User talk:Sabine's Sunbird/archive3

Archive No 1: October 2004- March 2006

Archive No 2: March 2006- Feb 2007

California Condor Peer Review

Hi. I have noticed that you have done a lot of editing with Wikipedia's bird articles and have helped raise several of them to FA standard (and helped me with a few that I have started). I've recently completely redone the California Condor article and have put it up for peer review. I was wondering if you could help review it. I'm trying to get it to at least GA and possibly FA, so any advice you could give would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 01:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo (antelope)

Hi there, the above article is on fac status again. I've really tried to change all the things you commented on. Please can you hgelp with the inline citations as I'm new to this and I can't seem to get that correct? Please can you look it over again? Thanks so much for your help.Black Stripe 01:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biological Value

I noticed you appear to be involved in biology articles or WikiProjects relating to biology and human processes. This article, on a method for evaluating biological utilizations rates of proteins in humans and animals, was started in August and is in need of the attention of an expert. We are having trouble locating one and the article desperately needs it. This method is used constantly in bodybuilding magazines and products and is the subject of much misinformation and half-truths. On the other hand it does appear to have some value. Please help if possible. In case you're wondering why I picked you I just looked through some Science WikiProjects and biology articles and your name appeared a lot in one or both categories. Incidentally if you decide not to do this for whatever reason there's no need to reply. I'll just take it you're busy or uninterested and leave it at that. Thanks. Quadzilla99 22:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhynchostruthus

Cheers mate! Just learning to crawl at the moment.

Deargan 22:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bulbul

fools rush in... jimfbleak 07:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fellow vic student

Hi there, I was wondering whether you could take another look at the Whitehead (bird) article to see where it fits on the quality scale for wikiproject:birds.. I've been working on it quite a bit and I'm wondering if it would be up to "B" class standard yet- and if not I'm curious as to what work it still needs; if you could help me out that would be great.

Whoa, also i see you're also at vic! insane. Whats your thesis on specifically? I don't come across many wikipedians from vic let alone one in the same faculty as me, so yeah stay in touch.

Cheers, Kotare 10:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, sorry about the late reply.Shit your thesis sounds interesting.. what islands are you planning on doing research at specifically( kapiti, mana, matiu/somes perhaps?) all the best for it eh! Mmm Gecko, yeah I probably know your face as I went along to a few meetings last year. To be honest though it really wasn't quite what I'd expected... there was NOBODY my age there, everyone was sort of 2nd, 3rd year or postgrad and they all seemed to know each other quite well and I just really felt like I didn't fit in. However, I spent my summer doing conservation volunteer work in ecuador ( I found my placement through Global Volunteer Network) and after having seen gut wrenching levels of deforestation - particularly in the western lowlands ( part of the Tumbes-Chocó-Magdalena biodiversity hotspot where, in ecuador, only 3% of the original forest is left-) I'm planning a fundraising effort with GVN to raise money to buy hectares of rainforest/tropical dry forest which can then be added to existing reserves. I'm thinking about a raffle in which case I might get back into Gecko as it would be a good place to recruit ticket sellers. Any thoughts?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kotare (talk • contribs) 09:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

rating articles about birds

Hi there. I have added my name to the participant list on the assessment page of the WikiProject Birds, because I feel it is a nice thing to do while reading articles on the English Wikipedia in my search for information to write bird articles on the Dutch Wikipedia. I have already done one bird, namely: Rufous-bellied eagle. Reading the information about the quality scale I figured that the the rating for it should be "start" and the importance is "mid". But now I am looking at the latest article you have rated (swallow) and feel that I maybe a lot less strict than you are. I personally would have rated the article B class, because it has several of the items mentioned in the start class, but still has significant gaps, as you also write on the talk page. I just want to get a feel on how you rate articles, because it would be nice to rate articles using the same thought/rules. Magalhães 16:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You're right. I am probably trying to treat it as a science too much. But that probably has to do something with my background (MSc). Anyway, I will probably practice the art of rating articles only now and then, because I do no tend to have too much time anyway. Magalhães 19:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Feature Article

Hello! I'm trying to raise Bird to feature article status from its present good article classification. Any suggestions or help would be appreciated............Thanks..Pmeleski 02:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I got an edit conflict. I was just about to nominate Bird on the bird collaboration page. But good to see this. Shyamal 01:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conscription

Thanks for the clarification. It's a good thing I wasn't drinking anything when I read it.

Here are my first words on Old World Warblers: I'd like to see one. 95 to go! —JerryFriedman 18:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kea

Hello Sabine's Sunbird. Tēnā koe from Tāmaki-makau-rau. Was in Wellington last week for the last of the golden weather - awesome. Anyway. Just wondering if you might keep an eye on Kea - seems its being revised/rewritten by User:Casliber with the best of intentions and enthusiam to make it a Featured Article. I've made a few changes back and added a little clarification but I'd kind of like another user with bird knowledge to keep an eye on it too... Cheers Kahuroa 19:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

parrot

If this is only to be on taxonomy and genera and subspecies of parrot, I will not bothered to be there. Discussion should be in public in that talk section and NOT private in your page or my page please.

Shanlung 10:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 18 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tomtit, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 03:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Shy Albatross

Opps my mistake. However, from my source (Illustrated guide to the Birds of Southern Africa by Ian Sinclair, Phil Hockey and Warwick Tarboton ISBN 1-85368-281-0), it says it is the largest of the dark-blacked albatross with 98cm in length. And its binomial name is Diomedea cauta. So I assume that it belongs to the great albatross. Correct me if I am wrong again. Luffy487 09:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my mistake again. Sorry for the changes I have made to the article. Well I thought the information I have had read was up to date and vandalizing the article wasn't my intention. Thank you for pointing out the mistake I have made. Next time I will be more cautious. Luffy487 10:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... I see that your list of Fijian birds seems to be extremely precise, with indication on whether the species is native, introduced and etc on different islands. Haha... I can't do the same thing as you do. Well... what is the title of the book you refer to? Luffy487 14:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date on collab

Hi, the collab seems to have generated some interest (well, much more than Wikiproject fungi which seems to have gone a bit flat really...). As you set it up, would be good to set a date, say 1 week from now or whatever to select the collaboration as it should receive a bit of notice. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 13:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends on whether the heading refers to Bird collab FACs or FACs which happen to be under Wikiproject Birds. I prefer the latter as it is in line with the other FAs which weren't collabs per se either. I will note it on the page :) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 03:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Archie wasn't an official dino collab either, more Spawn Man racking up some support and us getting it through between Compsognathus and Thescelosaurus. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 03:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sabine (or is it Sunbird for short?),

Thank you so much for volunteering your time to help with Archaeopteryx. I look forward to seeing your contributions so that I can support this article's FAC as well, although I know you are swamped at the moment. Anyway, thank you for volunteering. We really do need the "bird half" represented. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, have you got a template ready and all that or do you want some help with it? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 18:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Birds of Africa

Oh... ok I will go and revert the changes I have made. Luffy487 09:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Name

What's wrong with SS? Icky? If people have 2 names, I use the initals (Casliber=CL, Spawn Man=SM, etc etc...). There's no harm meant, but I have a lot of edits to do & it annoys me having to type out long names, which is why in the dino community we have pet names for the dinos (Archie, Compy, etc etc...). May I call you sunny? Still quicker than Sunbird... Thanks, Spawn Man 23:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you take no offense then to being called SS... Spawn Man 23:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

journal articles

I have access to electronic journals (yay university), are there specific ones you need? No promises, my uni doesn't have a subscription to every journal, but I can try. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your offer, Sabine. My college doesn't offer access to any geology-related papers, as we have no geology department. Maybe it would be helpful to tell you what I do have. I have Colbert (1948) Evolution of the Horned Dinosaurs (abstract only). Paul & Christensen (2000) Forelimb posture in neoceratopsian dinosaurs: implications for gait and locomotion (abstract only). I have an excellent book Lambert (1993) which gives a great overview of well-known dinosaur genera, including 15 pages on Ceratopsians. I'd love to get the full papers on these first two papers, if possible, which can be accessed through JSTOR and BioOne.org, respectively.

I am also trying to get my hands on Brown & Schlaikjer (1937). The Skeleton of Styracosaurus with the Description of a New Species. Actually, any papers, old or new on this genus or related genera (Centrosaurines), would be much, much appreciated. If you can't come up with any, no big deal. I just figured I'd ask at the WT:Dinos page and see if anyone had papers, you know, laying around gathering dust. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've sent an e-mail using the "e-mail this user" function. Please let me know if you didn't receive it. Again, my thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey great of you to offer; I'm hangin' to get a copy of:

de Kloet, R.S. & de Kloet, S.R. (2005): The evolution of the spindlin gene in birds: sequence analysis of an intron of the spindlin W and Z gene reveals four major divisions of the Psittaciformes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 36: 706-721.

as a doctor I can get loads of medical stuff but the non-medical biology is really tricky. I can be emialed on my user page :)cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs, Sabine! It is really great to have you aboard. We need intelligent, serious contributors like you. Way cool. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly, now to appropriate information somehwere on Parrot.....cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 23:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got 'em

<kiwi> Choice, bro'!</kiwi>

thanks cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support on my Request for adminship, which was successful, with votes of 49/0/0. Lemme know if you need help on something I might know a little something about....(check my userpage).
cheers, Casliber \| talk \| contribs 14:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Barrier Reef

I am way to swamped to help you in a meaningful fashion on this article, but perhaps I can help you find some references to help you? Let me know. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou so much for your kind offer. If you happen across anything in the scientific literature that you feel may be of interest in the ecology or geography sections, give us a yell. (The GBRMPA website hasn't been updated since '04 on quite a few ecology things.) Any advice on how best to use the literature would be appreciated too. I get the feeling that there is a lot more information that could be mined out of here about the species and ecology but I am really unsure of how to go about it - I don't want to copyvio the GBRMPA. :S Even if you just put some specific to dos in the to do list on the talk page would be helpful. lol, now I've given you a lot of work to do... Just do what you can, and feel free to ignore the rest. I do appreciate your offer to help find references. :) -Malkinann 10:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coenocorypha

On 30 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Coenocorypha, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 23:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bird conservation

On 31 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bird conservation, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 16:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bird external links

Mr Sunbird......Wanted to ask your advice on 3 external links tagged to the end of the bird article. I've deleted birds guide (advertising on site commercial link?), birds hybrids (link is french), and bibliography of birds on Nicaragua (regional list) twice, and informed the party of the issues with keeping the links on the site to no avail. Worth having an edit war over? Oh, and thanks for the mention for helping to expand the article. Somehow I think you've done more! Pmeleski 01:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Saw you deleted 2 of the 3 external links.........The Birds Guide link has a ton of auction and product offerings for sale, which is why I thought inappropriate. I did contact JonixK, but the user returned the link......What do you think???????? I've tried deleting twicePmeleski 13:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Input invited

Hi. I'm planning to spend a bit of time in the next couple of weeks or so trying to improve Slender-billed Curlew, with the aim of bringing it up to GA status. Any suggestions you have would be much appreciated at the article's talk page. Thanks SP-KP 22:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Bird Photo Galleries

I notice that you've been deleting bird photo galleries from articles willy-nilly, without prior discussion. Perhaps you could explain to us why you think they are inappropriate, or "unencyclopedic". If that were so, why would Wikimedia have chosen to add that specific function to MediaWiki Version 1.4, back in 2005?

I suggest that, for species accounts at least, photo galleries can be a great strength of this medium. It is rare that one or two photos of a species can adequately convey even its basic appearance, let alone seasonal variations, sexual variations, sub-species, behavior, etc. By all means let's avoid the "photo album" effect, but meaningful, annotated thumbnails grouped together in a separate gallery at the foot of an article are a valid and useful addition IMO, and, for this one at least, entirely "on-line-encyclopedic". --Gergyl 06:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may throw in my 2cts (because I sometimes do it too): I delete galleries when they contain loads of Commons images out of proportion to the remainder of the article in amount. A stub with a 20-image gallery, I'll tend to scrap the gallery and replace it with a Commons link. On the other hand, some galleries I have expanded, like at Yellow-legged Gull where it is most useful since the images all pertain to maybe 5 lines of text and thus can't be placed as thumbs sensibly. The bottom line, for my SOP, can be summed up with "Pics Shan't Replace Articles". Dysmorodrepanis 09:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A cheer to the Passerida!

Hey mate, I hope you like the new Passerida list. I think altogether it should be the best one publicly available at present - what is indeterminable is called indeterminable, what can be split is split, and all in all it's all in there now.
Many many many thanks for all the input and assistance! You might want to check the source, I left a bit of annotation on citing sources... I wouldn't like this article to become a sourcefest, because it would all be redundant with the family articles where there shall be thorough discussion. Splits might be sourced first as these are usually straightforward.
Since you like to do < ref > tag sourcing, I think I should warn you: I'm gonna try my luck on the "Corvida" over the next weeks, and you might have to move a fair proportion of sources about. I don't think many in the field (avian pyhlogeny) would like the inevitable conclusion that the number of infraorders in the Passeri would have to go up up up to achieve Corvida monophyly, but I can live with that and in any case, there won't be OR (i.e. names for unnamed clades).

Speaking of field, the trip was actually better than tolerable once we got out of the 10-inch snow... I sort of became the default field biologist (geosci trip), and ecologically, it was very nice indeed. Crag Martin and Red-legged Partridge for the first time in my life. Didn't have a serious cam tho :( but there's always the flora. I got the "rocks and nucleotides" paper and put down some notes n thoughts here (thanks aplenty for that one!) Dysmorodrepanis 09:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, looking at upcoming papers in MolPhylEvol... seems that this is it for the time being. One gruiform paper (nothing spectacular but the outgroups will be interesting) and one on drongos which is gonna be interesting. Some species-level papers and minor stuff, but it's a far cry from the deluge of papers that was unleashed one year ago. Dysmorodrepanis 10:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to start with missing Passerida fam's, might I suggest the hyliotas, stenosterids, sugarbirds, maybe update on sunbirds + flowerpeckers (see Passerines talk for discussions)? I might want to give the Sylviidae the odd makeover these days, and the result would be useful for whover does the large "warbler" families Phyllo, Acro, Cetti, Mega...: assign genera into a nice and easy to use section, denote suspected non-monophylies and incertae sedis taxa, etc. Dysmorodrepanis 21:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new WikiProject proposal

Hello SS, long time no talk... Just copying you on what I just sent to Ratzer, in case you might be interested, or know of someone else who might be... I've made a new WikiProject proposal here. Cheers, Tom e r ^talk 18:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kites

Hi there SS. Thanks for your comments re: Whistling Kite. It's good to know one of the WP:Bird regulars thinks it's a improvement! ;-) Thanks too for the link to kleptoparasitism -- I didn't think to look for that one. I've made a mental note to add a "Birds" section to that article (Kleptoparasitism) -- after all, if FLIES get a separate category, why not birds! MeegsC 15:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sylviidae

There you go. You can copy-paste the genus lists simply now. I have left 2 taxa in the Cettiidae list on the Old World warbler page which they receive from elsewhere; these are to be deleted when the Cettiidae has a family article.
I think I will look to the "Corvidae" next. But it's gonna be hell in a wastebasket taxon. I think I shall do the smart thing and make another subcat paralleling the infraorders for incertae sedis and basal Passeri. That way, updates will be easy to do, no wrong information is given, and all named taxa are holophyletic or at least try their best (Muscicapidae), down to family level.
As you will note when viewing the taxa lists of Sylviidae, it's not as straightforward "merge Sylvia into Timaliidae" as Cibois thought. Of course you can, but basically, the entire Sylvioidea has been butchered and something entirely new been assembled, and at any rate a merge would be unwise as long as there are so many unstudied taxa in either.
When the family pages are all present, I suggest that the page be moved to Sylviidae and Old World warbler be turned into a disambiguation (I already went over warbler). Dysmorodrepanis 02:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bird, Common Raven collaborations

My time got pretty tight over the last week or so. Looks like you've done a ton of work on the Bird article. Wow!..... Bird looks pretty comprehensive. What do you think about it???????? Ready for peer review? Collaboration for Common Raven is done? Does it need more work before it is submitted for feature article consideration? Sorry again for not participating lately. I'll try contribute a bit more....00:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Bird anatomy

The current bird morphology illustration in the article has a bizarre looking forehead and crown. I can offer to do up an SVG illustrations with suitable features (It would be something like these with pointers) or we could label up a good photograph of a bird. Shyamal 01:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am on it. I have decided that the structural features and the terms used for particular feathering features should be separated. Here is just the head and the terms used for features. The general bird structural diagram will include things like crests, wattles etc. I have left the items to numbers so that the caption can be changed according to language. Shyamal 03:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know your feedback and suggestions. Shyamal 17:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birds of Fiji

Oh, sorry. I only produced them for countries where there was no list, but didn't think to check for work in progress. Feel free to obliterate my list with yours (I have another 179 you can overwrite too if you have better lists). Yomangani ^talk 13:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birds cleanup

Finally had a chance to sit down and read the whole Bird article today. (I'm spending WAY too much time on WP these days!) It's a really fine article -- as you say, there isn't much more that needs to be done, other than some tweaking and a few cleanups. I'm heading off to Greece for a couple of weeks (yeah, it's a tough life), but I'm happy to dive in and help when I get back. In the meantime, can you keep an eye on Whistling Kite for me? I won't have internet access for most of the time I'm gone... Thx MeegsC | Talk 16:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: References

I realized after I'd added them that they were in a different format from the rest of the refs, but wasn't sure what format they should be in. I don't mind at all if you change them; whatever helps bird become a FA. Hey jude, don't let me down 23:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rufous Hornero

On 4 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rufous Hornero, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 17:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petition on Spawny's page

I've put up a petition on Spawny's Talk Page to cheer him up/make him come back. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 09:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For da birdz...

The Working Man's Barnstar

I award this Barnstar to Sabine's Sunbird for carrying Wikiproject Birds. cheers, Cas Liber 12:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, was just tooling around looking at the award pages and thought who deserved some is all...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 20:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I being unreasonable?

I have commented here on Guinea Pig FAC - I am keen for others input, either to support if they think I'm nitpicking or to comment/help out etc. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 23:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand wren

When I read this article, I want to move it to New Zealand wrens, since it is talking about a group of birds rather than a single species. Any thoughts? Kahuroa 05:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we don't day Parrots on the Parrot page. Are there any examples of plural pages. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 09:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine Sunbird tells me that it's the convention not to use plurals. I hadn't realised that - oh well, it doesn't bug me that much, c'est la vie ... Kahuroa 11:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading Photos

Hi SS: What's the best method for uploading photos? Should I put them on "Common" (which I keep reading about, but have no idea what it is) or elsewhere? Also, if I'm getting others to donate pictures (friends, co-workers, etc.), do they have to upload them, or can I? MeegsC | Talk 13:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info! Greece was good fun -- we had some great birds, including Great Snipe, Eurasian Eagle-Owl, Pallid Harrier and Rock Partridge among the more common stuff. Great Snipe was a lifer, so I was pretty chuffed about that one. Unfortunately, I didn't have my camera along -- just not enough room in the carry on bag once I'd put in the computer, scope, binoculars, iPod, phone, etc. etc. etc. I'm off to Alaska in a couple of weeks, and WILL take one there...

Raven hunting bounties

I think this paper will have what we need to get some stats on where Common Ravens have been hunted pest control...but I can't access it...is it possible for you get it? cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 03:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow that was quick! thanks but it only mentions $$###%$@ Finland (well, predictable really) I may have to nose around the 'net for some other abstracts....cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 10:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pelican church window

Hiya Sunbird: While checking out Seabird today, I noticed that the caption for the pelican stained glass window near the bottom of the article links to a disambiguation page. Since I'm not sure WHICH Gillingham the church is in, I thought I'd let you know in the hope that you already know whether it's in Dorset, Kent or Norfolk. (I'm hoping for Norfolk...) MeegsC | Talk 18:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo (antelope)

Hi there, I'd like to thank you for all your help on the article. I've taken ALL you've said on the discussion page very seriously and have changed eveything you pointed out over the period of months. Please check it out, it's like a totally new article! Is this OK for a FAC? Would you support it? Yours very sincerely, Black Stripe 11:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good resource website

Hi Sunbird: Knowing your interest in seabirds, you've probably already found this website, but in case you haven't: Marine Ornithology has a great site with PDFs of all their journal articles. Lots of really great stuff! MeegsC | Talk 14:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biogeography versus Ecogeography

My etymological instinct tells me that "ecogeography" should be the preferred term, but Wikipedia and Google, by 1000:1, say it is "biogeography". It seems to be that biogeography is just the biotic skin of the Earth, while ecogeography would include the rocky matrix of life as well (all abiotic factors -- geotope, physiotope, pedotope, climate). I am trying to bring order to some of the chais in these sections and getting frustrated by the loose use of terms and overlapping "jurisdictions". Especially the WWF ecoregions, which seem to me to be mostly phytogeography (plants only). Okay, so you have created a category called "ecogeographic rule" and I am toying with the idea of creating a category for terminology in ecology in imitation of the cat for geography terminology. Do you stand by your label "ecogeographic rule"? How wide is this usage? Why would "biogeographic rule" be wrong? BeeTea 16:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Peafowl

Unfortunately, some of this is unverified info but will be published in the future by Kermit. Kermit has already been trusted for such suggestions as a fourth subspecies, the species actually being monogamous, and others (Data Book). His most shocking hypothesis, that the Green Peafowl is actually 6 species remains unpublished, but exists in numerous places such as this photo gallery[1] and a close friend of him, breeder Wolfgang Mennig also supports his hypothesis. Kermit is also making a movie on Ancient Egypt coming out this year, under the name Milad Sourial. He will also formally publish this in the near distant future. Frankyboy5 16:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snappy?

Didn't really notice you were snappy, and I wasn't suggesting that the Māori Language Commission has or should have any say over NZ English. There is another convention or guideline somewhere as well, I couldn't track it down. The only macron-changes I made to Kakapo were to do with the word Māori, since that is how almost all the other articles that the word appears in have it, and because it makes sense to me that if the article has a macron it's better to use that form in the wikilinks and so avoid a redirect, it wasn't the advance guard of a plan to change Kakapo, not at all. I have no plans to move Kakapo at all. Hey, I like native birds and native trees and all sorts of languages, and I happen to speak/be Māori, but that doesn't make me a raving revolutionary radical or anything. The NZ community can be a bit unresponsive at times - maybe there just aren't enough of us Kahuroa 09:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the conventions at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Māori words which would appear to apply here. Kahuroa 19:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion

I think you should consider raising a proposal here to amend this to include a section exempting flora and fauna names from being macronised, similar to how NZ placenames are treated, using that as a precedent. Seems to me if you presented convincing and reasonable arguments (ie non-snappy) that you'd stand a fair chance. You are a valuable contributor to the avifauna area, and if you are finding it 'frustrating as hell'... Kahuroa 04:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

Thanks for letting me know :)

MisterSheik 08:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bird beak adaptations

Hi ! Let me know if you need the new illustration modified to fit in any specific area. Or if any other modification or illustation is needed. Thanks for your support on my RfA as well, I did not realize that RfA can be so disturbing to my schedule ! Shyamal 02:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know how it looks now. It is a bit longer now. Will change the caption in a moment. Shyamal 05:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benchley FAC

Hi there! Thanks for your comments earlier, I was wondering if you could check back in at some point soon, I had a couple questions. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Livezey paper

Yes, it's that one. His Geochen is apparently a chimera of that genus (see here) and the "?Branta sp" of Olson & James here; he gave no evidence why they should be identical , and they do come from different habitat, FWIW (G. is S flank of Mauna Loa, Olson/James goose is from W coast)

"Relationships of the extinct moa-nalos, flightless Hawaiian waterfowl, based on ancient DNA", basically with a who's who author-list, places them basal to Anatini, but a) IONO what population-size effects might do to moa-nalo DNA sequences and their WP analysis (fig 3) is uncalibrated/unclocked and the deep split between the 2 moa-nalo genera is suspicious. b) their phylogeny of Anatini does not match consensus, though their clades do, in some cases sweetly so. It all boils down that one can say about their ancestry, "Anas s.l., probably from N America/Far East" but nothing else. Fig. 3 is close to the real thing, but the clades' relationships are not correct as well as the split in the moa-nalos being likely too deep (by far?). No bird has colonized the archipelago from southeast of Costa Rica IIRC.

But they give a good discussion, basically they address the first point I made (the second was not known then) and conclude that it's futile to juggle around with statistics because too much is amiss. I might check on Anabernicula though they just mention it without implication. So considering the advances in Anas phylogeny since then, one even has to take their cautious conclusions with more caution: Their results as per fig.4 push the moa-nalos more into Anas s.l. than into anything else, but I'd like to see what happens to their "big" tree when you dump the moa-nalo data into the more recent analyses which give better resolution of these. Might be it would force the big guys out entirely. What biogeographical data the fossils and molecules give suggests that if close to Anas, they're probably right in it... somewhere... (they are almost certainly not close to the SAmerican group)... so their closest living relative would be, had I to choose 2, the Mallard (a good chance since it's a straight representative of "core" Anas) or the Baikal Teal (a N Hemisphere species that is apparently very basal). If neither of these is any close, odds are nothing is.

Their closeness, though not their distantness, from Anas can be tested: The split between the 2 genera is at least some 4 ma and probably not much older but it might be (it's hard to imagine a colonization scenario that would make it be however). The split between the Anas s.l. clades is fairly certainly twice as old, possibly somewhat older. The mallardines radiated since the end of the Miocene. As reagrds the maximum divergence time, the moa-nalo ancestors diverged probably not too long before the Emperor Seamounts were islands, but that's a long uncertainty period, and they might entirely have colonized these islands as a distinct lineage already. Dysmorodrepanis 03:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the future

I like working on collabs so I've made a bit of a standing list here as a subpage of my userpage, just in case one comes up to collaborate on in the future if you think I'll like it too. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

....it's this stuff I find interesting too - [[2]]. Whether and how harvesting may help or hinder a species. I've put bits in the Red-tailed Black Cockatoo article. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon

I just figured that the Amazon people were the source of the word that that would be the appropriate place to have Amazon link to (that, plus a personal preference to have article names link directly to articles instead of disambiguations). But you make a very good point, there are many things that are big enough to warrant equal footing, and if you change it back, I won't complain :)

Cheers! --Oskar 15:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enantiornithes

Hey Sabine,

There are quite a few articles on Enantiornithine (is that even a word?) birds which were at one time considered dinosaurs (Kuszholia, Laornis, etc). Because they've been pretty much excluded from Dinosauria, there hasn't been a whole lot of research or reference works from dinosaur sources on them, and as a result, these articles are rather short. Do you have any idea where one gets Enantiornithes papers, or do you know of any seminal study or book which covers Enantiornithes in depth? I'd love to be able to expand some of these articles (I think there are around a dozen of them), but without good sources... Any ideas? Firsfron of Ronchester 20:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks (in advance) for checking. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 16:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Goldfinch FA nomination

All right, thank you very much. cheers, Jude 03:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Proposed naming conventions

Would you comment on my Proposed_naming_conventions? -Ravedave 02:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration

Hi, Bird migration seems to have slipped out of attention. I wish I had Berthold's book now ! Btw, I added the illustration of the Crab Plover. Let me know if there are any others on your wish list. Shyamal 03:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Started a stub for Bird colony. Take a look sometime. Shyamal 04:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol

I was checking my watchlist and saw your comments here and it made me laugh :) Cheers, Corvus coronoides 16:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flōra and Faūna

Over to you now I think - your proposal doesn't seem controversial, so you could edit the NZ naming conventions, just say you are going to do it at the noticeboard, and then go ahead. Ova tu yu. Kahuroa 19:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bird

Hi - let me know when you put bird up for peer review and I'll be happy to cast my eye over it. Cheers. SP-KP 23:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about all the citation tags ... You know me: once I get stuck into a peer review ... SP-KP 05:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming NZ bird articles and reintroductions query

Hey there

I'm reluctant to just go ahead and move "South Island Wren" to "Rock Wren (New Zealand)"; who from wikiproject birds should this potential move be discussed with? Yeah it is bullshit that these articles should be headed with names that no one bar a handful of individuals at Birdlife International use - Malherbe's Parakeet presents a similar problem. I really don't understand the logic of those who oppose these moves. Oh well, hopefully things can be worked out. Cheers, Kotare 05:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and one other thing.. I'm planning to rip my talons into the Whitehead (bird) article soon and I'm wondering what you think about giving info. on various conservation reintroductions that have been made for a given species. There have been about 5 so far for the Whitehead - do you reckon it's unreasonable to try and include info on all of these in this article? Thanks, Kotare 05:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi,

i am new to the editing part of wikipedia, i noticed you undid my edit. why is this and what rules do i have to follow?

regards,

sander

Regarding the removal of Nidoqueens Fictional Dinosaurs tab...

There was a reason why it was under both. If you look at the image, it clearly has a rabbit-like body(not including ears), it otherwise has the traits of a Dinosaur. Why did you remove the Fictional Dinosaurs tab?

From unknowen9000

Since the user has no page I'm posting this here. It was per the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs#Category: Fictional dinosaurs, where it was one of a number of fictional creatures that were labeled as dinosaurs that were not really very dino-like. Dino-like traits do not make a dino. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an account... Anyways there are two problems with that.

1. The Dinosaur traits vastly outnumber the hare/rabbit traits, as it's a stretch saying it has a rabbit-like body.

2. Nidoran and Nidorina have nowhere near a single resmeblance to a Dinosaur, so why did you not change them?

I have no idea what the second point was alluding to. AS for the first point, yes it had a dino-look about it. It also had ears, which are mammalian, and exclusively so. The thing is, it's a frigging fictional thiggamagig. So I looked at the article, which, in no place whatsoever mentions the word dinosaur. Construing that it is a dinosaur from the image is original research if it is not considered a dinosaur anywhere else. Nidoqueen + dinosaur creates no hits on Google that state the wretched thing is a dinosaur. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert as an editing tool

My anticipation was that someone familiar with the article might remove 'some' of the photos as redundant. I put them there so there could be a choice. Peace.Lsi john 16:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule I don't talk on my own page - but your talk page was explicit that I should... I didn't use a revert function, I simply removed them. I did so for the reasons I explained in the edit box - there was massive duplication of the images, except for the bottom three which were of dubious quality. I don't remove galleries from smaller articles but once an article is FA length there is sufficient space to incorporate any useful images into the main body of the text - and Mourning Dove is already image rich. Galleries simply encourage the addition of more and more images that really don't add anything to the article, so rather than leave one or two images in the gallery I simply did away with it - the images can be sent to the Commons if people will find them useful and if one of the images can be included in the article to illustrate a point (such as humans feeding them) then all well and good.

As for the point the chickie is making - removing stuff is improving stuff. We are after all called editors, and while I'm a firm believer in improving Wikipedia by writers adding content we also need editors trimming, hacking and whacking content in much the same way as film book and TV editors do. If we become to scared to remove something that another user has added we don't deserve to be called editors and we will sacrifice quality for inclusiveness. I've pushed three articles to FA (with another on the way) and one of the hardest things to do is to undo a well meaning good faith edit that adds nothing or even lowers the overall quality article. But it has to be done. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overenthusiasm

Hi ... I've dropped you & Meegs a note at the bottom of the Bird article's talk page. Excessive citation needed tags aside, I hope things are OK with you. Which tropical island are you on at the moment? Cheers. Steve SP-KP 22:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long-billed Wren

Hi Sunbird: Hope you're surviving your bout with the flu! I'm working my way through some of the (many!) unassessed articles, trying to get them labeled up, and I found a weirdo. When I clicked on Long-billed Wren (Cantorchilus longirostris) from the Wrens page, it took me to your article on the recently-extinct NZ bird. However, that's also the name of a currently-still-with-us species found in New World. What should we do to eliminate the conflict? MeegsC | Talk 14:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of Birds history section

Back from my vacation, I have started work on origin of birds again. I've rewritten the history section and I think it's now very complete. Mind critiquing it? I'm wondering in particular if it should be broken up by subheadings. Sheep81 00:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed tags

Hi. You'll be pleased to know that I've finished now! I'm sure I've added a few more unnecessary ones, just go ahead & weed them out. Hopefully, once we reach FA status, we'll both think that this has been worth it, painful though it's been! SP-KP 18:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assess redirects?

Hi Sunbird: I've been trying to whittle down the enormous unassessed articles category, and am wondering about redirect pages. Currently, there are lots of redirects (primarily, but not exclusively scientific names of individual species) which have the BirdTalk template on their discussion page. Should they, or should only the actual article have the assessment? MeegsC | Talk 23:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Running after bots

I noticed your comment at User talk:Quadell, saying "Running after a bot cleaning up hundreds of identical articles" is not fun. If you find a repetitive and easily-automatable task, consider asking Quadell, or another bot operator, to set a bot to doing the cleaning up. Not ideal, I know, but something to consider. Carcharoth 13:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leery of bots, they are great at doing simple things many times, but less useful for more nuanced editing. However I think the sheer scale of what needs doing now requires their use, but for the task of reconciling the ad hoc taxonomy we use and the IUCN's older taxonomy a bot isn't going to be any use.

Wood Thrush

Hey. Sorry to bother you, but I've a question/request. I want to make Wood Thrush FA, but since I'm still relatively new, I'm not sure what else needs to be done. I've tried comparing it to other bird FAs, but I'm still having trouble differentiating between normal differences and differences in quality, if that makes sense. Could you take a glance and give me some pointers in the right direction? Thanks. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 14:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Evolutionary history of life

Hi Sabine's Sunbird,
Firstly, thanks a lot for reviewing the article.
Secondly, whatever points you mentioned i have addressed most of them but i haven't got the exact meaning for 4, 5 and 7th point. can you please explain them in detail.
Thirdly, you are a biologist; you must be knowing the number of phylums. if i sit and write about their history even in brief it would consume a lot lot and lot of time. i am a 15 years old kid. do not expect much from me. i have tried to wrote this article as best as i could have. but if you think that i should mention about phylums also this is merely impossible.
anyway i have done some changes. please have a look at those.
ummhhh... why don't you also work on this article with me. please think and tell. thankyou, Sushant gupta 13:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing also, the main article- evolution do not mention about many aspects. the reason is that, evolution is a very very very broad term. likewise Evolutionary history of life itself is also a very very broad term. hey mate, you are a biologist; if i ask any geologist for the article review he would have said that geological aspect is very less in the article as compared to biological. instead of being biased by such things i have writeen this article in a very broader consensus dealing with both the aspects. truely speaking, biology is not my field though evolution is the only field in biology i am able to understand (though not in much depth as you know). thanks, Sushant gupta 06:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup

You commented on the Auckland meetup that you couldn't come, because wellington was too far away. Was this a mistake, as the meetup is in auckland. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, ok. The way I read it it sounded like you thought it was in wellington. Ahh well! If I may ask, how did you find out about it? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a Geonotice, a notice on watchlists targeted for people in certain areas. It's meant to only show for people between whangarei and hamilton, but in small places like NZ, it often gets others. At least we now know it's showing for others :-). Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paper help

Hi SS, I sent a mail to you with a little help request. I wanted this paper and my attempts to contact the author failed and I don't have great paper access. If you do have access, please let me know. If my mail reached you have my emailid otherwise let me know. TIA Shyamal 05:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton. Shyamal 04:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of import?

Fancy adding something here? See first item. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confederate government of Kentucky

Thank you for your support of my FA nom for Confederate government of Kentucky. This nomination has been restarted due to a high volume of irrelevant comments. If you still feel you can support this article for FA status, I would appreciate your re-adding your support. Thanks so much! Acdixon 14:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive criticism

Whilst i appreciate that you may feel strongly about your bird project, your comments on WP:MOS talk were not of a constructive type, and verging on personal attack. You might not have noticed, but i'm the one who has been flagging this on various wiki projects etc., but not on birds, because we are aware that you guys feel very strongly (whether rightly or wrongly) and we were discussing animals (not birds), so i didn't leave a note for you all. Please try to be more constructive in future. Owain.davies 14:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bird collaboration of the month

As a member of WP:BIRD you are invited to this month's collaboration

The current WikiProject Birds collaboration article is Preening (bird).
The previous collaboration was: Tinamou.
Feel free to cast your vote for next month's article

Shyamal 02:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Callaeidae

Hey ao', I see you're on a break, busy time of year I know but I was thinking of getting stuck into some of the wattlebird articles in the holidays and I dunno, maybe we could do a collaboration of some description(?).. Kokako and Tieke really aren't looking too hot, I made a few additions to them when I was starting out here (Saddleback was a stub before that) but since then no one's touched them. They're in a piss poor state given that this is such a unique and unusual group of birds - and a widely admired one at that. I'm keen to focus on Saddleback (seeing as it will be easier for me to sort out my own faliures to use inline references when still a new guy on the block) and maybe we could work together on that or perhaps it will be easier if one of us adopts an article each. Huia needs work but not as urgently as the other 2. Thoughts? No hurry as regards a reply and hope your work is going well. Cheers, Kotare 11:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries dude, work must come first. To be honest I'll probably be busy enough sorting out Whitehead, I'll have to see about the wattlebirds. Just tell me at some point later on in the year ( or in the holidays, I'm here to stay really haha )when you have time free and we can organise some sort of collaboration. I agree, Tieke is not the name ususally used and it should be changed, I'll propose the change on the article now. However, I see you recently created the "Pipipi" article and same deal, I'm pretty sure that "Brown Creeper" is the commonly used name for this species (Heather and Robinson has it as "Brown Creeper (Pipipi); seems to be that english names are the common ones for all the Mohoua species.. Anyway hope your work is going well. Cheers, Kotare 06:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I reckon we change it to Brown Creeper, HANZAB has it as Brown Creeper also and in my experience it's the same case as Saddleback (Tieke), Whitehead (Popokatea) and others - the maori name is rarely used.Kotare 03:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha indeed, oh well, should be bloody interesting though. Oh man thanks yeah that would be awesome if you could get a photo of a whitehead, I'm trying to track down some some at the moment but the photographers are proving difficult to get hold of. Whoa that's quite unusual seeing a kingfisher up at vic, mind you i saw a kereru sitting in some trees up the road from the campus a while back.. By the way if you have a chance to look at it, I'm curious as to how far off from "B class" Huia is -is it there already or do some areas still need work? Oh and also, since you're an admin I thought you might know where I could find instructions to make a template as I want to make one for Callaeidae and it's 3 species. I've also been wondering whether the name of the article shouldn't be changed to "New Zealand Wattlebirds" - thoughts? Cheers, Kotare 11:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loons

I may be wrong, since I don't know much about birds, but your recent edit to Loon - [3] - seems incorrect. Loons are their species - and genus, and family and order. So wouldn't the "Birds of Canada" and "Birds of the United States" categories be correct? Thanks for your help! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah hah! Got it. Thanks for the clarification! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red-tailed Black Cockatoo

I'm working this one up for FA...can you see any important content missing..I'm also looking for cites on their calls...after this one goes up I'll try and get us focussed on bird..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Raven

SS - would you be able to get the full text version of this article? As I'm wokring this onje up....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Genus Corvus (Aves: Corvidae) in Australia

Thanks for checking anyway. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bird categories

I'm glad you're in New Zealand, it must be a nice place. I didn't really want to answer your query, but here's a short answer: I pulled "Trees" out of "Flora", "Birds" out of fauna; I did the Caribbean stuff, nat'l hist, etc birds, trees, fauna, after central, and south america. And some Regions of,,,, stuff. Anyhow, parrots are not in N.America where I live, so I kinda stay away from them. Plus I am still working my way down from the deserts in the West to Central America. I did put the Thick-billed Parrot (and I see you are an EXPERT, basically, and i am not, [into the Birds of the "Madrean sky islands"],,, though I observe, and the Loggerhead Shrike, quite prominent out here in the Sonoran Desert is one of my favorite birds. But even a grackle can be interesting, (when they are out in dry desert picking at a lone,(or many) grasshoppers.)... But I am working in N. Amer. and headed on south to c. america, and trying also to do the Hummingbirds, which are still being developed..... simple answer, kindof, and doesn't answer everything. (I also just kindof started doing some Non-Land Birds)- SonoranDesert Guy....--Mmcannis 17:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whitehead

Yeah cheers I have thanks.. took me a while to find out about it, got the Whitehead pages photocopied here- Good god it's comprehensive though, it's great. Yeah the article's a bit out of proportion at the moment with the Maori culture stuff but I'm going to start working through my sources for all the biology now and yeah, you're right, HANZAB is going to be my bible! I'm also contacting some bird photographers to ask if I can get their permission to use some of their Whitehead photos on the article too which would be good, it really needs some nice shots to round it out.. Hope your break's going well ( and that you're almost there with Bird and those missing citation tags, 180 citations last time I checked haha). Cheers, Kotare 07:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What birds are these?

I was hoping you could help me identify the birds in this picture. It was taken at the Swan Lake Nature Study Area. Yours--ragesoss 02:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The yellow-throated one is the same species? The Red-winged Blackbird page doesn't mention that coloration.--ragesoss 14:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Double thanks! You're super-great.--ragesoss 20:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 26 August, 2007, a fact from the article bird collections, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 20:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bird

Hi, Yeah sorry about the "rrr" edit summary. I just hate it when pages have alot of irrelevant references, like to the year 1960 when that page basically has nothing to do with birds. Also, I hate it<ref>some stuff i don't want to read, 23484</ref> when theres a whole ton of crap that I can't read on the wiki-side of things. It makes it SO difficult to read - especially when it spans more than one line. By formatting them a different way, an editor can easily tell the difference between a ref and the text. Otherwise it takes like 15 minutes to do a simple edit. Fresheneesz 18:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Island Robin

On 31 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article North Island Robin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images on True parrots

Hi. I just noticed that you've replaced the galley images of (mostly) pet parrots with images of wild birds. I was wondering as to your reasoning for this - as some of the old pictures were of superior quality/resolution (okay, some of them were crappy!) to those you've replaced them with (the budgie, Amazon parrot and sun conure for example). I personally think it's more important to get a good, detailed, close-up picture of the bird itself for the article, rather than necessarily show it sitting in a tree, or wherever. --Kurt Shaped Box 05:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - thanks for the clarification. I re-added the picture of the Amazon sat on someone's shoulder - as it is a superb picture and IMO, one of the better parrot images I've seen on WP (besides, it's not as if the human is particularly obtrusive). I shall make an attempt to contact the author WRT the species info - but I firmly believe that this one should stay. Someone managed to find a semi-decent 'budgerigar in a tree' pic on commons too.

I originally populated the gallery section on the True parrots article with the best images I could find at the time, of the Psittacidae I was personally familiar with, as an aviculturist. Looking back now, most of the images *were* poor-quality anyway. I agree with you fully about the current state of most of the parrot articles - two lines about where the bird lives in the wild and three paragraphs about what they're like to keep as pets (based on the editor's experience with their own parrot) seems to be the norm. Then there's all the pro/anti pet and pro/anti pellet diet propaganda that really has no place in WP. I've been tempted to do something about it but I don't have much further info to add myself and I really don't want to go around nuking articles to stubs.

What do you think about Image:Hyacinth Macaw - Nashville Zoo.jpg for the article? It's a captive pic - but at least the bird's not sat in a cage or on top of someone's PC. --Kurt Shaped Box 06:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know?

An impression of the abstract concept of WikiLove — An impression of the abstract concept of **WikiLove**

... that if it wasn't for people like you then wikipedia woud not be so much fun Well done. Victuallers 07:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tui recordings

Hey Sabine's - you mentioned you might be able to get some recordings this spring at Talk:Tui. I've asked about this here at UoA as well and they are apparently willing to help out, though the equipment guy won't be back until September. How are things at your end - are you still interested in taking some recordings? Richard001 10:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear expert in science,

I would like someone to do an experienced copyedit on the article Clonaid. I spent the equivalent of 2 shifts (16 hours) trying to improve the article from this to this. Since you know how to make featured articles, I was thinking that you would be interested. If you have any suggestions, please post them at Wikipedia:Peer review/Clonaid. The article is currently a featured article candidate. Sincerely, Kmarinas86 22:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First cut

The adzebill comes alive as a cartoon... more tune-ups later. Shyamal 15:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bird

The density of citations in bird looks fine to me; I don't see either too many or too few. If you like some of the edits I made, I'll continue to help you chip away at it. Remind me again (groan) of the capitalization issue on bird names and species? By the way, you can ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run a script he's testing that fixes hyphens to endashes, per WP:DASH. It doesn't get everything, but it does lighten the load. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you mean the edits where I cleaned out empty parameters on the cite templates (I can't imagine that bothering anyone) or where I moved the URL into the cite template (can't imagine that should bother anyone either, unless there's some norm in bird articles where you include the URL at the end rather than the usual on Wiki, which is part of the title). If you want me to continue doing those kinds of fixes I will. The deal on dashes is to dintinguish between WP:HYPHENs (-), endashes (–) and emdashes (—). Hyphenate words, endashes on date and page ranges, emdashes for punctuation is the general guide. Brighterorange will fix all the hyphens on your page and date ranges to endashes; much better than doing it manually. I'm not a great copyeditor, but I can help you with formatting and MOS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's slow going there; I think I've encountered half a dozen different referencing formats and they're all over the map, so I'm standardizing them to the cleanest one I know of, which eliminates all of that messy punctuation on author names, and I'm adding all the PMIDs and DOIs I can find. Fixing dashes and other things as I encounter them if I remember, but it would still be beneficial to have Brighterorange run through when you're done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thermoregulation

I just realized that the bird article misses out entirely on aspects such as panting, gular flutter, urohydrosis and behaviours such as sunning, huddling etc. Shyamal 11:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that this is leading to length but I think the lead has something about high metabolic rate that is not covered anywhere, not even in a linked article. Some details can go elsewhere, but I think there is material such as this [4] that point to high metabolic rates as making them particularly driven by energy conservation rules. With foraging, migration and most other behaviours being decided by this underlying cost of endothermy. I think a physiology section with a linked article is needed. Otherwise sooner or later someone will add trivia like "birds have no sweat glands" and that will be so annoying! 01:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyamal (talk • contribs)

Anatomy usually deals only with static state unlike physiology. I wonder if high metabolic rates can be dealt with under diet and feeding. Resting and roosting can be extended a bit to cover cooling by body orientation using panting, gular flutter and urohidrosis. Shyamal 01:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think several of the Ehrlich Dobkin Wheye citations can be reduced to one citation The Birder's Handbook (Paul Ehrlich, David Dobkin, and Darryl Wheye. 1988. Simon and Schuster, New York. The various web pages are derived from this one book. Shyamal 01:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wandering Albatross

I'd like to know what is considered a "peer reviewed journal, monograph or suchlike" for ornithology? Also I did not 'mirror' the article as there was no better was to put the flight fact from that article (i.e. the attempt was made to paraphrase the article). I've since revamped the inclusion with more references, one of with is a Russian ornithologist. I also mentioned that "some sources" announce the sleep while flying thing. Also note that a bird sleeping in flight would be very similar to a human sleepwalking. I'm not an ornithologist but I've been doing personal research for 18 years and know how to weed through articles. Also...can you provide me with information about "the recorders placed on abatrosses [sic] for months on end [producing no] evidence for [flight while sleeping]. I'd like to be amicable in this matter without resorting to an edit war. I appreciate your extreme concern in this matter as I generally take the wikipedia as my primary starting reference for most general research and am also concerned with keeping its quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephalis (talk • contribs) 04:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

trois FAs

		The Featured Article Medal
		To SS for his 3 Featured birdies....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Animals

WikiProject Animals has been created. Feel free to come on over and add yourself. J. Hall • ^(Talk) 06:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

map of Auckland Island

Hello, I am making a map of Auckland Island, can you have a look at it please, and see if it is convenient, and if the style of the text on it is to your liking, then if you have any suggestions I can finish it with more place names using the same style. All the data is PD, from SRTMv2, which gives elevation down to 90 meters (3 Arc second) outside of the USA. That means that if you zoom in, each square is one radar elevation measurement by the satellite. I used the data at http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org/SELECTION/inputCoord.asp As far as I know it is the most precise topographical data available for that region. Jackaranga 16:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more place names on it. Jackaranga 09:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finished ! Jackaranga 10:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs one small change to the scale - swap the 'e' and 'r' to read 'Kilometres' per NZ spelling - MPF 01:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NZ bird images; re

Awesome!! I'm looking forward to seeing them, the saddleback and whitehead articles really need photos too . I want to get into wildlife photography myself actually.. out of interest what model of camera do you use? Cheers, Kotare 17:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I never heard back from you but I'm hoping you get this anyway; Are you interested in 2 possible collaborations for the next month or two?;

1. NZ wattlebird article - either Saddleback or Kokako. Huia is developing fairly well but these two remain woefully neglected.

2. NZ indigenous forests. I can't find specific information about this topic on wikipedia and in any case the (fucking tragic) story of NZ's lowland forests has yet to be told here. Perhaps I have simply not been able to find this article but if it does indeed not exist it's creation is long overdue.

Anyway it would be nice to hear from you. Cheers, Kotare (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peregrine map

Thanks! I'll edit the corrections in tomorrow - MPF 01:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ivory-Billed Woodpecker posting

Greetings,

New to Wikipedia,

Please provide the edit tips to my content as no one has posted effevctively the information about the conservationn stamp, art prints or artists/entities involved wth promoting the Ivory Billed. Not advertising and you are prohibiting a link to an Audubon Society local website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoalsart (talk • contribs) 23:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References:

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/general/news/story?id=2835030 http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/2806 http://www.ShoalsAudubon.com

Thank you for your response. -Dave

Off-topic journals...

Hey SS...aww I'll send it thru email....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - muchly appreciated. Will help with this one - Amanita ocreata - which I nomianted at FAC and got deathly silence in reply and am making GA for the moment. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bird beaks

Hi SS, I just updated the file with a few more types along with simplified captions. Shyamal (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Have been adding a few more pictures on birds, let me know if you have any specific requests[reply]

Discussion of animal pictures, articles

I just wanted to write back and thank everyone who's participated in the discussion about what kinds of animal pictures fit the requirement of encyclopaedic value, with specific reference to head shots, notably of birds; and also about whether the inclusion of some graphic information should be compulsory at FAC (distribution maps, various depictions of the animal).

I'm sorry that the discussion became derailed by User:Fir0002. I'll adhere to WP:AGF for the time being.

I thought I would sum up what we discussed:

Head shots can be useful for birds that have distinctive colour markings or other features on the head, but makes less sense for others (Totnesmartin)
Head shots are necessary when species are only distinguishable by their cranial morphology (Dinoguy2)
Head shots are not of interest outside Craniata (Dinoguy2)
MeegsC brought up the term "soaring" as a better description of where flight silhouettes would be useful; Casliber later referred to "raptors and seabirds" (I checked my bird books (n=4), and I see silhouettes or semi-profile views of the flying bird used in a much wider range of taxa, including ducks, pigeons, herons, cranes, storks, swallows, swifts, and probably others that I didn't memorise)
Jimfbleak expressed the opinion that there can be no rule where exceptions exist. (I disagree. Rules could allow for exceptions, which just means we only have to discuss the exceptions, not every other case as well.)
Jimfbleak said it may be better to use sparrows or pigeons for the size comparison. (I disagree: Not everywhere that has internet has sparrows and pigeons, and house sparrows at least are different sizes in different places)
Jimfbleak expressed desire for restricting FPC to animals in the wild, and allow captive shots only for domesticated species.
Casliber supported mandatory distribution maps
Casliber opposed size comparisons for plants (I'm guessing this was pre-emptive, as nobody had proposed size comparisons for plants)
I then suggested that a mechanism could be created for WikiProjects to set up their own definitions for excellent articles, and these could be showcased aside from the traditional Featured Articles and TFA; this proposal was mostly ignored by subsequent comments
Firsfron expressed concern that there wouldn't be enough illustrators to create the required illustrations and raised further exceptions (which I regard as irrelevant because the proposal already allows for special cases to be considered differently)
Firsfron suggested that if anything other than a distribution map was made mandatory, an illustration of a skull might be the best thing
Sabine's Sunbird seemed to oppose distribution maps being mandatory on the basis that they took effort to make (I'm unsure that this is correct, and was left wondering what the HBW size comparisons were)
Calibas was against "rules" (I don't see how we can carry on without some of the policies and guidelines we have)

In conclusion, most concerns were to do with allowing for exceptions, which is already the case in all guidelines I'm aware of, including the proposals discussed here.

To return to the original proposal, nobody has been able to make a strong general case for head shots in birds or any other larger taxon, a finding I interpret as meaning my personal guideline is sound. I hope others may find parts of it useful and adopt them. If you have any further comments on the FPC, FAC, or WikiProject content creation proposals, please leave them on my talk page. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOCE Request for "Bird"

Hello,

You previously submitted to LOCE a request for a ce of "Bird". The article, however, has since been promoted to FA, suggesting that the prose is no longer in need of a copyedit. Keeping in mind the backlog of articles currently at LOCE, do you believe a ce is still needed for Bird? If not, it will be moved to proofreading, where it will still receive more abbreviated attention by an LOCE editor through proofreading. Please comment here or in the comments section of the request. I have left this same question on the actual LOCE request. Thanks --Malachirality (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bird

Right before the article became featured, Mangostar (talk · contribs) gave it an extremely unforgiving copyedit. As a result, "Relationship with humans" is peppered several citation-related templates that needs cleanup. As a side note, there is current nothing about ornithology in general, so a quick mention in that section would be a good idea. Circeus (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, if this is a reply to the above (I'm assuming it is), then I have to clarify that LOCE doesn't normally provided new sources or material. We can copyedit for formatting, style, grammar, word choice, etc., but I (and the LOCE) probably couldn't address either of the two main points you bring up. --Malachirality (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

happy Mango season

'TIS MANGO SEASON....
Have a shlice of mango cheek...well, I am up to my armpits in the things. Yuletide means lots and lots of mangos, as well as turkey and ham and ice-cream and pressies. Were on special so I bought 3 crates for AU$20 and now I have both crispers in the refrigerator full and even with everyone eating two of the ##$@& things every mealtime... I am a bit mangoed out so I thought I'd spread the goodwill around....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Inaccessible Island and dab pages

Apologies for the delay in response. I really don't know what the usage statistics are for those pages; but, if they're as skewed as you say, perhaps my changes should be undone. Cheers—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 01:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black-and-white Colobus monkey

I'm confused about what you did, and don't understand which page to post this question on. I changed an article that was some sloppily copied and pasted text about Colobus monkeys in general plus the Black-and-white Colobus in particular to a redirect to an article about the Black-and-white Colobus monkey. The article was a regular Wikipedia article, not a sloppy copy and past. I then posted the text of the article I made a redirect onto the talk page of the good article. When you undid my edit, though, you did not revert to the edition that I deleted, or I can't see that in the edit history. Now I'm uncertain what is going on. The Colobus guereza is not a genus article, and Black-and-white Colobus is not a genus of Colobus, but a species. --Amaltheus (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another JSTOR article...

Hey SS, are you able to get a copy of this one? I am working up Sirius and it looks good for cultural section...

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0041-977X(1974)37%3A3%3C580%3ABSISAT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q

much appreciated - cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dicruridae

Do you have the Supertree[TM]? If not it has a weird 4-way split that is almost certainly a sampling artefact. Here goes:

ref4: Barker, F. K., Cibois, A., Schikler, P., Feinstein, J. & Cracraft, J. (2004). Phylogeny and diversification of the largest avian radiation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 101, 11040–11045.

Finds that they'd need to be split 3-ways but not robustly so

Sampled genera: Dicrurus (-> Dicruridae, D) Chaetorhynchus (aha?) & Rhipidura (-> R) Monarcha, Grallina, Melampitta (both) (-> M) (!!!)

ref 35: Cibois, A., Thibault, J.-C. & Pasquet, E. (2004). Biogeography of Eastern Polynesian Monarchs (Pomarea): an endemic genus close to extinction. Condor, 106, 837–851.

Samples Monarchidae like crazy

Sampled genera: (Pomarea+Myiagra+(Trochocercus (Hypothymis+Terpsiphone)))

ref 34: Pasquet, E., Cibois, A., Baillon, F. & Èrard, C. (2002). What are African monarchs (Aves, Passeriformes)? A phylogenetic analysis of mitochondrial genes. Comptes Rendus Biologies, 325, 107–118.

Finds that they need to be split 3-ways

Samples Dicrurus, Rhipidura, and a few less monarchs than the preceding.

The only robustly supported clade in the supertree is Barker's Monarchidae. One problem seems to be that sampling among families was about equal in absolute numbers in the Barker study only. In the others, Dicruridae and Rhipiduridae were only used for rooting the monarchs which in both Cibois and Pasquet don't tie in robustly in any particular place as in respect to the other two (as may be expected), but inter se are nicely resolved. Also, the "2 monarchid clades" in the supertree don't share samples. So it appears that these anomalies tears it apart. And/or their relationship is ((R+D)M)crow-BoP-shrike-Corcoracidae clade.

That means that the option to have a 2-way split (and avoid having 2 families for 3 genera one of which is monotypic) might be kept open.

I have no idea what's with the melampittas. The Barker tree included Orthonyx and Pomatostomus and the cnemophilies, as well as about most everything else they were proposed to be allied with. The only other option would seem Acanthizidae... the melampittas have never been considered "meliphagoid" in any sense, have they? If never, I think they are monarchs after all. Huh.

I have not checked for misassigned taxa, but I expect the Monarchidae to have a few. (I think I wrote "probably paraphyletic" on Passerine for a reason.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]