Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

The Minor barnstar

For the necessary but (from experience) highly repetitive work of tagging alternative scientific name redirects, adding missing redirects, working on making articles compliant with MOS:LIFE and MOS:LEAD#Organisms and linking lepidopterists from the infoboxes of species they described, and the many, many other minor issues plaguing fauna/flora articles (and especially insect articles...) that have accumulated about half a decade or more of backlog. (Do you also catch yourself starting a line with "((R from alternative" every now and then before catching yourself and remember that, wait, you're doing something else for once? Keeps happening to me...XD) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you! I've enjoyed acquainting myself with the entomologists: perhaps most of all the Bahá'í bigamist and amateur tunneller Harrison Gray Dyar, Jr. My main problem is going for the Edit button when I'm not reading a WP text. William Avery (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Oh yes, that's an issue for me too at times. I would enjoy acquainting myself with the entomologists, except seeing those articles reminds me of what a friggin' mess some of those pages are, if they've even got a page at all. (Dyar's in pretty good shape, though. ) Makes me want to straighten them out, sure, but I've got to prioritize some way. Too much stuff to be done across too many articles. Suppose that'd be an issue you're familiar with as well, though. Hm, now that we're talking anyway, d'you happen to know any lepidopterists (or entomologists that did at least some work on Lepidoptera) with diacritics in their names that aren't on this list? That's one of my personal pet-peeves, seeing "Hubner"s, "Guenee"s, "Oberthur"s, and "Schiffermuller"s strewn about the pages (among goodness knows how many other names) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Karl Grünberg (who I see is rather dubiously on the List of Social Democratic Party of Germany members), Félix Édouard Guérin-Méneville (double word score!), Lionel de Nicéville and William Beutenmüller. I'm afraid I usually ignore the lack of diacritics. There are also some Russians whose names are Romanised in various ways. William Avery (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've copied those to my shortened-version notepad document (references and links are more of use to folks who may want to see what I'm basing my corrections on/that I'm not randomly applying diacritics to non-English-looking names/etc., than to myself. The wiki-links to relevant articles are of some use, but I've got most of those bookmarked anyway, so just typing the name in my urlbar is enough to find 'm) and I'll see about adding them to the full list sometime soon. In regards to Russians (and, for that matter, entomologists of other nationalities where the name isn't originally in the Latin alphabet), yeah, I'd noticed that as well. That's a potentially more iffy issue than correcting a Hubner/Huebner to Hübner, though, so unless I have a couple of major sources all supporting one particular form on hand, I tend to leave those be for the moment. You're certainly not the only one doing that, as the hundreds (or sometimes, thousands) of times I've fixed the same name can attest to. Oh well, suspect that my own frustration with them is mostly that I know the difference in sound between, say, a German u or ü, so Hubner for Hübner is just as blatant a misspelling to me as 'opple' for 'apple' would be to others. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. The Russians can get in a queue behind the Western Europeans. William Avery (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mwa, it's mostly a matter of "I know this needs fixing and I know *how*; I know that *needs to be fixed*, but I don't know how. Let's not muck up that by implementing fixes that may be as wrong or worse than what's currently there" combined with a case of "even if I know how to fix it, if I can't bring references/proof to the table if/when asked, I'd probably best refrain from making mass-changes". There's a bunch of Western Europeans I'm not touching with a ten-foot-pole until I can do some in-depth research as well, usually when it's a name where both pronunciations and thus both the form without and the form with exist, and I have no way of telling which group this particular one belongs to. Some cases of not-Western-Europeans on the list, too (Díaz, Alphéraky—a Russian, but one where I've been able to find the needed references—Koçak, Povolný, Tengström), in the cases where I've been able to ferret out the sources I might need. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about the politician here? I invite you to ongoing RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you changed this template, everything seems to go wrong when creating new templates within the genus Fusiturricula. Just look at Template:Taxonomy/Fusiturricula and you'll see what I mean. New taxoboxes in Fusiturricula are getting messed up, e.g. Fusiturricula taurina in contrast with e.g. Fusiturricula acra. I suppose the change you made in the template (family --> familia) caused all this, unless there is another reason. Anyway I've tried to fix this, but didn't succeed. Can you look into this ? JoJan (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything wrong on those pages now, but I have seen funny stuff in the past, where a template says it can't find a parent after a change is made. Strangely, if a page has an error and you can't see why, it sometimes helps to edit and preview without saving changes. I guess it's something to do with cacheing. William Avery (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, William Avery. 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.

Hello, William Avery. 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]

You suggested merging two pages describing two species of nudibranchs. Bergh (Bergh R. (1888-1889). Nudibranchien vom Meere der Insel Mauritius. In: Reisen im Archipel der Philippinen von Dr. C. Semper, vol. 2: Malakologische Untersuchungen, part 3, pp. 755-872, pl. 77-84.) described two species (Baeolidia moebii Bergh, 1888 and Cerberilla moebii (Bergh, 1888) (as Fenrisia moebii)) with the specific name moebii on different pages. They are both in the family Aeolidiidae, but separate genera and species. I have removed the merge suggested tags. BernardP (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. William Avery (talk) 09:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you, FWiW Bzuk: Merry Christmas! William Avery (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Death of JonBenét Ramsey. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there. I just wanted to apologize for the vandalism earlier. My account had been compromised at the time. Sorry about that. :-| -- Scjessey (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm just glad to discover you've got your account back, and haven't actually turned rogue. There are some malicious bastards out there! All the best for 2017. William Avery (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I need hardly point out: you're the victim here, not me. William Avery (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Scare-line. Legobot (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate the great work you do creating taxonomy templates. Just to note that there's a bot running that's removing the redundant |(({1))} from any such templates. Can you please make sure that you don't add it to any new taxonomy templates you create? The "autofill" feature now doesn't include it, but I see that you did create some templates with this code in them as late as 27 January 2017 (e.g. Template:Taxonomy/Saletara). You don't need to do anything about existing taxonomy templates as the bot will fix them, but it won't keep running indefinitely.

(See Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/notes for a bit more explanation if you're interested.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I had a bit of markup that I copied from somewhere, in a notepad file, because I found I was having to press two or three buttons to get to the autofilled page. I'll bear in mind that if I do that again I ought to check regularly that it corresponds to the default. William Avery (talk) 11:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've swapped Allosmerus & Allosmerus elongatus. I've also updated the redirect templates, categorization on redirect and article, retargetted the other redirects and slightly reworded the lead to reflect the current title. I think that's all that needed doing from top of my head? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's super, thank you. I had no idea it was possible for a non-administrator to do that! William Avery (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Only if they have the page mover user right. There's currently 118 of us that aren't admins, so you tend to actually have a better chance finding an admin. :P But moving monotypic genera kind of is my speciality as far as page moves go. It's why I applied for the user right to start with: moths is riddled with monotypic genera at species titles. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In percentage terms I think the fish pages get it wrong more often, but of course the absolute number of monotypic moth genera is far greater. William Avery (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, sounds about right. The fish seem better categorized, though. We have only ~1200 genera listed as monotypic in Category:Monotypic Lepidoptera genera and subcategories. Unsurprisingly, I'm still coming across uncategorized monotypic genera almost daily while not even actively searching for them. There's a few articles I know need moving but I'll get to them when I'll get to them, I guess. Between my other maintenance work, I've got to prioritize and in the time I can move and update one misplaced "monomoth", I can also tag a good dozen redirects or convert half a dozen from using deprecated redr to rcat shell. (Or add missing location and taxon author categories. Or add missing links. Or decapitalize common names. Or...well, you know what I mean. Not like the grand tree of life will ever run out of work to do...) If I am already significantly updating those articles for some reason, though, I'll happily move on the spot as well. If not...I'll make sure they're at least in the right category for me to find back later, then move on to the eternal repetition of infrastructural Lepidoptera gnoming. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, William Avery. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'gratz on your shiny new page moving right. :) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx. On learning of your almost supernatural abilities I was immediately consumed with a jealous rage, but I have calmed down now. :-) William Avery (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the calming effect of knowing you now can inspire the same jealousy in others? If you have any questions about how to work that shiny new right, lemme know, and let me welcome you to the totally-not-a-secretive-and-most-exclusive-cabal-because-the-cabal-doesn't-exist-I-swear non-cabal of Page Movers. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I noticed you've been converting articles to using automatic taxoboxes, I wanted to mention that |image_width= is deprecated |image_upright= is preferred. But really, given that we really have no way of knowing the size of a readers screen, it doesn't make much sense to micromanage the size at which an image displays. Feel free to delete |image_width= when converting to automatic taxoboxes. In rare cases where the image has unusual proportions (very tall and narrow, or very short and wide) use |image_upright=. Plantdrew (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will bear that in mind. The only rationale I can think of for specifying image width is "Well, it looks better on my display". William Avery (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Balkhash perch, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Karl Kessler's 1874 description of the Balkhash perch as a new species was based on specimens collected on Alexander von Schrenk's expedition to Turkestan in 1842? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Balkhash perch. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello William, I have seen your reverted to Wittia, it's a point of view; you say other species would be reverted to Eilema, I propose doing Manuela complana / Eilema complana (see references). It's possible to wait for other possibilities. What is your opinion? --ZorglubAB (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, To clarify, my revert was based on preserving a reasonable appearance of the displayed page while a discussion takes place, rather than an opinion about which scientific name would be preferable.

I am not a subject matter expert in taxonomy of lepidoptera, so I generally abide by the preferences of users who are more knowledgeable in this area, such as User:Ruigeroeland. William Avery (talk) 09:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:User pages. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know you spend a lot of time with this category. It seems to be an incredibly large category. I know some of it has already been split into class such as Birds and Insects. Would splitting the rest now (Mammals, Fish, Reptiles, Amphibians, etc. make more sense now? I'm sure it is a pretty large category now???....Pvmoutside (talk) 01:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong feelings, except that if it is to be done, it should be done in an agreed and (as far as possible, on a wiki) controlled manner. After all, What's so special about 1904? The taxonomy can be extracted from the html when a page has a taxobox, so it should be possible to split the existing categories using a bot. William Avery (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up this thread, I absolutely agree that "it should be done in an agreed and ... controlled manner". The problem is that, contrary to what I first thought, although there's a reasonably clear set of instructions for plants at WP:WikiProject Plants/Description in year categories, there's nothing written down for animals. There are discussions, like this one, but nothing gets decided or documented. I think I've been guilty of reverting or changing some of your categorizations, assuming that the WP:PLANTS approach applied to animals, when it appears that it doesn't. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Peter. I've received various opinions on the correct approach, mainly via the medium of reverting edit summaries. :-) We should probably start a discussiom somewhere. William Avery (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, you got one of your thugs to protect the page. That will not suffice to stop reverting your lies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.46.137.248 (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have never made any addition to that page. What are my lies that need to be reverted, of which you write? Be aware that you can be blocked if you make personal attacks on other editors. William Avery (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I simply corrected the error in the text. Oates death is accuratly noted at the top of the page as 17th February (He died on his birthday) but in the body of the text is is given as 16th February. Both cannot be correct so if I was to cite a source for the alteration it would be at the top of the article. 86.165.179.188 (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It often helps to use an edit summary. William Avery (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I came across you via an Edit on Lionel Blue, whose bio is presently woefully insufficient. In the past, I have attempted to contribute to Wikipedia but no longer have the confidence to do so: I have even lost the ability to enter content under my own name Jeffrey Newman (and am impressed that you use yours.) It would be good to develop Lionel's bio by, for example, adding a link to his Desert Island Discs broadcast.

However, my major hope is that eventually David Holt is given a Wiki bio. He was a Jungian analyst whose contribution to the development of theory and thinking needs acknowledgment. There is a web page devoted to him [1] (It may be Davidholt-online)

Thanks 2A02:C7D:B967:1700:2C26:C884:3A55:ED3D (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I would register an account with my real name nowadays, but it didn't seem a bad idea in 2002. I'm bit caught up in Easter events for the next couple of days, but will come back to look at this soon. William Avery (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I put the external DID link on the article Lionel Blue, and one to his recorded obit of himself.

The site about a Jungian analyst seems to be http://davidholtonline.com/. I cannot see that subject meeting the criteria laid down at Wikipedia:Notability (people), but there are some very thinly referenced articles in Category:Jungian psychologists; which doesn't mean another one is a good idea. It's possible that he would merit a mention in other articles, probably somewhere under Category:Carl Jung. William Avery (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was flagged because it appeared "unhelpful" Could you please explain why you deemed it such?68.174.70.42 (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you see the word "unhelpful"? William Avery (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me. The word you used appears below:

of your recent contributions to Desmond Tutu have been undone because they did "not appear constructive"

The removal of the 'end reference' that I reverted here seems to require explanation. What was your purpose? William Avery (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My purpose was to provide evidence of the fact that Tutu's alleged anti-Semitism is controversial which is indisputable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.70.42 (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. The fact is that Wikipedia's style strongly discourages that kind of "coatrack" section or article. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_structure and Wikipedia:Criticism. The alleged anti-Semitism should be mentioned where necessary, but there shouldn't be a section that's a quick guide to the various ways people have bad-mouthed the subject, under any title. William Avery (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken but that is why I mentioned it in the "Controversy" section which I did not create. It appears that you have now edited that section out which seems odd given that it is a regular topic in articles on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.70.42 (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jews. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression that you keep following after articles I edit with my AWB account and check over the pages. Is this correct, or is this just a coincidence? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu

I have a PetScan query that treats articles with taxoboxes like a watchlist and shows me recent changes. You seem to be changing mainly the herpetology articles, which always have some MOS problem when I look at them. I've been making MOS tweaks to fern articles too, on account of an editor changing many of them to speciesboxes. William Avery (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few parts of the tree of life, due to recent reclassifications, have major consistency issues with the taxonomy. The solution for this is to convert them to the automatic taxobox system. One of these parts is order Squamata, which is what I'm dealing with now. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I've done a bit on former "Arctiidae", now treated as Erebidae - https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/summary.py?name=William+Avery&search=speciesbox+for&max=500&server=enwiki&ns= William Avery (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my subspecies work - my AWB plugin doesn't work well for subspecies (they tend to be harder to handle,with the "species link" issue). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've reverted your edit to the above-named article. While you're correct in saying that the past participle of "run" is "run", on this occasion the past tense is being used (not the past perfect tense) and "ran" is correct:

• "He ran his fingers..." = correct (past tense)
• "He had run his fingers..." = correct (past participle in past perfect tense)
• "He run his fingers..." = incorrect (as past tense)
• "He had ran his fingers..." = incorrect (as past perfect tense)

Cheers, Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation implies that the dipping of the fingers is putative ("said to have") whilst the running on the bloody fingers across the top of the shield is something certain (plain past), whereas the only reasonable interpretation is that they are both things that are "said to have" happened and the two verb parts are parallel.

• He is said to have dipped his fingers in Camus's the blood
• He is said to have run his fingers along the top of Robert's shield.

Combine to make

• He is said to have dipped his fingers in Camus's the blood and to have run them along the top of Robert's shield.

Or, eliding the second have,

• He is said to have dipped his fingers in Camus's the blood and run them along the top of Robert's shield.

It's clearly not being asserted that he ran his fingers across the shield to leave a red mark regardless of whether he had first dipped them in the blood, so your parsing of the sentence is a nonsense. William Avery (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe you're right. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bahá'í Faith. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:30 Rock. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–17). Legobot (talk) 04:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to revert your edit, because in this instance "Tony" is not a nickname but rather a professional, or stage name, per cited MOS. PDGPA (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The manual of style makes no such distinction that I can see. Could you please quote the words that you are relying on? William Avery (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perdón por escribir en español. He visto esto y me pregunto ¿Qué diferencia hat entre ((Taxobox)) y ((Speciesbox)) para sustituir una por la otra? ¿Tiene algo que ver con Wikidata? Gracias --Jcfidy (talk) 08:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hola. ((Speciesbox)) utiliza información taxonómica de una base de datos de templates. Ver, per ejemplo, Template:Taxonomy/Spinus. Todo es contenido en en.wikipedia.org, y no tiene conexión con Wikidata. El sistema assegura coherencia en la jerarquía taxonómica y un formato correcto de la información. Hay tambien ((Automatic_taxobox)). William Avery (talk) 08:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kolkata Derby. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Rowan have Armenian grandmother or grandfather he is officialy Englishman-Armenian Arman Khanoyan (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can cite a source for that statement, than add it to the article, using the source as a reference. I did a casual search using Google and could see nothing but vague rumours, and comments that he looked a bit Armenian. There was nothing that could be called a reliable source. William Avery (talk) 10:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i have many many links about Rowan. Google? 😂 ha ha ha yes in google search Rowan Atkinson. Arman Khanoyan (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 15#King who died with a hot poker up the ass. Hello William. As one of the most prolific editors of the Edward II of England article, would you mind leaving a comment or a !vote as to whether King who died with a hot poker up the ass should be deleted? Thanks. --Nevé–selbert 13:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Unreferenced. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Roman Polanski. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK you are right. It has been a spelling error. I do not know how to correct it. Can you do it? Thank you. --Fjrc282a (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I have listed in at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Speedy#Current_nominations. William Avery (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William, I saw your edit at Ancylosis yerburii where you changed the link to the page at Afromoths. I couldn't tell why that link was better. On the page, whether accessed from http://www.afromoths.net/species/show/10818 or http://www.afromoths.net/species_by_code/ANCYYERB, it shows "Permalink" on the right side near the top, and I assumed that the URL that showed after clicking on that was the best link.

Now I see that by right clicking on "Permalink" and selecting "Copy Link Location", I can get that URL. Is that better? Is there another way of getting that URL?

Thanks for your help. If that link really is better, I've messed up a lot of links by changing from the format of your link to what it had been before.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The numeric links are not permanent, and change when the afromoths site is updated. A typical sequence of events can be seen at Eudonia marioni.

• 14 November 2014 - Link introduced with numeric identifier. Correct at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eudonia_marioni&type=revision&diff=633810006&oldid=633753574
• 25 January 2015 - A few months later, that link now points at wrong species (or is 404). Corrected with new numeric identifier by me. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eudonia_marioni&type=revision&diff=644143366&oldid=635718851
• 31 October 2015 - A few months later, and my numeric link is now broken, but I now insert a "permalink" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eudonia_marioni&type=revision&diff=688360614&oldid=644143366
• 30 September 2017‎ - ! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eudonia_marioni&diff=next&oldid=790768604

I don't know an other way to get the permalink URL. The code is usually first three letters of genus and first three letters of species, but sometimes uses numbers if there is potential for duplicates. Anyway, don't worry, they are not the most high profile articles. Perhaps we could formulate a template for afromoths links, and propose it on the lepidoptera wikiproject page. They could then be corrected by a bot.

I thought I posted about this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lepidoptera, but I can find no trace. Perhaps it was somewhere else! William Avery (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that detailed explanation. I'd noticed that links to Afromoths were often wrong, so I made a habit of checking all of them when editing for other purposes. Now I see I was fixing them wrong. I see that by doing a search for insource:"afromoths.net/species/show" I can find over a thousand links like that. Looks like I found myself a new project.

I'll also spend some time updating Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera#Online with some info about Afromoths. I'll discuss any changes I make there on the talk page if I'm not confident. Your edit summary at Ancylosis yerburii was the clue that I needed. Thanks again for the help and keep up the good work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A small shortcut that only seems to work in Firefox is that if one right clicks on "Permalink" and presses "a", the link is copied to the clipboard. Saves a tiny bit of mouse work that adds up when doing many of them.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More options have been added to the Rfc at Charles, Prince of Wales. You may want to add that article to your watchlist :) GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, William Avery. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, William Avery. 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]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Poutine. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Apple Maggot Quarantine Area. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And who are you? And he (MarnetteD did he email you?) has reverted me without going to talk page. Would you like to tell me how he talked to you? Or are you he? 75.161.53.1 (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The warning itself explains why it was issued. Please engage at Talk:Oscar_Wilde#POV_/_chauvinist_to_say_Wildes's_parents_were_Anglo-Irish? to explain the reasoning behind your edit. William Avery (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So just how did that other guy get you to take time from moth articles and pick on me? Not saying sock puppetry (now that you have taught me the term) just exactly how??????75.161.53.1 (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page is on my watchlist. William Avery (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Wikilink Barnstar
		For linking from several hundred species to the authorities who described them. If you come across any authorities identified only by surname (especially before early C20) who you can't track down, please get in touch. It's a hobby of mine; I think I've only failed once. (I came across Richard Brinsley Hinds because there was a ((dn)) tag on a link to the DAB page Hinds. It took me something like 30 minutes to find his initials, and another 15 to find his given names. I was shocked to discover that he seemed have been forgotten, and at once set about writing the article.) Narky Blert (talk) 10:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you for the article. It's a great boon that the lives behind taxonomic authorities are now so often available at the click of a button. William Avery (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William, I've seen you make changes like this one, while making other changes, and I've wondered why. "The Zygaenidae family" sounds better to my ear, but my ear is not scientifically trained. Persuade me that your way is right and I'll join you in your quest to set the "tone". Also, I saw another place where you said that a genus had been "erected" instead of "described". I've seen it both ways (also "created"); is erected better in some way? Thank you.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, restrictive appositives, such as "the number five", "the planet Venus", "the author Charles Dickens","the newspaper Isvestia", "the element iron", "the protein haemoglobin", "the philosopher Diogenes", etc. Google Ngram confirms my suspicion that this form is in overwhelming preponderance in reliable sources when referring to technical names of taxa. See this comparison for a couple of families sometimes mentioned outside academic literature. Even more pronounced for a couple of lepidoptera families, that are probably found only in technical sources. I think to myself "Zygaenidae family"? I've never seen the like!, and Ngram agrees. This only applies to the actual Latin family names: the family Myrtidae is called 'the myrtle family' by gardeners, and good luck to them. I'm pretty sure I've seen WolfmanSF make changes on these lines, too. I'll ping you when I've had a think about the other things. William Avery (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that "family Myrtidae" is not a compound noun (it means the same as "Myrtidae"), while "myrtle family" is a compound noun (it means something different than either "myrtle" or "family"). I think that is why the word order normally seen in formal prose differs between the two. Similarly, we say "planet Mars" but "Mars rover", and "enzyme telomerase" but "telomerase gene". Note that Polbot generated about 70,000 species article stubs with the syntax initially backwards. WolfmanSF (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean: restrictive appositive constructions don't create compound nouns. Unfortunately, Polbot has been imitated by some highly industrious human editors. William Avery (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Complex grammar makes my head spin, but I played with the ngrams and you are clearly right. I'll add that to the list of things I do while I'm doing other things. I think my gut feeling comes from phrases like "The family Smith", which sounds like people putting on airs in contrast to the down-to-earth "Smith family". Thank you.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A point that has arisen in several past discussions on this subject is that there is a contrast between usage of zoological and botanical Linnaean terms. Usage in zoology seems to be much more consistent. This can be illustrated by the following comparison: usage of Hominidae and usage of Rosaceae. My interpretation is that due to the very widespread nature of the practice of horticulture, the average level of education and scientific literacy is lower among the larger population that is using the botanical terms, and that this has corrupted usage of the latter. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. Legobot (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of your category editing on gastropods. You were a great help to me. Because of you and me, every gastropod now has its year of description as a category. Scorpions13256 (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chloe Kim. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your BRFA (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/William Avery Bot) has been approved for trial. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• And now approved entirely. Please hold off on making edits until your bot receives the bot flag. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks. I will await the flag. William Avery (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Great Courses. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Following the successful BRFA, I've flagged your bot, so you can start the run whenever you're ready. Warofdreams talk 15:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. William Avery (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you intending to create the "Gastropods described in DECADE" categories? Compare the category hierarchies of Category:Gastropods described in 1914 and Category:Animals described in 1914. The 'standard' for these categories is the hierarchy "... described in YEAR" – "... described in DECADE" – "... described in CENTURY". One reason this matters can be seen by looking at Category:Gastropods described in 1900. If you follow the category hierarchy upwards in different ways you arrive at Category:Gastropods described in the 19th century but Category:Animals described in the 20th century. It's a well known (at least I thought it was well known) anomaly in these "year of description" categories that since the decades are described as "10s" .. "90s", the centuries cause problems.

It's also very useful to add the ((Category in year)) navigation template to "... described in YEAR" categories as per the "Animals described in YEAR" categories. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I based the gastropods hierarchy on Category:Birds by century of formal description, and I wasn't intending to do any grouping by decades. I'm aware of the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 36#Category year of formal description and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive 36#Formal description categories should be by year only, but I couldn't divine any consensus. I find myself in something of a bind here, in being very concerned about the consistency of the taxonomic groupings used across these categories (and being willing to do some of the 'heavy lifting' to make them consistent), but being completely uninterested in chronological groupings of years. It would be very agreeable if the whole thing could be solved in MediaWiki, with the year categories being grouped under something like "Years in gastropod taxonomy", and the page having options to view as a flat list of years, or grouped by decade, century, etc. I might look at writing a front-end API-based gadget of some sort to do that, if it hasn't already been done.

I will add the navigation template to pages. William Avery (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too am much more concerned about the consistency of the taxonomic groupings than how the years are grouped. (I've just been working on getting rid of a random set of "deuterostome" categories that appeared.) There's a logic to removing the DECADE categories altogether, which solves the issue of using "century" in a non-standard way, but a front end that allowed variable ways of viewing the data would be better. In the meantime, for gastropods you've been copying the way it works for birds and for spiders I've been copying the way it works for plants. Um... Peter coxhead (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... William Avery (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been working on some of the nonsense ones; haven't got to Ecdysozoa yet. Should we try an RfC on some principles to be used in creating these categories? Peter coxhead (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think a general discussion would definitely be better than isolated deletion proposals. William Avery (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Existentialism Is a Humanism. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful whenever you are reviewing new edits. Why you accepted this problematic edit when it was already reverted by an editor, mentioning that the IP is a sock?[2] Not to point out that content in question is also very poor. My Lord (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Central Bank Digital Currency. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have previously attended or expressed an interest in attending a meetup in Bristol. I am organising one for this summer - provisionally Saturday 1 September 2018. For details see m:Meetup/Bristol/3 to join the discussion, including expressing preferences about dates and venues, see the talk page at m:Talk:Meetup/Bristol/3. Thryduulf (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Environmental inequality in Europe. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you please ban unknown user 92.238.193.204 for repeated vandalism and disruptive editing on the article Victor H. Krulak? He is still changing the Marine Corps Parachutists Badge for Army Parachutists badge, even if I placed link with correct badge. He was banned some time ago by yourself for the same behaviour. Thank you AntonyZ (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not banned, or even blocked, just reverted, I think. William Avery (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fountain (Duchamp). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of IMAX DMR films. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vertebrates described in 1771, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides 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.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shenphen Rinpoche. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, William Avery. 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]

Hello.

I noticed that you used your rollback rights in the Bayonetta: Bloody Fate article to revert a change with which you disagree. This is a direct violation of WP:ROLLBACK, which says:

Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool. When in doubt, use another method of reversion and supply an edit summary to explain your reasoning.

I have no reason to believe that 5.75.114.70 has been editing in bad faith. The comment about the quality of translation seemed something that might or might not be okay, but the reminder of the contribution seems to have been fine. Please assume good faith and don't bite the newcomers.

Cheers.

Extremecia (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plain violation of NPOV in my book. William Avery (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kate's mother, Martha Osamor, was recently created Baroness Osamor. This gives her children the style of "The Honourable". For other examples, see Jacob Rees-Mogg, son of The Lord Rees-Mogg; Ian Paisley Jr, son of The Lord Bannside or Mark and Carol Thatcher, children of The Baroness Thatcher. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	Medal of concern
	Thank you for the advice Sir William Avery. It is my first time time to edit a wikipedia page so I just try to and did not know how to truly edit something. I am grateful of that act of yours. Capt. Nemo42200 (talk) 14:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the work you've been doing converting orchids to Speciesboxes. I was wondering whether you were planning to go back through and add taxonomic authorities for the many Bulbophyllum species missing them. You're one of the most conscientious editors with regards to linking taxon authorities, so I'm guessing you may well be planning to revisit the Bulbophyllum lacking authorities. If you're not planning to do so, I'll tackle them myself, but I'm perfectly happy to leave it to you. Plantdrew (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice that authorities are sadly lacking in many cases :-( I will take a look at the possibility of 'harvesting' them en masse from somewhere (Perhaps the Bulbophylum checklist). William Avery (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I intended to block 86.13.115.19 (talk · contribs) following your report to WP:AIV but accidentally blocked you instead. Needless to say, I immediately unblocked you and have made clear in the log that it was my error, for which you have my sincere apologies! WJBscribe (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thaks for the apology, which leaves me slightly less irked. :-) William Avery (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that you have made edits to the T.S. Eliot article before. I am interested in your comments on a recent change. A recent sub-section about the sculptor Jacob Epstein was made to the T.S. Eliot article. I deleted the addition and explained my reasons on the talk page.

Here is what was removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T._S._Eliot&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=877562978&oldid=877549994

Some have mentioned on the talk page that the Epstein material should be put back. Would you please look at the changes and make your opinion known on the Eliot talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:T._S._Eliot#Jacob_Epstein

WikiParker (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pandorus sphinx moth,. Since you had some involvement with the Pandorus sphinx moth, redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]