User talk:Grmanners/Archive1

List of British butterflies

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the commercial links/content you added to the page List of British butterflies were inappropriate, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not be used for advertising or a collection of external links. See the welcome page if you'd like to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thanks!

Re: Antelope

Yes, your second guess was correct. You had edited the article properly, and then, after you, someone came along and vandalized the page (in this case, adding nonsense words), so I reverted the page to the last good version, which was yours. The message about popups just informs people that I'm using the popups javascript addon to Wikipedia to help revert, it just makes the process simpler, because I simply click on the last 'good' version, and click 'revert', and it does the work for me.

Its a pretty handy tool, if you find yourself doing a lot of editing, you might find it helpful. Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups. Peace. Phidauex 22:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cetartiodactyla

Hi there! For your information: I now also commented User:Eli_Falk about his rash insertion of 'Cetartiodactyla' in all whale taxoboxes. --Fedor 10:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image: Steenbok→Grysbok

Hi, the fence in the picture is the boundary of De Hoop nature reserve, so its definitely the southern species. Pure fluke, it was just standing by the track when we drove from the wonderful Buchu Bush Camp the 1 km or so to the reserve entrance. jimfbleak 18:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've reuploaded under a more sensible name. jimfbleak 05:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steenbok

Hi! Thanks for your feedback. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot more info out there on this beauty. However, I am looking into some journal references and will see how I can beef it up. Cheers—GRM 12:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I added some possible additional sources to the Talk:Steenbok page. Not sure whether you wanted to use them or not. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dung middens

Hi, I created a dung midden stub, and now the steenbok article has no red links. I've mentioned that steenbok use them. Would you mind going and adding a reference for this? Thank you. Mehmet Karatay 15:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done—GRM 19:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Sharpe's Grysbok.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sharpe's Grysbok.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Done But not by me!—GRM 20:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Lepidoptera policy - Assessment of importance of articles

Hi GRM,

I've brought up a policy issue for discussion on WikiProject Lepidoptera here . May I request your valuable contribution and counsel, as a member of WikiProject Lepidoptera, in this regard. AshLin 22:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done —GRM 21:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Lepidoptera policy - Draft categorisation guidelines & Common vs scientific names

Hi Grmanners/Archive1,

I've brought up two policy issues for discussion on WikiProject Lepidoptera here . May I request your valuable contribution and counsel, as a member of WikiProject Lepidoptera, in this regard. AshLin 18:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Unfortunately, I am completely dazed and will not comment at this time! —GRM 15:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead

HI GRM,

Thats become guidelines. Go ahead. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lepidoptera#WikiProject_Guidelines. The two step is high/low. See the table please and we trust your judgement. There are thousands of minor pests - every one cant be high priority. In case of IUCN prioirity, go ahead, use your judgement again. There are very many on the list but only the seriously endangered (English language context, not IUCN) deserves high priority. Perhaps we'll discuss it someday but I have a swollen throbbing right forefinger, the one I type with, so I'll just close abruptly. Hope this helps, regards, AshLin 17:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heath

Its fine I didn't know that sorry :/ -- IvanTortuga 00:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Priority

Hi GRM,

Perhaps, you misunderstood me. There are a number of importance levels to all the articles, but we only apply 'high' and 'low' to species accounts. I dont know what FAB is so I cant comment. But my feeling would be that there would be many insects which would be condidered pests, but 'high' should be given to those of exceptional interest. The aim is that we dont want to devalue 'high' by including too large a number of species in that category. Because at sometime or the other we will want to address them for selective improvement. So maybe you should review your assessment in that light. (BTW, I am speaking off the cuff, without looking at your edits.) And a chirri-ho to you too, its tippling time here ;-) AshLin 16:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note added to project guidelines

Hi GRM,

Added a note to the project guidelines for asessing articles, as mentioned by you earlier. Regards, AshLin 04:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting good faith edits

Hi GRM,

Without going into too much detail, I will venture some advice on the matter you referred to me. I see your point. The changes are style-related not adding fresh input except for the IUCN reference. However articles are improved not just by addition of material, but also by fine-tuning. Since the edits have been done by Shyamal, who is a very experienced editor and a founder of WPr Lepidoptera, I suggest that you discuss his changes with him. His message regarding referencing to you above indicates his helpful attitude and that he probably did it to show you how referencing with footnotes is done. Shyamal is not dogmatic about style issues, and like you, believes it is more important to add content. Since you are in the learning stage, I suggest asking him about it, especially why he repositioned the images. Remember Wikipedia gets its power by collaboration and all changes may not meet your liking or approval. The guideline is very clear on the issue. If reverting non-vandalism, give an appropriate short explanation in the edit summary. Since you are new, Im sure discussing with Shyamal would be fruitful. My advice apart, its your call to revert or not. Best wishes, AshLin 19:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to ask me for making any changes. This was just a suggestion that goes beyond formats used in printed media. The problem most people have with the ref tag is that the references come out in non-alpha chrono order. That is the reason for most people choose Harvard format - the foot note harvnb templates makes it possible to have non-intrusive superscript which when clicked takes you to the foot note and the Harvard cite on the footnote can be clicked to highlight the reference. You are free to follow more traditional approaches. You have no reason to be aggrieved! Shyamal 01:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFD

I have reverted your blanking of Amphipyrinae. If you believe this redirect should be deleted, please list it at Redirects for Deletion. Pages should never be blanked as a means of deletion, as the page and its history still remains. — Swpb^talk.edits 22:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Heath Fritillary

Please provide inline citations to the extent possible. This increases the confidence in Wikipedia than by merging the information and listing the references below. It becomes an art form to present information in good flowing prose while providing referencing and ensuring that each of the facts is correctly referenced without scope for misrepresentation.
- Yes, I see you have done that. I prefer footnote style to Harvard style citations myself as these dont interrupt the text. See Miletus biggsii for an example. Both styles are acceptable to wikipedia, see WP:CITE.
Please see here for some input regarding images.
This page provides you links to many lepidoptera authors. Rottemberg is not listed. But I find many authors of Indian butterflies here.
- I have just added Rottemberg there.
Habits is a must in any format for butterflies and should not be merged with the life-cycle. Many butterflies have interesting habits regarding basking, flight patterns, wariness, mud-puddling, ant-association, behaviour on being caught (Danaiids), strategies to avoid predation, wasps, maximise nectar, etc, as also behaviour of caterpillars (bunching, predation, diurnal movement patterns) and pupa (twitching), if any. These should not form part of life-cycle in which a user expects to find, strictly speaking, aspects of breeding biology - egg, caterpillar, pupa, imago, etc.

Hope this is of use to you. Best of luck with your new initiative. AshLin 05:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GRM, I gave you that link to give you a resource about choice and placement of images and no other reason. Mr Garg had added many images of a butterfly taken at one particular time, they had identical backgrounds, slightly different poses and did not add anything to the article. Obviously only one image of such a series was required for the article. However, I took some trouble to assemble some input about images to guide him. I thought that this would be of use to you. A profusion of images which do not contribute clutter the article rather than add to it. If you see my list of desired images in that post you will see that each species will require at least 10 to 15 images; but they each require to illustrate a different aspect. So adding images is a personal call which you have to make and one of the enjoyable aspects of Wikipedia.

As regards, referencing choose what you are comfortable with, but reference well. Best wishes, AshLin 11:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GRM, I happened to see the discussion and wanted to point out how footnotes with referencing is done mainly, which uses the Template:harvnb and Template:Citation. You are of course free to do what you see is fit. Cheers. Shyamal 01:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British butterflies

Hi GRM,

The British butterflies (and moths) have great need for tender, loving care. Most of them are scanty of information and need lots of work. Would you be interested in adopting them. The butterfly articles are developing very lop-sided; soon there will be excellent articles (or at least, pushed to the limit articles) on Indian butterflies while others including British and American butterfly wikis languish. We need a champion here. Regards, AshLin 20:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand. However, this is something which could never be done in a day's, week's or even a month's work. It needs to be done a little at a time over long periods of time. It's quite doable, slowly and patiently; as in the case of the Indian butterfly endeavour which includes 1161 spp; in our case, the taxonomy is not sorted out; we dont even have a reliable checklist! Even if you give a fraction of your time, say deal with an article a fortnight and concentrate on species endemic to Great Britain, there would be considerable progress over two years time. A number of the species are European, American and editors from these countries would be pitching in sporadically. Of the butterflies listed there, including vagrants etc, about 18 to 20 fall into the gambit of Indian butterflies which we would be interested in developing. I hope this would encourage you to add this as an item in your to-do list to carry out in a desultory but regular manner. Best wishes, AshLin 05:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could mention your intent on your talk page. You could also post a message on the Project talk page. If you find others interested in doing so, you may start a subproject on British Butterflies. You may develop a common format for your 50 butterflies if you so desire. There is a need to develop a common format in WikiProject Lepidoptera to meet the various requirements of different butterfly endeavours. Feel free to ask for help anytime you like. AshLin 05:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harmonia axyridis

It's Wikipedia's policy to avoid technical jargon whenever possible. People can remember and relate to a name like asian lady beetle but I doubt most even know how to pronounce Harmonia axyridis. Furthermore, this is the English Wikipedia, so if an animal has a commonly used English name it certainly makes sense to use that instead of something from a language that's been dead for a thousand years. One of the main points of Wikipedia is to make knowledge accessible to everyone, using a Latin name when English will suffice doesn't seem to fit that, has there been a policy change I'm not aware of? --Calibas (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Google book search I find 54 mentions of "Asian Lady Beetle" OR "Asian Lady beetle" OR "Asian Ladybug" and only 1 mention of "Harlequin Lady Beetle" OR "Harlequin Ladybeetle" OR "Harlequin Ladybug". I'm gonna change it to Asian lady beetle but still mention Harlequin lady beetle in the introduction. Calibas (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forgot it was ladybird in the UK. FYI, you have to capitalize "OR" using Google scholar, that way you get 437 instead of 7. : ) Calibas (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

Closest thing there is to Heritage, friend. -- IvanTortuga (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images from other Wikipedias

Well in this case it depends if the copyright notices are correct. If they are and the images are in the public domain copying across and tagging PD should not present a problem.Geni 02:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Heath Fritillary caterpillar.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi Grmanners!
We thank you for uploading Image:Heath Fritillary caterpillar.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Heath Fritillary pupa.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Hi Grmanners!
We thank you for uploading Image:Heath Fritillary pupa.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]