User talk:Daniel Cavallari/Archive 32

Strombus-siphon-snout
I responded on my talk page. Ecphora (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hipponicidae
Just wondered if you are familiar with the Brazilian species in this family? I found something in the West Indies that looks like it could be the same as a species from Brazil. Invertzoo (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC) I think it's Hipponix costellatus Carpenter, 1856. Invertzoo (talk) 20:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, to be honest I really don't know them! But this can be changed in the near future, however.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Adding to Eustrombus gigas
Hi again Daniel. Ah yes, this is a very difficult question really. I think we could find a place to put some info in, by using headings or subheadings, but I don't really know if this material can be rewritten in such a way as to be easy to understand and also different enough from the originals to make it not plagiarism. My English is very good and it is easy for me to write good prose, but this task of rewriting would be exceptionally difficult or virtually impossible for me I think! However we could certainly refer to these two papers in the text of the article by saying something like "Simone (2005) gives much more finely detailed scientific information on the anatomy." and give the ref. And the other info could go under a heading of phylogeny (under taxonomy perhaps?), and we could try to give a very simplified account of the conclusions and then have the ref of course. That's one idea anyway, I can try to think about it all some more overnight. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Eustrombus gigas
I read through this article again just now, and really I wanted to say how excellent I think it is. I think in many ways it is not far off being a Featured Article. Well done Daniel. Invertzoo (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Susan! I have to say this is one of my favourite articles, and I believe that perhaps someday it will attain FA status! A heavy project gastropods collab would be necessary, I think. This I wouldn't be able to do by myself, I don't have such kind of experience yet. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are more than welcome Daniel. None of us yet have any experience with successfully getting a gastropod article (or in my case any other kind of article) up to FA status. We tried but failed to get FA status for Kerry slug, although I think it is probably quite near to being OK for FA. I do also feel that the article love dart might be not too terribly hard to get up to FA; it passed GA quite easily. Well, we will see who gets inspired to try one of these at some point. Invertzoo (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Kerry slug

 * Honestly, I still don't know why Kerry slug couldn't make it. Sometimes I think each reviewer has his/her own biases and idiosyncrasies, and this will determine an article's success or failure. I dare say that, provided we have some luck, Kerry slug could be approved a FA without any structural or content change.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I do think that Kerry slug back then had a lot of awkward prose in the description section, which was originally taken verbatim from Taylor 1907. An FA has to have beautiful clear prose throughout. I have continued over time to try to fix up that section and it does read better now, although maybe it's not yet perfect. Perhaps there are also too many geographical red links left in the article? (We could make the red ones not links at all if it is too hard to make stub articles for every one of them.) I also think that the person who nominated the article for FA was too aggressive in defending it, and not cooperative enough to the reviewer, even shouting at him. You have to be very polite, as you know, since the reviewer is doing you a favor, and it is a lot of work to review something. I do agree with you that each reviewer has their individual "take" on an article, but they do all try to interpret the FA guidelines as best as they can. We could renominate Kerry Slug (maybe) and see if we can get it through this time. Invertzoo (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see! In fact I didn't watch the review process that closely. In any case, many of those issues seem to be solved by now. Red links were removed, the text looks kinda clean. We may be closer from our first FA than we think!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been going through it quite carefully over the last hour or so for the prose and the red links. I removed a lot of the red links, but I could not seem to locate all the ones that are in the references, maybe you could help me by finding them if you can? Also, I think the formatting of the refs may perhaps not be consistent and may be worth checking? At any rate if you would like for us to try to resubmit Kerry Slug (this would be the third time because it was resubmitted very soon after the first failed review with almost no improvements -- not a good idea!) I think before we resubmit, we should both read through the history of each of the prior FA submission attempts very slowly and carefully, and try to make sure that every single issue that was previously raised by either reviewer is now properly fixed. Invertzoo (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Reference 11 has changed in content since I used it to identify some of the Spanish sites for the slug and thus reduced the number of red-links. I imagine you have noticed this too. You now have to click on "sites", whereas the link originally took you directly to a list of the sites.--Alan (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not checked or looked through the references section at all as yet. Another thing that we need to do is to check the copyright tags on all the images that are from older sources (older books etc). The reviewer complained that User:Snek01 did not use the correct tag on them, but I do not know much about this aspect of things. Invertzoo (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much! About stub lists
For helping out once again with fixing up the old unimproved stubs. I am following along behind you doing a bit more clean up where I think it is needed. It is really great you are doing this; most people hate to do this kind of routine task, but to me it seems obvious that it is really necessary for the Project as a whole to keep its standards for quality up in this way. Many thanks again! Invertzoo (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's always a pleasure to help, Susan. You're welcome! Oh, the joy of seeing all those articles cleaned and assessed. It has been an herculean task, hasn't it? Thousands of articles... And here we are, just a few more to go...--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it has indeed been a Herculean task, but thank goodness it is nearly done now, although I am certain there are many more that still need some degree of fixing up, articles that have an importance rating on the talk page, but need several other clean-up tasks doing. Invertzoo (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting to put in expanded intro sentences with all of the links in them, that are very good to have. I also wanted to say that for all of the genus stubs in the list we are working on, I am also adding the authority and date and ref for the genus, using this very handy source: . I also always add a "Species" heading, and the intro sentence: "Species within the genus Xxxxx include:" Actually, I would like to go quickly through all of the stubs you worked on from P to Z adding intro sentences and these other things, that is, if we can find a way of generating a list of those without including all the thousands of more recent Ganeshbot-generated new stubs. Once we are done with these ones I will ask Ganesh if he knows how we can access a list of the older stubs in the second half of the alphabet. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we are done with the untouched stubs now. Invertzoo (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Daniel, Ganesh made a couple of lists for me of the older stubs, he is so kind. Here is what he said:

Hello Invertzoo, I have created the list in two pages. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 02:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Gastropods/January 2010/A to M
 * WikiProject Gastropods/January 2010/N to Z

Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Ribs
Thanks for your kind note Daniel. It has been a couple of weeks now and it is slowly getting better. Invertzoo (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Image for upload
You have email! Thanks so much for any help you can give. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Eustrombus gigas part 2
That's really great Daniel! Well done! Yes, I very much hope we can get the English version approved, although I think maybe the standards are higher for FA on English Wikipedia. One thing I noticed that we will have to do is to write "alt text" for all the images in the article. I can maybe start on that. Wanted to let you know that, in English, adjectives such as "Portuguese" and "Brazilian" always take a capital letter. By the way, I will be away from New York from Aug 19th to Sept 5th; I will be in California visiting my husband's family. I think we will have internet access there, but I will not be as active there as I am here. All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I just now did alt text for the two taxobox images, and for the image of the decorative shell. I also did a few prose improvements. I will try to do more alt text later today. Invertzoo (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Susan! And thanks for the hint, once again. Gosh, I always forget this rule. In Portuguese, the inverse is true (you never use capitals for adjectives). --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I did quite a lot of work on the article this afternoon, I hope what I did meets with your approval. I will have to work some more on the prose throughout the article to make it really excellent, and also to make sure that all the technical terms are explained or at the very least linked. I put in one very nice shell image that was in the Portuguese Wikipedia article, and moved some of the other images around. I wrote alt text for some but not all of the images. I wanted to ask you two things:


 * Do you think we should mention the spines on the shoulder of the shell sooner than we do? As you may know, they are especially prominent in the subadult shells.
 * I mentioned them in the intro now. Invertzoo (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As for the Buoanni book, I see it mentioned in some places as "Ricreatione dell'occhio e della mente nell'osservation' delle chiocciole, proposta a' curiosi delle opere della natura" dal P. Filippo Buonanni, published 1681, but the caption on the figure-type image says it's from: "Recreatio mentis, et occuli (1684)." Is that correct?

Best, Invertzoo (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I did all of the alt text. I also smoothed out the prose a fair bit. More tomorrow. Invertzoo (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I did not yet do the alt text for the "gallery' images. I will have to work out how to do that. Invertzoo (talk) 13:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This morning I noticed that in the article Conch, under "Other uses", there is a referenced note to the shells being used to mark graves. If you think the ref is good enough you may want to include that. (I have seen photos of Caribbean graves surrounded by a line of conch shells.) Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Eustrombus gigas part 3

 * Susan, thanks for all your help. The article looks quite good, actually. I'm not sure, but I think I have some juvenile shells of E. gigas at my disposal here in the museum. A picture of an actual specimen would be a nice addition, don't you think? And I wasn't able to answer your questions until now, so here it goes: The spines on the shoulder and spire could be mentioned, yes. They are one of the most striking differences from Eustrombus goliath, too! About Buonnani's book, the information is correct, yes. It seems that both names have the same meaning, yet one is written in Italian, and the other one in Latin! Dunno what happened there actually, but the figure-type is from the Latin version, I'm sure. Still, I think I can check Clench & Abbott 1941... I'll do so, asap. Best! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really remember, but I think there were two editions of the Buonnani book, and presumably your ref is correct for the second edition, which I suppose was in Latin. I Put in a mention of the spines in the intro, but nowhere else as yet. If you wanted to, you could include a small section which explains the differences between E. goliath and E. gigas or at least a mention that refers the reader to the E. goliath article.

As for making an image of the juvenile shell, we certainly could do that, but I remember the last reviewer said he thought there were maybe already too many shell images, so I don't know. Invertzoo (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Susan, I mentioned E. goliath in the article, not the lengthiest of texts. Simone (2005) compared the anatomy of both Eustrombus species, and this could be inserted in the article too, though this is not something we should aim for, or so I believe. Too much detail would make things complicated, and neither informative nor interesting for the average reader, am I right? What else should be expanded? Maybe we could expand the taxonomy session... e. g. the Kerry slug article, which discusses general characteristics of each major taxonomic group the snail is inserted in. Would that be a good idea in your opinion? Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Expanding the taxonomy section might be a good idea. As we have not gotten a species article up to FA status yet it is a bit hard to know what the necessary content should be, but that sounds like it might be worthwhile.


 * As for the E. goliath thing, I though perhaps we could mention that E. goliath is the largest strombid in the world, and that E. gigas is the second largest, if that is indeed true? Assuming we can find a source for that. Invertzoo (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Video on project talk page
Hi Daniel. Can you view the video OK that was placed on the project talk page? I can't, and I am wondering why... Invertzoo (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * See Media help (Ogg). — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 13:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Bulimulus tenuissimus
Hello Daniel, feel free to join editing Bulimulus tenuissimus. It seems incomplete, but do not know what to add. --Snek01 (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's communication norms
Hello Daniel, I am sending you copy of this:


 * Hi John, because it seems to relate directly to our recent conversation, I thought you might be interested to read this very brief Wikipedia Signpost news piece, which is about a Harvard study of communication norms on Wikipedia.


 * To quote the abstract of the paper: "These norms speak to the intentional stance and communicative behaviors Wikipedians should adopt when interacting with one another." The study contrasts "supportive communication" with "defensive communication", and explains that "Supportive behavior/climates are characterized by non-judgmental description, problem orientation, spontaneity, empathy, equality, and provisionalism. Their 'defensive' opposites are evaluation, control, strategy, neutrality, superiority, and certainty."


 * The study concluded that "Supportive" communication was the Wikipedia norm.


 * Thanks and best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So this seems to strongly reinforce the idea that supportive and empathic communication is the proper way to behave on Wikipedia according to the norms of Wikipedia social interaction. But then again, you and I already know that, right? Best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We can't help ourselves, it's in our nature... Best! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Eustrombus gigas peer-review
Hi there Susan! I hope your ribs have healed... In the meantime, I am submitting the Eustrombus gigas article to a peer-review, in order to prepare it for a future FA candidacy. I may be wrong, but I believe there is no better way for us to visualize all of the article's flaws, before we submit it to an actual FA review. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Daniel. My ribs are nearly better but not quite 100% yet, thanks for asking, you are very kind. Peer review is certainly an idea worth pursuing, but it has the limitation that some peers tend to concentrate mainly on details of article content, whereas FA review often focusses on proper advanced Wikipedia styling rules, some of which a lot of us either are not really familiar with at all, or simply don't notice routinely. We could perhaps try to ask someone friendly who has had more experience with FA in general to take a look at it, unofficially. (FA is generally considered to be extremely difficult to attain, unlike GA.)
 * That's something we could as well do! Bit by bit, and we'll be seeing E. gigas in the front page someday... Daniel Cavallari (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: I'm also thinking about submitting Strombus canarium to a GA review. Do you think it would be successful? Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do think that article is close enough to GA to make it! I can help you of course, but right now I am away on a trip and don't have as much availability. I will be back in early September. I would be delighted to work with you on trying to upgrade these articles. Invertzoo (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I'll wait until you return. I'll be much happier and feel much more secure with you around to help! I have many plans to become a strombid gastropod specialist, and expand the wikipedia articles on the subject in the near future. Here in the Museum I have access to the largest zoological library in Latin America, and that is a blessing. Best wishes! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I think you are a much better worker than I am. I think I am rather lazy, but I am happy to help in what ways I can. You certainly are fortunate to have access to such a good library! Invertzoo (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey Daniel, I am back now. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ovachlamys fulgens
Hello Daniel, what does it mean, that Ovachlamys fulgens lives in "cultivos como en zonas con crecimiento secundario"? I have translated it preliminarily as "fields"... --Snek01 (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It pretty much means crop fields. I don't know what did he meant by "crescimiento secundario", which would translate to "secondary growth" ... Is he referring to plant physiology/anatomy, or ecological succession, maybe? Tricky... --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. --Snek01 (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Dog conch
PS: I've found the original description of S. canarium by Linnaeus in Systema Naturae. It reads as follows:

S. testae labro rotundato brevi retuso, spiraque laevi.

Though I have no idea what the meaning is... Daniel Cavallari(talk) 12:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Daniel, I think maybe I can work the meaning out. I think "S." is "Strombus" abbreviated, "testa" means shell, I think "labro rotundato" means "rounded lip". "retuso" probably refers to the notched anterior end, which is retuse in shape, "brevis" means short. Let me work on this for a bit. Invertzoo (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I just now asked someone on the Latin Wikipedia if they know someone who could translate it for us. As a fall-back position I also know a guy in Florida his website is here who mainly does translations of botanical Latin. He has done translations for me in the past. He charges a little bit, but he is very good. Invertzoo (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK! I heard back from a very nice admin from the Latin Wikipedia and Latin Wiktionary who gave this translation:


 * "It's something like "Strombus (S.) with a shell (testae) having a retuse (retuso), short (brevi), rounded (rotundato) lip (labro), and (-que) a smooth (laevi) spiral (spira). (Some of these words, particularly 'spira', are probably technical terms here that might be more appropriately translated for the context, but that's the gist of it.) —Muke Tever talk 23:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)"


 * Yay! Invertzoo (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yay! Now, should we add this to the article? I think it would make a fine addition to the taxonomy section! We could quote the original description in latin, and then give the approximate translation. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I think that is a good idea! Invertzoo (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, sure, sounds good; I will work on it some more this evening and probably some over the weekend. Invertzoo (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Queen conch
Oh thanks for your kind comment Daniel. I do know that for an article to get FA status it has to be really brilliantly written, not just well-written. Your written English is very good, and it looks as if your scientific writing is excellent, but it's tough to write superbly for a general encyclopedia in any language, especially when it is not your native tongue you are writing in. I have to say it's also a bit hard for me to try to fix up someone else's writing rather than doing it from scratch. But I am trying to do my best, bit by bit. Invertzoo (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Daniel, I changed the prose in that section about the original shell that Linnaeus had based his description on, but I have not added the reference. Maybe you can add the ref and perhaps you can add more info too if you like.

I was trying to get alt text in for the images when they were in a gallery, but apparently that's not possible to do, because of a bug in the software. Snek put the images back into a multiple image thing, where the alt text is accepted, but now it looks a bit odd because at a certain page width, the Tryon image is kind of off the page to the right. I am not sure what is the best way to fix this image problem to make it look nice and still have alt text. Invertzoo (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh and yes, can we maybe get the original Latin description for Strombus gigas? Invertzoo (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It turns out that one can find the book Systema Naturae via Google Books, here . The genus Strombus is listed on page 80 of the book, but I have not yet located the species description, I am still looking. Invertzoo (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Maybe this is not the critical 10th edition...? Invertzoo (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help Susan, you're kind as always. As for the original description of S. gigas in Latin, it reads as follows:

"S. testa labro rotundato maximo, coronata ventre spiraque spinis conicis patentibus. Bonan. recr. 3. t. 321. Gvalt. teft. 33. f. A. Habitat in America. Testae color internus vividissimus" This is quite interesting... It seems that Linnaeus actually referred to Buonanni's book (Bonan. recr. 3. t. 321.). That must have been the reason why Clench & Abbott chose the picture on plate 321. And Testae color internus vividissimus must mean shell's internal color very vivid, which is true... Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Coped from Invertzoo's page:


 * The other reference "Gvalt. teſt." would be Gualtieri's Index Testarum Conchyliorum. The rest means something like "Strombus shell with a very large rounded lip, surrounded in belly and spire with wide conical spines.  [...]  It inhabits the Americas.  The interior color of its shell is quite vivid."
 * (I again disclaim knowledge of the best technical terms—there is probably a more appropriate word for 'ventre' (venter) which I have given literally as 'belly', and I'm not entirely sure of the sense of patentibus(pateo) intended here—I gave it as 'wide', which is what they look like to me, though it could be more like 'sticking straight out' or 'perpendicular', as Webster 1913 suggests is the use of its Anglicized form in botany, or something else altogether.) —Muke Tever talk 21:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think that "belly" may mean body whorl in this context. And I would think that "patentibus" here might mean perpendicular, but it could easily mean wide instead. Invertzoo (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The dog conch article again
Hi Daniel, I am very glad to see that the GA review is underway. I will be delighted to help out as much as I can with fixing it up. Today I did a few things that I hope are helpful and I also created a very minimal stub for Strombus vittatus. Fortunately Commons had an image for that species, which JoJan had uploaded and from which Sneck had removed the border. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I used Google's free online translator |la| for the Latin book titles. It seems to be somewhat OK for that kind of thing, although not as good as our friends in Latin Vicipaedia! Invertzoo (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is an abstract that has one useful piece of info: "Strombus canarium inhabiting the near shore waters of Miag-ao, Iloilo, showed that it breeds continuously throughout the year. Males spawned monthly during the thirteen months study period with peaks in January, April and May. Females spawned monthly with peaks in April, August, September and October. The environmental parameter in the study area significantly correlating with the maturity and gonad indices was salinity (range = 33.5-35.0 ppt) of the near bottom water."

Invertzoo (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Book titles
Here are my attempts: I don't know if there are any "standard" English translations of these titles in use, but I couldn't find any offhand. Also I find the name of Buonanni's book is more frequently given with 'oculi' with one C (which is the usual spelling of the word). —Muke Tever talk 22:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Index Testarum Conchyliorum, quae adservantur in Museo Nicolai Gualtieri = List of the shells of shellfish which are preserved in the museum of Niccolò Gualtieri [probably not a public museum, but what we might call a private collection]
 * Recreatio mentis et oculi in observatione animalium testaceorum = Refreshment of the mind and the eye in the observation of testaceous animals

OK?
Hope you are OK Daniel, I figure you are just very busy in RL. I haven't seen you much at the GA review of Dog conch over the last five days. I hope you approve of the changes I have been making, and I left a few notes for you there too. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey! That's really great, another Good Article for Project Gastropods! Yes, Sasata's review was very clear and very helpful, very straightforward. Invertzoo (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

An award
Thought you might like to see the news item on this page in the Wikipedia Signpost. It says that the English Wikipedia reached 10,000 GAs this week (partly thanks to you of course). And by the way, yours are part of a total of 295 GAs on animals, see this list. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Eustrombus gigas
Hi. I noticed, while on Shyamal's talk page, a note you had placed there regarding peer review of the E. gigas article. As a Commissioner of the ICZN, I should note that there is no such procedure in the Code as "designating a type locality". The type locality is strictly a property of the type specimen, and cannot be designated independently; if Linnaeus' specimen is the type specimen, then whatever it says on it is the type locality, no matter what any subsequent authors may say. I'll make the appropriate edit momentarily. Dyanega (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there Dyanega! Thank you for your feedback. I do know it, but that doesn't exclude the fact that Clench & Abbott designated a locality; The article's text is not clear on that specific point... Clench & Abbott had designated a Neotype, so they assumed a type locality was needed (that's what happened, or so I think). These authors didn't know that the type specimen wasn't lost at all. The text must be made clearer, I'll work on it ASAP. . I see you already did the proper changes. Thanks! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Daniel, Thanks for your note, nice to hear from you. We will work on a possible FA, or at any rate more GAs, once you have more time after the end of this year. As for the Lobatus suggestion, I don't think that that Move should adversely affect the GA status, but we will have to be careful to write up the genus change very clearly and well in the text, and to add Eustrombus gigas to the synonym list in the taxobox. We will also have to create a stub article for the genus Lobatus. I think this new genus now also includes what used to be Strombus raninus? If I am correct, that means that the S. raninus article will also need Moving. I can help do some of this of course if you don't have any time.


 * Oh, and you may have noticed that User:Papa Lima Whiskey added a long narrow image with 5 views of the shell, but we have so many shell images already. If we do want to include it, we will have to remove some of the others and work out how and where to fit it in, and so on. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I made a whole lot of changes this evening but nowhere near all that needs fixing up. Invertzoo (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Strombidae and the Portal
Ah thanks so much Daniel for IDing the other two strombids on the Strombidae article page! I was going to ask you if you could maybe do that, but you beat me to it! And thanks so much for fixing the glitch on the Portal! Invertzoo (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's always a pleasure to help, Susan! Let me know if you need something else. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for telling me on JoJan's talk page what you did to fix the first Portal item. I thought I had already done that 6 to 7 thing myself, but maybe I forgot to Save it or something. When I am hungry and tired in the evenings before dinner, my concentration is not too good. So... this evening I made another similar glitch on the Portal: I wrote a biography link here for this page: . And I started it as a red link, but now it does not show up there. Did I forget to save the red link? I guess that must have been what I did? And if so, now how do I link it? Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I fixed it myself now. Thanks anyway. Invertzoo (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

More about the Portal:Gastropods
Hi Daniel, I know you are very busy now, but if you get a chance, look at the portal and tell me what you think about how it looks. Is the color of the frames way too lurid on your monitor, or is it OK? What do you think of the land snail image as the icon for the portal? Also I wanted to say that if in 2011 you feel like putting together a biography for Professor Simone, getting it up to the B level, we could put it into the portal. We need a few more good biographies of malacologists. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The portal looks amazing! Well the land snail image is a Featured Image, ins't it? It sure is beautiful, why not use it, then? I'll talk with professor Simone about the biography. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks so much for your input, Daniel. I am still working on the Portal, trying to add more content so that perhaps it can qualify for Featured Portal. Invertzoo (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Tamayoa
Hello Daniel, have a successful year 2011!

What is the name of Tamayoa decolorata (Drouët, 1859) according to Simone (2006) Land and Freshwater Molluscs of Brazil? --Snek01 (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello to you too!
Thanks so much for your kind note Daniel, it's really nice to "see" you again. You did tell me you might be away until now, so I was not surprised. Also I should explain that my husband fell and broke both arms on Dec 17th, was in hospital for 11 days, and then in a nursing home for 5 weeks, where he caught Clostridium difficile. He is free of the infection now and is getting a lot of outpatient therapy for his arms and hands. I am still looking after him. So you can imagine that over the last 3 months I have been so busy that I have had hardly any time to work here on Wikipedia. The good news is that in 3 weeks time my husband and I will be going off to Nevis for 3 weeks of vacation, (or in my case, 3 weeks of shell field trip, including special day trips to Montserrat and Sint Eustatius). Anyway, it's great to have you back again, you do very good work! Invertzoo (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thanks
For your generous and unexpected gift of a barnstar. Invertzoo (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Aliger costatus.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:Aliger costatus.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)