User talk:NielsenGW/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello NielsenGW/Archive 1, welcome to Wikipedia!

Alice Cooper

Thanks for adding dates to the releases :) Redwolf24 (talk) 00:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Wallace Stevens

Because you have edited the article, you are invited to participate in an Editors Poll on the Wallace Stevens discussion page. --Halcatalyst 18:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

2005 Under 21 Rugby World Championship

Cheers. Thanks for the link fixes. LW77 06:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Characters of Monster in My Pocket

Please do not discorrect the numbering again. I am assuming good faith, but you were in error. Please see the talk page if you have any questions. --Scottandrewhutchins 20:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Morrison Entertainment Group knows about that page, but somehow I doubt that updating it is a priority. Nevertheless, it's on my watch page in case somebody makes changes. I just keep getting disappointed that they're not correct changes. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

LOC Classification fix

RJHall -- Thank you for removing the concerns on the LOC pages. I'll keep fleshing them out. I just hope that you and User:Seraphimblade don't get into a wrangle. He thinks they are unnecessary listcruft. NielsenGW 18:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes I hope so too. Deletion actions do seem to bring out some strong opinions in people. — RJH (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links

The hard part about fixing the links is that in long articles it is hard to find the link. Is there some sort of way - either with a WP tool or an outside tool - to "find" the link quickly? --Brewcrewer 03:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop creating obscure animal species articles with little or no content. Cheers. 69.151.37.25 (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A -- I have just as much right to publish a short article as you do to tell me to stop. B -- These stubs will eventually be noticed by someone with expertise in the field and shaped into full articles. Most articles start as micro-blurbs. Mine is just the first of many steps. C -- These sort of comments are not constructive to the overall process and philosophy of Wikipedia. If these bother you so much, nominate them for deletion. Oh wait, you'd actually have to register first. Cheers. NielsenGW (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop, seriously, you're flooding new pages with...

Legit articles? O_O (keep up the work!) Kwsn (Ni!) 23:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I plan on picking up a reference on Arctiidae and maybe filling in some of the holes when I'm done with all the genera. It is rather exhausting, though. NielsenGW 23:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You're doing just fine. I lurk about and patrol new pages quite a bit, and there's nothing wrong with yours - they're a bit sparse, but they are absolutely legit as stubs. And I quite like moths, although I'd never allow that to influence my editorial judgement. :) Merenta 23:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is it OK if I help you create some of these butterfly types?   jj137 ♠ Talk 23:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll start on another letter so we don't interfere with each other :)   jj137 ♠ Talk 23:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I just realized what had happened and was fixing them when you messaged me. Thanks   jj137 ♠ Talk 23:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The more the mothier! :) Merenta 00:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

AWB is really helpful for this task.   jj137 ♠ Talk 02:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed - I've signed up for it. Merenta 02:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, I'm confused. Are you the same as User:Merenta?   jj137 ♠ Talk 03:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No -- Merenta and I are two different editors. Merenta is assessing all the new moth pages for the Lepidoptera WikiProject and the Arthropods WikiProject--NielsenGW 03:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

My comment "The more the mothier" above was actually a response to a post that NielsenGW made on my talk page. I apologize for the confusion. Merenta 04:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Feasibility of including a common source citation in mass-created moth stubs

Hello NielsenGW. I started a new thread over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lepidoptera#Moth stubs being created en masse without sources, in the hope that there might be a way of including a common source citation when large numbers of moth stub articles are being created. It would surely be easier to include the source at the time the original article is created than have to add it manually later, in hundreds of cases. Since I don't know how AWB works I'm guessing this could be done, and it might be a way of saving time and making the articles better. EdJohnston 04:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Bot tags

I'll whitelist you, so you won't get more tags. — Coren ^(talk) 07:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--NielsenGW (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Christmas Card

Merry Christmas and...

Happy New Year! -- Chetblong^Talk_Sign

More mass-created Lepidoptera (sic) stubs

Hi, can you see to the following:

• many of the stubs are not moths but butterflies. See for example Polyommatinae. Two ways of getting around this:
  • the fast way: simply replace "moth" by "Lepidoptera". That is correct in any case and can be refined later on.
  • the slow way: check outon family page whether "moth" or "butterfly" would be correct for a genus.
• The "name" parameter in the taxobox is in many articles "Crocomela" (see here) and it's not in italics. The name parameter can nowadays just be left away completely (like I changed it in Megaceraea) if the article title is the same as the genus name (that is, without disambiguation "(butterfly)" or "(moth)" etc)
• It might be wise to change all redlinks with the disambiguation "(genus)" to "(butterfly)" or "(moth)", because there might be plant, fungus, bacterium etc genera with the same name. BUT THIS MUST NOT BE DONE without manually checking which of the two is correct or a horrible mess will result - it is one thing to change an error in the text, but it is another thing to manually check 1000s of articles for whether their title is correct and if not to move. This cannot be automated even, so if you do it blindly you will probably be banned (not by me, but it will piss off a lot of people)
• In the taxobox, the genus name would need to be written in boldface + italics (only italics now).
• You might want to add the following lines to the taxobox, at the very end but before the }}:

| genus_authority = 
| subdivision_ranks = Species
| subdivision =

This will not be displayed at present but it will make it quicker for future editors to fill in the missing data.

• The genus name in the text would also need to be written in boldface + italics (only boldface now).

Keep up the good work! I will certainly enjoy working with your stubs (more so if you change the things I mentioned ;-) ), because for some reason I can't figure out I am better in enhancing existing stubs than in creating them. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 09:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

To answer: User:jj137 took it upon himself to create stubs for all moth families except Arctiidae (which I have started, but sadly, not completed). He started creating articles at a breakneck pace, not noticing his quickly-multiplied mistake of using Crocomela for each of his articles. His aim is for quantity, but not accuracy. I will make the bolding change to my taxoboxes, though.

Breviloquence

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Breviloquence, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Dodia

A tag has been placed on Dodia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. triwbe (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

genus names

Hi, I notice you're creating a series of stubs about moth genera. It would be good it you would go ahead and italicize the genus names in the articles. :) Aleta ^Sing 00:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Francis Lucille

Hi, I have found your usernames on articles related to advaita. I need your help and suggestion. I am trying to add an article on one of the Living spiritual teacher. but,I am facing an problem.

The editors who have visited this page don't understand spirituality and they have tagged it for deletion. i need your help urgently. so they are trying to compare it with other biographies in the field of sports etc. As you know,the field the spirituality is not very commercial. so I am having a hard time convincing them. could you please help and and take a look at article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Lucille http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Francis_Lucille.

Appreciate all your help.

Thanks Amarhindustani (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Moth Genera

Thanks. I'll be looking forward to staying busy. Meganmccarty (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I noticed that you have been creating new pages en masse for certain animal species. If you are interested, I have a script that allows for the automated creation of many pages with similar content, allowing to to create hundreds of articles in minutes. You can refer to examples of its use at Special:Contributions/Bugboy52.40 LetsdrinkTea 23:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Author names and parentheses

I noticed you added some info from fr.wp while removing some parentheses from the authors' names. You do know those aren't just for looks and they actually mean something, right? (Parentheses mean the name has been changed by others since the original author first named it however they are still given credit). That's why only some had it. Not a major issue, but it's good to know. Rocket000 (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Expanding moth genera

Just stopping by to complement you on the great work on expanding the articles on moth genera. Two thumbs up! Cheers. Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Nanni Balestrini

Coming by to thank you for contributing to Nanni Balestrini. I appreciate it! ReformatMe (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Moths, Moths (...and more moths)

You're still going strong I noticed.. :) I think it's one of the bigger families though, so you have completed a magnificient task when it's done. I can't really help with the expansion of these genera articles, becuase I have the same problem (not much info available and don't know too much about the subject to say anything really interesting). Regarding the Talk Pages. I didn't make them in the beginning, but I noticed someone of the Lep project adding those to all articles I created, so I thought to pitch in from time to time. I'm trying to make some species articles where I can, but a lot of the species seem to be very obscure (i.e. no info except the region they can be found). Anyway.. maybe having all this info on wikipedia will eventually lure some experts who can expand on your genera and my species pages. Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Great work on finishing these. Don't know if I'm allowed to hand-out these, but who cares? :)

If someone deserves it it's you! Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Much deserved! By the way, I don't want to discourage you or anything.. but you haven't got all of them it seems.. I encountered some missing, "Polymixis" for instance. But no worries. It's still a major achievement. Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ouch.. don't get overworked dude! Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Noctuidae genera

Hi Nielsen, I hope you don't mind, but I finished adding the species from funet to the Noctuidae genera. I noticed you did not have the time or couldn't find the motivation to finish the project off, so I thought I'd help you out..! Cheers and thanks again for the hard work you put into this! Ruigeroeland (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

A well deserved barnstar!

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For your wikignoming edits quietly done in a leafy nook of the Wikipedia forest. Keep up the great work! AshLin (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I've been busy with work and planning a wedding and such, intending to get back to the Wiki is due time. This may just be the right motivation. NielsenGW (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad you're back!Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my spelling!

		The Minor Barnstar
		I hereby award this barnstar to NielsenGW for his most valuable Gnomish edits. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

PS - the very best of luck for the wedding especially if its you getting hitched! FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

thank you for copyediting the article Brighton College Preparatory School, your work must often go unappreciated, but it is vital to the Wikipedia project. so thank you. Philip.t.day (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Your thanks are more than enough appreciation for me. Making The Wiki eminently readable is a joy in itself. NielsenGW (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Schinia

I noticed you are working on the Schinia genus.. Great work! It happens to be that I am working on extracting images from the plates I uploaded here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Catalogue_Of_The_Noctuidae_In_The_Collection_Of_The_British_Museum. I thought it might be helpful for you if I did the Schinia species first, so you can use them in your articles. I didn't check if the taxonomy is still correct, so you might encounter some species that are not in the genus article because they are listed under another name. Anyway, here they are (they are on commons): Schinia aurantiaca.JPG Schinia bimatris.JPG Schinia florida.JPG Schinia honesta.JPG Schinia ligeae.JPG Schinia masoni.JPG Schinia meadi.JPG Schinia miniana.JPG Schinia mortua.JPG Schinia pulchripennis.JPG Schinia scissa.JPG Schinia sueta.JPG Schinia villosa.JPG Shinia snowi.JPG Schinia acutilinea female.JPG Schinia acutilinea male.JPG Schinia bifascia female.JPG Schinia bifascia male.JPG Schinia bina.JPG Schinia chrysella female.JPG Schinia chrysella male2.JPG Schinia chrysella male.JPG Schinia coercita.JPG Schinia gracilenta.JPG Schinia luxa.JPG Schinia lynx.JPG Schinia nundina.JPG Schinia obliqua2.JPG Schinia oleagina.JPG Schinia regia.JPG Schinia rivulosa.JPG Schinia roseitincta.JPG Schinia saturata.JPG Schinia septentrionalis female.JPG Schinia septentrionalis male.JPG Schinia sexplagiata.JPG Schinia siren.JPG Schinia tertia2.JPG Schinia tertia.JPG Schinia thoreaui.JPG Schinia trifascia.JPG Schinia tuberculum.JPG Schinia ultima.JPG Schinia walsinghami2.JPG Schinia walsinghami3.JPG Schinia walsinghami.JPG Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Used what I could. It's slow going on finding useful rudimentary info on these moths. Everyone seems to be interested in finding new ones and not describing the old ones. So it goes. NielsenGW (talk) 11:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I am rather surprised how little is known about so many species. I did some African and Asian moth genera and it was nearly impossible to find any information at all. Even the countries they are found are hard to find. Anyway, great work! Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Lep migration

Thanks for the copy-editing. I'm not a native speaker, so I make a fair share of grammar and spelling mistakes. AshLin is also helping out with improving the article. Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out at Lepidoptera migration. I will be away for a fortnight and will help on return. You will agree that a lot of knowledge needs to be added here, Google Books and Scholars can help you. II am doing the same with Lepidoptera morphology. AshLin (talk) 03:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Archischoenobius

A tag has been placed on Archischoenobius requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. TheArguer (talk) 02:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiCup/2010 Signups

Hi- I don't blame you for withdrawing if you intended to get the majority of your points from mainspace edits. As one of the few people (and the only judge) in favour of them, I can sympathise. It just seems that the tone of the competition is changing, and what started out as a mere edit count has now become something completely different. I hope this hasn't annoyed you at all, and I hope there's no bad feeling. J Milburn (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Eliette Abécassis

Just wondering if you know of any refs for Eliette Abécassis. I came across it trying to source a few unreferenced BLPs from the backlog. I've added two, slightly dodgy, refs and done some maintenance work (stub templates, categories- the boring stuff!) and added what I could from the crappy google translation of the French WP article. It would be good of you to return and add anything you can, though I notice the French article doesn't have any refs either... Best, HJMitchell You rang? 05:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)