User talk:AddWittyNameHere: Difference between revisions

I'm active in vandalism-fighting and removing other non-constructive edits from Wikipedia articles. If I've reverted an edit (or tagged an article for deletion, left a warning template on a talkpage, etc.) and you feel I've made a mistake, please feel free to let me know! However, please do assume good faith. It would be most helpful if you: Start a new section below the current conversations; Mention which edit you're concerned about; Give a short explanation of why you feel my edit is wrong; Sign your comment, which you do by pressing ~~~~

Archives

Old Signpost Messages, Wikilove and Barnstars, Archive 1 (2013), Archive 2 (Jan 2014-March 2016), not yet sorted Archive 3 (March-October 2016), same

Subpage Index for non-archive subpages

Hi AddWittyNameHere. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main issues appears to be that a lot of articles were created using the ancient NHM cards rather than more up-to-date resources like funet. The NHM cards are becoming increasingly obsolete, in failing to reflect recent classification changes. We can do better. Dyanega (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is possible to change your preferences so you would not be redirected when there is a redirect, the people who would know are found at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vchimpanzee Thanks, I hesitated between those two when asking the question. I'll see about asking there, then. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

AddWittyNameHere,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

@Donner60: Thanks, and the same to you! How have you been doing? :) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AddWittyNameHere, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello wittily named Wikipedian. I've seen that in some butterfly names where the common name is in a possessive form like Charaxes northcotti (Northcott's charaxes), you've removed the "the" before the common name. I have mixed feelings about that but have come to the conclusion that it works best with the "the" there. The species is named "Northcott's charaxes", but it's not actually possessed by Northcott. I started a discussion once long ago somewhere and there was no consensus one way or another. I think that in the typical butterfly articles where the scientific name is in italics and bold, then followed by the common name, it looks better with the normal text "the" in between.

Charaxes northcotti, the Northcott's charaxes is ...

vs.

Charaxes northcotti, Northcott's charaxes is ...

I don't have strong feelings about this, but I wanted to share my thinking and see how you felt. Thank you.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SchreiberBike: I frequently see both forms used, but I think a larger majority of articles with species including possessives in their common names does not use the article 'the' from what I saw, at least tree-of-life-wide. (Though considering the way things are under Tree of Life's umbrella, that really doesn't mean much beyond the fact that different people do things different ways, and appreciable differences in the way things are handled can be observed between the various projects in the Tree of Life)

Possessives are by their nature already definite: calling something 'Example's skipper' basically means 'this specific skipper that was described by/collected by/named by/revalidated by/otherwise dedicated to or associated with Example'; to add a definite article in front of it is grammatically iffy barring exceptional cases. (At least, it makes me wince a little when I see it too many times in a row like today, much like how I would if I were to see 'the my house' too often)

Exceptional cases: I do/would make a difference between common names with possessives because the species is dedicated to them (Northcott's charaxes, etc.) and species named after something that already included a possessive. (I don't have a genuine example right now, but a fictional case would be if there was, say, a tree called Jakeson's oak and a skipper butterfly found near such oaks, given the common name 'Jakeson's oak skipper'. In that case, it's a skipper and more specifically, it's the Jakeson's oak skipper; a definite article here is perfectly valid because to leave out the article would suggest it's Jakeson's oak skipper versus some other kind of (equally fictional) oak skipper.

I do however agree that stylistically, two bolded terms separated solely by a punctuation mark is less than ideal. If I were to slightly reword those sentences rather than simply remove the definite article, so say

Charaxes northcotti, also known as Northcott's charaxes, is ...

Charaxes northcotti, commonly called Northcott's charaxes, is ...

and other such variations, would that be an acceptable solution to you? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) This is something I've been struggling with as well. I don't like two bold terms separated just by a punctuation mark and I don't like putting common (or scientific) names in parentheses when the scientific name is the title (Wikipedia pop-ups and Google's summary strip out parentheticals). I usually go with the "Scientific name, the vernacular name," formulation which seems to be the most common form on Wikipedia, but I do think it reads a little strange to have "the" next to a possessive. I've often gone with "Scientific name, or possessive's vernacular name," when a possessive is involved (if there are multiple vernacular names given, I move a non-possessive one ahead of a possessive). I also don't like "commonly called" or "popularly known as" unless the vernacular really is more frequently used than the scientific name. "also known as" seems like a good solution. Plantdrew (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)(Do you mean to have the italics on the common names above? (Feel free to remove this bit.)) I found the old inconclusive discussion I mentioned above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals/Archive 9#Definite article or not. I think either of your suggestions works, but they seem wordy compared to a concise "the". I'm persuaded that it can go both ways because we can use the indefinite article e.g. "an Example's skipper", where it would be wrong to say "an Example's house". Maybe I'll start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, though those seldom go well. I'll keep thinking about it. Thanks.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plantdrew's suggestion of "or" seems like a good one. I think I'll try that for a while and see how it feels.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew:, @SchreiberBike: Yeah, "commonly called" and kin are generally more useful for birds, mammals and certain fish, where the common name actually is common, than for insect species barring the obvious cases (some of the better known butterflies and such). Nope, italics were not intended at all. No clue why I added them except exhaustion/spending far too long doing the same repetitive tasks the past few days. (*cough*Four days into March and between categorization work, decapitalizing common names and redirect-tagging, I've amassed about 3000 edits for this month so far. Insomnia sure doesn't help either.)

'or' is a reasonable alternative; and as Plantdrew said, simply moving common names around sometimes works as well—though if the possessive-form name is the significantly more common of the various vernacular names, reversing listed order isn't always the best solution either.... "(also) known as" can work, but I'll admit that you've got a point, SchreiberBike, it's not the most succinct, and while in some areas that's not a huge deal, it's certainly less than elegant when dealing with the projects/areas 'fond' of huge lead-starters. Like parts of the whole moths area. (You both probably know what I mean, "Binomial name, the vernacular name, is a species of moth in the [taxonomic family/subfamily/tribe] first described in [year] by [binomial authority] that occurs in [country/location]." and similar).

Where no possessive is involved, 'the' generally suffices though it certainly doesn't hurt to add an "or" before "the vernacular name", so no issues should result in those cases where there's multiple vernacular names listed, some of which are and some of which aren't possessive.

Since all three of us seem fine with 'or', let's go with that for now then, yes? :) I'd prefer to keep away from MOS-discussions. Like you say, those rarely go well, and every hour spent on a MOS-discussion is one in which we could have, say, decapitalized a couple dozen common names. Or fixed a few dozen infoboxes. Or added a few dozen missing categories. Or tagged a few dozen redirects. Not any lack of work in the great Tree of Life, for sure. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About the category thing.

To4oo4 (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. :) Feel free to leave me a message if you have any more questions. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-ping: @To4oo4: (last attempt was misspelled) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being so nice and helpful! To4oo4 (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@To4oo4: Aww, thanks. :) -noms on pie- Tasty! Hope you've been doing well? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! So, I was planning to make a colourful userpage. You know, colourful? :) So, you have any idea about whose userpage is decorative, so that I can take it? :P I also asked a few people in the help section, but I know that you would be the best to ask from.:D Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adityavagarwal: Hello! Glad to see you're still around. Hope you've been doing well? Sorry for disappearing on you again, but sadly it took a while to get over my exhaustion/illness combination. I sort of forgot I hadn't replied to you yet after that. As to decorative userpages, sure, there's a fair lot of them around. As to taking it, how much copying exactly are you planning on? Because while I foresee little to no issue in copying the mark-up and then fiddling around with it—changing some colors here and there, changing images, etc. until you have something you like—I imagine copying any user's userpage exactly, with identical colors, identical layout, identical headers and identical images, even if you replace the text itself with the to-you relevant form, would go over a little less well. Make sure that at the utter least you tweak things a bit, yes? Make sure someone can see they've arrived at your page not that of the one whose userpage inspired you before they start reading the actual text on the page. Having someone make a userpage 'in your style'/'inspired by you' is a compliment; having someone walk around looking like they're your alternate account or clone not so much.

Before I suggest any userpages, what kind of 'colourful' are you looking for? Playful and bright colourful, graceful with some subdued background colour and one or at most a few images, colourful text-only, colourful with mostly images and a little text? There's a great many beautiful userpages out there and it helps to know what you're looking for a bit more specific than 'you know, colourful'. :P Because while yes, I know, colourful, that's really broad and up to interpretation, after all. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Sorry for disappearing on you again, but sadly it took a while to get over my exhaustion/illness combination" -That is fine :). Atleast you remember me :P. Also, is your illness/exhaustion gone and all? I am fine, and also trying to organize a wikipedia edit-a-thon. :D

Yeah, colourful in the sense, like not just plain one coloured userpage, but multi-coloured and really decorative one. Also, I should change it a bit and all, including the userboxes. (as they may be different for my userpage, but I can do that) Yeah, copying the userpage is not a really good and complimentary thing, but creating one might take quite some time. So, I thought that the same time could be utilized for any other thing including editing few more articles. :P The userpage I mean includes playful, brightful, with quite a few images too. Like as much colourful as possible (decorative).

Also, did you see the copyright violation I got yet again? :P It is now three to four times that I got copyright violations. I thought I paraphrased just fine as to not include infringement problems. However, it still was not fine. Only few lines were removed, however all the other contributions by me were striked-off as well. (Say in contributions 1,2,3,4, only 4 had a few problems, however, all 1,2,3,4 were striked-off) Is this because all the other contributions were based on that infringed contribution? (Maybe in my previous example, 1 had the problem, so 2,3,4 which are based on 1 were also in problem)

Also, how is the Lepidoptera thing going? I tried promoting Hexapoda (not in Lepidoptera, I know :P) to GA, but it lacked content, as rightly pointed out by somebody. Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adityavagarwal: Of course I remember you! As to my health, it tends to keep going up and down rather frequently. That particular bout of illness/exhaustion is gone, but my sleeping pattern still is a ridiculous mess and I'm already starting to edge up on exhaustion again, though not as severe as last time thankfully.

Yup. It's why I keep mine simple: I have a dozen ways I could use to spend time otherwise spent designing a userpage. Long as you stay closer to the 'inspired by' than 'direct copy' side of things, that should be fair enough for your userpage. The kind of userpage you describe isn't very common, I'd have to say. The first userpages that come to mind at your description would be Oshwah's, though it doesn't have all that many images (it is however bright, colourful and somewhat playful, and adapting the basics, changing the contents and adding a few images shouldn't be so hard), Anna Frodesiak's (but that one is so recognizably hers that I wouldn't recommend even basing a page off it, it'd be near-impossible to pull off without looking like a copy of hers), maybe Armbrust's. Durova has a lot of pictures but not many bright colours. I'd suggest using a mixture of Armbrust, Durova and Oshwah's pages to build something your own. It'd help both in avoiding looking like someone's copy and in creating something that's actually what you're looking for. It's still less work than building a page from scratch.

'striked off' is revdel (WP:Revision deletion and yes, that would be because the infringing content has to be made invisible in the page history and would have been included in any revisions that followed until the infringing text was removed. Paraphrasing can be difficult judgement at times and too-close paraphrasing is a copy-vio when it comes to copyrighted/copyrightable prose. Exactly where the edge between close and too-close paraphrasing is remains a matter of judgement, and also depends somewhat on the exact source and type of text being paraphrased at times. Wikipedia tends to try and stay on the careful side of things, as finding out that what was deemed merely close was too-close after all through legal proceedings is understandably not something folks would be happy with.

As the edits are revdelled, I can't actually see what you wrote and help explain why the paraphrasing was too close here, but I do recommend you be very careful. Continued copyright violations are one of the fastest ways to a block for good-faith editors. (Trolling, harassing and vandalizing are even more likely to get one blocked fast, of course, but those hardly are good-faith actions) I'd hate to see you end up blocked because you kept misjudging such matters.

Ah, yes, I'd say that Hexapoda isn't quite there yet. It is however significantly improved from the state it was in last year, which I'm happy to see. :) Lepidoptera is going as it always is: many, many, many articles, many things to change and update, so much maintenance to be done, so few people, and that's before even I get around to referencing things much less expanding articles. At least I'm starting to see progress on some of the maintenance stuff, though, and it's hardly surprising things take a while to deal with when on average one has to deal with a few thousand to a few tens of thousands of pages on any particular Lepidoptera maintenance task. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a combination of those seems good. Did you know those userpages already or you searched for them? (You might know them, I guess) Those are really colourful I think. :D

Yeah, it is not good to get such notices on copyrights. However, they reduced drastically, and maybe they will not appear again. I think I get how to dodge such things after the previous one. I will keep them far from similar. They do not even look good on the talk page. :P

I better not flood your talk page. :P I will cut short on my message. Also, I think I should improve hexapoda. It seems like a topic for an FA anyways right? Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adityavagarwal: Oshwah and Anna Frodesiak I knew from top of my mind; Armbrust's I somewhat remembered but had to doublecheck which of a small number of users it was I had in mind; Durova I searched for.

I am glad you're trying to avoid more copy-vios. Let's hope you can avoid getting them again, yes. Whenever unsure whether a paraphrase is too close or not, ask someone. Even if they end up giving you the wrong answer, it helps. (Because if it's merely close but not too close and they say 'nah, too close', well...rewording it a bit further away from the source doesn't hurt. If it is too close but someone else also deemed it acceptable, at least it shows you're definitely trying to keep within the rules and not knowingly adding copyvio-content. When there's clear proof something really is an accident and one you did your utter best to avoid, they're generally more understanding of the situation)

Hexapoda is a good topic for a GA or FA, yes. It certainly is a topic where there should be enough available information, too. Improvement would be good, regardless of if it makes it to GA/FA. After all, having a shiny ribbon to tie on it is nice, but in the end the quality of the article, not the rating it is given, is the aim of improvement.

As to flooding my talkpage, don't worry. :P I usually don't get all that many talkpage messages, so it's easy enough to keep up (and if it gets distracting, I can always propose to move the conversation to your talkpage. :P)

Hey! I do not know why, I think I did not get any notification of your reply. When I completed the GA for Taxonomy (biology), I thought of breaking the news to you. :D (I was unable to immediately :P).

Can you just see the article as a GA and say how it looks? That would be quite an important one, I guess. It is used by almost all of the Lepidoptera articles too right? (In the form of taxobox? Then indirectly I guess :P). Also, during the GA, the reviewer said about close paraphrasing as detected by Earwig. (Yeah, the name does seem eccentric) So, on searching for that, it was so easy to see if it had a possible suspection of any copyvio. I do not think it was difficult by any way.

I will expound on the Hexapoda article, too. I saw Lepidoptera, thinking to make it a GA or an FA; however, it was already an FA. :P

Also, just shift to my talkpage whenever you feel like. :D No need to even ask for that. Do you have any other article that you feel would be good to be an FA? Maybe any article which is used quite a bit (Like the taxonomy one, if I was right), or any other article too.

So, how are days passing by? Are you maintaining your sleep? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adityavagarwal (talk • contribs) 15:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AddWittyNameHere, thank you for the pretty cat and for your encouragement to continue my job on the moths.

When possible, would you change Cymatophorima diluta to Cymatophorina diluta ? Thanks by advance,

--ZorglubAB (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and responded on your talkpage. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear master of wikipedia, is it possible to rename W s to E s according to the references? I thank you very much by advance, --ZorglubAB (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This probably needs wider discussion to be consistent with other pages. It was edited by User:VVDubatolov (!) and moved by User:Ruigeroeland. [1] William Avery (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the reference provided on the Wittia genus page: Does Eilema Hübner, (1819) (Lepidoptera, Arctiidae, Lithosiinae) present one or several genera?. So I think it should not be moved to Eilema. Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other pages: one found: Manuela complana to rename to Eilema complana (references). It's a possibility. What do you think? Thanks. --ZorglubAB (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is about just moving a single page. We should either have a set of pages that use the Dubatolov taxonomy, which I think is what we have at present, or we move them all back to names in Eilema. I mildly favour the Dubatolov scheme, because you don't have to be a lepidopterist to see that Eilema sensu lato is unsatisfactory. I think there should be an explanatory note on the page Wittia sororcula though. I will add one to the page. If the proposed move is to continue discussion should be continued at Talk:Wittia sororcula, or some other venue, if only to preserve the sanity of User: AddWittyNameHere. William Avery (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@William Avery, Ruigeroeland, and ZorglubAB: Beyond a note at Wittia sororcula, some mention of the whole taxonomic mess at the Eilema and Wittia pages themselves would not go amiss either. Won't be moving this one without a discussion as it's not a clear-cut case. Thanks for responding, William Avery & Ruigeroeland, while I was offline. :) As to my sanity, don't worry. There's not much to preserve there anyway. ;) But yes, a discussion either at the Lepidoptera wikiproject (if involving all related pages) or Talk:Wittia sororcula (if just involving W./E. sororcula) seems to be the sensible course of action. I don't particularly mind having the discussion here, but it would make it difficult to track down later if other editors end up having the same concern, and it makes it somewhat hard for other folks to find the discussion. (Though I think all us few active editors within Lepidoptera have pretty much all the few other active editors talkpages watchlisted anyway...) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to thank you for your input on the talk page for the recently created 2017 Westminster attack article. Even though I'm a longtime user and editor of WP, I count on the community (particularly well-versed others like yourself) to not only participate fairly and objectively, but also to leverage your knowledge and experience to explain WP policy and guidelines. I receive valuable information from efforts like yours. It's much less aggravating than merely being reversed in an edit with no explanation (which is admittedly easier to do).--SidP (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SidP: Thank you for taking the time to leave a note of appreciation here. I generally do try my best to ensure people know why I revert them and/or disagree with their edits (even if I opt to not revert them, or if someone else already did so) if the issue is not glaringly obvious bad faith (such as vandalism), but yes, articles like this are especially sensitive, both because there are a lot of eyes on them in the early hours (and a lot of the editors involved in them have little experience in WP policy and guidelines) and because they deal with understandably controversial matters. I'm mainly trying to avoid (the constant near-eruption of) edit wars by explaining why certain things are not actually solutions, what actual options in line with policy&guidelines we have and above all try to get folks discussing things so a consensus can be established. If that requires actively looking for possible compromises instead of arguing for my own preferences, so be it—having the article stuck in a state that runs counter to policy or the more important guidelines (because not all guidelines are of equal concern or equally pressing; if the article is stuck in a state conflicting with one particular subsection of a subtopic of the MOS until we can get our noses in line, so be it) or stuck in a cycle of edit warring is actively harmful; it being written in different words than I personally would have chosen is not. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AWNH, may I ask your opinion about that moth : almost all the references prefer use the synonym genus Griposia other than Dichonia. Is it possible to reverse? (See also Griposia). What do you think about my job on the moths? Thanks by advance, --ZorglubAB (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there from Portugal,

not actually a typo because i usually insert the date when the last match of the round is/was played, but that's OK i can live with that :)

Date altered in the infobox, happy editing --85.242.133.151 (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the kind and lengthy reply, have a nice one :) --85.242.133.151 (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! How are you? And how are the days going? I was wondering if the Taxonomy (biology) article was good enough to be an FA. It recently became a GA, and would it not be great to make it of an FA quality? It is used as a wikilink in many articles too. It would be great if you could say somethings that it lacks to be an FA. ( you could even help me making it an FA :P ) I guess your insights would land it into an FA from a current GA, so yeah ... :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Hey, you might already be knowing how much you helped me out in order to become a better editor, and your continuous helping me to become a better editor is really appreciated! Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still out there? Doing ok? I hope it's going well and wish you the best.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're working on a project to change all LepIndex species links to use a template that will be much more efficient. Your suggestion to shorten such links was part of the inspiration. Hope you're doing well.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello AddWittyNameHere:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Should MoS shortcut redirects be sorted to certain specific maintenance categories? An Rfc has been opened on this talk page to answer that question. Your sentiments would be appreciated!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  18:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	Wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
	A very Happy, Glorious, Prosperous Christmas and New Year! God bless!  — Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AddWittyNameHere! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 22:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AddWittyNameHere. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hello my peasants i am ruler now bow down to me???? Didididodo (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Didididodo: *blink* Uh, no, sorry. But thanks for the bubble tea, I guess. :) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kitten! ;P Pegship (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Fauna Barnstar
		For your Massive Organization of Templates for Heterocerae, you have received this Fauna Barnstar! Her Pegship (speak) 16:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pegship: Thanks! "Massive organization" all right—at the moment I'm pretty busy sorting the redirects with R from alternative scientific name templates into their proper subcats (such as moths into insects...especially moths into insects...quelle surprise), the majority of which were established about a year ago. It seems no one actually got around to diffusing the main cat afterwards.

Which, to be fair, I can understand, what with some 52k+ redirs in there now and almost 60k when I started. Oh well, at current rate if I keep focus almost solely on this task and edit daily I might even be done by the first week of October or so... AddWittyNameHere 17:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hope your wrist gets some rest. Her Pegship (speak) 16:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Pegship: Thanks! I slipped in the garden (some tiles had turned quite slippery after the first rainfall in weeks) and caught myself slightly awkwardly on my arm right on the edge between tile and soil. Didn't break or sprain anything, thankfully, but got a nasty bruise or two and some minor swelling right on the edge between my wrist and thumb. Figured it might be the smart thing to do to take a break in regards to my rapid-speed repetitive editing until at minimum the swelling is down. No need to further injure myself and all that. AddWittyNameHere 19:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Witty! I need some help and am hoping you have the answer in your many books. Of my few books, Hesperiinae, the grass skippers are called branded skippers by Opler and banded skippers by Daniels. Found another source that separates different Hesperiinae into branded and banded but most sources that I can find through books.google.com seem to choose branded as a synonym for grass skipper. I am simply trying to update the grass skippers page and want to make sure it is accurate. Thanks! PopularOutcast ^talk2me 22:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to thank you for ALL your great work! Have a lovely day!

Qwerty number1 has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Qwerty number1 (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lepidoptera described in 1758, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:18, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Lepidoptera described in the 19th century requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 deleted 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.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Lepidoptera by year of formal description requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 deleted 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.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, AddWittyNameHere. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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]

Hello, AddWittyNameHere. 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]

Hi, Witty, I saw your name on WP:Adopt. I am working on Bruiningshofje and have run into a translation problem. I cannot find what the word "pruves" means, google translate just gives me the same word. [2] This article spells it preuves, but still no translation. Translating it isn't necessary for the correction, but I'd like to find what it means so I can add it anyway. Many thanks, Aurornisxui (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Adityavagarwal submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

It is with extreme delight that I am nominating AddWittyNameHere for the Editor of the Week award. She is one of the best editors that I have witnessed on the entire Wikipedia. She has run the gamut from contributing profoundly to editing articles, making innumerable redirects on Lepidoptera and other orders of insects and moths, diligently countering vandalism, immensely contributing to the Articles for Deletion, assiduously helping and guiding other Wikipedia editors, making an incalculable number of new articles, and almost any other activity that I may be overlooked! She has in excess of 72,000 valuable edits to Wikipedia, which constitutes an incredible 90% or 65,000 contributions to main space! For more reasons than the aforementioned, I have the strongest possible support that she be declared the Editor of the Week.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 03:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]