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of introduced fish in Australia

Thanks for your help with the lead section! I'll sort it out and add it now. Abbott75 ☺ 04:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, thanks! Do you think it is nearing the Featured List criteria? Abbott75 ☺ 08:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sphingidae species list

Holy cow! I am currently editing the three sub-species of Sphingidae, after which I will copy-paste those genera to the Sphingidae species list itself, because I am finding so many mistakes within te sub-family genera. Genus Manduca is in sub-family Macroglossinae, etc. It's quite awful, but I plan to have all three sub-families' genera and species listed on their own pages and then on the family list, also. I'll repost when I am finished. Thanks for the warm welcome to Project Lep! Thanks, Jake Nowatzke 9 August 2007 I don't know how to do the time thingy yet! I'm very new.

Well then, that wasn't too hard! By the way, I just completed the Sphinginae list and added stub and link to checklist. It's just the list and basics, but tell me what you think so that I may refer to your suggestions when listing the other two sub-families. I plan to add info after I complete the lists. Thanks! Taxidermistjake 19:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So all I should do is put a References section and the website I got the checklist from, correct? That reference help page didn't say much about web-based references. Taxidermistjake 19:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I now have completed the Macroglossinae (Lepidoptera) page. It took me two hours, but I got it down. I'll do the Smerinthinae page sometime else. I'm tired of typing. I'm committed, but to a certain extent! Taxidermistjake 21:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I finished Smerinthinae and massively upgraded the Sphingidae species list. Instead of "partial list" it is now entire list of world species. I'll start working on getting pictures and adding pages to species, creating new pages, etc. Thanks for your help! Taxidermistjake 00:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus and the WikiProject

Just something to keep the stress off. ~Kylu 19:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Management sucks. :P

The bad thing is, when you're in some sort of management (even as an unofficial group leader), you're going to have various disagreements and failures to make things happen to deal with. Good thing is, Butterfly Project is staffed with various individuals who don't have certain agendas to promote and generally all just care about making the articles better.

What we need to do is have each member state exactly how much they're willing to bend to bring us to some sort of resolution, and then make sure everyone understands that the more you're willing to compromise, the more important your position is to the group. No sense letting the sticks-in-the-mud control things, ne?

Anyway, it's a laid-back kinda group, so don't stress too much. :) ~Kylu (u|t) 19:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with image licensing?

Hello again. I asked this one guy over the internet if I could use his picture on Wikipedia. He said sure. Lomocyma oegrapha is the picture I am using. Now I am having trouble with licensing. See my talk page. The guy said this: "OK, no problem. You can use the photo of Lomocyma oegrapha, but only with full credit of it: © Pavel Hosek, Expedition LEMURIA, http://vesmir.msu.cas.cz/Madagaskar. Best Regards,Pavel Hosek" So what do I do? What license do I use? I appreciate your help, and yes, I've been populating the Manduca genus so far. I've got 30 new Manduca pages, plus their Leptalk template, with stub,low as you suggested. Thanks, Taxidermistjake 06:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GAC backlog contest

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Thank you for your participation in the GAC backlog elimination drive! ¿SFGiДnts! ^¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 20:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi ashlin OMG your from Army? oh its so nice to see a woman from Army. Which regiment do you belong to? oh actually which service is it infantry or other logistical organisations. why don't you participate in defence forums. There are many Indian defence websites you must have heard about Bharat Rakshak, WAB etc. I mean your contribution can be very important out there because half of the time we keep thinking over what is the truth and whom to trust when it comes to issues on defence.--Ajay ijn 07:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 08:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Its nice to meet you, I think ur works are really good. Pls. help in adding photos in Dooars, North Bengal and other PA of North Bengal articles, or any other. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 10:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Army Infantry Regiments

Hey there.

I'm affraid I can't help: your article wasn't deleted by my bot (all it does it tag articles), but by the quite human admin W.marsh (talk · contribs). You might want to ask him about it. — Coren ^(talk) 12:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Echis carinatus

Hi Ashlin! I like your edits to this article, but regarding those to the venom section, be aware that Echis envenomation data is pretty much the same for all species, so mostly the right place for it would be in Echis#Venom. Otherwise, we will start to repeat and contradict ourselves in the various Echis articles. --Jwinius 15:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to amend. I'll stick to carinatus. Regards, AshLin 15:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

See User_talk:Nature_Loader. Shyamal 01:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

For the picking

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Shyamal 03:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to mimicry

[2] I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. No specific instance was given, so why is 'in this case' used? Batesian mimicry can hardly be generalized like that, e.g. unpalatability is just an example not a requirement. The sentence also gives the impression that aposematism is synonymous with warning coloration (which is only one type), and may also suggest that the aposematism was developed 'for the purpose of warning the predator' when it is actually unintentionally selected for by the signal receiver. That's probably not the meaning you intended in either case, but we need to be very precise about things so the reader understands the concept. Richard001 06:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have limited references and consequently less knowledge on the topic. Feel free to revert and edit. However, in the present state, if what you are saying is right, each of these mimicries, but definitely Batesian & Mullerian need more development and consequently need to be complete sections providing broad but comprehensive overviews on the topics. Glad to see active monitoring on this one! Regards, AshLin 07:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would like to see it expanded a lot more. I've only really worked on the lead so far, and many of the types could do with their own article. My knowledge is limited as well, so I'll have to read more on the subject before I can contribute much. Richard001 07:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AshLin

I've put that article you reviewed for GA on oxidative phosphorylation up for FA, any comments or suggestions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oxidative phosphorylation would be most welcome. All the best Tim Vickers 20:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I've moved all your suggestions together, as these FAC reviews can get pretty long (particularly long example!) and keeping everything together and in one format makes it easier for people to check that all the comments have been dealt with. Thanks again! Tim Vickers 16:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures for illustration

Hi Ashwin,

Nice Chrysopelea. Would be nice to have a picture on a white background (a sheet of paper ?) if still around. Shyamal 06:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge templates

The date syntax is: {{Merge|other arguments|date=August 2007}}, but if you leave the date off it will be added by a WP:BOT. Rich Farmbrough, 13:39 29 August 2007 (GMT).

peer review

Sorry I can't help, I've lost home internet acces 9I'm now in the library with 1 minute left!) :( sorry Totnesmartin 10:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

A speedy recovery

Wishing you a speedy remission. Take rest and stay away from wikipedia, except as a reader :) Shyamal 08:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Replacement for your poem[reply]

Tiger, Panther, Peacock, Puffin,
  Swift, Albatross, Tit, Batwing
Pierrot, Punchinello, Punch and Judy
  Commodore, Courtesan, Camberwell Beauty
Wight, Wizard, Mormon, Jester
  Duffer, Caliph, Quaker, Forester
Tinsel, Onyx, Circe, Labyrinth
  Argus, Satyr, Kaiser-e-hind
Redspot, Redbreast, Redbase, Redeye
  Oakleaf, Acacia Blue, Bushbrown, Palmfly
Royal, Imperial, Rajah, Emperor
  Duchess, Nawab, Count, Commander
Lancer, Pioneer, Sailer, Lascar
  Yeoman, Soldier, Sergeant-Major
Rustic, Vagrant, Constable, Freak
  Awlet, Hopper, Darter, Beak
Sawtooth, Lacewing, Swordtail
  Monkey Puzzle, Tortoiseshell and Swallowtail

Shyamal 09:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear AshLin

I'm so very happy that you liked the modest gift, dear AshLin! :) And also, I wish to apologize for taking so long to comply with your request. In my defense, I can only tell you I wasn't feeling very inspired, and I sincerely needed to go on a self-imposed wikibreak for other circumstances. However, they say that patience is a tree of bitter roots; but when it blossoms, it can give very sweet fruit. I hope this is just the case here :) While I'm visiting you, let me tell you I noticed that, despite all your excellent work in butterflies-related articles, you haven't received a single barnstar yet. So, may this humble token of recognition serve to let you know, my friend, that it's very much appreciated, and that I hope to see you continuing to improve our contents in that wonderful area. Have a beautiful day! Love, Phaedriel - 12:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there

Shitty things happen to the best people, hope you stay healthy and take good drugs. All the best Tim Vickers 17:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]