User talk:Ruigeroeland/Archive3

WP Lepidoptera in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Lepidoptera for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biodiversity of New Caledonia, paleobotany forgotten

Hello, could you to work on this article, please? Biodiversity of New Caledonia. It is a very important archaic species group in Paleobotany and evolution.85.251.99.49 (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is not the type of article I usually work on. Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so nothing's left behind.

Hi, Ruigeroeland! I just wanted to point out that when you were reviewing/improving my recent moth articles, there were a few you might have missed. I'll list them here, so you can review them:

Regards, Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wilhelmina, no worries, I saw them but I could not find any more info about those species. Since you started adding more specific cats to the Pyralidae species and date cats to the Hepialidae, there was nothing left for me to do for these species. Keep it up! Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then! :) Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linking

Hi, thanks for your natural history work in translating articles to en.WP. Please note that years and dates (as well as common geographical entities) are not normally linked on en.WP. I've been running a script over quite a few articles you've started. Tony (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed your comment.. When I first started out, I linked the dates. I stopped doing that years ago though. In regard common geographical entities: I should not link the countries a species occurs in? I always do that and I have seen a lot of other Biology editors do the same... Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

resource request

Hi Ruigeroeland,

I've uploaded the articles you requested at the resource exchange. You can find links to the files at that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Ancylini (Apidae) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Tarsalia
Colletidae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Hylaeus
Cryptocheilus notatus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rossi
Panurginae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Perdita
Prodoxus carnerosanellus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Big Bend
Prodoxus coloradensis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Big Bend
Tegeticula elatella (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Big Bend
Tegeticula rostratella (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Big Bend
Tetrapediini (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Tetrapedia
Zygaena anthyllidis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Lotus
Zygaena rhadamanthus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Lotus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Lithophane atara larva wiki.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Lithophane atara larva wiki.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Isarra (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter!

File:Chocolate-Easter-Bunny.jpg

Happy Easter, Ruigeroeland! Hope your day is great! :) Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Eriocrania semipurpurella (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to America
Macna oppositalis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Aru

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

  • Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
    • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
    • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 21:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Science lovers wanted!

Science lovers wanted!
Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

I like most of your contributions on Moths and Butterflies

User:Tonton Bernardo Tonton Bernardo (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! I have seen you make some of your own. Keep it up! Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I am no specialist in that matter. I make some new articles (and pictures) but I am glad if somebody who got more specific knowledge corrects them, if necessary. rgds User:Tonton Bernardo —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Dead link in article 'Erebus (moth)'

Hi. The article 'Erebus (moth)' has a dead link that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix it?


Dead: http://www.funet.com/pub/sci/bio/life/insecta/lepidoptera/ditrysia/noctuoidea/noctuidae/catocalinae/erebus/index.html

This link is marked with {{Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!


PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots|deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I was literally just about to fix the taxobox in Monkeyface prickleback. Thanks for helping me out. :) Steven Walling • talk 07:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ruigeroeland. You have new messages at Deathlaser's talk page.
Message added 15:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Deathlaser :  Chat  15:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question

How do you use #titleparts to only take the second part of the title? Anyway, you seem a good RFA candidate. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 10:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could give User:Thine Antique Pen some long lists of stubs to create. He seems very eager and if you show him more likely to be done to the project's satisfaction.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not have him work on Lepidoptera. At least, not the way he is making these beetle stubs. I cannot stop him if he wants to off course, but I would have to check and expand all of them if he does decide to make articles on butterflies and moths. I am not working on beetles and dont have the time to do so at the moment so someone else would have to jump in I'm affraid. In general the kind of stubs he is creating are not suitable for animals. He is just taking a list of names and mass creating articles without any further check. Since taxonomy changes rapidly (especially for insects), a large part of these are probably listed under the wrong genus name. Not adding the synonyms only increases the risk of creating duplicate articles. In other words: inexperienced editors should not be creating 1000's of stub articles on animals. Mass creation is more suited for subjects like towns and other geography related subjects, since these names are not subject to many changes. Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have done towns and things like that. See Sti Fadma. Regards, Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 10:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I am not doubting your good intentions, but in my opinion, these beetle stubs do not meet the minimum requirements for an animal stub. 100's of similar stubs existed for moths. I cleaned up most of them and when I actually researched the species in question, it often turned out to be a synonym, misspelling or moved to another genus. In other words: just taking a list and making an article about every species on it without any further check is not the way to go in my opinion. Wikipedia policy does not agree with me though. Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, see my talk page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Loving your all of your new articles! And from the other talk page comments, I see that you are a very useful member of this wiki :) Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 14:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you! Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia coverage

Hi. I see that you like to create new articles, so I guess you are concerned about Wikipedia coverage. I'm not sure if you know about my attempt to compile all notable topics, but I would like to read your opinion and possible improvements. Regards. emijrp (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need help on a new moth page Talk:Herpetogramma pastrinalis

Hello Ruigeroeland, I could need some help on a moths, see: 

Talk:Herpetogramma pastrinalis

Best regards Tonton Bernardo (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonton Bernardo (talk • contribs) 08:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Herpetogramma couteneyi

Hello Ruigeroeland,

I think you made a mistake in renaming: Herpetogramma couteyeni to Herpetogramma couteneyi. Please see: afromoth, genus Herpetogramma where couteneyi is listed as: unavailable species and couteyeni as species. Best regards from tonton: Tonton Bernardo (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, but I used the name as listed on [1], which is not a perfect source, but a lot better than Afro Moths. The globiz site is specialised in Pyraloidea and I recommend you use it for the taxonomy of Crambidae and Pyralidae. If you are sure they are wrong in this case, feel free to move the species back to the other name though! Cheers Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Naxidia punctata for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Naxidia punctata is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naxidia punctata until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. RichardMills65 (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phaiogramma stibolepida

Hi Ruigeroeland, Do you have an idea on who to contact concerning identification of a species Phaiogramma from Madagascar (or maybe even a new species or subspecies?)?? I found only some (not so good quality) images on Bold system. I send a mail to Zoologische Staatssammlung München who uploaded the pics on Bold Syst. - not sure if the will reply. Regards Tonton Bernardo (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, no I would not have a clue I'm affraid. You could search for recently described species of Geometridae from the region and try to contact the author I guess. Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hehe, thanks. I'll get me a microscope and will try to describe it myself ...  ;) Tonton Bernardo (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why not? A lot of species were described by amateurs in the past..! :) You could name it after wikipedia, that would make the news.. :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will Phaiogramma ruigeroelandia be ok??  :) I received an reply from Germany ! They confirmed me, that it looks the same. I will certainly catch the next specimen of this species, that passes by.... Good chance, that it is a new subspecies or species (little more than 40% of our moths are endemic). Now I have to find it out... Just wonder, because it doesn't seem to be rare - and our ethmologiste for more than 30 years (Viette) also worked in Madagascar. I cannot really believe that he missed that one. Tonton Bernardo (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yeah. Maybe it has a very local distribution? Could be he did not work at the specific location you caught it. Or it might be an introduced species from somewhere else perhaps? Good luck with your investigation! Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A completed division.

Well, Ruigeroeland, with the last of those Coptotriche species being covered, I think it's safe to say now that the charting of the division Monotrysia's genera and species is complete!!! Almost two months' work has really paid off, and I think a little celebration is in due...

Wilhelmina Will has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!


Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 12:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Now it's off to finish Ditrysia, the only remaining cluster in the Lepidoptera navigational template left to fully cover! BTW, I scouted the families in that division a couple of days ago and listed which ones were already covered. If you need a refresher, I'd be happy to write it down here. Cheers! :) Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! Not to discourage you, but sadly: 98% of species is part of Ditrysia, so we are still a LONG way from complete coverage, but hey: we will get there one day! Keep it up! I made a check-list of our progress some time ago, but have not updated it for some time (I will later on though). See: [2]. Anyway: I will drink my beer now! Cheers! :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rhesala moestalis

Sometimes I find an original description text on a species, or a description text older than 100years (copyright expired). I think it wouldn't be bad to put them onto the wikipages, as I did on : Rhesala moestalis What you think about?

At the time they did not have cameras - and described butterflies much better, than I'd ever be able to do.

Rgds Tonton Bernardo (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I sometimes do that too. You should format it somewhat though. See the changes I made for the option I use when inserting the original description (using the quotation option). Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it looks much better. I have quite many problems on formatting with wikipedia standards. Would like to have my php :) n (i want my avatar too :) ) and smileys... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonton Bernardo (talk • contribs) 16:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC) ooops, again forgot "4 tilted lines" Tonton Bernardo (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 17:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agrapha = Ctenoplusia = Phytometra ??

I am little unsure on : Agrapha gammaloba - found the 3 genus - which one is the "good" one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonton Bernardo (talk • contribs) 09:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure either. I redirected the possible other combinations to your article. This is the best option if you are not sure. Cheers and keep it up! Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upload of African Lep images

Dear Ruigeroeland,

Thanks for the prompting. Do you have a convenient list of species you'd like illustrated? I have five or six trip's worth of images from southern Benin, including a couple of forest trips. I have roughly prepped ID-type images that I share with friends and colleagues via Dropbox (either directly or via Galleries - I can give you the URLs off-Wiki if we can communicate without broadcasting contact details to the world).

Cheers—GRM (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to say "bye"

Hi Ruigeroeland, I'm leaving Wikipedia. Just want to say Bye

Regards Tonton Bernardo (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ruigeroeland, I've added links to frwiki and nowiki in some of your recently created articles, but you're just too prolific for me to edit them all. :-) I don't know what your process is, but would it be possible for you to incorporate these links yourself? Cheers, Melchoir (talk) 09:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Melchior, I used the French wiki for two country lists and now for some genera (I usually use other sources though), I will add the interwiki right away from now on. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks! Just let me know if you want any help! Melchoir (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you are interested in translating species pages, please go ahead. There are quite some species we dont have on the English wikipedia yet. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Campaea honoraria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fagus (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) 09:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page Curation newsletter

Hey Ruigeroeland. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for creating the new Ornipholidotos nguru article, and for your efforts to improve the the encyclopedia's coverage of notable butterfly species. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you! A lot more to come..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of butterflies of Peninsular Malaysia

Hello, Ruigeroeland, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on List of butterflies of Peninsular Malaysia, appears to be directly copied from http://sgbug.blogspot.com/2010/03/checklist-of-butterflies-of-peninsular.html. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on List of butterflies of Peninsular Malaysia if necessary. MadmanBot (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Crocallis tusciaria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ural
Westermannia superba (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Terminalia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects from synonyms

When you create a redirect from a synonym, please mark it with {{R from synonym}}, as I have done in Liptena tera. Gorobay (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm.. what is the point of that may I ask? I have never heard of this category. It will take me considerably more time to add this to every redirect I have to make. Furthermore, I have never done this and I think I have made 10.000's of redirects from synonyms in my time on wikipedia. All of these dont have this category. Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is part of WikiProject Redirect’s categorization of redirects. Since it will be done anyway, I thought it might as well be by the redirects’ creator. But if it will slow you down, don’t worry about it. Gorobay (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this something new? I have all my created pages on my watchlist, but cant remember anyone adding this category to a redirect I made. If you dont mind I will skip partaking in this, as it will really slow me down I'm affraid. Could not this be automated someway? It seems it should be possible.. The synonyms are listed in the taxobox and these are the same as the redirects. This seems like an awfull amount of work only for a maintanance category. Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. A bot should be possible. Gorobay (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About Karl Emil Lischke

Hello again, Ruigeroeland. nl:Karl Emil Lischke says "Karl Emil Lischke (ook Carl Emil Lischke)". I'm trying to find references for the article. ("Ook" is a cognate of the Middle English "eke", meaning "also"). Could you possibly help me out here? --Shirt58 (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it seems to be based on the german version of the article, which is substantially larger and lists a few sources, although in print and not online. You could translate the german version and use their sources as a reference.. I dont have access to the print versions either.. By the way: I am Dutch and never knew the etymology of "ook", so thanks for that! :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the whole English language, I sincerely apologise for the demonym "Dutch" and the name of the Dutch language in English. We should call you "Netherlanders" and your language "Netherlandish". Oops, straying into "languages nerd" territory here, and try I to limit myself to "on-wkiki" languages nerd-ism only on Tuesdays and Thursdays. --Shirt58 (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dont have to much trouble with it myself, but on behalf of the "Nederlandse mensen" (Dutch people) who do: thank you! :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Moths

Hi Ruigeroeland, I would like to write few more pages, but my knowledge on Moths is very poor. Still I'll gather the knowledge and share it on Wikipedia. Please update the articles once I've done. I've a website where I post all the images otherthan commons. There are 150+ images awaiting for identification. Also, correct me if I'm wrong anywhere. If you know any of them, pls reply on my talk page or email me vaikoovery[at]gmail[dot]com :) Thanks in advance. --Vaishak Kallore | വൈശാഖ്‌ കല്ലൂര്‍ (talk) 12:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the Netherlands, so I cannot help with identification. You could ask User:Shyamal, I think he is from India and seems to know a lot about all sorts of insects. Cheers and keep it up! Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Prestonmag. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Miletus ancon, and have un-reviewed it again. If you've got any questions, please ask me on my talk page. Thanks, ~~

Miletus ancon

Sorry, I didn't mean to unreview it. I'm not even sure how I did. I certainly looked at it and thought it was ok. I probably got confused with the new system. Sorry again. Prestonmag (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Allotinus borneensis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bangka
Faveria mundalis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ceram
Polyommatus amor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Darvaz

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcopterygii stubs

I would like to ask you for your opinion regarding this proposal for creating a Category:Sarcopterygii stubs. Regards, --Fabio Descalzi, aka Fadesga (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cytorus

Greetings, Cytorus used to be a page with a link to Cytorus (ancient settlement); but now it seems in March you made a change so that one cannot get to the latter from the former. I am not sure how to solve this problem. If Cytorus is not the preferred name for the moth genus, then perhaps the article called Cytorus should be about the ancient settlement, with a "hatnote" linking to Virbia. What do you think? David Pierce (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween!

 Wilhelmina Will has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween!


If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!


Cheers! :) Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Papilio dardanus No references

Hi Ruigeroeland I added the original description ref to this page. Then saw that the referecnces do not show. Can you see why? I went back though the history and found this to be a long-standing problem with this page.FIXED the references were in the wrong place= after the gallery Notafly (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Didnt see you message earlier, because I was busy in real life. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REX#Lepidoptera of Greenland

Dear Ruigeroeland! Is this request still open? -- Doc Taxon (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Doc Taxon. I dont have the first one yet. Do you have access to it? If you only have access to a paper version, please only sent me a list of the taxa and dont bother scanning the whole thing! If you are just asking to close the request, please feel free to remove it. I am guessing nobody can get it.. Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think, I can get the first item in a few days. -- Doc Taxon (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! I made the article using the two other sources, but like the missing one to check if I missed some species..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Species of Primorsky Krai, Russia

Dear Ruigeroeland! Can you tell me the right way of categorizing? Should I write it this way:

  • [Category:Endemic fauna of Primorsky Krai] or
  • [Category:Endemic fauna of Primorsky Krai, Russia]?

Will appreciate any insight!--Mishae (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mishae, I guess the first one is the best, since there is only one Primorsky Krai in the world..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! What do you think of species of Ontario province, or if breaking the species by provinces is a good thing or not?! Like, [Endemic fauna of Gansu, China] for example. By the way, should I rename it to [Endemic fauna of Gansu], or should I add China to it just in case if there will be any more? Like, Henan and Yunnan are very common provinces, but they are also common in our language too! Again, will be glad to hear any suggestions from you!--Mishae (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if this is something you should spend too much time on. Many provinces would not have endemic species or not very many... Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right on one hand, but on the other, some counnties like United Sattes have [Endemic fauna of California] (9 species), and [Endemic fauna of Texas] (36 species). Plus, some of our readers might be interested to know which species are endemic to their province rather then to theit country, and as long as species will migrate from one location to the next there will probably be less endemic species. However, insects are different, some of them stay in one area or province, and, for some reason, can't reproduce beyond it. Possibly its due to the fact that majority of insects have 1 year cycle, which means they don't go far. Correct me if I am wrong though. :)--Mishae (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there are enough endemic species to justify a separate category, it would be fine I guess. Keep up the good work! Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Serving Wikipedia with honour and dignity!--Mishae (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops!

C. bettoni and Mud-puddling. My very obvious mistake. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries..! :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lepidoptera of Greenland

Hi! I've got the Lepidoptera of Greenland. Where I have to send it to now? -- Doc Taxon (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sent it, -- Doc Taxon (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.200.198.20 (talk) [reply]
Got it, thanks! Ruigeroeland (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tachina nupta

So, what do you think? Should I use a common name? I think its widespread!--Mishae (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also see which one is correct Uramya pristis or Tachina basalis. The thing is is that Tachina basalis is not listed in Tachina genus! Many thanks in advance!--Mishae (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about flies... You could ask User:Simuliid. About your first question: I always prefer the scientific name..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need a second opinion

User Stemonitis have issued a concern about me using Global Species.org as a main source. I however, use it for distribution of any species outside Europe. Is there a site that you know of that I can use for my non European fauna?--Mishae (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you can safely use it as a secondary source, but always check with other sources too, because Stemonitis is right that Globalspecies (as well as ZipcodeZoo) are not that good sources. Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
O.K, but then I would like to find a site for non European fauna, is there one? I tried Google books with no awail...--Mishae (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm affraid there isn't one.. There are only two I know of: Fauna Europaea and the Australian Faunal Directory for Australia: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/online-resources/fauna/afd/home. Furthermore, there are sites covering the world fauna for certain groups of species, like fish, mammals, etc. Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oidaematophorus and its species

Oidaematophorus lithodactyla

Whats your take on this? Founded some sources, the article got a bit bigger, and a bit more informative!--Mishae (talk) 00:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oidaematophorus constanti

As far as Oidaematophorus constanti goes, I have changed the reference since the one that you had was from a different species as far as Fauna Europaea is concerned.--Mishae (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oidaematophorus giganteus and Oidaematophorus rogenhoferi

In those articles I have added text that perhaps was missing. Also added a good book where I found it.--Mishae (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you don't mind check my fix for Oidaematophorus baroni and Oidaematophorus vafradactylus.

If you have any questions feel free to ask. Cheers!--Mishae (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great work expanding these! Keep it up. Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR

Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.

JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swalling@wikimedia.org) with...

  • the subject line "JSTOR"
  • your English Wikipedia username
  • your preferred email address for a JSTOR account

The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.

Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmopterix aurotegulae

Hi. You left a note at the foot of this article saying that its source was CC-BY-SA licensed. How can we confirm that? The link there is now dead. The article was tagged as a copyright violation from http://dpc.uba.uva.nl/cgi/t/text/get-pdf?c=zoomed;idno=8402a01, which does not (as far as I can see) show any copyright release. I have declined the speedy deletion, but would like to update the article with a reference to the license release, so that it does not get tagged again. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This whole journal is licenced under CC-BY-SA, see: http://dpc.uba.uva.nl/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=zoomed;cc=zoomed;sid=51c3c34512fe5469e6b61324349ca121;rgn=div1;tpl=home.tpl Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Amaxia reticulata (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Amazonas
Amerila fennia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Dracaena

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions (a): Acontia luteola vs A. gratiosa

Hello Ruigoland, I saw the redirection from Acontia luteola to Acontia gratiosa but can't find references on this (ex: afromoth

I know that Hacker & Cie. revised this genus recently - maybe other databases, as afromoth have not yet integrated their work (?? - I don't have them either)

Hmmm, not sure. It seems Acontia luteola should be a valid species. Maybe it was treated as a synonym when I made the page on wikipedia, but this was some time age.. Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question b) - Isocentris Meyrick, 1887 vs. Hyalobathra Meyrick, 1885 ''

I saw your redirection/renaming for some Hyalobathra species: Hyalobathra filalis (Guenée, 1854) and Hyalobathra retinalis => Isocentris

Other Hyalobathra were not redirected (ex: Hyalobathra veroniqueae ). Was this genus renamed?? In that case, Hyalobathra would be "older" - or was the genus divided?

I believe you didn't do that without a reason, but maybe you oversaw the other species. Have some nice holidays.

Tonton

Tonton Bernardo (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I used http://globiz.pyraloidea.org/ as a source. I think Isocentris was treated as a synonym of Hyalobathra for some time, but has been reinstated as a valid genus. Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gnathothlibus collardi

Hello,
please, pay attention to this article published on Invertebrate Systematics on 19 December 2012: according to results of the study, Gnathothlibus collardi Haxaire, 2002 is no more a valid species, but is actually an F1 hybrid.
Greetings.--Massimiliano Panu (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Added the info. Not sure what to do with the taxobox since I never made an article about a hybrid before. Could you have a look? Thanks! Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waiting for the next steps of specialized sites (for example CATE, BOLD and so on), but in any case I think it should be better to modify the taxobox in a way similar to this, indicating in the text few informations about Philodila astyanor and Gnathothlibus eras. What do you think about?--Massimiliano Panu (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Ammalo helops (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Amazonas
Eulepidotis addens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to St. Vincent

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moths (from Moths of the British Isles)

Will try. Some of them have a lot of synonyms - even funet doesn't have them all!--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 09:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the Wikisource version of Moths of the British Isles? It's linked from the Wikisource Main Page.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 09:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Scopula caricaria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Artemisia
Ulochlaena hirta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ural

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asota (moth) and Aganais

I think the Aganais species pages should be redirected to Asota (moth)

Species

Maybe also a disambiguation page at Asota to Asota (moth)

Regards tonton Tonton Bernardo (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Aganais should be redirected to Asota (moth) if it is indeed a synonym. In this case, the species pages should be moved to Asota borbonica, Asota ficus, etc. I will have a look later.. Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About Scopula rostrilinea - binomial authority?

Hi again, Ruigeroeland! The binomial authority for S. rostrilinea appears to be "William Warren (entomologist) (1839-1914), an English entomologist", currently a red-link at William Warren (disambiguation). Is that correct? --Shirt58 (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the date of description and the lifetime of the Warren you are referring to, I guess this is the same person.. Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hello again, Ruigeroeland Would you give a view here [3] Robert aka Notafly (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Cheers Robert Back to Seitz Africa soon. I had a scanner problem. PS. Fixed the Warren link immediately above[reply]

Pyrausta panopealis (Walker, 1859) syn. of Pyrausta phaenicealis (Hübner, 1818)

mmh, found now on Afromoths Pyrausta panopealis (Walker, 1859) => syn. of Pyrausta phaenicealis (Hübner, 1818)

Unsure, better you decide to rename. I checked some pictures - well they look the same alike - but even that site mixed up with the authors :) Maybe nobody knows....

(No need to reply... )

Rgds Tonton Bernardo (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not sure, http://globiz.pyraloidea.org lists both as valid. Better to leave it like this until we find some better source. Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Acentropinae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aquatic (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) 11:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection from Lymantica => to Lymantria not correct (?)

Redirection from Lymantica => to Lymantria

it seems to me that this redirection is not correct. Both genus exists, see also:

or:

Tonton Bernardo (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is listed as a synonym at funet: [4], but this could be wrong or Lymantica might be resurrected. You could check a recent paper about the genus, there are some listed on the Lymantria page on wikispecies. Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Abantis meru (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rift Valley
Caligo oileus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Musa
Hypochlorosis antipha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Maluku
Hypochlorosis lorquinii (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Maluku
Spialia kituina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Sida

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uresiphita gilvata syn. of Uresiphita polygonalis  ??

Hello Ruigoland, as your created both articles, I'd prefer if you decide on an eventual redirection.

I found Uresiphita gilvata as a synonym of Uresiphita polygonalis see also:

and

Regards Tonton Bernardo (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather trust the world pyraloidea database. I have found Afro Moths to be out of date on a number of occassions. Best to keep them seperate for now. Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pyraloidea database seems to be not very update on African species/genus. But I leave this to you - I won't hazzle up with your articles.

Hundreds of synonyms are still running around for decades, I don't hazzle about 2-3- or 5 more for a few years. Better twice than nothing. This world won't go down because of this :) Tonton Bernardo (talk) 11:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox for an ichnofossil

Hello! You recently placed a "missing taxobox" tag on the Gnathichnus article. Since trace fossils are not in a Linnean system, I'm unclear as to what that taxobox would look like. Gnathichnus is an ichnogenus, and Gnathichnus pentax is an ichnospecies within it, but there is no "ichnofamily" or higher. Any ideas? Thanks. Wilson44691 (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there probably should not be a taxobox.. I didnt realise the trace fossil status. Thanks. I removed the missing taxobox template. Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being so efficient! Wilson44691 (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About Milnesium

Dank u! Piet ook --Shirt58 (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Morpho epistrophus

Following a recent revision of the Genus Morpho page (following Gerardo Lamas) M. laertes and M. catenarius still have their own pages, though not in the new list of only 29 species. I am, for the moment happy to leave it that way but you may not be. Just go ahead if you want to merge. I am adding a few quotes from Hans Fruhstorfer, still worth reading in my estimate (as are the Bingham descriptions added to species from India). I would prefer these to be on Wikisource but I don't have the time. Any thoughts on these.warm regards Robert aka Notafly (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Ogdoconta satana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Eddy County
Resapamea angelika (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Iris

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that 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.

Cameraria torridella (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rift Valley
Phyllonorycter turensis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rift Valley

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mimandria diospyrata

You recently created the article Mimandria diospyrata, and I just would like to ask, if you consulted the (full) version of the stated reference: Pitkin, Linda M. ; Hongxiang Han & Shayleen James, 2007, Moths of the tribe Pseudoterpnini (Geometridae: Geometrinae): a review of the genera, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 150: 343-412. doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.2007.00287.x  ??

This species has "vanished" since - the abdomen of the holotype is missing, and I believe its a confusion with another known geometrinae from our place. Would like to have more informations on that one :) I don't even have a picture, just the original description. Rgds Tonton mail: tontontombi-at-web.de Tonton Bernardo (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tonton, there is not much information in the publication. It is just a list of species with their synonyms. I try to find more info using other sources like LepIndex. Could be that it is a nomen dubium? Or it might be placed as a synonym of another species now, but I dont have a source to back that up... If you have a source that claims it is probably a misidentification, please add it to the article! Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Lepidoptera of the Cook Islands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scoparia (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) 12:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About Larger Pacific Striped Octopus

Hi Ruigeroeland. As I'm sure you are already aware, this so-called species has only been mentioned in newspapers and popular science magazines. Thus, no taxobox. Could you possibly tidy it up? Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, did not see that. I removed the tag..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seitz Africana

Greetings Ruigeroeland

As you will see I put these links at the bottom of each Afrotropic butterfly list.

Both works are stated to be copyright free by the uploading institution and by the U S archive (despite the given date 1925) . I think this may be because A. Kernen ceased to exist after the bombing of Stuttgart but there may be some other reason. The scans are better than mine so I will upload from U S Archive from now on. The synonymy will be the tough bit but Rome wasn't built in a day. Best regards Robert aka Notafly (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome work, these are very useful indeed! Thanks for putting in the work to improve these articles. Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Moroccan jird, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meriones (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) 09:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gynaephora selenitica, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lotus, Ural and Rosa (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) 20:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter!!!

Happy Easter!

So a print encyclopedia, a strawberry shortcake, and a sycamore walk into a bar - wait, have you heard this one? (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Working on Charaxes

Hi Ruigeroeland Thought you would like Arnold Shultze Charaxes acraeoides drawing.I'm working through the genus.Not sure about all those van Someren species (see my taxonomy note on the genus page. Cheers Notafly (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Nice work on the expansion of these articles! I'm quite confident all species that have articles are "accepted" species, at least, for now. The source I used seemed very well researched. Could be future research will result in new synonyms off course, but we cant really do anything about that at the moment I'm affraid. Keep up the good work! I am not very active with extracting pics at the moment, since I'm working on completing some moth tribes and families, but I will certainly get back to doing that later..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Eupithecia fioriata

Hi, I'm The Wikimon. Ruigeroeland, thanks for creating Eupithecia fioriata!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Could you please merge all your articles on Eupithecia... under one page???

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. —Preceding undated comment added 11:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. All species deserve a separate page. This discussion keeps coming up again and again. If you don't believe these articles are okay, let me know and I will point you to the wikipedia guidelines explaining this. Furthermore, I am working my way through this genus and making pages for all valid species, including synonyms. I will expand articles if I find sources later on. Yesterday, I added a whole bunch of pictures to articles I created earlier. This is why stubs exist. They are a starting point for future expansion. Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charaxes minor

Good afternoon Ruigeroeland This is redirecting to Charaxes eupale and not to Charaxes subornatus (ssp. minor Joicey & Talbot, 1921). Perhaps due to my error. I'm not sure about this species group. It looks to me as if Bouyer raised minor to full species after molecular work But I don't have the paper. Robert aak Notafly (talk) 12:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC) P. S. You are right to retain the van Someren species. I made the comment in passing.[reply]

NB It was my error and at least the redirect is correct.

No problem, happens to me often enough.. Taxonomy can be quite confusing. Anyway: love the work you are doing. This is really raising the quality of the articles we have on wikipedia..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schacontia

Hi, I just uploaded the figures from Goldstein et al. 2013 and noticed only later that you had already done that - unfortunately without categorizing the files, which I have provisionally placed in commons:Category:Schacontia. Upon a closer look, it seems that my versions have a higher resolution, so I am thinking of deleting your versions and replacing them in the articles you have worked on so far, if that is OK with you. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead! Higher resolutions are always welcome. Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Groetjes, -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Categories:Animals described in xxxx

Please do not add monotypic genera to subcategories of the Category:Animals by year of formal description, such as Category:Animals described in 2013. Those categories are for species titles only; the correct place to add the category is on the binomen that redirects to the genus title (which should also be tagged with {{R to monotypic taxon}}). See, for example, my edits to Pseudokoleps and Pseudokoleps akainae. Thanks. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will keep that in mind in future! Ruigeroeland (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conspecific

Hello again Mesapia peloria (Hewitson, 1853) [5] (Funet name) and Aporia peloria (Hewitson, 1853) [6] look like the same species to me. I'd go for the Funet name Mesapia. Notafly (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! I fixed it. A lot of the Indian butterfly articles have outdated taxonomy. I think they were created using an outdated source. I try to fix it when I spot them but had not seen this one yet. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for reviewing my articles (don't know though what does it do).--Mishae (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, thanks for checking Utrecht sodomy trials! QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
(Still) need to send you some stars :)

Ruigoland, do you have an email address for private contact? Just send to => tontontombi-at-web.de

Regards Tonton ! Tonton Bernardo (talk) 09:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will send you a mail, so you will have my adress..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colias

Hi Ruigeroeland Thanks for all your valued help with the species of this perplexing genus.Do you know of a ref for "Hybridisation is rampant in this genus confounding ... etc. How goes it in Holland? Ireland is still cold.Notafly (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cold and wet over here.... But our weathergirls and boys are predicting some improvements in the weekend, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed! Hope you dont mind I am inserting the synonyms listed on funet. I would love to get to the point that we have most names applied to species. We are getting there slowly I guess. Great work on these articles by the way! Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need your opinion

O.K. Just came back from my block for condensing taxoboxes, and would like your opinion on it: If a user is contributing to Wikipedia in a helpful way such as adding categories and/or references, but at the same time does a small disruption by condensing taxoboxes, should that user be blocked? Because I personally don't think so, but I would like to hear an input from you.:)--Mishae (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it is not a reason to block.. Unless an administrator has warned not to a number of times. My advice is: just dont do it. I dont see the advantages of condensing them, it only makes it harder to edit them... Ruigeroeland (talk) 06:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You see, I was blocked two times for the same thing, but I don't see a reason for a block if its O.K. with your articles. Like, I am doing it to mine too and user Rkitko blocks me for doing it. I'm trying to be polite though but he is not! Sure, its not my own articles, but since I am the main editor on them, maybe Mr. Rkitko needs to stop following me with blocks? Plus, he forcibly wants me to uncondense them, and I refuse on doing so because I think it will be considered as a pointless edit, and I will get blocked either way, since that what user Rkitko is dreaming off! I did explained to Rkitko that the reason why I do is because I think it saves some space, and besides no one edits those stub articles for decades besides the bots! If possible, can you talk to him too, because I told him that it perfectly fine with you and even referenced him to you, but he ignored it.--Mishae (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest not to use the condensed taxobox in future. Like I said: it is much harder to edit. Just use the style everybody uses. That way: you wont get blocked again and do not need to argue with Rkitko anymore. It's not that big of a deal in my opinion. Use your time to make articles! You are doing a great job at that. Don't spend to much time on wiki-politics and guidelines, it will only frustrate you. Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for mutual support, I will always have your back!:) Other editors just hate me I guess...--Mishae (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Olafia

Thanks for editing Olafia. I'm not into butterflies, but I thought it would be useful to move the content of Cyclopyge so there would not be any confusion if (I do not know when that will be) an article Cyclopyge (trilobite) would be established. You seem to know a bit about butterflies however. I thought I could add some substance, so I machine-translated the relevant part of the Mielke article from Portuguese to English, but I get lost in the anatomical terms, and that prohibits correcting the translation. Perhaps you do something with the information. I have included the original and the machine translation. Gênero proximo de Oxynetra, do qual uma especie foi segregada para estabelecer o gênero, que se distingue peles seguintes caracteres: palpo labio com o articulo distal encoberto pelas escamas do segundo articulo; asa anterior com 11 veias chegando as margens anterior e externa, provavelmente pela ausêntia del R1; vertice e frontoclipeo com escamas vermelhas; mesoscuto e mesoscutelo de coloração geral, sem brilho azul metalico; terceiro ao setimo (macho) ou terceiro ao sexto (femea) tergos abdominais, não considerado um tufo anal, vermelhos e anteriores sem coloração azul metalico; esternos abdominais, não considerado um tufo anal e as escamas posteriores, com manchas roseas na linha mediana ventral; tufo anal vermelho; antena com a clava terminação rombuda; asa posterior do macho sem tufo de escamas no terço basal entre as veias 2A e 3A; na asa posterior do macho, a bifurcação entre CuA1 e CuA2 anterior ao inicio de Rs; na asa posterior do macho, a margem externa a maior expansão, apos uma reta imaginaria entre os terminos de SC+R1 e 2A, entre Rs e M1; tibia metatoracica do macho sem orgão odorifero; tibia metatoracica do macho com as escamas da face internas mais curtas que a espessura da tibia, achatadas e não divergentes; edeago com aponta distal curvada ventralmente, formando um angulo de 301; saculo da valva sem projeção dorsal; lamela pos-vaginal ausente; esterigma entre es partes ventrais do oitavo esterno e a ele unido.

Enquanto que em Oxynetra os caracteres assim apresentam: palpo labial com o articula distal projetado alem das escamas segundo articulo; asa anterior com 12 veias chegando as margens anterior e externa; vertice e frontoclipeo com escamas castanho-anegradas e com tres manchas brancas, uma no vertice, e as outras em frente as inserções das antennas; mesoscuto e mesoscutelo de coloração azul metalica, brilhante; tergos abdominais, não considerado um tufo anal e as escamas posteriores, azuis, com brilho metalico uniforme, as vezes, com um semi-anel amarelo no terceiro tergo (O. semihyalina), ou terceiro ao setimo tergo vermelhos no macho e na femea com uma mancha vermelha em cada lado do terceiro tergo (O. hoppferi); esternos abdominais, não considerado um tufo anal e as escamas posteriores, com manchas brancas; tufo anal do coloração geral; antena do macho com a clava terminação aguda; asa posterior do macho com um tufo de escamas brancas e alongadas no terço basal entre as veias 2A e 3A; na asa posterior do macho, a bifurcação entre CuA1 e CuA2 coincidente ou posterior ao inicio de Rs; na asa posterior do macho, a margem externa com a maior expansão, apos uma reta imaginaria entre os terminos de SC+R1 e 2A, em CuA1 e CuA2; tibia metatoracica do macho com orgão odorifero; tibia metatoracica do macho com as escamas da face interna, não consideras as odoriferas, longas e tão densas como na face externa; edeago com aponta distal curvada ventralmente, formando um angulo de 701; saculo da valva com projeção dorsal; lamela pos-vaginal em forma retangular; esterigma abaixo do oitavo esterno, a ele ligado por membrana.

Olafia is most related to Oxynetra, from which it is sufficiently different to establish a separate genus. It can be distinguished by the following characters: palpus lip articulate with distal scales covered by the second articulate; forewing with 11 veins reaching the anterior and external margins, probably by ausêntia del R1; vertex and frontoclipeo with red scales; mesoscutum and mesoscutelo staining generally dull blue metallic, third to seventh (male) or third to sixth (female) abdominal tergite not considered an anal tuft, red and earlier without staining blue metallic; abdominal sternum, not considered a tuft anal scales and posterior, with rosy spots on ventral midline; anal tuft yellow; antenna with the club finishing blunt; hindwing of the male without tuft of scales on basal third between the veins 2A and 3A, the hindwing of the male, and the bifurcation between CuA1 CuA2 and before the start of Rs; hindwing in the male, the outer margin has its largest expansion behind an imaginaryline between the termination of SC + R1 and 2A, between Rs and M1; male metathoracic tibia without odor organ; metathoracic tibia of male with internal face of the scales shorter than the thickness of the tibia, flat and not divergent; aedeagus with distal points ventrally curved, forming an angle of 301; saccule valve no dorsal projection; post-vaginal lamella absent; esterigma between the ventral part of the eighth sternum and ele together.

While in Oxynetra characters so present: labial palp articulates with the distal designed scales beyond the second articulate; forewing with 12 reaching the anterior margins of veins and external; vertex and frontoclipeo anegradas with brown scales and three white spots, one on vertex, and the other in front of the inserts of antennas; mesoscuto mesoscutelo and metallic blue color, shiny, abdominal terga not considered a tuft anal scales and later, blue with metallic luster uniform, sometimes with a semi-ring yellow in the third tergum (O. semihyalina), or third to seventh tergum red in male and female with a red spot on each side of the third tergum (O. hoppferi); abdominal sterna, not considered a tuft anal and scales later with white spots; anal tuft general coloration, male antenna with the club finishing acute; hindwing of male with a tuft of white scales on basal third and elongated between the veins 2A and 3A, the hindwing of the male, the bifurcation between cua1 and CuA2 coincident or after the onset of Rs; hindwing in the male, the outer margin with greater expansion, behind the imaginary line between termination of SC + R1 and 2A in CuA1 and CuA2; metathoracic tibia of male with odor organ; metathoracic tibia of male with the scales of the inner face, not considering the odor organ, long and as thick as the outer face; aedeagus with distal points ventrally curved, forming an angle of 701; saccule valve with dorsal projection; lamella pos-vaginal rectangular; esterigma below the eighth sternum, diaphragm connected to it.
I have also copied in a drawing I made (Pyrrhopyga erythrosoma), under the false impression it was Olafia. It is not so sofisticated, but I guess at thumb size it works. Perhaps you can find a use for it. Kind Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is also too technical for me I'm affraid. I am no entomologist.. :) Great pic! I will make an article on the species soon so we can use it! Ruigeroeland (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Already used the image, since Pyrrhopyga erythrosoma is a synonym of Olafia. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 06:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help

O.K. You should see what Rkitko decided to do!: He decided to harass me here. After what I warned him here. And he opened a discussion about my behavior without my knowledge here. Can you talk to him about this, because I just can't discuss it with a guy who hates me!--Mishae (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They dont hate you. Just dont condense the taxoboxes anymore and there will be no more problems. The other work you do is great. Just understand that wikipedia has rules and guidelines. These are decided on by a majority of votes. Sometimes you can disagree with them, but you have to live by them anyway. So I would advise you the following: only use the 'normal' version of the taxobox from now on, both when editing existing articles but also when you make new ones. Everybody prefers this really (me too). I adjusted my way of working too. In the past, I never used references, but always external links. People told me I had to reference articles and I got used to it. Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan tagging

Sure, not a problem. I will keep an eye out for your articles. Hack (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, are you working from a list? If you were, you could pre-emptively insert the list into the genus page to prevent the orphan tagging issue. Hack (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a table for the eois genus page that contains all of the eois species at Taxapad. Feel free to revert if this is wrong or doesn't meet standards. Hack (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! I am working from taxapad primarily, but this list is not complete (the species list from the family Eois belongs to are from a 1999 work, stuff has changed since then). No worries though, I will adjust the table later when I figured out exactly which species are still valid. Thanks. Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigilliclystis

Hi, A couple of weeks ago you created a genus and a species page for Sigilliclystis and Sigilliclystis kendricki. However, there was a mis-spelling of the genus as Sigillictystis (the first "t" here should be an "l"). I have corrected the in-text spelling, but can't change that of the titles for these two pages. Please can you correct this error?? Many thanks, Roger. HKmoths (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! And thanks for correcting the mistake. Awesome that you have a species named after you! Is it a pretty species? :) I linked to your userpage, but someone thought that was unnecessary and removed the link.. :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome fixes. Many thanks Ruigeroeland. No problem r.e. removal of the userpage (no one has seen [rightly or wrongly :)] the need for such a page). Pretty - well that's for one to decide oneself (beauty is in the eye of the beholder...) http://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/319990-Sigilliclystis-kendricki. HKmoths (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I just moved the page to the new title. Fixed in a few seconds. On an unrelated note: you live in Hong Kong I guess? I am wondering: do you know of a checklist of Chinese Lepidoptera? I have been looking online, but could not find a complete one (only a largely incomplete listing at Species2000). I could only search in English off course, so I thought I might have more luck if someone could do a search in Chinese. Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ruigeroeland. You have new messages at Andrew Stiff's talk page.
Message added 09:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Andrew Stiff (talk) 09:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

Thank you so much! Can we become Wiki friends? I'm a newbie and have only 72 edits but I am very enthusiastic. Andrew Stiff (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, (wiki)-friends are always welcome. :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]