A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10... 100... 200 Fun and interesting pages Userpage guidelines Userbox directory Most visited articles Join a WikiProject Are you a Wikipediholic? The top editors The motto of the day Some really bad ideas... The department of fun! Wikisongs! Some new article ideas Some very odd articles... List of the newest users Barnstars! List of user rewards List of most vandalized pages Very frequently asked questions The founder of Wikipedia... The reward board (earn awards!) Get interesting articles to edit from SuggestBot Find out exactly how many edits you have! Visit a totally random page! Meet a random user! Hello, Simuliid, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am MBisanz and I would like to thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:   Introduction  5    The five pillars of Wikipedia   How to edit a page   Help   Tips   How to write a great article   Manual of Style   Fun stuff...   Be Bold   Assume Good faith   Keep cool   Have an experienced editor adopt you   Policy on neutral point of view And here are several pages on what to avoid: How to not spam How to avoid copyright infringement What Wikipedia is not Make sure not to get blocked, which should be no problem after reading this I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which are produced by clicking on the button; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Also, I think that you might want to join the the adopt-a-user project, where advanced editors can guide you in your first experiences here; so check it out if you want. Again, welcome!  You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.) Fix spelling and grammar Thomas Devaux CRPF Valley QAT Corps of drums Basimba people Orr: My Story More... • Learn how Fix wikilinks Murat Ertel European BEST Engineering Competition Balearic slinger More... • Learn how Update with new information Memory paging Stadio Pier Cesare Tombolato Jowai Conesville, New York Battle of Vuhledar More... • Learn how Expand short articles Heberden's node Inguinal lymphadenopathy Emma Guttman-Yassky Integrin alphaXbeta2 AbC-19 rapid antibody test More... • Learn how Check and add references Hypersonic effect Panavia Tornado Eclipse 500 Timeline of Romanian history Aontú More... • Learn how Fix original research issues Augustus De Morgan Biopower Domeli The Maracot Deep Johann Fust More... • Learn how Improve lead sections Swedish royal baptisms Media censorship and disinformation during the Gezi Park protests Allison Rosati Steven Hatfill Dhiraar ibn al-Khattab More... • Learn how Add an image Hinduism in Romania Health in Pakistan Hokukano-Ualapue Complex Hinduism in Israel Huff paste More... • Learn how Translate and clean up SHISH Lucas Lira Restorative Liberal Revolution Emilio Munda French Algeria More... • Learn how Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women. Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality. Click here to reply to this message. This welcome message was sent by MBisanz at 09:31, March 31, 2009 (UTC)

Hi there - I noticed you misspelled "European" as "Europen" in a number of articles you created recently. Might be worth checking the spelling if you're using a template or script. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good on you for creating all those species articles (with references!) - I hope you keep up the excellent work. You also might be interested in being a part of WP:TOL. Kind regards. Calaka (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Simuliid

I saw your new artcle, Polypedilum. Is there a problem (bot?), as it refers to Lauterborniella in the lead in and taxobox? I didn't want to make a change before you had the chance to review. Cheers, Heds (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just stopping by to complement you on all the insect articles you are creating. I'm working on moths myself, but saw a lot of your articles when randombly browsing around. I found a usefull site for pictures some time ago, which might be usefull for you too (but then again, you might already be aware of it). http://www.forestryimages.org/browse/order.cfm?id=58&goButton=+go+ Cheers and keep up the great work! Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. I see your new articles about insects come up a lot in New Page Patrol. Consider applying for the autoreviewer permission. This will make pages you create show up as already patrolled, meaning that they won't come up in the NPP logs, saving us at NPP a little effort. I'll gladly nominate you myself, if you'd prefer. — æk^Talk 10:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC) PS -- thanks for all the work you're doing to expand the articles on insect taxa!Reply[reply]

Hi, after reading one of your articles at newpage patrol I was surprised to see that an editor who has contributed as much as you have hadn't been approved as an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of rectifying that. ϢereSpielChequers 17:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks :-) 17:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I think Nephrotoma quadrifaria and Nephrotoma appendiculata are duplicates. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all the great articles you've made. Wikipedia loves you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You were recommended to me for possible help on the article scaptia lata. In particular, I am not 100% sure I have identified the species in the photo correctly. I created the article for the photo. You may also wish to create a user page for your account that gives a little background information about yourself. Having a blank user page is a little confusing for other users. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your help with the article, Simuliid. I did not keep the specimen but I have several other photos of the same fly and some others of a second fly. It literally just landed on my shoulder and I handed my camera to my girlfriend who snapped a few shots before he flew away. I am quite happy that I managed to get this photo "in the wild". The other photos are of varying quality, most of which are not very good, but there's one more that I may add to the article that shows the fly directly from above. It would be interesting to discover the sex of the creature in the photo, perhaps via coloration. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I posted a new photo at the article showing the fly directly from above. The fly was at the very bottom of the photo hence the tight cropping on the picture. I also asked the same question about the fly's sex at Talk:Scaptia_lata so others can contribute if they want. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm pretty sure we've discussed this before, but I would remind you that there is a strong consensus, demonstrated on more than one occasion, that minor ranks should not be included in taxoboxes unless they're directly relevant. That means you should not include suborders on articles dealing with a species or genus, for instance. The taxobox is meant to be a summary, not an exhaustive list, so all that is required, typically, are the seven major ranks (kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species). I know that it can be difficult to know which ranks the general reader will consider important if you are a specialist in a given group (since all the taxa seem important to you), but I can assure you that for flies, nothing is needed between Order and Family, and in most cases, nothing is needed between Family and Genus. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1st point not discised before.

The guidelines on this subject state not to use Minor ranks in taxoboxes - unless there is a consensuses to include then. With Diptera many workers are including these, so I am following consensus and the guidelines.

Unlike other orders, the real detail in Diptera classification is in the in the minor ranks. In other orders, for example mollusca, linnaeus's simple model works very well, and I would not even stop to consider including them when I edit a non-diptera page. For Diptera with great diversity in the several hundred families, it does not.

When I visit museum collections on Diptera research, these collections are ordered by these minor ranks, I can not find the hoverfly collections, without knowing that they are in the Aschiza part of the collection. My assumption is other diptera workers on wikipedia include these ranks for similar reasions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simuliid (talk • contribs) 07:44, 18 June 2010

I have moved the discussion here, where it began, in order to keep it all in one place.

The issue may not have been discussed here before, but the issue has been discussed quite widely. Have a look at User talk:Mark-mitchell-aldershot, which is another user account that made the sort of edits you promote. There, a variety of editors, including Shyamal, Dyanega, Pro bug catcher, myself and KP Botany all tried to make the same point, which is that too many taxa makes the taxobox worse, not better. This is in addition to the fact that the guidelines for taxobox usage were also established by wide user input. The consensus is thus clearly opposed to the inclusion of minor ranks except very close to the subject of the article. The presence of minor ranks, and their holding "the real detail", is not exclusive to flies (and Mollusca may not be the best example of a simple Linnaean hierarchy; as a random example, see Gyraulus riparius). Flies are no different to many other orders; I recently discovered that acarologists have felt the need to invent a new rank of "cohort" (distinct from the usual zoological meaning) to encompass their classification of ticks and mites, for instance. Finally, while ease of navigation in museum collections is a laudable aim, it is not the role of Wikipedia, and the encyclopaedic content should not be compromised by an attempt to cram too much taxonomic detail into an article. If a reader wants to know what suborder a particualr species is in, they can either move up the taxonomy presented in the taxobox (clicking on the family should normally suffice), or through the Wikispecies links (or even ((TaxonIds))) that we provide for that purpose.

To summarise, there is a strong consensus that adding minor ranks to taxoboxes is not desirable. Continuing to do so without first seeking to gain consensus may be seen as disruptive. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I repeat, minor ranks distant from the article's subject are not welcome in the taxobox. This has been discussed repeatedly, and continuing to add them may well be considered disruptive editing. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I saw what you did to the birth date format in Junrey Balawing's article. There is an on going discussion request in this regard, as I am implying the first given example here. I was expecting that you're going to clarify first before you deleted as it was previously raised for discussion. Rammaum (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Conops for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Is this hornet angry or just confused?
	"am I missing what you mean?" - yes, I was making a little pun on the word "bugs". Please accept this fine specimen of a European Hornet to make up for the misunderstanding. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What reason do you have for your recent mass undoing of my edits? Your articles are so short that they add nothing that was not already apparent from the list on the genus page. They are ill-formatted, containing far too much taxonomic detail in the taxobox (as we have discussed before). They are also generally very poorly sourced. Inclusion of the species name in certain listings is no good evidence that a species is currently recognised as valid. For all these reasons, it is better to merge all the worthless substubs on Herina species to the genus' article. You must have known, both from our previous interactions and from common sense, that that kind of action would not be greeted with joy. It took me a fair amount of time and effort to clean up after you; making me do the same thing again is particularly unwelcome. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Simuliid! 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 13:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, On what basis do you assume that it is not a housefly? --Muhammad(talk) 06:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glad to see you are back! Keep up the good work! Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Writer's Barnstar
		For your recent run of new biology-related articles. Thanks for the significant contributions to improve Wikipedia. Your efforts are appreciated Northamerica1000(talk) 10:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Herina liturata, you may be blocked from editing. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Please do a significant amount of background research before proposing editors for user rights. The PERM pages are occasionally backlogged and unnecessary requests simply place an additional burden on the admins. Thanks, and happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Here is a well earned cup of tea for you. You have exhibited a high amount of compassion in respect of assisting other people on Wikipedia. Furthermore, you created several articles and made meaningful contributions to entomology pages. Keep up the outstanding work!!! 😺Galaxycat😺 talk 09:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi I see several of your Ulidiidae pages are duplicates.An instance is Herina palustris (Meigen, 1826) which also appears as Ortalis palustris Meigen, 1826 (on it's own page) though the synonymy is given in the Herina palustris taxobox. Maybe you could check these.I am not sure that redirect is the best course for such synonyms. Perhaps deletion of the invalid combinations would be better. The info content is, at least here, minimal.Can you add more? Notafly (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice to hear from you again. Ulidiidae are a mess, and not just on wikipedia, with some workers still counting Otitidae as a family. I had written many of the Ulidiidae pages with the hope of making at least a little sense of this group myself, and have written a prototype key to the UK species (not published), and that works OK just for UK. but trying to widen this to Europe one soon meets problems, with little consensus. However I will research the matter you mention. But I may not get to the entomology library until the latter part of October.Simuliid talk 08:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I am a new editor in the fly section. Can you see if I should use a common name in the article above? I think its widespread! Can you also see which one is correct Uramya pristis or Tachina basalis. The thing is is that Tachina basalis is not listed in Tachina genus! Many thanks in advance!--Mishae (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome - I need to look further, but Uramya pristis (of walker) looks correct?Simuliid talk 23:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So Altervista is not a proper source? I'm confused now. Can you please make me one more favour? If its not hard, can you please not remove the navboxes from my or any other articles? The consensus had agreed on using them 2 months ago... Many thanks!--Mishae (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another thing, on your user page you typed name 2 times, if you want, you can fix the error since I don't know how to do it.--Mishae (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Simuliid. The ref you added appears to indicate that Étienne Mulsant was the binomial authority.
Please be aware that though I have 30 K Wikipedia edits and like to think of myself as a loyal servant of Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects, I have no scientific qualifications whatsoever! You're the expert, and more than happy to go with what you wrote.
--Shirt58 (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have recently made several potentially contentious edits (e.g. this), altering date formats, using the edit summary "Changed date re WP:DATEFORMAT". WP:DATEFORMAT makes it abundantly clear that both "November 29, 1762" and "29 November 1762" are acceptable everywhere. You must not make such edits. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have replied to your message on my talk page. In short, you are wrong. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No very clearly you are wrong, These are not US persons. therefor Non US rules apply. There are many more parts of the globe where English it the primary language and the non US data formant is used, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, South Africa etc. I I would would argues to that as English is the primary 'international language'. There is such a thing as German English, as anyone who has tried to conduct cross border trade in the EC will know. please see MOS:TIES Simuliid talk 22:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I've added the rollback flag for you. Any questions let me know. Pedro :  Chat  13:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Category:Animals described in 1878]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you explain to me a reason behind a category merge here and in many other instances?--Mishae (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Simuliid. I have recently been removing empty |month= parameters from cite templates since that parameter is now deprecated. The last remaining articles my searches find consist largely of fly genus or species articles that you started (there were about 80 in total). Many of these follow a similar format and use the same references (two in particular). Rather than just removing the deprecated parameter, I'm considering upgrading the references too. I wish to change:

((cite book|author=D'Assis Fonseca, E.C.M|year=1968 |title=Diptera Cyclorrhapha Calyptrata: Muscidae |pages=118|publisher=Royal Entomological Society of London|series= Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects|volume= 10|month=|location= London.))

to

((cite book |last=D'Assis Fonseca |first=E. C. M. |authorlink=E. C. M. d'Assis-Fonseca |date=January 31, 1968 |title=Diptera Cyclorrhapha Calyptrata: Section (b) Muscidae |series=Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects |publisher=Royal Entomological Society of London |location=London |isbn=0-901546-07-0 |volume=10 |page=118))

and

((cite book|author=Gregor, F.; Rozkosny, R.; Bartak, M.; Vanhara, J.|year=2002 |title=The Muscidae (Diptera) of Central Europe|pages=280|publisher=Masaryk University|series= Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Masarykianae Brunensis|volume= 107|month=|location= Masaryk.))

to

((cite journal |last1=Gregor |first1=František |last2=Rozkošný |first2=Rudolf |last3=Barták |first3=Miroslav |last4=Vaňhara |first4=Jaromír |date=2002 |title=The Muscidae (Diptera) of Central Europe |journal=Folia Facultatis Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Masarykianae Brunensis |publisher=Masaryk University |location=Brno, Czech Republic |isbn=80-210-2773-8 |volume=107 |page=280))

These changes would modernize and correct these two references while adding more information. I am worried about the |page= parameter however. This parameter (or |pages=) are meant to specify the cited material as precisely as possible. It is not for the total number of pages. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you used the total number of pages in each source when you made these pages and not the page (or pages) that specifically support the statement being footnoted. This means we need to correct that. I started this by trying to verify the statement sourced with D'Assis Fonseca 1968 in the Villeneuvia article but I was unable to verify that sentence using the PDF of D'Assis Fonseca 1968 I found online; however, the PDF I found was a few pages incomplete. In general I am worried that this reference may have been used only as a very vague reference in all these fly articles. Footnoted statements should be very clearly supported by the source. In fact, when possible, it's best to use the |quote= parameter to say exactly what statement in the source supports the statement in the Wikipedia article.

Could you clarify how these sources were used and, in particular, how the |page= parameter was? Also, if you notice any problems in the upgraded cite templates above, please tell me. You can find many of these articles by using "insource:/\|\s*month\s*=\s*\|/ -incategory:Pages_containing_cite_templates_with_deprecated_parameters" as a search. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Jason Quinn (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Simuliid. I don't think you got a chance to see the message above but I see that you are editing again. (Happy New Year! by the way) In the new article you are creating, you are still incorrectly using some of the cite template parameters. The |accessdate= parameter should only be used if there is an associated |url= parameter and |pages= should not be used for the total number of pages and you should not add "pp" or anything like that because the template adds "p." or "pp." automatically. If don't know if you've turned them on or not, but many cite template errors are not visible by default. I think they should all be turned on by default but it's done for reader orientated purposes. For active editors like yourself, however, it's a good idea to turn them on so you can detect potential problems. You can follow the instructions at Help:CS1 errors#Controlling error message display to turn them on. Anyway, I'd like to help improve these fly articles with you. Let me know what you think about the above. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 13:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Jason, Happy New Year too. Firstly thanks for the interest in what I have been doing on the Diptera articles, and for correcting any errors on my part. Firstly removing empty |month=, yes I no longer use that, and suspect any articles you needed to correct I eddied some time ago? Re the |page= and |pages= parameters. I am very aware of the differences, and misuse is a clear error on my part. Thank you for bringing this to my attention and I will try to be more careful with its use in future. I almost exclusively (intended) to use the |pages= parameter, and where I have used the ((para|page} parameter, it is almost always in error, the only exception will be some references to Chandler's Checklists of Insects of the British Isles: Diptera, where someone else had been using the ((para|page} parameter correctly and I merely copied there usage. So in the Fonseca examples for gave, this should be cerrected to |pages=. As for the "p." or "pp." and the point about the |accessdate= associated with |url=, I was not aware. Thanks for pointing these out, I will bear these in mind in future. Please keep up the good work.Simuliid talk 13:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Simuliid. Thanks for the reply. Yes, many of this articles were created a while ago (like back in 2009'ish). You can find the same list I am seeing by searching for "insource:/\|\s*month\s*=\s*\|/ -incategory:Pages_containing_cite_templates_with_deprecated_parameters" in the search box (should find about 62 items total with many of them fly articles). You say you "almost exclusively" intend to use the |pages= parameter. If you mean general, I'm confused by that. Or do you mean solely for the two references above? For instance, could you explain what is on page 118 of the D'Assis Fonseca book? It appears to be part of the index and I am worried it is the total number of pages in the book, which is not what |pages= is for. I would like to make sure the references are near perfect before going and changing about 70'ish or more in total. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Simuliid- unless I am very much mistaken, there is no guideline preventing direct page citations as I used them in the above article, but there is a guideline against changing citation style without consensus. You have now been reverted by both me and Sasata- if you are sure that there is something wrong with the citations, could you please provide your reasons on the talk page rather than reverting again? J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please cite the precise guideline/MOS requirement you feel that mine and Sasata's preferred version of the article violates? There is no requirement to use particular citation templates. Two related points: Please be aware that is considered extremely poor etiquette to revert good faith edits without comment, and this is explicitly in violation of the behavioural guideline on the subject. Furthermore, you are close to violating the three revert rule. (See also the bold, revert, discuss cycle.) J Milburn (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also WP:CITESTYLE: "While citations should aim to provide the information listed above, Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style." J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Endangered species of the British Isles, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor ^(talk) 05:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Simuliid!

I've read you are an expert in entomology, so I was wondering if you can help me find out whether the name of Wikipedia article "Mordella brusteli" is correct? In Joe Hallan's Biology Catalog in the family Mordellidae I have not found the species "Mordella brusteli" but "Mediimorda brusteli" instead. A lot of the species in this family are called "Mordella ...". Some of them, however, according to Biology Catalog are called "Mediimorda ...", although they are in the same family. If the Biology Catalog is correct, there is a wrongly named article in the Spanish- and English-language Wikipedias: "Mordella brusteli", which should be named "Mediimorda brusteli". However, I am NOT an expert, so I'd like to know what you think. Thanks a lot! --Anna Mayerhof (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link to Joel Hallan's Biology Catalog

Link to Encyclopedia of Life

You don't seem to have the time / energy ... to answer. No problem, just a note: I'm deleting this page from my watchlist. If you'd like to answer another time, please leave me a note on my talk page. Greetings--Anna Mayerhof (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Ermischiella castanea requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Magicsan (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to, please take a look at the article Marie Serneholt, which is this weeks TAFI article. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no need to change Carolus Linnaeus to Carl Linnaeus - please see Do not fix redirects. DuncanHill (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

• On the Tachytrechus page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I had a question for you at Talk:List of mammals of Korea#Linking Linnaeus. Thank you,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Simuliid. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Simuliid. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why you reverted me? Super Ψ Dro 20:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

[[User:Simuliid|<font color="#21610B" style="text-shadow: #5FB404 0 3px 3px;">'''Simuliid'''</font>]] [[User talk:Simuliid|<font color="#013ADF">talk</font>]] : Simuliid talk

to

[[User:Simuliid|<b style="color: #21610B; text-shadow: #5FB404 0 3px 3px;">Simuliid</b>]] [[User talk:Simuliid|<span style="color: #013ADF;">talk</span>]] : Simuliid talk

—Anomalocaris (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most users are updating their signatures as requested. We hope you will also. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Wikilink Barnstar
		For linking from species to their binomial authorities. This is important and valuable work. However: adding a bluelink is almost always not WP:MINOR, as you have marked many of your edits. I only mark as WP:MINOR edits which neither add nor change information and which are totally uncontroversial. I never mark a new bluelink as WP:MINOR; even if I'm merely putting [[]] around existing text. "Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if the edit concerns a single word, and it is improper to mark such an edit as minor". IMO that warning extends to fixing bad links to DAB or surname pages. Narky Blert (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there,

I notice that when you recently edited the page Hydrobia glyca you made this change, which undid this edit done by User:William Avery Bot shortly beforehand.

I recently opened a discussion about automating the transfer of mollusc articles from "Animals described in ..." to "Molluscs described in..." categories at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods#Populating_the_"Molluscs_described_in_YYYY"_categories. The three editors who commented all seem quite keen on having a separate set of categories for gastropods (which hadn't previously crossed by mind), so I'm in the process of implementing that, and the edit you reversed was part of a trial of the bot task. Anyway, I thought you might have an opinion on the matter and, if so, make it known at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods#Populating_the_"Molluscs_described_in_YYYY"_categories or at WP:BRFA#William_Avery_Bot. Any input would be most welcome, and I certainly would not want to in any way alienate an editor as productive and knowledgeable as yourself. Thank you. William Avery (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Simuliid, thanks for your effort in Wikipedia. Take attention to the Wikipedia guideline WP:SUBCAT "an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it". In other words: Do not categorize one article in a subcategory and into its parent category. One category is enough, especially for animals. Thanks. Have a nice day, --Snek01 (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, it's always good to see more taxonomy templates constructed. Ranks in these templates must be the Latin form, otherwise some features don't work. See Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/taxonomy templates#rank for a sortable table of possible values. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I think this may be a spelling mistake? I was connecting recent species articles up on Wikidata and couldn't find this one. I looked at your source and it doesn't mention this genus in the index (although I didn't read through all of it) but there is a genus Ethiolimnia which we have a Wikidata page on and seems to have all the same listed species on the Swedish Wikipedia? Blythwood (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page 16ff. of the source given has "Ethiolimnia" (related to Limnia) so this clearly is an error. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many Thanks Peter. Well spotted, was misspelling (OCR Error) in a paper,Ethiolimnia is spelling elsewhere.Simuliid talk 23:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I thought of an OCR issue immediately. I'm not sure about the "Eth"→ "Euth", but "li" → "ki" and other combinations seems to be a common OCR issue. I think it's because in old manual typesetting the "i" is often very close to the preceding letter. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Simuliid. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this by any chance a misspelling of Tetanoceroides? Blythwood (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many Thanks Well spotted, it was a misspelling Simuliid talk 23:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Simuliid, thanks for your edits on Odynerus spinipes. It appears to be a convention that you only need to link to a subject once in each article, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, so you could be accused of "overlinking" with you edits, not that I would ever be so rude! Quetzal1964 (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Protochymomyza requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chymomyza, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Grimaldi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For full functionality, ranks in taxonomy templates must be the Latin version. The template partially works if they are not, but some features won't work. See Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/taxonomy templates, and in particular the "rank" section, where there is a sortable table of ranks. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Brachystomatidae requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Just so this is all clear; first, I apologize if I came across as hostile at any point regarding your challenging of the reclassification of Brachystomatinae. I had almost literally just finished a discussion with several taxonomist colleagues encouraging them to use their time in semi-quarantine to contribute to Wikipedia, and emphasizing to them that if their edits were supported by the literature, they could be confident that no one would revert their edits. Having a major set of edits challenged so soon after I made them put me into defensive mode in frustration, and I apologize for being a bit impatient. Second, I have just now added a section on the history of classification to the Brachystomatinae entry, to give a clearer explanation regarding the nature of the dispute, and I hope this is helpful. Third, I have re-read the various papers again, and I think the balance of the evidence does stand with the Wahlberg & Johanson analysis, at least regarding the putative monophyly of Empididae; the Sinclair & Cumming analysis left far too much of the phylogeny unresolved, and the Moulton & Wiegmann analysis still placed brachystomatines as sister to the remaining empidids, rather than as a clear outgroup. As such, 2 of the last 3 published phylogenies give no basis for excluding brachystomatines from Empididae. Until and unless a newer analysis with newer data is put forth, I think retaining the group within Empididae reflects the majority of published opinion. Peace, Dyanega (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The parameter to specify the target taxon in ((Automatic taxobox)) is |taxon= not |genus= or any other rank. I know it's easy to get this wrong when you also create other kinds of taxobox with different parameters! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Simuliid,

Thank you for creating One Caribbean.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Press hand outs and brief mentions are not enough. I seem to recall this was deleted before for lack of sourcing. It seems to have the same issue.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Slatersteven)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The situation as it was ALWAYS stays as it is, so don't go for 3RR. The discussion was opened at Template Talk.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. KittenKlub (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:COVID-19 pandemic in Guadeloupe requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please remember to use edit summaries, especially when making changes like [1] this one. Although you didn't remove any content, the size of the diff makes it look quite alarming when it pops up on recent changes and watchlists. An informative edit summary would have been helpful. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Capewearer. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Template:COVID-19 pandemic data, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Capewearer (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Simuliid,

You are welcome to continue adding "Carl Linnaeus" to the links to L., but it is unnecessary since there is a redirect. There are more important things to fix in the Wikipedia articles about plants described by Linnaeus. For example, Liparis loeselii (L.) Rich. is only a stub. Your help in expanding it would be greatly appreciated. (You may have noticed that all the other author names in the Liparis article, rely on redirects.) If you do find an author abbreviation lacking a redirect, please create the redirect. Gderrin (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hi, why do you waste your (and our) time with edits like this? When I clean up an article, this is the kind of stuff that I routinely remove. Nothing wrong with using a redirect, no need to pipe them to the target, the software does that automatically. --Randykitty (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you for your feedback. I have always been aware of MOS:PIPE, MOS:NOPIPE. Reasons in some cases, both for or against are often clear. But most cases I come across, in my interpretation seem to sit half way? This was also backed as being correct, as when I added new content with a link to a redirect I would get a message from a bot, leading me to believe, that on balance, that links should mostly not be to redirect pages. With the exception of the principle of least astonishment. When I first started fixing some of the Linnaeus links, this was some time ago when his page was renamed so one would have redirects like Carl Linnaeus, when looking at L. I found many examples of Carl Linnaeus. I don't think the user would expect to see "(Redirected from L.)" when clicking on Carl Linnaeus? There was a help page saying "you don't have to" pipe links. But some editors took issue with me, as they read "you don't have to" to mean "you shouldn't". For me fixing there is an excuse to review pages and while pipping the links and fixing other things like here [2] I will take your comments on board. Simuliid talk 17:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Endangered species of the British Isles has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor ^(talk) 19:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you created a redirect from Stenotaenia to Senotainia, you neglected to check if the name was in use for any plant (or myriapod) taxon, which in fact, it is. A quick method of checking is to click on 'What links here' to see if there are any incoming links that are not congruent with your intended redirect. Also you did not include a sorting template, such as ((R from alternative scientific name|insect)). Abductive (reasoning) 05:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sarcophaga pernix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Byelorussia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, could I politely suggest a coffee break before editing Donald Trump again. I'm sure your intentions are good, but you've done three errors in four edits in the last 15 minutes. No worries, but perhaps good to take a little break. Jeppiz (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the Presidential Patton passes at 12:00 EST (17:UDT), as per constitution, not on taking the oath. See my last edit as 12:00!! PS I am Brit, I will have a cup of tea Simuliid talk 17:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elaphromyia adatha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Congo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For many species of Diptera. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Simuliid: I apologize for SDing this article, I had forgotten to read it was stub class. SoyokoAnis 01:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Myopites inulaedyssentericae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thankyou for creating many diptera articles. As a suggested improvement, could you add a taxonbar to each one as you create them? See Template:Taxonbar. YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please fix Campiglossa hensanica, which you redirected to itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I don't know if you will be able to return to this template and update some countries daily. I have a feeling that Capewearer (who is related to BKFIP) has returned there with a new account. It's too early to tell, but the unusual editing activity of the new account suggests that the person behind it could have already edited the template before. Among several other countries, it has been doing Barbados. It appears to be very similar to how Capewearer did that before. Do you find any similarity or relationship between the two accounts? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 01:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tephritis cometa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Simuliid. Animal Diversity Web identifies P. chotei as of the family Calliphoridae not Polleniidae. Chances that ADW got that wrong? - I don't care to speculate about that. Chances that I got that wrong? [[List of mistakes made by Shirt58 aka Pete AU]] might well be a redirect to List of contributions by Pete AU aka Shirt58. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Cerretti etal 2019 Reclustering the cluster flies (Diptera: Oestroidea, Polleniidae). Personally I don't trust ADW, itis, etc. In my field I find too many errors, miss-spelling, well known synonyms as valid names, incorrect taxa placement and slow to correct stuff, if it gets corrected at all.Simuliid talk 13:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, just curious what the point of this edit [3] was? I find using list-defined references (WP:LDR) keeps those citations in one central location for easier maintenance and avoids cluttering the text. Seems like a WP:Cosmetic edit to change the established reference formatting of an article (WP:CITEVAR), but maybe I'm missing something. Umimmak (talk) 16:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by Shonen Matsumura indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

100% agree. Please delete. Just a shame one can't do a redirect on a Category page as I wouldn't be surprised if it gets reinstated at some future time Simuliid talk 16:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for creating so many species articles. It looks like you are using a boilerplate article outline to create them, and that text has a stray closing small tag that I have been removing from your articles. If you could find that stray tag in your boilerplate text and remove it before creating additional new articles, that would be helpful. Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello? Are you seeing these messages? Pinging Simuliid. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And again. Please fix your template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And again. Please fix your starting template or editing process. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I noted you have recently created a number of species articles (e.g. Brachyopa atlantea). You can add a ((taxonbar)) to provide relevant links to external taxonomic databases like I did with this edit. The template gets the information from Wikidata. I added the Wikidata ID, but this is not necessary as the template should be able to get it from the article page. If you add ((taxonbar)) and preview it, you can get the Wikidata ID from the taxonbar. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Simuliid. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Milesia amithaon, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Simuliid. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Milesia amithaon".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Bromoloecia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Czech Republic daily deaths chart has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Slovenia differing methodologies has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Barbados new recoveries chart has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/the Bahamas new recoveries chart has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dexiinae, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sophia and Riedelia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Laphriinae, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pilica, Laphria and Maira.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I ask what you have against ((Species list))?

I don't especially have an issue either way, only the tools I have to add/edit author links and add references doesn't output as a Species list. I like to think not using them is slightly easier for new users to edit? So long as the author links and references stay, I am content if you want to change to species lists.Simuliid talk 18:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hubneria affinis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't do it. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you feel this is a valid page, please discuss in the talk page Simuliid talk 08:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no idea whether this is a valid page or not, but the speedy deletion tag is obviously incorrect and you are obviously edit-warring. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No it not obviously incorrect, please explain. The page is about something that does not exist. If you think it is valid, then state why. If you feel it should be deleted by another method, please state which. Using language like"obviously edit-warring", and "Don't do it." are unhelpful and constitute bullying. If you disagree with me, or anyone else, be helpful and be nice.Simuliid talk 08:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So edit-warring rather than reading the documentation of the tag you keep placing, which says in black and white "it does not apply to articles about albums (these may be covered by CSD A9), products, books, films, TV programs, software, or other creative works, nor to entire species of animals" (my emphasis), is being nice, is it? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have been reading the documentation. see Talk:Cephalia femoralis, thanks for the help there.Simuliid talk 09:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. You currently appear to be engaged in the mass creation of articles on flies. Such mass creation can be disruptive, and if you wish to continue creating large quantities of short, similar articles on this topic (or any topic) you should first see if there is a consensus to do so, or if the community would prefer this content be provided in a different manner.

Thank you, BilledMammal (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No more so than normal - but for the most part, clearing up the mess that was here. Taxonomy on this group has changed radically in the last 20 years, but the pages here do not reflect that. Simuliid talk 15:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've noticed that, such as your improvements at Pipunculinae; thank you.

However, I've also noticed that you have been mass creating short, similar articles on such flies and I am not certain there would be a community consensus for such actions - it is possible that the community would prefer the flies to be grouped together.

Personally, I believe that such an editorial decision would benefit the reader by making it easier for them to access information, and make it easier to maintain such articles if the taxonomy changes again in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts. Generally, I don't like to create too many short articles. Like the mess that Qbugbot has mad with 1000s of North American Diptera pages, mostly with unreliable sources, misspellings, listing synonyms as valid species, and using references that don't mention the species concerned. I spend most of my time here correcting and enlarging, and adding better references to those pages. It's nice to see he/she has not touched Pipunculidae. What I hope for, is that they don't stay short or similar for very long, as has happened with many pages I started on higher Diptera. One thing I am doing here with Pipunculidae is make sure there is a page for all the British species, as I know there are other UK editors that do "Fly Stuff" that will expand on then.Simuliid talk 15:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Telostylinus lineolatus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Australasian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please explain undoing the changes to this page? Simuliid talk 21:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, thanks for your work; but please stop linking commonly known country-names. Tony (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello!

I just wanted to inform you that in many of your recent contributions, you have misspelled United States as "Untied States". I've corrected all these, but just wanted to let you know! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks Simuliid talk 17:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see country-names like "United States" linked in your articles. Please stop doing this, and you'll save me from unlinking every article your create. Tony (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should you be unlinking these?? Simuliid talk 07:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've already asked you, above, NOT to link common terms like "United States". You are STILL doing it. This causes other editors extra work.

STOP DOING IT. Tony (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I am still doing it. Please stop bullying me please Simuliid talk 18:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DO NOT CONTINUE THIS BEHAVIOUR. SEE WP:OVERLINK. This will not end well if you take no notice.Tony (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good morning, I hope you are well?

I will not considered taking any notice of you wile you address me in such a rude and aggressive manor, and making threats.

It not for you, me, or any other editor to boss and order another contributor, or say what they should or should not be doing.

We can however, help, guide and advise advise each other to all become better editors. But wikipedia's policies are very clear: we must be civil and nice to each other, and forgiving of people who make errors, some thing we all do from time to time.

If you want to guild someone, start with linking to wikipedia's policies and guides and the matter. But expect there may be a contrary view and sometimes there are contradictions in polices, and even if not, there can a matter of personal opinion.

Sir. can I please ask that in future you address me with civility, and engage in polite two way debate.

See: Wikipedia:Advice for hotheads Simuliid talk 10:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

100% correct. Failing to adhere to the MoS is not disruptive behaviour. William Avery (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Simuliid talk 22:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe it would help if you either took some advice or explained clearly how it was wrong rather than ignoring it. Advising is not bullying. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Phil for your welcome input.

"PLEASE TAKE NOTE". "STOP DOING IT", "Please" when highlighted in bold is a command, not a polite address. putting orders in all caps. Its open to interpretation of course. But to me, it looks very much like bulling. The tone is defiantly not "Advising"!

I like your comment "explained clearly how it was wrong". this is also what really upset me about Tony's communications. I wanted him too 'explain clearly how it was wrong'. and not just tell me off. He has finally mentioned WP:OVERLINK. The should have been polity mention in his very first contact with me. I did search for help on the subject. but finding Wiki's policies is often not easy. I found nothing especially helpful.

We need to all be nice to each over. I know the way a few editors scold new wikipedians stops them from contributing again. My partner being one of them. That is a great loss for the community when we loose these people.

You thoughts are welcome. Simuliid talk 22:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pachygaster leachii, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. For the most part, as a long-time editor of insect articles, I find your edits to be very helpful and constructive, but you are going against policy by generalizing existing categories instead of keeping them as precise as possible. Asiloidea is much more precise than Brachycera, and all the genera in Asiloidea should be in the appropriate category, not labeled as Brachyceran genera. I don't think you would agree that the best category for all of these would be as "insect genera". While they are insect genera, that's not the most precise available category. "Category:Asiloidea genera" is the most precise existing category, and that's where they belong. I spent a lot of time today fixing those entries, and you've blanket reverted them and that's rather impolite and - as I said - against best practice. I would be appreciative if you would please revert them all back to Asiloidea genera, rather than engaging in an edit war. Thanks. Dyanega (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Thanks for your interest, and thanks for the praise too. Having "precise categories" as you call them, is discouraged. as about 10 ten years ago, these insect categories became ultra precise, to point it was just getting silly with 100s of categories almost resembling a taxonomic tree. I was heavenly guilty of creating many of them. If nothing else it became a maintenance headache too. These were mostly wound back to have categories with numbers of members in the 500 - 2500 range. An "insect genera" category would go well over that limit. Simuliid talk 20:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By that criterion, you have just provided a very strong argument against the use of "Category:Brachycera genera" and for the use of "Category:Asiloidea genera" for the Mydidae (and most other asiloids). There are considerably more than 2500 genera in Brachycera, and well more than 1000 genera in Asiloidea. Just the family Asilidae alone has nearly 600 genera, and Bombyliidae nearly 300. That means that "Category:Asiloidea genera" is (in principle) exactly the right size for a category, by your explicit standard, while "Category:Brachycera genera" would be much too big if it contained all brachycerans. Bear in mind that the only reason the "Category:Brachycera genera" is presently not overwhelmingly huge is because other editors have taken the time and trouble to parse out the genera into more precise subcategories. I assume you would not advocate, for example, to go to all of the >500 genera of Asilidae and change their category from "Category:Asilidae genera" to "Category:Brachycera genera", and likewise for all the Bombyliidae? There is a good, and logical, reason for parsing into more precise categories, expressly to keep the general categories from becoming impossible to navigate. In fact, ideally, the broadest categories of all (like "insect genera") should have the fewest entries, if editors are doing what they should be. Case in point: "Category:Diptera genera" contains ZERO articles. That's absolutely fine. On the other hand, "Category:Brachycera genera" contains almost 1000 genera right now, many of which could be placed into existing subcategories to reduce the clutter, so that's not fine. Yes, "Category:Asiloidea genera" is a lot smaller than it could be, but it is precisely because the genera in the families Asilidae and Bombyliidae have their own categories, and that's as it should be. It is a balancing act, and "Category:Asiloidea genera" would, if fully populated, be a good and appropriately-sized category, even without asilids and bombyliids. It won't ever be properly populated if you remove things presently in that category and blank it out. Please reconsider. If you'd like to bring this general topic of category hierarchies and category size to a broader audience of editors, to see which viewpoint is closer to consensus, I'd be happy to get that discussion rolling. Dyanega (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went ahead and raised this topic, as politely and objectively as I could, over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life, which is where most of the discussions take place regarding policies that apply to taxonomic articles in Wikipedia. Briefly, the consensus there seems to be more specific categorization is better, under MOST circumstances. You can go there and see some of the comments yourself, but I can also quote some that seemed especially significant: "WP:CATSPECIFIC and WP:CATDD explicitly state that articles should go in the most specific category to which they are relevant. Templates like ((diffuse)) and ((catimprove)) also encourage being specific. If the more specific category exists, then the articles should not be moved to its parent. It can be disputed whether the more specific category should exist. For that, see Wikipedia:Overcategorization. If the editor you mention thinks the more specific taxonomy-related categories shouldn't exist because of one of the reasons listed there, then they should nominate that category for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion rather than moving articles into a parent category. (The criterion most likely to be relevant would be WP:SMALLCAT, but that doesn't provide an arbitrary size quota and the description of "small" is "a few members"; hundreds of pages isn't "a few". Even if it were a few, it also explicitly states "this criterion does not preclude all small categories"" "For plants, WP:WikiProject Plants/Categorization#Taxonomic categories says "categorize an article at the highest taxonomic rank which yields a 'sensible' set of category sizes (say 10-100 entries)". It seems to me to be good advice for all groups." "I think I've come across guidance somewhere that suggested splitting categories when there is a logical way to do so and displaying the members takes multiple pages (i.e., 200+ members). I haven't seen guidance suggesting that 500 members is a minimum."

The points that everyone there seem to be making are (1) that there is no arbitrary favored size, and to the extent there is, it is a lot smaller than what you suggested. As such, the "Asiloidea genera" category really is perfectly acceptable if it contains between 100-200 entries, as it is likely to do after Asilidae and Bombyliidae are removed. Just Mydidae is 65 genera, and Therevidae and Acroceridae are also fairly large. (2) Where guidelines DO exist, they all state that if one is CHOOSING between different existing categories that are hierarchical, then the narrower category is preferred. Both of these points are as close to actual policy as there is, and both suggest that the genera of Mydidae should be listed as Asiloidea genera rather than Brachycera genera, because Asiloidea genera is the most specific existing category into which they can be placed, and there are dozens of included genera so the category is an ideal size. All of the genera in Asilidae should be listed as "Asilidae genera", and all of the bombyliid genera should be in "Bombyliidae genera". That gives the best balance of category sizes and inclusiveness. Thanks. Dyanega (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There would be no point going to the level of Asilidae genera for example, as there are list pages for these. . All families have their own category - why clutter this with say Asilidae subfamilies, Asilidae tribes Asilidae genera etc. So why not take this argument to it logical conclusion, and have just have a category for every genus? Good luck maintaining that!

I am sorry, I simply do not agree. What you are proposing is clutter. Simuliid talk 05:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. You are apparently unaware of something EXTREMELY important. The Nomina Insecta Nearctica, by Poole & Gentili, ARBITRARILY synonymized every subspecies of every insect in North America simply for editorial convenience. They actively disclaimed their "synonymies" in the introduction to the work, and none of the new "synonymies" that appeared in that work were actual formal synonymies recognized by subsequent taxonomists. That work absolutely cannot be used as a reliable source for ANY taxonomic or nomenclatural information, accordingly. It is jam-packed with typos and other assorted errors, the errata filling several pages of text. Please, PLEASE do not refer to that work as a source, ever. Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you :-) Simuliid talk 14:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bithia modesta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Simuliid!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article you recently created, Araucosimus, is not suitable as written to remain published. I think you got interrupted during creating it, so I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About Microsoma vicinum - that eminent entomologist, Professor Google, tells us that "Microsoma vicinum" has only two "G-hits", those being Microsoma and Microsoma vicinum. The University of Guelph reference there contains no mention of a M. vicinum or its possibly various synonyms. Is this possibly a typo? Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Microsoma vicinum Is on page 95 of O'Hara, J.E., Henderson, S.J. & Wood, D.M. 2020, it's also on page 119 of "Description de nouveaux tachinaires de l’Ancien Monde, et notes synonymiques (Diptera, Tachinidae)" Simuliid talk 10:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. You seem to be unaware that the Nomina Insecta Nearctica (by Poole & Gentili) says, in its introduction, that it refuses to recognize subspecies. They revised nothing, provided no formal taxonomic statements, they simply and arbitrarily deleted every subspecies of every insect in North America. For the present treatment of the genus, please read the linked revision by Van Dam (2010), in which acton has three subspecies. I assure you, with all earnestness, that Rhaphiomidas acton has three subspecies, recognized by all workers on the genus. Poole & Gentili is NOT a reliable source for any taxonomic information, as it is not - and was never intended to be - a taxonomic treatment. It is a list, and very badly-compiled one at that. I would very much appreciate it if, instead of engaing in an edit war, you would read the Van Dam revision, and restore the version of the R. acton article that correctly indicates there are three subspecies. Thanks. Dyanega (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't use Nomina Insecta Nearctica. I am happy if you restore the subspecies. Likewise, I only tidied the page and added better references, and removed generic ones. Personally, I don't see including subspecies as useful on the whole. Often they are not recognised by many authors, are often doubtful, or will be elevated to full species on subsequent revisions. But the Van Dam revision looks OK. Don't need to revert the page, just add the subspecies back in. Simuliid talk 08:56, 21 November 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) 00:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Montenegrin Malacologists has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Monster Iestyn (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 13 § Single-article Malacologists by nationality categories on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What does |pages= 49-56–57-64–65-72–73-80–81-94 mean? I can help fix these if there is a logical way to do so. Please see Template:Cite book#In-source locations for formatting instructions.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Introducing word joiner characters, like just before 266 in pages=226-240–⁠266-269, doesn't help either.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. If you can recommend a way of doing this better, please help me, I have searched high and low for the "proper" way to do this, and have had to settle on what just worked. A comma seems the logical way, but will give an error. Simuliid talk 23:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can try to help, but I first need to know what information you're trying to convey. Could you describe what |pages= 49-56–57-64–65-72–73-80–81-94 means, in your own words, without WP's citation syntax constraints?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have just had a play with this, 49-56–57-64–65-72–73-80–81-94 can now be changed back to 49-56,57-64,65-72,73-80,81-94 as originally intended. Formally, this caused a "One or more ((cite book)) templates have maintenance messages" error. Having a comma in most fields such as title, journal, publisher would also cause the same error. These seemed to be corrected now as well. Simuliid talk 11:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there! You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. Changes to Wikipedia's software have made your current custom signature invalid.

The problem: Your signature contains a syntax error or obsolete HTML tags.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, you can fix your signature, or you can do nothing.

If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Eriothrix rufomaculata, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See the history... your move was previously reverted. No "O" is more common. Please re-revert yourself. If you want the "O" naming, open a formal WP:RM. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additionally, copy-paste is not the way we move articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What has "No "O" is more common" got to do with anything? I only interested in what is correct. Simuliid talk 18:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You already know both are correct. WP:COMMONNAME says that we use the more common name when multiple correct names are possible. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No! Not correct, ICZN rules apply here on Wikipedia too. Cyrtophleba IS NOT correct. Please use the accepted scientific name. Not the name that is used on "popular" but incorrect or out of date sites. Please take this up with an admin if you don't agree Simuliid talk 18:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am an admin. Take it to WP:RM. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as correctness, look at the multiple references on the Cyrtophleba article. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as correctness, Simuliid is absolutely correct. Rondani selected Cyrtophloeba, acting as First Reviser under ICZN Article 24.2.4, and no other spelling can ever be used as valid. This is a scientific name, not a common name, so the only applicable rules are in the ICZN; speaking as a Commissioner, therefore, this is a non-debate, and the article needs to be moved to the correct spelling. Just because different references disagree is meaningless; only the ICZN matters - see [4] for the treatment in the definitive world list of all fly names, managed by an ICZN Commissioner. Dyanega (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works. We aren't beholden to the ICZN. We wait until the change is accepted in third-party sources; it has not, as evidenced by no more recent publication using the name. As I've said, take the matter to WP:RM. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What? I have quoted those third-party sources. You are ignoring them. Simuliid talk 19:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was wondering why earlier this month, on articles such as Argyromima and Bahrettinia, you replaced ((Dexiinae-stub)) with ((Tachinidae-stub)). The more specific a stub category can be, the better, as it helps with categorisation. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 15:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]