User talk:Maias/Archive 4

Disambiguation
Hi Maias. Given this edit and this edit, you may be interested in the current discussion taking place at Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 05:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Mattinbgn, thanks for the heads up. I'll have a look. Maias (talk) 05:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
Your addition to Len Lawson has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. ''A fair bit of the crime section seems to be copied directly from the SMH article. Please ensure that you rewrite everything - do not cut and paste.'' The-Pope (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hope
somebody is giving you prizes or stars for your continued impressive contributions!!! I am just throwing the pilbara regional thing on some of your recents - cheers SatuSuro 01:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, SatuSuro. I sometimes get puzzled over the WA regions, especially when they get mixed up with the IBRA regions.  I am currently tidying up places which are Ramsar sites (or within them), and there are still a couple to go in WA before going on to the other states.  Tas, especially, has a few to do. Cheers. Maias (talk) 01:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey your intrepid consistency (DYK's and bird stuff) is close to legend-like - I have put great sandy in kimberley and pilbara - yeah you can blame any problems with the regional thing on me - it is (the article regions of wa) a work in eternal process as the various bodies create their own weird and wonderful variations - unfortunately (or fortunately) my map making skills here are non existence - otherwise I'd render some of the more ridiculous regions into graphic form - as for Tassie I could spend a whole wikipedia life just trying to fix some of that stuff up SatuSuro 02:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK problem
Hello! Your submission of Eighty Mile Beach at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  Little  Mountain  5   16:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK credits
You are filling them out wrong. When you are the creator or expander of an article, you use DYKmake with your name as the second field. You don't leave the second field blank and then use DYKnom with yourself as the nominated party. DYKnom is only for people who nominate other people's hooks. Gatoclass (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the info. Maias (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Eighty Mile Beach
The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Toolibin Lake
Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Almost...
Got out to forrestdale lake today - there is a house less than 1km north which goes into part of my wild misspent youth, it would be interesting to have taken some tragic comic memories for a walk while trying to get some piccies... :) - but didnt get there today (brilliant weather for photography too) - for neatness I always like to tie any articles about country locations into the regions of wa - swan coastal plain leaves me a bit short, as we have the country regions - but the coastal plain is a bit like the darling scarp/ range category - sort of is in the perth metro but creeps both north and south into areas outside of the perth metro region. Anyways scuse me if i fiddle with stuff - I definitely am always trying to empty the articles with 'geography of wa' as a category as it should be a parent category to locations SatuSuro 13:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And yes, if you are in the area it would be good to get pics of those lakes - Forrestdale and Thomsons - also Bechers wetlands - I suppose that they are getting a bit of rainfall to fill them after the summer dryout... Maias (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hope to take another intrepid wa commons photographer with me in the next week or so, and no, our soil dryness index according to my fire control officer in my fire brigade is still v dry - and he is complaining about dangerous dryness and extended fire control issues SatuSuro 13:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Becher Point Wetlands
Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Migratory birds: Wintering redux
On my talk page a few years ago you were wondering about the use of wintering and attempting to find a more hemispheric-neutral term for it. I have thought about the matter and I think the best approach is to consider the matter from the point of view of the bird. IMO this solves the problem neatly. They do spend the winter away from their breeding grounds so using the established terminology of wintering is the best approach here. The only problem with this is for those few migratory birds which breed in the south and winter in the north; for those few articles I have checked (see: Great Shearwater and Wilson's Storm-petrel), articles on such birds tend to avoid using wintering. For such birds, a consistent approach should not shy away from using wintering just because it refers to the southern winter. From the point of view of the bird, it is wintering in the north, so why not just state this? -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 07:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess I don't like the ambiguity of "wintering" when used with regard to interhemispheric migrants. It could just as well be "summering".  "Wintering" is fine for intrahemispheric migrants and, I think, is best reserved for them.  Maias (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Bays
Good catch - have put the state tags in the templates - and have linked the WA ones to 'coastline of wa' rather than 'geography of' as in the others - (even managed to chalk up a speedy delete accident at NT) - good stuff - I have also tried to remove parent/child cat combos as in Tas - excellent - the oz project needs heaps and heaps like this - better to manage and much neater - well done! SatuSuro 01:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have created Category:Coastline_of_Australia - but hell that is going to take ages to develop - at least it exists as I will have to juggle heaps - it is in my mind a defendable expansion out of the state geography cats that always get lumbered with everything and anything SatuSuro 01:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support. The "Bays of Aus" category was approaching 200 so I thought it was was time for the subdivision. The coastline cat is interesting - I guess it should cover islands close to shore, but what about those really far out - such as Macquarie for Tas and Lord Howe for NSW? Cheers. Maias (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Anytime - It applies to the usual close to shore stuff - abrolhos and rottnest are in but Macquarie and Lord Howe do not belong - bit like the traditional notion of what you can see from shore (or almost) - it has worked so far for the WA context - as we do have the longest single states coast - and ties in stuff that doesnt need to clog up geography cats - I have been ruthless with the WA one (main geography cat) and will eventually get to the other ones... SatuSuro 02:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Forrestdale Lake
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Thomsons Lake
The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Lake piccies
Might be delayed for a bit - various factors have got in the way - more like end of next week or after - sorry about that SatuSuro 09:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks for the thought. Maias (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ord River Floodplain
Hello! Your submission of Ord River Floodplain at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lakes Argyle and Kununurra Ramsar Site
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ord River Floodplain Ramsar Site
The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Skype
You might note that at least one of your recent edits also introduced some extraneous text around some numerical characters. This may be due to a combination of your browser and Skype trying to identify and highlight telephone numbers. Thank you. This editand this--Rumping (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Rumping; thanks for letting me know about the problem. Your good work is appreciated. Maias (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Leonard Cutler Sanford
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Western Silvereye
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Galathea expeditions
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for New Zealand Musk Duck
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Year categories
Hi, I saw you added the category "Animals described in 1945" to Noronha skink (and 2009 to Trachylepis tschudii). Is that correct? After all, the species were described in 1839 (and 1845), and only the nomina nova were introduced in 1945 and 2009. (Apart from that, I must say I don't like these categories anyway: I think it's pretty much useless to categorize species by the year scientists happened to give a name to them.) Ucucha 05:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Ucucha - I was using the dates in the taxoboxes - for the nomina nova in these cases, as you say. If this is inappropriate, please remove them.  I think the categories have potential utility in looking at the history of discovery, but I agree that, with the nomina nova, they are probably not useful. Cheers. Maias (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the category for Noronha skink now (it's Today's Featured Article after all, and it's a little more important that it doesn't show questionable information). Do you think species with preoccupied and replaced names shouldn't have the categories after all or that they should have the date of the original name? (And what of suppressed senior synonyms?) Ucucha 06:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, it all gets a bit complicated, doesn't it? My intuitive preference would be for the earliest name referring unambiguously to the taxon, whatever the current incarnation. However, I do not have a simple answer. Maias (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That does sound reasonable, and I've made the change to the two skinks. But it gets even more complicated if we take into account that people did also describe species before 1758—few if any of Linnaeus's species in the 1758 edition of Systema Naturae were truly new. There are other borderline cases: for example, Hylaeamys megacephalus was first described in 1801 in a work that didn't use scientific names, and given its first scientific name in 1814 on the basis of that 1801 description. Perhaps it would be more precise to call the categories "Animals named in X" to get rid of such complexities. Ucucha 06:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess one would have to stick to names from 1758 onwards, and to those that would have been considered to be properly published at the time. I did not create the categories, but it might be worth raising the issue at WP:CFD. Maias (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * See WT:CFD. Ucucha 10:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Nematoceras sulcatum
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Nematoceras sulcatum, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.thelaw.tas.gov.au/tocview/index.w3p;cond=;doc_id=83++1995+AT@EN+20100714000000;histon=;prompt=;rec=-1;term=. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Molluscs of Mauritius
Hi Maias, How are you? It's always nice to speak to another naturalist. I also am a bit of a bird fancier, but not as much as I am a mollusc fancier! I see you recently created a category for the molluscs of Mauritius, which currently contains only species that are considered to be endemic to Mauritius. At WikiProject Gastropods we strongly suggest that people create list articles instead of these kind of geographic categories (which are not nearly as informative and can be rather problematic in several ways). I see the category currently contains both marine and non-marine mollusks. Normally we would create one list article a List of non-marine molluscs of Mauritius, and another List of marine molluscs of Mauritius. These list articles do not have to be very fancy at all to start off with. If you would like to try to create stubs for these two list articles for Mauritius, and need some help, please feel free either to ask me for help or ask at the Project talk page, here. All very best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Invertzoo, thanks for the insight on the approach of the gastropod project to such things - something that I am happy to work with. To explain what I was doing: I do find that fauna categories can be useful when trying to work on the fauna of oceanic islands.  I agree that lists rather than categories may be desirable as an end, but categories can help along the way, especially when taking a holistic and inclusive approach to such faunas.  However, when one looks at a general fauna category and finds it overwhelmed by a particular group (moths of Hawaii is an example), I find it makes sense to shunt off such a group into some logical subcategory for convenience.  I apologise for any inconvenience caused, and I do appreciate that that you have taken the trouble to explain it to me.  Cheers. Maias (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Len Lawson
Hi. Concerns were raised by another contributor about the paraphrasing in Len Lawson. As I work heavily in copyright matters on Wikipedia, he brought his concerns to me, and I'm afraid that I agree that the closeness to the sources is a problem. I think that the article needs to be rewritten. Please see the conversation about this at Talk:Len Lawson. The article is currently blanked and listed at the copyright problems board, where it will be revisited in about a week. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Moonriddengirl; thanks for letting me know. Maias (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Nematoceras dienemum
 — Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Monotypic bird genera
Thank you for adding to the category I created. If you have any suggestions, please let me know.

cheers, Bruinfan12 (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries - thanks for the feedback. Maias (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Canarian Egyptian Vulture
Hi, posting this since you are the primary editor of the article. I was wondering if the contents of the article could not be merged into Egyptian Vulture since apart from the distribution, there is little different in most other aspects from the other two subspecies which are dealt with in the main article itself. Shyamal (talk) 07:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Shyamal - thanks for the query. I have no major problem with the merge as long as the information relating solely to the subspecies is retained in fairly discrete form as it is a distinct taxon - and could possibly be split sometime.  I see you are massively improving the main article, which is looking good. Cheers, Maias (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have moved most of the contents back. Not sure how the DYK history should be handled. Feel free to add anything that I may have missed. Shyamal (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries - looks good. Maias (talk) 06:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Wireless Hill
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 06:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Maias! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created  is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Clifford Brodie Frith -

DYK for Kermadec Red-crowned Parakeet
The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

A PDF
Hi Maias, I found this pdf while I was web researching on a Sri Lankan national park. Thought it would be helpful to you. Check out. Best-- Chanaka L  ( talk ) 15:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Chanakal - thanks for that link. Very interesting and useful info. Cheers. Maias (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please to hear that. Good luck.-- Chanaka L  ( talk ) 04:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Query
Why?, postdlf (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Postdlf; with the bird project it is standard practice to redirect the scientific name of a bird taxon to the common name if there is one that is clear and widely accepted, which is not always the case, especially with higher taxa. With monotypic genera the redirect is to the common name of the species concerned; it is not necessary to have a separate genus article as it would be redundant. Cheers. Maias (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with Allenia as a redirect. But it's accepted practice to categorize redirects in certain instances (the relevant guideline is here), which does not turn that redirect into an article or make it stop functioning as a redirect.  Here, it makes more sense to categorize the genus redirect because the category is for monotypic genera; the Scaly-breasted Thrasher is not a monotypic genus, but rather a species in a monotypic genus.  Another solution might be to rename the category to Category:Bird species in monotypic genera or something like that.  postdlf (talk) 06:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I follow your reasoning but disagree about the need. In any case, it is a departure from what has been standard practice with WP:BIRD; not that there is any formal guideline as far as I know.  May I suggest you bring the subject up for discussion at the project talkpage so that we may reach some consensus on it? Maias (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion started here. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Dulit Frogmouth
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Alfred Marshall Bailey
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 18:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Capricorn Silvereye
Hello! Your submission of Capricorn Silvereye at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Thelmadatter (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Capricorn Silvereye
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

South Island Snipe DYK hook
Hi, I've reviewed your submission of South Island Snipe for DYK, and while it all checks out fine, I have suggested an expanded hook. See your nomination's entry for details. Nice work, by the way! --Avenue (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Snares Snipe
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for South Island Snipe
The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Pachyplichas jagmi
Although this was described from fossil remains, it is typically treated as conspecific with the Stout-legged Wren in modern works. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  04:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Is it considered a subspecies? Maias (talk) 04:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dunno. I'll try and find out. Not a great deal is known or written about them at any rate. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  05:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hakawai
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Annie Meinertzhagen
Gatoclass (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Bay Thrush
Orlady (talk) 06:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tristan Thrush
Orlady (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK query
Hi Maias, please see T:TDYK. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've suggested a new hook after adding more details to the article, someone else will need to review the article now, but could you take a look and maybe comment? SmartSE (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Smartse - no problems with your suggested hook. Thanks for improving the article with more refs. Cheers. Maias (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for James Greenway
The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Walter Goodfellow
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Biota of Maui
Hi. I see that you created this category. Would you be willing to provide some information on how the category should be used? There is a lot of crossover with the flora of x/fauna of y/animals of z categories and I'm wondering how we are supposed to use these effectively. Viriditas (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Viriditas - if you are saying that there are inconsistencies in the use of such categories, then I agree. The category was created for animals and plants found on Maui, though I see it as most useful with reference to endemic biota, or biota with some special connection with the island, rather than everything that occurs there.  Maybe it should be renamed to reflect this.  There seems to be a rough hierarchy of this kind of category - from 'environment of...' or 'natural history of...' through 'biota', and (for example) 'animals', 'insects', 'moths' etc., with the level used corresponding roughly to the number of articles covered.  So if the 'biota of Maui' category gets too large, it can be forked into subcats.  Maybe you can suggest ways of improving the system, as it seems to have evolved in a somewhat ad hoc manner. Maias (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you go to Category:Biota, it looks like the Biota cats are only used at the top-level, such as by country/continent and conservation status. For example, the flora and fauna of Hawaii are listed as children of Category:Biota of the United States.  It looks like both categories are unorganized and need to be sorted by species/endemicism/lists etc. In this case, we would not need a "Biota of Maui" category, but we can certainly create a Category:Biota of Hawaii as a child of Category:Biota of Oceania and go from there.  Per the above classification, we don't really need a separate "Biota" cat for each island, just different flora, fauna, species, ecozone cats.  My understanding is that when the term is used, it is generally (although not always) used in reference to all of the species in the given region.  I'll make a few adjustments and get back to you. Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Inocarpus fagifer
The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Greetings! Why has no one left a single message on your talk page?
Hello there. I really like the way you have set out your user page! I may use some of your structural ideas for mine when I have done more on WP. I found your page by following up Bill Harney
 * --Greenmaven (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Greenmaven. Thanks for your message; friendly greetings are very much appreciated.  You appear to have inadvertently created a new subpage of my talk page for your message, so I have moved it to my talk page, which is  here, as well as copying this, my reply, to your talk page.  I hope you are enjoying editing Wikipedia. Cheers. Maias (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Phreatia listeri
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Phreatia listeri, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.aadet.com/article/Christmas_Island.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Extremely small categories
Hi, Maias! I noticed a few of your contributions and found a couple of the categories, you've created recently, specifically and. I was wondering whether you were planning on creating additional articles for those categories in the near future. Unlike Commons, we don't typically create new categories for genera unless the categories are large enough. Definitions vary, but I've seen people say that if the category doesn't have at least 10 articles, it's not viable. Typically these taxa are then categorized in the next logical taxa category, e.g. . In fact, I would suggest that most subcategories of be up-merged and deleted. Your thoughts? Rkitko (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Rkitko - thanks for the message. You have a point about about small cats, though I don't see any problem with them.  There is certainly plenty of scope for greatly expanding the number of articles in the above-mentioned categories, though I am not intending to do so in the near future.  Please feel free to implement WP:Plants policy and delete if necessary. Cheers. Maias (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Claoxylon indicum
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Claoxylon indicum, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.natureloveyou.sg/Claoxylon%20indicum/Main.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Your edits on ravens article
Hello, may I please ask you to discuss the changes you make at the talk page before you make those. Your changes are too big to make them with no discussion. I will check on your response at your talk page.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk)


 * Hi Mbz1 - with regard to my recent edits, they have really only been layout changes, in order to get a more logical narrative, and without significant changes to content. As I see it, the article has two main parts - one about the birds as they are now along with recent and verifible history - the other being the legends, folklore and superstitions surrounding them.  I have also tweaked the two lead paragraphs so they act as a summary of, or introduction to, the main part of the article (per WP guidelines on leads) as a step towards possibly nominating it for GA in future.  I have tried to reflect this in the layout, but please revert if you disagree. I apologise if you feel that I have been treading on your toes. Cheers. Maias (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Maias, there's nothing for you to apologize for, and I'd like to thank you for working on the article! I was not right in my assessment of your editing of the article. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Bush Heritage Australia
Hi, my name is Catherine, and I work for Bush Heritage Australia. I'm aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, so won't be editing the Bush Heritage page directly. I'm just interested in providing any material or info that can improve the quality of the BHA page. (And I'm also a Wikipedia newbie - trying to follow the rules, but very open to feedback!) I noticed that you're the person responsible for most of the work on the BHA page of late. Wondered if an appropriate-resolution BHA logo might be of use - if so, I can upload. Anything else I can provide, just let me know. --Catherinejh (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Catherine. Yes, putting the logo in the srticle would be good.  I guess that BHA would not want the logo to be open to anything anyone might want to do to it, in which case it would have to be under a 'fair use' licence, which means that it could not be put on WikiCommons but would need to be uploaded directly to the article.  So feel free to do that.  It would also be good to have photos illustrating the various BHA reserves on their separate articles (e.g. of habitat, landscape, wildlife etc; they would really need to be on Commons, so you should become familiar with WikiPedia's copyright guidelines, if you are not already so.  Thanks for your help.  Cheers. Maias (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Cycas rumphii
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Announcement
Hello! I'm The Arbiter, one of the coordinators for WikiProject Zoo. I am proud to announce the launch of a new portal: Portal:Zoos and Aquariums! ZooPro, ZooFari, and I worked hard to create a new portal for information on zoos, aquariums, and the associated projects and articles on Wikipedia. If you could head on over, take a look at our work, and maybe learn some more about zoos and Wikiproject Zoo, it would be great! Cheers and Happy Editing!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Arbiter (talk) at 03:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC).

Tighter cats
Saw the Heard cat pages crawl across my watch list - despite my new year cleanup of my watch list! - trust you are well and the new year finds you well - I never did get down to those lakes south of Perth - forestdale and... - will try in the beginning of the wet season here SatuSuro 02:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and a very happy New Year to you too. Yes, it's all a bit soggy here - sw WA seems about the only part of Oz not partly under water.  Cheers. Maias (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Revert?
Why'd you remove my notification? Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Aaadddaaammm - I apologise for acting somewhat hastily; I have reverted myself. It's very late in my time zone. Cheers. Maias (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Maias, for being reasonable! Love your work. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Cape Expedition
Great work with this article - it's a fascinating story. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Yes, I do have an interest in the history of the subantarctic islands. Maias (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Wairau Bar
Thanks for reorganizing the page-much easier to read now.Claudia R.Feb 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.153.162 (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Claudia. No worries. Cheers. Maias (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Orthotrichaceae
The genus Muelleriella has been synonymized. Wikipedia follows the Goffinet classification, and that genus does not appear in the updated list of genera. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What has it been synonymised with? Maias (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I presume it is back in Orthotrichum, but you'd need to contact Goffinet to be sure. The genus did appear in his 2000 classification, but has since been eliminated.  I do not have a copy of the 2008 edition in which the genus' removal might have been annotated.  However, I find that Dr. Goffinet responds quickly to e-mail. --EncycloPetey (talk)


 * I tracked down the relevant publication: Goffinet, B., A. J. Shaw, C. J. Cox, N. J. Wickett & S. B. Boles. (2004). Phylogenetic inferences in the Orthotrichoideae (Orthotrichaceae, Bryophyta) based on variation in four loci from all genomes. Monogr. Syst. Bot. Missouri Bot. Gard. 98: 270–289. You can see all the new combinations in the Index of Bryophytes 2001-2004. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. Maias (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)