User talk:Sarefo

i will mostly answer on the page where the first post was, so if you leave me a note, check back for my answer.

older articles are in the archives: 1 2

Bagheera kiplingi

I just started an article on the spider species Bagheera kiplingi, whose dietary habits have attracted some recent attention. I think it could make a nice DYK, but I'm sure it could use some attention from people actually familiar with the field. Since you wrote the article on the genus Bagheera, perhaps you might be interested in helping to improve the B. kiplingi article. In particular, I'd be very grateful if you had any proper sources on the species' appearance and distribution that could be cited; at the moment, there's an external link to some photos and drawings, but I haven't been able to find any source for a textual description online. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, i started the articles of almost all 550 salticid genera :) Very nice find that, I didn't know about this. I had heard about several salticids drinking some nectar, but this was new to me. Jerzy Proszynski has some pictures on his salticid page; I have asked Eric Olson if he donates a picture to wikipedia.

I got rid of the cite references within the text. I think they are an abomination if you want to edit the text later. check out the way i do it at the moment, it's not perfect, but after a lot of thought seems to be the best possible way to me and several other people. cheers! --Sarefo (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the improvements! As it happens, I hadn't heard about this outside Wikipedia either — I found out about it when someone posted a hoax article at vegetarian spider (now a redirect, see old revision) and I spotted it on a random glance at Special:Newpages. Of course, I Googled for the title to confirm that it was indeed a hoax, and was quite surprised to get the Science News article now cited in the text as the first result. I guess whoever wrote the hoax page had read about it, searched for "vegetarian spider" on Wikipedia, and, finding no article, decided to create one their own way. I really should go leave them a note of thanks. :) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've nominated Bagheera kiplingi, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on August 20, where you can improve it if you see fit. Thanks, —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bagheera kiplingi

On 27 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bagheera kiplingi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Achaearanea tepidariorum to Parasteatoda tepidariorum?

Just wondering if | this should be changed to reflect this in accordance with The World Spider Catalog: "removed from the synonymy of Achaearanea Strand, 1929 by Saaristo, 2006: 69, contra Levi, 1955a: 6.". You can see that here: [1] If the change should be made, I will be more than happy to make it. - Arachnowhat (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for telling me :) i did the changes, also on the genus page etc., and added some minor stuff. i've been using the wsc as a more or less final reference for some time now, and afaics there were no objections. leave me a note if you have some questions about editing the spider pages! cheers --Sarefo (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good article review: spider

Please join in at Talk:Spider/GA1. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Helaeomyia petrolei

On 9 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Helaeomyia petrolei, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady 22:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Picture in german newspaper

Dear Sarefo, maybe it is interesting to you that your Picture has been taken to illustrate an article on insect biotechnology in the german newspaper Chemanager. I f you are interested in a scan of that article please contact me on achim.raschka@wikimedia.de. Greetings from germany, -- de:Benutzer:Achim Raschka 14:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.168.100.227 (talk)

Taxon redirects

Hi Sarefo,

I understand your concerns about taxon redirects. I created many of them last summer in order to facilitate the proper functioning of G. species disambiguation pages. After much discussion, it was agreed that while the disambiguation pages were helpful, the redirects were not. As you pointed out, I still create many redirects, however I never create species epithet redirects anymore. I was under the impression that all the ones I had created had been deleted. I apologize that my redirect gave you a false hope for an article on the subject, and hope that no other such redirects have been left in existence.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS - How did you come up with the username "Sarefo"? Just curious.

thanks for your answer :) i can't tell you the details (it's a pseudonym, after all ;), but "sarefo" is an abbreviation of an anagram of my given name, and also a small tribe in southern africa. cheers! --Sarefo (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Blind spiders

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Blind spiders, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Arbitrary collection of information; unlikely to be developed as a useful standalone article

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: WP:SPI

Hello, Sarefo. You have new messages at Cabe6403's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Trombidium

I'm not interested in contributing to this field myself. When it comes to wildlife plants and mammals are more my thing. I came across this on new page patrol and thought it might help the creator if he is working on them to expand them. The idea is not so they are initially more helpful, it is to branch out and encourage thos einterested to write them, as clearly shown by Trombidium holosericeum. But if you don't want articles on species started or any for that matter, then don't leave them as red links. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

seems we perceive the functions of red links differently. imo they are there so that anybody can see there's no information yet on this species, and to make it easier to start the article in case you have additional information. in this special case T. holosericeum is really about the only species where additional information can be easily found. i'll try to bring your Trombidium pages to a minimal standard today, just wanted to make sure you're not starting a stub creation spree, as has happened with other persons in the past, in some cases (BotMultichill and others) essentially creating problems that will take years to fix. cheers! --Sarefo (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are concerned about me starting similar pages then you can be rest assured i will not. Enough of my own time is devoted to cleaning up existing articles related to geography let alone starting more empty artices and increasing the burden on others. Besides which getting the articles on genus onto here should be given priority and getting them up to a decent standard, articles on species come later. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no, i only had this concern when first contacting you. yes, i also think there's much to be done on genera, but it's sometimes quite hard to find good taxonomic sources (i created some garbage pages myself, especially on mites, before realising this). right now, i think it's better to have fewer pages with reliable information, than just to blanket the space with questionable information, because yes, this often creates a long tail of manual clean-up work. that's hopefully not a problem with Trombidium, but in other cases, the species list was bad, leading to dozens of semi-automatically created garbage pages, so i've grown to be a bit cautious in this respect. thanks for the huge load of contributions to wikipedia, we'll probably not run out of stuff to do for the next decades ;) --Sarefo (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lutica - assessment

In the interest of staying neutral and avoiding a conflict of interest, would you mind doing the assessment of the Lutica article for me or pass it along to someone else?

Thanks, Subverted (talk • contribs) 23:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the note, and for the article! i did some minor changes, some of which i want to explain shortly:

describer year not wikified, this was iirc agreed on some time ago.
removed dagger sign, as it could be mistaken for "extinct" symbol

btw, i rate my articles myself all the time :) i think there are quite objective criteria, and i personally have no problems rating my articles stub/low importance ;) but i seem to have a slightly different opinion on what's still stub and what's already start.

cheers! --Sarefo (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Harpactea

Hello! Your submission of Harpactea at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Smallman12q (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Harpactea

Hello! Your submission of Harpactea at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Smallman12q (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Harpactea_sadistica

Hello! Your submission of Harpactea_sadistica at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Smallman12q (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mites on Harvestmen

Hi Sarefo,

Thanks for updating the info on my mite infested harvestman - I've known for quite a while that the info was wrong (sorry!). I'll re-upload the images with a better name and add some others with more mites and close-ups of one of the mite larvae/nymphs too. Will let you know here. Cheers, - Pudding 22:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

DONE - I've re-uploaded under a better name checked usage, changed all pages, and 'Badname'd the old versions. Also uploaded a Rilaena triangularis with mite close-up and a Platybunus with mites, just in case you might have a use for the images ;o) Cheers - Pudding 01:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks a lot :) --Sarefo (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mesothelae

On 19:21, 3 August 2006, your changes in Mesothelae included changing from

Mesothelae were once two considered to be two families, the Liphistiidae and the Heptathelidae. These can easily be distinguished by their sexual organs and the way they construct their burrows: Liphistiides always have fishing lines in front of the entrance, while Heptathelids have none. Therefore, the latter are more difficult to find.

to

Mesothelae were once two considered to be two families, the Liphistiidae and the Heptathelidae. The Heptathelidae were once considered their own family, today they are considered a subfamily of the Liphistiidae (as Heptathelinae). As opposed to all other recent mesothelids, these do not have fishing lines in front of their entrances. Therefore, they are more difficult to find.

This language has largely persisted until now, and I find it confusing, because "entrances" seems to refer to the spiders' bodies, e.g. their mouths, rather than their burrows. In the next few minutes I will put the word "burrows" back to clarify this. Anomalocaris (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thx for the notice. it's sometimes not easy for a non-native speaker like me to spot ambiguities like this. just ask the guy who wanted to market Mozart balls in the UK ;) --Sarefo (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo

Hi, du bist ja noch aktiv. Auf de:WP werden meine Spinnenartikel mittlerweile von diesen ... Admins gelöscht, weil sie sie für "Unsinn" halten. Wie kann man nur so ___ sein und wie konnte es kommen, dass ausgerechnet in der deutschen Wikipedia so viele mit ähnlicher Intelligenz sich sammeln? Gruß --Brutus Brummfuß (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

haha, ja das ist einer der hauptgruende warum ich die deutsche meide. hab das am anfang voll abgekriegt und schnell die nase voll gehabt. da drueben herrscht ne komische leitkultur, ist bisschen schade dass leute wie wir darin dann untergehen. ich mach grad nicht so viel, weil ich am lojban-woerterbuch arbeite, aber ich steig vermutlich so ab herbst/winter wieder in die taxonomie ein. gruss! --Sarefo (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BB, wenn du etwas an Spinnenartikeln schreiben willst, ich habe Sarefo meine hot picks von Spinnenartikeln geschickt... neue Taxa, unerhörte Farben, bizarre Lebensweisen. Sag einfach mal ein Taxon und er kann schauen ob er was hat, was noch nicht in der WP ist.

Ansonsten... yeah, die de:. Eremopezus hätten sie vermutlich auch gelöscht... weil, steht ja alles mögliche drin, aber nur wenig über Eremopezus ;-) Dysmorodrepanis (talk)

Hello

Your photographs of Philodromus aureolus appear to me to be Philodromus dispar male (see page 125 Dick Jones, The Country Life Guide to Spiders of Britain and Northern Europe (1984) ISBN 0 600 35655 5 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum( and also (see Roberts Dr M. J.,The Spiders of Great Britain and Ireland Vol 1. Page 108 "Male similar to that of P.aureolus but often completely black". However the photos are excellent and I applaud your attempts at this web site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.55.250 (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Nephila komaci

On October 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nephila komaci, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 15:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

inline citations

hi,

thanks for working on the Nephila komaci article. would you consider changing the style concerning big inline citations? it makes the text very hard to edit without special tools, cluttering enormously. even i get the creeps when encountering an article with many citations like this, imagine somebody not very versed in wiki markup, he'll be completely lost. i myself, and several other editors i talked to, have from time to time even refrained from editing an article because of inline blocks like these. as a compromise, there is now the practise to add the citation like <ref name="kuntner">Kuntner 2009</ref> inline, list all these under a Notes section, and then list the full references under a References section. This is really useful for taxonomic articles, to keep the text clean and editable, while at the same time being able to sort the citations cleanly at the end (by date, or alphabet, instead of first occurrence). thanks! --Sarefo (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sarefo. You're welcome. Thank you for your work on the Nephila komaci article.

What you're telling me seems like a pretty good idea. I've never thought about it. Thank you for enlightening me on this.

Happy editing. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might be interested...

Template talk:Taxobox#Diversity link Balfa (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tribes under Dendryphantinae

Hey Sarefo, I was going to go through and write articles for all the tribes under the Dendryphantinae subfamily. In the course of doing research for the articles, however, I discovered that the tribes given by Hallan (the source you used) are quite outdated and rather dubious at this point. Specifically, I received an email from Hallan explaining that his catalog of the subfamily is based on the original Roewer catalog of spiders from the 1950s. Phylogenic research done by Maddison, Hedin, and others in the past decade has shown many of those tribe organizations to be almost certainly incorrect, or at best, prematurely determined. In order to keep Wikipedia from propogating dubious taxonomies, I would like to go through and just eliminate our use of all tribe taxons under Dendryphantinae - Dendryphantini, Donaldiini, Rhenini, Rudrini, Zygoballini. Let me know if you have any thoughts on the matter. Kaldari (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, FWIW, those tribes are completely unused in modern scientific literature on the dendryphantines. Kaldari (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please do! :) I know it sucks, it seemed reasonable enough at the time, and when i realized it, i didn't have the time to correct it, and then forgot. I would be very grateful to you if you updated the taxonomy to a more recent level. Cheers! --Sarefo (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'm not sure what to do about the genus list under Dendryphantinae though. The list as given in our article is outdated, but I'm not sure what to replace it with. There are several more modern lists, but a lot of them conflict with each other or have problems of their own. Maddison's 1988 list[2] is tempting, but it's somewhat radical and also outdated. I think I'll just leave it for now until I have more time to review the literature. Kaldari (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated :) I wish i could do more on salticids again, but i don't have the time at the moment. --Sarefo (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phlogius crassipes

This is a separate species of spider therefore it is entitled to it's own article. 198.103.184.76 (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

according to the World Spider Catalog, the genus Phlogius was synonymized with Selenocosmia in 2000:

Raven, R. J. (2000). Taxonomica Araneae I: Barychelidae, Theraphosidae, Nemesiidae and Dipluridae (Araneae). Mem. Qd Mus. 45: 569-575.

From the WSC:

The resurrection of Phlogius Simon, 1887 by Schmidt, 1995k: 9 was rejected by Raven, 2000a: 570, who also placed Chilocosmia Schmidt & von Wirth, 1992b: 9, type C. dichromata Schmidt & von Wirth, 1992 and Selenopelma Schmidt & Krause, 1995a: 22, type S. kovariki Schmidt & Krause, 1995 as junior synonyms (see also Schmidt, 2002c: 3).

as often with theraphosids, there are many concurrently used names, many scientifically invalid. this mainly stems from the fact that most tarantula enthusiasts are hobbyists with only cursory connections to recent scientific literature. wikipedia uses the taxonomic system, but feel free to add any issues regarding the confusing use of different names to the appropriate article, preferably if you can provide a source. you might also contact Robert Raven directly, he's a nice guy, and will happily tell you about this issue, whereas i don't have any detailed knowledge about it.

if you have any questions regarding this, please leave me a note :) --Sarefo (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here is the correct genus:

"Queensland Museum spider expert Dr Robert Raven identified the arachnid in Mr Geiszler's photograph as the eastern tarantula, which is also known as the whistling spider (Phlogius crassipes) _ the largest spider in Australia."

76.64.161.76 (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i don't know if the name has been resurrected, but just as you seem to be the same person, whether you're called 198.103.184.76 or 76.64.161.76, changing names does not change the identity of the species. as you seem to be visiting wikipedia repeatedly, why not create an account, so there will be less confusion at least in this respect? ;) i've asked Mr. Raven about this, hopefully he will clear this up. cheers! --Sarefo (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarefo, I know Dr Robert Raven and I know the story about Selenocosmia (Phlogius) crassipes. Robert is using the name Phlogius crassipes because he knows it to be correct, but it is not yet official in the WSC or the preferred name one would use by following the well established principle of accepting the name of the most recent scientific paper published In a reputable scientific journal. Therefore while Robert uses the name, it hasn't yet been re-resurrected. The situation is kind of amusing in that Robert rejected the resurrection of Phlogius Simon, 1887 by Schmidt, 1995 on solid grounds, determining that Schmidt's argument was insufficient. However, since that time Robert has found that this particular species is indeed Phlogius on different grounds than those proposed by Schmidt, but his updating of the name is awaiting a major revision of Theraphosidae which has been in progress for some time. He now has a PhD candidate helping with the revision. The case of Phlogiellus is a little different, it is not recorded for Australia but it is well known it occurs here and it may have dozens of species, judging by reports. It will probably also be included in the revision. Robertwhyteus (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your view sought

As a member of WP Arthropods, you might have a view on this discussion. Thanks in advance. Heds (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution maps

Feel free to expand or edit: Wikipedia:Distribution maps. Kaldari (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bog Turtle

Hello, I am a student working as a part of this project. I am working on the bog turtle article and reciently brought it to GA, with the help of some partners. Our goal is to achieve FA by 1/15/09. How would I go about making a distribution map if I don't have photoshop?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Interview Concerning Encyclopedia of Life (EOL)

Sarefo, I'm a graduate student at the University of Maryland working with the EOL and hoping to better understand the integration of Wikipedia content into EOL (and visa versa). I've noticed the important and unique role that you play in Wikipedia related to species pages (specifically spiders) and am hoping that you will let me interview you to get your thoughts on the subject. If you are willing, send me an email at kprocita at umd dot edu and we can set up a call. Thanks. Kprocita (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

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 autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Sarefo! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 194 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Raz Mesinai - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

This permission does not give you any special status or authority
Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Allocosa brasiliensis

On 24 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Allocosa brasiliensis, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in the burrowing wolf spider Allocosa brasiliensis, males often eat older, less fecund females that they lured into their burrow using pheromones, while preferredly mating with virgins? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Science lovers wanted!

Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. When you recently edited Dal makhani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjab (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting creature

Hi,

I recently was visited by the spider pictured here:

and I think it is what Kasten calls Pelopatis undulata but is now known as Pisaurina undulata. I've found very few pictures of this species on-line, and there is enough difference in coloration to make me a little unsure. However, unless there is another species with the same eye pattern and the same extremely long legs, I think I'm safe. Have you ever seen one? Any thoughts about identification? Thanks.P0M (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi P0M, P. undulata is associated with aquatic habitats, does that fit your specimen? I'm not sure it's that species, but I don't have a better idea, so I put a tentative (?) behind the species name. Maybe try at a spider forum such as Dave's Garden? --Sarefo (talk) 07:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen other Pisauridae here. There is a creek withing a quarter of a mile, and I maintain several small ponds that prevent gullies from washing. It's a male, so maybe it was ranging farther than a female would have ranged. I'll try Dave's Garden. Thanks.P0M (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Trogloraptor

On 3 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trogloraptor, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the recently discovered Trogloraptor of Oregon gave its name to an ancient family of cave-dwelling spiders with hook-like feet (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Trogloraptor. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article to be amended or deleted

I think you might want to add some info to this article you created (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soesiladeepakius) -or possibly delete it completely- after you read a bit more about the author of this species and thus the probable validity of the name. Just google his name Dewanand Makhan. Scarabaeoid (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the heads up, very interesting :) His two salticid genera seem to be accepted though, Gustavo Ruiz and Wayne Maddison added species to the genus. I'll ask around. --Sarefo (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New ant task force

Hello Sarefo! I see you have edited a lot of ant-related articles, including the FA Ant, Tetramorium and Crematogaster articles. You may be interested in the recently created ant task force. Check out the task force's subpage and see if you're able to help out with any of the open tasks (or add new tasks). I've added links to some open access articles about Tetramorium and Crematogaster (three each) to this list. I hope you find them or any of the other links useful, cheers, jonkerz ♠talk 21:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lists of Salticidae species for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lists of Salticidae species 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/Lists of Salticidae species until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Kaldari (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of Corinnidae species (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Erendira and Megalostrata

List of Amphinectidae species (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rangitata

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of Theridiosomatidae species (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Alaria

List of Zodariidae species (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Cryptothele

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of Linyphiidae species (I–P) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Paro, Lessertia and Lidia

List of Araneidae species: B–F (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Collina

List of Araneidae species: G–M (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Gea

List of Araneidae species: N–Z (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Zilla (genus)

List of Linyphiidae species (A–H) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Florinda

List of Lycosidae species (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ocyale

List of Pholcidae species (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Carbonaria

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Neotrogla

On 30 May 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Neotrogla, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Neotrogla. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

| diversity = 82 genera, > 1,000 species
23 Jan 11.JPG|left|thumb|Australian Sparassid egg sac hatching]] [[File:Palystes castaneus (Sparassidae egg purse IMG 2662.jpg|thumb|''[[Palystes castaneus]]'' egg purse]] However, other

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cebrennus rechenbergi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berber (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: :Cebrennus rechenbergi DYK

Hi. Did you check the prose size of Cebrennus rechenbergi? You must have at least 1,500 characters of readable prose. DYK tools show you have only 1412. Viriditas (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Cebrennus rechenbergi

Hello! Your submission of Cebrennus rechenbergi at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Viriditas (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody has touched it, I'll take another look. Viriditas (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Huntonia

The article Huntonia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Incorrect redirect. Huntonia is a genus of isopods (family Philosciidae), not trilobites

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kleuske (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sure, go ahead :) --Sarefo (talk) 00:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cebrennus rechenbergi

On 4 August 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cebrennus rechenbergi, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Moroccan flic-flac spider (pictured) can flip forwards and backwards like a gymnast to escape threats? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cebrennus rechenbergi. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maintained

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I've added your name as the maintainer of the page.[3] If you don't like that, feel free to remove it, but I think it helps for people to know that there are experts like yourself willing to answer questions. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok! --Sarefo (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Corinnoidea

The article Corinnoidea has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reliable sources; not notable – see talk page for more detail.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Proposed deletion of Mimetoidea

A tag has been placed on Mimetoidea requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

the article is unreferenced since its creation in 2006; Google Scholar produces no hits for "Mimetoidea"; all recent reliable sources place both families in Araneoidea as per our article; Google hits are almost all derived from this article which is thus propagating erroneous information.

I nominated this for deletion largely because I think that its reproduction by mirror and copy-cat sites is creating a misleading situation. No-one now seems to use this superfamily; both families are placed elsewhere (currently in Araneoidea, but previously in Palpimanoidea). Peter coxhead (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sure, go ahead :) thanks for taking on work at the spider section, I tried to build a framework back then, but somehow a critical mass of other editors never happened to take shape. --Sarefo (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The work that you (and a few other editors) did "back then" was great. The problem now is that it definitely needs a "critical mass" of editors to maintain and update the spider articles, and they just aren't around. I intend to finish checking all the superfamily articles and those on taxa and clades between families and infra- and suborders, but updating all the family articles and the all the lists of species by family is too much work without an active WikiProject. Perhaps some new editors will come along... Peter coxhead (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: Sarefo: I've deleted the page; would either of you be willing to follow this up at the other Wikimedia sites?

– Fayenatic London 09:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a task force to the WikiProject Insects template

Hello! I am trying to organize a Hymenoptera task force (excl. Formicidae, which already has its own task force) to the WikiProject Insects template, and saw your name on the template page. I've been playing in the sandbox and think I have a version working. Could you please check to see that I haven't broken anything? Thank you so much! M. A. Broussard (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@M. A. Broussard: As things stand, it may work for hymenoptera (although I can't be sure) but it will certainly break the behaviour for ants. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: I just tested the template out in my sandbox, with different configurations of the two task forces, and the sandbox version seems to be working, even with categorizing pages. Pages with both task forces are put in both categories. @Sarefo: -- please have a look at the WikiProject Insects sandbox when you have time.

Does it categorise correctly when any one or more of the following parameters: |attention=yes |needs-image=yes |needs-photo=yes are used in combination with |ants=yes? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: - You're right, it didn't work as intended. I've changed the attention/image/photo parameters to the original configuration, leaving only the additional task force code. I believe it works now. M. A. Broussard (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need the specific combination of |attention=yes|Hymenoptera=yes to put the page into Category:Hymenoptera articles needing attention? If so, what should be done if all three of |attention=yes|Hymenoptera=yes|ants=yes are given - should the article go into both Category:Hymenoptera articles needing attention and Category:Ant articles needing attention or just one - which one? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: If both parameters are 'yes', then the page should be put in the relevant ants and Hymenoptera categories, ideally. M. A. Broussard (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried a straight enhancement to the existing code, but it grew into something way too complicated, so didn't save it: I fear that {{WPBannerMeta}} wasn't designed with multiple attention categories in mind. As it is, the existing code for two different categories when |attention=yes is specified with or without |ants=yes is something of a hack; I've looked at 40 or so other WikiProject banners - and I can't find any that attempt to vary |ATTENTION_CAT= depending on task force combinations. So I turned to another way - hooks, like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: I had looked at ~20 WikiProject banners without luck as well. It seems that the template code was not really designed for this sort of abuse! I've run a few quick tests of your new code, and it appears to sort things into the correct categories, but the attention flag is no longer shown on the template itself when one or both task forces are active. I'm willing to throw in the towel and just delete the Hymenoptera needs-image/needs-attention categories. It isn't really a major issue to look at articles needing attention for the main WikiProject, and since it is non-trivial to get the template to assign categories differentially, I don't think it's worth the effort. I'm happy with the task force just being able to tag its own pages. M. A. Broussard (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can gain the "This article has been marked as needing immediate attention" message at the expense of dual categorisation. If you alter this line:

|attention           = {{#if:{{yesno|{{{Hymenoptera|}}}}}{{yesno|{{{ants|}}}}}||{{{attention|}}} }}

to

|attention           = {{{attention|}}}

it will always display the message and put the page in Category:Insects articles needing attention when |attention=yes is set (regardless of other parameters), but will also put the page in Category:Hymenoptera articles needing attention when |Hymenoptera=yes is also set; and in Category:Ant articles needing attention when |ants=yes is also set. If this dual-categorisation is satisfactory (and the ants people are in agreement), we can extend the same technique to images. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: - I contacted the ant task force, and it seems like there are no major objections. I've drafted a version of the template in the template sandbox with the photo and needs-image categories adjusted per your suggestion and it seems to be operating as intended. Could you give it a quick check? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M. A. Broussard (talk • contribs) 08:11, 14 March 2016

I made an adjustment - don't know why you were testing for the zeroth-parameter there. Otherwise, looks fine. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: - I've pushed the changes to the live template--thank you so much for all your help!

I noticed that the Hymenoptera and Ants taskforces were not showing correctly when {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} was in use, also that if the old method for setting class (i.e. {{WikiProject Insects|Start|Low|ants=yes}}) was used, it wasn't being passed through to the taskforces. I've fixed those, also updated the documentation. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sarefo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution map update

Hi, it does seem that merging Micropholcommatidae into Anapidae is now accepted widely, and I've updated the articles. The map at File:Distribution.anapidae.1.png looks more-or-less correct, but I noticed that there are a few countries missing, based on the World Spider Catalog, so I wondered if you could update the map.

If it helps, I've extracted the unique distributions from WSC. They are: Algeria, Argentina, Auckland Is., Belize, Borneo, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Campbell Is., Caroline Is., Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Crozet Is., Eastern Australia, Ecuador, Europe, Germany, Greece, Guyana, Hawaii, Hong Kong, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Java, Kenya, Korea, Laos, Lord Howe Is., Malaysia, Mascarene Is., Mexico, Mexico to Panama, Montenegro, Namibia, Nepal, New Caledonia, New Guinea, New South Wales, New South Wales to Tasmania, New Zealand, Panama, Peru, Queensland, Queensland to Tasmania, Rwanda, South Africa, St. Vincent, Sumatra, Suriname, Taiwan, Tasmania, Tunisia, Turkey, USA, Venezuela, Victoria, Vietnam, Virgin Is., Western Australia, Zimbabwe.

Some of the small islands don't matter on a map of this scale, I think, but Nepal, Taiwan and Vietnam could usefully be added if you have time. Looking quickly, I think the rest are already there. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, done :) --Sarefo (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. (The Nepal distribution looks very odd, but it's what the source says!) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sometimes, a species gets placed in the wrong genus/family. Happened to some salticids with "strange" distribution. --Sarefo (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entertained

I was entertained by the Validity section in this edit of yours, which I've just come across. Probably not in line with various WP guidelines, but accurate, or so it seems to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spider lists

Hi Sarefo, you mentioned on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_common_spiders_of_Australia#Type_of_spider.3F that the list referred to was useful. I think so, but I think it could be improved. I don't think all the spiders are common, and some have old, outdated names. I will update it. My references include the recently published A Field Guide to Spiders of Australia CSIRO Publishing http://www.publish.csiro.au/book/6899/ admittedly it's my book, bit it was thoroughly vetted and scientifically reviewed by every expert I could find prior to publication, so it's fairly accurate as far as we know. if you email me at rob@toadshow.com.au I will send you a pdf of the Table of Contents and the Index so you can see what is in it. Cheers. PS I like Jumping Spiders too.Robertwhyteus (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:SpiderTalk

A tag has been placed on Template:SpiderTalk requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russelia species list verification

While trying to fix the issues in the Russelia article I came to find that you were the one to have added the rather larger and unfortunatly unreferenced list of species. I was wondering if you still remembered what your source was while editing this 10 year old edit and if so if you can give the reference. As it is, it is rather problematic. Dondville (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember or find it; feel free to change it as fits (remove, source, …) --Sarefo (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame, I will try and source it.

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Sarefo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Rhene flavicomans

I see that you've not been around here lately, but I was interested in your beautiful images of Rhene flavicomans. Based on the images in Prószyński's Salticidae database, the identification looks spot-on, but none of the sources I can find says that the species occurs in China. Perhaps you've added to the distribution? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an uncommon spider in Hong Kong. If you're interested, all of these (on iNaturalist) are available via CC-BY-SA. --Sarefo (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks. It's curious that there's no apparent 'official' record of the species in China. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Sarefo. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lists of Salticidae species for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lists of Salticidae species 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/Lists of Salticidae species (2nd nomination) 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. Kaldari (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salticidae genera

		Red Link Removal Barnstar
		Working back through spider family articles from Zoropsidae to Actinopodidae, imagine my surprise when I find that one of the largest spider families is largely already done. Thanks for all your hard work! Sesame honey tart 03:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		A beer on me!
		Until we start getting paid for this :-)

Thanks for keeping the ball rolling! And for the beer :) --Sarefo (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Salticidae genera

Hi, I know you're not very active at present, but you may be interested in the question I posed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spiders#List of Salticidae genera. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment requested

Please see WT:WikiProject Spiders#Articles on nomina dubia. (I've excluded Stenaelurillus setosus which you started and which had significant content, and which I have updated.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § Category:WikiProject X members on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Qwerfjkl talk 09:31, 2 October 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 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 2023 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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Rhyphelia variegata" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Rhyphelia variegata has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 9 § Rhyphelia variegata until a consensus is reached. Nosferattus (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Dipluridae species for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Dipluridae species 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/List of Dipluridae species 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.

Mediocre.marsupial (talk) 11:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]