Jump to content

User talk:Burklemore1/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative.

Hello, Burklemore, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.

Why can't I edit some particular pages?
Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.
Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?
Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.
How do I create an article?
See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.
How do I create citations?
  1. Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
  2. Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
  3. In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
  4. Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
  5. Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
  6. In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
  7. If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?
A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

AshLin (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Myrmecia fulvipes) has been reviewed!

[edit]

Thanks for creating Myrmecia fulvipes, Burklemore!

Wikipedia editor Jrcrin001 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good start!

To reply, leave a comment on Jrcrin001's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

DYK nomination for Myrmecia nigrocincta

[edit]

Nominated for DYK here. AshLin (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Myrmecia nigrocincta

[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Indomyrma bellae

[edit]

Hi, I'm MCaecilius. Burklemore, thanks for creating Indomyrma bellae!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. A source other than the discoverer's journal article would be most ideal.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. M. Caecilius (talk) 08:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adetomyrma clarivida

[edit]

I reviewed this article and could not find any reference to Adetomyrma clarivida in the source you cited. Can you please clarify? Flat Out let's discuss it 10:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Acanthognathus rudis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • , Jr., & W. W. Kempf (1969). ''A Revision of the Neotropical Dacetine Ant Genus Acanthognathus (Hymenoptera: Formicidae.'' Psyche 76(2): 87-109.</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Burklemore (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Burklemore1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! AnupamTalk 08:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons why you should join WikiProject Christianity:

  1. Obtain answers to your questions about Christianity on the noticeboard (watch)
  2. Work side by side with friendly and welcoming editors who are passionate about Christianity
  3. Free subscription to our informative newsletter
  4. Explore Christianity in depth with one of our 30 specialty groups
  5. Get recognition for your hard work and valuable contributions
  6. Find out how to get your article promoted Featured class at the Peer Review Department
  7. Choose from a collection of over 55,000 articles to improve

Burklemore1, you are invited to the Teahouse

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi Burklemore1! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ant Barnstar

[edit]

Hello Burklemore! Well done on all the new ant articles. Much appreciated. You should check out the ant task force; as of writing it is not very active, but that will change some time in the future :) jonkerz ♠talk 14:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Ant Barnstar
For your tireless hard work in creating tons of new ant-related articles, you are hereby awarded this Ant Barnstar. Well done! jonkerz ♠talk 14:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved messages

[edit]

I just noticed that this is your new account and not User:Burklemore. I've moved the above post from there. Feel free to move the rest of your user talk messages to this page and redirect the old page to this one like you did with your userpage. jonkerz ♠talk 15:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right-handed triple

[edit]

Not the least nonsense, important concept in physics and geometry; but we have an article--I redirected. DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Canberra College
added a link pointing to Melrose High School
Edward Manfred
added a link pointing to Manly

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues have been fixed. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Canberra College, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coach. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Canberra College, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gymnasium and Amalgamation. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Myrmecia nigrocincta

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Myrmecia nigrocincta you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Myrmecia nigrocincta
added a link pointing to Redbacks
Senna acclinis
added a link pointing to Senna

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems fixed. Burklemore1 (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Myrmecia nigrocincta

[edit]

The article Myrmecia nigrocincta you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Myrmecia nigrocincta for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cwmhiraeth -- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jack jumper ant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lawns. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, fixed now. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging myself

[edit]

This will take years to get done, but I intend to create all articles on ant or ant related topics. Their recognition in comparison to wasps and bees seemed to be diminishing, and only one article about an ant that I know of (Myrmecia nigrocincta, that I created) only appears to be listed as a good article, while the Jack jumper ant article has being nominated by myself.

Articles will of course start as stubs, but I WILL work on them. If the JJA article GA nomination is successful, I will move on to ants like the Sugar ant, Meat ant and Green head ant. Will be fun, and I will learn many new things. Burklemore1 (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Like! Great challenge with a noble goal! I can confirm that Myrmecia nigrocincta is the only ant-related WP:GA, although Ant was previously listed as a GA, but is now a Featured Article. An unrelated funny thing: Gamergate has been viewed more than 12000 times in the last three days -- unfortunately, this is not a sign of renewed interest in myrmecology, but "GamerGate" refers to a recent controversy in the gaming community! jonkerz ♠talk 23:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, I was not aware of how many views it was getting, but oh well, at least it is getting the views, even if it wasn't what they wanted! I intend on doing this challenge whenever I have spare time, and when school work isn't bothering me. I appreciate you agree with this challenge. As for Myrmecia nigrocincta being the only GA article, and Ant being a FA, it seems many ant articles need a bit of attention, I thought there would be more GA articles on ants.Burklemore1 (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Myrmecia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Observations on the diet and feeding habits of the short-beaked Echnida Tachyglossus Aculeatus) in Tasmania|date=2009|publisher=The Tasmanian Naturalist|location=[[Collinsvale, Tasmania]]|page=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Burklemore1 (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To do list

[edit]

Finally, I can focus on some expansion and creation. I recently created Myrmica salina, only to realise it was once created six years ago but was deleted, and I cannot find any archive to see why. But it doesn't matter, the article has some good information with many sources, and that is a prime example of how big I intend an article to be (not averagely, but only for those which have been poorly studied). If there is an ant related article that needs attention or expanding, you can suggest it here if you would like. I will get onto it. However, it doesn't have to be ant related, as I have fixed citation issues and expanded the articles of Lovett Tower and Woden Town Centre. Burklemore1 (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be expanded

[edit]

Created or expanded

[edit]
  • Hey there just wanted to let you know that I already expanded the stub on Megaponera analis (previously known as Pachycondyla analis). So feel free to tick it of your list or see if you can add some more, by the way great work on expanding the ant section in wikipedia (I myself, being an entomologist working with ants, find that especially satisfying). --ETF89 (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the article, and you did a magnificent job on it, well done! I will try and find some extra information if I can, but it already appears that you have covered pretty much everything. Thanks for that though, I will pretty much tick it off the list, giving you credit. Burklemore1 (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Myrmica salina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Siberia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Jack jumper ant

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jack jumper ant you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Species list script

[edit]

Heey, I know you're busy ATM, but you may find this python script for generating lists of genera/species from AntWeb's catalog useful when creating new genus articles. Cheers, jonkerz ♠talk 14:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long response, the trip was a lot longer than I expected. I am back, however! But I may not be as active for a bit now, so I do hope the reviewers at the jack jumper ant article understand, if they are reading this. But anyway, thanks for this, it helps a lot!Burklemore1 (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack jumper

[edit]

Hello Burklemore1; just letting you know that I copyedited your article jack jumper. There were a lot of grammar mistakes, and I have fixed what I can, but could I just get you to clean up the comments I left behind in the article, as well as fact check to make sure the edits I made were correct. Hope we can get this to GA status. Thanks! Thennicke (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! I should have actually requested a copy edit before hand, and I am not great with grammar, although I hope the article I wrote didn't give assumptions of my overall grammar skills, but again I appreciate you taking your own time to fix it. Another reason for sloppy writing is because I type really fast, and that means more errors without my notice, so I have learnt for future GA nominations to request copy edits. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Jack jumper ant

[edit]

The article Jack jumper ant you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Jack jumper ant for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE copyediting request

[edit]

Hi Burklemore,

I'm just dropping by to let you know that I'm  Done copyediting Jack jumper ant. If you have any comments, please let me know. Thanks, --Biblioworm 20:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's greatly appreciated. Burklemore1 (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Heteroponera crozieri) has been reviewed!

[edit]

Thanks for creating Heteroponera crozieri, Burklemore1!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

It is somewhat unclear which ant (H. crozieri or H. leae) is more southerly distributed.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A page you started (Eotapinoma gracilis) has been reviewed!

[edit]

Thanks for creating Eotapinoma gracilis, Burklemore1!

Wikipedia editor DocumentError just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

good job

To reply, leave a comment on DocumentError's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

From Myrmicinae to Ponerinae

[edit]

Re the badly needed Myrmicinae update: I'm overwhelmed by the amount of work needed in this area, mostly because all seconday sources have not had the time to update their databases (which will improve with time). For time being, I'll focus on the ponerines and try to expand an article or two, but feel free to use "my" sandbox list in any way you see fit. Oh, also, yes, like the synonymized genera, all tribes should also be redirected to their new names. jonkerz ♠talk 15:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonkerz: I successfully finished the tribe synonyms in my sandbox, but I will start redirecting them all (including the non-existing pages for some former tribes) once the generas lists of species are done, since some have been moved around, so I will work relisting the species under the genera on my sandbox, using the list of genera you have provided in your sandbox. Thanks for helping out though, we could finally reoganise the Mrymicinae page rather quickly and the ponerinae. Since you are willing to work on ponerinae, I will work with the Myrmicinae just to make things easier for you. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs on extinct species

[edit]

Hi there, I noticed you've recently created five stubs on Protazteca and its constituent species, all largely identical, and I'd like to propose merging them into a single article. There are guidelines in both the Paleontology and Insects WikiProjects that suggest a merge is warranted: Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects#Criteria for inclusion states: "As a general guideline though, combine several species or subspecies into a single article when there isn't enough text to make more than short, unsatisfying stubs otherwise. If the article grows large enough to deserve splitting, that can always be done later." Similarly, Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology#Single-species articles suggests a merge may be appropriate if "There may be very little text that can be written about individual species". You're of course free to create as many stubs as you wish, but I'm a believer in centralizing and contextualizing information as much as possible. It's possible that, one day, each extinct species may have pages and pages devoted to it, but that day may be years from now, and I think it's better to have one start class article that says the same as 5 stubs. Please keep these tips in mind, and thanks for all you do! Cheers. --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's quite a bit of information on the source attached about these extinct species, so I could always try and add a bit more so they can remain as single articles, but I have also viewed quite a lot of other stubs that are exactly identical in many beetle and other insect species, but I won't argue with your point, it's rather fair. Could I get as much info as possible before this is proposed? Burklemore1 (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly won't object to expansion! It's true, the "X is a species of Y named by Author in Year" stub is common, but I feel too much so: too many editors (perhaps some of them robots!), fall into a mode of apparently transcribing database info to Wikipedia, and nothing more seldom seems to come of it. The Swedish, Waray, and Cebuano language Wikipedias actually seem to have bot-constructed vast amounts of biology stubs from ITIS and/or Catalogue of Life. Note that also, when dealing with obscure or extinct speciose taxa (e.g. wasps or trilobites), the likelihood that only primary literature exists increases, and the harder it may be to write an article that is appropriately written for the lay audience. It has been convention for some time now to discuss prehistoric taxa at the genus level (see Paraceratherium or Psittacosaurus for examples of how Featured Articles cover multiple species), and perhaps a bigger push in the Arthropod/Insect projects would help scattered stubs become better articles. Again, context and readability should be key: the less mouse-clicks required to understand a genus, the better. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that format is used because it's perhaps the easiest way when creating a stub article. I usually follow this but that doesn't mean I won't edit it at all or just leave it like that, I usually add a little more though (some Iridomyrmex species have their etymology explained and further info on their distribution). But again, it's perhaps the easiest format, especially for new editors who wish to contribute, so there shouldn't be a huge problem if that's the case (just aslong as it has a good source). Again, you never know how much source material is out there for a stub (jack jumper ant is a great example of this). I expanded that article greatly and it was a stub in August 2014, and now it could be the largest ant article, or among the largest on Wikipedia (in terms of a single species). Antwiki is a good place to get info seeing as they also write a lot that many stubs here do not have, and they also have many references attached. I mainly go there since it's easy copy and pasting the taxoboxes. Right now I am currently working on updating the subfamily Myrmicinae (massive shift on tribes, genera, etc.), so it may take a bit for me to get onto it, if you do not mind. :) Burklemore1 (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled

[edit]

Hi Burkle,

I went ahead and got you assigned as an autopatrolled user. This doesn't affect you in any way but means that your articles will no longer pass through New Page Patrol and are instead... erm... auto-patrolled. The only difference you will notice is no longer getting a ding every time your article is reviewed because there won't be any more reviews. Congratulations, and thanks for all your work on ant stubs so far! Deadbeef 09:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate that. :) Burklemore1 (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Termite, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 16S rRNA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Termites

[edit]

Hi Burklemore1. I've been watching the termite page and it looks like you've been putting a lot of good work into it. Once thing I've noticed though is that you're using a lot of primary sources. We can use them carefully, but we generally don't want to be putting ideas made in a primary source into an article while using that article as the source. Primary sources are a bit ok in very specific topics like individual species, but not as much when we have secondary sources available in more general topics. Normally, we use reviews or at least other studies citing the work to give us proper context to whether the claim is legitimate and how widely accepted it is as we aren't qualified as editors to do peer-review like we would when reading literature as scientists (WP:SCIRS_. This generally helps prevent us from putting forth ideas here that are new and very potentially spurious when they haven't been commented on by the scientific community yet.

I'm not sure how you're approaching the article, and I don't really plan on editing it much any time soon, so I just wanted to check in. If you're mainly planning to pull from primary literature though, I'd just ask you be mindful that since Wikipedia isn't a journal, we aren't going to be summarizing current primary literature ourselves. Instead, we focus more on secondary sources like literature reviews that do the interpretation for us and establish that the idea is accepted in the scientific field following WP:PSTS. Otherwise, I'd be happy to review the article more in-depth at a later date for another set of eyes. Let me know if anything wasn't clear and keep up the good work. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed you tagged one of these primary sources, nuy I will first say I did not add that reference, but I will find another source to replace, but if you would like I will come forward to you and see if it's an adequate source. I had no idea what kind of source I was putting in so I apologise on my behalf. Also, can you tag several other sources you consider primary and I will replace them? I will also comment that the sources in the content section "Termites in the human diet" were cited in a journal I found (particularly sources 60, 61, 62 and 63) and I believe they had sourced attached to them too, so I believe they are considerably fine and well accepted, just putting that out. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. I'll probably go through and do some tagging in the next day or two as that should go pretty quick. Just for a little background, I'm pretty influenced by WP:MEDRS where we prefer secondary sources for general scientific content, but especially so for medical content. Once we get into topics like this though, we don't exactly have such hard guidelines, but we still need to be wary about primary sources. That gray zone can make sourcing tricky, so I'll mainly stick to tagging things that are citing the finding of it's own experiment, but I'll probably leave most primary sources alone that are used to summarize things through their introduction (i.e., a mini-literature review). If there are some really complicated sources, I'll post about that at the article talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks, it's appreciated. Once you have done the tagging I will find new sources to replace them. I must mention speaking of primary sources and medical content, I nominated an article once for being a candidate of becoming a good article and I was encountered by WP:MEDRS when a reviewer mentioned about primary sources and medical content, so I will admit I am familiar with primary sources and medical/scientific content not exactly mixing perfectly because of the nomination. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll admit I even have a little trouble staying consistent on when I think a primary source is ok in a topic like this. I went through and tagged what really stood out to me, but man there are a lot of other issues on the page. Plenty of content needs a citation for sure. I'm also seeing some sections that could be condensed to be concise and still get the point across rather than being expanded too. I'll keep the page on my watchlist for now and take a crack at trying to make some areas more concise when I set a chunk of time aside for the article. In the meantime though, I'll gladly comment on any thoughts or edits you have while your working if you want a second opinion. I'll see if I can pull any good termite sources we can use here too. Good luck. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the article needs major improvements my opinion, so I am doing my part to improve it. What helps is your tags too. I go onto Google Scholar, ResearchGate or Sciencedirect to find my citations, so if you need some good citations, that's a place to go to unless you are aware of it. I noticed immediate problems as soon as I did my first edit, such as dead links, unreliable sources, original research, poorly sourced citations, water dowsing in India which was not in one bit necessary on the article, and the possible copyright violation in the section "Termites in the human diet" (which I however rewrote it) and also the section "Timber damage"; this section irritated me because some of it looks like it's a guide to prevent timber damage, rather than being encyclopedic. It may need to be trimmed down too unless a majority of the information is necessary. I will mention I can be sloppy with my grammar sometimes, so some unintentional grammatical errors may be present, so to at least improve the article I could request a copyedit. And thank you, you too. I look forward to further improving this article. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I work at a university as an entomologist, so I have access to all those search engines and a few others. If something is behind a paywall, I can usually access it. One thing I should point out here though is this recent diff [1]. The source you added actually isn't quite the kind of source we'd need in this case. When I say secondary source, that means other scientists commenting on the study to put it into context. That's going to preferably be a review article or else a primary article citing the study in it's introduction. What you added was a press release for the the primary study, and it's usually not good to use those as sources since it's usually just the author getting interviewed. When I checked which articles cite the primary source in Google Scholar, some come up [2]. This [3] review from that list looks like a really good review to pull from for more content. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, excellent, that greatly helps. I'll revert the edit if that is the case then. Do you reckon this source [4] is adequate for the sentence "Termites also eat bone and other parts of carcasses, and their traces have been found on dinosaur bones from the middle Jurassic in China." I will mention it says Late Jurassic rather than Middle Jurassic, and these bones were found in the Morrison Formation (information is found on page 84). So a slight sentence restructure may be made for that. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a Master's thesis, which I assume is actually what was submitted to the journal for the source we're currently discussing. If you haven't seen it, I'd give WP:SCHOLARSHIP a read. A thesis is really iffy in terms of being a reliable source. In this case, it's not independent of the source in question since it's almost just another version of the source itself. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, cheers for answering that. I'll further scoop for more sources to use and give the one you sent in the discussion a read. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomic categories

[edit]

Please feel free to create new taxonomic categories if you're creating dozens of articles that would fall into a potential subcategory of any existing categories. Just as the coverage of species is a work in progress on Wikipedia, so is the creation of categories. While there's no firm rule on the minimum and maximum number of entries for a category, 10 entries is roughly a reasonable minimum, and 200 (or less) is a reasonable maximum if there is an obvious way to arrange subcategories. Category:Dolichoderinae, with 346 entries is getting rather crowded. It would be entirely appropriate to create Category:Bothriomyrmex, Category:Dolichoderus, Category:Iridomyrmex for species in those genera (or any other genera where you plan on creating a large number of articles). Thank you for all the work you're doing in creating these species articles, and thank you for categorizing them in the first place (it's certainly better to have them in an overly-large category than no category at all). Plantdrew (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I was thinking of doing this with the larger generas. Bothriomyrmex only seems to have 23 species so it is considerably small in comparison to other genera's and will not take up a large portion of space. A genus like Dolichoderus will need a category since it has 178 species, but yes, I will make categories right now for better organisation as a matter of fact. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Even with just 23 species, Bothiomyrmex might deserve its own category. My sense of the general categorization practice on Wikipedia is that the cutoff is somewhere between 5-10 species. A genus with 4 species usually doesn't have it's own category. A genus with 11 species has a category in many cases. With a cutoff for category creation higher than 10 species per genus, family/subfamily categories are often likely to get more than 200 entries (which is the highest number of category entries that Wikipedia can display on a single page). Plantdrew (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You raise a good point there and I'll agree on that. I'll keep that in mind and will create a category for Bothriomyrmex then. I will make mention that the genus Myrmecia has 90 species and is placed in its own subfamily category, but that is probably because the subfamily is actually very small and the 90 species almost compose the entire category (91/119). I guess that is an exception unless it's just general organising to keep things tidy and uncrowded and easier to navigate through. It would be better hearing what you think of that though. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could go either way with Myrmecia. 90 species is certainly enough to support a category for the genus. But 119 entries isn't necessarily too many for the subfamily category. In this particular case, I'd lean towards keeping everything in the subfamily category and not creating a genus category. Since the entirety of the subfamily fits on one category page, navigation is probably easiest with everything in one place. 7 of 8 genera are too small to support a category and a category for Myrmecia would require an ugly disambiguating term (ant). However, if the species in the subfamily were more evenly distributed across the genera (e.g 8 genera each with 15 species) I'd lean more towards creating genus categories. Plantdrew (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I was guessing there would be an exception sometimes, the most genera Myrmecia was split into was only three or four, but instead they're just categorised into various species groups now, under one genus, so we probably won't see any taxonomic change. On a different note, I must say their stings are not very pleasant, coming from direct experience... But again, thanks for making comment on this, I'll always keep this in mind for future articles and categories. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dolichoderus kinabaluensis

[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Dolichoderus kinabaluensis, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.antwiki.org/wiki/Dolichoderus_kinabaluensis.

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 Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a bug? Pretty sure it isn't a copyvio if you are using the reference... :P Burklemore1 (talk) 08:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It can still be a copyvio if you're pasting text verbatim from the cited reference, but it looks like CorenBot is in error here. With so little text on either page (Wikipedia or Antwiki), I think the bot is probably picking up the citation of the Dill paper; citation format isn't copyrightable. Plantdrew (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is my thoughts too, the Bot is indeed picking up the citation. Thanks for the response on that. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listing Australian Ants

[edit]

I am posting this on my own talk page just so additional visitors to this page (particularly people with great knowledge or interest for ants) that I am considering working on making an entire list of Australian ants in this article here: Ants of Australia. I wish to encourage people to add entries to Ants with sources of course so there is an excellent coverage of ants in Australia under one list. It will also be easier to navigate through this list, although a majority of these ants can be found in the the Category "Hymenoptera of Australia", but a list alone makes it easier for readers. Antcat, AntWeb and AntWiki are excellent places to gain sources and species to list. I will post this to the talk page of the article itself, so it will be great to have feedback on this. Also, what are the thoughts of renaming the article "List of ants of Australia"? Burklemore1 (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good; I've moved the article. AntWiki should be avoided as a source if possible, even for species list (though I must admit I've used a distribution map from AW in one article, but the source is included in the caption). You are probably in a better position to find reliable sources in this area, but maybe something like [5] is better suited for a list article? jonkerz ♠talk 17:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I was kind of hasty with that source. I think it was there for awhile thing, since I have no memory of adding it, but the link you have provided is good, I'll add it. I'll have to figure out what the 10th subfamily is that is endemic to Australia too, as I have only identified the 9th one to be Ectatomminae (only 8 were placed, and the Green-head ant is a really common ant here). Instead of making new articles today, i'll start working on the list now just for expansion. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 10th subfamily is/was Aenictinae, Cerapachyinae and (!) Nothomyrmeciinae! See this edit for an explanation :) jonkerz ♠talk 03:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it all makes sense now. Thanks! :) Burklemore1 (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving articles

[edit]

Hi Burklemore1, I just noticed you redirected A. constricta to Y. constricta, I had been meaning to get to that at some point, and to combine the three species into a single genus article (per WP:paleo guidelines). The one thing I would suggest next time, is to use the move article function if possible to preserve the edit history of an article. Thanks! --Kevmin § 16:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, I was reading what needed to be done but I will take note next time on that, so thanks! I'm still learning the ropes on a few things, but I'll keep it in mind as implied. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! As a note I have started a rewrite of Yantaromyrmex in my sandbox User:Kevmin/sandbox2 for the combined article if you have any input on it. I should be able to get it worked up and online sometime this weekend hopefully--Kevmin § 18:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a look at it and it looks pretty neat. I'll just let you do your thing, I look forward on seeing it! Burklemore1 (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Burklemore and Kevmin! I've requested a WP:HISTMERGE for Anonychomyrma constricta/Yantaromyrmex constrictus (the history is actually required for copyright reasons -- kinda bureaucratic, I know). For the two remaining articles in need of merging I'd suggest updating the Anonychomyrma articles and then place {{db-move}} templates on the Yantaromyrmex articles. jonkerz ♠talk 14:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@jonkerz Before you do that, remeber that all the species articles will be merged into the Yantaromyrmex this week (hopefully) so once the expanded genus article is moved from my sandbox then all 9 of the the species pages histories can be requested to be merged in.--Kevmin § 16:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevmin: Sure, nice work so far! jonkerz ♠talk 17:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, that sounds good. :) Burklemore1 (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonkerz: Burklemore1, could you both have a look at the draft Yantaromyrmex before I move it to live? Thanks!--Kevmin § 23:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevmin: Looks good! Do you have a source for the first paragraph in the Description section? yeah, I'll be that guy :) jonkerz ♠talk 13:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonkerz: Its Dlussky 2013, thanks for the catch. Ive added the ref to it.--Kevmin § 16:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevmin: I have viewed the article and I haven't seen any major problem, it looks great. :) Burklemore1 (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Priolepis cincta, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Salt water and Crevice. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

good work!!!

[edit]
The Ant Barnstar
Although I am not on the task force, and have a problem with recognising one myrmecia from another - well done for your tireless work on the list of Ants in Australia!!!

satusuro 15:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SatuSuro: Thank you for the Barnstar, it's appreciated! :) Burklemore1 (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
this is enough to resurrect my user page myrmecia from the darling range, it had been suppressed for christmas... keep at it - I have harrangued jonkertz to get someont to tweak the insects project tag, so I can get stuck into doing the talk pages of your recent additions.. - just insects by itself seems wrong - the ants taskforce tag is needed due to the sheer volume of your additions... satusuro 15:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SatuSuro: I will mate! Speaking of Myrmecia, I have even emailed Steve Shattuck about the four new Myrmecia ants described just a few days ago so he can list them as valid on AntCat, I am just awaiting a reply from him though. As for the ant taskforce tag I agree, a tag is needed in general really. My current plans are to expand the List of ants of Australia article along with creating all species articles in the genera Tapinoma, Azteca and Technomyrmex, which will result every single species in the subfamily Dolichoderinae on Wikipedia! Burklemore1 (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
dont forget to sign...

My source in academia in perth warned me off my intimate portraits of a family of myrmecia as a regular habit, as he was concerned that I might be bitten - the toxicology of my little mates seems to concern those in the know, as being accumulative and potentially life affecting, fortunately i havent been bitten for at least 20 years, thankfully. keep at it - youre doing great!!! satusuro 15:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SatuSuro: Oops, thanks for reminding, I have signed it. I have had some memories of their stings, and they were so beautiful... (sarcasm, getting stung by them is perhaps the most painful experience I have gone through so far). I get called insane because I do things people tell me not to do, but thankfully I am not allergic to their stings, and I am willing to accept the price for my actions. But again, thank you, I have high intentions to keep going. :) Burklemore1 (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
try to keep the myrmecia stings to a minimum... the medical advice is nohting to do with the price, but that the toxin is cumulative in its affect and can be serious... but keep at the wp aspect - we need the ant taskforce label! g'night from the west. satusuro 16:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For an ant that can kill a full grown man faster than a redback, you are right. Whenever I visit a Myrmecia nest I take best caution to avoid a sting. And will do, goodnight. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quack Quack!*
* may or may not be what quokkas sound like
Myrmecia stings? Pfsss, you should try the bullet ant ;) I kid.. I guess I should be happy that nature where I live does not try to kill me :) Re task force tagging: I've added a request for assistance here. lol@File:Myrmecia nigriceps on arm.jpg :) jonkerz ♠talk 16:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonkerz: I'll take your word. But hey, the bullet ant hasn't killed anyone (that I know of), while our fellow ants here have, I'm lucky to be alive! ;) Speaking of things that kill, a dead eastern brown snake was in my backyard not long ago and I have no idea how it got in. Australia... Burklemore1 (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At least you have quokkas! jonkerz ♠talk 15:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
technically confined to an island thatwas named by the dutch in 1600s as rats nest - here on the west coast of the mighty Ozstrylia - our current Rottnest Island they do not kill anything and do not go quack quack. satusuro 15:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still pretty cute though, but at least the two Camponotus consobrinus queens I currently own are harmless, except the soldiers can make you bleed, so even the harmless ones can still hurt you. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Golden tail sugar ant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polymorphic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tapinoma orthocephalum

[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Tapinoma orthocephalum, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.antwiki.org/wiki/Tapinoma_orthocephalum.

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 Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

False alarm, this happened with another article I created. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Yantaromyrmex

[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, a great addition to the DYK. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 19 March

[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no error. :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Green-head ant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Myrmecia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So

[edit]

who am i? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Myrmecia_satusuro_7653.JPG - any thoughts which one? satusuro 13:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SatuSuro: The description says Myrmecia nigriceps, but what is strange is the head isn't black. The ones In Canberra all have black heads, including the queen I own, and all descriptions in journals usually describe a black head, not a red one. It could be a coincidence though, since the sugar ant displays different colours all over their bodies. It could be a Myrmecia brevinoda, Myrmecia gulosa, or a Myrmecia nigriscapa. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yeah that was a calculated guess the label - the darling range variations (just east of perth) tend to have variations which have suggested to the very few practising experts here saying they might hvae as yet undescribed variants as close as 2 km from each other in parts of the landscape... satusuro 14:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SatuSuro: I was going to guess Myrmecia pyriformis, but I realised that they don't live around Perth; instead they live on the east coast of Australia. That's interesting though, that was another guess I was thinking of. It could have been a different variant of the species. It also got me thinking about the ant Myrmecia maxima, which in its original description is obviously a Myrmecia of some sort, but its exact identification is unknown since no type specimen is available, so I would believe this species is rather controversial. Myrmecia maxima was actually described in the south-west of WA, which is where Perth is, and its description is apparently extremely similar to Myrmecia nigriceps and other similar looking Myrmecia ants. With that said, Myrmecia maxima could be this variation. Feel free to read about it in the article I provided, it has more info about it. Burklemore1 (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for that - I am assuming that most of my ant images on commons are all of the same type. I had a good nest to photograph about 4 years ago, unfortunately it has not survived some roadworks. thanks for the link satusuro 14:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. The bull ant could also be a Myrmecia vindex. This ant is mentioned in the link I gave you and is strikingly similar to the one in the image you gave. Here is a photo of one, and these ones also live around Western Australia. But as you said, it could just be a variation of Myrmecia nigriceps anyway, despite the similarities with other ants. Burklemore1 (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The museum based curators and the university based experts are reluctant to do a final word, very very similar to description of some plant species, and lichen species - the final answers are under expensive technological equipment rather than deduction from descriptions in published texts, it has got to where microscopic distinctions are beyond the average punters capacity or reach... and your comment is close to the curtin uni based person i spoke with about 2 or 3 years agao re the good nest access and photos that ensued not easy to have a final say... satusuro 15:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very true. Expensive technological equipment will have to be used to bring in final results. Perhaps that could also help the mystery with Myrmecia maxima, since there could really be a distinct species under this title out there, or instead answers the question about the variation of the Myrmecia nigriceps. This should be put into consideration of too; four new Myrmecia ants were actually described this year and have extremely similar appearances to Myrmecia pilosula. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
great catch - yup - (cynical tone) the far reaching and thoughtful reduction in money for universities and science in Australia and the total disinterest in museums or institutions that could provide adequate resources to identify the range of undescribed... (cynical tone aka john clarke) - lots still to do satusuro 13:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the species described this year that I know of were from Australia. It's unfortunate that what you said is true though. I think if such interest still occurred and funding was higher for universities/institutions and such, many more would be described. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jack jumper ant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solenopsis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Jack jumper ant/archive1

[edit]

Hey Burklemore! While somewhat late to the party (a month or two..), I do have a comment for the article!

  • The distribution map shows the distribution of Myrmecia pilosula, but the source says "Jumper Ant (Myrmecia pilosula species group)". There are more species in this group.

jonkerz ♠talk 14:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see you again! :-) I must have misread the source, so thanks for pointing that out. I found this map that specifically points out the distribution, but this is based on occurrence records. Good news is that the map can be uploaded here since the sites content is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia License. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Black-headed sugar ant

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Black-headed sugar ant you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar ant

[edit]

I took a stab at copyediting sugar ant. It's not really something I'm especially good it, so phrasing could probably be improved further. I littered the article with a few "clarify" tags where I wasn't sure from the current phrasing what meaning was intended. And I'm not used to writing in Australian English, so I hope I didn't introduce any English variety errors (I don't think I did, but I did have to override my tendency to use -ize instead of -ise a couple times). Plantdrew (talk)

Cheers Plantdrew. :-) I'll go have a look and see what needs clarifying. I checked if you left any -ize instead of -ise and I didn't see anything that was wrong. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arching talk page

[edit]

How do I archive a talk page? Lol. Burklemore1 (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to archive your user talk page (i.e. this page)? I just do mine manually, with one archive page for a year's worth of talk. Create the archive page User talk:Burklemore1/Archive 1, then cut-and-paste old threads from the main page to the archive page. Then add {{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|}} to the top of your talk to link to the archives.
You can archive article talk pages manually as I've just described, but with article talk pages it's probably better to set up automatic archiving with a bot (and you may want to do auto archiving for your user talk page as well). I don't have any experience with auto archiving, but there are some directions at User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo. Plantdrew (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do, so thanks for your answer, it's appreciated! Burklemore1 (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Black-headed sugar ant

[edit]

The article Black-headed sugar ant you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Black-headed sugar ant for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Burklemore1/Archive_1&oldid=1142909085"