User talk:Jonkerz/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jonkerz. 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 have been in touch with James Trager and he has kindly sent me a link to his article on the Polyergus revision. I am sending you the link by email as he makes certain stipulations as to how it should be used. The article looks helpful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to the both of you, I'll make good use of it. jonkerz ♠talk 15:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rossomyrmex may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 51 | issue = 10 | pages = 1158–1164 | year = 2005 | pmid = 16076474|ref=CITEREFRuano et al.2005}}}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done, jonkerz ♠talk 10:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Slave-making ant, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Slave-making ant requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.frontiersinzoology.com/content/2/1/13. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Please see Template:Did you know nominations/Slave-making ant; Trophobiosis. jonkerz ♠talk 13:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I noted the discussion on the DYK page about this matter. The relevant Wikipedia guidance can be found here and here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the links, Cwmhiraeth. I'll ask someone from the OA wikiproject to take a look at it once I get home. jonkerz ♠talk 14:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Jonkerz, the new page search for ants has been run. You can added the results to a project page by using {{User:AlexNewArtBot/AntsSearchResult}} --Bamyers99 (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Very useful, thank you ‎Bamyers. I wonder why the bot did not find these: Adetomyrma cilium, Adetomyrma caudapinniger, Adetomyrma cassis, Adetomyrma aureocuprea, Phrynoponera bequaerti, Phrynoponera gabonensis, Dorymyrmex amazonicus, Stenamma andersoni, Lenomyrmex inusitatus, Acanthognathus poinari, Acropyga glaesaria, Polyergus mexicanus, Polyergus rufescens? Maybe because the rules set is new? The pages are all less than 14 days old and above the threshold according to the New Page Search Rule Test tool. jonkerz ♠talk 05:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The bot only scans the previous days new pages and updated newer pages. It just retains 14 days once it has found them. --Bamyers99 (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, ok, thanks! jonkerz ♠talk 15:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dinoponera quadriceps may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *{{OA-attribution| {{citation | last1 = Smith | first1 = C. R. | last2 = Suarez | first2 = A. V. |

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done, jonkerz ♠talk 19:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Thanks for uploading File:Fair Trade USA Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Malagidris, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Petiole and Congeneric (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) 08:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done, jonkerz ♠talk 10:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the Barnster you posted! I have been a bit busy with school work but I should be able to create new articles as of now, seeing as I just completed most of my school work. :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Meranoplus cryptomys (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Malagasy

Meranoplus mayri (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Malagasy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done, jonkerz ♠talk 12:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Aenictus gutianshanensis

added a link pointing to Petiole

Bannapone

added a link pointing to Asian

Lenomyrmex

added a link pointing to Dimorphism

Mystrium

added a link pointing to West Papua

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done, jonkerz ♠talk 11:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• from all other species of the ''Aenictus wroughtonii'' group by the [[pronotum]], the [[Petiole (insect anatomy|petiole]], and the side of the [[postpetiole]] completely finely reticulate. The

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done, jonkerz ♠talk 11:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Meranoplus radamae, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.antwiki.org/wiki/Meranoplus_radamae.

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) 02:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Attributed Creative Commons-content; Please see the attribution template in the article. jonkerz ♠talk 02:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I looked at this but did not find the licensing terms you mention. Can you help me find them?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sphilbrick, thank you for your message. While not very obvious, the article is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. From the website of Magnolia Press (mapress.com), the original publisher of Zootaxa: "All open access papers are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License." (see [1]). Now, not all Zootaxa articles are open access (most are not), and the licenses are not mentioned in the PDFs. You need to find the article listed on MP's website. The Meranoplus article by Boudinot & Fisher (2013) can be found in the list of articles from Zootaxa volume 3635 (4) or Hymenoptera-related articles, where it will say "open access" in the description. jonkerz ♠talk 01:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up. They don't make it easy. Nut at least I don't feel like I missed something obvious.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello Jonkerz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lithomyrmex Clark, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Per the talk page rationale, it seems a reasonable redirect. Thank you. GedUK  11:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, Just wanted to let you know I'm finishing up an article on this funky group and wanted to let you have a look before I posted it. From my reading of the literature it looks like the current trend is to treat them as a separate family from Formicidae, based on the lack of any fossils with a credible metaplural gland. Have I missed anything in the write up?--Kevmin § 03:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kevmin: Your draft looks good and I think you're on the right track by following LaPolla et al.'s 2013 article and by explaining the situation in the lead. However, since the List of ant subfamilies which I recently created is based on AntCat, which still treats the taxa as a subfamily, I opted for that alternative and added a short comment to the table. Having the list treat it as Armaniinae and the main article as Armaniidae may seem strange, but it is not an issue at the moment, I think. Whenever AntCat is updated, I'll update the subfamily list (by now I'm used to it; this year has been crazy in terms of revision of ants -- the dorylomorphs, ponerines and myrmicines have all been revised, that's about half of all ant species!). jonkerz ♠talk 22:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I know right! I've actually been ignoring the new taxa a little at the moment. Ive been slowly working my way through the A's listing from the now deleted Antwiki page, list of extinct ants. (I'm sad that it was deleted and wish I had grabbed the whole list and not just the A's). I just reached Armania, and there are only a couple more articles to do/attempt after that, then I can look at the new taxa from this year. I'll go ahead and upload the article to Armaniidae and make a redirect at Armaniinae.--Kevmin § 23:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leptogenys, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Auguste. 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) 09:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done, jonkerz ♠talk 23:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I like your comment on not having self referencing comments at portals. I think that kind of link belongs at the wikiproject. I do like having a link to an associated wikiproject, and i think a link showing what someone can do to improve the Portal itself (not the details on improving the subject) are acceptable. i dont like collaborations, lists of needed articles, or anything that is basically found at a project.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mercurywoodrose: Thanks for the support; I think the portal space can be improved a lot, but I'm very busy with other tasks ATM. jonkerz ♠talk 17:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think removing the content on the Red imported fire ant article was necessary, and the article has been greatly improved. So thanks for the clean up! Burklemore1 (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: Good to hear! Thanks, jonkerz ♠talk 17:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ants of medical importance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solenopsis. 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) 09:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done, jonkerz ♠talk 12:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I have been looking around for how many ant generas are apart of the subfamily ponerinae, but while it says 42 on the ant subfamily list, antcat has listed 47 genera and AntWeb has listed 46, and a category I found on antwiki (seen here) has also 47, but even though that can't be considered reliable, the articles that are linked from there are plentiful of published references supporting all of them as a genus. The article itself only lists 28, which is rather inaccurate, unless there is an explanation for that. Do you have any confirmation on the exact count, or is it just muddled? Burklemore1 (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: The Ponerinae article was created before Schmidt & Shattuck (2014) revised the ponerines (they split Pachycondyla into 19 genera (see Talk:Pachycondyla) and erected a new ponerine genus, Iroponera). The subfamilies list was created before AntCat had fully updated their catalog. I'll update both articles ASAP. jonkerz ♠talk 12:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. That makes a lot of sense now actually. I'll put the Pachycondyla article on my to do list and reform the list and such, just so it is up to date. Should there be a section or text in regard of these changes, also linking the recently split genera? Burklemore1 (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: A taxonomy section would be very good, short or long. I emailed Steve Shattuck and asked for a PDF of the article (the original is behind a paywall on Zootaxa); he was kind enough and sent me the article. If you enable "email from other users" in your preferences or email me (Special:EmailUser/Jonkerz), I'll forward you the article. jonkerz ♠talk 14:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll get back to you soon. I look forward to reading it. Burklemore1 (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I having been meaning to get back to you with the file you were going to send to me about the recently formed generas. My apologies for such a late time. I have been super busy with the jack jumper ant article, I didn't realise there are many, MANY issues. I will email you or something as soon as I can to work on the genera. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

May need your assistance to clean this up: There has been a huge shift with tribes and genera in the subfamily Myrmicinae, and the genus Ankylomyrma, the only member of the tribe Ankylomyrmini has been moved from there to Agroecomyrmecinae.

AntWeb has a source attached to it, you can find it on the page, and here. I'm trying to reorganise the whole Myrmicinae subfamily list to keep it up to date, so I will need help if you are able to. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: Wow, so many pages to update! I'll start with a bunch, but it will take a while to get them all up-to-date. Re the main article: do you have a sandbox anywhere that is more up-to-date than the live article? I'm working on a subfamily list in my sandbox, based on work I started months ago, but never got around to actually make something out of it; it is still very much work-in-progress and it's hard to tell at this point how much time it will take to finish it. jonkerz ♠talk 09:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jonkerz: I will move the article I currently have in my sandbox onto a word document seeing as I cannot be bothered working on it for now, so I'll work in my sandbox based on the catalog on Antcat. I have done a slight update on the Agroecomyrmecinae article but it may need further sentence reconstruction since it DID only have one species until now and I was working rather quickly at first. Also, what should we do for particular tribe articles that are no longer classified? Should we transform them into redirects or is there another suitable option to keep the content? Burklemore1 (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: Started working on reorganising the tribes, generas etc. on my sandbox, I am counting how many species and fossil species there are in each genus, based off what antcat says, but be aware some taxons haven't been reviewed on there yet. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: Yes, synonyms of valid taxa should be turned into redirects (both tribes and genera). Given how much work we'll need to put into this, what do you think about [preliminary] slavishly following AntCat, and then move on from there? Sorry for not coordinating this better (to avoid duplicate work), but I may be able to finish the main list today, if that would make it easier for you? I'm not listing number of species in my sandbox, but if you have the time to wait, that could probably save us some work. jonkerz ♠talk 11:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: The list in my sandbox is 99% complete; it just needs to be double checked. jonkerz ♠talk 11:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jonkerz: That works, the main list is really what is important. The genera itself most likely wouldn't have changed a lot (in terms of species moving to a different genera), seeing as some of them did not change one bit and they had 80+ species listed. I must also make mention the subfamily Dolichoderinae needed some slight updating, but I easily fixed it (two new fossil genera's were not updated and among other things). Because of this some other subfamilies could be outdated, but I doubt it, though some caution is in consideration. As for AntCat, I think the genera's and tribes that are under review should be watched since it may not be completely accurate until it can be accepted, but other than that, AntCat is considered reliable and it should be followed, it's perhaps the only option for the best accuracy we can give to Wikipedia. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: The Dolichoderinae page seems to be up-to-date now after your edit, but there's still a few new synonyms I'd like to clear up before updating the Myrmicinae page. Science should be put on hold every other year or so, it would make wiki editing so much easier, heh :) jonkerz ♠talk 08:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jonkerz: It would make editing easy in all honesty, I agree. I'm glad we don't need to update the genus Camponotus (since it's up to date anyway), considering it has over 1,000 species and it would just be utter chaos trying to reorganise it. Since I have noticed your synonyms are mainly for the genera's, I will write the synonyms for tribes unless you have got that covered, but I am sure that will not really matter. Oh and also thanks for the update edit on Agroecomyrmecinae.Burklemore1 (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have written the tribe synonyms, even if their pages don't exist, but it'd be easier. Wrote it in general just to make it easier too. Burklemore1 (talk) 10:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Ectomomyrmex, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: ectomomyrmex. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

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. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No copyright concern. False positive. Bug; please see User_talk:Coren#New_page_tagged_as_possible_copyvio_of_itself. jonkerz ♠talk 19:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Simopelta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaster. 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) 09:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done, jonkerz ♠talk 14:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I created a new ant page and apparently there is a possible copyvio according to CorenSearchBot, but the only thing I used was the reference and I am certain this is a bug. I don't know about you, but since when did you need to attribute credit by using a reference on another site? (I have removed the tag but just go to my talk or the articles history page. I believe this is nonsense and this is the first time I have ever encountered this). Burklemore1 (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: I see you've already taken care of this; I went ahead and marked the page as a false positive to make it easier for the new pages patrollers. jonkerz ♠talk 05:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: Oh, excellent, thank you. I perhaps knew immediately why it was triggered, because what else is there that could have been a copyright violation? Burklemore1 (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I have spent the best of the last 5 years tagging talk pages for a wide range of projects at times

and consider that in view of the rate of burklemore's brilliant additions of recent that the comment at the task force

• ''Expand {{WikiProject Insects}} with ants-task-force=yes, ants-priority; this should probably be discussed at WT:INSECTS first''

is well overdue, and the lack of adequate tagging fails to show that a significant task force exists.

Strongly suggest that you or someone either checks insects and gets on with fixing the template (I am not a tweaker), soon, my tagging finger is itching... satusuro 15:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Satusuro: It is overdue! I've added a request for assistance here. I hope it will cure your tagging itch ;) jonkerz ♠talk 16:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

← What is this, a barnstar for ants? Yes, it is. Almost all the top 100 done now. If I knew so much progress would be made, I would have made the ants list first. Nice going. Let me know if you need anything else in future. —Pengo 22:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Pengo: Hahahah, I love the barnstar! :) It may be the smallest ever awarded; it certainly is the smallest I've seen. And thank you for creating the list, it sure will come handy once again now that tagging of ant articles has begun. Cheers, jonkerz ♠talk 23:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Here, have a barnstar that I should have given you awhile back for the hard work you have put in. :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

		The Ant Barnstar
		I know this may seem a little late, but I want to thank you by giving you a barnstar, for your help and contributions on updating numerous subfamily and species pages (i.e Agroecomyrmecinae, Myrmicinae, Ponerinae, Pachycondyla, etc.) Without these contributions, these pages would still most likely be out of date.

Thank you, Burklemore1! It means a lot! jonkerz ♠talk 11:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Good day, I need help with something. This time it isn't on a grand scale, but it's more of a question. I am going to renominate jack jumper ant again soon for GA (I believe it's just about ready once again), but I have noticed these synonyms published on the Hymenoptera Name Server, but I am really unsure if I should add them because:

• I have only seen the synonym Ponera ruginoda as the only synonym in many publications; meanwhile the name server gives many more, many of which seem to be published under the synonym and the current valid species. Is it wise to add them if the name server suggests these as current synonyms? I hope I'm not sounding dense with this since this could just be a straightforward question, but it's best to ask someone beforehand.

Also, I must comment there is a peer review open for the article which no one has posted feedback for awhile, so if you would like to leave any comments on improving the article, it'll be greatly appreciated. :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: The synonyms from the Hymenoptera Name Server can probably just be left out, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information after all. And non-obvious synonyms (and unresolved homonyms) are not very fun to deal with anyways :) Well that's my initial reaction, but I'll look into it whenever I have more time. I'm very busy with work at the moment, but I'll try chip in with a few comments to the peer review. jonkerz ♠talk 17:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jonkerz: Alright cheers for the answer. I'll be busy with university soon so take as much time as you need! Burklemore1 (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. You're invited to a discussion of at Talk:Involuntary termination of employment#Renaming back and rewriting. You're being notified because you have been active in choosing the direction of that article in the past; it now appears to now be duplicating Dismissal (employment). --Closeapple (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Some recent revisions and other recent text books indicate that this genus is now a junior synonym of the genus Carebara. So it is good to move the species within Pheidologeton to the genus Carebara and revised it..Refer page on AntWiki http://www.antwiki.org/wiki/Pheidologeton also.

Thank You... User:Gihan Jayaweera (talk)

Thank you for your message, Gihan Jayaweera. Apologies for the late reply, I haven't been very active here on WP lately. I've redirected the genus to Carebara (a bot will take care of the synonyms), but there's still one species article (Pheidologeton diversus) that needs to be rewritten/updated before it can be moved. I've added it to this list of synonyms for future reference. Feel free to add any synonyms you find to that list whenever you do not have time to update the page, that's what I do, heh ;) Cheers, jonkerz ♠talk 14:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Endemic fauna of France, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor ^(talk) 12:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Jonkerz, I was wondering if you would like to check out the Black-headed sugar ant article I basically wrote entirely in a period of six days, and I want some feedback on it. I have proof-read the article four times and fixed up some grammatical errors, but curiosity got the end of me and asking you for feedback would be necessary. If you are unable to do this because of inactivity and/or busy with IRL things, just let me know. Also, please excuse any errors I may have missed, for they are most likely unintentional. ;-)

I'm sure there is no GA policy with an articles age, but I do believe it is somewhat ready since I have exhausted all available sources on the net, and it's rather broad in coverage. Feel free to fix up anything or suggest improvement, I'll be grateful for any feedback. Oh, and another note:

• Some sources (e.g. Haskins & Haskins, 1992 and Hölldobler & Wilson, 1990) will not display the taxon Camponotus nigriceps; instead, it will display Camponotus perthiana. This taxon is actually a synonym of the species (since 1996). Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit: I assessed the article as C-class since it was too developed and considerably sourced to be tagged as a "stub" or "start" class article when it was first written. Feel free to assess that yourself if it should undergo a second assessment. Burklemore1 (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Great article, Burklemore! I could only find a few very minor things:

"The subspecies only grow to 6 to 10 millimetres (0.24 to 0.39 in).[5]"

• A species can have zero or more subspecies, never only one. It is valid to say that a species "has one subspecies", because it really means that there's one more subspecies in addition to the nominate subspecies (Camponotus nigriceps nigriceps). Readers will understand the above wording, but maybe it could be made more clear.

Interesting, I have learned something new today. Is this usually done by default or must it have a supporting source?

"... or laying down an odour trail for orientation."

• I think I'd prefer "pheromone trail" here, but both forms are OK. Just a preference.

I like your recommendation so I'll change it.

"Other predators of the black-headed sugar ant include the rainbow trout.[33]"

• I love this fact, despite that fish eating whatever they find in the water is not very "pretator-y". Maybe it could be explained shortly in just a few words how the ants ended up in the stomach of a trout. Blown/fell into the water, according to the source. But it could have been that the species formed living ant rafts like the fire ants, or perhaps the trout shot them down like archerfish do with their prey.

Haven't read much about rainbow trout so I'm not sure what their feeding behaviour is like. I'll try and rewrite.

Fact checking most of the statements referenced to the two McArthur articles I found nothing out of the ordinary (but it seems like the angle of the setae listed in the appendix in McArthur (2007) is not consistent with the number given on page 308, heh). It looks like the article will pass GA, if not, I'll assess it as B-class. jonkerz ♠talk 00:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, odd. Shouldn't be too much of a problem, but the article is coming along nicely. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I bring excellent news about the article! It has passed GA review, so another ant related article has now been promoted. Burklemore1 (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Solenopsis solenopsidis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solenopsis. 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) 09:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done jonkerz ♠talk 20:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I did a great many insects articles, including lots of moths and others. The problem is {{WikiProject Insects|Stub|low|ants=yes|ants-importance=high }}, where it does not say class=Stub or importance=low. Stub shows up on the article, but class and importance are not in the categories. I see that there are many more ant-related articles unfixed, and maybe I will go back to AWB fixing. Maybe you could learn to use AWB to do talk page corrections yourself. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dthomsen8: Ahh, so this is why User:Pyrospirit/metadata isn't always able to do its magic. I am however not sure what you mean by "Stub shows up on the article, but class and importance are not in the categories"; from what I can tell, all categories that should be in place are in place even if the template is added like this: {{WikiProject Insects|Stub|low|ants=yes|ants-importance=high}}. Example using the short syntax, Expanded syntax. I am on the AWB CheckPage, but I rarely use it. jonkerz ♠talk 00:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I said it backwards. Formica rufa group does not show the assessment. Do you want to learn how to use AWB to fix various ant-related articles? I have other tasks at hand right now.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dthomsen8: Sure! I can barely remember the interface of AWB right now. Maybe I can ping you later when I have more time on my hands and if I'm not able to generate the list of articles to fix? Except for the issue with the assessment bar, what does expanding all the "short styles" actually change? Also, since this problem isn't limited to ant-related articles, perhaps someone could make a bot run to update all project banners, and/or patch User:Pyrospirit/metadata to take into account the shorter format. jonkerz ♠talk 01:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I did 100 updates for Mid-importance Insects articles, but there are still talk pages to fix there. There are WikiProject Lepidoptera lines with importance=, that is, none specified, and some of those are class=C while insects says class=B, or the opposite. What should be done about that? I am looking to you for details like that. I am working on 400 entries, before I do the 35,000+ articles. Once I have the small list correct, I can give you the AWB settings for the big lists. AWB is set to put in the changes if you look at my contributions. Reply right here.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Dthomsen8: I see several different options here: 1) If there's no such bot already, create or request a bot that compiles lists of articles assessed as belonging to more than one quality rating, and let editors manually rate these articles. 2) Just use the highest quality rating; if someone think the article is B, let's give them the benefit of the doubt. However, I doubt this will be very popular within the broader community. 3) Unless it's too much of a hassle, whenever you stumble upon "dual tagged" articles, add them to a list somewhere (in your user space or otherwise) and drop a link to the lists on the relevant wikiprojects' talk pages -- I'm sure this would be appreciated by many editors. Re "importance=": blank importance params are not an issue. jonkerz ♠talk 13:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at the article on Christopher Wilder. Any help is appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@BabbaQ: I wish I could help, but I do not really know anything about this. Cheers, jonkerz ♠talk 18:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)