User talk:M. A. Broussard

Welcome!
Hello, M. A. Broussard, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Animalparty! (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Excellent images
The images you have added to Ypresiomyrma and Macabeemyrma as far as I can tell look excellent! Thanks for the additions. Do you have any intention to look into Avitomyrmex or any other extinct ants? Burklemore1 (talk) 12:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I might look into doing fossil reconstructions for other ants as I have the Archibald (2006) paper. I'll have to look around to see what needs attention the most.M. A. Broussard (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to a PDF file which could give you an idea with Usomyrma if you feel like doing that. There are no free images but there are some excellent drawings and photos there. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Or just go to my sandbox and do whatever you wish to reconstruct. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Very cool illustrations, thank you from another editor! Agreed, Avitomyrmex is the most important ant article without images in term of Good/Featured Article rating. Kevmin probably knows about other important fossil ants that need illustrations. jonkerz ♠talk 11:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There are a number of extinct ant taxa that could use images, I think the genus level ones would be the starting place.-- Kev min  § 20:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Invite to the African Destubathon
Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most geography, wildlife and women articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 55 African countries, so should be enjoyable! Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African wildlife articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance. If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing any article related to a topic you often work on, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Might be a good way to work on fleshing out articles you've long been meaning to target and get rewarded for it! Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 04:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Diadasia bee photo
Hello M. A. Broussard, You changed my caption directing attention to the bee's eye, to a general close-up of the insect itself. Would you be kind enough to explain to me the rational in that edit? I have much better close-ups of the bee itself pollinating that I could have up-loaded, however, the only reason I uploaded that particular photo, was the glorious shining detail of its eye, which as a matter of fact, is really the only distinguishable body part jumping out at you in the photo. Thanks in advance. Pocketthis (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The primary reason I edited the caption was to shorten the caption and remove the phrases "click on this photo to enlarge" and "immersed in pollen" as well as to italicize Diadasia. I guess I removed the part about the eye simply because the insect was so small in the thumbnail. As an entomologist, when I think of a close-up of an insect eye, I think of an image like this. The image you uploaded, while nice, is no more of an eye close-up than the picture in the taxobox. Happy to discuss further if you feel it's warranted, though. M. A. Broussard (talk) 06:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, I understand, it was more of an editing habit than an edit. I had a close up cropped and sharpened image to replace that with. You jumped the gun here. OK, that's fine. I'd also like to remind you that the taxbox bee is DEAD, and his eyes are like lead. No life. Totally different photos of the eye. It always amazes me how science and art see totally different worlds. You see body parts, and I see beauty...lol. As far as the Opuntia basilaris, I never noticed the mistake. It's: Opuntia engelmannii. They grow wild on my my property, been photographing them for decades. P.S. If you'd like to remove the eye photo completely, that would be fine as well. I'm sure I will have a better replacement this Spring anyway, however, that eye caught the light "just right" wish I was closer or had my 200mm with me. Happy editing. Pocketthis (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm actually an artist as well as a scientist--just making a comment about scale; Wikipedia's thumbnails are so tiny that you have to either seriously crop a picture or have an extreme close-up to distinguish what's going on! I very much enjoy good photos of insects, especially live ones, as, I agree, the manicured photos of dead specimens are often missing key features that the living insect would have. Best of luck getting a closer close-up, I know from personal experience that bees don't like to cooperate with cameras! By the way, you should definitely include some of the details you're writing in the thumbnails on the original images' description (plant sp., location, etc) and possibly consider submitting them to iNaturalist if you haven't already. It's a neat citizen science project used to map and track populations of different plants and animals, and your photos with IDs would be great over there as well. Cheers. M. A. Broussard (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll follow up and check out your suggestions. I just ordered a set of Nikon Macro filters that will screw on my 67mm 18-70. They should be here before the buds stop blooming. My property here in Joshua Tree is swarming with bees. There's no Bee shortage here. I get two types: our Mr. Diadasia, and the African Killer variety. The later is much more aggressive than the former, and I have the scars to prove it. In the meantime, as you are already aware, I made a collage of two photos taken yesterday. I like them both, but originally decided on the first one because there was something very eerie about that eye almost being the only thing you can really make out in that photo, however, I am now much happier that both are being displayed as a multiple position shot, until, and if I get lucky when I get my macro kit. Thanks and contact me anytime. P.S. I was just busting your buns about the "art/science" reference, however, I did find it amusing that you seemed to like "ole' dead eye" in the "Taxidermy" box better than the live animal. Your friend, Jessie Eastland: Pocketthis (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Arunus
I am working through the "wasps" to put Automatic taxoboxes in as many genera as I can, currently (and for the forseeable!) working on Eulophidae. I have a dilemma in that there are seemingly two insect genera called Arunus, Arunus which is a Eulophid wasp with a single species A. indicus described in 1997 and a beetle genus Arunus which has two species and which was described in 1995. As far as I understand it the beetle has priority in the name so the wasp genus must have ben renamed but I can't find the new name. What would you recommend? In addition to not being able to find the new name I can't find any source which pins down the taxonomy of the Eulophid genus.Quetzal1964 talk 11:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

There are replacement names, Pradeshia and Pradeshia indica if it's desired to keep the wasp in its own monotypic genus (published here). Or it can be treated as Eulophinusia indica which is what the Universal Chalcoidea Database does. See here for UCD list of genera synonymous with Eulophinusia. Plantdrew (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Both the beetle and the wasp are very uncommon in the literature. I am wondering if Arunus should redirect to Arunus (beetle) instead--or if perhaps the beetle page should be moved over the plain page, since it is the single valid name at this point in time. Thoughts? M. A. Broussard (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Arunus should either be a disambiguation page or the title of the article on the beetle. I think it would be better as the title for the beetle. Plantdrew (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Done, it is now the title for the beetle genus. Quetzal1964 (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Millsaps Pollination
Hello M. A. Broussard,

Thanks for your help and good wishes for the course! We're working with the WikiEdu foundation  and we're actually excited to start from blank pages (as it's in some ways a lower bar, and in others a really cool challenge), and avoiding the highest-trafficked pages such as for carpenter bees, since the students are on their first Wikipedia adventures. I hope as their edits go live in the next week you'll take a moment to review them! Muniche (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'd be happy to look over students' edits as they go live and give them a bit of assistance as needed with sources and formatting and so on. I understand staying away from high traffic pages as well, some editors are not very friendly to users with <500 edits. I'm glad you've chosen some lovely bee genera for the students to expand on--Agapostemon is one of my favorites. Cheers! M. A. Broussard (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

help accept a pending submission on NZ Hymenoptera
Hi, I am hoping you can help accept a pending submission on NZ Hymenoptera that has in review since April? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Checklist_of_Hymenoptera_in_New_Zealand I would really like to add more to this page; and then start linking to other wiki pages; plus I just found the Hymenoptera_task_force page thnx Kiwibugz (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * - I'm sorry you've had to wait so long. Unfortunately I don't have permissions to publish the article. You can continue editing the page and adding taxa to it, which will be a great reference. You can use the page to keep track of articles to improve in the meantime; most species articles for New Zealand insects have next to no information on them--being in NZ myself, I'd be keen to see you expand some of those articles with references to the literature! TERRAIN is a good resource, so is Manaaki Whenua, but both can be a bit skimpy with details. It's much easier to edit existing articles than to create new ones--I'd encourage you to give it a go! Pages like Megarhyssa don't even say that they occur in NZ! Let me know if you need any help. Cheers! M. A. Broussard (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Insect redirects has been nominated for discussion
Category:Insect redirects, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor(talk) 19:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)