User talk:Shyamal/archive11

old chatter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Hi Shyamal: I'm working on a Flight Feathers article (merging the information currently found in the Rectrices and Remiges articles with a whole lot of new stuff) and would really like to include a labeled picture or two in the article. I noticed your additions to the Bird Anatomy article -- a VAST improvement over the hideous bird that used to illustrate it -- and wonder if I could pinch your wing illustration from the Birds/Talk page. Please let me know! Thanks, MeegsC | Talk 16:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, most welcome to use those images. That is what they are for. In case you want some other topic illustrated, just let me know and I can work on it on the weekend. cheers. Shyamal 00:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what would be great would be a wing illustration that showed the bones as well as the feathers. I don't need quite as many feathered areas numbered as the illustration you did for the bird anatomy article -- just the primaries, secondaries, alula and those all-important bones (with phalanges, carpometacarpus, radius, ulna and humerus numbered too please). Thanks for offering to do this! MeegsC | Talk 11:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The picture is pretty much exactly what I was looking for. My next question is whether I can add lines/numbers/etc. to it -- and if so, what's the best way to go about doing that?! MeegsC | Talk 19:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shyamal -- the one you've just sent me is great! Have a good weekend... MeegsC | Talk 15:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shymal, I just wanted to tell you that it was not my intention to step on your toes, or misquote you there. It was initially unclear to me why Chesnokov was mentioned, your further edits made it clear. I have added a bit more information from a Rutgers page I found quite useful. You seem to know a lot about this subject, perhaps you could take a look? Incidentally, the page has been nominated as a GA, but has not been reviewed yet, hopefully the reviewer will have some helpful suggestions. Cheers--DO11.10 17:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. It was probably my fault in not placing the original bit in proper perspective. Will look over the article again sometime. I think it can do with some restructuring. Shyamal 00:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions for you regarding the article:

1. What should be done with Protectant? I am inclined to agree with your recommendation of move to wikitionary (already appears to be an article there anyway) as I don't think that the term applies solely to plants. I also came across Defence mechanism (biology), maybe that would be a better merge candidate? Or it could be moved to "Plant Incorporated Protectants" and supplemented with the PD information form the USDA website?
2. Can you think of any images that could be added to the agriculture and strategies sections?
3. What about renominating for GA? Do you think it is ready (after we add any pictures)? Although the article has clearly been vastly improved of late (thank you so much for that) I think that much work would be involved for FA, its clearly not there yet, but has potential.

Let me know what you think-Cheers--DO11.10 19:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You made a change to this article immediately after it was defaced by a vandal. Your changes got lost in the revert to a clean version. You may want to revisit that article. Sorry. --Kbh3^rdtalk 04:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on the Ornithology page -- you've made some pretty huge improvements! Have you submitted a DYK? If not, I'm happy to nominate it! MeegsC | Talk 18:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have never submitted DYKs. Feel free to do so. Shyamal 01:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a few nice ones. How quick will they be needed? I have no scanner, but a few friends of mine have; I could provide the pics later this week. You guys choose - Blue Chaffinches or hummingbirds (Chlorostilbon/Heliangelus/Topaza and Hylonympha)? ;-) The former is better from an artistic point, but the hummers are of course prettier. Dysmorodrepanis 12:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the page, saved it in a sandbox for the user, and left a message under yours. I was going to suggest he made it into a genus article, but that already exists, albeit as a species list. jimfbleak 10:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shyamal: Just to let you know, flight feathers is now in article space -- and your illustration has made a real difference in clarifying the identification of the various remiges. Thanks again! (BTW, my DYK nomination for Ornithology failed, because it wasn't considered to be a stub before you started your upgrades. Too bad, really, because you've certainly made it a far more extensive article! Oh well...) MeegsC | Talk 18:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, comprehensive. Will look over and see if anything else can be added. Can definitely remove the dictionary like entries for rectrices and remiges. The ornithology article still needs work and some more sections. It has taken this long to just decide what should go there that would not be a duplication of zoology, birds or suchlike. Shyamal 01:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shyamal: Actually, all those flight feather references should stay as "citation" rather than "cite book" "cite web" etc. because I've got them entered as HARVARD citations. This allows not only in-line reffing (with its automatic jump to/from the citations section), but also a jump from the citations section (which shows the page numbers) to the appropriate entry in the reference section. If you use the "cite book" etc. references, those links between the citations and reference section is broken. The "citations needed" message is coming because I added two "citations needed" comments to some facts in the Rectrices section to remind myself to find sources for some of the numbers given in the old "Rectrices" article. I copied them across to the new article, but haven't been able to find any documentation for them so far! MeegsC | Talk 07:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, I did not notice the citations needed on the page and thought it was the citation template causing it. Sorry. Shyamal 07:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem! Thanks for trying to fix it for me...  ;-) By the way, thanks too for your suggestions about further topics for the article; they're all good ones!

Thanks for the sharper image.Rusty Cashman 02:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Kitti correction. I only just realised that you wrote most of the bat article. If I had noticed before, I would have consulted you before moving the page for the reasons I've given on its discussion page. I fixed all the double redirects and some of the single redirects, but if you want to move it either back to its genus name or to its binomial, that's fine with me. jimfbleak 10:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite fine with what you have done and quite happy with any naming conventions as long as the article is reachable and searchable. Shyamal 10:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your query; well, the Wiki Bourne entry says:

"In 1886 he went to Madras to join the Presidency College as Professor of Biology. He held this position until 1898 although he also held the positions of Registrar and Superintendent of the Government Museum. In 1903 he was made Director of Public Instruction and he worked on changes in the secondary education system. He introduced the Secondary School Leaving Certificate System. After his retirement, he took charge as director of the Indian Institute of Science. He held this position from 1915 to 1921." Also, one takes into account his public awards, summarised after his name.

for a ref, Wiki gives "J. Stanley Gardiner. (1941) Alfred Gibbs Bourne. 1859-1940 Obituary Notices of Fellows of the Royal Society, Vol. 3, No. 10 (Dec., 1941), pp. 545-549"

I don't feel strongly about this; I was trying to give the reader some idea of who he was, but I suppose I agree that his work could be read as equally concerned with the Indian educational system; maybe I can find a suitable rewording (later, have done so). That he was a leader is indisputable from his awards. Macdonald-ross 12:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This cut-and-paste is from the Royal Society's archive, and relates to his election as Fellow:

Professor of Biology in the Presidency College, Madras. Fellow of University College, London. For many years engaged in teaching and in researches upon Comparative Anatomy and Embryology, especially of Invertebrata. Especially known tocomparative anatomists for his discoveries in the structure of leeches, and as discoverer of the hydroid phase of Limnocodium, also of two remarkable new genera of Choetopod worms, described by him as Haplobranchus and Choetobranchus. Author of the following, as well as several other memoirs: - 'On the Structure of the Nephridia of the Medicinal Leech' (Quart Journ Micros Sci, 1880); 'Contributions to the Anatomy of the Hirudinea' (ibid, 1884); 'On the Hydroid Form of Limnocodium' (Proc Roy Soc, 1884); 'On the Supposed Communication of the Vascular Sustem with the Exterior in Pleurobranchus' (Quart Journ Micros Sci, 1885). Since he has been in India, Professor Bourne has sent home important researches on Indian Earthworms, on Choetobranchus (a new naidform worm), on a new Protoplasm, and some valuable experimental researches on the suicide of Scorpions. (Proc Roy Soc, 1889).

Proposers From Personal Knowledge: E Ray Lankester; Frank E Beddard; W F R Weldon; W C McIntosh; A M Norman; Edward B Poulton; John Lubbock

PersonKey Bourne; Sir Alfred Gibbs (08 August 1859 - 14 July 1940

Macdonald-ross 12:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes same user. There is a well-illustrated book called 'Bird Flight' which shows this. It has a Bee-eater photo on the dust cover. However, while looking for a source, I also found a very detailed illustration in 'Ornithology for Africa' by G.L. Maclean, 1990, ISBN 0-86980-771-4 which shows it exactly as you do. By the way, I see that both bones are named the carpometacarpus, they are separate in chicks but later fuse. JMK 14:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shyamal: I'm in Alaska for a few weeks of work at the moment, so I don't have access to any of my books, etc. But to the best of my recollection, I think JMK is correct in saying the quills attach to the darker bone -- they definitely attach to the carpometacarpal, which is the bone that appears to be the dark one in your illustration. Sorry I didn't catch that earlier! MeegsC | Talk 14:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the updated image and let me know if this is correct. I have based this on sources including.

• http://qp-society.com/qpserc/ercimages/wingbone.gif
• http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/554notes1.html
• http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/migratory/waterbirds/shorebirds/feather.html

Shyamal 15:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shymal, I have asked Verisimilus to take a look at the article, since he offered to re-review it. Hopefully he will have some good suggestions.--DO11.10 17:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I was wondering if you had time to give some comments or feedback at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Evolution? Thank you. TimVickers 18:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shymal, No, I don't think they should be merged. There is already a wikipedia page for Central Asian Red Deer, but it is very general. I like what you did with Kashmir Stag. I think you have some good information. I conversed via email with Dr. Valerius Geist, who wrote many books on Deer and Wild Sheep. According to him, there are the 3 species of Red Deer: European Red Deer (Cervus elaphus), Central Asian Red Deer (Cervus affinis, or Cervus wallichi), and Wapiti (Cervus canadensis). I have an article from Dr. Geist, it is quite interesting.

--User:dlc_73 12:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not like shiny, starry things, or have people just not given them to you? Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am yet to find a way to make my user page short and informative making it high on data:ink (Edward Tufte). The shiny things are in a little trunk here User:Shyamal/wikitsch ! :) Shyamal 03:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please highlighting the importance of Flora

Sorry, cannot understand. Could you please expand and sign with ~~~~ after you register yourself. thanks Shyamal 04:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once the ecology of birds section is complete I think I'll move the skua attacking penguin illustration down so that the majority of the beak one is in the feeding article. My only comment is aesthetic in nature, it would be ice for the birds to be coloured at some point if you have time. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IT looks awesome now! Ibisbill a welcome addition. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Shyamal, for commenting on my RfA, which closed successfully with a tally of 76/0/1! I hope I will meet your expectations, and be sure I will continue trying to be a good editor as well as a good administrator :) If I may be of any assistance to you in the future (or if you see me commit some grievous error :), please drop me a line on my Talk page. Again, thank you, and happy editing! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your messages, but I'm not clear what you are asking - I know nothing about snakes, but blind snakes seems a reasonable redirect to the blind snake disamb, and the links to the three families. I'm quite happy to help, but I don't understand what the problem is. Jimfbleak 06:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that explains why it looked all right to me. I've assumed that the previous editor was just misguided, if you think it was deliberate mischief making, please let me know. Jimfbleak 09:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ps, I like the beaks!

Thanks for fixing my editing. I'm working on Parambikulam Wildlife Sanctuary‎ and cleaning up redlinks.Marcus 17:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome ! I have not been to that place, but let me see if I can do something about the Nilgiri Tahr article. Shyamal 15:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shyamal, A few editors are getting together to create a task force with the goal of making sure environmental records of corporations and politicians are accurately and efficiently represented in relevant entries. Given your outstanding environmental edits (among others), I thought I'd bring your attention to this project. If you think it's a good idea, please consider chiming in on the discussion page. We hope to have a task force page up soon and of course would love to have you involved in one way or another. Let me know if you have any thoughts...Thanks!Benzocane 23:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, Jimfbleak 07:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just seen your RFA -good luck, Jimfbleak 07:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reponse to your list of no exemptions - there is a proposed guideline (I think it was proposed when I last checked) on something along the lines of "facts well known to people in the field", which helps avoid citation bloat and reduce typing work. I haven't got the link to hand, but you may find it useful if you can find it. The idea is that you shouldn't need a citation when invoking Pythagoras' theorem or Mendel's laws, but obviously the scope of the guideline will expand as more scientific editors become available for confirming undisputed facts as such. There is of course the danger that some idiot will come along and disregard something because it doesn't have a cite after it, and plain delete it. I guess that's why we have citizendium... Spamsara 18:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I am not convinced by the approach followed by citizendium. The way it is set up citizendium would fail when it comes to popular topics. I think there needs to be a evolution, I cannot think of a simpler small step than tightening up the system is to make registration compulsory. Shyamal 15:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced with cz either. But I can see the problems to which cz is trying to be an answer. From what I've seen and what some others are saying, a major problem for WP is that our rate of recruitment of bona fide new users has plummeted. Compulsory registration may help with keeping vandals away, but it won't help recruit new users in the short term (although in the long term, it may improve our response to their first edits - some people will shoot at an IP edit before they've properly considered its content). Spamsara 15:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just wanted to wish you luckon your RFA. I have voted in support of it, because are a great candidate. With your RFA closing soon, I just wanted to wish you luck! With this, it does appear you will become an admin! Good Luck,

Politics rule 19:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my pleasure to inform you that you are now an admin. Congratulations. You can feel free to do everything you're supposed to do and nothing you're not supposed to do. If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. -- Cecropia 13:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Now please get back to editing and don't waste any time on admin stuff :) Tintin 13:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That is indeed an excellent piece of advice :) And thanks for your note of support too. Shyamal 13:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, Shyamal, well done. I second Tintin's advice. I'd hate admin tasks taking you away from mainspace edits on Indian biodiversity.AshLin 16:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Congratulations! It's great to see your an admin!

Politics rule 13:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note of support. Shyamal 15:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from me too Shyamal. Good luck! —Anas ^talk? 20:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]