User talk:Dyanega/archive6

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dyanega. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I was advised to contact you about a beetle identification. Apparently I've goofed one. Please see my wiki commons talk page "ID" thread. Replying here, there, or my en wiki talk page is fine. Any help appreciated! — Rlevse • Talk • 11:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hi. I can't seem to edit your talk page, so... yes, that is a Passalid, though I don't have resources sufficient to give a positive species ID. OTOH, I have no reason to dispute its likely identity as O. disjunctus, given where it was photographed. The thorax-abdomen articulation is exposed in Clivina and some other carabids, so there are some similarities in that part of the anatomy, but not with the rest of the critter. Dyanega (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder why you can't edit my talk page. Odd. But thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 18:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Dyanega has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Dyanega's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Dyanega! Peace, Rlevse 00:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Holotrichia as far as I knew was a Scarabeid but seems like there is a protozoan subclass. Not sure about the validity or authorship of either though. Apparently the article Holotrichia was once deleted after its creation for an algal species article! Shyamal (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• The protozoan name definitely appears to NOT be in use. It was a subclass in a classification used in 1964 (as can be seen in Wikispecies). The algal name seems to be valid. If it becomes necessary, Holotrichia could become a disambig, with "Holotrichia (beetle)", "Holotrichia (alga)", and "Holotrichia (subclass)" as resolved units therein. Dyanega (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Any interest in dermatology? If so, we are always looking for more help at the Dermatology task force, particularly with the ongoing Bolognia push. I can e-mail you the login information if you like? There is still a lot of potential for many new articles and redirects. Just let me know. ---kilbad (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I just wrote Niagara Parks Butterfly Conservatory (been approved for DYK) and have ID'd 20 photos of their butterflies [1], but still need to ID 12 more: [2]. Can you or someone you know help ID those 12? Some pics have more than one butterfly. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. In pursuing the subject of Gryllacrididae, I found it impossible to access a cited website apparently supplied by yourself. I encountered a request for authentication but no information on how to apply for registration. Can this be added to the footnote somehow? If not, it would seem that such references are not suitable for citation in Wikipedia though they have validity to members of a qualified circle. Can you offer a solution, please? Cheers Bjenks (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

How is that any different from a printed book that isn't in a library you have access to?--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither is immediately helpful (thus not a ready source of (verification). However, I know how to access books and have a fair chance of so doing; but this is not the case with an inaccessible website which deserves to be tagged as a dead link. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Then just delete the links. A fact is a fact, and can be verified eventually, just not via that particular source. Dyanega (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Er, unverifiable confident assertion (whether of facts or otherwise) is not how Wikipedia works. However, imho, deletion is not the best solution. Perhaps, as empiricists, we can call a spade a spade while warning users that such citations are a waste of time for non-subscribers to the society. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 02:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've duly annotated your citations but am not entirely happy with my procedure. In quest of some 'peer review', since this issue must surely have come up before (and will be relevant to other similar articles), I have raised an enquiry at here. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doug;

Thanks for your (somewhat harsh) feedback on my contribution to the honeybee lifecycle text.

Your point that "hive" is the wrong word to use: yes, you're right. I should have said "nest".

As regards bees dying inside or outside the nest; your comments are again welcome. The information you give about undertakers would be an interesting and useful addition to the article - why don't you add it? However, perhaps it would be useful at this stage to consider relocating the honeybee lifecycle information altogether and merging it with the bee lifecycle article. What do you think?

May I suggest that Reversion is a rather destructive approach to Debate.

Incidentally, you also make the point that information added to an article should be supported by reliable references, and should not be original research. This is a Wikipedia policy. On this matter, I do not concur. An encyclopedia /should/ be original research; it should not merely parrot external text and, indeed, this is also a Wikipedia policy. Certainly, the minimum we should expect is an analytic distillation of external sources, presented at pre-university level. This could be construed as original research - in the arts, it would be. I cannot see a reason for the Originality policy.

regards: Neuralwarp (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Doug; Wikipedia policies, like anything else, are subject to my criticism. Diligent observance of a rule does not imply uncritical concurrence. Whatever your attitude to me may be, I will maintain a measure of appreciation for your substantial and insightful contributions. DNR. Neuralwarp (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doug, our friend is back and now has a new issue to harp about, which is the type for the genus. I have restored it to what I can see in the literature but do check if this is right. Shyamal (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I was surprised by your claim at Talk:Oestroidea that the ICZN does not apply to superfamilies. As I read it, article 35.1 includes superfamilies in the family group and article 1.2.2 states that the Code regulates the family group, with no exception for superfamilies. (I don't know anything about the specific situation you commented on.) Ucucha 00:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work here; I appreciate the (obviously time-consuming) cleanup you did to various earwig articles. Most of this seems to be stuff I created over a year ago, back when I was still somewhat of a wiki-noob and got finer points of formatting incorrect. Anyway, nothing significant to say here – just a friendly note! — The Earwig ^(talk) 20:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The one is good. It may seem odd at first, but WP policy prefers secondary sources. WP:RS and WP:NOR#...secondary... In this case, both sources are eminently reliable, so heck, if someone reverted my rever, even citing IAR, I would let it go. --W☯W ^t/c 18:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed, while on Shyamal's talk page, a note you had placed there regarding peer review of the E. gigas article. As a Commissioner of the ICZN, I should note that there is no such procedure in the Code as "designating a type locality". The type locality is strictly a property of the type specimen, and cannot be designated independently; if Linnaeus' specimen is the type specimen, then whatever it says on it is the type locality, no matter what any subsequent authors may say. I'll make the appropriate edit momentarily. Dyanega (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Dyanega! Thank you for your feedback. I do know it, but that doesn't exclude the fact that Clench & Abbott designated a locality; I recognize the article's text is not clear on that specific point... Clench & Abbott had designated a Neotype, so they assumed a type locality was needed (that's what happened, or so I think). These authors didn't know that the type specimen wasn't lost at all. The text must be made clearer, I'll work on it ASAP.. I see you already did the proper changes. Thanks! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Mass provisioning, 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 no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Moreover, please add more verifiable sources, not only 3rd party sources. 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. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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 page 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. PamD (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The article Mass provisioning has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

very short dictionary definition

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

While the article formerly had more content, none of that content was properly cited with verifiable reliable sources. Feel free to improve the article and contest the AfD; but be sure that all claims are properly sourced if you do so. N2e (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Dyanega. I added a comment to the Talk page on Mass provisioning and Progressive provisioning. The deleted material was deleted, over a long/slow period of time, purely because it was unsourced, and no editor who wanted that material in Wikipedia bothered to source it. Wikipedia is not a location for us as editors to show what we know in our intelligent heads; rather, it is for encyclopedic material that is sourced verifiably and cited, generally in reliable secondary sources. N2e (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing new article Philanthus ventilabris. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable, by being clearly attributed to reliable sources. Please help by adding more sources to the article you created, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the material (see here for how to do inline referencing). Many thanks! PS If you need any help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me.

Hi again Dyanega. I appreciate the many good contributions you are making to Wikipedia in the area of insects etc. However, you have created a number of articles that are totally unsourced. Two examples from recent months are Liogorytes and Philanthus ventilabris Such articles with unsourced assertions are not in accord with Wikipedia policy on verfiability and citations, and it makes a lot of unnecessary work for other editors to either clean up or do the work to get the article deleted.

On a very positive note, I observed in a short sampling on your recent New article that some of the articles you have recently created are sourced. Kudos. I also did a random sample of articles you created in 2008 and found a much higher percentage of articles you created then are unsourced. That is a positive improvment.

Wikipedia standards on sourcing used to be much less rigorous, so many older articles are poorly sourced. However, there is really no good excuse for creating any New article today without proper attribution to verifiable information. In my view, it would show good faith if you would make some effort to go back through many of the New articles you created in prior years and ensure basic sourcing. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the correction of the bee id. I had put it up on a forum for identification purposes where two possible genus were mentioned. Eucerini fit the size so I considered it to be the correct one. However, you being an expert, I will trust your judgment in this matter.

Regarding the Polistes, it was taken in Kibaha, Tanzania. The id was given by three experts, all of whom had studied African Polistes wasps. --Muhammad(talk) 13:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Doug. Just a note that the forum is http://www.forum.hymis.de/ (specific discussion thread - may need registration - http://www.forum.hymis.de/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2297&p=7651#p7651 ) . Shyamal (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dyanega, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Sadads (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This Talk:Centuria_Insectorum may be of interest. Shyamal (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at what is happening on Acraea_(genus). Shyamal (talk) 07:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Doug, I notice you added Bombus cockerelli to the list at Pyrobombus. I am slightly confused, because that species doesn't appear on the NHM's checklist, which I had thought was comprehensive. Do you have a reference we can cite for that placement? Is there a paper to go with the news story? I have read through your press release, and it doesn't seem to mention the subgenus, or to say which species B. cockerelli was subsumed into, which would probably suffice if that species is also in Pyrobombus. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Wasp, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fig (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited List of organisms named after famous people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Herodotia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Science lovers wanted!

Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Dyanega. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

cheers Faendalimas ^talk 03:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Have set up a stub for this monotypic(?) genus. Please do take a look. Shyamal (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tabanoidea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burgess (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The original Nomenclator Zoologicus page notes that DeJean's Rhinyptia was a nomen nudum. It seems like a database transcription error. Shyamal (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the citation requested for the claims made. Prior to my edit earlier today, there was only a single citation for the entire article: "Piper, Ross (2007). Extraordinary Animals: An Encyclopedia of Curious and Unusual Animals. Greenwood Publishing Group.", and since it had no URL, I could hardly check that one out. The important thing was that there was no citation provided for the two claims in the paragraph that I temporarily removed—despite it having been challenged for over two years.

So thanks for fixing it, and making the article better! Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oligonyx (moth), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ICZN (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi sir!

I'm a frequent, casual Wikipedia reader and happened across the page about colony collapse disorder, one that you have heavily molded, and noticed that a recent research study wasn't included on the page. I'm no expert in this field by any stretch of the imagination, but I felt the study was relatively compelling, and in the hands of an expert (you) it might make a useful addition to the page.

The article in question : http://phys.org/news/2013-04-high-fructose-corn-syrup-tied-worldwide.html

Cheers

Peter Dohm peter.dohm@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.87.68 (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you tell me what species this is, or at least the family it's in: File:PSKYunkButterflyUpperside.jpg, File:PSKYunkButterflyUnderside.jpg. Any help appreciated. PumpkinSky talk 22:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Female Tiger Swallowtail, Papilio_glaucus ?? PumpkinSky talk 02:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That's it. Dyanega (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Dyanega! I see you have edited a lot of ant-related articles, including the FA Ant. You may be interested in the recently created ant task force. Check out the task force's subpage and see if you're able to help out with any of the open tasks (or add new tasks). This list of ant-related open access may prove useful for expanding stubs and DYKs. If you're interested in copy editing future GA/FA nomination, please add your username including a short comment like "copy editing" in the Participants list and someone will {{ping}} you when needed. Cheers, jonkerz ♠talk 21:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I saw your name in stingless bee talk page. I was wondering will there be any article about meliponiculture here? I've created one titled meliponikultur but still wondering why there isn't one in English Wikipedia. Izhamwong (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

First, thanks for creating the Desmococcus article, it was needed. It was probably just an oversight, but when you moved the old place-holder to Desmococcus (alga) and created the article about the pine scale, you neglected to place a dab hatnote at the top of the article for the algae people to find their genus. I discovered the earlier move when I went to the Desmococcus talk page to leave an explanation of my edit, and suddenly found myself on an algae talk page. It's all fixed, but I thought I'd let you know. --Bejnar (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

How popular is the name Anthophila (Engel, 2005). It seems like the use of that in the taxobox at bee can cause a lot of trouble to the automatic taxobox system. On the other hand I am not sure if bee should even have a taxobox if the name is being used for a rag-tag (polyphletic?) assemblage of families as opposed to the restricted definition of the clade Anthophila. Shyamal (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

PS I think marking Anthophila as a clade now makes the taxobox in bee appear somewhat acceptable now. Shyamal (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, no one is still using Apiformes, certainly. Bees are unquestionably monophyletic, and Anthophila appears to be the best name for that clade, even though it has no easily-assigned Linnaean rank. Oddly enough, homonymy does not apply across ICZN-delimited classes of names (there are only three: family-rank, genus-rank, and species-rank), so Anthophila is not a homonym. The moth genus should have its WP page titled "Anthophila (genus)", assuming that it isn't also a plant genus. Dyanega (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

You mentioned in your recent comments that wikispecies has transitioned to the new arrangement. I was re-examining this and I find that there is still considerable confusion on Wikispecies - I had commented last year at https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Noctuoidea and I now see that Wikispecies says here that Doidae is not a family but is contradicted at Doidae. I think it would be useful to draw up a consensus tree before any corrections can be made at the relevant pages. I have only seen the recent few papers of Zahiri et al., but I think this needs a lot more to be digested and I was hoping it had been done at Wikispecies. Shyamal (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Zygogramma bicolorata, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.hindu.com/2005/09/04/stories/2005090400111200.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Dyanega. I saw this edit you made to the Beaver beetle article. I just wanted to mention that we no longer usually use bold font for the parenthetic scientific name in the lead sentence. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Organisms. I see you've been around for a while. There used to be something of a debate over this with two camps but it's officially been this way for at least a few years now.

On an unrelated note, you may wish to consider archiving your talk page. It's gotten really long.

Keep up the good work. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dyanega, it's great to see another entomologist around, much less one that works with bees. I've recently been frequenting CCD related pages. As someone who doesn't research bees, one of the biggest problems I've come across is finding good sources that state the current scientific consensus clearly that we don't have a cause(s) for CCD down yet as strongly as some would like to say. At points in the research process like this, you tend to get most people staying silent or not really wanting to strongly say we don't have clear evidence of something, or you get some fringe scientists usually overstating their findings trying to say they've found the smoking gun. If we could go by our entomological expertise, we already know what most bee researchers are saying from conversation, meetings, etc., but we can't use that on Wikipedia.

Since you probably puruse the bee literature much more than I do, feel free to chime in with new sources that could help describe the current academic consensus better. I'm always looking when I get spare time to work on the articles, but I figured I'd check with you if you had any thoughts on it. If you ever need another set of entomological eyes to look over an article too, feel free to ask. Thanks! Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This almost rates a LOL, in a way. If you go back in the history of the CCD article, you'll note that it was created on February 10, 2007. My first edits to the article were on February 12th. So, yeah, I've been watching and editing this article for a long, long time. ;-) Dyanega (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I figured you had probably been involved in the past to some degree, but I didn't go back that far. I guess I didn't mean to intend that you were new to the page, just that someone with actual bee expertise can be really helpful for adding sources and intervening in sometimes contentious discussions on the topic (although some of those conversations can be a drain on time). Thanks for being involved. :) Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

What is the status of Eurybrachyidae v. Eurybrachidae? Shyamal (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Misspellings such as "Eurybrachidae" can only be maintained if they are in prevailing usage, which means that essentially no one is publishing the name "Eurybrachyidae". As this is plainly not the case. "Eurybrachidae" is simply treated as a misspelling, and fixed whenever feasible. Dyanega (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dyanega. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.