User talk:AddWittyNameHere/Archive 4

Erebidae, etc.

One of the main issues appears to be that a lot of articles were created using the ancient NHM cards rather than more up-to-date resources like funet. The NHM cards are becoming increasingly obsolete, in failing to reflect recent classification changes. We can do better. Dyanega (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Your help desk question

If it is possible to change your preferences so you would not be redirected when there is a redirect, the people who would know are found at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Vchimpanzee Thanks, I hesitated between those two when asking the question. I'll see about asking there, then. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, AddWittyNameHere!

Happy New Year!

AddWittyNameHere,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

@Donner60: Thanks, and the same to you! How have you been doing? :) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The "the" in species names with possessives

Hello wittily named Wikipedian. I've seen that in some butterfly names where the common name is in a possessive form like Charaxes northcotti (Northcott's charaxes), you've removed the "the" before the common name. I have mixed feelings about that but have come to the conclusion that it works best with the "the" there. The species is named "Northcott's charaxes", but it's not actually possessed by Northcott. I started a discussion once long ago somewhere and there was no consensus one way or another. I think that in the typical butterfly articles where the scientific name is in italics and bold, then followed by the common name, it looks better with the normal text "the" in between.

Charaxes northcotti, the Northcott's charaxes is ...

vs.

Charaxes northcotti, Northcott's charaxes is ...

I don't have strong feelings about this, but I wanted to share my thinking and see how you felt. Thank you.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike: I frequently see both forms used, but I think a larger majority of articles with species including possessives in their common names does not use the article 'the' from what I saw, at least tree-of-life-wide. (Though considering the way things are under Tree of Life's umbrella, that really doesn't mean much beyond the fact that different people do things different ways, and appreciable differences in the way things are handled can be observed between the various projects in the Tree of Life)

Possessives are by their nature already definite: calling something 'Example's skipper' basically means 'this specific skipper that was described by/collected by/named by/revalidated by/otherwise dedicated to or associated with Example'; to add a definite article in front of it is grammatically iffy barring exceptional cases. (At least, it makes me wince a little when I see it too many times in a row like today, much like how I would if I were to see 'the my house' too often)

Exceptional cases: I do/would make a difference between common names with possessives because the species is dedicated to them (Northcott's charaxes, etc.) and species named after something that already included a possessive. (I don't have a genuine example right now, but a fictional case would be if there was, say, a tree called Jakeson's oak and a skipper butterfly found near such oaks, given the common name 'Jakeson's oak skipper'. In that case, it's a skipper and more specifically, it's the Jakeson's oak skipper; a definite article here is perfectly valid because to leave out the article would suggest it's Jakeson's oak skipper versus some other kind of (equally fictional) oak skipper.

I do however agree that stylistically, two bolded terms separated solely by a punctuation mark is less than ideal. If I were to slightly reword those sentences rather than simply remove the definite article, so say

Charaxes northcotti, also known as Northcott's charaxes, is ...

Charaxes northcotti, commonly called Northcott's charaxes, is ...

and other such variations, would that be an acceptable solution to you? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This is something I've been struggling with as well. I don't like two bold terms separated just by a punctuation mark and I don't like putting common (or scientific) names in parentheses when the scientific name is the title (Wikipedia pop-ups and Google's summary strip out parentheticals). I usually go with the "Scientific name, the vernacular name," formulation which seems to be the most common form on Wikipedia, but I do think it reads a little strange to have "the" next to a possessive. I've often gone with "Scientific name, or possessive's vernacular name," when a possessive is involved (if there are multiple vernacular names given, I move a non-possessive one ahead of a possessive). I also don't like "commonly called" or "popularly known as" unless the vernacular really is more frequently used than the scientific name. "also known as" seems like a good solution. Plantdrew (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(Do you mean to have the italics on the common names above? (Feel free to remove this bit.)) I found the old inconclusive discussion I mentioned above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals/Archive 9#Definite article or not. I think either of your suggestions works, but they seem wordy compared to a concise "the". I'm persuaded that it can go both ways because we can use the indefinite article e.g. "an Example's skipper", where it would be wrong to say "an Example's house". Maybe I'll start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, though those seldom go well. I'll keep thinking about it. Thanks.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Plantdrew's suggestion of "or" seems like a good one. I think I'll try that for a while and see how it feels.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Plantdrew:, @SchreiberBike: Yeah, "commonly called" and kin are generally more useful for birds, mammals and certain fish, where the common name actually is common, than for insect species barring the obvious cases (some of the better known butterflies and such). Nope, italics were not intended at all. No clue why I added them except exhaustion/spending far too long doing the same repetitive tasks the past few days. (*cough*Four days into March and between categorization work, decapitalizing common names and redirect-tagging, I've amassed about 3000 edits for this month so far. Insomnia sure doesn't help either.)

'or' is a reasonable alternative; and as Plantdrew said, simply moving common names around sometimes works as well—though if the possessive-form name is the significantly more common of the various vernacular names, reversing listed order isn't always the best solution either.... "(also) known as" can work, but I'll admit that you've got a point, SchreiberBike, it's not the most succinct, and while in some areas that's not a huge deal, it's certainly less than elegant when dealing with the projects/areas 'fond' of huge lead-starters. Like parts of the whole moths area. (You both probably know what I mean, "Binomial name, the vernacular name, is a species of moth in the [taxonomic family/subfamily/tribe] first described in [year] by [binomial authority] that occurs in [country/location]." and similar).

Where no possessive is involved, 'the' generally suffices though it certainly doesn't hurt to add an "or" before "the vernacular name", so no issues should result in those cases where there's multiple vernacular names listed, some of which are and some of which aren't possessive.

Since all three of us seem fine with 'or', let's go with that for now then, yes? :) I'd prefer to keep away from MOS-discussions. Like you say, those rarely go well, and every hour spent on a MOS-discussion is one in which we could have, say, decapitalized a couple dozen common names. Or fixed a few dozen infoboxes. Or added a few dozen missing categories. Or tagged a few dozen redirects. Not any lack of work in the great Tree of Life, for sure. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks For The Explanation

About the category thing.

To4oo4 (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. :) Feel free to leave me a message if you have any more questions. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Re-ping: @To4oo4: (last attempt was misspelled) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Pie of Kindness and Helpfulness

Thanks for being so nice and helpful! To4oo4 (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@To4oo4: Aww, thanks. :) -noms on pie- Tasty! Hope you've been doing well? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Userpage

Hi! So, I was planning to make a colourful userpage. You know, colourful? :) So, you have any idea about whose userpage is decorative, so that I can take it? :P I also asked a few people in the help section, but I know that you would be the best to ask from.:D Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Adityavagarwal: Hello! Glad to see you're still around. Hope you've been doing well? Sorry for disappearing on you again, but sadly it took a while to get over my exhaustion/illness combination. I sort of forgot I hadn't replied to you yet after that. As to decorative userpages, sure, there's a fair lot of them around. As to taking it, how much copying exactly are you planning on? Because while I foresee little to no issue in copying the mark-up and then fiddling around with it—changing some colors here and there, changing images, etc. until you have something you like—I imagine copying any user's userpage exactly, with identical colors, identical layout, identical headers and identical images, even if you replace the text itself with the to-you relevant form, would go over a little less well. Make sure that at the utter least you tweak things a bit, yes? Make sure someone can see they've arrived at your page not that of the one whose userpage inspired you before they start reading the actual text on the page. Having someone make a userpage 'in your style'/'inspired by you' is a compliment; having someone walk around looking like they're your alternate account or clone not so much.

Before I suggest any userpages, what kind of 'colourful' are you looking for? Playful and bright colourful, graceful with some subdued background colour and one or at most a few images, colourful text-only, colourful with mostly images and a little text? There's a great many beautiful userpages out there and it helps to know what you're looking for a bit more specific than 'you know, colourful'. :P Because while yes, I know, colourful, that's really broad and up to interpretation, after all. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

"Sorry for disappearing on you again, but sadly it took a while to get over my exhaustion/illness combination" -That is fine :). Atleast you remember me :P. Also, is your illness/exhaustion gone and all? I am fine, and also trying to organize a wikipedia edit-a-thon. :D

Yeah, colourful in the sense, like not just plain one coloured userpage, but multi-coloured and really decorative one. Also, I should change it a bit and all, including the userboxes. (as they may be different for my userpage, but I can do that) Yeah, copying the userpage is not a really good and complimentary thing, but creating one might take quite some time. So, I thought that the same time could be utilized for any other thing including editing few more articles. :P The userpage I mean includes playful, brightful, with quite a few images too. Like as much colourful as possible (decorative).

Also, did you see the copyright violation I got yet again? :P It is now three to four times that I got copyright violations. I thought I paraphrased just fine as to not include infringement problems. However, it still was not fine. Only few lines were removed, however all the other contributions by me were striked-off as well. (Say in contributions 1,2,3,4, only 4 had a few problems, however, all 1,2,3,4 were striked-off) Is this because all the other contributions were based on that infringed contribution? (Maybe in my previous example, 1 had the problem, so 2,3,4 which are based on 1 were also in problem)

Also, how is the Lepidoptera thing going? I tried promoting Hexapoda (not in Lepidoptera, I know :P) to GA, but it lacked content, as rightly pointed out by somebody. Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Adityavagarwal: Of course I remember you! As to my health, it tends to keep going up and down rather frequently. That particular bout of illness/exhaustion is gone, but my sleeping pattern still is a ridiculous mess and I'm already starting to edge up on exhaustion again, though not as severe as last time thankfully.

Yup. It's why I keep mine simple: I have a dozen ways I could use to spend time otherwise spent designing a userpage. Long as you stay closer to the 'inspired by' than 'direct copy' side of things, that should be fair enough for your userpage. The kind of userpage you describe isn't very common, I'd have to say. The first userpages that come to mind at your description would be Oshwah's, though it doesn't have all that many images (it is however bright, colourful and somewhat playful, and adapting the basics, changing the contents and adding a few images shouldn't be so hard), Anna Frodesiak's (but that one is so recognizably hers that I wouldn't recommend even basing a page off it, it'd be near-impossible to pull off without looking like a copy of hers), maybe Armbrust's. Durova has a lot of pictures but not many bright colours. I'd suggest using a mixture of Armbrust, Durova and Oshwah's pages to build something your own. It'd help both in avoiding looking like someone's copy and in creating something that's actually what you're looking for. It's still less work than building a page from scratch.

'striked off' is revdel (WP:Revision deletion and yes, that would be because the infringing content has to be made invisible in the page history and would have been included in any revisions that followed until the infringing text was removed. Paraphrasing can be difficult judgement at times and too-close paraphrasing is a copy-vio when it comes to copyrighted/copyrightable prose. Exactly where the edge between close and too-close paraphrasing is remains a matter of judgement, and also depends somewhat on the exact source and type of text being paraphrased at times. Wikipedia tends to try and stay on the careful side of things, as finding out that what was deemed merely close was too-close after all through legal proceedings is understandably not something folks would be happy with.

As the edits are revdelled, I can't actually see what you wrote and help explain why the paraphrasing was too close here, but I do recommend you be very careful. Continued copyright violations are one of the fastest ways to a block for good-faith editors. (Trolling, harassing and vandalizing are even more likely to get one blocked fast, of course, but those hardly are good-faith actions) I'd hate to see you end up blocked because you kept misjudging such matters.

Ah, yes, I'd say that Hexapoda isn't quite there yet. It is however significantly improved from the state it was in last year, which I'm happy to see. :) Lepidoptera is going as it always is: many, many, many articles, many things to change and update, so much maintenance to be done, so few people, and that's before even I get around to referencing things much less expanding articles. At least I'm starting to see progress on some of the maintenance stuff, though, and it's hardly surprising things take a while to deal with when on average one has to deal with a few thousand to a few tens of thousands of pages on any particular Lepidoptera maintenance task. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, a combination of those seems good. Did you know those userpages already or you searched for them? (You might know them, I guess) Those are really colourful I think. :D

Yeah, it is not good to get such notices on copyrights. However, they reduced drastically, and maybe they will not appear again. I think I get how to dodge such things after the previous one. I will keep them far from similar. They do not even look good on the talk page. :P

I better not flood your talk page. :P I will cut short on my message. Also, I think I should improve hexapoda. It seems like a topic for an FA anyways right? Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Adityavagarwal: Oshwah and Anna Frodesiak I knew from top of my mind; Armbrust's I somewhat remembered but had to doublecheck which of a small number of users it was I had in mind; Durova I searched for.

I am glad you're trying to avoid more copy-vios. Let's hope you can avoid getting them again, yes. Whenever unsure whether a paraphrase is too close or not, ask someone. Even if they end up giving you the wrong answer, it helps. (Because if it's merely close but not too close and they say 'nah, too close', well...rewording it a bit further away from the source doesn't hurt. If it is too close but someone else also deemed it acceptable, at least it shows you're definitely trying to keep within the rules and not knowingly adding copyvio-content. When there's clear proof something really is an accident and one you did your utter best to avoid, they're generally more understanding of the situation)

Hexapoda is a good topic for a GA or FA, yes. It certainly is a topic where there should be enough available information, too. Improvement would be good, regardless of if it makes it to GA/FA. After all, having a shiny ribbon to tie on it is nice, but in the end the quality of the article, not the rating it is given, is the aim of improvement.

As to flooding my talkpage, don't worry. :P I usually don't get all that many talkpage messages, so it's easy enough to keep up (and if it gets distracting, I can always propose to move the conversation to your talkpage. :P)

Hey! I do not know why, I think I did not get any notification of your reply. When I completed the GA for Taxonomy (biology), I thought of breaking the news to you. :D (I was unable to immediately :P).

Can you just see the article as a GA and say how it looks? That would be quite an important one, I guess. It is used by almost all of the Lepidoptera articles too right? (In the form of taxobox? Then indirectly I guess :P). Also, during the GA, the reviewer said about close paraphrasing as detected by Earwig. (Yeah, the name does seem eccentric) So, on searching for that, it was so easy to see if it had a possible suspection of any copyvio. I do not think it was difficult by any way.

I will expound on the Hexapoda article, too. I saw Lepidoptera, thinking to make it a GA or an FA; however, it was already an FA. :P

Also, just shift to my talkpage whenever you feel like. :D No need to even ask for that. Do you have any other article that you feel would be good to be an FA? Maybe any article which is used quite a bit (Like the taxonomy one, if I was right), or any other article too.

So, how are days passing by? Are you maintaining your sleep? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityavagarwal (talk • contribs) 15:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Cymatophorima diluta - typographical error

Hello AddWittyNameHere, thank you for the pretty cat and for your encouragement to continue my job on the moths.

When possible, would you change Cymatophorima diluta to Cymatophorina diluta ? Thanks by advance,

--ZorglubAB (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done and responded on your talkpage. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Wittia sororcula / Eilema sororcula

Hello dear master of wikipedia, is it possible to rename W s to E s according to the references? I thank you very much by advance, --ZorglubAB (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

This probably needs wider discussion to be consistent with other pages. It was edited by User:VVDubatolov (!) and moved by User:Ruigeroeland. [1] William Avery (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Please read the reference provided on the Wittia genus page: Does Eilema Hübner, (1819) (Lepidoptera, Arctiidae, Lithosiinae) present one or several genera?. So I think it should not be moved to Eilema. Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Other pages: one found: Manuela complana to rename to Eilema complana (references). It's a possibility. What do you think? Thanks. --ZorglubAB (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is about just moving a single page. We should either have a set of pages that use the Dubatolov taxonomy, which I think is what we have at present, or we move them all back to names in Eilema. I mildly favour the Dubatolov scheme, because you don't have to be a lepidopterist to see that Eilema sensu lato is unsatisfactory. I think there should be an explanatory note on the page Wittia sororcula though. I will add one to the page. If the proposed move is to continue discussion should be continued at Talk:Wittia sororcula, or some other venue, if only to preserve the sanity of User: AddWittyNameHere. William Avery (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@William Avery, Ruigeroeland, and ZorglubAB: Beyond a note at Wittia sororcula, some mention of the whole taxonomic mess at the Eilema and Wittia pages themselves would not go amiss either. Won't be moving this one without a discussion as it's not a clear-cut case. Thanks for responding, William Avery & Ruigeroeland, while I was offline. :) As to my sanity, don't worry. There's not much to preserve there anyway. ;) But yes, a discussion either at the Lepidoptera wikiproject (if involving all related pages) or Talk:Wittia sororcula (if just involving W./E. sororcula) seems to be the sensible course of action. I don't particularly mind having the discussion here, but it would make it difficult to track down later if other editors end up having the same concern, and it makes it somewhat hard for other folks to find the discussion. (Though I think all us few active editors within Lepidoptera have pretty much all the few other active editors talkpages watchlisted anyway...) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Policy education of WP

I wanted to thank you for your input on the talk page for the recently created 2017 Westminster attack article. Even though I'm a longtime user and editor of WP, I count on the community (particularly well-versed others like yourself) to not only participate fairly and objectively, but also to leverage your knowledge and experience to explain WP policy and guidelines. I receive valuable information from efforts like yours. It's much less aggravating than merely being reversed in an edit with no explanation (which is admittedly easier to do).--SidP (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@SidP: Thank you for taking the time to leave a note of appreciation here. I generally do try my best to ensure people know why I revert them and/or disagree with their edits (even if I opt to not revert them, or if someone else already did so) if the issue is not glaringly obvious bad faith (such as vandalism), but yes, articles like this are especially sensitive, both because there are a lot of eyes on them in the early hours (and a lot of the editors involved in them have little experience in WP policy and guidelines) and because they deal with understandably controversial matters. I'm mainly trying to avoid (the constant near-eruption of) edit wars by explaining why certain things are not actually solutions, what actual options in line with policy&guidelines we have and above all try to get folks discussing things so a consensus can be established. If that requires actively looking for possible compromises instead of arguing for my own preferences, so be it—having the article stuck in a state that runs counter to policy or the more important guidelines (because not all guidelines are of equal concern or equally pressing; if the article is stuck in a state conflicting with one particular subsection of a subtopic of the MOS until we can get our noses in line, so be it) or stuck in a cycle of edit warring is actively harmful; it being written in different words than I personally would have chosen is not. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Merveille du Jour (Griposia aprilina)

Hello AWNH, may I ask your opinion about that moth : almost all the references prefer use the synonym genus Griposia other than Dichonia. Is it possible to reverse? (See also Griposia). What do you think about my job on the moths? Thanks by advance, --ZorglubAB (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Typo - Reply

Hi there from Portugal,

not actually a typo because i usually insert the date when the last match of the round is/was played, but that's OK i can live with that :)

Date altered in the infobox, happy editing --85.242.133.151 (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the kind and lengthy reply, have a nice one :) --85.242.133.151 (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Taxonomy (biology)

Hi! How are you? And how are the days going? I was wondering if the Taxonomy (biology) article was good enough to be an FA. It recently became a GA, and would it not be great to make it of an FA quality? It is used as a wikilink in many articles too. It would be great if you could say somethings that it lacks to be an FA. ( you could even help me making it an FA :P ) I guess your insights would land it into an FA from a current GA, so yeah ... :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank You!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Hey, you might already be knowing how much you helped me out in order to become a better editor, and your continuous helping me to become a better editor is really appreciated! Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Just saw that I hadn't seen you in a while

Still out there? Doing ok? I hope it's going well and wish you the best.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

We're working on a project to change all LepIndex species links to use a template that will be much more efficient. Your suggestion to shorten such links was part of the inspiration. Hope you're doing well.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello AddWittyNameHere:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Please come and help...

Should MoS shortcut redirects be sorted to certain specific maintenance categories? An Rfc has been opened on this talk page to answer that question. Your sentiments would be appreciated!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  18:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
	A very Happy, Glorious, Prosperous Christmas and New Year! God bless!  — Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

hello my peasants i am ruler now bow down to me???? Didididodo (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Didididodo: *blink* Uh, no, sorry. But thanks for the bubble tea, I guess. :) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Meow!

Thanks for the kitten! ;P Pegship (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

For your M.O.T.H. efforts

		The Fauna Barnstar
		For your Massive Organization of Templates for Heterocerae, you have received this Fauna Barnstar! Her Pegship (speak) 16:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Pegship: Thanks! "Massive organization" all right—at the moment I'm pretty busy sorting the redirects with R from alternative scientific name templates into their proper subcats (such as moths into insects...especially moths into insects...quelle surprise), the majority of which were established about a year ago. It seems no one actually got around to diffusing the main cat afterwards.

Which, to be fair, I can understand, what with some 52k+ redirs in there now and almost 60k when I started. Oh well, at current rate if I keep focus almost solely on this task and edit daily I might even be done by the first week of October or so... AddWittyNameHere 17:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Take it easy!

Hope your wrist gets some rest. Her Pegship (speak) 16:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Pegship: Thanks! I slipped in the garden (some tiles had turned quite slippery after the first rainfall in weeks) and caught myself slightly awkwardly on my arm right on the edge between tile and soil. Didn't break or sprain anything, thankfully, but got a nasty bruise or two and some minor swelling right on the edge between my wrist and thumb. Figured it might be the smart thing to do to take a break in regards to my rapid-speed repetitive editing until at minimum the swelling is down. No need to further injure myself and all that. AddWittyNameHere 19:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Grass skippers, banded, branded, or both?

Hi there Witty! I need some help and am hoping you have the answer in your many books. Of my few books, Hesperiinae, the grass skippers are called branded skippers by Opler and banded skippers by Daniels. Found another source that separates different Hesperiinae into branded and banded but most sources that I can find through books.google.com seem to choose branded as a synonym for grass skipper. I am simply trying to update the grass skippers page and want to make sure it is accurate. Thanks! PopularOutcast ^talk2me 22:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Meow!

Just wanted to thank you for ALL your great work! Have a lovely day!

Qwerty number1 has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Qwerty number1 (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Dutch "preuves"

Hi, Witty, I saw your name on WP:Adopt. I am working on Bruiningshofje and have run into a translation problem. I cannot find what the word "pruves" means, google translate just gives me the same word. [2] This article spells it preuves, but still no translation. Translating it isn't necessary for the correction, but I'd like to find what it means so I can add it anyway. Many thanks, Aurornisxui (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Adityavagarwal submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

It is with extreme delight that I am nominating AddWittyNameHere for the Editor of the Week award. She is one of the best editors that I have witnessed on the entire Wikipedia. She has run the gamut from contributing profoundly to editing articles, making innumerable redirects on Lepidoptera and other orders of insects and moths, diligently countering vandalism, immensely contributing to the Articles for Deletion, assiduously helping and guiding other Wikipedia editors, making an incalculable number of new articles, and almost any other activity that I may be overlooked! She has in excess of 72,000 valuable edits to Wikipedia, which constitutes an incredible 90% or 65,000 contributions to main space! For more reasons than the aforementioned, I have the strongest possible support that she be declared the Editor of the Week.

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

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Member of the Tree of Life Project

AddWittyNameHere

Editor of the Week for the week beginning March 31, 2019

"Witty" creates and edits articles, makes redirects on many orders of insects and moths, diligently counters vandalism, contributes to the Articles for Deletion, helps and guides WP collaborators. Over 72,000 edits with 90% to main space!

Recognized for

always being nice and helpful

Notable work

Lepidoptera

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 03:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Congrats! --DannyS712 (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Totally cool! Congratulations.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Very late as result of a long health-related absence, but thank you, Adityavagarwal, Buster7, DannyS712 and SchreiberBike! AddWittyNameHere 05:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Glad to hear from you. Wish you the best and hope to see you around again, but no pressure. SchreiberBike | ⌨  05:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Good to see you're still around. :) Looking to get back into editing, though I've accepted at this point that between health issues, mental health issues and other real life concerns, I'll probably never manage to maintain a string of more than 5-6 months of significant activity in a row. Oh well, I suppose my editing speed when I'm around makes up for that AddWittyNameHere 06:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey! Wow, it is refreshing to see you back! Hope everything is cool, and I have not edited any articles on Lepidoptera from a long, long time. I have been away for a while too. Really though, you help in the past made it really easy to understand so many things about Wikipedia, so thank you for that too! Adityavagarwal (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Good to see you're still around even if you've also been away for a while. :) I'm doing well at the moment, and I've jumped right back into the trenches of highly repetitive gnome work. (Even though some other folks have done some of the same things I do, Lepidoptera is such a mass-scale undertaking that there's always more work to do...I think we could have a hundred dedicated editors making a hundred gnome edits a day, and we'd probably still be dealing with taxobox/categorization/redirect backlog for the next several years--and we sure don't actually have those hundred editors... ) I'm glad my help was useful, and you're more than welcome. :) Hope you're doing well too? AddWittyNameHere 00:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the advice you gave

Really thanks for that advice. I tried stay far and far from that person. But let me tell you the context. I was a casual editor. I edit this and that just that. Then this person whom I accused made a wiki page of temple vandalism and tried giving it communal view. I was not very expireanced I removed all his content which seem inappropriate to me. I saw about this page on a tweet which was posted someone else. Then I checked his tweets. He asked for other same ideology people"Wikipedia is filled with Mullahs(muslims) and Christians. And we need to take over it. As someone else put that temple page into deletion somehow I was involved with edit war in it about which I had no Idea.

Then I learned, we had a hot debate. He kept tweeting calling for help with his religious fellows. Some already editors and some made new accounts to help him and all of them jumped into the debate with a lot of Islamophobic hate. I tried debate with them in as civilsed manner as I can. A sock puppet investigation was then opened against the accused. And at last after a week long debate the editors decided to scrap that wiki page. This case closed.

Then he wrote article on J&K reorganisation bill again with Islamophobic content. I put that whole article under deletion. The editors said this article has a significance and I was arguing to put this under a sub section of other article. But then I understand , the Islamophobic contemt was removed and that page was allowed to settle.

Then I left editing for some months. But keep doing a bit editing grammer mistakes and all that occasionally.

Then after some time. I again stuck with one of the edits of this person. And I saw he keep silently editing all the liberal wiki pages and adding a little bit defamatory contents in them. I remove them as I didn't knew about 3 R rule. So I revert it 3 times. And he used that to block me from thebsite for 48 hrs. I again started editing occasionally.

Then again some days before I stuck on his edits where he did the same things with other editors. He keep removing their edits. No talking and reasoning with them in civil way. Nothing.

I dont want to name him but he is blocked from other questioning sites for the same behaviour , Islamophobic views and hate content. I opened an investigation but it was closed as I dont provide diff and I dont have any idea what diffs are. Whenever he got something edited he puts warning on other user and try to supress them with his alt accounts or friends account.

Now he tried to opened a harassment report on me. And then delibirately call Kautilya3 and YamBlanter on their respective talk pages and they both came to the report and put bad comments for me. Someone seeing only the report page will see their veiws which are obviously biased as they are involved in groupism. But internally he called them from his side. You can check their pages if he didn't remove that. But I tool screenshots of that calling for aids.

This is the thing. I don't have any personal issue with the guy. But as a student I understand the value wikipedia and how it has to be remained free. If certain ideologies tries to disrupt the views by silent editing then that will hurt only wikipedia's integrity. Thank youEdward Zigma (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Edward Zigma: You posted on my userpage rather than my usertalk; I've moved the comment here where it belongs. As for the advice, you're welcome. Diffs are when you go to the history of a page and click "compare selected revisions". That shows you the difference between the article before and after a certain edit (or string of edits). The url of that screen works to show the diff. (There's some more technical ways of doing it, like with templates, but simply the link works well enough for reports.)

As for the contents and context of the conflict between the two of you: that's not something I'm particularly looking to get involved in. For better or for worse, there is currently an open report on AN, and it's better not to spread a single issue over too many different areas. I'd again recommend stepping back and allowing other people to look into things. At most, now that you know what a diff is and how to link it, editing ONE of your comments to put in the actual diffs (and a note to say you've edited that comment) to show proof of what you saying, but after that? Step back, disengage and wait for the community and admins to look into things. (Of course, if one of them asks you something in the thread, respond, but even then? Don't engage with Harshil, just answer the question.) AddWittyNameHere 11:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. This is really a good advice. I already stopped engagin with him. Edward Zigma (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

And sorry I didnt knew userpage and usertalk are different. I will keep that in my next time. I apologise. Edward Zigma (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Glad to hear you've stopped engaging, Edward Zigma. As for the User/User talk confusion, no worries. You're hardly the first new editor to make that mistake, and it's easily corrected. The only reason I pointed it out was to make you aware. No harm done and no hard feelings. AddWittyNameHere 18:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC) P.S. Wiki custom is to indent your comments so they're one step further indented than the person you're responding to. Makes it easier to tell who someone is responding to in large discussions with multiple editors. No such confusion will happen in a two-person conversation like this, of course, but it's good to get in the habit everywhere. Done so for you now, but for future reference: type one : for every level of indenting at the start of each paragraph. (So say you want to respond to this comment, you'd start your reply with ::::) Again, no big deal and no harm done, but figured I'd point it out to you. AddWittyNameHere 18:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much sir. These small tips are really helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward Zigma (talk • contribs) 18:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Not a sir, but you're quite welcome, Edward Zigma. Wikipedia has a lot of such small matters that most of us experienced Wikipedians don't really think about any more, but that make the entirety of editing here a confusing process for new editors like yourself. Figure the least I can do is point it out when I see a newbie unaware of some of them. (Also, you forgot to sign your comment. Not a big deal, as you're generally quite good at remembering to sign, and everyone--even the most experienced user--forgets sometimes, but figured I'd let you know all the same) AddWittyNameHere 18:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry to disturb you but what to do if some editor goes in series of your contributions and remove them one by one. ::::::uamaol is removing all my edits one by one.

First he did on the quint page

Then on the page of super best friends here

And then on a quora talk page. Here

He did all these three edits within half an hour.

And he is doing more. We can assume one or 2 edit. But he is like on a spree to remove my edits. How to tackle such peopleEdward Zigma (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

What you should do, Edward Zigma? Well, first thing is stop for a moment and step back. Reverting one of your edits is not an attack on you, it just means another editor believed it was not an improvement to the page you edited. Reverting multiple of your edits might feel like an attack but also isn't: if you notice a problematic edit by an editor, it's perfectly fine to check out their other recent edits to see if they have similar problems because experience has shown they often do. That's not quite the same thing as following you around, and it certainly isn't the same thing as attacking you.

So then, you've been reverted, you've stepped back for a bit and you realize it is not personal. What to do next? Well, what you shouldn't have done is immediately revert back to your preferred version. That's called edit warring and is not looked well upon. Instead, knowing that someone reverting you means they felt your edit(s) were not an improvement, you should see if you can figure out why they may have felt so.

Sometimes that's pretty obvious. If you look back at your own edit and see that you accidentally added an empty set of reference tags and nothing else, well, good thing someone caught it. Other times people explain in their edit summary why they've reverted you. While Uamaol hasn't really done so on The Quint, your re-revert there was undone afterwards by another user, Mdaniels5757, who did give an explanation in their edit summary: "unexplained removal of content".

Okay, so now you have at least a clue why two people didn't think your edit on The Quint was an improvement: you removed a large section of the article, but did not adequately explain why. (Additionally, while not outright stated in the edit summary, it really, really does not help that what you removed was a section critical of the article's subject. That looks like you're trying to white-wash the article. Maybe you had other reasons for doing so, but if so, if you don't explain, no one can tell. If you believe there is a good reason why the content should not stay in the article, you should go to the article's talk page (located here) and explain your reasoning, then wait for other editors to respond and see if you can come to a compromise that is acceptable to all of you, or failing that, a consensus that most of you can agree with. Frankly, without an explanation for the deletion of that section, I suspect most editors who would have come across it would have reverted you. I probably would have.

On Super Best Friends, Uamaol did explain in their edit summary why they undid your edit: while your edit was made in good faith, Wikipedia has previously discussed about whether or not to include depictions of Muhammad, and has come to the consensus that, although acknowledging that such depictions are controversial and offensive to at least some of Wikipedia's Muslim readers, Wikipedia does not censor itself on religious grounds. Whether or not you or I agree with that decision does not quite matter, it is what has been decided through the consensus-building processes that Wikipedia uses. Uamaol thoughtfully provided you a link to a Wikipedia page to read more about this than fits in a single edit summary. You might not have seen that, but the page can be found here. This edit would also likely have been reverted by whoever saw it, because the subject of depictions of Muhammad on Wikipedia has been raised and discussed before and the consensus was as I stated above: while offensive to some Muslim readers, Wikipedia is not censored.

On the final page you mentioned, Talk:Quora... don't delete your talk page posts after people have responded to them. Especially don't do so when the conversation is part of a larger discussion, dispute or conflict. At best, it makes things incredibly confusing for who is looking into things. At worst, it looks like you're trying to make the other party look bad/yourself look good by removing the comment the other party was responding to.

Additionally, while I understand that you're probably high on emotions after getting entangled in a dispute with Harshil, I would recommend not treating other editors, whether that is Harshil or someone uninvolved like Uamaol, like they're against you or enemies. If they are, you only make yourself look bad by behaving in kind. If they aren't? Well, acting like they are might just be the best way to turn people against you and make enemies out of them after all. Stay calm and discuss rationally, and if you don't believe you can stay calm, step back and wait until you can. AddWittyNameHere 04:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Yeah that quora edit is good, I can see that. But shouldn't this be responsibilty of uamoal to explain hies edits instead of forcing them on other. In mere half an hour of discussion in which he mostly gave warning and tried to show himself supreme. Shouldn't he be liable to explain this to me when he made those edits instead of forcing it on others.

Edward Zigma (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Under better circumstances, yes, it would be up to them to explain their edits. That said, from what I saw on your talk page, they tried but you were not exactly listening, and that when faced with hostility they are not particularly interested in further attempting to explain themselves does not surprise me. Furthermore, such warnings are standard templates across the English Wikipedia and have nothing to do with "showing himself supreme": they're a way of alerting you to the fact that hey, that edit you made and that was reverted? That's the kind of edit that could get you in trouble if you keep doing it too often. Those warnings also have various links to the relevant guidelines and policies so you can read up on why that kind of edit is a problem. Sure, it would be nice if everyone could explain every revert they make in detail, and it might not have been a bad idea if, after seeing your reaction to the first warning, they had gone with a more personal approach on the other reverts. That does not, however, mean that their use of templated warnings was wrong, just perhaps not optimal for the situation. As for forcing it on others, no one can force me to explain someone else's edits. I happened to have the time, and I have the hope that you can overcome your rough start to wikipedia and become one of our productive editors, so I figured it was worth the time to explain things. That's not quite the same thing as being forced to. AddWittyNameHere 05:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

And a ping (Edward Zigma) as I forgot to do so. AddWittyNameHere 05:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

No. His just reverted the edits and stickied a warning. If uamaol intentions were good, then what was the need to warn in the first place. I didnt even interacted with him before. All he did was revert the edits amd post a warning instead on explaining it.You can see thatEdward Zigma (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Edward Zigma: Those warnings are a way of explaining the edit. Furthermore, they included a personal note in them (the text in italics): "Do not remove well references content t without first going on the talk page and finding consensus. The content was controversial which makes one suspicious of your motives." AddWittyNameHere 05:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok now I am getting this somehow.Edward Zigma (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Glad to hear so, Edward Zigma. AddWittyNameHere 05:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For assisting with due diligence for WP:ACE2019 — xaosflux Talk 00:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Thanks for the barnstar, and you're welcome! AddWittyNameHere 00:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

An account made 20 mins ago put my article under deletion.

@AddWittyNameHere:I dont know who to ask. But you helped me a lot. That person vandalised the article .I properly made that article cited that properly. Didn't use personal or any biased view. But some how an account made 20 mins ago put that under deletion and cited absurd policies which has no relevance whatsoever. Edward Zigma (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

First off Edward Zigma: thanks for trying to ping me, but there's no need to ping people on their own talk page because they already get a notification when they have a new message. (Also, for a ping to work, it must occur in the same edit as you signing a post, so the ping wouldn't have gone through in any case.) I simply wasn't online until now, so I didn't have a chance to respond yet.

Anyway, you're absolutely correct that it is suspicious when an account's very first edits are something that shows great familiarity with wiki processes, like listing an article for a deletion discussion. (The suspiciousness of their behaviour is not helped by the discussion being created by a fresh new account but the template at the top of the article being added by an IP, either--on the other hand, it could well mean they're a regular IP editor that just made an account to create the discussion because you can't create a deletion discussion as IP) That said, you've done all that needs to be done there in that regard: point it out at the discussion once so people looking into things are aware of the situation.

That said, listing an article for deletion discussion (because that's what it is, a discussion if your article should be deleted, not a guarantee it will be deleted) is not strictly speaking vandalism, even if the account that made the discussion is suspicious and the reasoning insufficient to warrant deletion. I'm glad to see you're otherwise reacting a lot calmer this time. While it's generally better to avoid describing issues as "vandalism" unless they're so obviously so that even an editor who only looks at things for a few seconds can see what makes it vandalism (so things like replacing an article with swear words, for example), you didn't go and shout at them, and you've made constructive comments at the discussion why you feel the article should not be deleted.

As you can probably see, this appears to be far more effective: several other editors have since responded to the discussion to also state they believe the article's subject is in fact notable and the article should be kept, and some have also hopped over to the article to fix some of the issues the article had. So, all in all, great job on not overreacting and handling this exactly as you're supposed to do: by leaving the template in place, making constructive edits to the article and explaining your reasoning on the discussion. (Just in case you're wondering why I have not commented at the article's deletion discussion myself: you asking me for advice here could be construed as canvassing in such a case. While I don't think that's your intention (I'm pretty sure you just posted for advice on how to handle the situation), that's a mess neither of us needs to get into.) AddWittyNameHere 22:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah!

I have just been looking at your attempts to help an editor to understand things he clearly has difficulty with. You have evidently put a lot of time and effort into explaining things in a friendly way, where far too many editors would have been much less constructive. I wish we had more editors willing to put half as much work into trying to help relatively inexperienced editors. How successful your efforts will be in the long run remains to be seen, but at the very least you deserve credit for trying. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 10:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, JBW! I won't deny it takes a fair bit of time and effort, but I happened to *have* the time to put into it. Wikipedia has a pretty steep learning curve, and starting out in one of our most conflict-prone areas really doesn't make things any easier to get a handle on for the involved editor--and makes it less likely someone will calmly engage with the user to explain the issues with their edits. It helps that it's an area I'm rarely involved in, so I don't have that same fatigue built up.

And yeah, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. If it works, Wikipedia gains another productive editor in a problematic area prone to conflicts, and the 'pedia could really use more productive editors in such areas. If it doesn't work, well, at least there's no doubt that calmly engaging the user and explaining things has been tried. AddWittyNameHere 16:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Automatic taxobox parameter

Hi, just a reminder that in {{Automatic taxobox}}, the parameter that specifies the 'target taxon' is always |taxon=. When converting a manual taxobox, it's easy to leave it as |genus= or whatever. This appears to work, because when |taxon= is missing the underlying code uses the page title, but not all error-checking then functions correctly. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder! I have been away for a bit over a year, which makes it really easy to forget things like that. Which reminds me, did we ever settle on an official way to handle monotypic genera with the automatic taxobox/speciesbox system? I couldn't quite find anything but the information is spread across enough places including some user talk pages & project talk pages that I may well have missed it. Or just plain overlooked it if it's in one of the more sensible spots. EDIT: Remove mangled ping, re-ping (@Peter coxhead:), re-sign. AddWittyNameHere 09:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Do we ever settle anything here? :-) In the areas in which I edit, the practice seems to be to use {{Speciesbox}} targetting the sole species, with the taxobox name as per the article title. So I think Ruptiliocarpon is a good example. Looking through Category:Monotypic plant genera I didn't find any not using {{Speciesbox}}. But Plantdrew is better placed to comment, I think, as he looks at a wider variety of taxon articles than I do. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Ahaha, not quite no, I guess. (Though if taken as I meant it, 'settled among us Tree of Lifers by means of quick conversations across Project, Template and User talkpages until/unless consensus changes or an absence of wider consensus is shown', then yes, even if slowly and eternally backlogged. I still found a moth article running afoul of MOS:LIFE today... As I put it elsewhere recently, Lepidoptera articles--taxon articles in general, really--are BEAUTIES) And taking Ruptiliocarpon as example, it seems that's how I'm intuitively doing it as well, other than exact placement of authority parameters within the taxobox. AddWittyNameHere 10:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Using Speciesbox for monotypic genera is the usual practice. There are some monotypic fossil genera using Automatic Taxobox, which makes some sense. Since we rarely have articles on fossil species, editors working on fossil taxa just aren't going to be used to using Speciesbox for anything; also, it's not that unusual for a fossil genus to be questionably monotypic, where there is a single species that is definitely included in the genus, and other species that are assigned to the genus with less certainty. For extant monotypic Lepdioptera genera, Speciesbox is the way to go. Plantdrew (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Plantdrew, that makes sense. Thanks for confirming! Do you by any chance have a good example of a non-questionably monotypic fossil genus? There's a handful of those in Lepidoptera I know of that might not have been converted yet, so it'd be great to know how to do those the "right" way once I get to them. AddWittyNameHere 22:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

A non-questionably monotypic fossil genus, or a non-questionably monotypic fossil genus with an automated taxobox "done right"? Nemegtonykus was just described, so I wouldn't think there's any question of the monotypy; it does use an Automatic Taxobox rather than a Speciesbox.

There's a wrinkle I forgot about (but should've remembered, as there are some plants I've left with manual taxoboxes until I figure out how to best resolve it). A type species should be cited by it's orginal combination. Wikipedia is inconsistent in doing this. |type_species= doesn't function in Speciesboxes. So we have Gongpoquansaurus showing the type species as Gongpoquansaurus mazongshanensis (Lü, 1997), and Probactrosaurus mazongshanensis Lü, 1997. Per recommendation 67B of the ICZN, the type species should be cited as Probactrosaurus mazongshanensis. With an Automatic Taxobox, there's no way to show show the current combination for the species if the type species is cited correctly. With a Speciesbox, the current combination can be displayed, but the type species can't be displayed. I think the solution is probably to list the original combination/type species under Synonyms with "(type species)" appended. Plantdrew (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: The latter, though I suspect you know that's what I meant. (You and Peter both sure love to poke at my exact word choice, don't you? ) Thanks, looks like Nemegtonykus is what I was looking for, yes. And okay, that's useful to know—and that certainly sounds like a sensible solution to me. AddWittyNameHere 23:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I think this edit to Gongpoquansaurus represents best practice for monotypic fossil genera. Plantdrew (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

​Thanks! I'll keep that one in mind once I get around to the relevant pages, then. AddWittyNameHere 18:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Help needed please.

How to add diffs and not refs. I means whats the code for it. And I use phone mainly. So how to get original diffs and not mobile diffs. Thanks in advance. Edward Zigma (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok I figured out the diffs thing. Now I wamt to know how to find normal diffs, not mobile diffs.

Ok, I got the secod thing too. No problem.

@Edward Zigma: Glad to hear you figured it out! I wasn't online at the time you asked, sorry. =( AddWittyNameHere 19:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)