User talk:Uploader1234567890

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Pyrops, you may be blocked from editing. UtherSRG (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning! Uploader1234567890 (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Pyrops fumosus has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. UtherSRG (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Uploader1234567890,

Thank you for creating Pyrops viridirostris.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please add categories.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Vanderwaalforces}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Uploader1234567890,

Thank you for creating Pyrops connectens.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thanks for the good start, please add categories.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Vanderwaalforces}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note the various changes I made for formatting and grammar. Please incorporate these changes into future works. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Two things: (1) If you've had a chance to read our paper carefully, you'll note that we attempted to highlight the chaotic state of the higher classification of fulgorids. Many genera, tribes, and subfamilies that are used in the present consensus classification are clearly not good groups, and it will take many years and lots of DNA sequencing to get things settled properly. While it is not the focus of our paper, the point is that the present classification is based solely on morphology, and it is obvious that similar-looking fulgorids can be very distantly related to one another. For example, you had commented elsewhere, as I recall, that some species of Pyrops and Saiva looked very similar and you thought they should be in a separate genus, grouped together. If the only evidence is appearance, I would not trust that your suggested group is going to hold up to scrutiny, should anyone test the hypothesis by doing DNA sequencing. It might, but it easily might not. (2) There are very few morphological differences between Scaralis picta and Scaralis neotropicalis, and they are extremely subtle, such as the more extensive black on the hindwings of picta, and the bi-colored apical wing membrane in picta. The one very easy way to tell them apart is that picta is from South America, and neotropicalis is not. The images in iNaturalist that are from Central America and IDed as picta are pretty certainly neotropicalis, or possibly obscura, but I'm not going to argue the point at this stage of things; there is no existing key to the genus, and it has never been revised. I would expect that if someone does a DNA analysis, these two species will probably either be the same, or they will be sister taxa. Dyanega (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I would like to know that what does Scaralis quadricolor and fluvialis look like. I have seen spectabilis in distant 1887. I am very curious about Fulgoridae but unfortunately my knowledge is mostly limited to the oriental region, hence I seek guidance about new world Fulgoridae when I spot an opportunity. I used to have an iNaturalist account but it was suspended because I were below 13, but when I am thirteen, I will try to recover the account after emailing tiwane. I had got a good leader board when I were on iNat. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After suspension of my iNaturalist account, I could not ask questions. So I you one to understand further. I used to suspect that picture and neotropicalis are synonyms but found obscura distinct enough. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant leaderboard in identifications. I had committed 710 Fulgoridae ids and more than 1200 in total. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The planthopper illustrations in the Biologia are of variable quality and accuracy. Some are very good (e.g., the one for "Acraephia astralis"), others are not, including the one for spectabilis. A photo of the holotype of spectabilis was published by Porion, and bears little resemblance to the Biologia figure. It is quite similar to both fluvialis and quadricolor. We examined and compared the type material of all these species (that we could locate), and that's an essential part of the taxonomic process. Two types we did not see were picta and obscura, and that is problematic. The illustration of obscura in the Biologia shows a wing pattern that is typical of neotropicalis, and could indicate that it is also a synonym. However, the drawing shows no dark markings on the head or thorax, which - if accurate - would suggest it is not a synonym of neotropicalis, which always has some dark markings. However, I'm increasingly suspicious, as time goes on, because if obscura was NOT the same as neotropicalis, someone should have taken a photo of it by now. I've looked at all the photos of Mesoamerican Scaralis in iNat, and I see only two large Scaralis species in those photos; one is neotropicalis, and the other has very large and very yellow spotting in the wings, and a black and blue abdomen (see [1]) - I have no idea what species that one is. It may be undescribed. I suppose it's possible that Porion's photo of picta is a misidentified specimen of neotropicalis, which would make things more complicated; that's why type specimens are so important. Dyanega (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have Porion 1996, hence I have no other figure to refer to. S. quadricolor I don’t know any figures, and what troubles me even more is that I do not even have access to the original description of fluvialis. I am completely confused and and don’t know what to do if I don’t even have the original description of fluvialis. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have access to the necessary resources, then you should restrict yourself to making edits for which you DO have proper sources available. There is a reason that most of the links to invertebrate species in Wikipedia do not have associated articles (i.e., they are mostly "redlinks"). Very few of us have a combination of access to the primary literature, AND the time and energy to provide text for Wikipedia articles. You, personally, are not in a position to propose new synonymies or taxon names, or make any other edits to Wikipedia that are not based on published and accepted information. If you want to do something constructive, then the first thing to do is make sure that the classification in Wikipedia matches the classification in the World Auchenorrhyncha Database. The WAD contains sufficient information to allow you to give a stub-level article for each genus, and that would be plenty for Wikipedia. Don't try to provide articles for every species. Please note that for genus names that match other article title in Wikipedia, the proper disambiguator is "Xxxxx (planthopper)", not "(insect)" or "(genus)" (see, e.g. Acmonia (planthopper). It's great that you're so enthusiastic, but there are limits to what you can (and should) contribute to Wikipedia, and policies and practices you need to become familiar with, such as proper methods of formatting, linking, citing, building taxoboxes, assigning categories, and so forth. Take your time, learn from existing examples. Peace, Dyanega (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, It is, for me, not only contributing to wikipedia by knowing these but also my identification skills. I am extremely curious about different species, and my knowledge is best in the following families, which I am constantly improving:

Fulgoridae.

Lophopidae.

Some oriental dictyopharidae.

and a few others. I want know the differences... Uploader1234567890 (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

between: auchalea species

auchalea pandora and amantia magnifica Uploader1234567890 (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Amantia peruana infasciata. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and subspecies must be significantly notable for inclusion. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly the only resources that include this and the other subspecies are hopper.speciesfile and the original description. I find the subspecies district enough. I had a few edits, that i will handle later. Thanks a lot. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can put the subspecies info on the species article. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already done. Adding etymology. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Amantia peruana peruana. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and subspecies must be significantly notable for inclusion. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. UtherSRG (talk) 11:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uploader1234567890. Thank you for your work on Odontoptera spectabilis. Another editor, Asparagusus, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Great job!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Asparagusus}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

—asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 13:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asparagusus: I will add pages for the other odontoptera species soon. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uploader1234567890. Thank you for your work on Odontoptera carrenoi. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn: Thanks. I will create an article for Odontoptera toulgoeti in a while. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the changes I've made to this article. Species and genus names should always be in italics. Images can not be used as reference for descriptions; a written description should be cited. UtherSRG (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a written description to cite, and have cited it. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better. For future work, please read WP:BACKWARDS: you should start with finding references, and summarize what is written. You should not start with assertions and find references to support those assertions. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While species are assumed to be notable, and therefore valid articles, subspecies must have proven notability to be an article. I strongly suggest you merge Amantia peruana infasciata and Amantia peruana peruana into Amantia peruana before they get deleted. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but proper articles for overdistinct subspecies are actually with it. You can read the articles, and you will realise that they are relevant. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 14:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions and locations are not relevant for notability. I'm going to tag them for merger. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amantia peruana infasciata is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amantia peruana infasciata until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

UtherSRG (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amantia peruana peruana is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amantia peruana peruana until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

UtherSRG (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not take action regarding what is or is not a Code-compliant name until and unless you find viable sources for the action. In this case, the word "sultana" is not a Latin or Greek adjective. It therefore never changes spelling, as only Latin or Greek adjectives are treated under the ICZN as declinable. If you want to claim that "sultana" is a Latin or Greek adjective, then you have to find a Latin or Greek dictionary that states it is an adjective, and cite it. Dyanega (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I were thinking that whether it is FLOW or iNat, or some other website, it is always called sultanus. Why not? Uploader1234567890 (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about just aligning with the hopper DB? - UtherSRG (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it a mistake of the hopper db authors, and in flow a visible mistake is writing Pyrops ochraceus Nagai & Porion ochracea. Each database has a mistake, just with two separate species - funny, right? Uploader1234567890 (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FLOW has considerably more errors than the Hopper DB, and the use of "sultana" is not, I repeat, NOT a mistake. If you ever see a discrpeancy between the two sources, it's safe to assume that the one that is wrong is FLOW. The owner of the Hopper DB updates it and edits it on a daily basis, and revises errors when they are pointed out; the owner of FLOW hardly ever edits it except to add new species. Dyanega (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm… I wonder wh if it has been ten days since Saiva constanti Jiaranaisakul, 2024 has been described and yet it has not been updated. And Polydictya bhaskarai Constant, 2024 has only recently appeared also more than 10 days after description.

If you still not listening then please tell me why are Pyrops dimotus and sapphirinus listed as synonyms of cyanirostris, if they were synonymized by Nagai & Porion 1996 according to Constant 2015 review of the Pyrops effusus group page 3 and these species were synonymized 28 years ago. Please do not be a blind on hoppers db just because you find it reliable. I may agree on sultanus but I am just wanting to explain that this database is not as updated as you think. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liang in 1998 restored dimotus as a valid species, reversing the synonymy by Nagai & Porion. The name sapphirinus is still considered a synonym. Constant did not revise it in 2015; he revised a different species group and only mentioned Nagai & Porion's synonymy in passing, without either supporting it or refuting it. Just because he cited the synonymy is not evidence that he agrees or disagrees with the synonymy. Dyanega (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will you share a figure of dimotus by the way? Uploader1234567890 (talk) 09:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You have recently made several edits that go beyond what editors are permitted to do, and you need to consider ASKING whether an edit is correct and appropriate before you make a change. Why? Because you're frequently acting on your own personal opinion, and not following published sources. There are very strict policies in Wikipedia that prohibit original research and synthesis - PLEASE read WP:NOR and become familiar with it. You cannot, for example, read a molecular phylogeny paper that suggests a group is not monophyletic, and then edit Wikipedia to reclassify things - the paper you are citing has to be the source for an explicit change in classification, you cannot yourself take that extra step, if the authors of the paper did not. Likewise, you should not, at your own personal initiative, start deleting or changing scientific names because you think they aren't valid. If a synonymy isn't published, you can't synonymize it yourself. Also, for your reference, there are hundreds of family-rank names in use that are based on genus names that are synonyms. A genus name has to be unavailable for it to not be viable as the basis of a family-rank name; just being a synonym changes nothing. The easiest way for you to avoid problems like this is to ask for advice BEFORE you attempt to make edits. I and other editors like Uther are willing to help, but it's better to ask first than it is to make a change and then have one of us revert it. You'll learn more when you work with other editors, rather than acting purely on your own initiative. Dyanega (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First reference: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23715823_Entomologically_famous_evolutionarily_unexplored_The_first_phylogeny_of_the_lanternfly_family_Fulgoridae_Insecta_Hemiptera_Fulgoroidea. They showed that the new world and old wold Fulgoridae were distinct branches or lineages, and funnily still considered fulgorinae

2. Constant & Pham 2017 over here:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315657054_Review_of_the_clavatus_group_of_the_lanternfly_genus_Pyrops_Hemiptera_Fulgoromorpha_Fulgoridae removed Pyrops from Fulgoridae and placed it in Fulgoridae incertae sedis. Constant 2021, over here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349899697_Pyrops_auratus_a_new_lanternfly_from_the_Philippines_and_taxonomic_note_on_Bornean_P_gunjii_Sato_Nagai_1994_Hemiptera_Fulgoromorpha_Fulgoridae became the last paper to ever have mention Pyrops without attribution to any subfamily.

3. Constant & Pham, 2022, one of the recent works on Pyropsini, on page 125 over here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359973157_The_Lanternfly_genus_Pyrops_in_Vietnam_A_new_species_from_Central_Vietnam_taxonomic_changes_checklist_identification_key_Hemiptera_Fulgoromorpha_Fulgoridae

They listed Pyropsini under Aphaeninae. Even Constant, Jiaranaisakul & Pinkaew (Review of Thai Pyrops)

So just because I am young and then changing the wiki taxonomy templates does not necessarily mean I am wrong. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Jiaranaisakul, Pinkaew & Webb (Saiva constant and virescens, etc.) also listed Pyropsini under Aphaeninae. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "don't make changes", I said "don't make changes without confirmation". The process should not be four steps: (1) you make a change (2) it gets reverted (3) you provide evidence that the change is justified, and (4) the change is restored. The process should be one step or two steps - either (1) you make a change and include a citation that shows that the change is based on a published reliable source, or (1) you find a marginal source, or the authors don't extrapolate to what you think is an obvious conclusion, and you ask on the talk page whether a change is appropriate, and tag one of the other editors, and (2) we discuss whether your suggested change is justifiable given the published evidence, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. The Urban & Cryan paper is a perfect example of the issue: they SHOW evidence for all sorts of seriously disruptive re-shuffling of taxa, but they do not SAY that they are proposing a new classification based on this evidence. You can't take that extra step if the authors of the paper did not. Many of the conclusions in the Urban & Cryan analysis have NOT been confirmed by other researchers, nor adopted by other researchers - the work is considered preliminary, and preliminary research can be quoted and cited in Wikipedia AS preliminary, but not used as the basis for making changes. For example, you've certainly seen that the potential elevation of Zannini as a group sister to Fulgoridae has been mentioned in Wikipedia, but it is ONLY mentioned, it has not been treated as a family Zannidae here, because no one has published a paper treating it as a family and had others follow that example. As for the reclassification of Pyropsini, thanks for providing the citation from Constant & Pham. That does show that the placement of Pyropsini under Aphaeninae has been adopted by experts, and appropriate changes using that citation can be made. Again, that should have been the first step, not an afterthought. Dyanega (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone in and edited the three pages affected by the Pyropsini change; Fulgoridae, Fulgorinae, and Aphaeninae. You should take a look to see how those changes were made and cited. Dyanega (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for that. Uploader1234567890 (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hariola, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maluku. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 19:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Uploader1234567890 (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Your recent edits suggest that you are unaware that editors are prohibited from doing original research regarding article content. If there are no published sources that have synonymized Kalidasa lui or Kalidasa mytiliae, then Wikipedia cannot be edited to suggest that they are synonyms. Your personal opinion cannot be used as the basis of edits; only published sources. You need to review the policies at WP:NOR and WP:RS and become familiar with them. Continued abuse of editing privileges runs the risk of losing editing privileges altogether. You may find this frustrating because you think you "know better", but that's not how Wikipedia works. Stick to published sources, and learn how to cite them. That's how to be a good Wikipedia editor. Dyanega (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Uploader1234567890 (talk) 06:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]