User talk:Ruigeroeland/Archive2

Fagivorina arenaria
I'm sorry you keep getting tagged so often with false positives like this one, apparently barcodinglife.com mirrored your Wikipedia content very quickly.

I don't see any problems with this article, but if you do translate a significant amount of text directly from a foreign wikipedia, could you please at least mention it an edit summary or use the Translated page template on the talk page in order to preserve attribution for the original authors of the article you're working from? Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!
Cheers! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Lucan portrait
It needs a massive overhall. I'm a serious art history writer eg Leonardo da Vinci, not a vandal. Amandajm (talk) 08:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW how come you get caramel apples and all I get is a Harry Potter, a Hermione and a pint-sized Won-Won demanding that I run to the beach and back, (a very steep hill) or they'll put a Huntsman spider my letter box? Amandajm (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha! Ha! It's part of the (mainly U.S.) tradition of Halloween. Children go from house to house demanding "Trick or treat". These children were being the three heroes of the Harry Potter series, Harry, Hermione and Ronald Weasley. However this Ronald was very small and rather timid. "Won-Won" is the name that he is called by his girlfriend in the 6th book of the series. (and in Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince (movie)). Actually Hunstman spiders are very common here and most people aren't afraid of them. Kids catch them in their school lunchboxes. But it's startling when you take your letters out of the mailbox, and a spider 10 centimeters across scuttles out from between the letters, or you are sitting on the toilet and suddenly realise that there is one clinging to the ceiling directly above your head. However, they are nowhere near as annoying as White tail spiders who crawl into folded towels, the clean washing in the clothes basket, up the leg of your jeans, and into bed with you at night. Why they do this I have never discovered, but I have been bitten more times than I can remember. Yes, and we have Black widows as well. Amandajm (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hats off!
Ruigeroeland, my hat off to you! I'd love to know what fuel you work on! Well done! --Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi Ruigeroeland - thank you for this + all your other help in the Spur-throated locust article. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Cameraria aceriella larva.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Cameraria aceriella larva.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Canephora hirsuta
Where can i find the source for this synonyms ? --Itu (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Amazing!
The first moth family in which every member has an article in WP! I'm glad I could be a part of it; shall we drink to the occasion... Wilhelmina Will (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yet another barnstar!

 * No luck so far in finding a reviewer. AshLin (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Micropterigidae.
Glad to hear that! It's always good to hear updates on progress! BTW, in regards to Micropardalis doroxena, after you expanded it, it mentions the "original description" - if that's from one of the documents on the species, are they old enough to be public domain? If so, I'll go and distribute the inline citations throughout the article; I sense it might look pretty nice up on the DYK template... Wilhelmina Will (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Ruigeroeland, which source did the information about Micropardalis doroxena tricking jumping spiders with its appearance come from? I looked through all three of the sources listed in the article, but I couldn't find it. Did I miss something here? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:Another project.
Hi, Ruigeroeland! Just wanted to let you know I think I've completed the list of Opostegidae moths. Whereto next? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 00:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Card


Merry Christmas At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)





Christmas Greetings
My it is cold here. Warm regards at Xmas though.I will be back to Lepidoptera shortly (after a wikidiversion with ornithology history I couldn't resist but which is taking too long and a trip to Hamburg which was too short even at 10 days).Robert aka Notafly (talk) 16:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

small primitive metallic moths
Hello, Could you please help me explain the above phase. I understand they are small moths with preimitive metallic color, is that right? Thanks!--220.58.62.20 (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, it is more like: they are small moths, they are primitive moths and they have a metallic color. Hope that helps. In my opinion, it is best to leave it as it is now..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! & Happy new year!.--Cheers! (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Mostly Micropterigidae, e.g. File:Micropterix.calthella.jpg. "primitive small metallic" might be better. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Moths
Wow! Thank you, that was fast! :D

I'll be overhauling Xestia for a few more days (User:Dysmorodrepanis/Sandbox10), but it will have 20 kb or so of unrevised taxa in the source (I parsed the Catalogue of Life list, which is comprehensive and crap quality as usual). It'll be OK for the time being, but the taxo-mess is definitely too much to work up in one effort. If you're interested I can tell you when I'm done, so you can sift through it whether it contains interesting taxa.

These days, I usually take the original file and make any derivates PNG, it is lossless and connections are fast enough to handle it. I normalize the background to white (a very light yellow would be more appropriate than #FFFFFF but usually it's not too far off), crop, mirror etc. BTW check out here and here, there's a good many articles that can now be illustrated; I fixed the remaining IDs but I didn't bother to extract a lot of content. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW I found " " instead of "*" for synonym lists in the taxobox very helpful, the extra space is often needed in particular when you ref each synonym. I tend to use one footnote (in the first line so its unequivocal) for the synonymy and all remarks that should be made regarding it, and try to incorporate the info in the text and cite properly there ("It was first scientifically/validly/... described by ...")... the author/date info is a citation in itself and wouldn't necessarily need a footnote (provided the full ref is given somewhere). This is not important right now, but if synonymies get longer (say B-class) lack of taxobox line width is often a layout problem and then it's much add work. Also note that we cannot or should not cite funet directly I think... I always refer by making a note refering to the sources used there. For mis-spellings I usually give lapsus instead of an author as spelling mistakes are not available names and have no author/date. However, when there is evidence that the mis-spelling is deliberate (unjustified emendation) they get author/date. Confusing, but in time it'll all be sorted out. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Xestia done now. Use "Edit" and check out the names in the comment after the species lists; if you find anything that looks interesting, you can try and see whether we have something on Commons, or tell me if you want a plate from Seitz or the Noctuidae catalog uploaded/copyedited. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

HMS Hardy (R08)
Hello I notice you tried to fix this (It was my mistake BTW; I've sorted it out now). What made me curious is how it came to the notice of a moth guy; I thought it was only ship guys like me that read those pages! But thanks anyway:) Xyl 54 (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC) mplate located at Template:Csb-notice-pageincludes--> CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles copied or closely paraphrased from CATE
Hi, I noticed that you created the article Xylophanes pyrrhus, which was flagged up as a copyright violation of http://www.cate-sphingidae.org/copyright;jsessionid=B27FB625BB762C4BC11D1DB5CCE94B46. Unfortunately, I think we have a problem since that website licenses its material under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike License, which is incompatible with our own. It should be easy enough to rephrase this article, but I'm concerned about how many other articles this affects. Do you know how many you (or others) have copied or closely paraphrased from that website? Please let me know if I you think I've misunderstood the issue or missed something. -- Beloved Freak  18:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Amazingly fast!
Thanks for activating the categories on Lambert Schlechter so quickly. I sometimes deactivate them on purpose in my sandboxes to avoid unwanted listings but before I had time to fix them myself, you had already done it for me. Amazing! - Ipigott (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sloth moths - then two now five!
Thank you! That makes five species now that I'm aware of! AshLin (talk) 22:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * He he he, third person to point me to this resource which I had located even before I found my first reference. Thanks! AshLin (talk) 08:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Species authority or binomial authority in taxobox?
I had thought that the species authority would be the one who first described it as a species, while the binomial authority (if different) would be the one who first used the current scientific name. Otherwise I have no idea what the difference is supposed to be in the infobox usage. In this instance, I had put Lathy as the species authority, not binomial, because Lathy had designated it Libythea fulvescens and it was later moved to the current Libytheana fulvescens. postdlf (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Xylophanes aglaor
Hi. I noticed your edit summary at this article, "Is there consensus on how to handle this yet?" I wanted to drop by to make sure that the reason for the removal is clear. Per policy and our Terms of Use, we are only able to import or closely follow content that we can verify to be compatibly licensed with Wikipedia, which requires commercial reproduction. Otherwise, all content must be written from scratch, utilizing clearly marked and attributed quotations as necessary in accordance with WP:NFC. If you can verify that they are PD-old, as you indicated you might be able to, then we can use the content, but in accordance with Plagiarism you'll have to acknowledge that the content is copied or closely paraphrased with the proper annotation. (Consensus is that citing the source is insufficient for that; explicit acknowledgement needs to be made of duplication of source text.)

Is that what you mean? Or does the question refer to something else? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. :) In terms of rewriting, there's still a bit of close paraphrasing, though it's brief. Here's what you wrote:

"It is similar to Xylophanes libya but is darker and there are differences in the pattern. The forewing upperside is covered with scattered black scales."
 * Here's what CATE says:

"Most similar to Xylophanes libya but generally darker and more contrastingly patterned, and with a characteristic dark brown inner edge to the tegulae and lunate subapical spot on the forewing underside....Forewing upperside as in Xylophanes libya but: ground colour darker; wing covered with scattered black scales"
 * In terms of creatively presenting information, there are a lot of ways to describe a thing. The first part of your description begins in the same arrangement as the source: "similar to but darker and patterned....." The second sentence picks it up a bit further down and essentially omits a few words: "Forewing upperside as in Xylophanes libya but: ground colour darker; wing covered with scattered black scales" (adding in "the" and "is").


 * While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. Generally, rewriting from scratch requires replacing both. The essay Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".


 * For instance, you might say:

"X. aglaori is similar in appearance to several other members of the Xylophanes genus, but a number of differences distinguish it from Xylophanes libya, to which it most closely compares, particularly in its darker coloring and pattern, with its clearer contrasts. Black scales are scattered over the wings, which are otherwise striated with five postmedial lines...."
 * by the time I get to "which are otherwise" I'm (pun intended) winging it. I really don't know what a postmedial line is. :) The point is just to demonstrate that you can present the facts with new organization and text. Even though language must necessarily follow closely in some ways (so far as I know, there are limited ways to say "postmedial lines"), there's still a lot of room for creative variation. (If any of the language I use here is usable for you, you're welcome to it without attribution. While generally you can't copy within Wikipedia without it, I happily waive my attribution rights when I propose examples of rewriting content.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood, and I'm happy if I can help. It's a challenge to rewrite this kind of content even in your native language. I have a lot of practice at it, and I still wind up banging my head (figuratively) against the keyboard sometimes. By the way, I don't know if there are other articles pending in the copyright cleanup list. We have quite a backlog, which I'm attempting to address. You saw me at several of your articles yesterday as they were clustered in a couple of days. If there are more, you may see me again today. I like to try to rewrite when I can, but I'm afraid that trying to keep up with the backlog makes that challenging. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problems and Translating pages
Hi Ruigeroeland :). Just to let you know, if you translate a page from another language Wikipedia, you must tag the talk page with Translated page, so to comply with the Creative Commons licenses that all contributors to Wikimedia sites release their contributors under. Please remember this next time, and if you have any pages you have previously created that were translated, please tag them. If you need a hand, leave a message on my talk page :). Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hemeroplanes diffusa


A tag has been placed on Hemeroplanes diffusa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gabriele449 (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)



 You've been Invited!
You have been invited to join and help WikiProject Insects in its most recent collaboration, Lepidoptera, which has finally been nominated for Good article, soon a reviewer will review and you are welcomed to help before and during the reviewing process as a member of the project. Your also welcomed to nominate yourself as an unbiased, reviewer for the article.

When you wish to help (which is greatly welcomed) you can get briefed and ask questions on my talk page or the WikiProject insects' talk page when you're ready!! Thank you for your cooperation. Bugboy52.4 | =-=  14:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment
As a member of Wikiproject insects you maybe want to voice your opinion this discussion on the use of vernacular or scientific names in higher ranking taxa.  Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-=  12:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Euproctis melanosoma
Hi. Thanks for fixing the copying concerns with this article, but, please, stop copying content from other sites. You just can't do this unless you can prove that they are compatibly licensed or public domain, and even then you must follow Plagiarism. I see that when you created this article on March 7th, it included, for example the following:

The source says:

Clearly, this is not a usable paraphrase. It's very important that you pay attention to these issues every time you think about hitting "save". Repeated issues are likely to lead to a copyright investigation of your account or even to block of your account, which I'm sure wouldn't be good for anybody. We must be able to have confidence that you understand Wikipedia's copyright policies and will comply. If you have any more questions about how to paraphrase, please seek assistance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining. I'm glad to hear that you weren't deliberately ignoring policy or confused about what it permitted. But, no, relying on the bot to catch this is not a good idea; every time you hit save, you are agreeing to the Wikimedia Foundation's "Terms of Use", which means that you are confirming that you are placing content authored by you unless you are importing material that is compatibly licensed. You can't do that if the content was written by somebody else. Besides this, there are periods of time when the bot is out of function or there may be occasions when it does not catch copied content. You really must make sure that the material is legally yours to place before putting it on Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Cosmopterix facunda


A tag has been placed on Cosmopterix facunda requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Cosmopterix galapagosensis


A tag has been placed on Cosmopterix galapagosensis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Cosmopterix floridanella
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Cosmopterix floridanella, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you please stop creating new articles for a second?
I just reported you at WP:CCI, because, as far as I can tell, all of the articles you're creating right now are direct copyright violations based on the journal article you're using as a source. Now, I'm new to looking into copyright problems, so it's certainly possible that I could be wrong, but I think it best if you temporarily hold off on making new articles until we get this sorted out. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ruigeroeland - with regards to the recently created articles which you've been copying from the journal, you need to appropriately attribute the source, since part of the CC-BY license is attribution. If you could add




 * to the top of the References sections for the articles you created in this way it would be greatly appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Yes, I alluded to this yesteray, when I said that you can't copy from previously published documents "unless you can prove that they are compatibly licensed or public domain, and even then you must follow Plagiarism." I'm afraid that the articles you have just created do not comply. As Wikipedia:Plagiarism notes, you must use an attribution template (or similar notation) when copying content from copyleft sources, both to meet the required attribution of the license and to avoid plagiarism. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I mentioned on my page that, beyond the issue of plagiarism, these aren't actually valid WP articles per WP:NOT. As copied, they are just copies of minutely detailed descriptions of individual specimens.  There is no context, no summary information; it doesn't even really make any sense. I don't understand the point in creating dozens to hundreds of copied articles that aren't encyclopedic and don't have useful information.  Qwyrxian (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Anthidium
Thanks for the fixes. I hope there aren't too many more. I checked, but must have missed those. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Credo acccounts
Thanks, none of the libraries in Pune that I have accesss to have Credo access. I now have university access once a fortnight to the reference collections such as JSTOR, Wiley etc. AshLin (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You signed too? I signed, but maybe someone can elaborate on how I get my account, and maybe how long would I expect to wait.  Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-=  02:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphan
Hi, I've read the guideline and I'm sorry about the thing with the Orphan tag. I'm going to give my attention to more useful tasks the next time. --Iohannes Animosus (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

resource request
Hi Ruigeroeland,

I'm responding to your post at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request from March 1st. I've posted links to the four articles you requested at that page.

Best, GabrielF (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Re:Great Source
Thanks for the source, I'll try to incorprate it the best I can, unfortunately it would be better suited for the creation of articles related to Beeltes, not the actual beetle article.  Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-=  13:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Your latest creations...
Would you really say Species XYZ is "known from "? Sounds odd too me.... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. If the creations are bot-aided, maybe you could alternative it with "is native to". Just a thought... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh. See, there's already a potential for misunderstanding, then. I any case, "known from"... I at least would only use for stuff like "known from the movies"... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, not a big deal. Must be British or something :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * G'day Ruigsie, how it goin', mate, orright! Was just about to create a new section on this very topic, when I noticed this one. I would argue that every single, "It is known from [country] should be changed to, "It is native to [country] " as Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 as suggests; and, where appropriate, "It is endemic to [country] ".  Ruigeroeland and Seb, I don't think it's an WP:Engvar thing. Apologies for jumping in uninvited at a late stage in this discussion, but "It is known from...", just seems to me to be not a natural idiomatic English of whatever flavour. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Moth Pics
Howdy - Ya I have quite a few moth pictures and raised a few species too so I also have some larvae pics... but some still need to be IDd. Will upload when I can... Still haven't finished with the butterflies...Michaelwild (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Antennablennius
I am confused by your recent edits to articles around Antennablennius. I had retained every last iota of information, but presented it on a single page rather than distributing it across 8 pages as you have done. What was the motivation behind these seemingly pointless edits? --Stemonitis (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

P. lorquinianus
Greetings. Later than expected I'm back to Lepidoptera.Thanks for the edit and best regards Notafly (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"Baldizzone" - is this the chap in question?
Hi again, Ruigeroeland,

Is this Giorgio Baldizzone the binomial authority for Coleophora alecturella, and many other species?

--Shirt58 (talk) 09:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

resource request
Hi Ruigeroeland,

I'm responding to your post at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request from May 11th. You can find links to the two Zootaxa articles you requested at that page. Thanks, GabrielF (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

giant frog
hi I was just creating a taxobox for Giant leaf tree frog - not sure I got it right - the info that was on the page is still there I've now added the taxobox as best I could but it's the first time I've tried adding one so I may have got stuff wrong, especially as the text that was there originally was not perfect either :)

EdwardLane (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Taxobox
Please see this comment. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
A lot for cleaning up after me. I know I have been a bit shoddy with my stubs, but letting image processing take precedence at the moment. Shyamal (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you very much! I will be busy with it for years for we have them all.. :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Stub Format
I'm asking for a small favour. I just needed somebody to proof read my idea of how a stub should look before I go ahead and make the same mistakes X100 in other articles. You were the first user that came to mind who I assume would know the answer to this quite well. I used this article as the draft. Could you please take a look at it and tell me if there is anything (including minor stuff) that I am doing wrong/ how I could make it any better as a stub. Many thanks --JamesDouch (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:just checking...
The asterisk is a typo, it will be tough to fix that one. So Stemonitis decided towards redirects? Was their a request for consensus in my absence? <small style="background:#007FFF;border:#66FF00 2px dashed;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px"><font color="#66FF00"> Bugboy52.4 ¦ <font color="#66FF00">=-=  02:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Prehistoric Lepidoptera
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 01:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

www.bladmineerders.nl and copyright
Hi Ruigeroeland,

I see that you're using sections copied from www.bladmineerders.nl in some of the articles you're starting. Although they're creative commons licensed, I'm a bit concerned that they're not compatible with the licence here. www.bladmineerders.nl are releasing them under CC-BY-NC-SA, which means it's not legal to make money from their contents. We're CC-BY-SA meaning that it is legal to make money from what's posted here. I think those sections are going to need to be rewritten. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That looks better, thanks. Species articles are kind of hard to re-write, not least because altering the words can substantially alter the meaning sometimes. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits
Many thanks for the edits. I will further add to them soon. (As you probably know by now, I often make a stub, then return a little later to expand it. So, I wouldn't have forgotten about them.) Cheers! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Spilosoma glatignyi
That's amazing... how can one creature get so many different names? I'm not a biologist, but would love to understand this! --99of9 (talk) 08:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

List_of_Lepidoptera_of_New_Zealand
I see that you have created the List_of_Lepidoptera_of_New_Zealand article. I think the butterflies section should be presented as a list rather than a table in order to match the rest of the article. The table is a copy from Butterflies of New Zealand and that section can have a link to the main article. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead! Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

RFC Cry for Help
Your input on this proposed standard would be appreciated. Noym (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Artillery support on Talk:Freyer's purple emperor please? Noym (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

ZooKeys
Heya, started writing about one of the fossil species from the new ZooKeys, Myanmymar. I found out about the template already for images, but I have questions for text. Any special things I have to do for them, or is simply citing the source good enough? Mind you I'm not going to copy the text verbatim at all, heh, but I might relax a bit and closely paraphrase instead of total rewording. --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   19:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think simply citing the source should be good enough for paraphrased stuff, while quotes will be necessary for phrases copied verbatim. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;"> Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Gotcha, thanks. :) Certainly makes the writing easier, heh. --  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   21:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Another option - appropriate if you reuse large chunks - is OA-attribution. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;"> Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 21:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info, didnt know that one! Ruigeroeland (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

ZooKeys images
I Ruigeroeland, I was wondering about the images that are in the ZooKeys issues. Do they automatically get downloaded to Commons, or do users go through and manually pull them from the articles? -- Kev min  § 14:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As already mentioned to Kevmin, the images are available in a format more convenient than PDF, though not yet on Commons. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;"> Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Resource requests
I've been looking at (all, after seeing some) your requests on WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. I can send you the Zootaxa article on Castniidae, and I should be able to send any Canadian Entomologist articles though now there is a technical problem with accessing those from before 2003. If you want these, can you send me your e-mail? I think I can trust you with my info, and it'll be easier for getting the Canadian Entomologist articles that way. (Also, Shyamal might be able to get the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society article you requested.) &mdash;innotata 15:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sent you the Zootaxa article; looks like I'll have to do something else to get the Canadian Entomologist articles. &mdash;innotata 17:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Please, help me!
I am Vladimir V. Dubatolov, and now I try to edit Wikipedia about a group of my interest, tiger-moths. Unfortunately, I could not understand how to change incorrect redirections. Could you kindly explain me how to do this? Vvdubat (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Much thanks! I have corrected incorrect redirection from Rhyparia! Vvdubat (talk) 10:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Baltimartyria
Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Sphingidae
Hoi, Op nl-wiki is door Grashoofd (met zijn bot) de lijst met Sphingidae-artikelen aangemaakt. Van de Sphingidae zijn op nl ook alle geslachten beschreven. Misschien dat je er niet op zat te wachten, maar toch ff een melding. Als ik met de geslachten van witjes zo ver ben, laat ik het weten. Groet, Lymantria (talk) 09:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Goed bezig hoor! Het aantal beschreven soorten is beide wiki's al flink groot. Op de engelse ben ik de laatste tijd al twee "echte" entomologen tegengekomen die bezig waren met vlinder artikelen, dus het begint ook daadwerkelijk effect te hebben volgens mij. Ik hoor het wel van de geslachten. Eventueel kan ik ook de lijst op nl gebruiken als basis had ik me al bedacht. Groet en bedankt voor de melding! Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * De witjesgeslachten zijn aangemaakt. Overigens waren de meeste ook hier al aangemaakt zag ik. Groet, Lymantria (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Link to Congo disambiguation page
When you edited the Eurema senegalensis article, you added a link to Congo, which is a disambiguation page rather than an article. If you know from the source material whether it's referring to the Republic of the Congo or the Democratic Republic of the Congo, could you please edit your link to point to the appropriate page? Most common usage referring to the country simply as "Congo" is about Republic of the Congo, not the DRC, but I didn't want to assume that in this case since you're probably more familiar with the topic. Thanks! LarryJeff (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Resource request
Hi Ruigeroeland,

I'm responding to your post on the resource exchange from September 28th looking for articles on Elachistidae. You can find links to the first two articles at that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Snail slime
Is this for real? The ref is a translation from a commercial site. Also, please see this. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

About the Catalogue of Lepidoptera of Russia
Dear Mr. Ruigeroeland,

I have an Excel copy of the Catalogue of Lepidoptera of Russia, but have not received a permission to send it to somebody. Sorry! I am not an owner of it... I have the book also. In you need some information from it, please, let me know, and I shall send this information to you.

To receive an Excel file of the Russian Lepidoptera, please ask the editor of this book, Dr. Sergei SINEV (lepid@zin.ru). I hope you will receive it from him without any problem. Vvdubat (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus reaching
Over the years that I've been fluctuating between activity and inactivity, I've seen the same consensus being tried to reach. In reality, if we were to make a majority vote with a 3/4 threshold, the our proposal would pass. However I've seen the same people fighting the same sides since day 1. I believe we should have more people included in another discussion to start an actual consensus follow stricter guidelines and the path given to us to make it easier.
 * 1) Discussion : We should not try to make the conversation long and time consuming, nor should we have to resort to personal attacks.  Even though we have gone through this part of the process on multiple occasions, this time we should have more than just the usual commenters.
 * 2) Proposal : The next step would usually be the proposal. I'm not sure what has been proposed the last times that we have these quarrels, but one that I believe still stands is to switch all articles with common names to redirects to the scientific names. I don't actually see this happening, however maybe we can meet half-way somehow.
 * 3) Consensus : In all that is fair, those who vote should be the same people who have added to the discussion. Here, it should be a majority vote as it would be inconceivable to have EVERYBODY agree on one point.

This time, basically, we should invite more people from the community and discuss the matter at hand, instead only that part of the process be exclusive to us, or else it wouldn't truly reflect the public's opinion in general. <small style="background:#007FFF;border:#66FF00 2px dashed;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px"><font color="#66FF00"> Bugboy52.4 ¦ <font color="#66FF00">=-=  14:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Belated Happy Halloween!
So sorry I forgot, Ruigeroeland! Thanks for all your help with the moth articles, BTW :) Wilhelmina Will (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

About Oswald Bertram Lower
Hi Ruigeroeland - a pure pleasure to work with you, good sir! ---Shirt58 (talk) 10:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

A tool for you!
Hi ! I've just come across one of your edits (or that you have been patrolling new pages), and noticed that you might appreciate some help with references.

I case you're not aware, you might consider using this tool – it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script: // Add WP:Reflinks launcher in the toolbox on left addOnloadHook(function { addPortletLink( "p-tb",    // toolbox portlet "http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py/" + wgPageName + "?client=script&citeweb=on&overwrite=&limit=30&lang=" + wgContentLanguage, "Reflinks" // link label )}); onto Special:MyPage/skin.js, then paste the bare URL between your tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for PDF documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. You may consider taking on Category:Articles needing link rot cleanup. So long! --Sp33dyphil © • © 08:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will look into this soon. I never used anything fancy like this before, so I might get back to you if I dont understand how it works..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Apsidophora (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * was linked to Celebes


 * Dicephalarcha herbosa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * was linked to Celebes


 * Ophiorrhabda mormopa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * was linked to Celebes


 * Sisona (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * was linked to Celebes

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Your edit to the Chilocremastis article has another link to the Congo disambig page. Any idea which (or maybe both) country it's supposed to be? LarryJeff (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Bot task?
Hi Ruigeroeland, I will look into it over the weekend. A question, will it work if I do a taxonomic index search for Lepidoptera, and read through all the listed genera and species (clicking the Page down button a number of times)? — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 12:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The index seems to be populating only after visiting one of the taxon pages. Visit and then click Taxonomic Index. Search for Lepidoptera on the next screen. —  Ganeshk  ( talk ) 11:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am still working on it. I will let you know when it is done. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 11:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hemistola kezukai

 * - Kingpin13 (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations
<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  15:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC))
 * Wow! Thanks, I had no idea I was anywhere near that many edits..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Goed Gadaan! Ik sijn blij dannek ou gevonen....an old "taal" van Oost Vlanderren. Bedankt!<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  13:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, I dont know which online translator you used, but it didnt do a good job I'm affraid. In other words: I have no idea what that means, but you are right I speak Dutch. :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I did NOT use an online translator. Translation: "Well Done. I am glad that I found you....an old dialect from East Flanders"....where I was born 65 years ago but left for America when I was 4. The Flemish that I speak, pre-dates ABN. The problem surfaces when I try to "write" what my memory comes up with. In any case...congratulations. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  13:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, nice you still know how to speak it then! A nice contrast with the movies stars or models that have immigrated to the US and appear on TV a few years later and hardly know how to speak their mother tongue anymore. BTW, in ABN it would be "Goed Gedaan! Ik ben blij dat ik je gevonden heb.... een oud dialect uit Oost Vlanderren." so it is not that far off really. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Nematopogon pilella (Denis & Schiffermuller, 1775)
Yes it is - but the Fauna Europaea lists predate my Checklist with Bond and O'Connor and await amendment Talk to you soon Notafly (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Lady of  Shalott  16:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Irish Moths
Good evening Ruigeroeland, Bond et al. is available here Some species listed as Irish in Fauna Europaea were based on misdets. or Irish material could not be found so are not on this as good as we could manage list (it does have some errors). Other species have been added in the last few years. Unfortunately there seems to be no way of keeping Fauna Europaea up to date (and the silly notion of giving Northern Ireland a separate identity for a biogeographic purpose persists). I will match Bond et al. to the wiki list add the new species (with refs) and ask the moth recorders to keep me informed (automatic when I was at the museum). Very best regards Robert aka Notafly (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

JBNHS paper
I've just realised I can scan the JBNHS article you requested at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request (maybe a week after Christmas). Do you still need it? &mdash;innotata 15:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Have put it up here. Let me know if you need any other JBNHS contents. Shyamal (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, you can never have enough of those! :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Scotura annulata, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Randia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:green; background-color:white; font color:red; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

 ·Add§hore·  <sup style="color:black;">T alk T o M e ! is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding &#123;{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Also, here's a Christmasberry moth for you, in keeping with both the Christmas season and our collaborations! :) Best wishes for you and yours, come Christmas and the New Year!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 09:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Euploea alcathoe
Merry Christmas Victuallers (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Done with Clarke (1986)
Have finally worked through Clarke's Mighty Marquesan Moth Monograph. The Tineidae were, in fact, the last group in the list, so I've finally come to do that work too. I have not done the paper for all taxa contained in it (in many cases it's just a small bit of add. info, for which we need at least a start-class article to make sense of it), but I have seen that we have at last genus redlink for all taxa discussed by Clarke. If we already had more, I have expanded/unstubbed the articles or left the paper as an annotation ("References" or "External links" sections). So whenever you'll edit a taxon from Clarke where the ref has not been used, you'll see it there in the page source and can check it out at leisure.

It'll be a nice start for further micromoth work, but I think I'll rather do some hawkmoths or arctiids next ;-) or beetles or birds... well I'll just see what is in my papers folder. Cheers! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my late response.. Holidays.. :) Nice work on the articles! If you are going to do hawkmoths: we should have articles on all species with synonyms, so the taxonomy should be ok. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

New paper
A very happy new year. You might be interested in http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2011/f/zt03148p221.pdf Shyamal (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A happy new year to you too! And thanks for the link, this might indeed prove helpful for future edits. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphan tagging
Thanks for your comment about orphan tagging of organisms. I never question when the WP:AWB program identifies a missing orphan tag, now I know better for organisms. Thanks for the heads up!--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually learned this lesson as a result of your pages, too--I misflagged a few "Lists of Moths of..." before looking it up properly and realizing I shouldn't be doing that. I've added a few navboxes to some of them to allow users to page more handily through them, and as I did, the extent of your achievement really struck me--you've created a resource of amazing depth here, and from the look of it, almost single-handedly. I'm in awe--thanks for adding all this great stuff! -- Khazar (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Morpho
Good morning Ruigeroland and a Happy new year to you. Let us start it offf with the vexing genus Morpho. So far as I can see there are only three monographs Fruhstorfer, Le Moult and Real and lastly Blandin. Gerard Lamas has dramatically reduced the number of species but only in a checklist and his website and Phillip de Vries has given a cladisitic analysis (of "species" available to him?). The subgenera are dropped. Being the most recent these two are assumed correct. But is this so? I am inclined to stick with Blandin (which I don't have but may be able to get). As for valid names I'm sticking to Global Lep Index What do you think? . Robert aka Notafly (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC) Ps I'm going to fix up the chatty Morpho pages one by one.

Morpo laertes
Hmmmm I got the wrong photo.You got the Hübner homonym.And it's raining in Ireland.Notafly (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)I'm about to request some Morpho images I can be sure of. Wish me luck Talk to you soon Notafly (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry About That
Sorry about that, I'm new and am still learning the formatting for editing. I didnt notice the existing stub template. Sorry again. Smd75jr (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Taxobox and fossil range
Hey - I've added taxoboxes to a number of the articles that you tagged as not having them, yay! But I don't have the knowledge to fill in the fossil range parameter of the box - if you happen to know, that would be super –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have no experience with fossil range I'm afraid. I was going to point you to the wikiproject Paleontology, but I see you already found them. I think they will be able to help you out! Cheers. Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyway! –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sri Lanka
Good morning Ruigeroland I am changing the Butterflies of Sri Lanka links to Species lists ie Papilionidae (Sri Lanka) not Papilionidae (surely misleading if your interest is the fauna of Sri Lanka). This should tak a few days and then I will add the refs and some pics. I have uploaded and annotated the 71 plates from Moore Volume 1 to commons so I can figure some of the more "difficult" species. How does this sound to you? Cheers Robert aka Notafly (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! Not sure if you need to split families into separate pages though. See [] which contains all butterflies of South Africa. If you prefer a page per family that is also fine off course. One thing: all country list are called "List of butterflies of ..". Maybe you can use the same naming convention? If you split into families you could use: "List of butterflies of Sri Lanka (Papilionidae)", etc. and make an index page at "List of butterflies of Sri Lanka". Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I'll do that Notafly (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, while patrolling newly created pages, I found you have created species-related articles. has created a lot of article without any context. Since I am quite new, I don't know what to do. Since you edit related article, I thought you could help in this matter. Thanks. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I contacted the user and some adjustments to two of his articles.Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Lycaenidae
The higher taxonomy is vexing isn't it. Enough to give you the "blues". I gave some alternative rankings on the Lycaenidae page which was in conflict with Funet and it's own cladogram.I'm leaving pages as they are with some cross-referencing eg. Redirects are premature (I think) and not helpful since they are one directional. What do you think? Robert aka Notafly (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed it is. I really have a hard time understanding the state of things from time to time. Regarding your comment on redirecting: I think it is better to redirect to prevent people from making an article which we already have, but under a different title. I suggest linking Liptenini to Lipteninae. If it turns out to actually be a tribe, we can just move the page to the tribus name, overwriting the redirect. If the name Liptenini reamins red, there is no way people would know we actually do have a page on the subject. Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Bot task? (Part 2)
Hi Ruigeroeland, I was able to complete the programming to pull the insect lists. I had the bot scrape the Macrolepidoptera group last night. I have uploaded the names that start with the A alphabet. They are available here. I will upload the rest once you check and confirm that these are good. That's a lot of insects. :) — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 12:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The list was compiled by reading through the taxonomic index and automating the pagedn button to scroll pages. The reason you were seeing other alphabets in the first list was because the Taxapad list had species names that had comma character in them. I tried to fix it by listing the genera first and then the species name. For example, aagostigma, Alcis and abruptaria, Menophra. I have skipped these species names in the latest bot run. This way you will have a proper list in alphabetical order. Let me know if that is okay.


 * I just uploaded the list of species under Macrolepidoptera (48 pages). For some reason, the taxapad list does not scroll past Temenis. Please review and let me know it needs any changes. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 01:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Metriorrhynchus
I removed your speedy tag, because, yes, this genus of beetles lives! A redirect would be nonsense, redirecting to a fish genus, and thus hurt the project. Yet deletion of the page would also hurt the project, as virtually all genera of living creatures are notable. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

resource request
Hi Ruigeroeland,

I've uploaded the two articles that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find links to those articles at that page. GabrielF (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!
Wilhelmina Will (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for adding catagories to my first new pages on Halicampus and Asplenium marinum. Much appreciated. For reasons of chaotic life I use DrRickZT at work and this id at home... DrRickZTTwo (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Phycitodes binaevella, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! It seems you are learning quite fast. Your articles look better than ones I have seen from experienced editors. Keep it up! Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Taxapad
Hi Ruigeroeland, I wanted to leave a note. I have not forgotten this project. Picking up the authority from the actual page instead of the taxonomy browser is taking some time to program. It would have been easier if the authority on the browser was accurate. I will let you know when I am done. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 13:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! Take your time, I am currently working with another database covering the Pyraloidea superfamily and a document containing all species of the Hepialoidea superfamily. When you are done with the programming I will switch to filling the genera pages using the lists you created. Taxapad seems to be far from perfect, but it is a good starting point. It will be awesome to have all these species at least listed on the genus pages and would make my wiki-editing life a lot easier..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Endemic animals
Hi, just a query about this. Category:Lepidoptera of XXX may contain lepidopterans from multiple countries. For example, Brenthia albimaculana is a Lepidoptera of Indonesia, New Guinea and Australia, but not endemic to one specific country. But Abantiades barcas is a Lepidoptera of Australia, and also endemic to Australia, so it should be categorized in both Category:Lepidoptera of Australia and Category:Endemic fauna of Australia. Right? jonkerz ♠talk 14:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Interwiki wikispecies
Dag Ruigeroeland, je zal zien dat ik hier een interwikilink maakte naar Cynoglossum creticum. Ik ben zinnens dat te doen voor alle lemma's die ik op mijn weg tegenkom. Op die manier zal Wikispecies ook wat meer bezocht worden. Vind je dit een goed idee? Lotje (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, ik weet het niet eigenlijk. Als dan een artikel voor de op dit moment rode link wordt gemaakt op wikipedia, verwijst de link hier niet langer automatisch naar. Stel, de link voor een bepaalde plant is nu rood in een insectenartikel. Ik voorzie dat als iemand de pagina over de plant maakt, hij of zij zich niet bewust zal zijn van de link in het insectenartikel en dus de interwiki link niet terug zal veranderen naar een "normale" link. Het is wel een goed idee om interwiki links te maken voor pagina's die op beide wiki projecten te vinden zijn. Ik heb net Pediasia jucundella gemaakt op wikipedia. Als hier ook een artikel over is op wikispecies, zou die wel gelinkt kunnen worden. Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ik heb je idee voorgelegd aan User:Stemonitis die veel ervaring heeft met artikelen over flora en fauna en met wikipedia richtlijnen in het algemeen. Mocht hij tegen zijn, kun je je er beter niet aan wagen. Mag ik voorstellen dat je, in plaats van interwiki's in artikelen, een korte Stub maakt over de plant in kwestie en deze via een interwiki linkt aan wikispecies? Dat lijkt mij eigenlijk de juiste manier van werken. Als je een artikel met een taxobox maakt en een globale omschrijving van de distributie van de soort in het artikel zet is het net voldoende om als een stub te worden toegelaten. Zo'n stub heb je in 5 minuutjes klaar dus is niet veel meer werk dan de interwiki links die je nu wilt introduceren, aangezien de kans groot is dat de soort op tal van pagina's voorkomt en je dan op elke pagina apart de interwiki moet aanmaken. Als je een pagina voor de soort maakt ben je in 1x klaar. Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Stemonitis is ook tegen, hier het antwoord: I don't know what the MoS says about this, but I would avoid such external links in the text. Red links are useful, and should not be seen as a problem to be solved. For instance, the WhatLinksHere page for Cynoglossum creticum only lists one article, when there are at least two (potential) links. I think that where these external links are thought to be useful to the reader, they should be added to an explicit External links section, and not merely linked inline. I can see why Lotje may think it would be useful, but I feel strongly that it's the wrong solution. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thnx Lotje (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Draagt dit jullie goedkeuring weg? Lotje (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Als het kan zou ik proberen om op z'n minst de volgende info op te nemen, zie de huidige versie. De categorie, het stub-type en de taxonomie kun je halen van de bovenliggende pagina over het geslacht als deze bestaat. De auteur is makkelijk te vinden op wikispecies of anders even de naam in google gooien. De distributie is vaak ook snel te vinden. Anders kun je altijd nog zeggen dat de soort te vinden is in Europa of Afrika of iets dergelijks, dat moet ook redelijk makkelijk te vinden zijn. Dit soort pagina's zijn erg nuttig als beginnetje, dus als je er zin in hebt er een aantal te maken zou dat fantastisch zijn. Er missen nog erg veel Europese plantensoorten omdat niemand zich daar nog echt op gestort heeft Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Bedankt, als ik iets tegenkom op mijn weg zal ik gretig gebruik maken van je input. Lotje (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Agriphila poliellus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Ural


 * Pediasia persellus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Ural


 * Radiarctia jacksoni (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Aster


 * Sclerocona (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Zea

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Chrysocrambus cratellera
I'm assuming you didn't mean to create a self redirect? 202.161.31.234 (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed I did not.. Thanks for spotting it! Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)