User talk:Shyamal/archive3

Lizards

Hi, you might want to add Category:Agamas to your lizard stubs, I've done a bunch already.--nixie 10:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flora and fauna

Yup, those were the foundation stones. I hoped someone with a deeper interest in the subject may try and expand it. Why don't you have a go? :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Required Images

Hey Shyamal, would it be wise to use this tag {{Reqimage}} on the species pages. Instead of the image required (image) that you had dsuggested? --Viren 17:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvios?

Hey, I'm not accusing you or editing, but I've noticed that you've created a number of articles very quickly about species of snake. Just checking that they're not Copyvios or anything. Thanks, Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 09:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution Wiki

Have you seen the evowiki project? Try it ... [[1]] Prashanthns 18:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creating stubs for butterfly articles

I agree that stubs have to be created for all the butterflies. I dont know how to use editplus to do this. I generally use editplus as a simple editor. I supp I cud use MS excel to do the same thing. Once I have a list of the bfs. The real trouble comes when we are uploading the articles. Anyway we can work on those later. Your suggestion of putting in a taxobox and a one lines for common and binomial name is fine and I will start doing this. Just one point before we start. I guess we should maintain some format for them. We cannot make an article-wide template so what format, which taxobox. --Viren 15:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As usual on my user page I have put up the current format with the taxobox from your user page. I think it works fine, but let me know, please. I'm also trying to update the authority for each name. But that will be very time consuming. Another think I am thinking of was to break the butterfly page into its component families. --Viren 16:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble deciding names for the butterfly family pages. Hespirids of India, or List of Hesperids of India or Indian Hesperidae Other families will have names in the same vein. Plese comment. --Viren 13:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for copyedit

Thanks for the copyedit on group selection and apologies for its necessity. I don't usually leave things dangling like that. Cheerio! - Samsara 16:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi

I just dropped in to say you a big hello. Nice edits. --Bhadani 12:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phylogeography was voted as "Keep"

Thanks for being concerned. The article has been voted "Keep": Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phylogeography. - Samsara 12:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

gravid

Thanks!! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Nice edits; Keep up the good work! --Zegoma beach 15:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for Barnstar

Yeah, my first Barnstar. looks good. Thank you. Now I'll go and look at what it implies *grin* --Viren 10:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additions

Sure looks like a dark palm dart. Beauty shot. --Viren 13:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ant mimic spider

The first image you posted on my talk page looks very much like the species of jumping spider found in the USA, Synemosyna formica. You might Google for images of Synemosyna to see whether there are other species in that genus. I don't know about the distribution of S. formica. It could well be world-wide.

As for the other spider, I think I've seen something similar but I can't find my spider key book. It's a beautiful image, so I printed it out and will let you know if I find it. P0M 15:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Family Metidae? P0M 17:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See http://delta-intkey.com/britsp/www/ident.htm You will need to download some free (or free for trial?) software to use this site, but it is good. It unfortunately only gives spiders in Great Britain, but there are enough spiders that you may be able to find something similar. You will know things that I did not know, e.g., how long the spider was, so you may get another answer, but when I ran through their key I cam out with seven Genera and then checked the pictures of samples. Only the Metidae seemed to have legs with the distinctive pattern of spines. I guess the next thing after you try the site above would be to Google for images on the basis of whatever genera you come up with. P0M 18:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if you would put your spider pictures in the gallery on the commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spider#Family_Araneidae Thanks.P0M 23:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lycanid Id

I would say Common Cerulean. The third line from the base of the fore wing is straight. This is the wet form though. In lineblues the lines are supposed to be a bit broken up. I havent seen lineblue though so this is all theory. Strange if you took this pic now during the dry season. But I will go home and take a look. These blues generally confuse me. Check srilanka butterflies http://www.srilankaninsects.net/Butterflies/Lycaenidae/CommonCerulean/CommonCerulean.htm and this http://indiabutterflies.tripod.com/blues/cerulean.html

--Viren 04:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Gerard Koenig

If you're still looking for info on this gent, try here [2] and here [3] Smallweed 15:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deletion notice

Have you seen the deletion notice for List of Butterflies of India (Pieridae)

• The reason for the delete is simply the number of red links I think. You had once told me to just add stubs for all the articles. I did this for hesperiidae (Small glaring error there is the species and binomial name that I messed up). But I feel that the effect now is that all those articles have been done so now if any of our butterflyindia chaps comes along they wont know what needs images and what doesnt. What do you feel? Ofcourse if this deletion happens too much then I will just stub all the species and maybe put some small mark on each link that doesnt have an image. (Mammoth task considering we have around 1500 species in our amazing country) --Viren 10:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference: SGNP

I've sourced it from the ToI article which is mentioned in the article itself. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egg (biology)

Highly conical eggs are often seen in cliff-nesting birds. They are more likely to roll off and thus are believed to have been selected for by evolution.

Shouldn't that be "less likely to roll off" - I can't see how they would be preferentially selected otherwise. -- Solipsist 09:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops Shyamal 09:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kentish Plover

Why did you take the image of a Snowy Plover off the Kentish Plover page? Even the AOU (as split-happy bunch of birders as you'll find in the world) consider them to be the same species. Sabine's Sunbird 13:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate Pansy

Gees, almost sounds like an insult. At any rate, I noticed you changed the Latin name for this butterfly. I looked it up on Google and found a third Latin name: Junonia hedonia ida. The folks at the Saint Louis Zoo identified it as a "Precis iphita." Personally, I have no preference. However, I am trying to learn about how butterflies are named. Can you point me to a good reference? Also, can you explain how the Chocolate Pansy seems to have so many different names? I'm a total butterfly noob, so I'll appreciate any assistance you can provide. Rklawton 05:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Oak Leaf

Thanks again for identifying this for me. I liked my photos better than the photos found by Google, so I immediately self-nominated it for FPC. This identification begs the question: what the heck is this little bugger doing in Missouri? Rklawton 17:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rose-ringed Parakeet

thanks for picking up on the image - I don't know if it's possible to rename an image less confusingly?

It took me ages to more-or-less restore this page, and I assumed that was just another error - why anyone should move the content fro the species to a subspecies baffles me. jimfbleak 06:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia :Scientific peer review

For a board member I think a good article and PR experience should be mentioned. So if you have anything like it it would be good to mention it! --Stone 07:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recalled my candidature, I guess I can continue to work on articles as before :) Shyamal 07:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? We need good people! If you dont have to much experience (like me) it is OK. But to be a canidate for the board is a good start for a career in wikipedia! --Stone 07:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsi / Holy Basil

Thankyou for your edits, it reads better now. :-) --GourangaUK 11:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]