User talk:Randi Moth

Hello, Randi Moth, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome!  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages should be restricted to titles that are easily confused with the disambiguation title, not a list of articles whose titles contain the term (

I see your point, and some of the entries are indeed unnecessary. However,

Reniform stigma is certainly referred to as the single word "reniform"^[1], so I believe a DAB page is still warranted. "Reniform texture" is also a synonym for "Botryoidal

texture", so a link there may be plausible as well.

Would omitting the species with 'reniform' in their common names from the DAB page and keeping the

Reniform stigma and Botryoidal links be appropriate? Randi Moth (talk) 12:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

That sounds reasonable, but I would suggest keeping the redirect Reniform as the primary topic, and putting the disambiguation page at Reniform (disambiguation). This has the added advantage that incoming links to Reniform won't have to be redirected. Leschnei (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Though usage of

reniform spot

and the leaf shape seem to be comparable at their appearances searching with Google Scholar, one searching for the former will likely search for the full noun while the latter doesn't seem to have a more specific variation. It also seems that I've misread the source I've linked – just "reniform" is used as an adjective in the lepideptorology context rather than a noun.

Most links to the reniform page seem appropriate to the leaf shape from Special:WhatLinksHere/Reniform, so I'd agree with keeping Reniform and having Reniform (disambiguation) separate. However, that does mean creating a link to Reniform (disambiguation) within the Glossary of leaf morphology page, and I'm not sure how to implement this from a technical standpoint; hatnotes are typically used, but the linked section is deep within a table and far from any possible hatnote. Should it just be done as a note in the description part of the table? Randi Moth (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good question, and I have no idea how to handle that. The easiest solution would be to put the disambiguation page at Reniform and redirect the incoming links. You could also ask the question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. The editors who are active there are very helpful (and know more than I!). Leschnei (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make Reniform into a DAB page as a temporary solution and ask the question in that MoS talk page, thank you. Randi Moth (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doing something wrong and then asking for advice is hardly sensible. Hatnotes can be added to sections. Or just about anywhere from a technical standpoint, but stick to sections. Lithopsian (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the redirect is to the middle of the table, far from the beginning of the section, and adding a hatnote inside of a table is clearly wrong. Does the hatnote still go to the top of the section that contains the table in this case, even though it won't be visible immediately after being redirected? Randi Moth (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who regularly does dab pages, I have to sometimes remind myself that when a page disambiguates an adjective, it may look as though all the entries are

WP:RM#CM is the best place to go. But note that even if the leaf shape turns out to be the primary topic, redirecting to an entry in the middle of a long table is hardly the best thing to do, as Randi Moth correctly points out; even then, keeping the dab at the base title may still be optimal (see precedent).

This has the added advantage that incoming links to Reniform won't have to be redirected: I understand where this is coming from, but operational considerations (saving editors the bother of fixing links) should never be allowed to influence choices that affect the reader experience. And in this particular case, quite a few of the incoming links clearly intend other meanings, so they will all need to be examined anyway (a link to the wrong article is an infinitely worse problem than a link to a dab page). The botanical uses could just be replaced with "kidney-shaped" without any loss of function and with a gain in readability. – Uanfala (talk

)

MediaWiki message delivery has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appétit!†

Hello, Randi Moth. I wanted to thank you for contributing helpful edits to Lady apple, an article I created. I admired how you created a much neater resolution for the bullet point name list I created. Listing them in the comment/notes section of the article was a great fix. Your additional writing and typo fixing was also appreciated. Thanks again for joining and contributing to the English Wikipedia, and I hope you enjoy the pie. Best, The Fonz (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Randi Moth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 178.155.5.141. The address is dynamic, so it is very likely that a previous customer of the ISP has used the open proxy and the ban has carried over onto me. I have had this issue happen a few months ago as well, going away on the next IP address cycle change, so I am certain that there's no malware or misconfiguration. I have not used proxies or VPNs while editing Wikipedia. Randi Moth (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline since, as you are not directly blocked, I can't unblock (well, I could lift the proxy block but of course there would be no end of hell for me over that). Unfortunately, good editors do get caught in these, alas ... the block message is not meant to accuse you of attempting to circumvent policy.

Yes, it is very often the case that someone at your ISP on an adjacent IP used one and it got caught in your cookie ... I wish we could do something about that but, obviously, we can't.

The best solution I can offer you, aside from using another IP until this short block expires, is to refer you to

WP:IPECPROXY so you can request IP block exemption. And, in the meantime, since this block is short, I will grant you IPBE until it expires, so you can continue the editing you were doing (But do get your name in the IPBE request queue ... short proxy blocks like these tend to recur frequently, whenever the bot does a new proxy check on the IP). Daniel Case (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Was glad to see a new editor being proactive and proposing stuff on village pump. I hope you stick around on wiki and enjoy contributing to free, quality information. If you ever have any question or are curious about anything on wiki, feel free to {{

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|AngusWOOF}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: When creating the redirect, I've added a citation to the target page that links to the GBIF entry of Epiplemidae that classifies it as a synonym of Uraniidae. Taking a second look at it now, it appears that most of what I am able to find, as early as 2002,^[1] cite it as equivalent to Epipleminae.

GBIF in its classification of Epiplemidae as a synonym of Uraniidae cites IRMNG, which cites LepIndex 2018.

WikiProject Lepidoptera does say to use LepIndex as the final authority, but I'm uncertain on how exactly to use it in this case. The entry on the type genus of Epiplema doesn't mention the Epiplemidae family at all, but there are a pair of entries on other genera that aren't even in Epipleminae (e.g. Amana) that also call Epiplemidae equivalent to Epipleminae. Considering that Epiplemidae has the same rank as Uraniidae, calling it a synonym of Uraniidae should be correct. I have no expertise on the topic, is it perhaps better to ask on the WikiProject's talk page if they would be able to find a source directly on the reclassification? Randi Moth ^Talk_Contribs 18:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Randi Moth, thanks, the searches I was seeing didn't really make it clear. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Randi Moth. Thank you for your work on

page curation process

, had the following comments:

Should the current RfD on black witch be closed as dabbify, this should be moved to that redirect (page swap).

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Timothytyy}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Timothytyy (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]