User talk:Paul.h.williams

Hi, Paul. Welcome to Wikipedia! Finally, I'm not the only bee taxonomist editing pages here! You'll find that the Bumblebee page gets more than its fair share of vandals, though page protection can be requested if it gets out of hand. Peace, Dyanega 16:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

ID?
Paul - check this image link: - It looks to me like a male Psithyrus. Can you ID it? Dyanega 21:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Paul, thanks for adding information about the recently formed Bumblebee Specialist Group to the Bumblebee and Bee articles. You may be interested in my amendments to your edits; in particular I've cited a reference showing the actual year when the organisation was founded, and I've removed the imbedded link, since they are generally frowned upon in Wikipedia. Graham 87 15:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way about my edits. I don't know anything about the subject, and I only watch the Bumblebee article in case of vandalism. I've just realised that you're the chair of the BBSG itself, so you probably know more about the organisation than almost anybody.


 * If the BBSG became more active in 2012, then it'd be better to state that outright rather than saying that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bee&diff=prev&oldid=516458395 it was set up in 2012] when this is refuted by an IUCN newsletter. I only discovered the discrepancy because the group's homepage wasn't clear on the founding date of the organisation, so I went searching for other sources. If you could get the homepage clarified, that would be great; the modified website could then be cited in Wikipedia.
 * About the imbedded external links, I should have been a little more clear. See point two of the "points to remember" from the external links guideline about Wikipedia's stance on imbedded external links. In the bumblebee article, I didn't remove the link outright; I just moved it to the external links section, near the Bumblebee Conservation Trust link. In the case of the bee article, I did completely remove it; it wouldn't fit into the external links section there because links should be directly related to the subject of the article (point 13). Graham 87 03:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)