User talk:Sarefo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
  • older articles are in the Archive

Contents

[edit] Salticidae species splits and authorship.

Hi, :) I see another editor has expressed concern about the article's length and split it up. I further split the Salticidae species because yet another editor tagged it as verylong. And that's where I found it (again). Some browsers and/or ISPs wouldn't allow the display of such long pages and also, it'd take a long time for someone with a 56k modem to download long pages. And other issues discussed in said article. So, in short, I did it for regular housekeeping.

Also, in regards of the article's authorship, I would like to point out one of the five pillars of wikipedia:Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community.

I hope this sufficiently explains the edit that was done onto that article. If you have further queries, feel free to drop me a line. :)

''Feureau'' has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

''Feureau'' 14:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

oh, okay.:)Feureau 15:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thankyou

Thankyou for your tips and encouragement. I'll use the amendments you made to the taxobox in my other articles. Beleive me the to do list is just the tip of the iceberg - I'm giving myself far too much to do (but loving it of course - isn't Wikipedia just great:)Richard Barlow 07:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taxobox

the mother of all taxoboxes project (check source) Dysmorodrepanis 05:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm with you!

I include to Wikispecies all Araneae generas & species. If You have some tables in Excel - could You send them to me? -- 09:07, 9 October 2006 User:Arachn0

I need next values for every specie (genera):
  1. Name (for species - binomial name, differed on 2 parts, for subspecies - on 3);
  2. Taxon authority (s);
  3. Year of naming taxa.
Groupping generas on families - is OK. CSV-format - I could to import it. Nothing new, as You may seen :)))). --Arachn0 09:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synonims

Table of synonims - it's nice! But did You check - it equal to The World Spider Catalog, V7.0 really? And (additionaly to last post) - I need common names on every languages (if exist), for Interwikis --Arachn0 11:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thx a lot for the table! It's cool!!! And, for far future, do You know about the same on Coleoptera? --Arachn0 11:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coleoptera taxonomy

I agree with You so hard! I propose, for the level of families, let's fulfill Lawrence & Newton, 1995: http://www.zin.ru/animalia/coleoptera/eng/syst18.htm. I copied this table in Excel - and compute the number of families (now haven't the table under hands). Nearly is a "full" classificaton: http://www.zin.ru/animalia/coleoptera/eng/syst01.htm. As to next levels ... will continue searching --Arachn0 11:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spider genera

Thx a lot once more for table of species. I have accelerated much more. Is the same exists for genera (Taxon aut. & date)? --81.23.98.140 08:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetic order isn't a problem, but order of families is better, if You please. And, did You hear anth. abot autobots for Wikispecies? --Arachn0 11:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comb-footed spider?

Dear Sarefo - I have just taken a photo of a spider I would like to identify which, if it is of use, I would be glad to have posted on the Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I know little about spider classification but we do get quite a range of spiders here especially in our Wet Season (in the bush outside of Cooktown in northern Queensland, Australia) and, if anyone is interested, I can take as many photos as possible of different spiders here and contribute them - but I would need someone else to identify them (and write them up). Anyway, if you could send me your email address I will send you a copy of the photo of this one. Cheers, John Hill 22:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technique

Hi, Sarefo. Agree with Your placement of Species link below the taxobox. So, how did Your made spider genera's pages? Really manual, like Stone Age technique? :))) --Arachn0 05:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: spider common names

Thx a lot! You exact, as usual. I wanna add a List of Spiders common names to Wikipedia. What do You think, what order is prefereable: by scientific or common names? --Arachn0 13:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say by scientific names. But I use these more than common names, so i may be biased. People that want to check for the common name can use the page search, and this way for example spiders from the same genus with totally different common names are grouped together. --Sarefo 20:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article assessment for WP Arthropods

Hi Sarefo,

I am very impressed with your work on WP Spiders. Congratulations. In particular, I like the article assessment system, so I tried to apply it to WikiProject Arthropods. I thought that all I needed to do was modify the talk page template and create a couple pages or categories, but I soon realised that it's much more complex than it seems! So of course my strategy of copying and pasting and replacing "spiders" with "arthropods" didn't work out. Do I need to ask anyone for Mathbot to work? How do I setup the equivalent of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Spiders articles by quality?

If you have a link to guidelines for setting up this kind of stuff, or if you could tell me how you did it, I'd be very grateful. IronChris | (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought that all I needed to do was modify the talk page template and create a couple pages or categories, yeah right ;) that's what i thought when i copied the stuff from the Beatles WP, but it turned out to become a chaotic hack that took me several days to work. I'll try to implement the stuff for WP Arthropods soon (maybe tomorrow, maybe up to next week). when i do so, i'll try to document what i did and post it. there *are* guidelines somewhere, and i'll try to find them again, but i remember it was a bit more complicated. cheers --Sarefo 02:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
ok, here's what i did:
Hey, thanks a lot. It appears that the bot worked, so that's great. The only thing is that it made the list of articles directly on the page Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Arthropods articles by quality, instead of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Arthropods articles by quality/1, 2, 3. It's not a big deal, except that it then clogs up the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods/Article Classification.
Also I wanted to ask you, since you must have some experience in these matters by now, it's sometimes difficult to decide if an article should be rated A or B and B or Start. Do you have any advice? Maybe it isn't really important?
Thanks for your help! IronChris | (talk) 05:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not have a really objective rating system at hand, i follow my feelings at the moment. When there's at least *some* useful information, i rate it Start, when there's more, but not enough, B, when it's a nice complete article, but not yet officially rated good, it gets an A. GA and FA, of course, are only used when oficially assessed this grade. I think it's not of utmost importance exactly what grade an article gets, as it's mostly used to get a rough overview of what needs work and what's been accomplished. but of course it's nice to have a consistent rating system, so that it's not like one person rates an article start, another A. But, as I'm almost the only person contributing new articles to WPSpiders ATM, the consistency is given ;)
I've asked KingBoyk who made the Beatles template how the subpage thing works, as I've forgotten it myself. --Sarefo 13:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I understand Kaldari's objections and have tried to cut out the least important parts of the {{ArthropodTalk}} template. However there is a problem that I was unable to solve : when there is no comment, the text that appears between the article assessment boxes overlaps over the quality assessment box, on the right. I tried adding <br>, or skipping a line, but neither worked, it still writes the sentence without a break. Do you have any suggestions? IronChris | (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
OK I managed to make a break in the text, but it doesn't work very well, because of the variation in the size of browser windows between users. It would be better if the text just followed the boxes instead writing over them. It's weird that it writes over the box on the right and not the one on the left! IronChris | (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates in taxoboxes

I don't know if there's a policy or a recommendation anywhere, but I've always avoided linking the dates in taxoboxes. I imagine very few readers of Carcinus maenas (just as an example) will be wondering what else happened in 1758 (and if they did, they could always type it in). I also notice that the majority of examples at WP:TX have unlinked dates. Is there any special reason why you are linking them in, particularly when you are making no further changes to the articles? --Stemonitis 14:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've read somewhere that it's a good idea, so when I see an unlinked year, i wikify it. I forgot the reason that was proposed back then, but it made sense at the time. But I have no idea where to locate it now. For me, it makes sense via the What links here page, where I can see what other species were described the same year. While this is a bit cumbersome at the moment, because one cannot restrict this to only species pages, I think that this (restriction) will be implemented some day, and then the wikified years will prove quite helpful for people interested in taxonomy. anyway, I'll try to locate a recommendation (pro or contra). cheers :) --Sarefo 14:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that if there were a link like "[[Species described in 1758|1758]]", that would be useful, but just linking to the year seems less so. I thought that for a while there was a recommendation against liking to raw years out of context, but I can't find it now. Perhaps things have changed since. Come to think of it, there may well be some years that are worth linking to, or some works. How about 1753, for instance? --Stemonitis 14:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
That's actually a nice idea. How about letting a bot change all taxobox years to "[[Species described in <year>|<year>]]"? Of course, I'd first discuss it with the taxo guys, but I think that would be a nice feature. Or, there could be categories analogous to "People born in <year>", that could also be extracted from the taxobox by a bot. --Sarefo 16:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the idea has potential, but we need to see what other people think about it. Will you propose it at WP:TOL, or should I? --Stemonitis 10:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
go ahead :) --Sarefo 11:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad you remembered about this. I'd forgotten completely. --Stemonitis 13:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nepenthes

Thank you for your kind words. :) Nepenthes are one of my primary interests, so I'm trying to add as much information on them as possible (e.g. see Nepenthes rajah for an expanded article). I have found the articles useful for personal reference as well.

I noticed your contributions to spider-related articles before. What you're doing is really great. Keep up the good work! :) Mgiganteus1 23:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of endemic spiders of Puerto Rico

Would you consider merging List of endemic spiders of Puerto Rico into List of endemic fauna of Puerto Rico? I see no compelling reason to have independent lists. Joelito (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

ok, i'll do that. the only reason was that i thought the spider list was rather longish. --Sarefo 17:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of WPSpiders template

I removed it because it contained images of spiders, and seeing as how the page in question was the talk page to the arachnophobia article, I thought that many arachnophobes might have gone to the article to find information on their phobia, and wouldn't enjoy being greeted with the images. Gaiacarra 19:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bactrocera

Is the correct spelling "Bactrocera" or "Bactrycera"? --- RockMFR 00:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up

Hi,

A new user, User:Pown89, has put links to his/her website on spider bites on a great number of spider articles. For instance, he links it on the Huntsman spider article, but his website has nothing to do with Sparassidae. He appears to be putting links to his site wherever it has even a slightly plausible connection. He does have some interesting photographs, but also some misinformation. I suspect that I will arouse antipathy on his part, and he may put his links back. Just thought I'd let you know. If you notice an edit of his before I do you might want to make sure it is appropriate. Thanks. P0M 05:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Pholcidae species

Nice work. Hesperian 04:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] misidentified spider

Hi,

I think you are right about the second spider. I don't know who put the first one among the lynx spiders. Feel free to move it.

I'm not sure how to change photo names on Commons.

I remember spending most of an afternoon photographing the second one. Nothing I could do would make him stay put in my big punch bowl. Finally, when I had given up, I released him onto the wall of my front porch and he posed quite naturally for me. I was using my old copy of Kastens, and nothing was working very well. I remembered being frustrated and finding only the Lynx spiders shown with a similarly spine-covered set of legs. Also, Kastens only gave P. undulata, which doesn't come this far north. I now think it looks more like Pisaura mirabilis, although it is hard to see the spines on the spiders pictures I've found on Google. P0M 03:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

actually i found some Oxyopes species that look similar to this picture, but the eyes are different. --Sarefo 16:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Hi! Sorry I took so long to answer, I was away for the holidays. I tried to fix the template, but there wasn't much to change about the comments section. I added some other stuff that I added to the Template:LepidopteraTalk, but to be honest I can't remember what it does... But it's got to be good, otherwise I wouldn't have added it, right? :)

I looked though several articles with the template and couldn't find any problem. If you find an article where the template messes up, please tell me, I'll try to see what the problem's all about. Happy new year! IronChris | (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well I have no idea why the table of contents gets put in the template. I have found that {{ArthropodTalk}} does the same thing on the tarantula talk page, so the problem doesn't come from the template {{WPSpiders}}.
The good news is that I managed to fix the talk page of the tarantula article by adding {{TOCleft}}, which gets the table of contents out of the comments box. I have never (yet) come across an article with the ArthropodTalk template that had this problem, so I really don't understand what's so special about the tarantula talk page! Hopefully it doesn't happen too often and can be fixed manually. IronChris | (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I see what causes the problem, but I have no idea how to fix it in the template; it only occurs when the /comments page contains a header, and the talk page has a table of contents. What it does then is that it sticks the header(s) at the beginning of the TOC and puts the TOC at the beginning of the comments box. I see nothing to this effect in the script for the template, so I don't know why it happens. I guess we'll just have to avoid using headers in the comments, which is easy enough, or remember to use {{TOCleft}} or another TOC template if headers are necessary. Take care. IronChris | (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daddy Long-Legs

Hi, can you take a look at my comments at Talk:Daddy long-legs spider and Talk:Pholcus phalangioides. I suspect the two articles need to be merged (if they're the same thing). Otherwise the former needs to be renamed to its scientific name to avoid confusion. But I need advice from someone who knows about spiders. All I know about the DLL is that they're in my shed and that they're my friends because they allegedly help keep down the Red-back spider numbers :). Rocksong 05:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. But there's still a problem: the overlap in content between the articles Pholcidae (the one you just renamed) and Pholcus phalangioides. It seems to me that Pholcidae should primarily be a taxonomic article (brief description of the family plus links to all the species), while Pholcus phalangioides should be the article on the actual species (which is also known as the Daddy Long-legs spider). So the Pholcidae sections on appearance, habitat, diet and misconceptions should be merged into the Pholcus phalangioides article. How does that sound? (I'm happy to do the work myself due to my personal interest in the DLL, but I need confiration from a spider expert, which you appear to be). Rocksong 10:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article ratings

Hello, and thanx. First, I get upset at experts, (in a field, or wikipedia experts, forcing their opinions), but now that I realize that after one creates an article, one, can also put their own stub on it. I started in the Egyptian stuff initially as I had gone thru "hieroglyphs", the "Rosetta Stone", even some of the "Demotic (Egyptian)" as it aided in the 3 stories of Greek, Hieroglyphs, and (Shorthand Demotic)written 'hieroglyphs'. I then went to the "Amarna letters" in Akkadian, the labelled 'lingua franca' of Scribes. I had been trying to get someone to pursue the Scribe (Egyptian) without trying to do an article. I just added 2 sections to Scribe, first a pic I saw in "wikicommons" of a Scribe. Then I added a list of the "Text corpuses"-(with a new Stub on it), the corpora that far preceded the Scribe article, which was only Renaissance. I know nothing of the religious/non-religous renaissance scribes.

Here's why I thought 'The' B rating for that article was nice to see: (See an article that I did not Start, but which is totally as I have evolved it into): it is very short, succinct, But one who does not know Egyptian stuff I think can get on board quickly: Shen ring. I have not read the spider article. I will now; I just turned on my computer. I'm going to work on the Category:Avifauna of Central America, the hummingbirds, (Which have 10-15 plus names: Barbthroat, Violet-ear, etc. .....), and the 1st cat I ever created was: Category:Egyptian artefact types. Lately I'm updating the created (not by me} Category:Hieroglyphs and updating articles about hieroglyphs, but nobody has bottered to add the hieroglyphs to the article: Example not on list, nor needs to be: Ennead. So chow, ciaou, ...from the ArizonaDesert, and I'll read that article now.... -Mmcannis 16:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The B–rating, to me implies the intention of the article has been met, .... and that more can be said to get it to:........ B+, B++, A--, A-, A, or A+. I don't necessarily believe in a collaborative article with a "Star", Because on the Talk: .. anyone can still give its strengths or weaknesses. The "Dumb" evolution article's first sentence talks about inheritted traits of biological life. And... doesn't address evolution of continents, Atmosphere-(O2evolution), rate of spin of earth, Day length: viz. (namely) "Evolution of Life" (Not religious debates), Evolution of Earth, or Biological evolution, or "Evolution (biology of life)". In other words a "Top Level" article like Evolution is totally in Purgatory(It doesn't accomplish its purpose, because its article purpose has been Hijacked, and Misguided), and is lost, misinforming, and misfocussed in its purpose. Debating in the article helps avoid doing the other 3 evolution articles which are really needed in Wikipedia. SonoranDesert"Spiderman"- ..Mmcannis 16:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caecilian distribution

Hi, I saw your distribution map for gymnophiona and decided to increase the resolution of the distribution in South Asia- see Image:Distribution.gymnophiona.2.png. Hope I can replace your map with this modified one. Shyamal 07:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

sure :) maybe you could add information where you got the additional data from? --Sarefo 15:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Tough to find a reference map easily, but the source that you had was looking at a rather coarse global scale. In India it is restricted to the moister parts esp the Western Ghats and Northeastern India. [1] [2]. Shyamal 16:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
A moment too soon. Here are some rough maps [3] [4] - The Madras locality is incorrect and based on the erstwhile Madras Presidency. Shyamal 16:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] big thank you!

I'm back from holidays. Thank you for identifying the spiders. You're right, they're not the same spider, I couldn't get a shot of the upper side of the big one since it was within a fence, and I couldn't get a lower of the bee-like since I had to walk within bushed filled with many weird spiders and got a little bit frightened. -- Drini 15:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agrius cingulata

Hi, I just saw you made a distribution map for Agrius cingulata. I love having distribution maps in articles, I think it makes them look about a thousand times better. However, I have personally seen them here in North Carolina. This page [5] says it's range is: "Argentina north through Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean to the southeastern United States, Texas, southern New Mexico, Arizona, and southern California; strays northward in the summer to British Columbia, Colorado, Michigan, and Maine." Also, I did a search and it this site makes it look like they're found all the way up to Canada [6]. I'm not really sure exactly what the map should look like, I just think the map needs a little modification. --TheAlphaWolf 01:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mopsus spider photo

The image was deleted because it was a replaceable fair use photo. Its uploader said it was taken from the Smithsonian Institution's website, and as detailed on {{Smithsonian}}, images from the Institution are copyrighted. Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy says we cannot use a copyrighted photo as "fair use" unless "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." (point 1) Since it is still possible for someone to take a free-to-use photo of the spider, we couldn't use that copyrighted photo in the article. Flyingtoaster1337 23:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sounds good to me

I've unfortunately been busy the past several months, so haven't had much time to work on article content beyond minor edits and other wiki-maintenance.  :( Perhaps a separate page to cross-ref the vernacular names and scientific names would be a better way to handle this; most species of tarantula don't have documented common names as it is. --EngineerScotty 17:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:all-focus pictures

Hi Sarefo,
Sorry for delayed response, busy with school work and stuff at the moment. Anyway to answer your question, it's actually pretty hard. The setup for the wolf spider was using a Sigma 150mm shooting at f/11 using manual focus. It took I think 11 images to make, but just a word of advice take more than you think you'll need to because you'd be surprised by the fine gradation you need to capture. Anyway after taking the images you'd think it would be relatively easy to put them together. But it's not. I don't know if there's an easier way, but basically what I did I just sat two images as two different layers in Photoshop and erased all the areas out of focus that were in focus in the other image - etc etc. The tricky bit was that you actually have to resize the images because as you change focal length, the out of focus area looks like it is closer/further away. I think for the wolf spider, each image had to be increased by 0.5% (ie first at 100, next at 100.5, next at 101 etc). Also and I can't really explain this - except perhaps I bumped the tripod a bit) but you have to realign the images too. For that there was no consistent transform. Hope this makes a bit of sense - bottom line is you need to practice! --Fir0002 09:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I hereby award this barnstar to Sarefo for saving me countless hours by helping me out on the correct method of compiling focus brackets! Fir0002 07:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: jumping spider

I have found that he is a member of Virtual Tourist, and apparantly you can email him if you become a member. Below is the link to his member page: http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/5be5c/

Hope this way-belated reply would help. - Jeekc 16:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tribus

Could you please fill in some of the basic information for this album - at least the infobox items. Thanks. SkierRMH 03:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George and Elizabeth Peckham

I hope you like what I've done with their article. --Orange Mike 04:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tapir image

Hi there, Sarefo! I just wanted to let you know that I moved your image of the flehmen response from the Malayan Tapir article to the Tapir and Brazilian Tapir articles, because the animal in the picture was a Brazilian tapir (it's got a sort of crest on the back of its neck, which only Brazilian tapirs have). It's a great photo - thanks for putting it up! - Sasha Kopf 19:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Spiderman

Greetings from Weidenpesch! Oberlehrling 13:56, 3. Apr. 2007 (CEST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.143.91.16 (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/r/User_talk%7ESarefo_4432.html"