User talk:Ruigeroeland/Archive1

Wikiproject Lepidoptera

Hi Ruigeroeland,

You have edited many Lepidoptera articles recently. Please do visit Wikipedia:Wikiproject Lepidoptera. We look forward to your becoming an active member of the wikipedian community. Welcome, AshLin 18:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Graphocephala coccinea

Thanks for fixing the mis-caption in the Graphocephala coccinea article. - House of Scandal (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well timed indeed!

		The Bio-star
		For translating loads of Lepidoptera articles from the Durch Wikipedia, just as I happened to do a major copyedit of Geometridae subgroups. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Well, I have made a few stubs (mainly Geometridae, Noctuidae, Nymphalidae) down to tribes, and usually the categories exist down to that level too... when there were too few pages in a category I didn't create it though (so there is no category for Alsophilinae because there is only one genus and one species article yet for example).

So when you make a species page, and the genus page exists, you can see there how it is categorized. If the genus page does not exist, you can click on the redlink and check the search results... if the genus is already listed in an article, it will show in the results. For example if you try this with Epione repandaria, you'll see Ourapterygini in the search results list, and then you can go there and check what category it's in. Cheers! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

New articles

I noticed that you have created quite a few new articles that do not start with the definition of the subject of the article, and where the context of what the article is about is fairly unclear. E.g. this applies to Xanthorhoe, Camptogramma, Aplocera‎‎, etc.

It is a very good idea (and in my view basically a necessary requirement) for an article to start with the definition of its subject, per WP:MOS. Otherwise the context is unclear and, also, people at WP:NPP may be tempted to quickly AfD or even CSD such articles. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Links to "Hawthorn" in Lepidoptera articles

Thanks for your work on translating various Lepidoptera articles, I htink that this is valuable and I am glad that you are willing to take the time to do this.

I found some of your articles as part of my fairly casual work as a disambiguator. I picked a set of words to disambiguate about 18 months ago, and I periodically check the "what links here" pages of these words and fix them. One of my words is Hawthorn.

Quite a few of your moths feed on the Hawthorn tree. I would appreciate it if you could please link to the tree itself rather than to the disambiguation page. in Europe, "Hawthorn" usually means the "Common Hawthorn", or Crataegus monogyna. You can link as follows:

[[Crataegus monogyna|Hawthorn]]

which yields

Hawthorn

In North America, the word "Hawthorn" generally refers to any member of Crataegus, so when the moth has a North American range, I think it is better to link as follows:

[[Crataegus|Hawthorn]]

which yields

Hawthorn

However, I am not an expert, so please do what you think is best: you may choose to list the actual botanical nomenclature instead of or in addition to the common name. If you decide not to bother with any of this, please continue your fine work and I will clean up later.

I suspect that some of the other common plant names (e.g., apple) may have a similar problem, but those names are not currently on my list. You may choose to follow some of those links to check.-Arch dude (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Flight times

I've note that you sometimes put in flight times for specific regions, and that your sources often include generic flight times. Is it not better to usually include the generic flight times when available? --Insectgirl (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Re: Flight times

You are right that this would be better I guess. I translated them from the Dutch wikipedia, so I included the flight times for this region. I use UK Moths for finding the English Common Name, this site has the flight times for the UK only and this differs from the Dutch region most of the time. I am no expert, so I don't exactly know how much variation there is in flight times, so I decided to stick to my main source. I could take the flight times from the different sources and use that to make sort of an avarage to use in the articles. Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Moths

Nice going on all the moth-translations. I keep bumping into them while patrolling new pages, good that somebody takes the time to do this! Lekker bezig :) Stijndon (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Papua

Your spelling of the location is eccentric and not standard - any reason? SatuSuro 11:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Vlinderartikelen

Leuk dat je zoveel vlinderartikelen van nl vertaalt. Ik heb voor het eerst ook een terugvertaling gemaakt van Chrysodeixis argentifera. Heb je niet zin om soms je eigen artikeltjes ook op nl te vertalen? Lymantria (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Operation Barcelona

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		for retagging an obvious hoax for deletion Dlohcierekim 16:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect intellectual property rights - do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view when editing articles - this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account being blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Richard Cavell (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Mate, I realise you've been here for a while but no one has officially welcomed you, so here it is. Do you mind if I say - I like your articles on moths and so on. But please have a read through the manual of style. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Parthenice Tiger Moth. I took the most recent article that you created and adjusted it in line with the usual conventions. See the talk page, also. You're doing great work. By the way, when you added something to my talk page, you should have put ~~~~ at the end of your message, which adds an automatic signature and timestamp. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced article creation

I see you have created numerous articles on moths without a single one, as far as I can see, citing sources verifying the content . Your edits are obviously very much in good faith, but uncited additions are a cancer on Wikipedia. It might slow you down but if each article was created with one inline citation, that would be worth twenty of the unreferenced variety you are creating. I would be glad to help set up a referencing format if you desired.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I used Anthela varia as a test page. What I did was take the external link you apparently used as a reference (all the information appears to be verified by that page) and converted it from an external link to an inline citation. An external links section tells the reader, "here are additional resources you might use"; it does not tell the reader "the information in this article is verified by a reliable source and here it is", which is what a reference does. I have combined all the information into one paragraph for two reasons.: First, there was only a few sentences so I don't see the purpose of having it all broken out into separate sentences in a short stub; and second, so that I could use the citation just once, rather than at the end of each separate sentence. Using a single reference multiple times can be done, and looking at this sentence in edit mode will show you how, but it's easier to just do it once.

The template that I placed between the ref tags is {{cite web}}, which helps format the citation. Click on that template to see all the parameters you can use. The particular link for this article was a bit painful to figure out who were the authors, the publisher, etc. Others may be much easier. The date parameter I used was for when the page was last modified. The accessdate is when you used the reference, so the article creation date was used. If you need help or anything I said or did needs clarifying, please give me a shout.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Opodiphthera helena

A tag has been placed on Opodiphthera helena, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jamiebijania (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You Are Appreciated

Wow you just solved a major problem in one swift immaculate swoop, thank you...--Threeblur0 (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox error

Crap, thanks for letting me know; I thought I'd fixed everything from the pattern I made. Think it'll keep until this evening, when I'm home and can AWB it all in a half-hour or so? --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 13:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I hate when I do that, but I frogot to get rid of some things it seems, well thanks for telling me, I'll be more careful next time. Buɡboy52.4 (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

All is fixed!Buɡboy52.4 (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Come Together: America Salutes The Beatles

D'oh! Thanks for catching my mistake. Of course I know the Beatles are British, I just missed that when I copied the text over from another page... Fortdj33 (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Moth Expansion

Thank you very much for the compliment. Not knowing much about moths, all I can do is transcribe from available sources (as well as folding in suggestions from other editors) and hope someone with more expertise comes along. FUNET is great for this project. Thanks again! NielsenGW (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Vertaling

Heb een keer iets van jou vertaald, zie nl:Halysidota harrisii. :) Lymantria (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Much deserved:

		The Original Barnstar
		For all the effort and work you are putting in creating taxonomy type articles both from scratch and from other language wikipedias. Your notable contributions are much appreciated and I hope you continue the great effort (well, until all 30 million species are added :p).Calaka (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hehe no worries! The least I could do to recognize positive contributions to Wikipedia. Keep up the great work and happy editing!Calaka (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Geometer moth genera

Hi

I have been using Fauna Europaea and Nomina Insecta Nearctica for the "selected species" lists. European and North American species tend to have more information available so I reckoned there was a better chance of those redlinks getting turned blue!

Do you think I should link to the sources? (I hadn't done so as the info is available from a number of sources) Richard Barlow (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree synonymy is a minefield. When I created the genus lists, I limited the lists to genera marked as "available name" or "objective replacement name" in the NHM catalogue but there are clearly many genus names in there which have been placed in synonymy. To take your example, the NHM page for Codonia is marked "available name" but there is a footnote detailing synonymy. If I had checked every footnote, the lists would have taken me years!

I do agree something needs to be done about this, I shall give it some thought Richard Barlow (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You are certainly right about taxonomy being messy, and its not going to get any easier - just wait until cladistics becomes the norm! I would carry on using your source, it looks meticulously researched Richard Barlow (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for all your WikiGnoming, especially in the areas of entomology and taxonomy! Your contributions do not go unnoticed. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 15:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Moths, Moths (...and more moths)

It's kind of funny to watch you follow me up with new talk pages on the noctuids. I can't wait to finish this damn family (only 157 genera to go). I'm thinking of fully attacking Zygaenidae next (with complete synonym lists and redirected species placeholders). It's too bad I don't know more about morphology or these articles wouldn't be so stubby. Cheers! NielsenGW (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Done -- I finally transferred every Noctuidae species from FUNET into Wikipedia. It only took 3 months. Thanks for your encouragement. Time for a beer... NielsenGW (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! NielsenGW (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You're totally right! It looks like when I pulled all the info from FUNET, the pull stopped in the middle of the Ocnonemis species. Boy, do I have a lot more to do! Back to the grindstone... NielsenGW (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Psara moth

Thanks. Could you please check out if Psara (moth) is Ok? I only tweeked the disambiguation page of Psara (disambiguation) somewhat ago. My involvement so far has been only with genus that happen to be homonymous to places in Greek geography (Psara,Thessalia). But I admit species taxonomy it is a great topic and its fun to create such webpages! Maybe I'll encounter more of that type as I go. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 12:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Windmills

Hi! Yes I thought so. I think they must have been renovated in those years and had existed previously.... Hey are you interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/Dutch. I need people on board who speak Dutch and are interested in improving content on the Netherlands and Belgium! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 08:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

In due course we will start all 1200 and hopefully get them expanded into good articles. I have an interest in windmills for a sentimental reason. My grandfather regularly went to the Netherlands and he had a model windmill on his mantlepiece. If you wound the windmill turbines it would play beautiful music. When he passed away I don't know what happened to it but it always reminds me of him! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 08:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi if you are translating any material from Dutch or German wikipedia it doesn't matter, we just need to know who is transferring content. You don't have to commit to a project, do what you do, the project is intended to be a loose one anyway as most articles will be translated independently. It is just for keeping tabs on what is missing and who is working on the articles. You are free to use the space to draw up lists of articles you need to transfer on moths etc or whatever. Regards. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I like it, if you want add a note to say you are working on translating moth articles then that's fine. Keep up the good work! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Dutch windmill dates

Hi, the Dutch tend to date a windmill as early as they can. The dates given are the date the mill was built at the location it now stands at, not the date built at its original location. For example, De Adriaan, Haarlem was originally built in 1779 and burnt down in 1932. It was rebuilt in 2002 and thus this is the year given. A similar example in the UK is Chillenden Windmill, built in 1868 and collapsed in 2003. It was rebuilt in 2005 and that is the year given in the infobox. Hope this clears any confusion. Mjroots (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm trying to concentrate on getting articles up for all surviving UK windmills. I was working through Norfolk when I got distracted by Blofeld creating loads of Drenthe stubs, which all needed moving because he didn't allow for the many mills with the same name. I prefer not to create stubs but I understand the reasons behind their creation. I generally try to create C or B class articles myself if I can. You are welcome to expand, improve any of the stubs created. See WP:MILLS for a suggested article structure. This is not set in stone as there are sometimes good reasons to deviate - see Thelnetham Windmill for an example of this. Mjroots (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ctenomorphodes chronus

On August 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ctenomorphodes chronus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice new pink abalone article!

Your contribution is very much appreciated! I know you may not be much into gastropods per se but I am sending you this invitation anyway.

I've noticed your edits on pages relating to Gastropods; perhaps you'd be interested in joining WikiProject Gastropods? If you would like more information, please visit the project page or the project talk page.

Thanks again! Invertzoo (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Rijksmonument

Hi, thanks so much for fixing up the new Rijksmonument article! I just drafted a DYK for it, and I asked for other help on the article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Historic sites#Rijksmonuments (with link to the DYK from there). Could you possibly help further develop the article to meet 1,500 character DYK requirement? I can pull out my Nederlands-Engels dictionary but it is slow going for me to translate anything from the official website. :) doncram (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

A long-deserved Lepidoptera barnstar

		The Wikiproject Lepidoptera Barnstar
		For User:Ruigeroeland who has contributed greatly to Wikiproject Lepidoptera especially on the moths and their lists.

AshLin (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely welcome. Check out Lepidoptera morphology under construction and simply crying out for help! AshLin (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

So what's new? Welcome to the club! Combat engineer and electrical engineer here! The internet's good enough. You really think that the really important work is done by experts? We should be so lucky! Check out Snake scales and I know even less about snakes than butterflies. <Done boasting> Seriously, its up to us! AshLin (talk) 10:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Rijksmonument

On August 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rijksmonument, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

NW (Talk) 17:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Moth stubs

Hi. New proposals are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2009/August for splitting the oversized moth stubs category. Perhaps you could list there the stub types that need to be created? Thanks. Himalayan 21:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Callistege

Hoi Ruigeroeland, Ik zag dat je op nl:user talk:Kristof vt een discussie startte over Callistege. Ik heb daarop gereageerd. Om het hier niet dunnetjes over te doen, verwijs ik je naar de nl-pagina. Mvg, Lymantria (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking care of all those stubs I made. A little insignificant (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Italic titles

Hi, did you know that the "name" section in taxoboxes is obsolete if it is the same as the binomial? If you remove it the article's title becomes italicised as I've done here. If you use a common name in the title you can use {{italictitle}} to make the title italicised. Hope this makes sense, message me if it doesn't! Smartse (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Taxon author citation

Hi, I noticed you don't add parentheses when you're supposed to. You should always add them when the genus-species combination is not what the original author first described it as. Unlike brackets and commas (and even years), these aren't optional. Only in certain rare situations (e.g. justified emendations) and when the genus stays the same but the rank changes (e.g. species to subspecies) is it ok to attribute the original author without parentheses. See §51.3 of the Code. Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It's one of those things that once you familiar with it, you forget not everyone knows they actually mean something and aren't just there for looks. I know another user was adding parentheses to everything. He thought it was a stylistic thing to separate the author name from the taxon name. And that's completely understandable because it's generic enough syntax where that's normally all it is. Rocket000 (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting Pages

Can you help me redirect pages? Roryrules123 (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Your thoughtful gesture!

Thanks for giving the barnstar to NielsenBW. I wanted to give it to him but you already had, I'll give him something else! AshLin (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

New Butterfly Articles

I see what your doing, but you should really add references. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 19:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Refs aren't so hard to use. Make once, store in editor, use often! AshLin (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I will try to. A lot of the articles I'm currently making are about species with little to no info though. I can always use Poole as a ref though. Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Poole? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 12:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh! do you need any help? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 12:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This one: Poole, R. W. (1989). Lepidopterorum Catalogus (New Series) Fascicle 118, Noctuidae. CRC Press. ISBN 0916846458, ISBN 978-0916846459. Someone had a link to an online version though: http://www.sel.barc.usda.gov:591/spod/catalogue/search.html

I could certainly use some help..! I am extracting images from the Hampson plates I uploaded, see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Catalogue_Of_The_Noctuidae_In_The_Collection_Of_The_British_Museum. After I extract them, I try to make an article on each of the species. Problem is, the binomial names used on the plates are mostly outdated, so I need to find the current name to make an article. Poole is a good source, but it's old (1989), so after I found the species in Poole I tend to just google on the species I found in Poole and look for any new info on the species. I try to add as many synonyms (and redirects) as I can. If you could help in any way, that would be great...! Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you extracted all of them? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 16:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm doing one at a time. If I did the extraction for one plate, I make articles on the species I have extracted the pictures from. You can see which are done, because I made a list of the extracted files on the commons description page, see for instance: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CATALOGUE-BM-PLATE_CCVIII.jpg Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This website mite help, but it is long, so it might take a while to load and you have to look for the genus Cyligramma. And I worked on some, before I continue, tell me how they are coming out. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 17:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you're going to help making references! I thought making articles. Good work! Anyway, looks great. You can use catalogue of life or zipcodezoo as a reference, but please never use them as a basis to create articles, because both of these sites are filled with tons of synonyms (i.e. a lot of the species they list are no longer valid, but placed as a synonym of other species). Furthermore, they list some species multiple times. When a species is transferred to another genus, they list both the old combination and new combination as species, but these are in fact the same animal.. Anyway: great job! If you want to help out creating articles, you are also more than welcome..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I hope to get through the articles fixing refs/taxobox/wording and then create articles. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 22:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Be aware I made some 3000 moth species articles over time though, so thats a lot of work.. Most are a lot longer than the ones I have done recently though. At first I was concentrating on translating dutch and german articles and I made a fair amount of North American species. European and North American species tend to have much more information available. The ones on the plates seem to mainly consist of African and Asian species thus far. Information about those is very hard to come by. Ruigeroeland (talk) 06:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, can you give me a list of the ones that need more info, and can you verify where you found they're located. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 16:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment:If you want me to make articles, you are also going to have to give me a list. Then I'll throw them into the ol'insectarticlemakeomatic machine. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 16:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If you like to make articles (please don't feel pressured, if you like to, that would be great, but if you don't I'll just carry on on my own), maybe I can extract images and send you a list of pictures I extracted? I'll try to upload a bunch and search for the current names, which I can send you. Ruigeroeland (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long, I just found out that my article (Insect) came under GA review. OK a list ould be good, but added info like location would be hard to do, and can you send me the apropriate references for each and I'll see if I can get to it today. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 12:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Still working on it. see Talk:Insect/GA3, Oh and Grotella septempunctata and Grotella dis, under description, may need to be rewritten and wikified. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 17:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Butterfly articles

There seems to be a confusion about 2 articles you created? See the Wikiproject WikiProject Lepidoptera talk page. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 02:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The images are from the ZooKeys article (see external links). Someone uploaded the wrong picture. I have corrected it. Thanks for the warning! Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Additions to Lep morph

Thanks, every little helps. I got an antenna image too! AshLin (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. let me know when you are done. Thank God that such important topics are finally being tackled instead of the usual species account. AshLin (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take it from here. It will take a few days though. AshLin (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Placed an 'under construction' template till its reasonably done. People need to know its not yet stable. AshLin (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request

Thanks for your edits to Archips semiferanus and Croesia semipurpurana. I have expanded them about as much as I can (still have a bit to add to A. semiferanus). Anyway, I was wondering if you could look them over and make sure I've not made any mistakes. I also am a bit confused as Archips semiferanus is also known as Archips semiferana (not a big deal) and Capua semiferana here. Should I list Capua as another name or is that a mistake on bugwood? Thanks in advance for any help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for checking them and for the barnstar (you are too kind). I have added the synonyms to A. semiferanus and still have a bit more to do there. Both articles should havea few hours on the Main Page in the DYK column too (in a double hook). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Quickdraw McGraw

Fast work! How did you find Doru aculeatum? I had just created it! AshLin (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! AshLin (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Lists of moths of Great Britain

Greetings!

Sorry to say that I have very little time for Wikipedia-ing at the moment. After a year of relative quiet, work finally picked up for me in October, and now I'm "swamped". I'll be happy to fill in some of the gaps when I have more time (maybe around northern summer).

Cheers and thanks for all the hard work!

GRM (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Lepidoptera species with images

I made a list here. I didn't remove the blue links or anything, so feel free to edit it if you want. If you come across any synonyms (or misspellings), let me know so I can update the classification over at Commons. Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I updated the list. This should be it for awhile since it accounts for every individual species we have on Commons. The only future updates will be for new species we get. I'll add them on in a new section or something so we can track our progress (your progress I should say ;). I've run out of good places to upload from and I hate extracting so... do you know of any sites or Flickr users I can upload stuff from? Rocket000 (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This is for all your hard work making new Lepidoptera articles. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia more complete. Keep up the good work! Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, feel free to remove any articles you create from my list, however I like seeing your progress. :) Rocket000 (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I already uploaded all those. I got the guy's gallery bookmarked to watch for when/if he uploads anymore. Rocket000 (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there's two groups I didn't do yet. I was waiting for them to make the pages on TOLweb first (sometimes they make mistakes in the uploads), but they're taking their sweet time so I might just do it anyway. Heh, that would be funny if Wikipedia had articles using these images before TOLweb for which they were uploaded for. :) I'll be updating the list pretty soon too. Rocket000 (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I have a feeling he will be uploading the Dioptini species to TOLweb as well (it would make sense for him to do the whole subfamily). If he doesn't in the next month, I'll ask him (or if you want them now, you can ask ;). The easiest way would be for him to simply change the license on the other site, otherwise OTRS would indeed be needed (and I'm no longer on the OTRS team so I couldn't handle it directly and they like to take their time too). Rocket000 (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Just remember to be very clear that the images must be free for anyone's use, not just Wikipedia. I'm sure he's familiar with this type of "free" since he uses CC-BY. Cheers, Rocket000 (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. Some images may be allowed but they would have to meet Wikipedia's (not Commons') non-free criteria guidelines. In other words, it would be like fair use. Rocket000 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Notascea straba

Notascea straba?

Notascea loxa

These are the same (!) The straba doesn't even have a page on TOLweb. Rocket000 (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Tortricidae

Sure - I'll try and work on it tonight and see what I can do. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Almost forgot - I'm also going to try and fill in some of the other genus redlinks tonight. At the clip I went last night shouldn't take me long at all. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing - I think what I'll do is fill the genus pages first and then go back and start adding in species. That'll help me keep things straight. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever considered using AWB to fill in the genus links? It cuts the article creation time in half, if not more. Those two-hundred-plus I did last night I did in just under 20 minutes, if you can believe. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Noctuidae - heh, some of those might be my fault, actually. Sorry about that. Anyhow, there's something on TV I want to see tonight, but I should be able to fill at least some of those genus redlinks before bed. And after that, I'll go back in (probably tomorrow) and start adding species. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks.

Question for you - I was going to fill in List of Pyralidae genera before moving on to species tonight. However, it looked like it needed a lot of attention first. I cleaned up some of the misdirected links, but looking at Category:Pyralidae indicates some attempt to classify them by subfamily, too. I found the Encyclopedia of Life entry for the family, and it makes no mention of subfamilies. So should I go ahead and create the stubs under the category "Pyralidae"? Find subfamilies? Or just leave it for now? You've a lot more experience in this arena than I have. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. There was another source listed in a couple of those articles, but I'm not entirely sure how worthy it was. I'll take another look and get back to you soon. I have a few Saturday chores to attend to before I begin editing, anyhow. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Right - I'll leave it with what I've got, then, and fill in some species lists soon. I just want to AWB the talk pages first. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

So I see - you beat me to it. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It'll have to be this evening - I'll see what I can do then. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ruigeroeland. You have new messages at Tim1357's talk page.
Message added 11:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tim1357 (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And again! Tim1357 (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A barnstar

		The Bio-star
		For all of your excellent work in creating genus and species articles for moths and other little beasties, I award you something pretty for your wall. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and work on it this weekend - no promises, but if I can I will. And you're quite welcome. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For your hard work on a daily basis in working towards missing content, particularly on moths. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Darn the Herringster beat me to it but I honestly think you deserve this, Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Moths of Italy

Congratulations on your work too - Italian moths Why not? Perhaps starting here [1] then working through the macros.It's a big fauna though Alpine at the top Maquis in the South and a lot in between. All the best from Ireland Robert aka Notafly (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ruigeroeland. You have new messages at Ecw.technoid.dweeb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | If you reply somewhere other than my talk, please talkback me. 17:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ruigeroeland. You have new messages at Ecw.technoid.dweeb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | If you reply somewhere other than my talk, please leave me a talkback template. 19:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for Interview Concerning Encyclopedia of Life (EOL)

Ruigeroeland, I'm a graduate student at the University of Maryland working with the EOL and hoping to better understand the integration of Wikipedia content into EOL (and visa versa). I've noticed the important and unique role that you play in Wikipedia related to species pages (specifically moths) and am hoping that you will let me interview you to get your thoughts on the subject. If you are willing, send me an email at kprocita at umd dot edu and we can set up a call. Thanks. Kprocita (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Coleotechnites milleri

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Coleotechnites milleri. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Coleotechnites_milleri. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Coleotechnites_milleri - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Srikant Kedia 10:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikantkedia (talk • contribs)

Your contributed article, Coleotechnites apicitripunctella

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Coleotechnites apicitripunctella. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Coleotechnites apicitripunctella. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Coleotechnites apicitripunctella - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Srikant Kedia 10:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikantkedia (talk • contribs)

Talkback

Hello, Ruigeroeland. You have new messages at AshLin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Noctuid facts

Noctuids are strange to me. I wonder if you would consider adding those morphological characteristics of the Noctuids which are most important and educative and add them to the Lepidoptera morphology article. I cam across proboscic adaptation for bloodsucking and lachryphagy. AshLin (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Endemic moths of Hawaii stubs

Can these stubs be expanded? If not, would a single list suffice? Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

BioLib.de - source for images

Check out www.biolib.de. They have tons of old PD illustrations. Rocket000 (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

List of moths of Great Britain (Micromoths)

Dear Riuigeroeland,

Great job on the page referenced in the subject line! Thanks for that. It was on my agenda, but then so are too many other things!

It is, however, a huge page, and I wonder whether we should split it up into families like I did for the "macro" moths?

GRM (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Wow! All the countries of Europe—good "luck" with that! Sounds like much too big a task to me :-) Cheers —GRM (talk) 16:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hi again! I sourced a paper online that seems to support (some of) your comments re "demotion" of moth families to subfamily status (for the Noctuoidea), but I am checking with the UK Amateur Entomologists' Society on current accepted taxa in the UK. So far, they suggest that my source (Waring et al.) have it right, but I'm waiting for confirmation. Taxonomy is such a fluid thing at all levels! Again, best wishes with all those lists—GRM (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Meanwhile the AES is sticking with "A Checklist of Lepidoptera Recorded from the British Isles" J.D. Bradley; technical editors, D.J. and M.J. Bradley 2000 (ISBN 0953250822). One must be loyal to one's national authorities ;-) —GRM (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Tortricidae

Wow, splendid work you guys did there!

I found out that the "Online World Catalogue of the Tortricidae" has problems with special characters - The author name "Réal" for example is given as "Ral". You may want to keep a watchful eye on strange-looking author names. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Blastobasis decolorella

Hello Ruigeroeland, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created, Blastobasis decolorella, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:Pgallert. This has been done because the page is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Pgallert. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of Pgallert (talk · contribs) 12:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Lepmorph images

Thanks, Ruigeroeland. I have made a few edits in Amyna axis as a return gesture. AshLin (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. May I suggest that citations be inline rather than as external references? The Binns-Wagner paper needs attributing intimately as the information from that paper is mixed with that of Bailey's Pests added by me. AshLin (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Acather96 (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK

Since you started the article, would you like me to add you to the credits for the Aglaope infausta DYK? Joe Chill (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Joe Chill (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Boloria eunomia

I expanded Boloria eunomia and nominated it for DYK with you listed in the credits. Joe Chill (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I solved all three problems by changing threatened with vulnerable, changing it to say that a threat to the butterfly is bog hydrology, and I made the Serbia sentence clearer. Joe Chill (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Aglaope infausta

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

List of butterflies of Iowa

Do you think that organizing the article that I started List of butterflies of Iowa by alphabetical order was a good choice? Joe Chill (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The only list articles that I have done are List of human superheroes in DC Comics and List of science fiction and fantasy literary awards so I'm not that experienced with lists. Joe Chill (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Useful Link

Thanks a lot! BTW I recently got in touch with a scientist who is doing genome research on Lepidoptera. Hopefullly more resources will come our way! AshLin (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Boloria eunomia

Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Abraxas sylvata

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mompha raschkiella

Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Moths Italy

Hello Ruigerolande I’m deferring the Italy moths until September.I will retire from the museum in six weeks,then I go to Rome and then I’ll start with Sphingidae I think. In the meantime I am wasting my spare time with some over overdue uploads such as [2] which has a long way to go especially the filedescriptions. I see this conflicts with Category:Reise Fregatte Novara A section of Category:Lepidoptera books.Can these be merged (by you) ? I prefer the fuller title but prefer the Lepidoptera books category. What do you think? Warm regards from Ireland Robert aka09:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Nyctemera annulata

Re the article you created on Nyctemera annulata. New Guinea and the Antipodes Islands would be a very strange distribution. Are you sure it's not New Zealand (mainland) plus the Antipodes Islands (also part of New Zealand)? It is endemic to New Zealand according to a quick google, and the photos seem to have been taken in mainland New Zealand. Kahuroa (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Butterflies in the Caucasus

Hello Ruigeroeland. I am from Germany and mainly active in the German wikipedia. In the moment I live and work in Georgia (Caucasus, not US), where I make a lot of photos of native insects. I saw that you are very active on wikipedia-articles about butterflies. Sadly I am not familiar with any fields of biology (I'm an economist), so I adept the information which is given to me in several German forums. If you have a special wish, what I can photo for you in Georgia, let me know and I will look for it. Each evening I control the light close to my room, if there are some insects which I had not photographed yet. A maybe interesting photo for you could be the photo of a quite local Therapis flavicaria. If you need some further informations about the habitat of the photographed insects (or another perspective) just ask me. I'm glad to help people who provide information on wikipedia. --Traubenberger (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

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) 22:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

South African Butterflies

I already have the same book in hardcover (Field Guide to Butterflies of SA). Yes, I could add a few articles to the effort. I was in Tanzania and South Africa last year and got a few pictures of butterflies, not to mention mammals. They sure have a lot of wildlife there. Where should I start so we don't duplicate our efforts? DGERobertson (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I was able to identify some of the butterfles from the Flickr link you sent. I don't know how to use Flickr images in Wikipedia. Can any of these images be used freely or do you need permission from the photographer. I just added the genus Mylothris to Wiki and had a weird message from CorenSearchBot. I didn't think a list of names could be copyrighted. DGERobertson (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I have added to Sarangesa motozi and have created Precis octavia. I will email the butterfly project and see if I can get permission from other people for some of their photos. Just to note; Rhodesia is now Zimbabwe and Natal is now KwaZulu-Natal, one can get into political trouble for using the old names...Michaelwild (talk) 05:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Great work.. And thanks for the info on the name changes, I had no idea.. I am experiencing that our western EU education doesn't really learn us that much about African geography at all. Most of the names of provinces and small countries are more or less new to me..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The old Cape Province of South Africa is now divided into Northern Cape, Western Cape and Eastern Cape. Eastern Cape includes the old Transkei. Transvaal is now divided into Limpopo Province, Mpumalanga and Gauteng. North West Province includes parts of the old Cape Province and Transvaal. Its a bit complicated...

I have added some photos and edited the list - many of the Hyalites are now Telchinia - will have to transfer info to new pages and make redirect pages. See http://sabca.adu.org.za/ for the full list of butterflies of South Africa and their most up-to-date names(?). I put hidden text near some name changes. I am out to collect more caterpillars - will edit more later, and help with pages. Also suggest making common name pages with redirects to scientific name pages. Michaelwild (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I don't think the site has a printable list - but you can see all the names in the virtual museum and/ or the species maps when you click on the icon for scientific names. I think the only way is to type the names out or write them down - it does not seem to be possible to cut and paste. Michaelwild (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There has been one new species of Charaxes discovered during the project so far, there may be other new species. I will go through the list over the next few days and add in any missing species. I have several more photos to upload - but it will take some time. So - 66(7) species - we should be done with all the pages and pictures by next week... :P

Orphan tags

I haven't been making a personal judgement call of any sort — AWB adds them automatically. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I just did a bit of research, and it turns out it is actually possible to restrict AWB's orphan-tag settings to "only linkless pages". Sorry I didn't know that before; guess I just had to dig a bit harder :-) Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sevenia boisduvali

Thanks, I am glad you like the page. I have added two more pictures of a pupa and a male emerging from the same pupa. I would like to contribute to more butterfly articles from South Africa, and will do so, but am busy with several projects. I have been contributing to the South African Butterfly Conservation Assessment project, so have many photos - though some are not 'perfect' quality. I think the first thing to do is to make a page entitled "South African Butterflies" or "List of South African Butterflies". I have several caterpillars in my kitchen and am documenting the life cycle (with photos) - I also have a beautiful moth pupa from a bright yellow and black caterpillar. I think it is a hawk moth? I hope to make a page when it has hatched and been photographed, and when I have found information to go with it.Michaelwild (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Request filled

Here.--droptone (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirects

Please take care that redirects go to the intended article. For example, Tingra tropical went to itself instead of Pentila tropicalis. I have fixed it, and the other self redirects done on June 28th. - RoyBoy 00:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Curtis British Entomology

Info.I'll be uploading all the pics from this work over the next few weeks. Onlyfew moths so far but some Eg. the Lappet (with larva) may be useful. All the best from Ireland RobertNotafly (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick Work

No football? Here is the whole list [3] Most of the Lepidoptera are in the next two volumes (5 and 6). If you go to Robert Templeton and from there to Commons Robert Templeton Butterflies of Ceylon you will see high res scans of his very fine watercolours c 184O Regards again Robert Notafly (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Pachliopta kotzebuea

Thanks for improving the pink rose stub. I needed some sleep last night and did not have time to research it further. Regards, Greg Hume (talk) 10:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Curtis

Just a few more to fix but here is most of Volume 6 with valid names and categoried as far as 763. [4]. The four remaining species I'll fix tomorrow but I won't get to the next volumes before September as I will be in Rome soon.All the best Robert aka Notafly (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Curtis

Thats terrific.Speak to you again in September.But for now think this.Some of the Curtis images are ideotypes (type images) Note the dissections. Clearly some specimens from the type series were destroyed unless kept as glass-mounted slides. I am planning a paper on this and other matters relating to 19th century types.I'll send a draft in the Autumn.Perhaps you will join me as co-author Very best regards Notafly (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You asked for it...

It didn't take long before I came across a series of articles crying out for expansion (or – dare I say it – redirection). Rhamphomyia and the ten species articles under it are all awfully short of prose, but all come with a picture and (rather too much) taxonomy, including the species' authority. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Butterflies of South Africa

Good news. I did the last South African species today. That's it for South Africa. Good job. DGERobertson (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

		The Wikiproject Lepidoptera Barnstar
		For all your work on adding species from the List of butterflies of South Africa and many other contrbutions to Project Wikiproject Lepidoptera. DGERobertson (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Related request

I will see if I can grab this request.--droptone (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the requested article. Please let me know when you've successfully downloaded the file.--droptone (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Polydesma boarmoides

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Polydesma boarmoides, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.mothsofborneo.com/part-15-16/pandesmini/pandesmini_2_1.php, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Polydesma boarmoides and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Polydesma boarmoides, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Polydesma boarmoides with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Polydesma boarmoides. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Polydesma boarmoides saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! VernoWhitney (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you know if the older publication it's copied from is old enough to be in the public domain? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It was first published in the 1940s, so would be borderline I guess. I don't know the country it was published in, so I cannot be sure. Are two sentences really a big deal? It is hard to rephrase since it is a description of a species. I rephrased it somewhat though. If you think it is still a copyright violation, could you help me with the rephrasing? I am not a native speaker, so that is somewhat troublesome for me. Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into it later today when I have more time and see if I can tack down the original book to determine it's status. Using any amount of copyrighted text outside of quotes is a big deal. I think your rewrite may still be too close, so I'll look into that later today too. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated!

Moths

Thank you, but it was my pleasure. Thanks for patrolling and adding the talk pages :) - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Papilio

Quick work again and many thanks for using the pics.I have a few more to upload and hope to get a few more still scanned from Seitz After that the very difficult species begin and we'll have to plead for help from some major museums. Mayb som private collectors. Hope things are working out for you. Wet and cold in Ireland today Brrrr Robert aka Notafly (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Papilio

Museum collections.I don't collect insects at all now and never collected butterflies. I will pst my e-mail address for more on that and maybe a plan for photos. In the meantime Here are three Papilio descriptors [5] [6] and [7] Bset regards Robert aka Notafly (talk) 13:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Re:Why?

Because Stemonitis would do exactly that anyway, so I'm saving people a lot of heartbreak. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want me to do that with the lepidoptera pages, I won't anymore. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

More pics

I uploaded :Eurytides bellerophon, Protographium anaxilaus, Protographium celadon, Protographium epidaus, Protographium philolaus, Mimoides ariarathes, Mimoides ariarathes gayi, Mimoides lysithous, Mimoides xeniades Maybe makes for a problem with the Protographium redirect? Notafly (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Subspecies of A. gilvaria

You've written the page on Aspitates gilvaria here and have listed the subspecies on it as well. When doing research for the fiwiki article I tried to find more info on ssp. orientaria, but couldn't find any. The reference book I've mainly used, Suomen mittarit (Geometridae of Finland), lists orientalia as the name of the ssp. Other books in my collection do not mention it at all. Quick googling seems to suggest that the ssp is considered now a species of its own, A. orientaria, but I haven't found any solid evidence. Do you have references or better ideas to back some version up? --Albval (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for answering at my talk page! I've had no luck finding out more info on the subspecies though. Since you're the only moth specialist I know at this wiki, I'll pester you with additional questions:-) Do you have any ideas about (english language) textbooks etc that I could consult on this matter, or do you think enwiki's Lepidoptera-related wikiprojects have any expertise that could help? --Albval (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

For you:

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For excellent collaboration (and instigation) on tackling the unmade pages provided for by this document, Ruigeroeland, this is for you. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Phyllonorycter acerifoliella

Your rewrite looks good, thanks! I'm just never really sure what could be reworded without making the articles inaccurate or nonsensical—animal science is not my forte. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for noting the missing taxoboxes on User:North Hermosa's peony articles.[8] And others. --KMLP (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)