User talk:Bugboy52.40: Difference between revisions

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Joe Gazz84 (user)•(talk)•(contribs) 21:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ɡreen12.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link to the (un-refereed) preprint: http://precedings.nature.com/documents/5138/version/1 You're best reading the PDF file, as the HTML conversion isn't wonderful. The part I was discussing on the reference desk is in sections 4 & 5. Best wishes. Physchim62 (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently started editing in Wikipedia. I have just added my name to the [WikiProject Insects] and have expanded the articles on Acleris variegana and the Diamondback moth. Some feedback would be welcome. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bugboy52.40, I recommend that you work in main article space for Lepidoptera, not in user space. Also, polymorphism is adequately covered in Lepidoptera and does not need expansion. So don't merge that Polymorphism article back into Lepidoptera. Other sections such as behaviour, etc need development. What is needed is not rewriting at this point but addition of more referenced material. After External morphology of Lepidoptera becomes GA , I will switch to Lepidoptera. AshLin (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By working in article mainspace, I could contribute by overseeing your edits, giving suggestions, adding stuff etc. I did not even know you were working on Lepidoptera till I saw your merge notice and checked your recent contribs. I try to add material to that article whenever I get a chance. By encyclopedia do you mean Resh & Carde? I have that too! Got access recently. AshLin (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The morphology of an insect, strictly speaking includes not only the adult but also the development stages. In Lepidoptera, I tried to keep only morphological attributes in the morphology section while development, and other natural history issues were restricted to life cycle. You are welcome to change the structure as you deem fit as it does feel clunky. AshLin (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That I would not recommend as discussion of head, thorax, abdomen is in the scope of External morphology of Lepidoptera, not Lepidoptera itself. I just deleted some unnecessary subheadings. I think the article looks better now. What do you think? AshLin (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead with your edits. However on no account put it through GA because as of now it lacks completeness to the standard required by GA. I plan to work on the completeness checking, sectio by section as soon as I complete my GAN on External morphology. Plus I have access to university resources once a week and some books of my own including an ancient copy of Imms recently borrowed. Keeping this in mind, please improve it but dont put it under GA. If it is put up for GA with incomplete material as of now, my conscience would require me to quick fail it till I feel it is suitably done. The reason I am delaying is I plan to use all lessons learnt from the current GA on the next one - Lepidoptera -so that its tackled in a better fashion. Hope this helps. AshLin (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. Please keep it up! AshLin (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, sometimes I forget where to reply. BTW :-) you definitely want to arouse the interest of your reader, not curb it, he he. If you feek yo have done your bit, why not try modifying that phylogeny diagram like I told you so as t make your claim even stronger? AshLin (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Its a great diagram. Good that we got that issue cleared up before we went in for GAN. AshLin (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all the GAN issues at present. Waiting for any additional comments by reviewer. Great job on Lepidoptera. Boy are you one WikiOgre! AshLin (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Phylogenetic chart of Lepidoptera.svg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 07:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Acather96 (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bugboy, your creating this file and claiming copyright is incorrect. This is a copyright violation. I am removing this image till its status is above dispute. The image is virtually identical to that in Resh & Carde where they have stated that their image is modified/based on Labandeira et al. (1994). For you to claim it as your creation, it has to e a completely new visualisation of the data and has to be different in the way the info is depicted. You also still need to acknowledge the source of the information which has not been done. AshLin (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont exactly know. Perhaps the first thing to do is to redraw the diagram in a different way, maybe reducing some data, by converting it to horizontal, relabelling headings, including other information. After that you have to state in the page its sources to avoid WP:PLAGIARISM. Im sure you understand that Copyright Violation is reproducing someone else's work without permission while Plagiarism is passing off someone else's work/information as your own. To be on the safe side, you could also post on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to check if anything more needs to be done. And yes, upload the new diagram with own work tag not copyright holder release tag. Hope this helps. AshLin (talk) 05:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great going so far. Good night. AshLin (talk) 05:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Loved the Gypsy moth image. Trust its your own original idea. AshLin (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you get the issue clarified on the message-board I told you about to be sure? You may have missed out some finer nuance of understanding. One question which may arise is whether prior permission is required else it may be a case of copyright violation as copyright prevents you from making derivatives as I understand it. I am sure Resh & Cade took permission from the authors Kristensen etc. The publishing industry does this as a matter of routine. Secondly I still recommend changing the diagram as I proposed reducing some information, say the early, middle, late divisions for each geological age, switching to horizontal etc so that your claim is stronger. Please realise it is not me that you have to convince but to get your position explicitly clarified and to follow the right course of action. AshLin (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invit, but I am not the man. I have not an overvue of the order. Books on this subject exist with about thousand pages... It is not easy to resume. Jacqueshb (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/ent425/tutorial/Communication/viscomm.html is a great source for communication relating to insects, and the insect article.

• gastric caecae to be added to the digestive system
• corpus allatum & Prothoracicotropic hormone to insect endocrine system
• The gonopore & spermatheca in insect reproduction + this source
• File:Evolution_insect_mouthparts_coloured.svg
• [2]
• anatomy
• anatomy
• immune system
• [[3]] - food related terms
• evolution
• insect walking
• respiratory system
• mouthparts/feeding
• Myrmeconema neotropicum interesting parasitism in ants
• Cockroach drawing
• morphogenesis -[4]
• [5]
• Imaginal disc - for metamorphosis
• User:Siga/pictures has good diagrams of species morphology
• insect keys and tutorials

Internal morphology is still not complete imho. We need to learn what are the characteristics of Lepidopteran internal morphology as compared to that of a generic insect and portray them. Only reproduction is not enough. Perhaps GAN notice is premature. AshLin (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be pleased to help in any way you would like. Fresh from the February Wikification Drive, would you like me to go through the article making trivial changes such as improving this statement:

In many species, the female may be able to produce anywhere from 200 to 600 eggs, while in some others it may go as high as 30,000 eggs in one day. which leaves a large number of caterpillars, which in effect can mow down entire acres of crops. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment there is a reference error for ref no 26. It currently says that the authority is "ref name="Gullan"/>" but previously it said "ref name="Gillot"/>". Do you think it should be changed back? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your referencing system. For example, what does ^: 246 (in curly brackets) mean? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving the references for you to deal with but I have made various minor alterations. You can see which sections I have worked on and what I have done by viewing the History. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bugboy52.40,
Will do. I'll try to be the best tame non-scientist WP:WikiProject Insects has ever had.
--Shirt58 (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bugboy, Just wanted to check in and say thanks for the invite to work on Lepidoptera. I am a better copy-editor than entomologist, so you may want to look over any edits I have made to make sure I did not unintentionally change the content in correcting the grammar! Also, I voted in support of your proposal at the RFC-- it makes sense to me, and I think it would help, not hinder, the insect articles on this site. Best, Lo, i am real 00:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find I have no patience for the tons of talk you need for getting these type of proposals through. I tire very soon. I wish you all the best, though! AshLin (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just over two years ago, you wrote the article Liacarus palmicinctum, and I was wondering if you remembered or could find out what references you used when writing it. With unreferenced stubs, I will often find a new reference and write a new sentence or two to replace what we had, but this article is too detailed for that kind of treatment, I think. If you could provide it with inline references, that really would be great. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

insect svg images

Thank you, I just loved that infestation! It's your turn now with Lepidoptera. AshLin (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bugboy52.40!
Normally, I'd jump in and start the article and let the experts sort it out, but in view of the WP:GA nomination, I wouldn't want Transverse orientation to point to a stubby little article. I've got a starting point, but to be honest, the topic is a bit too maths-y for me. Is "transverse orientation" in moths well-attested in the literature, or should we just work around it?
Yours in bug-ness, --Shirt58 (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On this page, you've added lots of terms that are linked to redirects back to this page. How is this helpful? Please discuss. Rwalker (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Lepidoptera you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Lepidoptera for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your input on the stubs. You said you have a program to create articles. I forgot all about Wikipedia:CSV. I've used it before, and it is very effective and easy to use. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah great! You signed too.. I dont know exactly how and when we are receiving access. I am guessing they are waiting until 400 have signed up before sending the details over to Credo. We will just have to wait and see..! Cheers Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this suits your needs Scray (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. AshLin (talk) 04:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment on my page about copyediting Lepidoptera. I ran out of time to do much more, but am glad to see it made GA. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have a great source for you. It is entirely CC-3.0, so you can use every scrap of info including pictures. It is a catalogue of all beetle family group names including fossils, see: http://www.pensoft.net/journals/zookeys/article/807/abstract/family-group-names-in-coleoptera-insecta- Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, it would be best suited for a Taxonomy of Coleoptera article, but you might be interested in that later on. Cheers and keep up the good work! Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great user page! I ask a favor. Recently, User:WereSpielChequer has asked me to begin congratulating editors as they reach the 100K plateau. I have been using the Tireless Contributor Barnstar which was OK but, to tell the truth, a bit boring. I was searching for a new more appropriate barnstar or for someone that could create one...and then I saw your work of art at User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me's talk page. Striking and beautiful. Eye-catching! I ask that I could present your fine barnstar to all future 100K editors. It is a vast improvement over what is now presented to them. It is like comparing parchment to tissue paper. Further, I may retreat and replace your barnstar for the one previously placed at about a dozen 100K editors, with your sanction. Thanking you in advance. Buster Seven Talk 21:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, Bugboy. What I need is a template of the award that I can personalize the message, etc. and then I cut-n-paste and add to the recipiants page. Feel free to add a designer recognition mention somewhere, probably in small font. Unless there is a different way. I'm not a tech so I may be doing it like the 63 year old that I am. Nice to meet you. I have some other barnstars that I will need help with. More about that later. See User:Buster7/Sandbox-100K AwardsBuster Seven Talk 00:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi bugboy who and or what is represented by this flag File:Venzwalian Flag.jpg? Awg1010 (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Wow, that was uploaded more then 3 years ago. I haven't got the slightest clue for what though, why do you ask? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 20:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)"[reply]

Well on the commons it is categorized in "Unidentified flags" and I was hoping to place it where it could be found by a descriptive search. Awg1010 (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I can save you some headaches and create those talkpages for you with AWB, if you like. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any time. The barnstar wasn't mine, actually - but I support it wholeheartedly. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not running a bot to create all those stubs, are you? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Keep it up. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there are asterisk behind the binomial name? I cannot think of a reason why that should be there. Furtermore, I am wondering what the point of these stubs is. There is no info in them at all, even less than there is in the genus, because you left out the binomial authority as well. Are you going back to flesh them out? If not I fear they will be turned into redirects when user stemonitis spots them... Just warning.. :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only know he turned tons of articles similar to the ones you created into redirs. Dont know about consensus... Anyway, it would be better to at least at some basic info I think. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that WP:BOTPOL deals with "Automated or partially automated editing processes" (my emphasis)? It seems like these articles would most certainly be covered by the bot policy, and should have received prior approval. Also, like Ruigeroeland, I cannot quite see what purpose these articles fill that could not be filled by a list and redirects. BTW, here you can read User:Stemonitis's rationale for merging. Lampman (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't miss it: Curlyhair tarantula. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

66.229.227.191 (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your offer (several months ago now!) to help identify insect photos. Here are a couple from a suburban environment near the Aegean coast of Turkey: [6] (something like a shield-bug, fairly large: about 25 mm long) and [7] (a scarabaeus? of similar size). Please advise also whether or not you think they’d be useful (i.e. of adequate quality and not duplicating existing shots) if I were to upload them to Commons. Can you identify arachnids as well?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, your entomological knowledge is appalling, I would appreciate if you stopped vandalising Wikipedia with false information. For instance, there is no such thing as a "Harvest Mite Larva" as mites are arachnids and thus hemimetabolous - undergoing incomplete metamorphosis.

Regards.

I appreciate your criticism, however there are more constructive ways of going about this. Also, not to contribute to your nonsensical banter, you clearly know mites are arachnids therefore it would be arachnological not entomolgical, as that involves the study of insects. If have an argument to project, please use resources to back yourself up, as clearly I have done in the article I written (Trombiculidae) which is backed up by numerous books which also states the lower nymphal stages as larvae before there are fully grown to adults. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 19:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of getting into an edit war with you, so, please can you revert your own reversion of my edit to Insect morphology ... that paragraph is unsourced and utter rubbish! If not, I will have to seek advice of admins. Thanks, Stho002 (talk) 06:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, it has been taken care of ... Stho002 (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You seems to be more reasonable than the other bunch of "friends". Who got in ownership the article: INSECT. 1. I found the talk page entrance regarding my edit by accident only. Nobody was kind of to give me a clue: somebody finally decided to discus with me changes to the article. 2. Administrator should look in first into quality of the edit instead who accuse anybody for something "unpleased". 3. I return automatically my paragraph (which is with reasonable resources) if the ERASER do not start with arguments and proposed changes. 4. I am not going to start discussion if somebody start and continue with repeated ERASEANINGS. Administrator should block the ERASER instead RETURNER of resourced scientific info.67.224.86.242 (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Blue icon.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in this image the tag 'costa' should actually be 'nodus', greetz, Bart -B kimmel (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could the first insect wing-related thing you do when you get back be to fix the colors in the text? They are distracting me a bit too much to do a thorough content review. I'll review for content right after they are fixed. StringTheory¹¹ 17:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that there is one day left for the "on hold" phase of the GA review. StringTheory¹¹ 14:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, What I meant about bugs is in the sense of true bugs, not the everyday term of "bug" as a refernce to what we should call "incests".XD0248 sign 22:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, your entomological knowledge is appalling, I would appreciate if you stopped vandalising Wikipedia with false information. For instance, there is no such thing as a "Harvest Mite Larva" as mites are arachnids and thus hemimetabolous - undergoing incomplete metamorphosis.

Regards.

Hello Bugboy. Someoneone pointed out (but did nothing about) the fact that Phloeophagy was the correct spelling. Though this was true, I did not get too excited, and just applied a few corrections (it is hardly a term in frequent use, after all!) In fact I began by leaving the existing redir in place, as it is not conspicuous, and someone might well stumble onto the correct spelling by entering the misspelling. Then I began to check the usage in google and I was shocked to see that inappropriate and unchecked reliance on WP's text had inflated the refs to the incorrect spelling to over 1000, vs <200 for the correct spelling! If there is one terrifying about WP, it is the responsibility for propagating errors. So I would like a deletion of the redir for the incorrect spelling. Now, I was about to put in a request for deletion myself, (having already put in a redir for the correct spelling, that I might inflate to an article in the near future) but I thought it might be better to find whether you would not prefer to do the deletion yourself; I for one prefer to correct my own finger troubles, and I assumed you might feel the same way about such things.

In case you are wondering about my justification for these views, you can look up the refs I added to Glossary of entomology terms and my remarks in Talk:Phloeophagy. Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]