You mean like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gumshoe97 Gumshoe97 (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

my name isn't displayed on the list of users looking to be adopted. Gumshoe97 (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also i would be perfectly fine if you adopted me, because only sometimes I need some help, and you seem great at providing it! Gumshoe97 (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Gumshoe97 (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hullo. This is a follow-up from the question I asked in the Teahouse. There is now a page in english https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foleyola_billotii . The speciesbox is a mess. From the pages you and colleagues directed me to, I think that page with the title "Template:Taxonomy/Foleyola" is needed to link the genus to the Brassicaceae taxonomy. However I have no idea how to do this! If you can, excellent. You will also note that there is an error for one of the references because it doesn't have a title. I havn't yet managed to find it but it must be somewhere and I'm still looking for it. If you can work out how to do a speciesbox, that would be great.MerielGJones (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MerielGJones: Moved your message to the bottom of the page, hope you don't mind. Makes it easier to find it back. And yes, a taxonomy template for the genus needs to be created if it doesn't exist yet, which seems to be the case here. Can do so for you no worries. If needed, I'll help you hunt down the stray reference in a bit, too. AddWittyNameHere 22:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HAPPY NEW YEAR! AddWittyNameHere, from --Sir Bond 007 (James The Bond 007) (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@James The Bond 007: Thank you, and belated congratulations on your new username. Happy holidays to you as well! AddWittyNameHere 14:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! also I got adopted by DESeigel! --Sir Bond 007 (James The Bond 007) (talk) 14:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's great to hear, James The Bond 007! I hope you've liked your time at Wikipedia so far? (P.S. Hope you don't mind I've fixed your indenting for you?) AddWittyNameHere 14:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for fixing my indenting, and I LOVE Wikipedia so much, I wish I had joined a year ago! --Sir Bond 007 (James The Bond 007) (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

​You're welcome (though you forgot again - try to remember to add one more : in front of your comment than whatever you're replying to has ) and I'm very glad to hear so! AddWittyNameHere 15:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Recent block of User:James The Bond 007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs)

@DESiegel: I had received your ping & responded, but thank you for leaving the notice all the same. Once again, thank you for your efforts in regards to JB. P.S. you forgot to sign AddWittyNameHere 20:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Merry Christmas! :) Thanks again for taking the time to provide assistance. MikeTheEditor104 (talk) 09:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MikeTheEditor104: Thanks and you're welcome. Merry Christmas to you, as well! Hope you're doing well? (Seems you've remained quite busy off-wiki, considering you haven't been around much the past few weeks?) AddWittyNameHere 14:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello AddWittyNameHere: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Everedux ^(talk) 20:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use ((subst:Season's Greetings1)) to send this message

Thanks, Everedux, and same to you! AddWittyNameHere 20:12, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings AddWitty. Thankyou for your summary on the talk page and for the additions. Early workers present a problem since you can no longer ask a generation of entomologists with a fund of knowledge for help as traditional taxonomy has lost favour and resource.They are sadly no longer like Scheven himself.Thanks to your effort he is no longer lost and starting to appear through the mist.Very best regards Robert Nash FRES aka Notafly (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC) PS Somethings have (greatly) improved though Here is Der Naturforscher atReply[reply]

• Universitat Bielefeld Digital library

Hey there, Notafly! You're quite welcome, and yes, other than a handful of Big Names, early naturalists/entomologists are easily forgotten, often overlooked and remarkably difficult to find good resources on. Not helped by most such resources not having been digitalized yet (though at least Der Naturforscher has scans available) and often languishing in the back of university archives, making them quite difficult to access. I had seen the scans of Der Naturforscher. I certainly intend to use those, but well...non-searchable scans in antique typesetting are going to take some work to use. Not exactly helped by them being in 2.5-century-old German, either. (My German is fairly decent, but it still takes more effort than a source in modern-day English or Dutch, or even modern-day German ) Did you happen to come across any other resources not yet in the article? May as well take a look at those too. AddWittyNameHere 17:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no account in English that I can find of this clearly very significant journal of the German enlightenment .So I will begin a stub including a list of contributors (B-G entomologists alone are Nikolaus Joseph Brahm, Johann Stephan Capieux (de wiki), Eugen Johann Christoph Esper, Johann Kaspar Füssli Johann Friedrich Gmelin, Johann August Ephraim Goeze a star galaxy already). I will let you know when I have put an outline together.Notafly (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC) Ps The conchologists, ornithologists and others (botanists perhaps) will be more difficult for me but I will ask former colleagues for any input. Happy New Year Notafly (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Notafly: Yeah, I noticed just upon scrolling through the scans that there were some very notable names connected to it, including Johann Ernst Immanuel Walch (who published Der Naturforscher from 1774-1778) and Johann Christian Daniel von Schreber (same but 1779-1802). Happy to hear you're working on a stub. Lemme know if there's any German sources you'd like an additional pair of eyes on. AddWittyNameHere 00:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stub started both John Jacob Gebauer Johann Stephan Capieux (red links) have pages in Wiki de and I will get round to them.Also I will add a bit on the taxonomic description of Der Naturforscher. Very best regards Notafly (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC) PS I have a large (very large) digital book collection. Mostly on Diptera but many general entomology, glossaries and so on. Would you like me to send you a list then a memory stick of chosen items? My e-mail is --Reply[reply]

@Notafly: Thanks for creating some much-needed articles. :) I've taken a look at Der Naturforscher and did some tweaking, but looks good so far! Good to know you've got access to a lot of digital resources. I'll be sending you an e-mail. :) (But I've removed your e-mail address from my usertalk, no need to risk you getting a lot of spam as well.) P.S. You could just enable your e-mail here on wikipedia. That way folks can e-mail you without having to show your e-mail address and risking getting a boatload of spam. AddWittyNameHere 17:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Please note that the template for short descriptions is not capitalized. See here: Wikipedia:Short description --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Eloquent Peasant: Could you please point me a bit more specifically at where it says that? I must be overlooking something. Pretty surprised to hear so, too—the template page itself gives as specific example "((Short description|''Write your short description here''))", so with starting capital. Furthermore, starting capital/absence thereof is treated as identical by the mediawiki software as far as I am aware. AddWittyNameHere 02:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Short_description#Editing_procedures - I see what you're saying in the template, but also the automated tool also adds it as ((short description| xxx)) and I've done a few thousand ... but do whatever you like. I just mentioned it 'cause once when I was using caps on a template and should not have been, someone mentioned it. With this one I see conflicting statements (now).--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Eloquent Peasant: I don't mind you mentioning it, no worries. And yeah, if the main automated tool uses no-caps, then in absence of a clear guideline w/o conflicting info, using no-caps makes sense for consistency's sake. Just was trying to figure out whether this is a case of a hard "no don't do that", in which case I'll be hunting through my recent ~50k edits to find the couple thousand shortdesc ones & fix upper capital if I used it (from a spot check, I seem to have used either version at various points) or more of a soft "well this other way is preferred", in which case I'll be switching to no-caps now but leaving the old ones be. Leaning towards the latter because as far as I can tell, there's no functional difference between them & documentation isn't particularly clear either way due to conflicting info so I doubt anyone will appreciate me making a couple hundred to a couple thousand more-or-less cosmetic edits to fix something that's either a minor issue or not an issue at all. AddWittyNameHere 02:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds good. Take care!--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@The Eloquent Peasant: Same to you, and thanks for the heads up in any case. :) AddWittyNameHere 02:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can you guide me please? Skoudco101 (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Responded on your user talkpage. AddWittyNameHere 00:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Colleague, could you please to patrol this and this articles? Thank you. — Green Zero обг 01:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Green Zero: Someone else seems to have gotten to reviewing Sumitomo Forestry before I've had a chance to look at it. I can take a quick second glance at it if you feel it's necessary, but I presume what matters most to you is that it gets reviewed not who it was reviewed by? I'll take a glance at MobiDev in a bit, though I will admit that business-related pages aren't necessarily my forte. I tend to hang around in other parts of the 'pedia and am as a result more familiar with the nitty-gritty customs and MoS guidelines for those subject areas. That said, I am familiar enough with the more important rules and guidelines I can generally review such a page—it's just not a page I'd likely have picked to review myself. AddWittyNameHere 01:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EDIT: Did a first pass & made some changes. I'll be offline for a bit, but once I come back I'll continue. AddWittyNameHere 02:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EDIT2: I don't feel particularly confident in my ability to patrol this particular page after looking into it further, and am asking another patroller for advice. AddWittyNameHere 05:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the article a) does make some genuine claims of notability and b) needs to have about 2/3 of its content removed as promotional.

Something like that, it's quite understandable why you weren't sure. DS (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven: Okay, thank you. That does more or less align with my gut feeling, then. (Suppose it also neatly explains why this one's been lingering in the queue for a while now) Makes me even more hesitant to handle this one, though, since I don't feel confident in my ability to properly separate the genuinely significant notability claims from the promocruft. Any chance you'd be willing to point out what you feel should be removed, or should I simply pass on this one & leave it for either you or someone else to handle? AddWittyNameHere 05:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For starters, remove anything sourced to a press release. But yeah, best to leave this for someone else. DS (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, thank you. I'll pass that information on to the actual article creator, along with a note that I am leaving this article for someone else. Thank you for your time! AddWittyNameHere 07:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi AddWittyNameHere, you had posted a request on WP:TOL back in late-November about updating the genus pages for Lepidoptera. As the amphibians and reptiles automatic taxobox conversion task is nearing completion, I may be able to assist you now. To that end, what were the parameters you had in mind? How are you tracking your progress? What taxa have been completed and what sources are you relying on? 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Wikiproject Lepidoptera Barnstar
		For editors who have contributed greatly to Wikiproject Lepidoptera

Wow!!! You seem to have diffused ALL the moth redirects out of Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names over your last bout of activity. That is a very impressive accomplishment. I'm feeling inspired to tackle the gastropods and see how much smaller than alternative scientific name category can get. Plantdrew (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Plantdrew: She deserves about 10 of these!!!! UaMaol (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually no, make that 100! UaMaol (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there, alles goed? I was going back through my older edits, as I do sometimes, and I came across your name which sounded familiar (and witty, lol), then realised you were the lovely person who went out of her way to explain how things work to the user EDWARD SIGMA (I'd rather not tag him). I see you've not edited since January. Not very alarming as I do the same as you. Anyway, I hope you are keeping well and your health is good! Dankie :) UaMaol (talk) 07:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Uamaol: Apologies for the very late response, don't know if you'll even see this. Yeah, I'm fairly prone to long absences due to health/mental health reasons, and then the stress of the pandemic and my dad getting Long Covid + a new flare up of Adult-Onset Still's Disease came on top of that and wham, before I realized it'd been a good 2.5 years since I'd been active. (Probably for the better, though. I was way too stressed out and grumpy to be patient and civil, and that's a terrible state of mind to be editing Wikipedia in). Things are decent right now, though, all things considered. AddWittyNameHere 04:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your help

I am trying to figure out how to write this in a way that works for the guideline Also I thought it was in a sandbox and I didn't know it was published yet.

Any suggestions you can offer would be greatly appreciated GW Leith (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G

Hi, when various categories for non-island countries were merged to continents, I salvaged some of your previous work by creating List of moths of Brazil, List of moths of China, List of moths of Mexico and List of moths of the United States as bare lists. Please feel free to make these more useful e.g. by adding sub-headings by family. – Fayenatic London 10:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your reply in my talk page! Your advice was very useful, as someone who tries to keep a lookout on Wikipedia. I have no idea what you like, so here's a cup of tea. Have a great day! WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 07:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There seem to be several editors with some kind of automatic spelling correction tool that keep incorrectly changing "genera" to "general". The change gets noticed in a section heading, as you did, but can easily be missed in text. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Peter coxhead: Ugh. Because taxon articles didn't already have enough issues to work on without auto-"correct"ion like that, I suppose... sigh indeed. (Worth seeing if we can get an edit filter or bot to flag those, you think? Or not common enough for that?) AddWittyNameHere 14:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably not common enough. It's just that I've noticed a few lately. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peter coxhead: Yeah, those things seem to go in waves sometimes, don't they? Or it's just the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon, of course, that's also well-possible.

On the subject of different things I've suddenly and recently noticed repeated occurrences of, looks like for many spider families, a lot of them seem to have last been cross-checked against the WSC in either July 2021 or worse, April 2019. Together we could probably knock out that backlog in at most a few days, if you're interested. (If only Lepidoptera had a well-maintained, up-to-date database like that...) AddWittyNameHere 17:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For this thoughtful and well-written explanation to a clearly frustrated article subject (when it would have been easy to just flag down an admin for an NLT block). GeneralNotability (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GeneralNotability: Thanks! Like I said to her, I happened to catch a glimpse of what was going on. Figured that, since I noticed, I might as well try and see if a less template-y, more personal response helped any. If it does, great! If it doesn't, oh well, only thing it cost me is a few minutes of time and some concentration. AddWittyNameHere 13:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The best way of adding surrounding square-brackets around authors is by using ((Bracket)) (unless inside a WP:CS1 or WP:CS2 citation template) like so:

((Bracket|[[Michael Denis|Denis]] & [[Ignaz Schiffermüller|Schiffermüller]]))

which produces the same desired formatting: [Denis & Schiffermüller].

If you do have to, or want to, nowiki-wrap, then please do so to both the opening and closing brackets. That way, they are much less likely to be removed, and the html comment is unnecessary. See/discuss at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes#Square bracket mismatch.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HTML codes [ and ]

[[[Michael Denis|Denis]] & [[Ignaz Schiffermüller|Schiffermüller]]]

work well too.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tom.Reding Appreciate the tip, and will do so from now on! Been a fair bit since I did any significant work on taxon authorities that require the square brackets, other than very sporadically as I ran across a species with a taxon author requiring those, but I did formerly do a fair bit of work on it, albeit probably almost a decade ago at this point. Is this issue in your opinion serious enough that, once I get some time to actually edit Wikipedia again, I should be making it a priority to try and find those old edits & replace the method I used with one of those you suggested, or is it more of a "let's avoid adding more of this in the future" kind of thing? AddWittyNameHere 06:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. They're not a big problem. I did find ~400 pages in this search of ~2835 (permalink) missing a <nowiki>]</nowiki>, but that should be doable for me to fix in a day or so.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  10:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, glad to hear it's fixable on a scale of a day maybe two and not weeks or months of work (and sorry that it's falling on your shoulders because I'm too strapped for time to clean up my own mess). Thanks for bringing it to my attention and clarifying a better way to go about it! AddWittyNameHere 12:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for the extra facts in the Mart Visser AfD and for being an awesome Wikipedian! gidonb (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]