Ruigeroeland

/Archive1 /Archive2 /Archive3 /Archive4

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Planotortrix puffini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Muttonbird. 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) 08:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Liobagrus somjinensis

I see that you removed the Coren Search Bot notice from Liobagrus somjinensis, but I do not see any sign that the issues were addressed. It looks to me like a WP:Close paraphrase. What did you conclude?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a technical description mostly based on the original description of the species. It is hard to really rephrase a description like that without turning to original research. Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 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.

Duomitus ceramicus

added a link pointing to Ceram

Strigocossus capensis

added a link pointing to Cassia laevigata

Strigocossus moderata

added a link pointing to Cassia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 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.

Almonia truncatalis

added a link pointing to Sula

Cataclysta amboinalis

added a link pointing to Amboina

Elophila africalis

added a link pointing to Vossia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Please fill out your JSTOR email

As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Ways to improve Heterochorista rostrata

Hi, I'm Matheweditking. Ruigeroeland, thanks for creating Heterochorista rostrata!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Hey why dont u expand this

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Matheweditking (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Mocis frugalis

Hello Ruigeroeland, the image 'Mocis frugalis Noctuidae Erebidae, Catocalinae.jpg' is about a Mocis frugalis (see also filename) and is also shown in the article Mocis frugalis. I removed that picture from the taxobox about another species; the Mocis proverai. You restored that picture there. Please explain. - Robotje (talk) 11:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you are absolutely right, but as the article explains: both species are exactley the same in appearance and the two are only identifiable by microscopic research. Hence: the picture can also be used for the proverai article. I did add an image caption to explain the other species is figured. I hope that makes sense. Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

After adding that extra text it's OK with me. - Robotje (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 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.

Harmologa festiva

added a link pointing to Veronica

Harmologa sanguinea

added a link pointing to Veronica

Parapoynx polydectalis

added a link pointing to Victoria

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nymphicula conjunctalis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Northern Territories. 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) 09:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

{{Lepidoptera}}

Hi, just today I have seen that you removed the above template from all of the Lepidoptera related articles. I would like to know the purpose behind it because it does exist in various articles on mammals. Like for example, majority of bats and shrews have them: Gobi big brown bat and Etruscan shrew, and I followed their example. Or project Lepidoptera is different in that regard? If so, why were there {{Lepidoptera}}, {{Coleoptera}} being developed long before I began using them???--Mishae (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The examples you mention have a template linking to related species, while the Lepidoptera template links to the families. The template was made to browse between families, not from species to families. Ruigeroeland (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Here what was my idea behind it: see, user who doesn't want to read about the families, can click on that template which will transfer him to which ever sub family he/she wants. So, which template can I use if any? Because project mammals uses them and they definitely were developed for a reason (otherwise they would have been nominated for deletion). As far as you saying goes: The template was made to browse between families, not from species to families. Hmm, isn't that what Gobi big brown bat look like? Like, its a species which is linked to subfamily and with Etruscan shrew its species that are linked to families through order template. Same thing with Bearded seal and Wild boars they are also species with order templates. So, my Lepidoptera and Coleoptera templates are orders as well, not families.--Mishae (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference, the mammal templates list all species within the orders, families and genera, while the Lepidoptera template only lists the families, not the species. Listing the Lepidoptera template is not wrong, but it is not that useful in my opinion. For example: it would be the same as listing a template about the countries of Africa under a village in Nigeria. Ruigeroeland (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

So there is no template to use when it comes to Lepidoptera? Thanks for explanation.--Mishae (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Not really. You made templates for the species within a genus some time ago, that would be a better solution. However: Since taxanomy of insects changes so much, it would be hard to keep these up to date. I think it would be wise not to add templates to species articles. There is enough other work to do besides making and adding these templates. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 06:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

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.

Charltoniada acrocapna

added a link pointing to Northern Territories

Diadexia argyropasta

added a link pointing to Northern Territories

Epiblema graphana

added a link pointing to Artemisia

Eurhythma argyphea

added a link pointing to Northern Territories

Eurhythma callipepla

added a link pointing to Northern Territories

Eurhythma cataxia

added a link pointing to Northern Territories

Eurhythma epargyra

added a link pointing to Northern Territories

Eurhythma polyzelota

added a link pointing to Northern Territories

Eurhythma xuthospila

added a link pointing to Northern Territories

Homona eductana

added a link pointing to Morus

Microtalis

added a link pointing to Northern Territories

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Crambus perdentellus

Just letting you know, it seems you created Crambus perdentellus as a redirect to itself. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! Ruigeroeland (talk) 06:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

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.

Chilo auricilius

added a link pointing to Sangir

Eucosma abacana

added a link pointing to Artemisia

Eucosma aspidiscana

added a link pointing to Aster

Neobarbara

added a link pointing to Barbara

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello again!

Hello! Figured I'd let you know that I intend to do some serious background/clean-up related work on Lepidoptera-related articles again, albeit in-depth enough that it's probably going to stretch over a few months. (Might do some content work too, if I feel up for it, but not as structurized as I intend to do the gnomish stuff).

I've made myself a "nice" checklist of stuff to check while combing through every article in the Lepidopterology category (in other words, everything in Category:Lepidoptera + a few hundred lepidopterists), but I figured that as you're basically the nr. 1 guy when it comes to Lepidoptera-related work here, you could perhaps look through it and see if there are any obvious things I've forgotten to list there, especially because if so, I'd rather find out now, when I only have a dozen articles to back-track through, rather than later on, when that's a few hundred to over a thousand. User:AddWittyNameHere/Lepidoptera_to-do_list is where the list can be found, by the way. Have a nice day, AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow! That is very much work you are getting yourself into. You might add to do the list: Add category 'Moths described in xxxx' (add year) or (if it is a butterfly), 'Insects described in xxxx' if these categories are missing. Furthermore, I think you pretty much covered it all...! Ruigeroeland (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a shitload (pardon my French) of work, but it needs to be done anyway, and if I'm going to do it, may as well do it well and structured, rather than the an-article-here-and-and-article-there-in-between-vandal-fighting approach I've been using so far. Will note that specific point down (I do believe I have a general "check categories"-point in it, but those are exactly the kind of categories I'd have overlooked. Speaking of categories, the Lepidoptera categorization structure really should be cleaned up sometime. No good reason for the category "Lists of moths and butterflies of the United States" to be present in all of the following trees:

• Butterflies and moths by region=>Lists of butterflies by location;
• Butterflies and moths by region=>Lists of moths by location;
• Butterflies and moths by region=>Butterflies and moths of North America;
  • Butterflies and moths by region=>Butterflies and moths of North America=>Butterflies of the United States;
• Butterflies=>Butterflies by country=>Butterflies of the United States;
• Lepidoptera by country=>Butterflies by country=>Butterflies of the United States;
• Lists of Lepidoptera=>Lists of butterflies=>Lists of butterflies by location;
• Lists of Lepidoptera=>Lists of moths=>Lists of moths by location;
• Moths=>Lists of moths=>Lists of moths by location.

One of the more spurious examples, sure, but it does show how messy the category structure is, eh? Some specific articles are even worse, from top of my head. Oh well, let's start with multi-month (ironically almost mistyped that as multi-moth) project #1 before thinking about projects #2 and #3. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 06:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the categories are a mess. I usually only add the taxonomy cat (family, subfamily, tribe or genus) and the year cat myself, but others have added various others over time, and all use other formats. Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

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.

Agriphila sakayehamana

added a link pointing to Sachalin

Pelochrista arabescana

added a link pointing to Artemisia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Crambidae coverage.

Greetings, Ruigeroeland! I'm just notifying you now, so you don't panic ;) when you see the latest crambid pages; I've made them ahead of time for the next week and a few days. I plan to take a wikibreak through until the second week of September, but I didn't want things to fall behind. There should be plenty of time to get them taken care of. :) See you soon! When they said, 'Please be still'... (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Notification: Greetings, Ruigeroeland! Just so you know, I got a little ahead of myself making the crambid pages just now. Not to worry; we can consider it "stocking up" for a couple of days, and I'll get back to them when you're finished with this batch. Cheers! :) And was never more heard of at Rimini. (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glaucocharis brandti, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Ireland. 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) 09:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Crocidolomia suffusalis may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:

• Crocidolomia%20suffusalis.htm Digital Moths of Asia]</ref> and [[Taiwan]]. It is also present in [[New Guinea and [[Australia]], where it has been recorded from [[Queensland]] and [[New South Wales]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Evergestis anartalis 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:

• 1/03%20Nuss.pdf Revision of Evergestis anartalis (Staudinger, 1892) comb. rev. from Central Asia (Pyraloidea: Crambidae: Evergestinae]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pandemis 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:

• ' '''3 (2)''': 137-140. Full article: http://www.liu6.sakura.ne.jp/youqiao/hp/thesis/Thesis037.pdf].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

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.

Pandemis lamprosana

added a link pointing to Fagus

Pandemis limitata

added a link pointing to Castanea

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Your sources

Hi there. I've removed large sections of two of your most recent edits, to Drosophantis and Elachista ciliigera. I looked at the references cited, and they didn't support what you had added. Did I miss something, or are you making this stuff up? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The source DOES contain that info, but you have to look up the genus in the database. It is not possible to link to the page containing the info.Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I did look it up. It wasn't there. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Drosophantis: the synonyms list type locality: Ceylon [Sri Lanka] and type locality: China, Taiwan, so that accounts for those two. You are right, I did not add a ref for Australia, so I did now. Regarding Elachista ciliigera: I now provided a ref for the state record. You are right mothphotographersgroup did not contain the info I listed. However: I did not use the ref for the distribution, but placed it after the authority, so I was not technically claiming the info came from there. I hope you are satisfied that I am not 'making stuff up'. You are right that I did not properly reference everything though. Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Take care. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Circoxena ditrocha

Sorry, just realised that I wasn't paying attention and accidentally (and anonymously) undid your revert of my edit, which is terribly rude. To explain my reasoning for using the URL I am, though, it's because the hdl.handle.net permalink is *the* guaranteed permanent link, and is listed as such on the document's record page. Any other link can change if the domain name changes (which has happened in the past and can't be ruled out in the future) but the handle.net link will stay the same - it's akin to a DOI. --Zeborah (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Xylinades

Hi :Ruigeroeland Would you put a note on the talk page of this article [1] (Ettore) No copyright on species lists surely All th best Notafly (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

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.

Musotima pudica

added a link pointing to Amboina

Neurophyseta normalis

added a link pointing to St. Vincent

Sorensenata

added a link pointing to Campbell Island

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Adalbert Seitz

Hi Ruigeroeland If you are looking for info on Palearctic moths look here. You can download the pdf if you login.You don't have to take out a subscription. No rain here in Ireland during September. How about you? Notafly (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC) Forget this It is imcomplete but avalable at Biodiversity Heritage Library Die Großschmetterlinge der Erde, Verlag Alfred Kernen, Stuttgart Band 2 Die Großschmetterlinge des palaearktischen Faunengebietes, Die palaearktischen Spinner und Schwärmer, 1912–1913 in English translation

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heliopetes ericetorum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Althaea. 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) 09:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Xenotemna, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aster. 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) 08:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

congratulations for Pim

A star

Dutch Nappy Changers Guilt Honorary Medal 2014

for Ruigeroland for winning the Dutch Nappy changing contest 2014

)

(I read it on Wilhemina's talk page.... ) My congratulations User:Tonton Bernardo

Haha, thanks, I need some more practice before receiving a medal though..! :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

just dont worry

dont worry, before the end of the year you will merrit it !

Please give my regards & congratulations to your wife also. User:Tonton Bernardo

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ancyloptila, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aru. 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) 11:59, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Zacorisca pulchella

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Zacorisca pulchella, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.igoterra.com/artspec.asp?thingid=142635.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Loxostege anartalis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "<>"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:

• recorded from coast to coast in [[Canada]]. In the west, the range extends south to [[California]].<refhttp://mothphotographersgroup.msstate.edu/species.php?hodges=5010 mothphotographersgroup]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Acleris notana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fagus. 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) 14:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!!!

Wilhelmina Will has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! '"On Psych, A USA Network TV series Episode 8, The Tao of Gus, Season 6, Shawn refers to pumpkins as "Halloween Apples" because he thinks all round fruits are a type of apple. If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Cheers! "We could read for-EVER; reading round the wiki!" (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Synonymy

Hi Ruigeroeland, I saw you created this page. In the very first version of it, a complete synonymy is already present, without mentioning any source for it (none of the three references cited provides information on synonymy). It's been 4 years and a day since you created the page but can you remember where you got the synonymy from. I'd like to use that information to clarify some confusion about the names Atteva pustulella, Atteva punctella (not a valid name), Caloptilia elongella and Caloptilia punctella (the latter being a synonym) on the Dutch Wikipedia. Cheers,  Wikiklaas  07:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Wikiklaas, voor deze familie zou ik de online database raadplegen, zie: [2]. Voor deze soort staat de informative op deze pagina: [3]. Groet! Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, dat is uitstekend! Ik wist niet dat er ook een soort van AfroMoths voor Gracillariidae was. Ik maak meteen een bookmark. Dank!  Wikiklaas  08:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Taxobox species names

Hi. I see you've created a phenomenal number of pages, and they're generally excellent, but you seem to be cutting and pasting from a template that has a serious problem - in the taxoboxes, you are not italicizing the species names in the second line of the taxobox, which creates the header - e.g., "| name = Acleris abietana" instead of "| name = Acleris abietana". If you could please fix your template so future pages you create have the names properly italicized, that would be much appreciated. Dyanega (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing, will do that! Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

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.

Hoplodrina superstes

added a link pointing to Ural

Leptosteges flavicostella

added a link pointing to Georgia

Panchrysia aurea

added a link pointing to Altai

Pyrausta lethalis

added a link pointing to Big Bend

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

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.

Acleris chalybeana

added a link pointing to Fagus

Acleris cornana

added a link pointing to Cornus

Acleris forbesana

added a link pointing to Cornus

Panchrysia dives

added a link pointing to Ural

Rupela leucatea

added a link pointing to Antiqua

Scirpophaga excerptalis

added a link pointing to New Ireland

Scirpophaga nivella

added a link pointing to Aru

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Multiple barnstars!

		The Multiple Barnstar
		For your exemplary work in creating tens of thousands of articles. Thankyou - NQ (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Xanthotype sospeta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cornus. 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) 20:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Eublemma dichroma --redirect--> Tegostoma bipartalis

Ruigeroeland -- Do you know why this apparent Erebid/former Noctuid moth species is set to redirect to that Crambid moth species? It looks like an unlikely synonymy, but I'm having no luck finding a good source about either species (searching in English). Treichar (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

It is listed as such at Afro Moths, see [4]. Although not common, I have seen such misplacements in families before.. Afro Moths is normally quite good, so I would trust it in this case. Ruigeroeland (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Rollback on Autocharis egenula

Sorry about that. An accident while I was using a mobile device. William Avery (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem, happens to the best of us..! Cheers Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Indochina

Added this Butterflies Indochina] and on the Seitz Fauna Americana commons pages added fuller info and a "read text" section so that the all important authority names can be checked and other info garnered See for eg Plate 171 Best regards. Strangely warm in Ireland. Robert Notafly (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

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.

Azochis rufifrontalis

added a link pointing to Saint Vincent

Bacotoma illatalis

added a link pointing to Sula

Chalcidoptera emissalis

added a link pointing to Aru

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion.

Greetings, Ruigeroeland! I've been giving this some thought, for a little while now; perhaps when you're listing the synonyms of the moth species during expansion of the articles, you could leave the redirecting of the names to me? That might free your workload up a bit, and I could contribute a little more to the project. Thoughts? Heading for the 20's, living in the Wild Wild Wikipedia! (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wilhelmina, we could try that, but not sure if that would make much difference. There are not that many most of the time and I can redirect them in a short amount of time. There might be other ways to help out some more but these would take more time when you are creating the articles. One thing you could consider doing is not redirecting species in monotypic genera, but really adding the species to the page like I do now. There might be other things you could do.. I will think about it! Cheers

Wikimedia genealogy project

Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Dear Ruigeroeland, thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia, especially your recent creation of Ethmia randycurtisi. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 15:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24

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.

Endothenia hebesana

added links pointing to Iris and Veronica

Condica videns

added a link pointing to Aster

Eumarozia malachitana

added a link pointing to Cassia

Glyphodes pyloalis

added a link pointing to Morus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Marcomogollon. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Hymenoptychis dentilinealis, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Marcomogollon (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ulotrichopus stertzi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestina. 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) 09:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

ref.links Afromoths

Hello Ruigeroeland

I'm not sure if you noticed it before: the page URL of the afromoths pages changes every few months (at every update). Genus pages do not seem to change the "number" (or less often) There seems to be a new feature with a permanent link. Sample: the pages of Omiodes niphoessa (Ghesquière, 1942) that you edited yesterday has two links, one with the number (that seems to change) http://www.afromoths.net/species/show/12967 and on the same page you find a button permanent link that redirects : http://www.afromoths.net/species_by_code/OMIONIPH

Quite easy to use that one. Just "right button click" + "copy link". I'll use that "permanent link" in the future, hopefully it will stay valid for a longer time.

Best regards Mike User:Tonton Bernardo

Ah, great! I will use that from now on! Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Orchid pages

Hello Ruigeroeland,

Thank you very much for patrolling the orchid pages I wrote. You inspire me to keep going!

Gderrin (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem, you make excellent articles! Keep it up! Ruigeroeland (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Avatha pulcherrima, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pometia. 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) 09:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

You are amazing!

I have been editing in Lepidoptera for a number of years but have just come across all of the contributions that you have been making with your photographs. You are amazing! But I would like to know is if you have been able to insert your photographs into all of the Lepidoptera articles that they would apply to. I guess what I'm asking is if you need any assistance in getting these photos into the articles. In addition, the notes that you make with your photographs probably would be better appreciated and referenced if they were in the body of the articles. Is there a way I can help you with this?

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for your kind message. However, these are not my photographs at all, I only uploaded photo's I found with the appropriate licence to wikimedia commons and added them to the proper articles on wikipedia. Regarding notes: I dont think we can use them in the body of the article text, since we can only add referenced information..! Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Greetings!

Greetings, Ruigeroeland! I hope you're feeling better after that flu. So, ready for more moths yet? :) Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wilhelmina, certainly, and thanks for asking! I have been better for some days already, but was not aware you were waiting for me..! :) Bring 'm on! If you could try to limit the number of new ones to about 40-50 a day, I would appreciate it.. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing! :) Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

About your (non)participation in the January 2012 SOPA vote

Hi Ruigeroeland. I am Piotr Konieczny (User:Piotrus), you may know me as an active content creator (see my userpage), but I am also a professional researcher of Wikipedia. Recently I published a paper (downloadable here) on reasons editors participated in Wikipedia's biggest vote to date (January 2012 WP:SOPA). I am now developing a supplementary paper, which analyzes why many editors did not take part in that vote. Which is where you come in :) You are a highly active Wikipedian (50th to be exact), and you were active back during the January 2012 discussion/voting for the SOPA, yet you did not chose to participate in said vote. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why was that so? For your convenience, I prepared a short survey at meta, which should not take more than a minute of your time. I would dearly appreciate you taking this minute; not only as a Wikipedia researcher but as a fellow content creator and concerned member of the community (I believe your answers may help us eventually improve our policies and thus, the project's governance). PS. If you chose to reply here (on your userpage), please WP:ECHO me. Thank you! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi

oh ok I just assumed since it just said Libya and no other country Saturn star (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!!!

Happy Valentine's Day, to you and yours! Cheers, Grinding, grinding, grinding... what are we finding, finding, finding... (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Synonyms

Hi! Nice work on the moths. I removed your cite to BOLD on Prenesta scyllalis since the text there is copied from our article. Can you give me a pointer to your source for synonomy? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC).

Thanks. For this family, I use [5] as a primary source for synonyms. It is not perfect, but close. Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Psara frenettalis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mahé. 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) 08:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 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.

Salbia endolasea

added a link pointing to St. Vincent

Sinomphisa jeannelalis

added a link pointing to Mahé

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reviewing my new article: Protographium agesilaus fortis. I review new pages also and so can appreciate the time and effort you put into doing this. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, Thank you very much

		The Reviewer Barnstar

Thank you again for reviewing two of my new articles: Lycorea halia halia and Lycorea halia cleobaea. If you ever have any suggestions on how these articles could be improved, please don't hesitate to let me know. I appreciate all constructive input that I get.

  Bfpage |leave a message  16:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Melipotis evelina

Hello Ruigeroeland,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Melipotis evelina for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Jaaron95 17:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Melipotis euryphaea

Hello Ruigeroeland,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Melipotis euryphaea for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Jaaron95 17:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Melipotis dispar

Hello Ruigeroeland,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Melipotis dispar for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Jaaron95 17:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Melipotis decreta

Hello Ruigeroeland,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Melipotis decreta for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Jaaron95 17:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

You are appreciated

		The Wikiproject Lepidoptera Barnstar
		For editors who have contributed greatly to Wikiproject Lepidoptera

Moth found in place.

Though the plural confusion and persistently passive voice makes the grammar part of my brain burn (who keeps finding this moth?), I'll concede defeat, because the thought of edit warring over, or even agreeably fixing, 50,000 articles for consistency makes every part of my brain burn. And I see this bad habit extends far beyond the moth part of Wikipedia. No chance.

Aside from that relatively minor point, thanks and congratulations for your proliferance! InedibleHulk (talk) 15:03, April 2, 2015 (UTC)

Haha, well: I am not a native speaker and started out using: 'it is known from'. This phrase is used in scientific literature, so it should be okay, but other users did not agree with that. I then changed it to: 'it is found in', which they suggested at the time. You could choose to say 'inhabits' or something similar, but 'lives in' doesn't feel right to me when talking about a species as a whole (instead of an individual). I don't understand the plural confusion though. It refers to species, which is not plural (at least not in my language). Ruigeroeland (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, "species" is singular to me, too. But it describes a category, which is found in/known from intangible discussion and filing systems. The name represents many individual physical moths, which live somewhere, regardless of whether some outsider spots them.

So the first two sentences are fine, clearly about the classification. Then we talk about the moths themselves, but "it" implies we're still talking about the taxonomic notion. That's found everywhere zoologists have agreed to stick with Latin (i.e., everywhere).

Not a huge deal, though. There are far worse problems on Wikipedia, which wouldn't require 50,000 identical solutions. I'll worry about (some of) those instead. For all the effort you've put into the Lepidoptera part of town, you've earned authority here. I just stumbled in by hitting "Random article".

Keep up the good work! InedibleHulk (talk) 19:48, April 2, 2015 (UTC)

actually I prefer also it is known from

mostly because most species are not yet well researched and some territories; countries, etc. not at all ! So, somehow, if i write: it is found in Easter Islands - its got something of "definitely" . When writing it's known from Easter Islands' its more like: who knows, where else it will be found in the future ! cheers User:Tonton Bernardo

---

Happy Easter!

File:Chocolate-Easter-Bunny.jpg

All the best! "Carry me down, carry me down; carry me down into the wiki!" (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

More Seitz

Greetings Ruigeroeland I uploaded more of Fauna Indoaustralica here. Moths to follow but first I will complete Fauna Africana. Cold spring in Ireland.Any better for you All the best Robert aka Notafly (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

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.

Acria cocophaga

added a link pointing to Cocos

Agonopterix straminella

added a link pointing to Palestina

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

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.

Depressaria alienella

added a link pointing to Artemisia

Depressaria artemisiella

added a link pointing to Artemisia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Epermenia albapunctella, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heracleum. 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) 09:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Coccidiphila

Hello Ruigoeland, you added: *Coccidiphila silvatica (Meyrick, 1917) (Inda, Kumaon) in 2012 to this genus. [6]

I still find it in other databases under " Batrachedra, ex:funet or: Lepindex, updated 04/2011

Maybe you have another reason, I'll leave it to you - to move or to leave where it is. Regards Tonton I'm so tired (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure, I will investigate later..! Thanks for letting me know. Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you for your Contribution in your New Page "Anarsia Phortica ". Denver C. (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Cathegesis vinitincta

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Cathegesis vinitincta, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.botanicus.org/primeocr/mbgserv14/botanicus5/BCA_00_00_0/bca_15_04_00/bca_15_04_00_049.txt.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

In the public domain (PD-OLD) Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Goat moth

Redirects you created:

• Goat Moth to Cossus cossus, 1 September 2008‎
• Goat-moth to Cossidae, 16 January 2010‎

We also have:

• Goat moth to Cossidae, 2 July 2008‎

Google search seems to favor Cossus cossus. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed! Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your addition of entries for moth species! jrun (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	thank´s for your contributions on moth´s!!! Daniel-Brown (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Copy and Paste Concerns

Please be careful and paraphrase. For example, copying the technical description from manuals is a copyvio. It appears lots of your work is similar. I would hate for someone to revert all your hard work. Add a minute or two to paraphrase. Wiki has a stricter copyvio policy than most academics are used to. --Lucas559 (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

If I do, it is always PD-OLD though... So I would think, since the source is out of copyright, there are no such concerns? Ruigeroeland (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Stern Review

Hi! FYI I've just blocked User:Yeah learned English yeah as an obvious sock, and deleted another 5 butterfly stubs. I'll let you report at SPI if you think it's necessary. Best,  —SMALLJIM  11:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

No need if you handled it. Thanks for the swift action. I hadn't even noticed them yet..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

When I spot them, I'll carry on disposing of them quietly then, but will let you know if anything out of the ordinary happens - OK?  —SMALLJIM  12:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Great! Saves me the time of having to report them at SPI. Cheers and thanks Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

On a related note, the last several times you've opened a new SPI under this farm, you've done so with the single word WP:DUCK, and each time, the reviewing admin (Vanjagenije) has asked for more information. Maybe you need to start filing fuller SPIs. To be fair, it should be obvious to anyone familiar with the case, but Vanja closes a lot of SPIs and may not be able to remember the details of each of the farms. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I understand what you are saying, but to be honest, I like to spend my time doing actual productive work on Wikipedia. Since this guy is so persistent and the same cases come up on a daily basis (although he has had a break of several months), I was hoping that they can be solved by investing a minimum amount of time. I haven't really looked into the requirements to raise an SPI case, but was hoping this minimal info would be enough. If not, would you be able to provide me with a copy and paste template to report this guy? That would help me a lot....! Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

WikiDan61 is right. Please, when you open the case next time, include a short explanation of the case, because I can't really remember every case by name, there are thousands. You don't have to cite diffs, especially when edits are deleted, but at least explain the similarity between the sock and the master. You should not wait for me to ask for more information, you should include more information as soon as you open the case. If you do not have time to report the sockpuppet, you don't have to, editing Wikipedia is voluntary. But, I am also a volunteer like you, so don't expect me to spend more time at the case just because you don't want to spend more time. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Will do Vanjagenije and WikiDan61. I was not aware of the amount of sockpuppets active on Wikipedia, so was under the impression that this case would be known by most of you active in battling them. Sorry for the inconvenience..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Podcast Interview

Hi,

I am currently developing a podcast called 'Random Article', where each episode I focus on a different Wikipedia article found using the random article function.

I'm currently making an episode about Syndesmica, and I see that you recently updated the page. I'd love to interview you about you interest in Syndesmica, and what prompted you to make the update.

Please reply if you would be interested in being interviewed, or if you would like more information about the podcast or myself.

Thanks! Chmjasper (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for your interest in the Eranbot project [7]. Feel free to leave comments to improve its interface or efficacy. Lucas559 (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

LepIndex refs

Hi,

Because you are editing on an industrial scale, I'd like to suggest that your citations to the LepIndex be more precise. Otherwise I wouldn't trouble.

That is (for example): http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/research/projects/lepindex/search/detail.dsml?TaxonNo=103369.0

instead of: http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/research/projects/lepindex/search/index.dsml

Advantages include easier navigation to the information, and perhaps quality control on your extensive (and appreciated) work, for example Neofaculta_taigana, which I was unable to find in LepIndex.

This should be a fairly easy copy-and-paste for you as you look up the species in LepIndex.

Ggpauly (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ggpauly, thanks for your message, and I will do that in future. I started to add this ref to articles, because another user used it in her template for article creation of moth species and I thought it would be a good thing to standardize the new articles. However, I see the trouble you are referring to. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Voliba leptomorpha

There appears to be a typo or a missing noun in this article and I can't decide which. "There is a basal fascia, expanded on the costa and a with a transverse straight linear fascia". Looks like your edit. Hope you can help. --LilHelpa (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Can send two articles by Bidzilya

Hi, I can send you full text pdfs of:

• Bidzilya, O.V. 2015: Armatophallus gen. n., a new genus of gelechiid moths (Lepidoptera, Gelechiidae) from the Afrotropical and Oriental regions. Zootaxa, 3981 (3): 413-429. Preview (PDF)
• Li, H.-H. & O. Bidzilya, 2008: A review of the genus Ehystris Meyrick, 1908 from China, with descriptions of two new species (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Zootaxa 1733: 45-56 Abstract: [8].

to partly fulfill your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive_26#Zootaxa: Peltasta. Please use Special:EmailUser to email me so that I can reply with the pdfs as attachments. Regards, Worldbruce (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

New York

Is this vandalism? Art LaPella (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yep, reverted. Thanks! Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pyncostola melanatracta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North-West Province. 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) 10:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

About moths

Hi. I noticed that you have created many pages of moths around the world. It is pleasure, if you can update the article List of moths of Sri Lanka as well. Thank you.. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thiotricha fridaella, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mahé. 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) 11:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Replicative editing of bee articles

See here: User_talk:Thine_Antique_Pen#Leaf-cutter_bees Gidip (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Taygete platysoma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vera Cruz. 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) 10:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Wilhelmina Will (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hope your Christmas (and your kin's ;) has been great! :) Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Dabasa

I think Dabasa is no longer in use. The species listed here are all now in Meandrusa some as subspecies (see Wikispecieshere) I think the Dabasa page is best deleted or redirected. I can fix this myself but clumsily. Will you take a look please? Warm regards Robert aka Notafly (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Will have to take a closer look at this one. Thanks for letting me know! Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Redirected or moved all species pages and the genus page to the current valid name (although I am not 100% sure about the status of a few of the subspecies, which are listed as species in other sources). Anyway: it is a lot better than it was before anyway. Thanks again! Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks should be to you. Best regards Notafly (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Subspecies is a taxon for those who can't decide? Like subgenus and species group its one we have to live with though.

Zootaxa (Eulamprotes)

Hello, Ruigeroeland. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Argynnis nerippe

Hi R I made a spelling error when I moved Argynnis nerippe from Fabriciana ( error was Agynnis nerippe). Not sure how to correct this.Will you please? Best regards Notafly (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Euthalia alpheda

Greetings Ruigeroeland Will you add the synonyms to this page (I will watch and copy what you do in future) . And anything else. Best regards Notafly (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Will do: I have a list of your recently created pages I still need to add synonyms to. Will get to them soon! :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks Notafly (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Spinning?

Hi, at Kessleria insubrica and Kessleria caflischiella I deleted what I thought was an error, the phrase "They live in a spinning", as I couldn't find a definition of spinning that fit in context. Then I saw the word used again at Kessleria albescens where it was more clearly deliberate. Since spinning seems to be a word, I'd like to add it back to the first two articles with an explanatory gloss. So my question is: What's a spinning? Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

A spinning is something like the web of a spider. It is a shelter spun with silk by the larva. Nice work on all the articles by the way, keep it up! Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Subspecies articles

Hello. I have reverted your edit on Sinopieris dubernardi bromkampi in which you removed all content and created a redirect with no consensus. It looks as if you're an experienced editor, so I would have thought you would have at least mentioned your intentions on the talk page to see if there was any objection. Clearly I have one. Before moving into Lepidoptera articles, I conferred with a very trusted Wikipedian, User:Plantdrew. I asked him if there were differences between animal and plant pages, as I had primarily worked on plant species, and he told me about them. When I asked about subspecies pages he said so long as there is sufficient coverage they are okay. I cited reliable sources, followed format guidelines, and created a beneficial article which you deleted solely because you deemed it 'unnecessary.' I have undone your changes and ask that in the future you ask before changing things like that. Sincerely, Fritzmann2002 14:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hastamea argentidorsella, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paraná. 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) 10:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

Egg-xactly what the day calls for, of course! Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Best wishes to you and yours!

Question about notability

Been a while, but I've been getting back into editing Lepidoptera-related articles. Was wondering, do you figure Joop H. Kuchlein is notable enough for an article on en.wiki? I know he's quite notable within the Dutch "microvlinders" circles, but it can be hard to judge how notable he is outside that. Plus, the academics notability guidelines don't really seem to be particularly well-adapted to folks like entomologists, phytopathologists, etc. Can make it pretty hard to judge, sometimes.
Plus, in this case I'm going to be really careful, because I know/knew him somewhat. (Mostly through my father, and haven't had contact with him for nearly half a decade, but I've typed out some of his handwritten stuff for Stichting Tinea mid-2011. Not exactly a major COI, but it's still close enough to the subject that it doesn't hurt taking care. If you figure he's notable enough, I would really appreciate you looking over my article if/when I write it) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know him, but I am not that knowledgeable about Lepidoptera, other than on wikipedia (in other words: I dont study them myself and dont attend meetings or meet entomologists in real life. If he has described a species, or contributed to the knowledge (life cycle, host plants, etc.) that would make him notable enough for an article I think. Just make sure you provide enough refs and mention some of his publications. Ruigeroeland (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I don't attend meetings, nor have I specialized in it, but well...there aren't many professional Dutch lepidopterists, almost all of them do it as hobby and have a different day-job, and my father is/was pretty active in those circles. (Now that I think of it, he might even be borderline notable enough himself...not that I have any intention of effectively outing myself or touching a subject that close to me with a ten-foot pole) As a result, I've picked up some knowledge here and there and know a bunch of them by name and face.

As to Kuchlein, sounds like he'd be well into notable enough, then. Not sure if he described any wholly new species, but he definitely described/discovered a lot of species as new for the Netherlands or new for the Benelux, and contributed a fair bit of other knowledge about them. He's pretty widely cited for a modern-day lepidopterist. (Then again, as he's the (co-)author of De kleine vlinders: handboek voor de faunistiek van de nederlandse microlepidoptera (Kuchlein & Donner, 1993), Geannoteerde naamlijst van de Nederlandse vlinders. Annotated Checklist of the Dutch Lepidoptera (Kuchlein & de Vos, 1999) and Identification Keys to the Microlepidoptera of the Netherlands (Kuchlein & Bot, 2010), which are three of the major sources on Dutch Lepidoptera (and to some degree, those Lepidoptera outside the Netherlands--I've found him cited by Korean lepidopterists), that really doesn't surprise me—and that's just as far as his books go. He also runs Stichting Tinea/kleinevlinders.nl, has who-knows how many articles in both the Dutch entomological/lepidoptera-related journals and in the international journals, etc.) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and another question about Lepidoptera, though not notability—I'm making another pass at cleaning up the large number of lepidopterists whose names include diacritics, yet are frequently listed on pages without said diacritics. While doing so, I came across a couple of species that are listed as Denis & Schiffermüller 1775 (with the various bracket-options, of course) on the Lists of Lepidoptera of [Country] or on the genus page, but that are listed solely as Schiffermüller 1775 (with bracket-options, of course) on the relevant species-articles, or the other way around. Any clue which should be corrected, the lists or the articles? (Couple of examples include List of Lepidoptera of Albania vs Satyrium spini, Chersotis cuprea vs Chersotis, List of Lepidoptera of Albania vs Spaelotis ravida) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be Denis & Schiffermüller, although Schiffermüller might have described some on his own? Ruigeroeland (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Might be, but probably not when it's accompanied by the year 1775, since that's the year Denis & Schiffermüller published Systematisches Verzeichniß der Schmetterlinge der Wienergegend herausgegeben von einigen Lehrern am k. k. Theresianum. Going to correct them to Denis & Schiffermüller, then, at least if accompanied by 1775. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Witty has questions...again

Was wondering if there's a reason why most Australian Lepidoptera are lounging in the Category:Lepidoptera of Australia rather than its subcats Moths of Australia and Butterflies of Australia? I suspect no, or at least no more than that no one so far has yet bothered putting them in the proper subcats (there's maybe a handful that should prob. remain where they are), but I figured I'd verify before recategorizing some 600 articles. The other question was what to do in regards to the Insects/Moths described in [year] categories (why isn't there a butterflies-specific category for most years, anyway? Oh well, probably just 'no one bothered yet', I guess?) in cases where a. the year is in square brackets or b. there is a range of years given in the brackets. Year-specific category for the first anyway, century-specific category for the second? (Or first year of the range given for the second? Last year?) (Oh, and so I don't have to keep asking you every darn question where I figure consensus or something approaching it is a good idea while dealing with a near-dead wikiproject, are there any other projectmembers who are genuinely active within the project at the moment, so I can at least occasionally give you a break from my endless questions by rambling on someone else's talkpage?) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

About the Australian cat: I usually dont use country/region cats myself, but some users decided to add them (which is perfectly fine off course). However, someone typically starts categorising articles, but quits halfway down the road. Furthermore, some users add to the parent cat, while others use the sub-cats, etc. In other words: it is a bit of a mess. About the 'described in year' cat: Yeah.. came across that problem too. Didn't bother to think it through too much though, since it isn't that important. I think first year of the range would be okay? There is no subcat for 'year described in' for butterflies as of yet. Probably because there are fewer butterfly articles. Someone decided to make the subcats for moths because these articles were overpopulating the 'insects described in' cats. You are more than welcome to make subcats for butterflies if you want. If you do, I will use them in future.

Regarding active members: the only effectively active member at this moment in Wilhelmina Will. There are others who come back to the project from time to time though, such as Notafly and Tonton Bernardo. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the whole categorization of Lepidoptera is a mess to put it mildly. There's indeed traces of what's probably a good half-dozen attempts at structuring stuff that were then merged into the existing structure, from what I can tell. Perhaps I'll get around to sorting all of that out at some point, but for now I'll focus on the smaller-and-practical stuff—stuff that can be fixed with a day or two of hard work, anyway—like moving the moths from the parent cat Lepidoptera of Australia to its subcat Moths of Australia. Moth genera in Monotypic Lepidoptera genera to Monotypic moth genera, bottom-level cat-work like that. That's stuff where it harms none and doesn't mess up a thing if I end up quitting halfway through, and when the bottom-level categories are properly dealt with, dealing with the higher-level stuff will be easier anyway in most cases, or at the least not any more difficult in the other cases. (Any bottom/near-bottom (as in, contains only a single subcat...a monotypic category, really :P) level categories that frustrate you to no end? If so, I'll see about giving them a slightly higher priority in my list of the Ten-Thousand-Fixes Wikiproject:Lepidoptera is in need of. XD

As to "in year" cat: alright, let's keep it easy. :) Not very important indeed, first year of a range will work as well as anything else. May make subcats for butterflies, but definitely not a priority. First cleaning out the mess and not-properly-subcatted stuff lingering in basically every category in our rather crooked categorization tree. After that I can see if there's even enough butterfly articles to bother doing so with.

Ah, so basically the same as before my 9-month break...and before the 6-month break before that. Oh well, on the positive side, we must have something like the lowest average of edit-wars per article per year across all Wikiprojects what with the sheer number of articles involved and the sheer lack of project members. :P

Cheers, AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hypercallia arista, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vera Cruz. 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) 09:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Ruigeroeland. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what is it you do but congratulations.....

....on being the most thanked Wikipedian. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 06:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I dont know either, but thanks for adding a personal thanks..! :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

LepIndex

Hello again. :) I noticed that when you reference the NHM's LepIndex, you usually use the full url given by the site (or at least you did in 2015, as it's mostly those edits I'm currently coming across). Those are ridiculously long, though (5-7 lines, usually) and can usually be shortened a fair bit, like I did on Compsoctena intermediella. Figured I'd give you a heads-up. If you already started using the shorter forms yourself, 'pologies for dumping yet another message on your talkpage. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks. Will do that too when I need to use LepIndex as a ref! Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! Same goes, to a slightly lesser degree, to the other NHM moth-related site-sections (Butterflies and Moths of the World, HOSTS - a Database of the World's Lepidopteran Hostplants). Generally, it's just a matter of checking what part is the first filled parameter in the last part, because it can be safely cut off after that—though if that one's a numerical value and there's another filled parameter just after using an actual name, description or such, I sometimes preserve that one for clarity's sake as well. You could even edit out all blank parameters prior to the first filled, too, but I don't always bother if they don't take up huge amounts of space. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Overlinking

Hi, thanks for your botanical articles. Please note that country-names are not normally linked. Tony (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Reverting on Anerastiini

Howdy, I noticed you reverted my edits to Anerastiini. I am assuming because other articles don't have this data, which is fine, you seem to be the expert between the two of us on bugs and their articles, however, I don't know for certain if this is the reason you reverted the edit because you gave no edit summary. I put a good deal of time and effort into that list, so i would like to know why you objected to it. An edit summary is extremely useful to other editors because it lets us know what you objected to about our edit so we can improve ourselves in the future, or start a good old fashioned wiki argument about why we think content should be included. What fun I say! StarHOG (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for my quick and dirty revert. It is just that the information you added is already included in the taxobox and there is no need to re-duplicate it in the main body of the text. Furthermore, as you stated, the 10.000s of other articles on moths don't have this info in the main text, and I think it would be better to stick to the current format, since adding this info to all those articles would be a monumental task. Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

As I suspected on both accounts. Thanks for the explanation. BTW I checked out some of your articles and you do good work. Cheers. StarHOG (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! And sorry again for the quick revert. It is just that my watch lists of articles is pretty long (since I created quite some species pages) and there is a lot of reverting to do (there is quite some vandalism on Wikipedia) and I don't always take the time to explain reverts of good-faith edits, which I know I should do.. :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but...

... I thought I should just inform you by word, so you don't go into shock: I intended to get the remaining Depressariidae species filled in, but it turns out there were many more than I remembered after the last batch. Needless to say, you might be kind of booked for the next two or three months. Not to worry though; I have no problem waiting by during that time, except as by your direction. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Stygoides and Stygioides

Sorry to bug you again. I've got enough knowledge to notice that something looks wrong, but I don't have the background or access to resources to figure out the solution. I've seen you doing consistent quality work in Lepidoptera so I'm coming to you. The genus article Stygoides includes some moths of the genus Stygioides. I'm not sure if this is a synonym or a separate but similarly spelled genus. The species articles under that genus article use a mix of those names. I'm hoping you could take a look at the situation and resolve the confusion.

If you've got any suggestions or questions for me, I'd be happy to learn. Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, good work noticing the error! It should have the extra 'i'. I fixed it on the genus page and the species pages. Good find! Ruigeroeland (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eriogenes cossoides, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Duke of York Island. 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) 10:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Menesta cinereocervina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Vincent. 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) 09:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Delias

I've got a question about a 2011 edit of yours on Delias. You added "*The ? species-group". Should that be incertae sedis or should it be left as a question mark? Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  17:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

incertae sedis should be okay I guess. The source I used had it listed as a question mark. Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed it.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  17:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon

Hi, can I tempt you to participate? Should be at least $1500 to win for expanding wildlife stubs.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Apostibes griseolineata, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestine. 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) 10:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Narga Redirect

Hello,

Would it be possible to remove the Narga redirect to the Celaenorrhinus page? I am a Dj/Producer and would like to create a disambiguation in order to have a page for Narga (Dj/Producer) instead of the automatic redirect. Thank you. NargaOfficial (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @NargaOfficial: I would advise you not to write an article about yourself. Wikipedia highly discourages this practice, for reasons explained at Wikipedia is not about YOU and Wikipedia:Autobiography. If you feel that you meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people, I would advise that you use either the Requested Articles or Articles for Creation processes. --Drm310 (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Ruigeroeland. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator.

 Administrator note You have been grandfathered to this group based on prior patrolling activity - the technical flag for the group will be added to your account after the next software update. You do not need to apply at WP:PERM. 20:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

User group: New Page Reviewr

Hello Ruigeroeland.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed.

New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ruigeroeland. 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)

New Page Review - newsletter

Hello Ruigeroeland,

Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have 804 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.

Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .

Hey. :)

Think it's about time they rename the Polish Journal of Entomology to Razowski's Journal of Entomology? . AddWittyNameHere (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

Monitoring new Lepidoptera articles

Hello, I saw the fix you made shortly after I created Araotes (thank you for that), and I wondered how you found that article. You'd done the same on some others I created a while ago. Is there some page which lists newly created Lepidoptera articles, or what's the trick? Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

No, there's no such page, but I just patrol newly created articles from time to time. I was very active in creating and maintaing Lepidoptera articles a while back (and hopefully will be again in future when I have more time), so I like to keep an eye on those articles when I spot them. Good work by the way! Ruigeroeland (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I was alerted by Plantdrew that User:AlexNewArtBot/LepidopteraSearchResult exists. Thought you might find it interesting too.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This triple-(talk page stalker) (triple, why triple?...stalking Ruigeroeland, Schreiberbike and Plantdrew...) finds it interesting, at least. Bookmarked/watchlisted. :) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello Ruigeroeland,

Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

• Improve the tools: Vote here.
• Reduce your review load: Vote here

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Agrotis admirationis

Hello Ruigeroeland. I wonder which references you used when you added synonyms to Agrotis admirationis? I'm looking to add the syn's to Wikispecies, but will not do so without the proper citations. Thank you, and happy editing! –Tommy Kronkvist (talk). 15:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC).

Its taxapad, which is quite good regarding synonyms for certain moth families. See: [9] Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Nemophora bellela or Nemophora belella

You created it at Nemophora belella in November 2011, then moved it to Nemophora bellela 3 minutes later. However, Karsholt&Razowski 1996 gives it as belella. On the other hand, lepiforum.de says 'belella' is a misspelling of 'bellela'. Funet has both spellings listed as separate Nemophora species (plus Aristotelia bellela as junior synonym of A. roseosuffusella.) NHM's LepIndex doesn't recognize 'belella', but it only finds Aristotelia bellela, junior synon. of Aristotelia roseosuffusella for 'bellela'. The Swedish 'Naturhistoriska riksmuseet' says belella, as does GBIF. Fauna Europaea says it's bellela, with belella as misspelling.

Any clue which of the two is correct and which is the synonym? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Theretra baliensis

Hy,

Theretra baliensis have to be Theretra balienensis. See original bulletin Neue entomologische nachrichten 65: 107-143. Available on internet under zobodat. PeterR (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed! Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Mosquito complex

Hi. Thanks for the complements. Yes of course. But I don't have conclusive evidence to show that who are species complex and who are not. So, you can check them and update or correct it. Cheers. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Ruigeroeland,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 804 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Polypogon(moth) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Polypogon(moth). Since you had some involvement with the Polypogon(moth) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Ruigeroeland,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 804 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Scythris capitalis

You've listed Nupponen 2010 as ref, but as far as I can tell, Scythris capitalis isn't actually listed in that one. It is in Nupponen 2012, though, which I've added. Can the 2010-article be removed as reference, or am I overlooking something? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I used the wrong ref...! I have fixed it for this one and some others. Thanks for pointing it out..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Happens to the best of us (as evident by the above: you pretty much are the best of us when it's about Lepidoptera page creation), and it's not like it was that hard to figure out which ref you probably meant to use. Thanks for fixing it. :) Keeps it from becoming yet more backlog for all of us to deal with, yeah? By the way, do you mind terribly if I systematically go through your creations to redirect-categorize the many, many redirects you've made and add taxa-by-author and moths/butterflies-by-locations to articles where missing and appropriate? I end up categorizing them anyway, but it's more efficient finding them through your contributions history than by checking through hundreds of pages. (I'd guess that something like 90% of the redirects to Lepidoptera articles are either created by you or Wilhelmina Will anyway, and pretty much the same goes for articles...I am however aware that it could be seen as hounding even though the intent is not to harass and I'd eventually end up catching the exact same articles, so I figured I might as well ask) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problem with that at all. You are doing great work! I hope to be adding more pages in the near future. I was short on time the last couple of months. Ruigeroeland (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't figure you would, but since I was talking with you anyway...better make sure all the same, yeah? Thanks! So do you. I might be building, repairing and maintaining a fair bit of the infrastructural stuff at the moment, but if your page creations and content additions weren't there, it's not like there would be anything for an infrastructure to be built around.

If any of the pages you aim to create include moths of "our" region (Benelux, West-Germany, UK & Scandinavia—especially Netherlands/Belgium), I do have (through my dad) access to a fair amount of sources that aren't all online. Most of the books are by now outdated when it comes to certain families at least taxonomically but still may include useful stuff. Some journals, too, even if several of them are nowadays open-access. Nota Lepidopterologica is. I think Phegea isn't yet, or if it is not in an easily-found place. Entomologische Berichten (NEV) is only open-access for everything over three years old, so if you need to check an article from the last three years, let me know. (If I/dad can't find the physical journal, he can at least log in to let me check the article's online version--need membership for recent stuff) Tijdschrift voor Entomologie (NEV), 1998-onwards only online for members. (Though I should have access to the paper versions of most of that too...provided my dad has time to search for the issue I'm looking for) Everything prior to 1998 can be found through the BHL. I think I'm missing one or two journals from my list but I can't remember them from top of my head. Should you need anything, let me know and I'll check for you.

(Especially if you know exactly what you're looking for, like 'is such-and-such moth mentioned in specific checklist in specific issue of specific journal' or 'I know this article is about such-and-such moth. Does it have anything I don't have yet?' or 'could you please e-mail me a scan of page 17 of book, Google Books doesn't have that in its preview and it looks like the moth I'm writing about is on that page'. If it's merely "what can you find about such-and-such moth", well...I'm certainly willing to take a check through the indices of the most likely books to see if it's in any of them and if so, see whether it's useable info, but I'm afraid I lack the time to go through a decade or so of issues of four-five journals and every time of every Lepidoptera book my dad owns. Which, last time I checked, was a three-digit number) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. Like I said, I am not that active at the moment, but I will keep in mind that you have access to those sources if I need to have a look at them in the future..! Thanks again and keep up the good work! Ruigeroeland (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

No time limit on the offer, don't worry, and we all have our times of lesser activity, no? You're welcome again and thanks! AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Abantis Venosa Category Removal

Why was the category removed? It was a butterfly and a stub article, so why was 'Category:Butterfly stub' removed? To4oo4 (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)To4oo4

(talk page stalker)To4oo4: because there's already a more specific stub template/category up there, namely {{Pyrginae-stub}}/Category:Pyrginae stubs. All Pyrginae are by definition butterflies, and Pyrginae stubs is a sub-subcategory of Butterfly stubs. To separately add Butterfly stubs is redundant and makes a bit of a mess of the stub categorization system, as it reduces the purpose of those sub(-sub)categories. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yesm that was why, thanks! :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Lacera azatothi

Can't find reference to this one any more on either of the given references. Any clue if they opted for a different name after all, decided the mentioned species was not valid after all or moved the info to a different page? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 09:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Although the page is not about L. azatothi, it is mentioned on the Moths of Borneo page..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, overlooked it then, but you're right, CTRL-F helped me find it. Valid enough, I suppose, but even with the presumption that all species are automatically notable that's a borderline case with how sparse information is, I think...oh well, if/when it ever gets properly described there'll be more information to add. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Tineidae

Hello Ruigeroeland, you are doing a lot of work on describing the Tineidae. Save your time for Nappy Changing: Tineidae need dissection anyway - there's always a dozen (or more) "looking alike".

Except some really noticeable species (those 5%) nobody will read it.

Personally I check only the size - then look for similar sizes (not always good enough) and look on some genera and search for some images of species that look quite alike - or somewhat close. Then the next step is still: does the genitalia look somewhat close or does it have a completely different structure?

But the description: it's the last that I read - and only, when I think that I have a close match. Regards & have fun I'm so tired (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tonton. No worries, it's not that much work, I have most of the original descriptions saved on my computer. I like to add those descriptions to species that are on Wikipedia, since that is often (especially for 'exotic' species) the only available info. And sure: it is not enough to identify a species, but it is helpful to have a clue which species it might be. Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

yes, it's often a pain even to find the original description. Therefore I like to put the direct link as reference, if ever the publication is available at biodiversity library (or other sites). If not, I try to give at least the complete reference of the publication.

If ever there's somebody in those species - they can look it up themselves. Anyway, there's only one person, every 50 years....

Cheers I'm so tired (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Imma vaticina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fenzlia. 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) 09:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Birthana cleis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ambon. 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) 09:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Imma ochrophara

Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://www.archive.org/stream/bulletinofbritis12entoond/bulletinofbritis12entoond_djvu.txt. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Everything you add to this wiki needs to be written in your own words. I realise that's difficult with technical information, but the effort must be made. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Ruigeroeland,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 804 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Charis

Thanks for your help on Charis. You cleaned it up nice. Cheers! Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 01:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Overlinking

Hi, in bio articles, please do not link the names of well-known countries like "Australia". They're all going to have to be undone. Tony (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Sulaimandaud. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Keisei 3400 series, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Sulaimandaud (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Pareronia hippia

Hi, as you edited Pareronia hippia and appear to be interested in butterflies I was wondering is you would review the last 2 edits that NekoEcho made claiming the male/female designations where reversed. All the online sources I can find disagree with this change.[10][11][12] [13][14] Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Thrinchophora lignigerana

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

Incorrect typographical redundant duplicate of Thrincophora lignigerana.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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.

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Ruigeroeland, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
• Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

• Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
• The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
  • User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

• Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Ruigeroeland, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing in Stegasta jejuensis

Hi. I'm afraid the Stegasta jejuensis article you contributed to has parts which are very closely paraphrased from "Two New Species of Genus Stegasta (Lepidoptera, Gelechiidae)", your ref #2. This can be a problem under both our copyright policy and our guideline on plagiarism. While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation – including both structure and language – are. To see the close paraphrasing, consider this Earwig report. As a website that is widely read and reused, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously to protect the interests of the holders of copyright as well as those of the Wikimedia Foundation and our reusers. Wikipedia's copyright policies require that the content we take from non-free sources, aside from brief and clearly marked quotations, be rewritten from scratch. So that we can be sure it does not constitute a derivative work, this article should be revised to separate it further from its source. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism". Please let me know if you have questions about this. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks. I have rewritten the species description. It is very hard to rewrite these types of texts, since they are very factual. I trimmed the description down a great deal and hope it is okay like this. Ruigeroeland (talk) 06:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing something about this issue. I know that WP is extremely allergic to copyvio problems. I wish it were possible to get agreement on how to do these sorts of descriptions, formulaic as they usually are, without running these risks and also not truncating them to near uselessness. But how many different ways can there be to say "The hindwings are gray."? Has this issue been brought up at WikiProject Biology as far as you know? I haven't checked. And this specific issue was brought up by a participant in the IRC help channel, who helpfully OCRed the PDF (yet another copyvio, I would guess) so we could do the comparison. I just followed the reporting procedure as best I could once it came to my attention. Thanks for this glimpse into what appears to be one of your specialties. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Pempelliella ornatella or Pempeliella ornatella

I have a question for you over at Talk:Pempelliella ornatella. It was confusing enough that I wanted another set of eyes on it before I requested the rename. Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Think it is correct like this.. Some of the sources probable made a mistake with all the letter L's involved.. :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Ruigeroeland, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Ruigeroeland, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ruigeroeland. 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)

Weird edit in your article

Hallo Ruigeroeland,

I noticed a strange edit in an article you created back in 2011 [15]. Due to this edit the title of the article no longer matches the content. Since you created the article, could you have a look please.

Met vriendelijke groet, Taketa (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Ruigeroeland, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
• Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

• If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

• A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
• Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

• ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
• The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy holidays

I'm having a merry Christmas and I hope you have a good day today and a happy new year. Thanks for working with me over the past year on Lepidoptera related stuff. Keep up the good work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Ruigeroeland, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

MONA numbers

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lepidoptera#MONA numbers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Bump. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Ruigeroeland, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!

The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
• We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

• We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

• ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
• Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Strymon muskoka listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Strymon muskoka. Since you had some involvement with the Strymon muskoka redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  Wikiklaas  14:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Strymon swetti listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Strymon swetti. Since you had some involvement with the Strymon swetti redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  Wikiklaas  14:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Ruigeroeland, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

• Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

• While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

• The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Article: List of Lepidoptera of Malta

I would like to know your source for compiling the list for this article and if you have expertise in relation to Lepidoptera. Rrobotto (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello Ruigeroeland, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

ACTRIAL:

• WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

• Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

• A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

• There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

• Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

• The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

• Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
• The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Ruigeroeland, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

• As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
• Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
• Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Donacaula flavusella

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

This article and another nine articles in this genus are not now included at GlobIZ and the dissertation by itself is not sufficient (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Doctoral thesis to establish a species?). If there is no objection to this, I will repeat for the other nine.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Another one for Asura pudibonda, where I said "I think this is a typo for Lyclene pudibunda based on Savela at Lyclene pudibunda (Snellen, 1880) where it says 'Asura pudibonda[sic, recte pudibunda]'."

Sorry about the template. I'm going through a list.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. ()

Hello Ruigeroeland, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules

• New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
• Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
• Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.

Editathons

• Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

The Signpost

• The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hope you're doing well

I've noticed that I haven't seen your work around recently and wanted to let you know that you've been missed. I hope you are doing well and that we will see you again some time. My best,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm doing well, thanks for asking! :) I have been quite busy (a 4 month old baby and busy times at work). I hope to be able to make some time to edit Wikipedia again in the future..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations.New life.Enjoy it. Youth is brief, though not for the young.Very warm regards Robert aka Notafly (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

What wonderful news. From my point of view the only thing better than being a parent is to be a grandparent. Lepidoptera on Wikipedia can wait, babies can not.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  00:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

Hello Ruigeroeland, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news

• The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.

As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.

• There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.

Other

• A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.

Moving to Draft and Page Mover

• Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
• If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
• Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
• The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js^(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
• The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget. In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions. MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues. User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page) User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50). User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you. User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link. User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion. User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Ruigeroeland, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal

• There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
• Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!

Project updates

• ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
• There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.

New scripts

• User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js^(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Odonestis pruni listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Odonestis pruni. Since you had some involvement with the Odonestis pruni redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Ruigeroeland,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

• Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ruigeroeland. 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)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello Ruigeroeland,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.

Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.

Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Battaristis concisa: faulty reference

You edited an article—Battaristis concisa‎, and I saw a lot of information added in. But, the second citation, is faulty. What was the 2nd citation's original URL? More: I don't mean the original webpage, I mean the archived version of the original webpage. From America, TheSmartPersonUS1 ^(TSPUS1) (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@TheSmartPersonUS1: (talk page watcher) It looks like that source is no longer on line. I have no idea why not, but if you need it, perhaps you could request it through inter-library loan. The full reference is Meyrick, Edward (1929). Exotic Microlepidoptera. 3 (16): 505. Hope that helps.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Ruigeroeland,

News

• The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

• Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
• {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
• A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
• There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

• NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

• Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
• copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
• The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

---

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Ruigeroeland,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

• Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
• Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.

Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News

• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Discussions of interest

• A request for bot approval for a bot to patrol two kinds of redirects
• There has been a lot discussion about Notability of Academics
• What, if anything, would a SNG for Softball look like

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Ruigeroeland,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

On wing

Hi Ruigeroeland, you seem to be a butterfly expert, so I'm hoping you can help me. Many of the butterfly articles include text such as They are on wing from late October to mid-November. My knowledge of butterflies is on the level of "oh, pretty!", so I'm not confident about what "on wing" means precisely. There is nothing in wikipedia (that I can find) that explains it. I had no luck trying to find an explanation online anywhere. I imagine it's such a basic entomology concept that it's just taken for granted. What I'd like to do is add the term and a succinct description to wiktionary, then I can add wiktionary links to the term from the wikipedia articles. Before I can do that, I need to find an accurate, reliable description/definition for it. Can you point me to a good source for what "on wing" means? Schazjmd (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: Ruigeroeland hasn't been active recently, so I'll try to answer. I can't find a reliable source, but I think it just means that the animal is "on its wings" or "flying" during that time period. It was a new phrase to me when I started working on butterflies and moths, but I thought it was clear enough, and a little poetic. Sorry I can't help more than that. SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks SchreiberBike, I agree that it's poetic. But it also left me questioning if it means that they only fly during those months? Or maybe it means that's the span of time during which they first fly? I'll keep hunting! Schazjmd (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

List of moths of the Iberian Peninsula moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, List of moths of the Iberian Peninsula, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 08:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Ruigeroeland,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
• Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Polypoetes etearchus

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Polypoetes etearchus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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. 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. Finball30 (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Ruigeroeland,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 804 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

• It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
• It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

• Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
• Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Inape eparmuncus

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

hardly any content, should be deleted unless expanded of suitable redirect target found

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message; contribs) 10:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Ruigeroeland,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

"Stygiella" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Stygiella. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 30#Stygiella until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Arhopala madytus for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arhopala madytus 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/Arhopala madytus 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. JTZegers (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello Ruigeroeland,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Raphiinae has been nominated for renaming

Category:Raphiinae has been nominated for 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Ruigeroeland,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Teleogramma (moth)

The article Teleogramma (moth) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Page his been completely unsourced since its creation in 2009. Its Wikidata short description is "error, not known outside Wikipedia".

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Cydia nigricana

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Cydia nigricana, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from http://www.agroatlas.ru/en/content/pests/Laspeyresia_nigricana/, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Cydia nigricana and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Cydia nigricana, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Cydia nigricana. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Cydia nigricana with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Cydia nigricana saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   18:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for massive copyright violations

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI help} 17:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

If you want to be unblocked you must prove a strong understanding of attribution and a commitment to not copy from anything again. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI help} 17:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mestolobes droseropa

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

Page has no sources and a quick Google search only brings up 168 results.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dysoptus pentalobus

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

The article has only one source, the article has no foot notes, and the subject is probably not notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. CycoMa (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Xyleninae has been nominated for deletion

Category:Xyleninae has been nominated for deletion. 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 the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 09:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Palaeomicroides anmashanensis

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

This species has been removed from GBIF and TaiBNet (without stating the reason), the only sources used on the page/Wikidata. Also unknown to The Global Lepidoptera Names Index. Google Scholar does not give a single hit for the name. It is highly unlikely that this is a valid species. It could be some sort of mix-up with Paramartyria anmashana Hashimoto, 2000 that has been fixed in these databases, but it is not certain so redirect would not be adequate

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Baliochila barnesi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Baliochila barnesi 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/Baliochila barnesi 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.

Griseo veritas (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Leucolepis (disambiguation)

The article Leucolepis (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title and no other topics can be found within a reasonable time.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Acrocercops ipomoeae

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

The one source seems only partially reliable and the little information about the species there is seems partially like guesswork. A Google search doesn't turn up any notable mentions.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Castnia juturna for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Castnia juturna 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/Castnia juturna 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.

Boleyn (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Auliepterix for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Auliepterix 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/Auliepterix 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.

Boleyn (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

"Archduchess Maria Antonia of Austria(1899–1977)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Archduchess Maria Antonia of Austria(1899–1977) 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 January 11 § Archduchess Maria Antonia of Austria(1899–1977) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Spulerina lochmaea

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

no refrences.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Avishai11 (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Spulerina lochmaea for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Spulerina lochmaea 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/Spulerina lochmaea 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.

Avishai11 (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)