User talk:Yzx

Archives

Cloudy catshark

Just letting you know that I have passed the article for GA. There are a few suggestions of fixes, though, that I suggest you read up on here. bibliomaniac 1 5 06:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back

I was scrolling down GAN and saw you had listed something. I'm glad to see you're back at it! I've missed stalking your articles. ;) ceranthor 22:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support :) I'm still quite busy IRL but trying to find time for articles here or there. -- Yzx (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blotchy shark

At the GA review there's still the unresolved issue about clarifying rows vs series of teeth, please use Rathbone. Remember WP articles must be understood by non-experts as far as possible. --Philcha (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Limbatus

I think this book is very old because I am sure there is not any blacktip in Mediterranean. At the last 20 years; only 1 shark reported in Mediterranean, Italy, there wasn't seen any sharks for the rest. I think my version is more realistic.--Westnest ^message 07:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the sources I gave are dated to 2005. If you want the article to say otherwise you need to provide a recent reliable source (preferably multiple reliable sources) saying so. -- Yzx (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Yzx. You have new messages at 1007D's talk page.
Message added 21:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

There is a request for mentorship if you are willing to take up. -- DQ (t) (e) 21:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the thought, but sorry, I have no desire to take on such a responsibility. -- Yzx (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mustelus mustelus

are you sure? see here - I ask as file is not moved and it is still in Mustelus mustelus article Bulwersator (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite sure, as the white spots are characteristic of M. asterias and absent from M. mustelus. -- Yzx (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added rename template on commons. BTW, I found it during replicating images between enwiki and plwiki - mayb you can join? See Wikipedia_talk:ANIMALS#Illustrations Bulwersator (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Bignose shark a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk)

And Coral catshark too! Well done. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hi!
It's me again! After the Cookiecutter shark, I translated the Sicklefin lemon shark (Requin-citron faucille). Yesterday, he has been promoted Featured article at unanimity! Thanks again, it was a pleasure to translate! My next on the list is the Black dogfish. Best regards --Citron (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Fish Barnstar
		For your rigor, your courage and for your love sharks! --Citron (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Glad to be of help. -- Yzx (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

	The Underwater Barnstar
	For all your work on improving and maintaining shark-related articles (most recently the GA Izak catshark), I want to award you this hand-made Underwater Barnstar. Your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 18:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! -- Yzx (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interview with Wikimedia Foundation

Hello Yzx, I hope you're well. My name is Aaron and I'm one of the Storytellers working on the 2011 fundraiser here at the Wikimedia Foundation. For this year's campaign we're seeking out and interviewing active Wikipedians like yourself, in order to produce a broader and more representative range of "personal appeals" to run come November. If you'd like to participate in this project, please email me at amuszalskiwikimedia.org. Interviews are typically conducted by phone or Skype and take between 30-90 minutes. Thanks! Aaron (WMF) (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Yzx! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Spotted eagle ray

Hi Yzx! Would you by any chance be interested in taking on the GA review of Spotted eagle ray? --Ettrig (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do GA reviews because I tend to be a perfectionist and I'm worried about failing articles unfairly. If another person more familiar with general GA expectations will take responsibility for passing the article, I'd be happy to offer my comments. -- Yzx (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No need to explain. We should all do what we think is best. --Ettrig (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Yzx for helping to promote Mangrove whipray to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give some a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil © • © 07:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Appreciate the gesture. -- Yzx (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Help

Hello Yzx, Ettrig suggested I come to you for help with the article Sand tiger shark because of your interest and success in sharks. I am currently working on it for a project in AP Biology and hope to make the article to a GA status and possibly a FA. Until then, however, I need all the help and experience I can get to make the article to its true potential. I'm just looking for suggestions, review, additional resources, etc. I would truly appreciate your help, (I have a real interest in sharks as well) and I hope to hear from you soon. --UND77 (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your thorough review. --Ettrig (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for reviewing the Sand tiger shark article! It was extremely helpful. Thanks again! UND77 (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Glad to be of help. -- Yzx (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Nervous shark

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Nervous shark you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 5 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Lhynard (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creek whaler

For some reason my review at Talk:Creek whaler/GA1 is not appearing on the talk page of Creek whaler, even though it is shown as transcluded. Anyway I have linked to it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Nervous shark

The article Nervous shark you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Nervous shark for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? Lhynard (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GAN Sharptooth houndshark has passed GA!

Good work! You manage to write about complex (to me) subjects clearly. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freshwater Sharks

Wasn't there sightings of a smooth hammerhead in the Indian River, blacktip reef sharks in Malaysian freshwater habitats, finetooth sharks in Texas rivers as well as tiger sharks, daggernose sharks and sandbar sharks in river mouths? I was NOT referring to brackish water sharks AT ALL. I was referring to sharks found in freshwater, plain and simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.128.11 (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

River mouths are brackish water habitats, as are many large rivers up to at least the tidal limit. Scientific sources consistently give the only truly freshwater sharks as the bull shark and the Glyphis sharks. Here's one such source: [1], which also talks about sharks in river mouths. -- Yzx (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STARGATE

I propose a conversion of this Project into a task force. You may improve a consensus by clicking WT:WikiProject Stargate#Turning WikiProject Stargate into a task force? and discussing a proposal. --George Ho (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FA fish

Hello. I noticed that there's not that many fish articles at FA status. i hope you'll consider bringing your GA fish articles up there. LittleJerry (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Porbeagle

I have nominated this at WP:TFAR PumpkinSky talk 23:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

coming soon, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

	sharks
	Thank you for quality articles for the project fishes, especially on sharks, such as porbeagle, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (17 September 2010)! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 287th recipient of my PumpkinSky, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit at Portuguese dogdish

Hi Yzk. My immeadiate instict was to undo what you did, as you falied to see what I was trying to do and did not bother to leave a note, which be more educational for other editors. My intention was to introduce "of the" for better flow/ style. In the process I absentmindedly switched the order of "family Somniosidae" to "Somniosidae family". Your revert is correct, in terms of biological names (THOUGH it is NOT wrong to say it the other way round and you will find hundreds of cases in the WP), but requires that author being reverted is aware of that (which was not the case here), otherwise you might lust unleash a series of reversals. A short note would have helped. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False catshark

I've started looking at the GA review for this - all seems good so far, but as I've been working on it for a while, I'm going to read it over again for prose with clear eyes in a few hours. :-)

I've left a few commments on fairly minor issues you might want to have a look at - nothing really problematic so far, though. Great work! Andrew Gray (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two more queries, and we're good to go. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- All looks good - congratulations on your 88th GA! Andrew Gray (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – Sand devil

Hi, Yzx. Thanks for your work on Sand Devil. I'll be reviewing the article here, so make sure to keep an eye on my concerns. The article isn't too long, so I don't think it will take me a long time to review it. Thanks again! ComputerJA (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oophagy

How do you know that manta embryos didn't use their mouths and eat yolk. You state that for goblin shark. LittleJerry (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are no oophagous rays. Oophagy only occurs in three groups of sharks (the Lamniformes, the Pseudocarcharidae, and the tawny nurse shark). -- Yzx (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll have that last issue resolved soon. I just need someone at resources to finally post that Mozambique manta thesis. (I lost access to it). LittleJerry (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now all your concerns are now met. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back the subject, do other fish "absorb yolk" in the womb? LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The absorption of yolk for nourishment during embryonic development is the default for all vertebrates (possibly all animals). It's matrotrophy, i.e. additional provisioning by the mother (through uterine secretions or through a placenta) that's the derived condition. -- Yzx (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Congratulations for promoting Sand devil to Good article status! I enjoyed reading your work; make sure to consider reviewing an article in the future, too! Cheers and happy editing. ComputerJA (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sixgill stingray GA review

Hallo, I'm reviewing the article, which I enjoyed. I have made a few comments in the review, with a suggestion on the talk page for a cladogram (drafted, feel free to edit - I deliberately kept it sparse). All the best - Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo again, delighted to be able to congratulate you on your --- is it 91st? --- chondrichthyan (not a word I often use on talk pages...) GA. Well done.

I do hope you'll devote some time to reviewing other people's GA candidates; there is no formal quid pro quo as with DYK submissions, but there is a desperate need for people who know the GA ropes, as you certainly do, to join in, keep the queues short, and above all educate the newbies. I wish other areas had anything like the skilled coverage that you've given to the sharks, by the way. Great work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Natural History Shield

	The Natural History Shield
	For bringing so many shark articles to such a good standard. Well done (and pass it on). Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! The thing about reviews is that I don't particularly want to be solely responsible for passing/failing other people's work (and I'm a total nitpicker), which is why I stopped doing DYKs after they started their QPQ requirement. I'm more than happy to do informal reviews if requested. -- Yzx (talk) 07:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. What I can say is that since you have self-awareness of your critical skill and nature, as well as of the need not to "bite the newbies", you will certainly be very useful as a reviewer, and you'll find you can "bite your tongue" when necessary. And of course, you can always stop and ask for a Second Opinion! All the best, -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week, for high quality articles, especially on sharks. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Epipelagic submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Editor Yzx as Editor of the Week for writing and significantly expanding a large number of high quality articles on a regular basis. Over a period of nearly five years, Yzx has been the principal editor of 2 featured articles, 87 good articles and 211 DYK's, mainly on sharks and rays. Yzx has achieved all this in a quiet no-fuss, non-confrontational style and with a remarkable economy of edits. In addition, Yzx has uploaded over 1000 images generally of high quality to Wikimedia Commons, many of which are used here on Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk)

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Go Phightins! 19:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you Yzx. Your contributions on cartilaginous fishes are exemplary and much appreciated, and have set challenging standards for other marine life editors to emulate. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you very much! I'm honored. -- Yzx (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your contnuing efforts to educate our reader and improve the quality of the encyclopedia are appreciated. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on well-deserved award! Great work.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, congratulations! AutomaticStrikeout ? 13:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations and thank you for some great work here :) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, congratulations, but more importantly: Thank you for all the great work and helpful edits. Bringing so many articles to GA or better is exactly the core of our mission here, and you serve as a great example. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 12:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! What a body of work you've accumulated. Thanks for expanding and improving so many articles in this area, in particular your 96 GAs--it's an achievement few Wikipedians can match. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By way of small thanks, let me go ahead and give that last waiting GA a review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blacktipped reef shark

Yzx

Editor of the Week
for the week beginning May 26, 2013

Known for his high quaility DYK contributions, he is a major contributor to hundreds of articles about sharks and fishes.

Recognized for

Extensive work with WikiProject Sharks

Notable work

Authored over 90 quality articles

Submit a nomination

Thanks again everyone for your kind words. -- Yzx (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Longtail butterfly ray and so many others to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Yzx (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goblin shark

You uploaded that pic (File:Mistukurina owstoni museum victoria.jpg) of a goblin shark and added it to the article, and you are pissed that I messed with your edits. I totally understand the feeling, because I'm feeling the same thing right now.

I think my SVG sketch of a goblin shark compared to a human diver is a very useful and relevant image, vividly illustrating the scale of this animal. This sort of diagram appears in lots of other articles on whales and sharks. Go see for yourself. Plenty of precedents.

Your pic is very nice. I've been looking for a good profile photo of a real specimen with jaws retracted. A live underwater shot would be best, but this is good enough. I see that it's validity as a free resource is not yet confirmed. Is it yours? If not, did you get permission from the owner? I do want your pic to appear in the article. Maybe even in the infobox. But I also want my SVG size comparison diagram to appear as well - in the infobox.

I always thought galleries were a nice place to put images which don't fit perfectly into specific sections of the article (I like strong relevance). It looks neater to me. Could you refer to me to the official guideline that discourages this?Kurzon (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've given my rationale for the image removal at Talk:Goblin shark. For galleries, Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image galleries says that galleries should only be included if necessary to explain some aspect of the subject that cannot be accomplished by inline images, which is not the case here. -- Yzx (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Viper dogfish

My GA review follows. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Viper dogfish/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 10:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before we start, a bit of advice: If there's a message on your GA candidae's talk page saying there's a copyright violation, it's a good idea to note that the problem is no longer relevant. (And, as the message is four years old in this case, it might be worth archiving it - though given this talk page isn't used much, I can see why you wouldn't do that.)

However, I did a quick comparison of the revisios from the copyright violation page and the current, and there are happily no issues, so, initial worries aside, this review can carry on to a rather more pleasant conclusion.

Now, I do have some issues with this article. I don't think they're quite enough to deny it good article status, but I would strongly encourage fixing these.

"Feeding mainly on bony fishes" - the vast majority of fish are bony fishes, so it's not quite clear what the specificity is meant to imply. If what's meant is that it feeds mostly on bony fishes, with the occasional cartilaginous fish, say that, but if it eats things like cephalopods and such, then a lot more clarity should be added.

"Mainly" means that its diet consists mainly of bony fishes. I don't really see the difference between that and "mostly". -- Yzx (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more asking whether "bony" is significant there; specifying "mainly bony fishes" can mean that its diet also includes non-bony fishes (e.g. cartilaginous), or it can mean that it mainly consists of bony fishes, with other sea life in general as the secondary foodstuff. Perhaps I'm overthinking this. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of the second paragraph of the lead: it's a bit unfocused. Rearranging the lead into more coherent, flowing paragraphs would vastly improve its readability. Also, the statement that there is insufficient data to evaluate conservation status should probably remain there or be discussed in the article body, not the lead.

The lead's supposed to summarize the article, so that's what I did. Also, the IUCN status is discussed in the article body. -- Yzx (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it could help to rearrange the text a bit, and be a little bit more selective. (Also, I did notice the IUCN status in the article body after I said that, but apparently failed to correct my error completely. Oops. My basic point, though, is that it's in an infobox right next to the lead, so it's not strictly necessary to mention it again if it doesn't add much.) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The phylogeny and evolution section takes a while to get to the point. It's rather strange to find discussion of the division of a family into clades in an article on a species. The reasoning for this is eventually made clear, but leading off with something like "The position of Trigonognathus within Etmopteridae is unclear." the section gains focus. In fact, I'm going to add that now.

I think that's an improvement, thanks. -- Yzx (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to have a picture, but for rare sea animals only discovered in the late 80s, that's far less of a problem than it would be in an article on a readily-accessible species.

So, on the whole, pass, but with caveats. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest stingray

Hello, Yzx. You have new messages at RN1970's talk page.
Message added RN1970 (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello, Yzx. You have new messages at RN1970's talk page.
Message added RN1970 (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Edit warring at the goblin shark article

Hello Yzx. I see that you have been taking part in the recent edit war at the goblin shark article. I've protected the article for two days as an interim measure. I'm sure that you've read all the relevant policy pages before, so I'll just point you to my comments on the protection and note that until a consensus has been reached I'll be blocking anyone who continues to revert. Do let me know if you have any questions about any of this, though. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yzx, DrEdna has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! DrE (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garden Warbler

I hope I'm not harassing you, but it's been a few days since I addressed your most recent comments, and I wondered if there were still any outstanding issues (I can see from the Stradivarius post why your thoughts may have been elsewhere) (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. The article looks fine so I've given my support. -- Yzx (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Fish for You!!!

	WikiProject Fishes Award
	Thanks for all of your contributions to the WikiProject fishes!!! Ensignricky Talk 12:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -- Yzx (talk) 02:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pigeye shark TFA

Hello, this is just a brief note to let you know that Pigeye shark will be appearing as Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 10, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask me. If the blurb needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. Congratulations on getting the article to FA, by the way, and I hope that the TFA appearance goes smoothly. Sorry for the late notification - you may have already spotted this news through your watchlist; the bot that was meant to tell you seems to have broken. Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 19:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milk shark

Hi Yzx,

I have undone your reversion of my edit; I think you must have misunderstood the change. Jordan and Richardson published an illustration of an animal they called Scoliodon walbeehmi. This turns out to be a synonym of Rhizoprionodon acutus. The animal they illustrated is therefore Rhizoprionodon acutus. They did not illustrate "a synonym of the milk shark", nor can I imagine how they could even do that. It simply doesn't make sense. They illustrated a milk shark, albeit under a name that is now deprecated. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The caption said that it was an illustration of Scoliodon walbeehmi, which is what it is. I think you're splitting semantic hairs. -- Yzx (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TASSELLED WOBBEGONG ASSOCIATES

Hi Yzx, I was wondering if you could give me some more information about the amazing behaviour of the small fish and other creatures that hang around the tasselled wobegong and lure in larger fish which the shark then preys upon? A reference would be great, or a point to a relevant science figure. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.161.97 (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't think there are any more references beyond what's already in the article. -- Yzx (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Australian weasel shark

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Australian weasel shark 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) 18:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]