User talk:Wloveral

This user is not too proud to call/ask for HELP!

Produced from: <div style="float:left; border:1px solid #000000; margin:1px;"> {| cellspacing="0" style="width:238px; background:#33AADD;" | style="width:45px; height:45px; background:#3399EE; text-align:center; font-size:14pt; color:black;" | '''[[Image:Torchlight help.png|30px]]''' | style="font-size:8pt; padding:4pt; line-height:1.25em; color:black;" | This user is not too proud to call/ask for HELP! |}</div>

The above text will help you change the user box if you so wish, and even the image that I used if you so desire. I also encourage you that if you want to, you can move the page where this user box is located to somewhere in your name space, like User:Wloveral/User Boxes/Not too proud for example.

If you do want to do some tweaking to the colour, that is controlled by the six sets of numbers and or letters preceeded by the hash in the above code, like #000000 is black for example, and you can change the colour by just changing the numbers and letters, and a fairly comprehensive hex colour chart can be found here.

That's just about it, drop me a line if the user box does anything funny to your user page, or if you need any more help with anything. Enjoy.--22:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It was no problem really, and I might just create that user box. best wishes to you too.--Kerotan^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 00:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding Brazil to Talk:Henry Walter Bates; please see my adjustment to the Bates banners box, which enables banner heads to be visible, and is a better format for later additions. Or so I think! While we're at it, would you feel like checking through my geographical and other Brazilian (& entomo)info on the Fritz Müller article? Thanks! Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have left the user a message with a few explanations and suggestions. I do believe he was editing in good faith, and in at least some of the instances he was, indeed, correct (

It does sound like a lot of different stub types and a lot of info to carry around in your head, but as I said, even a few simple stub types helps, especially with sorting newly-created pages or helping empty out the main stub category (Category:stubs), and most of the "how to" information is fairly common sense, so it's difficult to go too far wrong if you're using existing templates and categories. What generally happens is that some stub sorters work on a particular area they feel comfortable with (in your case, for instance, you might like to have a look at Category:Brazil geography stubs and see whether any of the articles in there would be better with more specific state stubs like Sergipe-geo-stub, or whether anything simply marked with Brazil-stub needs something more precise like Brazil-bio-stub). If you're only working at the general level of Category:Stubs or dealing with one specific area you'd only need to know a small section of the stub system. Grutness...wha? 10:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olá Wloveral! Há uma discussão ocorrendo em Talk:Potential superpowers#Removal of Brazil e gostaríamos da sua opinião. Obrigado pela atenção!

Sim, você está absolutamente certo. Más o problema é que estão discutindo apenas a remoção do Brasil, e não a eliminação do artigo. O Brasil tem as mesmas potencialidades dos outros países listados no artigo. Talvez você pudesse fazer uma revisão no texto da seção "Brazil", eu não falo inglês e não posso fazer isso. Abraços;

Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 22:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Você também ajudaria muito, se abrisse uma nova discussão questinando as "credible sources" das outras seções como a Russia. Não encontrei nenhuma... Obrigado pela atenção!

Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 22:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Pode pelo menos dar seu voto? Abraços;

Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 23:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, just a heads up since you have worked on this page. I have deleted it as a G4;

Many thanks Bill.I am going to upload some high res pics of Neotropicals soon.Been busy with my Nikon, hence the haste. Warm regards Robert akaNotafly (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill,

I understand your concern about creating pages that list animals that share only half of their species' name. It is interesting that you would bring this specific topic up for conversation as it is the one contribution for which I have received a barnstar. The rationale behind creating such pages is that a person will often only know part of the name of the species for which they are looking. By typing "miserabilis" into the search bar, they are provided with either a short list to choose from or a long well-structured list by which they will easily find the specific species they desire. These pages are not supposed to indicate that there is some connection between the species listed. Instead, they serve as disambiguation pages that distinguish between unrelated but similarly-titled articles. Such pages have been deemed helpful for the development of the project.

In reference to your analogy of human names, that is actually my speciality. One of the main objectives of

Neelix (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue further discussion of this at Talk:Miserabilis. Thank you. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Just FYI, i shall finish the tagging next week when i get my replacement ram back. I got down to the J section - Special:Contributions/Reedy Bot, but had to finish for the day. —Reedy 15:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might point out that this is the precise rule I was following in these edits. I agree that "redundant" seems poor diction, which occurred to me minutes after I made those changes. However, "unnecessary" is appropriate, as these intermediate taxons are not important for the immediate understanding.

You referenced the following quote: "Taxoboxes should include all major ranks above the taxon described in the article, plus minor ranks that are important to understanding the classification of the taxon described in the article, or which are discussed in the article. Other minor ranks should be omitted."

Here's my understanding of how this is interpreted, and the basic rules I picked up when I learned from my mistakes that were corrected by others:

superclass: kingdom, phylum, subphylum, superclass

class: kingdom, phylum, subphylum, infraphylum, superclass, class

subclass: kingdom, phylum, class, subclass

infraclass: kingdom, phylum, class, subclass, infraclass

superorder: kingdom, phylum, class, subclass, infraclass, superorder

order: kingdom, phylum, class, subclass, infraclass, superorder, order

suborder: kingdom, phylum, class, order, suborder

infraorder: kingdom, phylum, class, order, suborder, infraorder

superfamily: kingdom, phylum, class, order, suborder, infraorder, superfamily

family: kingdom, phylum, class, order, suborder, infraorder, superfamily, family

subfamily: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, subfamily

infrafamily: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, subfamily, infrafamily

tribe: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, subfamily, infrafamily, tribe

subtribe: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, tribe, subtribe

infratribe: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, tribe, subtribe, infratribe

genus: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, tribe, subtribe, infratribe, genus

subgenus: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, tribe, genus, subgenus

species: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, tribe, genus, subgenus, species

subspecies: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, tribe, genus, subgenus, species, subspecies

infraspecies: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, tribe, genus, subgenus, species, subspecies, infraspecies

If you disagree, perhaps we should get someone else's input at

Glad to know we're on the same page. Ha, I'm not a botanist, just a zoologist. When I mess with botany taxoboxes, it's only to add links to already-existing taxons or add an image-- speaking of which, I happen to be making sufficient progress in traversing the list of plant articles without images at this very moment. I wish I knew how to actually do an automated update on those lists-- that way I wouldn't be missing any articles as I add images and remove old requests. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mine would look like this:

|regnum=Animalia

|phylum=Chordata

|classis=Mammalia

|subclassis=Theria

|infraclassis=Eutheria

|superordo=Laurasiatheria

|ordo=Cetacea

It looks like I missed the Cetartiodactyla and Whippomorpha, although these aren't as widely recognized. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only intermediate taxons to be included are those directly above the immediate taxon, which, in this case, include all intermediate taxons between the class and the order. The subphylum is above the class, so it is left out. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional thought...it seems that the spinal chord is more important than the backbone...I've always thought otherwise. Vertebrata ought to be a phylum, in my opinion, and Chordata should just be something higher, maybe not so major. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All those are now done! Noticed a couple of bad tags which i've now reverted. —Reedy 13:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk for my response! =) —Reedy 17:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{

Infobox Settlement}} - On my talk page aswell... —Reedy 18:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

People stubs done. Looking at the rest of the people, cats, a few images, etc, nearly 3000 in the work list, not all will be edited. Will give you a shout when thats done —Reedy 22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the people are now tagged with WPBIO and WPBrazil. —Reedy 20:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woah! Slow down, and remember I'm human. I can only work so fast, and also have a real life.

However, thanks for giving me ideas for things to work on (plant articles without images is one of the hardest, most monotonous, and cumbersome projects I've worked on, and it requires lots of breaks, so these will help me relax some).

If you are this good at finding articles that need serious help, perhaps you might consider a user subpage with a list of articles you intend to work on/are requesting help with. You might also find it helpful to hire some volunteer WikiOtters. I gotta say, you're tempting me to become a WikiOtter! ;)

If you had a subpage for articles needing work, then WikiOtters could sign their name next to them when they are working on them.

Ha, do I belong on Bob?

I'm not done yet with the first link you gave me...only the bee. The spider and butterfly I haven't even looked at yet. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol, I was joking about belonging on Bob. I'm living and unnoteworthy, so I don't qualify for my own entry, even if it is my username (and real name, I might add).

I'm finished now with the Miserabilis stuff. I didn't change a whole lot, since filing these redirects under afd would be pretty pointless. As a general rule, I don't like links that take you to the same page you were just on...however, what if you actually typed that name in? I would hope to come to some page. However, redirects shouldn't be created simply because someone is too lazy to write an article. In my opinion, these three redirects should never have been created, but filing them for deletion will be just as unproductive. These three titles would be good candidates for their own articles, since they are each unique species within multispecies genera. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serge (first name). I don't see any problems with the Immo disambiguation-- it looks okay to me. In fact, it is probably one of the best-made disambiguations I've ever seen. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I am surprised at how well-done Bob appears to be. I'm not sure what sort of work you were wanting on this page, but it looks like it's already there and functioning properly with a list of articles. If needed, people will add to it themselves. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Andrena, note the following sentence: "Andrena is the largest genus in the family Andrenidae, and is nearly worldwide in distribution, with the notable exceptions of Oceania and South America." The sentence says they're everywhere except South America and Oceania. I wish I would catch those little words that change the meanings of sentences while taking tests in school!  :)

Yeah, those name articles all look good to me. However, I stick to zoology articles for the most part, as that's the area I know most about, although I am willing to make the occassional edit on something else. Peace out, Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the option "Email this user" on the left? Try that. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I never realized there was so much confusion in the world of zoology. In high school, I aced the taxonomy portion of my biology class with 100%, saying, oh, there's nothing to it; all of it is strictly logical and there's no ambiguity. This article definitely proves me wrong!  :)

I don't quite understand all of it, but I picked up a few interesting things. (I had to look up colugo and tree shrew. They must not have been in the illustrated portion of the World Atlas of Animals my mom gave me when I was four.) That's pretty neat that their hands and feet are webbed as well as their limbs and tail. The "primitive brain" part made me think of a really stupid animal that knows day/night, move/sit still, and maybe distinguish what foods are safe to eat or what other animals will hunt it. This made me laugh, even though I am pretty sure they're not that primitive!

I'm surprised to learn they're not related to bats! I would expect the colugo and bat to be closer-related, since they both have webbed hands and limbs.

Even though quite a bit of this was over my head, I enjoyed what I learned. Thanks for sharing! As I read these abstracts, I'm quickly learning there's a lot more to taxonomy than what I realized!

Now if only I could find the species paper for the Maluku frogfish!

Peace,

Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you again, but could you have a look at Canus?--Wloveral (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Species_epithet_disambiguation_pages Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey... When you add the stubs as the category, but not using the stub templates it really complicated things. Is there a reason that you add the stub as a category? Jabencarsey (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - No problem... Stub sorting needs lots of help. Basically you want to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting. The stubs should get added directly (with curly braces { not the swuare ones [ which are for categories) that will automatically add the category. Jabencarsey (talk) 01:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the stub template for {{Riodinidae-stub}} at Template:Riodinidae-stub. Shyamal (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made the Ctenomorphodes tessulatus page for my wikiproject:Phasmatodea, and what do you mean when you mean clean up? i don't think you are a admin for all i know, and are you really dead? BJ (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Phasmatodea —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjaco18 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Have a look:

• • False garden mantis
  • onchestus sp.
  • spur legged phasmid
  • A. monstrosa
  • childrens stick insect
  • Titan stick insect
  • Large brown mantis
  • Burying mantis *New*
  • Goliath stick insect
    *New*
  • Orthodera ministralis **Brand new** 7:58 7/8/8
  • Pink-winged phasma **Brand new** 11:15pm 10/5/08
    • • • BRAND NEW--Largest page-
          Brisbane insects
          5:50pm 23/may/08 ******
          • • • Wiki project-
                Ctenomorphodes tessulatus
                ********

BJ (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am trying to get article Mystriosuchus ready for Good Article status, but I think there are multiple issues with the article. If you are interested in extinction-related articles, I'd appreciate it if you could lend a hand. I am asking all the users I can find who are prominently involved in the extinction-related wikiprojects. Thanks! The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You tagged Canus with an AfD notice, however you did not finish the remaining two steps of the AfD, which includes creating the actual AfD discussion page, and including that page in the list of the day's discussions. As such, the AfD template has been removed. If you wish to renominate the page, please feel free to do so by following the instructions at: How to list pages for deletion, making sure to complete all 3 listed steps. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see your contributions. Do consider adding your user name to

Oops, Great! I see you are already listed ! Shyamal (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wloveral. I notice you recently added a reference to the number of mollusc species on the mollusca talkpage. I've not got access to the text that you cited, but if you have, could you perhaps answer or comment on the question that I posed lower down the talkpage? Best regards, --Plumbago (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, thanks for catching my really dumb mistake on that taxobox. Normally I put more effort into taxoboxes than that, but with the Memorial Day weekend, I had a lot of catching up to do. It took me about 12 hours to catch up! (Although, as you can see, I took the liberty of mentioning the top ten species of 2008, which required making a few stubs. That reminds me...I need to put stub templates on those. Well, I need to hit the road at the moment. If you're not doing anything and don't mind stubbing them for me, go ahead. Otherwise, I'll get to them tomorrow sometime. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty cool! And what a double coincidence! Apparently the three of us must all have very similar interests. I'm online now, so I'll go stub those stubs. By the way, before you tag any more of those epithets for deletion, have you had a look at this topic yet? You might change your mind...I have, and I hope you see why. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree...there are much better things to worry about. Besides, I don't think it's really hurting anything. It may mean Wikipedia requires additional servers, but hey, Wikipedia has plenty of donations to buy whatever they need to. After all, we can remove all we want, but in the end, it's the contributions, not the deletions, that matter the most. I say when in doubt, leave it.

On a somewhat lighter note, I've added over 1,000 (maybe over 1,300, haven't checked recently) pages to my watchlist. I patrol my watchlist daily, and WOW, it definitely took me all of 12 hours to catch up after the three-day weekend...and I have no idea what happened Friday night through Sunday morning...my watchlist wouldn't show that much! I'm thinking it might be time for me to start removing pages from my watchlist. I'm also requesting various page protections, such as one on Popcorn. But hey, I'm staying busy, and that's what matters, right?  :)

So how has your day been?

Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'm sorry your day didn't go too well. 1,200, you say? Wow...I thought I was a busy Wikipedian! I'd say go for it. Uploading photos takes a little while, since you have to tag everything...I would do that part another day/week, but whatever floats your boat. Have fun with that!

I'm feeling a particular high right now since I just merged all my Wikipedia accounts and can now use this name on the languages that ban the word "Wikipedian" from usernames. Ha, looks like I found a loophole! Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much you know about pterosaurs, but I found this paper pretty interesting and thought you might, too:

Terrestrial stalking azhdarchids, the paper

Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. The more technical version by the same author is here: A Reappraisal of Azhdarchid Pterosaur Functional Morphology and Paleoecology Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You added some notices to the

Neelix (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now this I definitely support. While the epithets are debatable, I can honestly say that this is a good idea. For example, I know several people who don't know the T. in the dinosaur T. rex, commonly referred by its binomial abbreviation, stands for Tyrannosaurus (much less know how to spell that). I have to commend Neelix for going so boldly where no Wikipedian has gone before. In fact, I will. Have a wonderful day! Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bob and Neelix, The problem with the "G. species" formula is that the generic abbreviation is dependent on the context in which it is placed for its meaning, and, as such, this form only appears in a sentence, paragraph, chapter, or paper in which the full generic name is previously given and where no confusion is possible. The mosquito people are particularly addicted to this short-hand formula and, when discussion both

Eisenbeckia does just that. T. rex, notwithstanding its fame and trecherous spelling, must use the search feature to find its full generic name (or just google "sue" and "Field Museum"). BTW, in taxonomy the masculine and feminine grammatical forms of the same name are considered synonyms. For example, the butterfly genus Heliconius and the plant genus Heliconia

persist only because they are in different kingdoms. (I have both in my backyard.) Have a good weekend and best wishes. Cheers, Bill

Based on the deletion discussion of Miserabilis, I am under the impression that species epithets are not sufficient for disambiguation pages in and of themselves because the are inseparable from their genuses. Having said this, I agree with Good Olfactory's comments; that is, "G. species" disambiguation pages, more aptly called set index articles, are justified as "G. species" titles are quoted in literature by themselves without the full genus named. A parallel can be drawn between "G. species" set index articles and ship set index articles. The question is not one of confusion, but one of proper naming. "G. species" is a proper naming format, and when an example of this format is typed into the search bar, a user should be presented with what he/she is looking for.

On my talk page, you suggested that Bob join in the discussion. Unfortunately, he is on a hiatus until June 17th.

If you still feel that "G. species" set index articles are unjustified, we should move this discussion somewhere more central, as I suggested in the initial post. The reason that a consensus was reached on Miserabilis was because it was in an appropriate location to attract discussion. A user talk page would probably not be as condusive.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Neelix, When

Homo sapiens and should be dug up to assume his rightful place in a natural history museum. He has had his way for the past 260 years. Good luck to you. --Wloveral (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Neelix (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely man. I met him a few times.However Eugène was a rogue.I put a couple of pics on his page and some unadorned comment.More pics to follow in Commons (tomorrow perhaps).Some of the butterflies are very interesting in themselves. Thanks for the Erebia edits. Another well worked genus.Tourist trade and grant aided endemics.All the best. Slainte Robert Notafly (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks.My E-mail address is on my User Page but in any event I will reply by e-mail Monday.Warm regards from the Emerald Isle Notafly (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wloveral, You tagged the page

Hi Wloveral, I checked your edit history for the date you tagged the article. You have been extremely productive with page edits every few minutes, I counted 43 edits in just one hour 02:00-03:00. Assuming that you sometimes read articles without actually editing them this implies that you only glanced at my article before suggesting a rename. This also explains why you left no note on the discussion page. Why this enormous haste? I would never suggest renames (or merges for that matter) unless I read the whole thing thoroughly, gave it consideration, and then crafted a discussion entry presenting my points. Your did the same thing with Gerechtigkeitsgasse, a Swiss street name which I think is fully WP:title policy-compliant Please be sensitive, that your tags and comments tax real people's real time out there. I leave this note on your discussion page because it may be of interest to other wiki contributors.Power.corrupts (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've noticed you have tagged several articles with non-English titles for cleanup. Actually, if there is no generally used English name for a subject, then using the original-language term is the right thing to do. I've expanded on this a bit at Talk:Gerechtigkeitsgasse. Best,  Sandstein  20:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

g'day i'm ben i sent you some messages in the past but am sending you this one for a good reason: WikiProject Mantodea for you to join thanks and cheers ;) B jacob (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

g'day me again nice to hear from you, did you know that my cousin in law plays jazz music! Me my self breed and study these amazing crearures, although if you would like to see some of my work click

B jacob (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{User:Bjaco18/UBX/wikipedia:wikiproject mantodea}}

hopefully this one is fixed

B jacob (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi have a look at this picture of mine at the bottum of the page Here and if you would like to place a nomination or a comment please do so. B jacob (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Olá Wloveral! Estou organizando uma força tarefa para levar o artigo "

Ótimo! Há alguns dias eu nomeei o artigo para o status de Featured, para serem apresentados seus problemas. [3] Como você pode ver, são basicamente alguns problemas de escrita e principalmente as fontes. Já que você disse se interessar por algo relacionado a Floresta Amazônica, você poderia cuidar da seção "Geography" do artigo? Se precisar de ajuda com alguma referência pode me contatar. Se eu falasse inglês a um bom nível, eu mesmo o faria, mas... Bom, espero que aceite. Abraços;

Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 20:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Fiz a melhoria da introdução, da infobox e do primeiro texto da seção Economy. [4] Você ainda não deu uma resposta, portanto vou perguntar novamente: Você poderia cuidar da seção Geography? (Visto que se interessa por assuntos relacionados à Amazônia). Essa seção precisa de uma revisão e boas referências (sempre usando

Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 20:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

As far as I remember, the template is ready for use; however I don't remember there being a consensus that it would be an improvement, and/or necessary. It may also need amending to reflect re-ordering of sections since it was written. I'm afraid I'm unlikely to have much time to dedicate to it in the coming weeks! Smith609 Talk 20:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill This looks as if it is the right man Francisco Hernández de Toledo but his dates don't fit the timeline.Must "fly" Robert Notafly (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eu vou ampliar o artigo que comecei, sobre o Dr. Júlio Afrânio Peixoto.Quando terminar, eu lhe peço para fazer a revisão dele.Por sinal, este eugenista disse uma frase que terminou se aplicando a ele mesmo:Todo homem morre duas vezes.A segunda morte é quando ele é esquecido.Agre22 (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Foi você quem ampliou aquele meu artigo sobre o Dr. Júlio Afrânio Peixoto?Se sim, a ampliação ficou razoável, mas: 1-Ao contrário do que aconteceu com a obra literária de Machado de Assis,Lima Barreto, a obra literária do Dr. Júlio Afrânio Peixoto, envelheceu.Para citar, o biógrafo dele, Afrânio Peixoto foi um "perdulário da pena", tendo publicado mais de 90 livros.No entanto não é por problemas de direitos autorais, que tal obra não está sendo atualmente editada.É por falta de qualidade mesmo. 2-No tópico Medicine não se fala de que o Prêmio Nobel em Medicina e Fisiologia de 1921, que só tinha como competidor Carlos Chagas, não foi concedido a ninguém.Também não se diz, que foi na Argentina, não no Brasil, que as descobertas de Carlos Chagas foram confirmadas de vez.Apenas no caso de negar que a doença de Chagas tivesse ligação com inflamação da tireóide(bócio) é que o Dr. Afrânio Peixoto estava certo.Em todo o resto, ele estava errado. 3-O artigo devia citar as duas melhores frases ditas por este eugenista: Eu trocaria todos os títulos que tenho, pelo direito de ter uma descendência. Uma frase dita por ele, ao perder o único filho que teve, que era um débil físico e mental.Outra frase dita por ele: Todo homem morre duas vezes.A segunda morte de um homem vem quando é esquecido. 4-O artigo devia dizer, que apesar de tanto ser muito respeitado, como muito odiado,no Brasil, este eugenista hoje não é nem uma coisa , nem outra.Ele é simplesmente, um esquecido. Agre22 (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Eu tenho um livro, com um capítulo sobre o Dr. Júlio Afrânio Peixoto.Se desejas(gratuitamente) a xerox do capítulo sobre el, eu posso lhe enviar de graça.Meu e-mail é: [email protected] .Eu escrevi algumas poucas coisas, naquele artigo sobre o Dr. Júlio Afrânio Peixoto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agre22 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eu também nunca seria um amigo do Dr. Júlio Afrânio Peixoto.Só que o fato dele ter sido um eugenista, um neurótico, um desastrado,etc. não é desculpa para se ignorar a vida dele.A maioria esmagadora dos personagens mais importantes da história foram vilões;no geral até piores, que o desastrado Dr. Júlio Afrânio Peixoto. Agre22 (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Dear William, Many thanks for removing the "stub" template from this page. Perhaps you could also advise on re-grading on the Talk page...? Thanks again—GRM (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, Bill—GRM (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wloveral - no problem. I just added a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2008/June (which is all you need to do to propose a new stub type). Unless there's any strong opposition (which is unlikely), you can go ahead and make the template in a few days time. If you can find 60 articles that can take the template, then it can get its own category, too (if not, it should just be made to feed into Category:Butterfly stubs for now). Grutness...wha? 00:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi William- I noticed you added several myrmecologists to the list of notable myrmecologists. Since most of these people don't have their own wikipedia page, could you please include a line or 2 on what makes then notable? For an example please see the notable apiologists section on the

Hi Bill Do you have anything on Justin Goudot Best regards Robert PS. Brazil I'd love to but the museum finances aren't that great atm.

Thanks for uploading

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bill, I saw your message on Robert Nash's page. You need to either obtain an email from the original author indicating that the image has been released into public domain or show a website which indicates the status. On commons.wikimedia.org, you send that email to the OTRS email id, I guess you can paste the email contents (with the email headers, message ID etc) on the image page and also tag with {{pd}}. Hope this helps. Shyamal (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr Overal, I was just browsing and rummaging through some old books from my dead father's room and I found these writings by some José Cândido de Melo Carvalho. It was great to see all the information about him here on wikipedia. Having seen the history of the page, I noticed that many contributions on Museu Emilio Goeldi's history and the advances in Brazilian zoology and ecology have come from your user sir. I would also like to apologise for some bad comments I made on the Jose Marcio Correa Ayres discussion page, I was a bit stupefied with some inaccurate pieces of information but at the same time not realizingg that it had been done with good intentions, and that wikipedia is all about progressive improvement. Best,

Espantalho --Espantalho (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you provided the ref to Ponder & Lindberg (2008) for various species counts in

I wanted to know if you (or any friends of yours) are interested in dermatology, and would be willing to help me with the

Greeting from Ireland.I've started adding to Medical Entomology.Would you take a look?.Back to photography next week.Anything special you want.Not Doritis - we have one but I can't find it.However I have a freind in Cologne who is just about to start photographing specimens in the Alexander Koenig Museum and may find it there.E-mail any South America wants lists and I will do my best. Warmest regards.Wish I could take up your suggestion and get to Brazil. Maybe 2010 Robert Notafly (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's here at long last! The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse --ragesoss (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bom dia! Please check out this discussion here:

Check out this deletion discussion here: [5] Bletchley (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Bill. Can you e-mail what you have so far? Robert aka Notafly (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wloveral,

WikiProject Piracy is currently undergoing some updates and changes, and we are trying to find out who is still active in the project. You are currently listed as a participant on the list of participants, and we would like for you to update your status. Please move your name to the section that best describes your activity in the project:

• Active - still active and interested within the scope of the WikiProject.
• Semi-Active - still active on Wikipedia, but not as active in regards to the WikiProject.
• Former Members - a catch-all classification for those editors who are not active on Wikipedia, those that are still on Wikipedia, but no longer part of this WikiProject, or those that have otherwise not moved their names to another classification yet.

Thank you,
Adolphus79 (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jimfbleak seeks the id of this butterfly from southwestern Brazil. File:ButterflyBrazil_148.jpg. Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Dr. Novães 4.jpg. 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.

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 uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on

Hi Bill Did you see this Adalbert Seitz (BDH link bottom of the page)atb Robert akaNotafly (talk) 10:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still and Active participant of WikiProject Animals

You have been invited to join WikiProject Insects!! Join today and work with me and other members (project just made 22:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)) in a collaboration on improving insect orders and creating pages of insect families. Things like insect-related awards, userboxes, topicons, ect. are also coming soon.

I was also interested in joining WP:Phasmatodea and WP:Manotdea into WP:Insects. If we do that, we can all collaborate, as it says the project has become inactive, any thoughts? Well you can give me an answer on my talk page or WikiProject insects' talk page when you're ready!! Bugboy52.4 | =-= 23:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wloveral, thanks for your recent interest in the article. This is just a note to say that I've removed the internal link you recently added because the newly created

1. Anne E. Magurran - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me bloqueram. E eu não sei como apelar, contra o bloqueio, que é/seria eterno.O que eu faço?187.79.106.19 (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of

The article

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see

Very good article. Congrats for the updated and useful info on the subject. Keep up the good work.......:) ! Krenakarore (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I am a good friend of some nieces of Darrell A. Posey who wanted to know if you could place his pic on his wiki page. It is a good article about him, by the way. 96.29.127.234 (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Science lovers wanted!
	Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Sarah (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nessaea obrina Jari.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. XXN, 14:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]