User talk:Dawson/Archive 2

Thanks
Thanks for helping me with making new articles. I created 2 new articles however they are gone. Please help me with this. Pnatt 09:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The articles you made seem to have been made into redirects to already existing articles. Duplicate articles on the same topic are normally merged together in this way. If you wish to change the name of an article, you should mention it on the article's talk page so it can be discussed among those people who may be concerned.


 * Also, another thing to keep in mind, the search feature is kind of slow in adding new pages, so if you make a new page you may not be able to find it with the wiki search box for several days, maybe even longer. Using Google to search Wikipedia is often faster in that regard. :) Cheers, -Dawson 15:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

user page assistance please (if you have time)
Hi You communicated with me a while ago, over animal research - I've not forgotten the project but I've been busy with other things. On another matter, in looking at your Userpage, there were a couple of tricks I wanted to copy and I wonder if you could help me:
 * 1) I copied your way of displaying a link to 'article contributions' That's worked OK but it seems to be way behind the action - any idea what the lag is, before it lists a contribution & why? And - any idea why it's put in two or three 'cuckoos', i.e. articles I'd never seen before and have nothing to do with me?
 * 2) I tried the same with 'image uploads' and it shows none of mine - except that it has shown one that is nothing ot do with me! Any ideas why either of these phenomena?

Please reply in my Userpage discussion page, if you feel you can help and if you have the time User talk:Ballista - Ballista 17:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * THANX! :) Ballista 18:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

user page assistance please
hey thanks for the help on naming conventions. I do have another question if you do not mind responding on my user talk page. I want to take the acroynm ECW and have it redirect to Extreme Championship Wrestling page. From there have a top link disambiguation page. Is that going to be a problem. Kyros 20:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Snake Eyes
Bmcassagne 12:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC) I'm really confused about how usertalk works, but yeah, we can work together some on venemous snakes if you like. I live in south Mississippi and what I said about the eyes holds true here. Maybe you can show me some non-venemous with slit pupils in North America. You have to be close to see this, yes, but I grew up around several people who had captured pet and didn't really know if it was venemous or not for some time.


 * There is no real standard to how to usertalk pages, but how you did it is pretty much what most people do. What is annoying is that some people like messages at the top, some people split up comments all over the place. It can make it hard to follow threads sometimes, which is why I like responding exactly where I was talked to. :)
 * I get people ignorant about snakes all the time too. I do reptile education, and am a founding member of our local herpetological society, here in Texas. Just the other day a guy caught a coral snake and was trying to sell it as a king snake. He's lucky he didn't end up in the hospital for his efforts, or end up hurting someone else. But anyway, there are a lot of misleading things about how to tell a venomous snake from a non-venomous one. The eye is one of them. It may be technically true, but species like the lyre snake (Trimorphodon sp.) and the night snake (Hypsiglena sp.) have vertical pupils, and while considered rear-fanged, they are completely harmless to humans, so dropping the blanket "all snakes with vertical pupils are venomous", which is generally going to be interpreted as "all snakes with vertical pupils can kill you", I personally find kind of misleading and in need of more specific information to clarify it.
 * Another misleading thing that is often mentioned is the head shape. Plenty of colubrids, especially the water snakes (Nerodia sp.) have triangular shaped heads, heck even a ball python has a vaguely triangular shaped head - so it is rather misleading to people who could be reading. Which is why I think having a direct comparison photo gallery would be quite helpful.
 * Anyway, you have to remember that Wikipedia is not American, it is world wide scope. When you make a reference to "all" of something, like your addition to hognose, where you wrote "amphibians ... the primary diet of the hognose", again is confusing because most species of hognose do not consume amphibians a primary diet, only one does.
 * Its nothing serious, just thought I'd comment. When working on a project that millions of people around the world are constantly editing and changing, it's sometimes difficult to get your point across clearly. Thanks for responding. -Dawson 16:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Agkistrodon bilineatus
So, now you think it's an even better idea to begin the article with a common name? I'm not sure this will satisfy folks like liquidGhoul or Dsmdgold, and I feel it's a significant departure from what we've done so far. Specifically, wouldn't this style force you to focus the entire text more on the common name than on the scientific name? It doesn't seem as consistant as what we've done so far. --Jwinius 07:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that in general discussion, and unless speaking aobut a group/genus/family/subafamily, etal, most people would be referring to a singular species by the common name and thus I worded it that way. Not to mention, I wrote it quickly to be rid of the red link. :) -Dawson 17:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Azemiopinae
What do you think about my changes to the taxobox for Azemiopinae? I've tried to reflect the fact that the page is about the subfamily, but also about the species, although I'm not sure that this is the best solution. What do you think? --Jwinius 15:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My only issue is that Naming conventions (fauna) specifies that one is to use the lowest taxon that refers to the subject. Thus in the case of the Fea's, since it is a singular genus subfamily, and a singular species genus, the article name should be the species name with redirects from everything else. I don't think there is any real easy solution, but no matter whether your write about Azemiopinae, Azemiops, or Azemiops feae, you're only writing about one specific kind of snake. (Though, with any luck, as China becomes more accessable, there will be more found in the family, hehe). -Dawson 17:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Rattlesnake
It seems we've both been ignoring/avoiding the Rattlesnake page. However, it's in dire need of a drastic cleanup and re-write. First, it should be split up into Crotalus and Sistrurus. Second, it contains a number of factual errors, and third, it contains a lot of superfluous information that should be moved to, or can already be found in, Viperidae, Crotalinae and Snakebite. I think, though, that we should proceed cautiously, as this article attracts a lot of general attention, including from the anti-scientific names crowd. Got any good advice for how we might best go about this? --Jwinius 15:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably best to leave it in the "format" it is in instead of a drastic rewrite. Just correct any wrong information and clean up the grammar/repeated info. Keep it as simple as possible without a lot of scientific nomenclature, since that is probably going to be the most likely page people will want to find information on - including people that know nothing about reptiles, or that there even is such thing as a "Crotalidae". Information repeated from Viperinae, Crotalinae probably should be left, but stuff from Snakebite could be easily be pared down with a "For more information, see Snakebite." header to the section. The differences between Sistrurus and Crotalus could probably be disussed in a small section of its own without confusing the article any. -Dawson 16:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Another option would be to do a minimal cleanup of Rattlesnake and create a separate page for Crotalus. Actually, I think that's probably the best thing to do in this case. Although not always the most desireable solution, we could do the same thing in some other situations just to avoid attracting too much attention from the village elders. :-) --Jwinius 06:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been a while since I suggested this, but yesterday I created Crotalus. However, I'm afraid that I don't have any books with a general description of this genus -- only a short diagnostic in Wright & Wright (1957), and I'm not even sure if their description applies to all Crotalus species, or just to those within the United States. I'm hoping you can help me out here, since you happen to have a very nice book on this subject... :-)
 * You'll notice, that I used ITIS for the taxonomy for Crotalus. I use ITIS now for all snake articles, even though I started out using the EMBL (see my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. The Viperinae section is now totally ITIS compliant, but the stuff I did earlier for Crotalinae still mostly follows the EMBL. I'd like to change that. What do you think? --Jwinius 11:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That is certainly fine by me, though, I unfortunately have been really busy lately and haven't had a whole lot of time to do much more than revert vandalism on my watch list. When things calm down here and I have the time, I will sit down with Klauber's books and have a look at what I can add to the rattlesnake articles. -Dawson 14:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Cane Toad up for peer review
I have just put the Cane Toad article up for peer review. I would really appreciate your input. Thankyou --liquidGhoul 06:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Woops, I forgot to give the link. Here it is. --liquidGhoul 06:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Big Eyed Tree Frog
Yep, I might just change it back to Big Eyed Tree Frog and change the other species common name to something else, if I can't find something else I'll make a disambiguation page. Froggydarb 21:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Carpet python
Hi, I would like to use your photo Image:Morelia spilota.jpg to illustrate the Norwegian article about Carpet python. Unfortunately, I can't find the image on Commons, so I kindly ask you to upload it to Commons to make it available for other languages. Thank you. JohnM@no 16:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. Done. -Dawson 16:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much :-) JohnM@no 16:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wlink
Do you really think the Wikilinking of colours is necessary? Froggydarb 03:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Necessary? No, not really, but someone wrote articles on the colours and referring directly to them is somewhat pertinant to the article, does it really hurt anything? :) Personally though, when making text descriptions of animals, any visual cues people can get is helpful, especially in articles lacking photos. Which is why I also link body parts like eyes, tails, etal. -Dawson 03:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. While it may be useful to link terms that not everyone is familiar with, like maroon or rostral, is it really necessary to link simple stuff like red and eye? Anybody who has learned the first 500 words of the English language will not need to click on those links. My feeling is that adding an excessive number of wlinks is overzealous and makes a text look needlesly complicated, as well as more difficult to maintain. Another consequence is that a wlink naturally emphasizes a term. However, if the term is neither obscure nor important, wlinking it will draw undue attention to it. --Jwinius 18:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In some cases I do think that wlinking to various pieces of anatomy isn't really that important, but when you consider things like chameleons or vine snakes, which have particularily interesting eye aspects, or something like a scorpion which has a distinct tail adaptation it definitely makes sense... of course, many of the bodypart/anatomy articles are sorely lacking on information that applies to anything but mammals, and many nothing but humans. Really though, the whole point of a Wiki is to interlink points of interest, and if you write about a particular body part in an article, the link is arguably no less relative than linking to the country that a particular animal or is found in, or to the type of habitat they live in. -Dawson 19:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Endnotes and references
Would you mind having a look at Cerastes cerastes? I've added some endnote references there, which I find easy to use, but a few of these are linked simultaneously to different parts of the text and this fouls up the numbering. Any suggestions on an good way to clear this up would be very helpful. --Jwinius 18:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Have a look at Footnotes it explains how to do multiple references to the same note. -Dawson 19:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I've moved the footnotes on that page from Footnote3 format to Cite.php. The end result looks a lot better, but the drawback is that the actual text is now going to be somewhat harder to maintain. --Jwinius 17:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is kind of an ugly method, and that has been commented on many times... someone may come up with an easier format at some point in the future, but all in all, I think it works well enough. Good work. -Dawson 17:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Listing common names
Although the current consensus still seems to favor using the most common common names over scientific names for article titles (unfortunately) -- an silly and illogical policy -- I think it would be a good idea if we could agree on some way to list all of the common names in the article. Not just to illustrate the futility of the status quo, but for the sake of completeness; we already list scientific synonyms, so why not do the same for common names if an organism has more than one? --Jwinius 18:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is worth a mention on Template_talk:Taxobox to get some discussion going on how to integrate multiple common names? As is, it doesn't really emphasise it at all and for most animals it is quite important to mention, as they're known by dozens of different things depending on who you talk to or what source you look up. :P -Dawson 19:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the taxobox folks don't seem to be interested in using this tool to list common names. Perhaps they're right. I've therefore raised the issue in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life... see what they think about the idea.--Jwinius 21:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure even they realize that there is no pretty way to list off common names and that using them as "encyclopedic" silly in general. :) I'm going to continue to do it the way it is done in Atheris squamigera. It isn't pretty, but it gets the opener out of the way, explains what the article is about, then goes into an ugly list, but at least highlights them with the intent of drawing attention to them (assuming most common names would probably have redirects made out of them as well). -Dawson 21:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for helping me as you did here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FudgeDoodle (talk • contribs).


 * You are most welcome, hope you found what you were looking for. Don't forget to sign your talk page messages with four tildes (~). Cheers. -Dawson 19:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for Sternotherus odoratus
I noticed that the taxobox for this article gives an impressive list of synonyms, hinting at a very disputed taxonomic history. Could that be included in the article? Circeus 00:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't find much information on it in my initial searches, but I definitely think it would make a good addition. I will have to do some more research and see what I can come up with. -Dawson 00:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The new section already looks pretty good. Aromochelys odoratus and Cinosternum odoratum are likely recategorization of the species, while the other names look like separate descriptions.Circeus 02:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Your article, Sternotherus odoratus, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions!  + +Lar: t/c 01:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thanks - my pleasure to nominate an interesting article with great pics. --HJMG 09:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Crested gecko photos
I'm not really that impressed by most of the photos in the New Caledonian crested gecko article (so I have removed the worst), mostly the full view one which I couldn't remove as it is the only one of that view. Do you have a better photo which could replace that? Also, do you have any photos which would be interesting and add to the article. Thanks --liquidGhoul 06:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As an add-on to photo requests, I have been expanding vocal sac over the past two days. Do you have any photos of a frog with bilobular vocal sacs which are fully distended? Thanks --liquidGhoul 06:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I keep Crested Geckos, so I'm sure I can manage to come up with some more photos for the article. Is there any particular pose you would prefer besides just "full body"? I assume something naturalistic? I'll go through my catalog and see if I have anything - if not, I'll just take them out into the yard and have a photo shoot. I do have a great shot of a Crested Gecko's hemipenis, which I think would be great for the article if we can work it into the text somehow instead of just making it look like we're making a porn site for the Geico Gecko. =)


 * As for the frog photo, I don't have any shots like that which are of decent enough quality to upload. I will set up my White's Tree Frog in front of a tripod and see if I can get a shot of him doing it, but it is a difficult thing to accomplish as they always seem to stop calling as soon as you get anywhere near them. You might have better luck looking through USGS photo archives or something, surely there is at least one public domain photo that can be used. -Dawson 15:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The only other thing I can think of at the moment is a macro shot of their toes against glass. But, only if structure is obviously, do they look like this?
 * Nah, don't worry about the frog photo, White's Tree Frog has a unilobular vocal sac, and there is already a good photo of that at the article. I was after a photo of the other sort (I think Ranids have bilobular vocal sacs, and we only have one species of Ranid in Australia which I don't have any access to). I will ask around to see if anyone else has been able to capture it. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 23:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My camera isn't perfectly suited to macro shots, but yeah, their feet look just like that picture: and the hemipene shot.
 * I went through some of USGS Ranid photos and didn't find any vocal sac pictures, but I'll keep looking. There must be one out there somewhere. -Dawson 18:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

More snake photos
Hi, I uploaded your photo Image:Bogertophis subocularis.jpg to Commons. I want to use it to illustrate the Norwegian article about Trans-Pecos rat snake. Hope it's ok. JohnM@no 10:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And the photo Boiga dendrophila.jpg. Hope it's OK. Thanks. JohnM@no 11:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. -Dawson 18:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!
See you on IRC! -- Pilot| guy 22:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Vipera ammodytes
Hi, Dawson! Yesterday, I started on Vipera ammodytes after noticing that it existed in my neck of the woods and was in dire need of a complete overhaul. I got somewhat carried away though, as you'll see. Three items of interest. First, a common names section at the top of the page. The taxobox crowd don't seem to be showing much interest in my suggestion I made last week on this issue. Yeah, this solution isn't standard, but it looks very clear and seems preferable to highlighting each and every common name in the intro (Atheris). Second, the synonyms list in the taxobox is more detailed. After bulleting each entry, I mentioned who first suggested each name and in what year. In this case, it's also divided into two parts: the first is for synonyms for the species, the second for the subspecies. Third and last, I found references for everything I added to the article, except for the first paragraph of the description section that Mikie2 originally started with. No bullshit whatsoever! It was a lot of work, but I figure that if we all produce stuff like this, then our readers won't be able to accuse us of posting inaccurate information. What do you think? Looking forward to your comments.--Jwinius 13:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I really like the taxobox, and referencing all the different names that were used, though it is probably information beyond what most people would ever want, it is definitely thorough. I really dislike the list of common names right at the beginning of the article, though. Articles really need to have an "opener" explaining what people are reading about before we start listing off things, especially when some species can have dozens of common names. I don't think there is any clean way of doing it, but I do prefer the list in the opening paragraph after it is explained what the subject of the article is. I really would like to make the common names as prominent as possible though, mainly as a way of demonstrating the futility of using common names for article names.


 * As for referencing every addition, sure it is often necessary, but 3 references to say that a species has long fangs and is highly venomous? That is a little excessive, though certainly no one can accuse you of not being thorough. :) I think citations do bring a more professional/verifiable appeal to articles, and consulting many sources is good, but some points just don't need that much sourcing. :) -Dawson 18:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Synonyms list - Yeah, it's a lot of info most people are not interested in, but my feeling is that if you're gonna do it, you might as well do it properly. To people who are interested in it, not mentioning this extra info means the synonyms list is simply incomplete.

Common names list - I was afraid you wouldn't like it. But, I'm getting kind of desperate to improve the current format, as exemplified by Adenorhinos. This format scatters the common names throughout the intro and naturally favors the one that's highlighted. People who are unfamiliar with scientific names may like that, but I don't. On the other hand, if they're all highlighted, as with Atheris, the highlighting effect overall is diminished (plus it's hardly very elegant). My experimental common names list may be different, but it does address the above concerns: all of the names are up front, easy to find and equally prominent. Makes composition and maintenance easier too. Do you think it looks any better now with the horizontal line removed? :-) Notice that nothing else in the intro is highlighted either: it doesn't start with "Vipera ammodytes is a..." anymore (superfluous anyway), so there's even less to distract from the highlighted "Common names:" and subsequent list above it.

Endless references - True, six references for a set of measurements looks a bit overdone, but I guess that's also because just about every article on a given species mentions this kind of info. Nevertheless, I guess you're right in that there should be a maximum that we should try not to exceed. Three, for instance? --Jwinius 21:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Even the most technical of writing will have an introductory sentence to explain the subject of the article before going into the details, superfluous or not. If you just jump into things, it comes across as incomplete and lacking, if not downright confusing. Simple information like: "Vipera ammodytes is a species of viper..." may seem self-evident, but it introduces the subject, and explains the scope of what is to be found further in the article in one succinct sentence that, in many cases, will be all the information that a reader wanted.


 * Usually, in research, one reference to support your statement and another to back up the first reference is quite acceptable. A third, or more, if it is a topic particularly confusing or in dispute. I could see giving 3 or 4 references for a potentially disputed figure, such as LD50 or effects of the venom, but not for something like the potential lengths an animal can grow to, or its choice of diet, etc, which most sources will tend to agree on. -Dawson 22:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. We could start with "Vipera ammodytes is a species of viper..." (not highlighted) instead. However, I take it you still don't like the common names list (the way it is now) and prefer the Atheris variant instead? --Jwinius 23:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I kept mentioning Atheris, although I meant Atheris squamigera. --Jwinius 08:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the translation Dawson. As you can see, I am quite 'Lost' when it comes to foreign languages :)-- Lost 17:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * He wasn't nearly as polite as I let on, but seeing as its from an IP, there isn't much point in dwelling on it. :) -Dawson 17:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Genet
Where did you take the picture of the genet? Bibliomaniac15 21:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * An exotic pet store local to me gets them in on a regular basis, I took it there. I'd love to have one, but I just don't have the proper setup for one at present. :) -Dawson 22:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Friend
For fixing up my page when you really shouldn't have :)

I really appreciated it.

T r o u b l e s h o o t e r 00:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem at all. I know how frustrating the syntax can be sometimes. Often it takes an extra pair of eyes to debug something. :) -Dawson 00:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Fauna of New Guinea
Hey Dawson,

I have been working on this article for the last couple weeks. I was wondering two things. Do you have any references which could help, and would you be able to help expand it. Also, I am having big problems getting photos of endemic species. I don't want the article to be full of species which are also found in Australia. Do you have any photos of endemic New Guinea fauna? Thanks --liquidGhoul 01:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have access to a few references on herpetofauna, but they're very generalized and don't really cover endemic species, and sorry I don't really have any photos either. I have a few turtle pictures, some snake pictures of species found throughout the region, including Australia - but nothing endemic to New Guinea that I can think of right off hand. -Dawson 17:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Vipera albizona
Hey there, Dawson. In June of this year, you created the Vipera albizona article with a section called Conservation status. Here, you wrote that this species is listed by the IUCN Red List as as endangered "due to the species small natural range, and perceived overcollection by herpetological enthusiasts." Could you please provide a reference for this statement? It's kind of the raison d'être for this section of the article. --Jwinius 11:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be the IUCN reference that I added in the first place. V. albizona is rated as EN B1+2e, C2a which according to their criteria as of 1994 is: Endangered with "Extent of occurrence estimated to be less than 5000 km2 and populations are severely fragmented or known to exist at no more than five locations." + "Continuing decline, inferred, observed or projected in the number of mature individuals.", "A continuing decline, observed, projected, or inferred, in numbers of mature individuals and population structure due their habitat being severely fragmented with no more than 250 mature individuals." -Dawson 18:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be the reference for the "species small natural range", but what about the "perceived overcollection by herpetological enthusiasts" part? --Jwinius 19:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Could use the St. Louis Zoo for that one. :) -Dawson 20:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent! I've added a reference to the statement in the article using this link. You have a good memory. Thanks! --Jwinius 23:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, hey: there's a few more passages in the sections for Captivity and Taxonomy of this article that we don't have any references for either. Would you happen to remember where you got these as well? --Jwinius 01:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a PDF paper which talks about the taxonomy vs other species, it's kind of vague, but in general the species is not well studied. Various sources refer to it as the Anatolian viper, the mountain viper, the Turkish viper, so I don't think the "confusion" line really needs a specific reference. As for the captivity section - that was largely an inference from its rarity and protected status. I guess I don't have a direct reference for making the statement about zoos, but the species is more commonly available in Europe, there are only a handful of specimens which have made it to the US. -Dawson 19:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If the Mulder paper seems a little vague, that's probably because it was written by a Dutchman. :-) It's to support Nelson et al. (1990), countering Schätti et al. (1992) that V. albizona really should be seen as a separate species, and arguing with Bettex (1993) that the color pattern of V. albizona is actually quite different from that of V. wagneri. Anyway, I've removed the last unreferenced statements from this article and added a little to the Taxonomy section based on Mulder's study. Thanks! --Jwinius 10:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Help me!!
I took one of the greatest photographs ever and I can't identify the species. Image:Tree frog Fern Forest.jpg. Thanks! Bastiq ▼ e demandez 19:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure... but given that southern Florida is such a melting pot of species from all over the world, it could be tricky. Reasonably sure that it is Hyla, but try comparing to The Frogs & Toads of Florida. Sorry I can't be more helpful. -Dawson 23:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I told him nearly the same... Really a difficult case! By the way: I just uploaded your nice photo of Scaphiopus couchii to Commons. Now other wikis (German, Dutch) can use it, too. -- Fice 4 October 2006


 * Cool, thanks. I really need to take the time and upload many of my photos to Commons. Only a few are there so far. I really like that picture of the spadefoot, and I'm pretty sure I hold the record for the number of times my hand appears in Wikipedia articles. ;) -Dawson 17:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't be too sure - this is my hand or finger: Image:Hyla arborea, juv.jpg, Image:TriturusVulgaris1.jpg, Image:TriturusVulgaris2-.jpg, Image:BombinaBombinaJuv.jpg, Image:Triturus helveticus(male).jpg, Image:WolffiaArrhiza2.jpg, Image:BombinaVariegataJuv.jpg, Image:CyanobacteriaColl1.jpg. ;-) -- Fice 4 October 2006


 * Have a look through my uploads (slow to load) - there's at least 36 images there with my hand, arm or finger in it. :) -Dawson 20:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * All right, you are the winner! -- Fice 5 October 2006


 * Muhahaha! ;) -Dawson 16:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Amazon Milk Frog
Hey Dawson,

I was wondering whether you would be able to get another photo of one of these guys. I was amazed at how incredibly beautiful they are. The current photo is a juvenile, and I would also like a side shot to compliment the current front on. Thanks --liquidGhoul 14:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Chevrolet SS.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Chevrolet SS.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Roguegeek (talk) 08:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

wikEd


Hi, I have seen that you are using the Cacycle editor extension. This program is no longer actively maintained in favor of its much more powerful successor wikEd.

wikEd has all the functionality of the old editor plus:• syntax highlighting • nifty image buttons • morefixing buttons • paste formatted text from Word or web pages• convert the formatted text into wikicode • adjustthe font size • and much, much more.

Switching to wikEd is easy, check the detailed installation description on its project homepage. Usually it is as simple as changing every occurrence of editor.js into wikEd.js on your User:YourUsername/monobook.js page.

Cacycle 21:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Chrysopelia ornata.jpg
Hi! I'm from the German Wikipedia, and I'm looking for a Chrysopelea picture, and I have fount yours (Image:Chrysopelia_ornata.jpg), and I like it. Perhaps you can upload this picture into "Commons" so that other Wikipedias can use it? Thanks a lot, --Jens Lallensack 09:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Uploaded to commons. -Dawson 03:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

jumping spider
hi dawson,

I'm trying to determine the species of this nice picture so that i can upload it to the commons. could you tell me where exactly you took this picture? the size would also be helpful, if you remember it. thanks :) --Sarefo 02:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It was taken in Austin, Texas, USA and he couldn't have been but a cm in length, the picture is taken with a 17x macro. He was actually living on and around my desk for several months. :) -Dawson 02:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * hi, it's a Phidippus mystaceus GB Edwards (who works on Phidippus a lot) determined it. i moved the image to the commons: commons:Image:Phidippus mystaceus.jpg cheers --Sarefo 17:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Automobiles Notification
Hi Dawson, you were on the list of members at WikiProject Automobiles and we are introducing a new way of listing members, as the old list was becoming too long. Our new method involves having all of our members in a category.

To add yourself to the category just add the userbox to your user page by putting   where you want the userbox. Alternatively if you don't like the userbox you can add   to your userpage.

If you no longer wish to be a member of the project, simply don't add the userbox or category, there's no pressure. Thanks for your time, James086Talk 05:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Chicken Soup for the Pet Lover's Soul
I've added the "prod" template to the article Chicken Soup for the Pet Lover's Soul, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Chicken Soup for the Pet Lover's Soul. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Fram 13:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)²

West Norwood Cemetery
Hi Dawson, a while ago you helpfully started off the list of 'notables' buried there, including one Patsy Smart. We are trying to trace her, could you let me know what the source of this information was? Many thanks Ephebi 15:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Find A Grave - it is quite an interesting resource for such things. -Dawson 17:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * many thanks - now to find out what Genet's source was! Ephebi 16:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)