Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to post at any time and I'll try and get back to you.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Red imported fire ant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nuclei. 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) 10:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! The article looks great already. I will read it through once you're finished with it. jonkerz ♠talk 11:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonkerz: Thank you, I'm actually having quite a bit of fun with this one! As you have probably seen, I have reinstated the physiology section with some more detail and images from PloS ONE. My only concern is that the article will be slightly long, it will probably have 10,000-12,000 words. I think this is totally justified by its global importance and status as the most studied formicid in the world. If you have a look at the talk page, I have left an intended layout so I can model it from there and not forget any major point. Burklemore1 (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's already at 10249 words -- long, yes, but also totally justified. jonkerz ♠talk 14:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a lot of material for behaviour and ecology, and the "biological methods" subsection will be converted into parasites, pathogens and parasites while the control section itself will briefly mention those being used as a method. You wouldn't see a large difference in word count, but I can definitely tell this will reach 12,000 words. Altogether I think prose size should be relaxed further; back in 2006, 40kb was considered too big, but now we have articles at 80kb with FA status. It's recommended to split an article at 60kb, but I think this should be extended to 70kb. We gotta cater to our large articles too! Burklemore1 (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Burklemore1 - Are you in a rush to have the copy-edit of Green-head ant done? I accepted the assignment, but I'm going to be busy in the next two days, so I may not get to it (or finish it) until Wednesday or Thursday. Will that be all right? I always look forward to reading your articles.  – Corinne (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Corinne:, Not at all! I'm in no rush for the article to be copyedited, so take all the time you need. I also look forward to your excellent work and discussions on improving the article. Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re "The current goal for myself is to get 10% of all ant genera articles GA or higher, which represents 47 articles." Maybe this:

27.7% complete

is something for your user page or WP:ANTS. jonkerz ♠talk 09:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's awesome! I'll add it to my userpage shortly. We should also add it to the task force page too. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I may take a short break from the red imported fire ant and focus on other articles for the time being. Of course I won't abandon it, but rather see what else should be worked on (i.e. I intend on working on Chronomyrmex). Burklemore1 (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Totally understandable, and either way it's good to work on multiple articles at the same time. There's so much written about the RIFA, and whenever I've been in that position it was actually harder to write the articles. jonkerz ♠talk 08:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very true about that, I wouldn't mind working on another extinct genus article anyway. Your point about so much being written about RIFA is the reason why I stayed away from it for so long, especially when there's already a bit of material. With that and the material, it's so hard where to start. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Burklemore1 -- I have finished copy-editing Green-head ant. I hope you'll read through my edits carefully to be sure I haven't introduced any incorrect information. I have a question about this passage in Green-head ant#Foraging and diet:

• In one experiment, colonies were given the "Bhatkar and Whitcomb diet", an artificial diet consisting of whole raw eggs, honey and vitamin-mineral capsules; some were given honey-water and Drosophila flies while others were given a standardised diet of digestible carbohydrates. Colonies that were given a standardised diet were shown to raise more brood with a lower mortality in workers in contrast to others given an artificial diet.

Upon my first reading of this, I couldn't figure out which was the "standardised diet". I was distracted by all the details in the first half of the sentence. Then I saw the phrase "a standardised diet". I see two different problems in this sentence:

1) The way the sentence is punctuated, it's not clear whether there were one, two, or three different groups, each getting a different diet. The placing of "some were given honey-water and Drosophila flies while others were given a standardised diet..." after a semi-colon (;) suggests that all the colonies were given the "Bhatkar and Whitcomb diet", and that they were divided into two groups, one of which was given honey-water and Drosophila flies and the other "a standardised diet of digestible carbohydrates", both a sort of dessert added onto the Bhatkar and Whitcomb diet. If this is correct, then I would change "some" to "half of this group" and "others" to "the other half". If this is not correct, then more work needs to be put into this sentence.

2) The key diet seems to be the "standardised diet of digestible carbohydrates". However, this is the one diet for which you provide the fewest details, which is both vague and puzzling. The reader then wonders what the reason for providing all those details about the other diets was.

Let me know if I can help rewording the sentence.

I'll have a look at this shortly. I'm sure the cited source will provide some more information for clarity. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK did some tweaks, you may want to check the edits because I have a feeling I worded it weirdly. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just another thought: I may be wrong, but it seems to me that in several sections, such as "Description" and "Life cycle and reproduction", you go into too much detail. Some of this information would be of interest only to entomologists, and the eyes of the average reader will glaze over.

I'm not exactly sure what could be removed unless you have any suggestions, or we can just leave this to the reviewer. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, in the section Green-head ant#Description, I see many measurements using the unit of "millimetres". (You might re-think including all these measurements.) I wonder whether the word has to be spelled out or if the abbreviation could be used. If you think the abbreviation could be used, just add a pipe (|) and abbr=on before the finally pair of curly brackets in the conversion templates.  – Corinne (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address this one first (I seem to have a tight schedule irl at the moment). I'll happily abbreviate the conversions, but is it suggested to spell out and link the first instance or leave it? I assume readers would know what it means. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there seems to be an ongoing discussion about the article name. It's possible that it will get changed, so I thought I'd let you know. This will most likely have a minimal impact on your copyediting, but I'll change the used name when you are finished. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, getting onto this. Added in the abbr=on where convert templates are used (for millimetres that is). Burklemore1 (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Meat 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sphecomyrma 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sphecomyrma you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sphecomyrma 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Meat ant you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Meat 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Hey, you seem to desperately need a pat on the back :D ! Especially after I noticed this and the progress you note on your userpage. It is great to see someone working so hard in a (previously neglected) field, as I wish to do something similar for mammals, a way larger field and rather a ghost town since years. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you! It's always nice to get some recognition for the hard work I put into. 2015 and 2016 have been excellent for ants and insects alike, in which tonnes more will be worked on. Stigmatomma pallipes has attracted me to work on (doesn't even have an article yet! Loads of information around though). I have noticed a huge surge in mammal related articles thanks to you, especially very important ones (i.e. Cheetah and many antelope articles). I have also noticed you are working on Leopard, which I have been longing to see at GA status, well done on these articles! Burklemore1 (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds great! I didn't know people notice my work a lot, but they must be if someone even as busy as you can find time for that :) Happily Cheetah became a GA just now. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your work has not gone unnoticed. I must say again, 2015 and 2016 have been excellent years for both insects and mammals! Congrats on Cheetah, it's well-deserving. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's so kind of you, but more has to be done to elevate the hundreds of (land) mammal articles to at least C-class. For your DYK, you can always add a comment requesting a special date for the appearance, as I did here for Cheetah. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Don't you need to review a DYK before you can submit your own though? I have found a DYK I want to review, though this would be my first time and I have no idea what to do when you pass it. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is your first DYK nomination, you don't have to review another (quid pro quo or QPQ as it is called). You are free from QPQs for your first five noms, and after that you need to review one as per WP:DYKR for each of your noms. That's no difficult task, I have done 12 till now, and it's fun thinking of meaty hooks! And if you wish to review one, do go ahead and help with the backlog. That would allow you an easy nom in future, if you are too busy to review then or nothing appeals to you. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So pretty much I don't need to review a DYK because I have never nominated one before? Sounds reasonable, I think Clark would make a good DYK. I was thinking about something along the lines of him describing 200 species, half of which are probably synonyms. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's not necessary for you just now. Try to think of interesting hooks (you can add more than one) and note that you will need to provide a direct inline citation right after the fact is mentioned in the article (excluding the lead). More experienced editors can help you spice it up, or suggest better hooks; you just have to make the move. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks very much for explaining this process to me. This could be handy because I want to get the Four Award with a specific article, and to get Clark posted on the mainpage of course. ;). Burklemore1 (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice plan! Glad to be of help. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John S. Clark 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 11:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article John S. Clark you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John S. Clark 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 Sainsf -- Sainsf (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Green-head 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) 15:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats for Nothomyrmecia! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 14:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only found this out because of this notification. Thank you very much! And thanks again for your review and support. Very happy to see this promoted. :) Burklemore1 (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The 28 FAs/GAs Barnstar
	Title says it all, simply outstanding. It was supposed to be "25", but I could not keep up with you, heh ;) And congrats on Nothomyrmecia! jonkerz ♠talk 18:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soon to be 29, though I have found practically no time to work on Green-head ant (I must though!) But thank you for this barnstar, always good to see someone notice my achievements. :) If I'm correct, ants now make up 30% of all FAs, 40% of all GAs and 50% of all FAs. Excellent progress, yet we still have more to do at the same time! Burklemore1 (talk) 03:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Canberra College Performing Arts Centre Facility.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly, thanks for the message. I can simply replace this image with one of my own, the college is only a 5 minute drive from mine. Burklemore1 (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Green-head ant you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Green-head 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think redirecting Aphaenogaster bidentatus to Aphaenogaster is really satisfactory in the long term. If the name really is completely bogus, I'd like to see it deleted. Aphaenogaster bidentatus apparently stems from an IUCN listing (which looks pretty dubious; no taxonomic authority cited, hasn't been updated since 1996). From IUCN, it has infected 4 other Wikipedias as well as Wikidata. My first instinct was to check for a bidentat(a/us) in genera synonymized with Aphaenogaster (i.e. Deromyrma Nystalomyrma as listed here on Wikipedia). I had no luck with those searches. There must be some explanation for the IUCN entry. Another bidentatus somewhere in Stenammini? Should Aphaenogaster bidentatus just be deleted, or is it possible to resolve it to an error in representing a real name? Plantdrew (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plantdrew, perhaps I was not thinking at the time, and probably followed this from a previous discussion with another unavailable name. The IUCN source they cited only lists its name, its "conservation status" and distribution. My guess is that the authors of the book accidentally misnamed another valid taxon? If they didn't the name would have its own page on Hymenoptera Name Server, AntWiki, AntCat or AntWeb, whether it's valid or not. I also went on AntWeb and checked all taxa with "bidentatus" with no luck. The best thing I can do to solve this problem is to email AntWeb and see if they have anything on the name. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted Brian L. Fisher of the California Academy of Sciences and he says the name is a nomen nudum, and any mentions of the name should be removed. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article St, John's Orphanage has been completed.

You will notice that I archived one of the article’s citations (#1). I suggest that you archive the rest of the article’s URLs as time allows. This ensures that the article's references are available "forever" and that it doesn’t develop “dead links” over time. The site I use is https://archive.org/web/. Simply copy the URL in the citation and paste it in the “Save Page Now” box on the archive.org site and click save. This creates a copy of the original page and provides you with a new URL to add to the original citation. If you look at the URL I've archived you'll see the syntax. You add the new URL to the end of the original citation like this: |archiveurl=http etc|archivedate=13 February 2015}}. Not all websites allow archiving - CBS TV news and the NY Times are two I've come across, so there's not much you can do about that unless there is an alternate citation you could use.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking your own time to copyedit the article, it's highly appreciated. :-) I'll go do that, the links of the sources tend to die eventually. Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be in Canberra from the 29-30 August, there is a planned meet-up at King O'Malley's (though I'm open to suggestions) from 6pm on the 29 August. Sorry for the short noticed, only had the trip confirmed this afternoon. Bidgee (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Burklemore1. The List of Game of Thrones episodes, that I nominated is a Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. If you have time could you have a look and say if it is anything that could be improved or not. - AffeL (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AffeL, thanks for requesting me to review it. As you know I support the nomination, but hopefully nothing else escalates that would unfortunately prevent the list from becoming FL. Feel free to leave further messages if you have nominated more lists in the future. Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barn stars! Much appreciated. I hope that you'll be pleased with the outcome of the c/e when it's completed. CheersTwofingered Typist (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! It looks very good to me so far, it will most definitely be ready for a GA review as soon as you're done. Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Red imported fire ant has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

I'm pleased that I don't have to deal with them!

Kind regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks excellent - keep up the good work? JarrahTree 09:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JarrahTree! Thought I'd give the list a few touch ups and make sure every ant listed is referenced. Only just noticed you were the creator of the page too. Burklemore1 (talk) 09:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nah probably smokes and mirrors - reading ed history contrib history can be set with traps :) JarrahTree 09:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there as former inhabitants of a destroyed nest of some years past, we would like to thank you for your continued work in the real world in the continued carrying the burden of the humans attempt to understand or catalogue our cousins and distant rellies, and even further out in our family tree some of our unknown friends... may you find your way without too many bites or destroyed nests, and carry on regardless (ghosts of glen forrest gravel roadside nest lost to council grader work} JarrahTree 14:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for this message :) (may those former inhabitants rest easy as well.) Burklemore1 (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know in the suburb west of that one they used former white ant tunnels for escape routes... not sure they had that when the grader struck JarrahTree 14:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guess it would depend on the species, I have noticed that each species usually has a building preference. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most geography, wildlife and women articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 55 African countries, so should be enjoyable! Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African wildlife articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance. If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing any article related to a topic you often work on, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Might be a good way to work on fleshing out articles you've long been meaning to target and get rewarded for it! Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work on Red imported fire ant. I intend to read all of it as promised, but it may take a while as the article is 23 (!) pages as a PDF, and that's just the text without references. Hopefully that would make it easier for the GA reviewer.

Thing #2, I see you investigated the status of Aphaenogaster bidentatus. Any ideas for what to do with? I guess we have to wait until it's listed as nomen nudum in a WP:OR before sending it to AFD, but it just feels wrong to keep stuff you know are incorrect in the 'pedia. jonkerz ♠talk 05:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"This article is written in British English", Talk:Red_imported_fire_ant. Did you like change team? ;) jonkerz ♠talk 05:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments, and welcome back! I tried my best to avoid bloating the article, though that is almost impossible when you're dealing with the most studied ant in the world. Mind you, I believe it's the most cited animal-related article on the entire Wikipedia now. I will admittedly say yes I changed team, but it's not that I hate American English (simplified English I mean), but rather out of habit.... and at this point it would be too late to revert everything. ;) For A. bidentatus, the options aren't very hard to choose from; we can simply go with what you have said, or delete it now. Based on my short conversation with Fisher, he recommends removing all instances of the name, even if no updates occur.

Ironically though, the statement that happens to be true in that article requires a citation. :') Burklemore1 (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Say what you want about American English, but it's widely known that Australian English sounds cooler than British English. At least here in Europe, where AuE is "exotic"; perhaps it's the other way around in Australia. I've read the whole RIFA article and will make a couple of tweaks and post some comments somewhere. #2: whoops, I didn't notice #Aphaenogaster_bidentatus or User_talk:Plantdrew#Re:_Aphaenogaster_bidentatus. I'll continue that discussion at Plantdrew's talk page. jonkerz ♠talk 00:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Australian English includes gibberish sentences no one will understand but ourselves; pretty sure I only used Australian English for ants that actually live here. Well. RIFA does, but it's invasive. I have excused American English off and betrayed my own. ;) I have noticed you left a few comments which will be helpful to the article. For A. bidentatus, I'll leave my additional comments about it on the talk page instead of here. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Zigrasimecia has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Canberra College Logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Zigrasimecia 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) 15:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago ...

ant diversity
... you were recipient no. 1317 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already one year. Time sure does go by fast! Burklemore1 (talk) 06:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already? Jeez time goes quick! Burklemore1 (talk) 12:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... and three! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for today's Nothomyrmecia, "a spectacular, yet critically endangered species of ant. The history of this species is rather interesting, being presumably discovered in Western Australia in 1931 and described in 1934. The ant was not seen since and biologists believed it went extinct until a solitary worker was found in 1977. It was rediscovered near the town of Poochera, and as a result is perhaps the only town in the world that thrives off ant-based tourism. The ant is considered to be the world's most primitive ant, the "Holy Grail" of myrmecology and a living fossil, exhibiting a wide variety of odd behaviours. My purpose here is to ensure the article is a high-quality source of information about this unique ant and to honour the 60th anniversary of John S. Clark's death (who described Nothomyrmecia)." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and four! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're moving citations from the bibliography into the text. We could equally be moving them in the opposite direction, and probably should be if that was the original citation style... or we could just leave them alone. What's the thinking here? Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before the expansion in August-September, the citation style was the one I am taking on at the moment (even before I began working on sawfly the citation style was the one I am taking on). I'm all for keeping some with some instances, such as Capinera 2008. Citations in the bibliography can stay if they are not eventually sourced into any statement on the article. What do you think should be done? I'll leave it alone for a bit if you have any other ideas. Burklemore1 (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guess it's best to have just one style, though it if was more or less consistently in use before we began, we ought properly to keep it: if that's too awkward, better to change everything; but any citations not used anywhere should be deleted either way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've now filled the main sections of the article, and reworded the lead to make paraphyly as simple as possible (hmm!). I think we shouldn't worry too much about bib. format - it's a side issue to what is swiftly becoming a very decent article. What do you think still needs to be done to the text? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not too much at this point, though I still need to do some expansions myself. I'll work on the description section, parasites and reproduction. Capinera provides an excellent summary on sawfly parasites. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I am writing the parasites section now, so apologies if I interrupt your edits. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Zigrasimecia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Zigrasimecia 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A very Happy Christmas and a restful Wikibreak!

Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I wish you a Happy Christmas to you too. May you also have a happy and restful Wikibreak! Burklemore1 (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sawfly 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 Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sawfly you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sawfly 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 Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to both. I guess I missed the action - for future ref it would have been helpful to have been pinged, for example by being noted as a co-nominator for the GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, you still helped out massively with the article. I guess you didn't get my notification in the GA. :P Burklemore1 (talk) 16:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Burklemore,

I want to copy-edit your O. Glaber article and, because you wrote the article and know more about ants, would like to work with you. Although the recent copy-edit of your article improved its readability, I believe such edits as the one suggested below could further improve it. Would you like to work together to improve the article?

Original Text: In the Oceania, O. glaber is found in numerous areas in Australia. Its geographical range extends from coastal Queensland, New South Wales and south-west Western Australia.[14] It is an introduced species in New Zealand, where the first observation of the ant was recorded in 1927, and by the 1940s, it was well established. Specimens of O. glaber have been intercepted by authorities on several occasions.[18][19] Despite this, the ant is not very common in New Zealand. The ants have been found in Auckland and suburbs, and it has the potential to establish itself in other New Zealand cities. It is regarded as a potential pest, though it is not a major household pest.[8][19] Specimens of O. glaber have been collected from Lord Howe Island, New Caledonia, Norfolk Island, Solomon Islands and the former New Hebrides.[18][20][21]

Suggested Edit: O. glaber inhabits many areas in Oceania. In Australia, its range extends from coastal Queensland and New South Wales to south-west Western Australia.[1] O. glaber was introduced to New Zealand around 1927 and became well established by the 1940s. While the ant has largely remained in Auckland and some suburbs, New Zealand authorities have intercepted specimens elsewhere several times, and it may spread to other New Zealand cities.[2][3] It is regarded as a potential pest, though not a major household one.[3][4] Additionally, specimens of O. glaber have been collected from Lord Howe Island, New Caledonia, Norfolk Island, Solomon Islands and the former New Hebrides.[18][20][21]

Explanation: I rewrote the first sentence to describe the topic of the paragraph, which is the prevalence of O. glaber in Oceania overall rather than only in Australia. I also removed the unnecessary "the" from before "Oceania". Next, I rewrote the second sentence to remove such redundancies as "is an introduced species" or "the first observation of the ant was recorded," which I replaced with simpler phrasing. Third, I consolidated the two sentences describing the abundance and spread of O. glaber in New Zealand into one sentence. Last, I simplified the phrasing of the sentence describing the pestilence of the species.

Duxwing (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Duxwing:, I will gladly work with you on improving the article. If you want I can incorporate your suggested edit into the article now. Burklemore1 (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray! Please do. I will now boldly edit the article further and defer to your judgment about technical language. Duxwing (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I have done some work to the paragraph and went by your suggestion. Looks great! Burklemore1 (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article St. John's Orphanage 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 Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My last concern - barring any further issue I might find on a readthrough or two - is the length & detail in the present lead. Have you considered possible editing for length, maybe pruning it down a little bit? Shearonink (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did have some concerns about the length of the lead, I'll see what can be done. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	Congratulations, it's a...
	...Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! Thank you for reviewing the article! Burklemore1 (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article St. John's Orphanage you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:St. John's Orphanage 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 Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ochetellus glaber 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) 23:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Ochetellus glaber has been completed.

Stupidly I did not look at the Talk page until I had finished the c/e and did not realize that it had already been nominated for a GA review which is on-going. I addressed some of the concerns raised in the review but have not dealt with any technical issues.

I did find what may be an issue here:

Behaviour and ecology

"The ant is uniformly active day and night. Activity increases during the night or on overcast days, peaking during early mornings and late evening to early night. Nocturnal activity varies but is either minimal or non-existent."

The last sentence's minimal or non-existent seems to contradict what is in the preceding sentences and may need to be clarified?

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. I hope the copy edit has not screwed things up.

If you would like me to look it over after the GA review is completed, I'd be happy to do so.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Red imported fire 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 Gug01 -- Gug01 (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how's things? We ought to get this GAN wound up soon, it's been a long time. I don't think the remaining work will take at all long, and I'm happy to assist. Do let me know the timetable for closing it out, however, as it mustn't just languish. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, things are going well. Indeed it has been a long time. I will commence work on the article on 28 Aug and take your suggestions into consideration. Even though this process may take a bit, I do only wish for the best result through mutual cooperation. Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it seems clear that the article needs more effort than is currently likely to be available. I've therefore reluctantly decided to close the GAN. I will be happy to assist if and when your work commitments are less pressing and you feel like taking up the article again. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

The article Ochetellus glaber you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Ochetellus glaber 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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Red imported fire ant you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Red imported fire 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 Gug01 -- Gug01 (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate! Burklemore1 (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there will be a meetup in Canberra on the 20 January 2018 at 7pm, I hope you're able to make it but understand that this is very short notice. Bidgee (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there will be a meetup in Canberra on the 20 January 2018 at 7pm, I hope you're able to make it but understand that this is very short notice. Bidgee (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Novomessor albisetosus 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) 13:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article Novomessor albisetosus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Novomessor albisetosus 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a GA review for Ochetellus glaber, I'm just surprised that Legobot hasn't notified you yet so I thought I would myself. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thank you for letting me know about the review. I will commence work on the 5th. Burklemore1 (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the Nothomyrmecia article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 15, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 15, 2018.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Excellent work, this is a fine article. Sean Parker (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{user WikiProject Australian biota}}

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Irtapil (talk • contribs) 14:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]