User talk:SchreiberBike/Archive 6

More redirects
I have identified these in Lycaenidae.Will you fix them please. Always grateful for your help.Best regards Robert aka Notafly (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sipaea redirect to Nesiostrymon
 * Sterosis redirect to Liphyra Westwood, 1864
 * Sublysandra redirect to Polyommatus
 * Tajuria berensis redirect to Tajuria berenis
 * Terra redirect to Nesiostrymon Clench, 1964
 * Tigrinota redirect to Arawacus
 * Got 'm. Let me know if I misunderstood anything or there's anything else I can help with. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   02:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Many thanks.All are correct.I imagine more redirects are likely since the blues are oversplit Best regards Notafly (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

disambig templates
Hi! I think the taxonomy templates work like this, for disambiguation. I'll use Lithocharis as an example.
 * If there's a template "template:taxonomy/Lithocharis" that is used for lepidoptera, then there would need to be another such as "template:taxonomy/Lithocharis (beetle)" if one was needed for the beetle. The template name is used only for template disambiguation. The template name (the part after the slash, "Lithocharis" or "Lithocharis (beetle)") is used in the Speciesbox or Automatic taxobox. It doesn't necessarily have to be the same as the article name (but it might be less confusing that way.)
 * If there's an article "Lithocharis" and an article "Lithocharis (beetle)", you can use the template "template:taxonomy/Lithocharis" for either one by specifying either "Lithocharis" or "Lithocharis (beetle)|Lithocharis" in the template's link field. In this case, if you want to use it for the beetle, the name "Lithocharis (beetle)" should not appear in the Speciesbox or Automatic taxobox, only "Lithocharis". The name in the Speciesbox or Automatic taxobox is for the template, not the article.
 * It's not unusual to need a disambiguation name for both the template and article, in which case you need two templates (such as "template:taxonomy/Lithocharis" and "template:taxonomy/Lithocharis (beetle)", and in the link fields "Lithocharis" in one and "Lithocharis (beetle)|Lithocharis" in the other

Since there's not currently a template used for the lepidoptera Lithocharis, there really only needs to be one template, not both "template:taxonomy/Lithocharis" and "template:taxonomy/Lithocharis (beetle)"

...and, of course, I could be wrong on any of this. It's easy to get mixed up! Bob Webster (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not comfortable at all with the automatic taxoboxes system. I saw that there was a link from the beetle species Lithocharis ochracea to its genus which went in error to the moth genus Euparyphasma. I was pleased enough with myself that I was able to change that to a red link instead of the error. I would be in your debt if you could clean up after me as you described above. I am not now able to figure it out for myself. Thank you, SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   04:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It's all straight now (I think). Everything you did was correct from a content viewpoint, it just left an extra unused template file. I will point out that, while my explanation seemed perfectly clear when I wrote it, it sure is convoluted now!


 * I'm happy to help with any template stuff I can. Feel free to let me know if you need anything or notice anything wrong. Bob Webster (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks and keep up the good work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   14:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Redirect request from Notafly
Would you redirect Keraunogramma to Semanga Distant 1884 please. Best regards Notafly (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanx. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   18:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Notafly (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi SchreiberBike, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3ASchreiberBike added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! - TNT 💖 18:10, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It makes sense to me, but you should be aware that by the letter of the law I am not eligible. It has been proposed three times before. See the bottom of this page. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   04:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018
Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Pseudozarba mianoides. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in red at the top of the page. Thanks!  Zack mann  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to New AI-Labelling Campaign for Newcomer Sessions
Hello, I'm reaching out to you because I saw that you signed up as a labelling volunteer at Labels/Edit quality. I'm starting a new project that builds on Edit quality, to predict Newcomer quality. That is, to predict the damagingness and goodfaithness of "sessions" (multiple related edits) of users within 1 day of their registration. With this AI trained, we could help automatically distinguish betewen productive and unproductive new users. If you wouldn't mind taking a look at this new labelling campaign and label a few sessions I would be very grateful. In addition if you have any feedback or discover any bugs in the process I would appreciate that too. You can find the project page at Labels/Newcomer_session_quality or go directly to labels.wmflabs.org/ui/enwiki/ and look for the campaign titled "Newcomer Session quality (2018)". Thanks so much!

Maximilianklein (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Public holidays in Kurdistan listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Public holidays in Kurdistan. Since you had some involvement with the Public holidays in Kurdistan redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Heliconisa edit
Thanks very much for the edit on Heliconisa; I could not locate a similar article for a monotypic genus that also had an automatic taxobox, so was uncertain how it needed to be formatted. I'll make a note of this for future reference, I've seen a few other such cases and left them alone. Dyanega (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm slowly working out how and when to use Speciesbox and Automatic_taxobox; they are not self explanatory for me. Thanks for adding in the parentheses. I should have seen that. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   01:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
Happy 2019 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wow! Thank you for the reminder. Five years is a long time on the Internet. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   19:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * six years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Good to think of such things again. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 04:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, good for me ;) - last year was my successful year of thanks, DYK? (see my talk). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the nice words!
Thank you for the nice words! When writing a new article (or translating one) should I put references before or after punctuation marks on the english wikipedia? Have a nice day! Okimeolvx (talk) 08:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Wikipedia has a lot of rules, but mostly you don't need to worry about them. Just use your good judgement and do what seems right. You will get it right most of the time. If you do start reading the rules though you'll be able to make the articles match with Wikipedia's style and they will be easier to read. The specific rules about references and punctuation are at MOS:REFPUNCT. As you are able, read that whole WP:MOS page. It's a lot to absorb though, so don't feel like you need to know it all before you start. Let me know if there's any other questions you have or there's anything else I can do to help. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   19:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

copyedit request
Hi SchreiberBike, I created a draft of the first issue of the Tree of Life newsletter. If you're still interested in glancing it over for a c/e, it would be appreciated. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I generally followed WP:MoS style, but since you are starting the newsletter, you can set the style any way you want. Feel totally free to disagree with my choices and I'll try to follow your style in the future.


 * I wanted to explain some of my choices: I capitalized article titles when used as article titles rather than as the name of a species – that's not always done, so your call. You've got  for the headings. Would you be comfortable using == ... == format instead? WP:ACCESSIBILITY favors that. For the dire whelk DYK, what is "being eaten" is unclear in the text, but that's how it was on the DYK. If you want to change that back, that makes sense; your call. I think the April DYKs section looks better showing rather than being behind the "show" button, but again, your call. I'm not good with tables, but if the tops of the "Newly recognized content" and "Newly nominated FAs" tables were vertically even, that would look better.


 * I like to copy edit and I mostly do ok, but because I am dyslexic there are some kinds of errors (like spelling) that are invisible to me. Keep that in mind. Also, my health is uneven and I'm not always able to be involved the way I'd like to be, so be prepared for me to disappear if necessary. Thank you and keep up the good work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨   19:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for your time! I appreciate it and will consider all of your suggestions. As far as the vertical alignment of the tables, it must just be a display thing, because they look even to me on my mac and PC. Thanks again, and don't worry, I'm not expecting a standing commitment :) Enwebb (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * Sometimes as I work on one gem I find another. While awarding User:AddWittyNameHere, I discovered SchreiberBike, a cohort of hers that deserves acknowledgement and credit for doing, in his words, "the small things on Wikipedia to make them a little bit better. Lately most of my effort has been spent checking the capitalization of species common names and fixing them to match Wikipedia's style. I'm working primarily on Lepidoptera now. While I do that, I do other stuff too or else I get bored. I've also adopted some delicious typos and sometimes do copy editing and other things". When the Editor of the Week award was first inaugurated, SchreiberBike was exactly the type of editor we had in mind. Imagine the mess Wikipedia would be without the vigilance and diligence this type of editor displays. Bravo and well-deserved! User:Adityavagarwal strongly supported this nomination.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Thanks again for your efforts! &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   00:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * . Wow! Thank you. It's a little shocking. I don't edit Wikipedia to earn recognition, but still, it feels good to receive it. Keep up the good work and let me know if I can do anything to help. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 03:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Congrats! and thanks for helping at John Henry Salter --Dick Bos (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Gustav Adolf Closs aka Adolf Gustav Closs
I am sure you are right about Closs. They are most likely one and the same.I will change the page Best regards Notafly (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It seemed likely. I've set up redirects both here and at Wikispecies. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 03:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm QueerEcofeminist. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, List of moths of the Iberian Peninsula, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

 QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 15:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

New message from BigDwiki
BigDwiki (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Moved from User:SchreiberBike/Lepidoptera caps
COMMENT: there is a problem with this elimination of initial capitals from vernacular names. You can't tell if "small brown warbler" is a warbler that happens to be small and brown, a Brown Warbler that happens to be small, or a species called the Small Brown Warbler.

I'm not convinced of the wisdom of this as a general policy. Foiled circuitous wanderer (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi That's a legitimate opinion and one that's been discussed at length (See: WP:BIRDCON). However, for the last about five years, Wikipedia has been consistent in capitalizing as described at MOS:LIFE. Good writing is necessary throughout Wikipedia and where the descriptive parts of a name can be confusing, it's worth writing carefully to be clear what is descriptive and what is the name. Let me know if you have any other questions or ideas. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨  19:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It should be clear from context whether a warbler that is small and brown is being referred to, or one particular species. If it isn't clear, rephrase until it is. However, while I am in generally in favor of using sentence case for vernacular names, I don't think it works very well for lepidopterans that have a definitive article in the vernacular name. Giving the vernacular name of Agrochola circellaris as "the brick" is more confusing than "The Brick", and there's really no way to rephrase the context to clarify (other than explicitly saying that "the brick" is a vernacular name for the species; e.g., "the brick, as it is commonly known, is found in Europe..."). Plantdrew (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Help
Hello. Help expand for article Akane Yamaguchi from 山口茜. Thanks you. Ghyuw5 (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What kind of help do you need? I know nothing about badminton and don't speak Chinese. Posting the same message on nine user pages is odd. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 03:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * expand.Ghyuw5 (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You might be able to get some help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Badminton or WikiProject Japan. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 03:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Neutral notice
This is a neutral notice to all registered editors who have contributed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film over the past year (Sept. 15, 2018-present) that a Request for Comment has been posted here. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hipparchia hermione not alcyone
Hello again Schreiber Bike Rock grayling redirects to Hipparchia alcyone. The valid name in most sources including Fauna Europaea and Wikispecies is Hipparchia hermione and I think we should use this. Will you rename the page (I have changed the text and will add more) and fix the redirect. I see other language pages vary in this respect but not much can be done here (Or can it?) Very best regards Notafly (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Glad to help. Not sure about other language editions of Wikipedia though. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 20:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

In the blink of an eye.Very many thanks Notafly (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

ANI report that may be of interest to you
Regarding misuse of automated tools: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Canelo Álvarez vs. Gennady Golovkin - apologies
I think I accidentally edited an older version of the article which also undid your edit. Sorry about that. S0091 (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. Thanks for the note. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 04:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 18:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. &#x200B;

Best regards, Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Question concerning placement of images
I’m curious. You edited the image I just placed on List of mammals of Brazil. You changed Johnson-Bob (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question. You had changed the caption from "Tayra" to "Eira barbara" and Wikipedia style is to italicize scientific names. If you go to the page Tayra, you'll see that Eira barbara is in italics there. It's the same for all species. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 00:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not just Wikipedia style, either&mdash;though that is obviously the most relevant thing here&mdash;it's an actual binomial nomenclature thing supported by both ICZN & ICN. AddWitty  NameHere  00:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Theodor Gottlieb von Scheven
Greetings SchreiberBike Will you take a look at Theodor Gottlieb von Scheven. The added templates -living person (he died in 1810) and notability (he described the well known moth Zygaena lonicera) are (unwittingly) unjust to this early naturalist.I hope they will be removed or worse the page deleted.No doubt more will be added to this page but not by me my German isn't up to it. Best regards Notafly (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks like has done excellent work there. Thanks to Witty. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨  06:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Neutral notice
As an editor who commented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film between Jan. 1, 2019, and today, you may wish to join a discussion at that page, here.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

George Hamilton, 3rd Earl of Abercorn
Dear SchreiberBike. Thanks for correcting mistakes on the article George Hamilton, 3rd Earl of Abercorn, to which I contributed and which is therefore on my watchlist. I agree with all the other corrections you made but have doubts about replacing the BR HTML tag with BR/. I thought Wikipedia uses HTML5, which does not require closure for the BR. I have heard that some people maintain that BR does confuse the Source Editor's syntax highlighting, but I have always used just unclosed BR and did not notice anything going wrong with the syntax highlighting, which I have always on. Can you please explain why BR/ is necessary? I have used BR a lot. I want to be sure and understand why, before I change all that. With many thanks Johannes Schade (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Thanks for your note. I typically make that edit because I use this syntax highlighter which is available under Preferences/Gadgets/Editing. I don't know how many other people use it, but I find it quite helpful and I suspect more people would use it if they knew about it. One particularity of the highlighter is that it differentiates between a  and a  . As it says in the documentation "For performance reasons, the highlighter requires all tags to be valid XML. For example, make sure that if you start a   tag you end it with , and use   instead of  ." Hence, I do it because it helps some people and doesn't hurt anything. Thank you. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨  21:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear SchreiberBike. Thank you for the precise description, which allowed me to understand that the syntax highlighter that you use is not the normal one that comes with the Source Editor of the English Wikipedia but an alternative one that is offered as a Gadget. I habitually use the normal one, which comes with the editor but is by default switched off and needs to be switched on by clicking the fourth button on the top of the editor that shows a pen and displays the tooltip text "Syntax highlighting" when the mouse hovers over it. The editor remembers this switching on as your choice and will thereafter always highlight the text in the editor window. This normal syntax highlighter does not require closing the BR tag. Following your description I have tried the alternative highlighter, which was new to me. The two highlighters can be easily be distinguished from each other by the way they highlight: the normal one colours the letters of the text, not their background, whereas the alternative highlighter colours the background of the letters as a highlighter pen would do on a printed text. The choice of the highlighter tool is of course personal, I feel that both do their job well enough. However, the alternative one requires BR closure and is therefore not strictly HTML5-compatible. Please try the normal highlighter. I would be very interested to hear what you think. Best regards Johannes Schade (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In my mind, the normal highlighter is the new highlighter; I'd used the old one for quite a while before the new one came around. I experimented with the new one when it came out and I've experimented with it more today. It has been improved since then, but for me, it still has some deal killers. When I use it with Firefox, it doesn't support spell checking (a necessity for me as a dyslexic). When I use it with Chrome, the ctrl function is erratic and Chrome doesn't have a "match case" function. Also, it doesn't as clearly mark unclosed tags or formatting. I'm willing to try new things, but the new highlighter hasn't worked for me. If it's not causing problems, I'll keep changing to  . SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨  06:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear SchreiberBike. Thank you for your interesting reply. I suspected so much: the normal highlighter is a new highlighter, whereas "Remember the dot"'s highlighter is older. I did not know this as I myself am a novice on Wikipedia and have therefore not seen the time when the new highlighter was new. It seems the new syntax highlighter comes from an JavaScript editor called CodeMirror. I have difficulties to understand some of your comments. I use Chrome and the new highlighter but do not seem to experience erratic behaviour of ctrl, which seems well to always pop up the Find Bar as it should. I agree that Chrome's Find Bar could do with a case-sensitivity toggle. I would use that from time to time. — Okey, I have understood why you and some others change  to  , which first seemed to me a very weird correction. If I understand you right you do not even intend to correct   to   you just change it so that it becomes acceptable to your highlighter and it is probably also fine with you if people continue to write   and not   in their contributions to Wikipedia as this is the normal way of HTML5. This "a" but also "b" seems to be part of the Wikipedia philosophy, which is inclusive, accommodating, and tolerant even if this makes Wikipedia a bit chaotic. Thanks for your time Johannes Schade (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for great editing!

 * Thank you. The pleasure is mutual. Don't hesitate to call again if I can help. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 03:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Carol L. Boggs has been accepted
 Carol L. Boggs, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! MurielMary (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Carol_L._Boggs help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.
 * Thank you. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 19:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Athetis hongkongensis edits
many thanks for your edits. There is one major point of issue - the classification of Noctuidae; Athetis is not (nor has been, if ever) in Acronictinae (which was redefined in a much stricter sense in, &/or following, work by Zahiri, and others). Please see my comment at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lepidoptera#Article_and_task_requests for a more detailed list of references that give the situation more completely. Many thanks. HKmoths (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing my error. I am a copy editor rather than a biologist and I added the stub template to match the other articles for that genus. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 04:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Alec H. Chisholm
Dear SchreiberBike, your edits on Alec H. Chisholm make the article look and read so much better - thank you for your sterling efforts! James Jamesmcardle(talk) 22:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. If you have any questions or disagreements, feel free to bring them up with me. I may be inadvertently changing Australian to US English, so if anything looks wrong, revert as needed. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 22:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Genus Psaliodes
Hi SchreiberBike, about a year ago you merged Psaliodes fervescens with the genus page, Psaliodes. However, the references provided on the article page do not support that it is indeed monotypic. Perhaps a point of confusion is that the North American Moth Photographers Group (MPG) lists a single species only for North America north of Mexico. The references that do not draw from MPG list many more species worldwide. Is there a newer classification that would contradict this? 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I can't say I remember doing that one, but most likely my reason for doing it was at Lepidoptera and Some Other Life Forms (Savela). I see from LepIndex, and the other sources linked in the article, that Savela is in the minority in thinking it is monotypic. I suspect that all the others are copied from LepIndex, which has not been updated in a while. I am not aware of any recent articles on the subject explaining why Savela made the choice he did. If you think LepIndex and the others are probably right, I will get to work on fixing the genus article to match the other sources. Thank you, SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 23:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * At the Savela link you provide, which is also ref #1 of the article, the entry draws from two sources that both only cover North America north of Mexico. I do not believe that the information there is incorrect, just not complete in a worldwide scope. As the type species was collected in Brazil, if the sole North American species was now found to be monotypic, it would be then given a new genus name and could not use the name Psaliodes. Happy Easter, Loopy30 (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll work on it tonight. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 23:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I fear that while many of Savela's listings may support the presence of a species in a particular genus, it is not complete enough to be sufficient to determine the absence of additional species. See also Ninodes which appears to be in the same situation. Loopy30 (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll look into that tonight. Let me know if you find any others. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 23:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020 Tree of Life Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

St. Francis satyr butterfly
My apologies for not checking before accepting that we already had an article. Theroadislong (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. It's not a problem. We'll get it fixed. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 21:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you so much. I had made the typo "Ausralian" in something I was writing, then as I often do, I looked to see if anyone else had made that typo in Wikipedia. I found it in Atriplex cinerea and did some other copy editing while I was there. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 02:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

accidental duplication
Not sure how but I accidentally duplicated [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptarthus_brevirostris this page.I merged the content.Now the duplicate has to go.Would you be so good as to fix this for me.Very best regards Notafly (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC) PS It showed as a red link here List of soldierflies and allies of Great Britain.
 * I resolved it I think. It's a common misspelling I found on line. Leptarthus vs. Leptarthrus. So now Leptarthus brevirostris redirects to Leptarthrus brevirostris. I also fixed the misspelling at List of soldierflies and allies of Great Britain. Glad to help. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 18:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Very many thanks.Would you also redirect Dioctria baumhaueri to Dioctria hyalipennis please. I will soon address the issues raised on that page now partially mergedNotafly (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 22:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you again.As always warm regards Notafly (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

May 2020 Tree of Life Newsletter
Enwebb (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

wrong move
Atylotus plebeius No idea what I did but this should be Atylotus plebeius.Sorry I didn't ask Notafly (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been away from the internet for a couple of days, but I'll take a look at this soon. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 00:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you put "Db-g7" on that page, it will be deleted. That's for "Author requests deletion". Also explain that it was an error in your edit summary. Hope that helps. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 02:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Monotypic genera
Hi SchreiberBike, the example "The genus Nodocephalosaurus has a redirect from its sole species, Nodocephalosaurus kirtlandensis." at the guidelines would suggest that Hypocephalus_armatus should be at the genus. Shyamal (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nodocephalosaurus is the more typical case where the article is under the genus name for a monotypic genus, but when the genus name needs to be disambiguated, as a hypocephalus is an Egyptian funerary item, we put the article under the species name. The bottom of the guideline says "The exception is when a monotypic genus name needs to be disambiguated. The article should then be at the species, since this is a more natural form of disambiguation." That means that rather than call the article Hypocephalus (genus), we call it Hypocephalus armatus. Does that make sense to you? If I'd been around when that decision was made, I would have argued to do it differently, but it has worked for a long time and I don't see a need for change. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 03:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, got it, thanks. Perhaps an example should be included so that folks like me get it more easily. I saw that Plantdrew also did something similar saying "Use natural disambiguation". Shyamal (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

draft
This began as a stub. It was almost immediately removed and retitled as a draft itself then retitled thus Draft:Eduard Enslin]. Now a review with a seven week wait is requested. I see no reason for this. Do you? Notafly (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC) I see you are helping Ettore (Hectonichus). Prolific isn't he.Very best regards Robert aka Notafly (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC) NB Fixed now He is here Eduard Enslin again
 * I saw that it was fixed and I did some copy editing on it. Looks good. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 22:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

And very useful additions too.Many thanks.Between us all we are making good progress.Very best regards Notafly (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Standards for zoological author names
Hi, in the absence of a list like the IPNI for zoological scientific names, there's always an issue as to how to present the names of authors. For spiders, we've always followed the usage of the World Spider Catalog, which is the source for spider names and taxonomy. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'll follow that for spiders (and go back and fix anything I've done beyond the two I saw that you caught). There are four people surnamed Lucas who have described Lepidoptera and I was casting my net widely, but I'll narrow my efforts. Thanks, SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 15:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

June/July 2020 Tree of Life Newsletter
Delivered on behalf of Enwebb (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020 Tree of Life Newsletter
Delivered on behalf of Enwebb (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Endorsements
Please stop adding social media endorsements. Thank you. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi I don't make a habit of adding such endorsements, but I often revert edits which remove content without explanation. I notice that you typically don't leave edit summaries. Please do! That's part of how we collaborate in building the encyclopedia. Without edit summaries it's hard to know if an edit improves the encyclopedia or if it's vandalism. Better yet if your edit summary links to the guideline you are following such as WP:ENDORSE. I wish you well as you work in controversial areas of Wikipedia and you should know that I'm a big fan of lima beans. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨  03:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I will try to make sure I add more edit summaries. I often just put something like “Twitter” or “Social media” endorsements and if people have questions I will answer them. My apologies, I most certainly am not committing vandalism. As a big fan of lima beans, you may be able to tell where I am from if I told you it’s the Lima bean capital of the world!Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 03:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries to you!

 * Thank you. That is so kind. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 00:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding the tiger and yak into the List of mammals of North America
Hi and good afternoon SchreiberBike, as you see i tried everything to provide a strong reliable source for the tiger and the yak to prove their former presence in North America but it looks like i failed. I am truly sorry for adding these two species. I should know by now that tigers and yaks were never present in North America vice versa. If and only i had found actual reliable sources for the yak and tiger that will demonstrate that they were in North America for 13,000 to 10,000 years, i would let them remain on the list because the source would make total sense. Unfortunately, i could not find a strong wealthy sources. That is all could say. Sincerely. Animalworlds314 (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I missed your note above. I try to imagine what the reader is expecting on a page and in this case, I don't expect that they are interested in prehistoric creatures. Thanks and keep up the good work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 22:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Gerda! SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 22:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Rewriting?
Hello. I'm helping with a contributor copyright investigation, and many of the articles are about Lepidoptera. I was wondering if you'd be interested in rewriting articles which contain (or are, in their entirety) copyright violations. An example is Artifodina strigulata, of which over 2/3 is a copyright violation. Others, such as Platyptilia isodactylus, may not require such complete revision, but will benefit from an eye for detail and familiarity with the subject area; I immediately thought of you. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Aubrey Koch
What was the point in changing all those headlines to lower case? As they were they reflected exactly the newspaper headline.Lexysexy (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's standard Wikipedia style. See MOS:ALLCAPS, where it says "Reduce newspaper headlines and other titles from all caps to title case – or to sentence case if required by the citation style established in the article. For example, replace the headline or title "WAR BEGINS TODAY" with "War Begins Today" or, if necessary, "War begins today"." Does that make sense to you? Thanks, SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 01:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, Schreib. My interprtation is that MOS says "This section is about using all caps in articles." I interpreted references as being external to "articles". I'll take advice, though, but it seems to me that a reference should reflect the original. Cheers.Lexysexy (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Megalodon?
Is it really lowercase there? To me it looks like it should be capitalised. Ddum5347 (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's its common name. It's lower case throughout the article. I'm following MOS:LIFE. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 03:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Really? Wow, interesting. It's sort of like "boa constrictor" being both the common name and latin name. Thanks for enlightening me. Ddum5347 (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Macedonian Wars (lede)
You made a general statement about "Historians" instead of specific to the authors who hold certain views (way back when) - I'll be correcting this with alternative viewpoints soon. One source alone does not a general consensus in our discipline make. Just FYI. 104.169.22.74 (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The only edit I've made to Macedonian Wars was to disambiguate links to the disambiguation page Macedonia. I think you may be thinking of someone else. Thanks and keep up the good work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 15:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Flamenco
Hi, hope you are well. The reason I got rid of that edit which was introduced in July is that it seems to push a narrative contrary to academic consensus and impose it on the lead. Let me know what you think. I can open an account if you like so we can discuss further. 88.5.205.1 (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Here is my new Username. You can talk to me here or directly on the talk page of the relevant article since I have opened a discussion on the controversial edit. Cristodelosgitanos (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi . Getting a username generally makes you more credible, so thank you for that and welcome to Wikipedia. Also, I and many others are inclined to give less thought to reverting unexplained edits, so I appreciate you explaining why the changes were made. I know nothing about flamenco, so I don't have an opinion about the content. I mostly noticed that it was an IP editor making changes without explanation and undoing some grammar and style changes that made sense to me. I will look over the article again and reinstate some of those grammar/style changes. Keep up the good work and if there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 23:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Jewelers/jeweler's
Hi! Concerning this change: []. You said it's not a possessive, but it is. jeweller's is short for jeweller's shop (jeweller is British, whereas jeweler is American, but that's irrelevant here), just as baker's is short for baker's shop, grocer's for grocer's shop, dry cleaner's for dry cleaner's shop, etc. It might look weird, but it's true. Someone else has changed it to jewellery store now, which is also fine. All the best —caoimhinoc (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. It looks wrong to my eye with the possessive, but your links to Wiktionary show that my eye is in the wrong. I don't feel strongly about it and I agree that the subsequent change to "jewellery store" is an improvement. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 16:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

List of University of Pennsylvania
Thanks for educating me and helping me retain a person on List, Bruce Marks, whom I believe is important due to unique way he became a Pennsylvania State Senator. I find it helpful to see on the list the connection to the List. In this case the List is University of Pennsylvania. Since this list concerns University of Pennsylvania, why not identify the year the person was due to graduate and if that person earned a degree. For example, President William Henry Harrison is an alumnus of University of Pennsylvania, Department of Medicine Class of 1795, BUT he only spent a single semester at Penn (in fall of 1791. See https://www.thedp.com/article/2017/01/william-henry-harrison-history ). I think it's important on quick glance to realize how tenuous that person's connection to University in question. Hence, I think adding the year the person affiliated with Penn (or any university) was due to graduate and if that person earned a degree is important information and see that on this and many similar lists it is is often provided. I agree that providing such should be consistent and it is often not consistent. I would rather future Wikipedia editors of all Lists of alumni of colleges add this information of year due to graduate band if they earned a degree. I see on some lists they do provide such info and in some they do not. It's helpful to aspire to add this info. I thank you in advance if you have time to reply to my post. You have literally made over a 100 times more edits than me so I know I will learn from you and that you are more knowledgeable about Wikipedia than me. Thanks again for taking the time to care. OneMoreByte (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi I understand your points above, but they differ from the consensus for Wikipedia lists in general and List of University of Pennsylvania people in particular. That list, near the top in the hidden text says "Use a short one-line description of notability (no period)." That is common for Wikipedia lists in order to keep them from becoming unwieldy; people can always click on the link for more information. The list above is already over 300KB which causes issues described at WP:LENGTH. You might propose changing the consensus for this list by discussing that at Talk:List of University of Pennsylvania people. I imagine that would involve cutting the list into multiple smaller lists while adding more detail for each person. Also, another editor  is objecting specifically to inclusion of Bruce Marks. I disagree with their objection, but the case for including Marks is stronger when Marks' entry is similar to the others on the list. I hope that helps and if there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨  17:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for prompt, thorough, and thoughtful reply. Indeed, I will follow through with your suggestions and
 * (1) go through the Penn talk page [Talk:List of University of Pennsylvania people] and suggest list continue to be broken up due to WP:LENGTH considerations (as was done when Faculty was made a separate list; and
 * (2) ask that the additional info of class year and whether they graduated be added as such does not add many kbs and provides great info.
 * Thanks also for alerting me to John from Pinckney (from whom I have learned a lot) focus on Marks and need to placate him in order for Marks not to be reverted. OneMoreByte (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Civil disobedience
Thanks for reverting my grammar correction: for some reason it didn't register with me that it was a quotation. Thanks for correcting my error! RomanSpa (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you and keep up the good work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 22:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

wrong usage of Template:Fraction
FTFY Torzsmokus (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, I screwed up there. Thank you. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 16:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 21:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Apologies
Apologies for not following the rules on redirecting and deleting a page. I am relatively new to Wikipedia so excuse my ignorance. J0ngM0ng (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. Wikipedia has so many rules that it's impossible for anyone to know them all. When in doubt, be bold and do what makes sense to you. If necessary others will correct you (hopefully in a kind way) and you can go on. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 19:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

A section copy edit request
Greetings,

Requesting some copy edit support @ newly added article section #2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault.

Thanks for the support

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ See here. Why do you ask? I don't know of any interaction we've had before and I've never edited that article before. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨  05:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Several
Hey! I noticed that you said the word "several" does not mean seven. I both agree and disagree. It's meaning seems to vary a lot no matter where it's used. A lot of the time I"ve seen several as meaning seven (hence the seve part of several), however I've also seen it meaning a lot of something which was why I undid the edit. I do agree that many would be better to use there and I replaced it with that. I would've changed it to that however I couldn't think of a better word that fit until you proposed many. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * When I saw your edit summary "several means 7", I Googled the question and it's pretty clear that the "seve" at the beginning of both words is just a coincidence. Seven, the number, has Germanic roots and several comes from Latin. I see that there are others who have thought the same as you, but I think that's either confusion or humor. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 19:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh interesting. Like I said I've always known several as meaning seven. DIdn't know it was just coincidence they sounded the same. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)