This is an archive of past discussions with User:SchreiberBike. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26(spin me / revolutions)01:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I am disappointed that you chose to remove my contribution without contacting me first (Three Graces page). It is not a violation to use someone else's material if that someone else is you. I wrote the book and the website from which I added material due to the lack of substance and accuracy on the current wiki page. Removing another editors contributions are typically discouraged and in the future, I would recommend you contact the editor prior to removing their contribution for clarification. Please add back my prior edits.[user talk:PsychoticDoc)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by PsychoticDoc (talk • contribs) 00:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi @PsychoticDoc: I see you are referring to a series of edits from just over a year ago. There were two problems with the text you added to that page.
First, before you added the text, The Three Graces was a disambiguation page (information about disambiguation pages at Help:Disambiguation). Disambiguation pages are not intended to have substance, they are intended to redirect readers to another page. The page Charites is the location of the Wikipedia article about the subject of the Three Graces. I returned the article to its status as a disambiguation page.
@Gerda Arendt: I figure you were mostly kidding, but I looked at it. It's fun to look at something so different from the moths I usually work on. I fixed some italics for BWV numbers and one capitalization. I remain confused on italics in several places. It looks to me like the standard is for cantatas to be in italics, but hymns to be in regular text even though their names are in German, but I see usage mixed, so I'm not sure I understand correctly. Also I thought the quote that starts "(Als wolt er [Simeon] sagen ..." would be in italics and that the individual movements would not be. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 04:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I confess to be confused myself, mainly took it from the people who worked on these pieces for years before me. The idea of quotation marks and italics is to show within the prose what is different (a title, a quote). As soon as you have quotation marks, italics are not needed. The same words can be a cantata title or a movement title (italic), and a hymn title or incipit (quotation marks), or a common Latin phrase that became part of the English language (nothing), - that can look confusing. I'd need no separators in a table, but I took them from the former colleagues ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
... and then I looked myself and saw that even more confusion is caused by the change of the lang template, sigh. I tried to fix ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
How frustrating that changes can be made to an article without ever editing the article. How can one watch for such things without putting every template on ones watchlist? Anyway, it looks better now. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 18:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
You can say that on the template talk, where I pointed out that the TFA was upcoming. Really sad that they can change like that, and offer no help or bot in fixing. I have hundreds of articles that look wrong now. - I'm on vacation, really have better things to do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Cultural depictions of lions
hi what is the problem with the lionhead is it a photography art?why i cannt put my picture there (King Muh)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by King muh (talk • contribs) 19:45, 23 January 2016 year (UTC)
Hi @King muh: Your picture at File:LIONHEAD " Löwenmensch ".jpg is interesting, but it doesn't fit in with the subject of the page Cultural depictions of lions. The pictures that are on the page relate to culture and almost all are significant works of art held in museums or are part of important architecture. Your picture might be appropriate for display on the Internet, but it doesn't seem to be significant for Wikipedia. Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 20:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
what you exactly mean with fit the cultural article is it art and we are right now in a multi culturel society "200016year" should i start an article with "the imaginnär multi kulti revolution of the prelegion art photography":)(King Muh)— Preceding unsigned comment added by King muh (talk • contribs) 20:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
@King muh: I'm sorry I have not replied more quickly and I'm sorry I won't respond more specifically, but I don't enjoy arguing and I can understand very little of what you are trying to say. I presume that English is not your first language and must tell you that in English what you are writing is at very least unclear. Please look over Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and generally compare what you have added to Cultural depictions of lions with what you generally see on Wikipedia. I will remove your pictures and commentary again. If there is further discussion of what should be on that page, let's discuss it at Talk:Cultural depictions of lions. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 15:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
hi ok no problem with thadt this was anyway to complex "The World is not ready for this kind of Art" i do not concern english writing first second or any other languages it is secondary i write better if id like too but i donnt like too do it anyway was very exiting to find my self thank you " SCHREIBERBIKE " stuning name (KING MUH) ;)
@Hawkeye7: I'm sorry it didn't succeed. It must have been be a brutal experience. I hope you you recover well and continue to do the things almost everyone agreed you are good at. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 21:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar.......It's going to take a while.....but I'm hoping to update them all with all the new taxonomy, and keeping it up to date moving forward.....just doesn't look right having old info in place......Pvmoutside (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
You deserve thanks for the thankless task of all the corrections you've been making to the "List of birds of ..." series. Thank you and keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 15:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
You deserve a barnstar because you respond to other editors in a polite and friednly manner and actually make constructive edits and not just deleting material from pages or nominating articles for deletion which some other users who in my opinion undeservingly receive barnstar awards seem to do in drones.Have a great day :) , Sanjev Rajaram (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Very many thanks.I added the terms under notes see Sericinus.The single species is best kept separate (not merged)
since the info under Sericinus relates to the genus only. Best regards and thanks again Notafly (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Moved from user page by SchreiberBike
Some very important infos are missing,
1. Ugbo is made of 3 Autonomus Town: Ugbo Okpalla, Ugbonabo and Ngene Ugbo
2. Ugbonabo has Igwe in person of HRH. Igwe L. U. Chime Nabo 1 of ugbonabo, who represents the hole of Ugbo as Traditional Ruler since Ugbo Okpalla and Ngene Ugbo are yet to chose or elect thier Traditional Ruler.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Okeohia (talk • contribs) 20:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
@Okeohia: I don't know anything about Ugbo. I just changed "heath" to "health" and fixed a section heading. I'm reluctant to add the material you suggest above because I can't find any reliable sources to document it and I'm not much of a writer. As a Wikipedia editor, you can make the changes yourself. If you do, I would be happy to copy edit it to make the English more standard. Thank you, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 19:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Gould363: Thanks for the note. I've looked around and found a mix of uses. Wikipedia uses the "ph" fairly consistently with regard to Lepidoptera so I'll follow that. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 04:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, SchreiberBike. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
:) For your reference-formatting & copy-editing burst. (I suspect we're mutually flooding each other's watchlists with our Lepidoptera gnome work? ) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, those NHM-links were overly long to the point of complete and utter ridiculousness. I mean, I'm hardly going to complain about a link with an unnecessary empty parameter or two in them, but five lines of blank parameters? Jeez. A couple of the smaller stubs had the freaking links take up more space in the edit window than the actual (non-taxobox) content. Thanks for taking up that job. :)
Right now, I'm mostly diffusing Category:Lepidoptera genera (and finding unlabeled or misplaced monotypic genera—my list of articles to round-robin move is getting into the low 40ies now, and that's while I've actually been moving a few in between categorizing stuff...), and decapitalizing common names as I come across them. Which still is a lot more common than it should be. /sigh. But I tend to switch between various tasks as well. Boredom lurks, but also the risk of stupid mistakes due to sheer repetitiveness. (*cough*like diffusing some 550 'Category:Monotypic Lepidoptera genera' to Category:Monotypic moth genera and its new butterfly counterpart by 'hand' (well, with help of HotCat, but that's not so much semi-automatic as, hm, quarter-automatic or so? :P). In the span of just over 8 hours. Glad that one's done, though, and if I can keep up some reasonable speed, its non-monotypic counterparts should be done in a day or two as well. Who knows, perhaps the Lepidoptera categorization structure will be something approaching sensible before the end of the decade...) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
We crossed paths....LOL
I'm a newbie who has been working my way through the moths, adding info and refs as I can.
I have some questions:
Should I be referring to "funet" as "Markku Savela's Lepidoptera and Some Other Life Forms"?
Also, a caption was removed for the drawing I added. Is there guidance for the use of captions in the taxobox?
Many of the descriptions I have added were transcribed verbatim from the original sources. In some cases changes were made, like "forewing" for "fore wing" and "Exp" (for expanse) to "wingspan". My understanding of policy on references is not to make those kinds of changes. My question is, how to prevent that?
Thorby
Hello @ThorbyTech: Thanks for asking. There are about a million rules on Wikipedia and then lots of ways to interpret them, so usually it makes sense to just do what seems right, but gradually learning the rules helps.
Funet: I saw a bunch of links to pages on this website that just said "Funet" or "funet.fi" and since the Lepidoptera and Some Other Life Forms is just part of http://www.nic.funet.fi/, which Wikipedia has an article about at FUNET, I was changing the reference text on the articles as I was editing them, then I started doing that primarily part of the time because I can do it faster with AWB. So basically I do think that "Markku Savela's Lepidoptera and Some Other Life Forms" is better, but I'm open to suggestions for the best way to refer to that website.
Captions: There are guidelines for captions at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions. The ones I suspect you are referring to are like this one where the caption had a synonym for the present name and a reference that repeated the information at the image's page. Since the synonym, if appropriate, should be listed under the synonyms section and anyone can see the source of the image by clicking on the image, there's no need to repeat that information as a caption on the species' page.
Quotes: I didn't know that those were quotes. They weren't in quote marks or quote boxes. There's guidance for how to handle quotes at Wikipedia:Quotations. We shouldn't be putting other people's words into Wikipedia unless we are making it clear that we are quoting them, even if the material is in the public domain. Honestly I don't know much about how that all works, because I spend most of my time editing what's already here instead of adding material to Wikipedia.
I hope those thoughts make sense; I'd be happy to discuss them or anything else further. I'm mostly working on Lepidoptera articles from the point of view of a copy editor because Wikipedia guidelines changed a while ago so that species common names should be in lower case and I'm fixing other things as I check those. Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 21:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
January 2017
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. st170e22:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
A page you started (Large Castor) has been reviewed!
Thanks, @Tymon.r:, but no need to let me know. I create thousands of redirects for species common names and they stay on my watchlist for a while. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 00:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
This is the very first newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise.
(To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, see below)
The future of the Genealogy project on the English Wikipedia, and a potential creation of a new Wikimedia Genealogy Project, is something where you can make a an input.
Hey. I appreciate your interest in making everything fit the guidelines, but in this case they do not help. Since Wikipedia has many taxonomic pages that are not quite up to date with current classifiction it is possible for the same organism to be known under several scientific names. The reason both names are included on the page with links is that the taxonomy is not settled, or has recently been changed, or there are a large number of people who know these plants by the second name. Not all of them know enough to click on the link for the current name. Leaving the second link in even though it goes to the same place clarifies this for the people in question. Removing the link leaves them no clear place to go. I can see removing duplicate links where the same concept is mentioned repeatedly by the same words, but that is not the case here. Having the second link is useful to people with outdated or different taxonomic conceptions of the organism. Avram Primack (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I would agree if I were writing a scientific article, but this is not a scientific article. When the reader does not know that the scientific names have been combined into one name it is usufull to have one link for each name even if they do go to the same page. The style manual is more directed at repeated links to the same page from the same name, which would be a waste of storage resources. If I were writing an article about trains, it would be obvious and there would be no reason to link every time I mentioned the word train. But, for people who dont know that asteraceae and compositae are the same, or that mimosaceae are part of leguminosaceae the fact of a link is important and educative. The words have different meaning even if the links are the same. Anyway, thanks for the consideration and the help. Avram Primack (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
This is the second newsletter sent by mass mail to members in Wikipedia:WikiProject Genealogy, to everyone who voted a support for establishing a potential Wikimedia genealogy project on meta, and anyone who during the years showed an interest in genealogy on talk pages and likewise.
(To discontinue receiving Project Genealogy newsletters, please see below)
Progress report:
In order to improve communication between genealogy interested wikipedians, as well talking in chat mode about the potential new wiki, a new irc channel has been setup, and you are welcome to visit and try it out at: #wikimedia-genealogyconnect
(In case you are not familiar with IRC, or would prefer some info and intro, please see Wikipedias IRC tutorial)
Hi SchreiberBike. No, I didn't mean to make all the changes I did at Acraea zetes; I accidentally edited an old version of the page and wiped out your edits. My main intention was to switch |image2 caption= to |image2_caption=. I also wrote out Acraea zetes zetes in the first caption. I'm generally opposed to abbreviating scientific names; Wikipedia isn't paper, so saving space isn't a concern. Abbreviation might be desirable in running text where frequent mention of the genus gets repetitive, but I don't think it's a good idea in captions and lists.
As for changing [[Animal]]ia to [[Animalia]], while I don't think link directly to the title "Animal" is wrong, redirects (i.e. Animalia) aren't broken and it seems simpler to me to just link to the term that will be displayed in the taxobox. Changing links like that is not a priority for me though; it's something I sometimes do if I'm editing the taxobox for other reasons. Plantdrew (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I noticed you asked another user a few months back if there was a report showing newly generated Lepidoptera articles. There is, it's User:AlexNewArtBot/LepidopteraSearchResult. I've added it to the WikiProject Lepidoptera page, but you might want to add it to your watchlist as well. It updates once a day. There are equivalent reports for most of the other Tree of Life daughter projects. Plantdrew (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Plantdrew: Well that's brilliant. I've had it on my list of things to do to try to figure out what would be involved in creating such a thing and you've gone and done it. Thank you. Keep up the great work.20:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, it wasn't me that made it. It's been around for years, but I guess never got added to the project page. It'll be nice to have somebody else paying attention to it; I've been monitoring it pretty much single handedly for a couple of years to make sure new pages get a project banner (fortunately, the Lepidoptera regulars creating article usually take care of the banners).
I've added a couple more project based reports that have been around for awhile, but weren't mentioned on the WP Lepidoptera page. Plantdrew (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I have suggested, on MOS:LIFE Talk [2] that it should better reflect the common usage of major authorities for butterflies and birds. Audabon's website provides valuable insight into why they break with the common rules of grammar, with regard to the naming of birds. Rwood128 (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
@Rwood128: I've replied at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Capitalization for names of butterflies and birds, but want to let you know that it is an ongoing project. After the decision at WP:BIRDCON it took a team of editors about six months to go through all the bird articles and lists to fix them. I've been working on the Lepidoptera articles for just over a year and I'd guess I'm about halfway done; there are over 100,000 of them. My project page for that is at User:SchreiberBike/Lepidoptera caps if you want a flavor for that job.Also, we don't have both capitalizations in Wikipedia like "Camberwell beauty (also Camberwell Beauty)" because if we are going to do that for one common name, we'd have to do that for all common names and that's not Wikipedia's style.I don't want to seem argumentative, but it is an issue that has had a lot of argument already and there has been a lot of effort made to make species common name capitalization consistent across Wikipedia. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 20:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I realise that this is a huge task and that it would be foolish to attempt to add parenthesis throughout – though I'd claim that my two edits are valid: they simply provide a clarification and don't. therefore, contravene Wikipedia style. Best of luck with the editing and I'm sorry to have added to your work . Rwood128 (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Butterflies on the Plettenberg( Germany)
Tank you
Thomas
PS: the next action do start 23.06.2017.A light is built up. In a textile the butterflies are catched.
Setting in a bottle everybody can find new butterflies.[1]--79.231.110.30 (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@79.231.110.30:I missed your note above when you posted it last month. It looks like you are referring to the article Plettenberg (mountain) which I edited about that time. I read a Google translation of the article you referenced and if you have anything else you'd like me to do to that article, please let me know. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 22:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello again Cannot give a full comment now as I am traveling in Portugal until June but I used these links to provide quick access to the otherwise (and most unfortunately wasted photos and images on commons and the albeit limited taxonomic info there. External links from a stub would be better but very time consuming this I think is a useful shortcut providing a photoguIde Best regards Talk to you in June Notafly (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
:::: Left this general message.Back. I will change my position and alter all the Wikispecies links to stubs as time permits.Sorry to have caused this problem and thanks to all. Notafly (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC) Many thanks for waiting for my return. Will you let me know of any deletions you intend so I can replace the link with a stub. I will begin with Indochina.Very best regards Notafly (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC) PS This will take a few weeks in total.PS I did not originate Wikispecies links and have no idea who did. Just chanced on one and finding it a simple solution copied it without much thought.
These pages are fixed. There may be a few Wikispecies links in Diptera. Not sure
of the rest. Still some work to do on the stubs but Ruigeroland is adding the synonyms
so maybe no so much.Best regards and thanks for your page additions.Notafly (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. If there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. By the way, when you are done with a note on a talk page, add ~~~~ to automatically add your signature. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 20:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:
The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".
The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:
The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".
Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Welcome
Hi, Thank you for your kind welcome. My user name is a wish, as I dont get to ride as much as I would like to. Any advice about editing on Wikipedia would be appreciated. I am not strictly working on moths, but more trying to help out with the backlog of requested articles. We'll see where this journey leads. Thanks again, Iwanttoridemybicycle (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I hope you like it here and it keeps your mind occupied while your body is healing. Just do what makes sense and learn from what others have done. There are about a million rules, but you don't need to know them before you start. Also notice when others edit your work and try to figure out why they did it, and if it's not clear, ask. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 21:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi SchreiberBike: Way back in August 2014, you tagged this article with a "clarify" tag. I've finally got around to rewording it. Does this make it clearer? Or does it still need work? MeegsC (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@MeegsC: Yes, that's a big improvement. I think when I read it back in 2014, I thought that it sounded like they all flapped their wings on the same beat or something. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Systematics
No better place than Wikipedia. Start here Cladistics. Ignore Most recent common ancestor except the intro (too complex by half) Contact me if you get stuck.It is important to get the basic ideas first (many proponents didn't) .The page diagrams are very useful indeed.Best regards Robert aka Notafly (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
This stub is in poor English, it is unclear in what it is trying to say and uses a term which navigational textbooks never use. There is no "right of way", the regs only refer to a "stand-on" vessel (see rule 17).
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)21:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, SchreiberBike. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
How about combining a Barnstar with a Christmas Card? That is why this message is appearing on your talk page. Simultaneously and at the same time, this barnstar is conferred upon you because during this past year you worked and contributed your time to improve the encyclopedia. You also have received far too little recognition for your contributions. In addition, this is a small attempt at spreading holiday cheer. I've appreciated all the things that you have done for me. The Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas23:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Now you are going to think I am a crazed lunatic for leaving another message here but I just noticed you write about lepidoptera. Me too! I wrote the Monarch Butterfly migration article! It took me months and was really my first major article. We'll talk more another time. I can't get enough of butterflies. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas23:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
@Barbara (WVS): Thanks Barbara, I've spent most of the last few years working on Lepidoptera, though mostly just copy editing. I noticed that there were plenty of capitalized common names among Lepidoptera articles and decided to go through them from top to bottom (see here. Along the way I've learned a ton of interesting things and taken on some related projects, but I'm still primarily a copy editor. I certainly enjoy your humor work at the Signpost; it sends me on adventures every time. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 03:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thanks! And I hope you have a good year too
I'm still busy with my Youtube channel but if you need my help with the report in future I'll be sure to set some time aside. Serendipodous23:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)03:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Happy New Year
Thankyou for your Christmas greeting and a Happy New Year to you too. Back to Lepidoptera soon.Warm regards Robert aka Notafly (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Just came to say thanks for your defence of the write-up. Looking into the commenter's history is an illuminating experience, as he holds some pretty niche and dubious beliefs - I am not surprised that he did not like the write-up, as he seems to represent a nastier side of Reddit. Nonetheless, we can't please everyone, and thanks for defending me. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
@Stormy clouds: I waste a fair amount of time on Reddit. It's more than three-quarters garbage, but there are bits of quality to be found mixed with the bad puns and obscenity. I almost never look into people's history as I don't want to know. Too bad the post didn't get any traction; my highest ranked comment was an offhand remark and I've said <humor>thousands of brilliant things</humor> that just disappeared. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I see the Montenegro list of leps (if there is one) is redirected to List of butterflies of Europe (Papilionidae). Can you correct this please. I have made a start on the other Europe families and will write a main page List of butterflies of Europe soon with biogeography, ecology, history of study and so on. Best regards Robert aka Notafly (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC) PS How are your taxonomy studies progressing?
@Notafly: Got it. Please check to make sure I did it right. I will request deletion of Higgin's anomalous blue (now a redirect) until an article is written about Polyommatus nephohiptamenos. Even then, it looks like the common name is "Higgins's anomalous blue" with an extra "s" in there. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 22:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your attention to detail and for fixing my typos. The o in my keyboard is almost broken, and it keeps making me look like I can't spell!!! Dr. Vogel (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
@Donkey8: Cool. I wasn't familiar with "Regional Assessments". Do you have a feeling for when it's best to use that and when it's better to use the "Global" scope?
At the top where it says "The following tags are used to highlight each species' conservation status as assessed by the IUCN:", should we change it to something like The following tags are used to highlight each species' conservation status in the Mediterranean region as assessed by the IUCN:"? (underlined part added) Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 02:22, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Better as pdf
I see that for Papilio cacicus and many other Papilionidae and under References
Collins, N.M, and M.G. Morris. 1985. Threatened swallowtail butterflies of the world. The IUCN Red Data Book. IUCN, Gland and Cambridge.[3] has been replaced by a google books reference (incomplete). The full version free as pdf and at BDH is much better. Is it possible to revert this robotically or will I have to fix all of the Papilios (assuming you agree that the pdf is the better choice).The BDH is in effect a free book. Very best regards Notafly (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi @Notafly: I could go through and make that correction fairly quickly, but I'm not sure why the link to the Biodiversity Heritage Library is better than a link to Google Books. Is there something in the BHL link (here) that's not in the Google Books link (here)? I see it's also available direct through the IUCN (here) in pdf format, but I'm not sure that's better. It's also available through Internet Archive (here).
When I look at them, they all look about the same, but it could be that I'm seeing something different from what you are or that I'm missing something. That reference is used over 250 times on Wikipedia, so I want to make sure we have it right. Which do you think we should use? SchreiberBike | ⌨ 19:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Very many thanks Schreiberbike. I hope this is not too much trouble.I have two reasons for this request.
1.On my computer I only get extracts at google books and not the same extracts each time.Also parts of the text are obscured (italics and so on) 2.The BDL pdf is both complete and searchable and adds to my library.I imagine most other lepidopterists would also wish to have it.Also we should all support Biodiversity Heritage Library whose partners (including IUCN) have provided a marvellous resource. Very best regards Notafly (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes.Very many thanks Notafly (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC) PS Biodiversity Heritage Library has made available many crucial works which were to be found in very few libraries and, I think, the whole set not in any single library.
Hello again SchreiberBike Here Parides photinus the reference to Rothschild, W. and Jordan, K. (1906). A revision of the American Papilios. Novitates Zoologicae 13: ... appears twice under REFERENCES because I cite it twice . Would you be kind and fix it.I have forgotten how and probably never did it properly.Interestingly this 1906 work is still, slightly modified, the standard monograph for Parides.atb Notafly (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello there. As you'd probably noticed from the non-response to your October and April tp messages, I wasn't around for a fair while. (A bit over a year, even) Back now, though. Between illness and wikirelated stress I took what was meant to be a short break, but real life issues spiralled into it becoming a far longer hiatus than planned. Back now, however. Any major changes wiki-wide or specific to tree of life/entomology/taxonomy/Lepidoptera I should be aware of? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@AddWittyNameHere:Welcome back! I've had varying levels of involvement over time too. Sometimes I want to be in the thick of things and other times I just want to do routine things and not be bothered. I can't think of anything really new. I'm still working on checking Lepidoptera articles for capitalization of common names and a few other things, changing to using full names of authorities in the body of the article, and I just recently finished making links to LepIndex use the {{LepIndex}} template where possible after they changed the format of their URLs so our links no longer worked. Not too long ago I discovered the page User:AlexNewArtBot/LepidopteraSearchResult and when I've been up to it, I check those, but I haven't been there for a while. It's good to know you're ok. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 20:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! When dealing with gargantuan-sized work like with Lepidoptera, it's kind of impossible to give it your full energy full time at least in my experience. Eventually, the sheer amount of work just becomes utterly numbing due to the number of pages involved. The sheer amount of acquired backlog on basically everything that isn't "stub-creation of species-level articles" (and even there there *is* backlog just not as bad) doesn't help either. The occasional break or reduced energy is pretty much inevitable.
Good to know we now have a template for LepIndex. Yeah, full name of authorities in the body of the article makes sense, though there's some cases where there's like a dozen different authors with the same surname and it's hard to tell which one described any particular species.
Speaking of the page you you mentioned, would you mind helping me keep a bit of an eye on Gihan Jayaweera's creations? They're very prolific, passionate and clearly intend well, but I've found several issues in their creations, ranging from somewhat awkward English at times to things like systematic miscategorization of species articles as Moth genera. Plus they don't template/categorize their redirects, but then that is a fairly common issue. As they're passionate and well-intentioned, I suspect they will learn eventually (I've pointed out at least the moth genera miscategorization thing to them...one thing at a time) but the sheer number of articles they create means there's a fair bit of clean-up to do until they've learnt. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@Eli355: Thanks for the note. I'm not aware of that rule. In fact, our Manual of Style contradicts it where it says: "They are capitalized when the entity is personified (Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") was the Roman sun god) or when used as the name of a specific body in a scientific or astronomical context (The Moon orbits the Earth; but Io is a moon of Jupiter)." That comes from from Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Celestial bodies. Based on that, I'd capitalize. Does that make sense to you? SchreiberBike | ⌨ 00:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
The Manual of Style also says "The words sun, earth, and moon do not take capitals in general use (The sun was peeking over the mountain top; The tribal people of the Americas thought of the whole earth as their home).", however, since the earth is discussed in a scientific context in the article, it should be capitalized. —Eli355 (talk | contribs) 00:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello again Schreiberbike Will you redirect Shijimiaeoides to Sinia please.Nothing from Ruigeroland since
February after almost daily edits for many years. Hope all is well for him. Best regards Notafly (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@Notafly: I took care of the merge from Shijimiaeoides to Sinia. Glad to help. Excellent point about Ruigeroeland. I put a note on his talk page; we never know what another person is going through. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 01:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Very many thanks for the redirect etc.All is more than well with Ruigeroland I see. I should have thought of that talk page note myself. Glad you did-at my age you worry about change .Warm regards Notafly (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:SchreiberBike. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
