This is an archive of past discussions with User:Invertzoo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi Susan, I wrote a new article. It is not the one we discussed before, but maybe you'll be interested in helping me out. As always it is perfectly alright, if you are not. here's the article Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Mila, yes I can help you with this one; things are a bit less busy here now for me. However, today I am off swimming and then working in the museum all afternoon, but I will work on it over the weekend. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. I moved the sonnet down to the next section because it was written in response to the accusation of heresy. I also change "poet" back to "poetess" as you wanted, even though some people might claim that the word poetess is sexist in the same way that some people say that the word actress is sexist; that you are an actor or a poet regardless of gender. But we can just go head and leave it as poetess and see what other people think. All good wishes to you, 01:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Susan, it is so strange about "poet" and "poetess". I see now that not only I speak an absolutely different language (I mean my native language), but I simply came from absolutely different world as well. If in my country somebody would have called a woman poetess "a poet", it simply would have been grammatically wrong. Once again, thank you. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Well people do use both words. Like I said, we can if you like leave it as it is now with "poetess" and see if people object, if so, someone will surely change it back. Invertzoo (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
There is more about words. Please take a look at the hook. I had to change it because it is better to avoid using the word "Jewess" . Who could have known!--Mbz1 (talk) 05:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Good, I am glad we got that sorted out. I also decided to change "poetess" back to "poet" once again in the article itself. Generally in English these days, words like actress, poetess, mayoress, usherette, stewardess, are considered to be condescending and politically incorrect. The neutrally-gendered words actor, poet, mayor, usher, flight attendant, are now almost always used instead. After all, when you think about it, in English we don't call a female doctor "a doctorette" or a female teacher a "teacheress", so why not be consistent and make all of those descriptive words gender neutral rather than using words that perhaps seem to imply that there is something odd and special about the female version of those positions. And the -ette endings imply a diminutive, which is doubly demeaning. Anyway, it seems we are good to go on that article! Best, Invertzoo (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I would not be surprised if in a few years the word "woman" would be considered to be "sexist" :) Thank you, Susan!--Mbz1 (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Susan! It was fantastic to meet you and your husband last week. Thanks again for coming out to represent the editor community at the fundraiser. You were really helpful and hopefully I'll see you again soon. If you ever need anything (from me personally or from the community dept. at the Foundation) please don't hesitate to ask. All the best, Steven Walling at work17:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the award Susan! What a pleasant surprise! I'll keep on contributing as I always have, specially with the Strombid gastropod articles. I'd like you to know that your help with those GA reviews was essential. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello Dramatic. Nice to meet you. Actually Paphies is a clam genus, so these are all bivalves, not gastropods (snails). The articles were created by a user who was blocked for massive and unrepentant wholesale copying from the source listed (Powell, 1979). Because these are bivalve taxa, no-one from our project has looked at the articles or cleaned them up since then. But in any case, yes, you are quite right, I think that for the time being, the Paphies subtriangulata subtriangulata article should simply be moved to become the Paphies subtriangulata article, and the three subspecies should simply be listed in that article. The first one you mention is the nominate subspecies, in other words it is the one that defines the species, and therefore it does not require an article of its own. The other two articles can perhaps be deleted for the time being, that is until someone is inspired to create a proper article for them, if that ever happens. Invertzoo (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I realised after posting to the gastropod project that it wasn't a gastropod, so I figured your talk page was a good place since you were so prominent in the GrahamBould cleanup. (I'm doing a WPNZ assessment drive, and reclassing several hundred of those articles as stubs is part of it). I'll go ahead with the moves and redirects. Thanks. dramatic (talk) 01:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Invertzoo. You have new messages at Dramatic's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
DYK for Sara Copia Sullam
On 14 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sara Copia Sullam, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi Susan, Thanks very much for the barnstar. This BRFA was a minor setback. I am sure we can think about ways to get Ganeshbot back in action. — Ganeshk (talk)12:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: A question
Hi Susan, It is possible. We can expand the requirement to look for, red link clades, super families, families and genuses. I will let you know when the pages are ready. — Ganeshk (talk)13:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
Could you take a look at Turbo smaragdus? It's not as straightforward as the four other unfixed GrahamBould articles I've found and cleaned, in that there are two versions of the description, one rewritten. dramatic (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello Susan, I have not re-written Duel at Lake Merced yet. It is here, and if you have a time and a wish, please do re-write it, this will be great! Otherwise I hope to do it in a week or so. On the other hand here's my new article. Please let me know, if you could fix this one. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I will first try to fix up the new article on Earth's shadow. After that I will take a look at the Duel article, although it would be easier for me if you try to rewrite it first, before I fix it up, because at this point you know a lot more about the subject than I do, and you also have a better idea of which parts need the most rewriting. Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi again Mila. Please take a look at the article now. I expanded the caption on the image. I also tweak the intro quite a bit because of the fact that on the DYK nom page, the reviewer pointed out that night itself is a direct effect of the shadow of the Earth. Hope the changes I made meet with your approval. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
A few editors from relevant WikiProjects have either made small changes or suggested improvements. I have tried to add a bit according to suggestions. See the article talk page too. Invertzoo (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I did see it, but decided it will be better, if you're to deal with the request than later on fix my English. Thank you! Who would have thought that the article will evoke such an interest.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Well really it is a very interesting subject and one that overlaps a lot of WikiProjects. You come up with a lot of interesting subjects Mila! Invertzoo (talk) 02:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I added it in because one is taken at sunrise, and the other at sunset, I think that's interesting. Hope you think it's OK to put both in. Invertzoo (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course. Thank you for helping me with those articles. With such a quality help you're providing I might think about writing some more :)--Mbz1 (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
When I write about gorgeous, beautiful things on the internet, they get lots of hits. Such as Eriostemon australasius When I write about less than beautiful things like Caenoplana coerulea then almost no-one responds.
As mentioned before, the great and the ugly, the gorgeous and the boring are of interest to me. And despite appearances, I love them all.
Dear Invertzoo: Thank you for taking upon yourself the concern and effort to essentially train a newbie in the ways of Wikipedia. Your dedication, even devotion, to helping me get a hold on how to code articles/text and think in an encyclopedic writing style has helped immeasurably to prepare valuable content for Wikipedia. You are a very special person and I am grateful for your assistance. Enviromet (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
On 26 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Earth's shadow, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how,quick check ) and add it toDYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi Invertzoo. I randomly came across your latest DYK today on the Earth's shadow on the wikipedia mainpage without realising at first who put it together. It was a nice surprise to see that you had substantially made the article! I found it an interesting read. Thanks and best wishesAntarctic-adventurer (talk)20:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
