User talk:Simuliid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Movicons2-hello.gif Welcomebanner.gifA B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10... 100... 200
Fun and interesting pages


Hello, Simuliid, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am MBisanz and I would like to thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Crystal Clear app ksmiletris.png   Introduction
 5    The five pillars of Wikipedia
Crystal package utilities.png   How to edit a page
Crystal khelpcenter.png   Help
Crystal Clear app ktip.png   Tips
Crystal Clear app ksokoban.png   How to write a great article
Crystal Clear app kedit.png   Manual of Style
Nuvola apps konquest.png   Fun stuff...
UncialB-01.png   Be Bold
Face-angel.svg   Assume Good faith
23   Keep cool
Presa de decissions.png   Have an experienced editor adopt you
Symbol neutral vote.svg   Policy on neutral point of view

And here are several pages on what to avoid:

No-spam.png How to not spam
Red copyright.svg How to avoid copyright infringement
Octagon-warning.svg What Wikipedia is not
Stop hand.svg Make sure not to get blocked, which should be no problem after reading this

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which are produced by clicking on the Button sig.png button; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Also, I think that you might want to join the the adopt-a-user project, where advanced editors can guide you in your first experiences here; so check it out if you want. Again, welcome! 


You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try.

Fix spelling and grammarLearn how

More...
Fix wikilinksLearn how

More...
Update with new informationLearn how

More...
Expand short articlesLearn how

More...
Check and add referencesLearn how

More...
Fix original research issuesLearn how

More...
Improve lead sectionsLearn how

More...
Add an imageLearn how
More...
Translate and clean upLearn how

More...
Click here to reply to this message.

This welcome message was sent by MBisanz at 09:31, March 31, 2009 (UTC)

Spelling in new articles[edit]

Hi there - I noticed you misspelled "European" as "Europen" in a number of articles you created recently. Might be worth checking the spelling if you're using a template or script. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you (species articles!)[edit]

Good on you for creating all those species articles (with references!) - I hope you keep up the excellent work. You also might be interested in being a part of WP:TOL. Kind regards. Calaka (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Polypedilum article[edit]

Hi Simuliid

I saw your new artcle, Polypedilum. Is there a problem (bot?), as it refers to Lauterborniella in the lead in and taxobox? I didn't want to make a change before you had the chance to review. Cheers, Heds (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thumbs up[edit]

Just stopping by to complement you on all the insect articles you are creating. I'm working on moths myself, but saw a lot of your articles when randombly browsing around. I found a usefull site for pictures some time ago, which might be usefull for you too (but then again, you might already be aware of it). http://www.forestryimages.org/browse/order.cfm?id=58&goButton=+go+ Cheers and keep up the great work! Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewer[edit]

Autoreviewer[edit]

Hi there. I see your new articles about insects come up a lot in New Page Patrol. Consider applying for the autoreviewer permission. This will make pages you create show up as already patrolled, meaning that they won't come up in the NPP logs, saving us at NPP a little effort. I'll gladly nominate you myself, if you'd prefer. — ækTalk 10:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC) PS -- thanks for all the work you're doing to expand the articles on insect taxa!

Hi, after reading one of your articles at newpage patrol I was surprised to see that an editor who has contributed as much as you have hadn't been approved as an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of rectifying that. ϢereSpielChequers 17:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks :-) 17:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate articles[edit]

Hi there. I think Nephrotoma quadrifaria and Nephrotoma appendiculata are duplicates. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For all the great articles you've made. Wikipedia loves you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

You were recommended to me for possible help on the article scaptia lata. In particular, I am not 100% sure I have identified the species in the photo correctly. I created the article for the photo. You may also wish to create a user page for your account that gives a little background information about yourself. Having a blank user page is a little confusing for other users. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the article, Simuliid. I did not keep the specimen but I have several other photos of the same fly and some others of a second fly. It literally just landed on my shoulder and I handed my camera to my girlfriend who snapped a few shots before he flew away. I am quite happy that I managed to get this photo "in the wild". The other photos are of varying quality, most of which are not very good, but there's one more that I may add to the article that shows the fly directly from above. It would be interesting to discover the sex of the creature in the photo, perhaps via coloration. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I posted a new photo at the article showing the fly directly from above. The fly was at the very bottom of the photo hence the tight cropping on the picture. I also asked the same question about the fly's sex at Talk:Scaptia_lata so others can contribute if they want. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Minor ranks in taxoboxes[edit]

I'm pretty sure we've discussed this before, but I would remind you that there is a strong consensus, demonstrated on more than one occasion, that minor ranks should not be included in taxoboxes unless they're directly relevant. That means you should not include suborders on articles dealing with a species or genus, for instance. The taxobox is meant to be a summary, not an exhaustive list, so all that is required, typically, are the seven major ranks (kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species). I know that it can be difficult to know which ranks the general reader will consider important if you are a specialist in a given group (since all the taxa seem important to you), but I can assure you that for flies, nothing is needed between Order and Family, and in most cases, nothing is needed between Family and Genus. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

1st point not discised before.
The guidelines on this subject state not to use Minor ranks in taxoboxes - unless there is a consensuses to include then. With Diptera many workers are including these, so I am following consensus and the guidelines.
Unlike other orders, the real detail in Diptera classification is in the in the minor ranks. In other orders, for example mollusca, linnaeus's simple model works very well, and I would not even stop to consider including them when I edit a non-diptera page. For Diptera with great diversity in the several hundred families, it does not.
When I visit museum collections on Diptera research, these collections are ordered by these minor ranks, I can not find the hoverfly collections, without knowing that they are in the Aschiza part of the collection. My assumption is other diptera workers on wikipedia include these ranks for similar reasions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simuliid (talkcontribs) 07:44, 18 June 2010
I have moved the discussion here, where it began, in order to keep it all in one place.
The issue may not have been discussed here before, but the issue has been discussed quite widely. Have a look at User talk:Mark-mitchell-aldershot, which is another user account that made the sort of edits you promote. There, a variety of editors, including Shyamal, Dyanega, Pro bug catcher, myself and KP Botany all tried to make the same point, which is that too many taxa makes the taxobox worse, not better. This is in addition to the fact that the guidelines for taxobox usage were also established by wide user input. The consensus is thus clearly opposed to the inclusion of minor ranks except very close to the subject of the article. The presence of minor ranks, and their holding "the real detail", is not exclusive to flies (and Mollusca may not be the best example of a simple Linnaean hierarchy; as a random example, see Gyraulus riparius). Flies are no different to many other orders; I recently discovered that acarologists have felt the need to invent a new rank of "cohort" (distinct from the usual zoological meaning) to encompass their classification of ticks and mites, for instance. Finally, while ease of navigation in museum collections is a laudable aim, it is not the role of Wikipedia, and the encyclopaedic content should not be compromised by an attempt to cram too much taxonomic detail into an article. If a reader wants to know what suborder a particualr species is in, they can either move up the taxonomy presented in the taxobox (clicking on the family should normally suffice), or through the Wikispecies links (or even {{TaxonIds}}) that we provide for that purpose.
To summarise, there is a strong consensus that adding minor ranks to taxoboxes is not desirable. Continuing to do so without first seeking to gain consensus may be seen as disruptive. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important.svg
I repeat, minor ranks distant from the article's subject are not welcome in the taxobox. This has been discussed repeatedly, and continuing to add them may well be considered disruptive editing. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Junrey Balawing[edit]

Hi there, I saw what you did to the birth date format in Junrey Balawing's article. There is an on going discussion request in this regard, as I am implying the first given example here. I was expecting that you're going to clarify first before you deleted as it was previously raised for discussion. Rammaum (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Puppeter template.svg

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Conops for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Misunderstanding[edit]

European hornet 090621.jpg Is this hornet angry or just confused?
"am I missing what you mean?" - yes, I was making a little pun on the word "bugs". Please accept this fine specimen of a European Hornet to make up for the misunderstanding. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Mass undoing of edits[edit]

What reason do you have for your recent mass undoing of my edits? Your articles are so short that they add nothing that was not already apparent from the list on the genus page. They are ill-formatted, containing far too much taxonomic detail in the taxobox (as we have discussed before). They are also generally very poorly sourced. Inclusion of the species name in certain listings is no good evidence that a species is currently recognised as valid. For all these reasons, it is better to merge all the worthless substubs on Herina species to the genus' article. You must have known, both from our previous interactions and from common sense, that that kind of action would not be greeted with joy. It took me a fair amount of time and effort to clean up after you; making me do the same thing again is particularly unwelcome. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey[edit]

NPPbarnstar.jpg

New page patrol – Survey Invitation


Hello Simuliid! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only. 
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.


You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Housefly[edit]

Hi, On what basis do you assume that it is not a housefly? --Muhammad(talk) 06:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Diptera[edit]

Glad to see you are back! Keep up the good work! Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writer's barnstar.png The Writer's Barnstar
For your recent run of new biology-related articles. Thanks for the significant contributions to improve Wikipedia. Your efforts are appreciated Northamerica1000(talk) 10:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

March 2012[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Herina liturata, you may be blocked from editing. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled[edit]

Hi. Please do a significant amount of background research before proposing editors for user rights. The PERM pages are occasionally backlogged and unnecessary requests simply place an additional burden on the admins. Thanks, and happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Here is a well earned cup of tea for you. You have exhibited a high amount of compassion in respect of assisting other people on Wikipedia. Furthermore, you created several articles and made meaningful contributions to entomology pages. Keep up the outstanding work!!! 😺Galaxycat😺 talk 09:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Synonymy[edit]

Hi I see several of your Ulidiidae pages are duplicates.An instance is Herina palustris (Meigen, 1826) which also appears as Ortalis palustris Meigen, 1826 (on it's own page) though the synonymy is given in the Herina palustris taxobox. Maybe you could check these.I am not sure that redirect is the best course for such synonyms. Perhaps deletion of the invalid combinations would be better. The info content is, at least here, minimal.Can you add more? Notafly (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you again. Ulidiidae are a mess, and not just on wikipedia, with some workers still counting Otitidae as a family. I had written many of the Ulidiidae pages with the hope of making at least a little sense of this group myself, and have written a prototype key to the UK species (not published), and that works OK just for UK. but trying to widen this to Europe one soon meets problems, with little consensus. However I will research the matter you mention. But I may not get to the entomology library until the latter part of October.Simuliid talk 08:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Tachina nupta[edit]

Hi, I am a new editor in the fly section. Can you see if I should use a common name in the article above? I think its widespread! 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) 17:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome - I need to look further, but Uramya pristis (of walker) looks correct?Simuliid talk 23:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
So Altervista is not a proper source? I'm confused now. Can you please make me one more favour? If its not hard, can you please not remove the navboxes from my or any other articles? The consensus had agreed on using them 2 months ago... Many thanks!--Mishae (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Another thing, on your user page you typed name 2 times, if you want, you can fix the error since I don't know how to do it.--Mishae (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

About Iberomorda viridipennis[edit]

Hi Simuliid. The ref you added appears to indicate that Étienne Mulsant was the binomial authority.
Please be aware that though I have 30 K Wikipedia edits and like to think of myself as a loyal servant of Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects, I have no scientific qualifications whatsoever! You're the expert, and more than happy to go with what you wrote.
--Shirt58 (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Date formats[edit]

You have recently made several potentially contentious edits (e.g. this), altering date formats, using the edit summary "Changed date re WP:DATEFORMAT". WP:DATEFORMAT makes it abundantly clear that both "November 29, 1762" and "29 November 1762" are acceptable everywhere. You must not make such edits. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have replied to your message on my talk page. In short, you are wrong. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
No very clearly you are wrong, These are not US persons. therefor Non US rules apply. There are many more parts of the globe where English it the primary language and the non US data formant is used, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, South Africa etc. I I would would argues to that as English is the primary 'international language'. There is such a thing as German English, as anyone who has tried to conduct cross border trade in the EC will know. please see MOS:TIES Simuliid talk 22:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Rollback Request[edit]

Hi. I've added the rollback flag for you. Any questions let me know. Pedro :  Chat  13:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hellwald's spiny rat may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[Category:Animals described in 1878]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Category merging[edit]

Can you explain to me a reason behind a category merge here and in many other instances?--Mishae (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Fly articles[edit]

Hi, Simuliid. I have recently been removing empty |month= parameters from cite templates since that parameter is now deprecated. The last remaining articles my searches find consist largely of fly genus or species articles that you started (there were about 80 in total). Many of these follow a similar format and use the same references (two in particular). Rather than just removing the deprecated parameter, I'm considering upgrading the references too. I wish to change:

{{cite book|author=D'Assis Fonseca, E.C.M|year=1968 |title=Diptera Cyclorrhapha Calyptrata: Muscidae |pages=118|publisher=Royal Entomological Society of London|series= Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects|volume= 10|month=|location= London.}}

to

{{cite book |last=D'Assis Fonseca |first=E. C. M. |authorlink=E. C. M. d'Assis-Fonseca |date=January 31, 1968 |title=Diptera Cyclorrhapha Calyptrata: Section (b) Muscidae |series=Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects |publisher=Royal Entomological Society of London |location=London |isbn=0-901546-07-0 |volume=10 |page=118}}

and

{{cite book|author=Gregor, F.; Rozkosny, R.; Bartak, M.; Vanhara, J.|year=2002 |title=The Muscidae (Diptera) of Central Europe|pages=280|publisher=Masaryk University|series= Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Masarykianae Brunensis|volume= 107|month=|location= Masaryk.}}

to

{{cite journal |last1=Gregor |first1=František |last2=Rozkošný |first2=Rudolf |last3=Barták |first3=Miroslav |last4=Vaňhara |first4=Jaromír |date=2002 |title=The Muscidae (Diptera) of Central Europe |journal=Folia Facultatis Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Masarykianae Brunensis |publisher=Masaryk University |location=Brno, Czech Republic |isbn=80-210-2773-8 |volume=107 |page=280}}

These changes would modernize and correct these two references while adding more information. I am worried about the |page= parameter however. This parameter (or |pages=) are meant to specify the cited material as precisely as possible. It is not for the total number of pages. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you used the total number of pages in each source when you made these pages and not the page (or pages) that specifically support the statement being footnoted. This means we need to correct that. I started this by trying to verify the statement sourced with D'Assis Fonseca 1968 in the Villeneuvia article but I was unable to verify that sentence using the PDF of D'Assis Fonseca 1968 I found online; however, the PDF I found was a few pages incomplete. In general I am worried that this reference may have been used only as a very vague reference in all these fly articles. Footnoted statements should be very clearly supported by the source. In fact, when possible, it's best to use the |quote= parameter to say exactly what statement in the source supports the statement in the Wikipedia article.

Could you clarify how these sources were used and, in particular, how the |page= parameter was? Also, if you notice any problems in the upgraded cite templates above, please tell me. You can find many of these articles by using "insource:/\|\s*month\s*=\s*\|/ -incategory:Pages_containing_cite_templates_with_deprecated_parameters" as a search. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Jason Quinn (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Simuliid. I don't think you got a chance to see the message above but I see that you are editing again. (Happy New Year! by the way) In the new article you are creating, you are still incorrectly using some of the cite template parameters. The |accessdate= parameter should only be used if there is an associated |url= parameter and |pages= should not be used for the total number of pages and you should not add "pp" or anything like that because the template adds "p." or "pp." automatically. If don't know if you've turned them on or not, but many cite template errors are not visible by default. I think they should all be turned on by default but it's done for reader orientated purposes. For active editors like yourself, however, it's a good idea to turn them on so you can detect potential problems. You can follow the instructions at Help:CS1 errors#Controlling error message display to turn them on. Anyway, I'd like to help improve these fly articles with you. Let me know what you think about the above. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 13:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Jason, Happy New Year too. Firstly thanks for the interest in what I have been doing on the Diptera articles, and for correcting any errors on my part. Firstly removing empty |month=, yes I no longer use that, and suspect any articles you needed to correct I eddied some time ago? Re the |page= and |pages= parameters. I am very aware of the differences, and misuse is a clear error on my part. Thank you for bringing this to my attention and I will try to be more careful with its use in future. I almost exclusively (intended) to use the |pages= parameter, and where I have used the {{para|page} parameter, it is almost always in error, the only exception will be some references to Chandler's Checklists of Insects of the British Isles: Diptera, where someone else had been using the {{para|page} parameter correctly and I merely copied there usage. So in the Fonseca examples for gave, this should be cerrected to |pages=. As for the "p." or "pp." and the point about the |accessdate= associated with |url=, I was not aware. Thanks for pointing these out, I will bear these in mind in future. Please keep up the good work.Simuliid talk 13:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Hi, Simuliid. Thanks for the reply. Yes, many of this articles were created a while ago (like back in 2009'ish). You can find the same list I am seeing by searching for "insource:/\|\s*month\s*=\s*\|/ -incategory:Pages_containing_cite_templates_with_deprecated_parameters" in the search box (should find about 62 items total with many of them fly articles). You say you "almost exclusively" intend to use the |pages= parameter. If you mean general, I'm confused by that. Or do you mean solely for the two references above? For instance, could you explain what is on page 118 of the D'Assis Fonseca book? It appears to be part of the index and I am worried it is the total number of pages in the book, which is not what |pages= is for. I would like to make sure the references are near perfect before going and changing about 70'ish or more in total. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Hirticlavula‎[edit]

Hi Simuliid- unless I am very much mistaken, there is no guideline preventing direct page citations as I used them in the above article, but there is a guideline against changing citation style without consensus. You have now been reverted by both me and Sasata- if you are sure that there is something wrong with the citations, could you please provide your reasons on the talk page rather than reverting again? J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Could you please cite the precise guideline/MOS requirement you feel that mine and Sasata's preferred version of the article violates? There is no requirement to use particular citation templates. Two related points: Please be aware that is considered extremely poor etiquette to revert good faith edits without comment, and this is explicitly in violation of the behavioural guideline on the subject. Furthermore, you are close to violating the three revert rule. (See also the bold, revert, discuss cycle.) J Milburn (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
See also WP:CITESTYLE: "While citations should aim to provide the information listed above, Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style." J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Endangered species of the British Isles[edit]

Category:Endangered species of the British Isles, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)