User talk:Jonkerz/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Wiki Myrmecology News"

Hey, I noticed you have not been active on the English Wikipedia since late April (not sure if you are more active on the Swedish Wikipedia if you are on there), but here is some news for you when you come back:

Three ant related articles are now GA class, but the total of ant related GA is now four. This includes Banded sugar ant (the most recently promoted article to date), Black-headed sugar ant and Ochetellus (an article you made). Iridomyrmex has been substantially expanded and will be nominated for GA, and the genus Myrmecia is being worked on in one of my sandboxes. This article when published to the article itself may be the most referenced ant article on the entire Wikipedia (I project around 200+ references when done).

I assume you are very busy with irl stuff, but I thought I'd let you know what has been going on here. Burklemore1 (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

...and now there are six :) Very cool, Burklemore1! I wished I had more time to spend here on WP, but sadly I do not. The Myrmecia article sure is well referenced! I've read about a third of it so far and will chip in with/if whatever I find. jonkerz ♠talk 16:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It's good to see you again! :-) It may be down to five though, since Banded sugar ant is now an FA candidate and it has received some pretty good feedback so far. There is a peer review currently open for Myrmecia, so you can post some comments there if you wish to. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: Good to see you too! I read the Myrmecia article in fully yesterday and left a few comments on the peer-review page, hoping to do the same with Banded sugar ant today. Also, didn't you know that we're supposed to create more GAs, not less?! Jk :) The article looks solid, just haven't had the time to read it through yet. jonkerz ♠talk 14:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jonkerz: I shall have a look, Myrmecia will shortly be nominated for GA when I have addressed your comments and other issues, and then Iridomyrmex will be focused on. At least that will give us seven GA articles if Banded sugar ant gets promoted (I note it has its first support which is great news)! ;) Burklemore1 (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: I'm very close to supporting, but as you can tell from my comment I'm still confused by one of the sections. Also, since this is a FAC, I think source spotchecking is required. I'll try to find some time to do that! jonkerz ♠talk 19:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jonkerz: No worries, I can understand your confusion. I've replaced the terms, so it might make a lot more sense. I have responded to your comments on Myrmecia, btw. Burklemore1 (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Waaiit... pause that for a second. Burklemore1 (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Nvm, I think I've got it now. Can you double check my changes? Thanks, Burklemore1 (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: It looks good now! I've marked the issues in the FAC/PR as resolved, and added more comments. I'm not sure I understand this sentence from the FAC: "The ants counter this by gathering to prevent meat ants from leaving their nest, a behaviour known as nest-plugging." I'll take a second look at it tomorrow. jonkerz ♠talk 02:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jonkerz: Banded sugar ants counter the meat ants tactic by also plugging up their nest holes, I believe. I think another editor noted a similar comment elsewhere with this. I will just wait for your comment about it when our current issue is resolved. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Decided to rewrite the sentence you do not understand, it should be a lot clearer now. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: I'm ready to support, just waiting for you to resolve the last of Cwmhiraeth's comments. On a somewhat related note, this sentence from the article "food robbery and nest-plugging is known to occur between these two ants", while 100% encyclopedic, is just so funny :) :) jonkerz ♠talk 09:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jonkerz: Ants are very strange creatures, yet spectacular at the same time. ;) It may take time to solve the comments because I'll be less active for the upcoming days, but I'll be sure to address them. However, some may not be able to be solved (i.e. nest plugging, nematodes) because of how brief the sources, but we'll just see what we can do. Also get ready for a flux of ant GA nominees, I have many planned to promote. Burklemore1 (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Btw, do you have any intention to renominate List of ant subfamilies for FL again? I can tell you that it still has my definite support like last time. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: I do! Just haven't got around to do it yet, but I'll try to get it nominated at some time during the week! To be honest, it did sadden me to see editors of the largest free encyclopedia to be skeptical about using freely available content from a peer-reviewed journal, but let's try this once more :) jonkerz ♠talk 13:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jonkerz: I did a little update with the subfamilies in terms of genera and such, and I noticed there was a mix-up with the photos (a Dolichoderus ant was pictured for the subfamily Dorylinae, which I fixed). I might have a look again just to see if anything is up to date too. Other than that, the article is top notch and whether or not the text is from a freely available journal, it still has my support from last time. You're not violating any copyright, so I don't see any problem. Burklemore1 (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: ...aaaaand it's done and done! I'm not sure how that Dorylus ant managed to sneak into the article, but thank you for catching it :) jonkerz ♠talk 20:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jonkerz: I am still retaining my support for the list, but I have left a question with a statement I am confused with, and no worries! :) Burklemore1 (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: Thanks :) I've answered your question here. jonkerz ♠talk 22:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jonkerz: No problem, your changes are satisfactory. I can sense the banded sugar ant article is really close to FA status, with three supports and an image review finished. All we probably need is the source review and bingo, our second FA ant article in years. Burklemore1 (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: It looks really promising :) I spot checked a few sources while reviewing the article and found no issues, but never officially commented on it. I'll take a stab at it when I have time on my hands, jonkerz ♠talk 03:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jonkerz: I was told an FAC requires a minimum of three supports (along with a completed image and source review) to pass. I have seen a couple of articles with three supports pass, so it looks convincing. :) I must say, I have been happy with my experience with the FA process so far, I intend on nominating Myrmecia and Nothomyrmecia for FA one day, along with the weaver ants. All exceptional ants that deserve exceptional articles. I have also requested a source and image review on the FA talk page I think, so an editor may commence the review before you do, just a heads up. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: Nothomyrmecia is indeed a very cool and important ant, looking forward to see this one expanded. I'm glad you have enjoyed the experience so far, I'm not sure I would, it's too stressful. Leaving comments on other editor's FAs/GAs makes me feel so mean, heh, because comments are focused on the bad parts, never the good ones. "This is not good. Fix it.", you know :) But it's all part of the process, and well worth it in the end. By the by, the {{ping}} template is not really necessary when leaving messages on user talk pages (unless you want to ping someone other than the account owner). jonkerz ♠talk 05:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'll probably just discontinue that then. ;) You will have some editors who praise your effort to an article, so that is a bonus. For some weird reason I was surprised at how much available info on the conservation was for Nothomyrmecia, since people often forget our insect friends can also be vulnerable and endangered. I would work on it more but I have so many other articles to work on as well (GA nominees are a good example). I have the intention to promote other important ants such as the bullet ant and definitely the red imported fire ant. Perhaps the most notorious ant in the world should have a fine article. Aside from ants, I'm working on the sawfly and termite article, since these two important group of insects also need great articles. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: They will survive, they seem to be good at it ;) Red imported fire ant is imo the most important article after Ant, and bullet ant is also up there. I requested a bot to setup a page like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds/Popular_pages weeks ago, but the bot has been offline since then for some reason. I'm sure both the very hated red imported fire ant and the beloved bullet ant are in the top of that list. jonkerz ♠talk 06:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Even the most hated deserve nice articles, take the redback spider for example. ;) I already have some info about the red imported fire ant in one my sandboxes, but I'll have to get around to it when I have finished with all the articles I am working on. The bullet ant would be easier to work on, though the ant is reasonably well studied. I think I should eventually work on the ants listed in Pengo's ant list, many of them appear to be stubs.

BUT my main focus is promoting all Myrmeciinae articles to GA level or higher to form a good topic. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: Redback spider = nope + kill with fire. So I found this list. Termite (#6) > Ant (#7).. ouch! Didn't see that one coming. This made me chuckle: Paraponera clavata (#26) > Beetle > Crane fly > Fly > Locust > Maggot > Moth > Aphid > Grasshopper! We have a winner, ding ding ding! One of our guys, a single species out of 12000, beats multiple families and orders of insects :) I've elevated the article to Top-importance. jonkerz ♠talk 06:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

903 views per day x 365 = 329,595 views a year, so do I smell a quarter million award? ;) The editors who promoted grasshopper got that award! Burklemore1 (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: You certainly do! I see you're already at it; very nice ;) The name bullet ant, because the "sting is so bad it feels like getting shot", is so funny; "hormiga veinticuatro" is pretty funny too :) jonkerz ♠talk 08:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I would just call it the "prepare to swear one million times ant". :) What is interesting is I read in the encylopedia of entomology that the ant doesn't seem to have any natural predators, only parasites. First case of a Formicidae apex predator?? Burklemore1 (talk) 08:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: Driver ants are also apex predators, and there may be other taxa, not sure. If a colony of driver ants decide to attack you, you will swear 20 million times, and that's if they are nice and only bite you once each :) jonkerz ♠talk 17:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

By the way, in case you didn't see the announcement on WT:INSECTS, Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects/ant task force/Popular pages is now up and running! jonkerz ♠talk 19:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Driver ants are the reason why I am glad Myrmecia colonies are small, though some can number in the thousands. That, however has not stopped me from swearing when they emerge from being camouflaged in dry grass and climb all over me. ;) I wasn't aware of the announcement until now, and I have noticed Paraponera clavata is gaining more popularity! Burklemore1 (talk) 06:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Nicole Kidman filmography/archive1

Hi. Hope you're well. Just to let you know that I've hopefully resolved your comments on the above list. Was wondering if you'd like to continue the review? Cowlibob (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: Sorry I haven't edited much lately. I'll post a few more comments shortly. Cheers, jonkerz ♠talk 16:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

List of ant genera

Firstly, I need to get around to finishing this off when I have time, I only need to add a few more Formicinae genera and all of Myrmicinae. Anyway, I am writing this to you because I was wondering what your stance would be if I were to suggest on unifying the incertae sedis list into the genera and those excluded from Formicidae? I think it would centralise it and make it easier for readers so they don't have to jump to different lists, but I'm just seeing what you think of such change? I also have another thing to ask you, but we'll discuss this first. Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Side note, looks like Banded sugar ant is going to be promoted very shortly! Burklemore1 (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I would like to see the lists combined, as it seems very odd to have such a stubby list for the incertae sedis genera right now, especially with it not likely to increase in size much, and there is always the possibility that genera will be placed with more fossils being uncovered and described.P.S. Im working on an article for Myanmyrma this week.--Kevmin § 14:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually it might be good to fold the list into both List of ant genera and list of ant subfamilies--Kevmin § 15:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

That could work. I think it would be good to include the incertae sedis taxa and those excluded. As I said, it would centralise the information and so readers won't have to click elsewhere. The list of ant genera (alphabetical) would need to be renamed as "list of ant genera" . And cool, I wonder if Myanmyrma and such have images, it would be interesting to see them and would make great additions to the list. Infact, I'll start working on the incertae sedis and excluded from Formicidae sections. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

There are images of the holotype on Antweb indeed. And making a more comprehensive pair of lists seems a more logical route to take then a number of small stubby lists.--Kevmin § 14:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! Indeed, I am intending on adding the incertae sedis genera shortly. Those excluded from Formicidae have been added. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1 and Kevmin: Agree, one list is better than multiple stubs. And thanks for taking care of this, I've been very busy this week. jonkerz ♠talk 16:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I'll focus on the list sometime soon so I can get it finished. Also, I have nominated another ant article for GA. Let me know when you guys want Brownimecia nominated too. Burklemore1 (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Brownimecia has been nominated for Did You Know

@Kevmin: Oh, thanks for adding me to the DYK credits. It's a very nice article and I appreciate the gesture, but I cannot take any credit for it. Credit where credit is due, and all that :) jonkerz ♠talk 16:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You get credit, since you did start the page in the first place :-) --Kevmin § 23:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Article upgrade assistance request (Pre-translation stage)

Seasons Greetings,

This is in reference to a relatively new umbrella article on en-wikipedia named Ceremonial pole. Ceremonial pole is a human tradition since ancient times; either existed in past at some point of time, or still exists in some cultures across global continents from north to south & from east to west. Ceremonial poles are used to symbolize a variety of concepts in several different world cultures.

Through article Ceremonial pole we intend to take encyclopedic note of cultural aspects and festive celebrations around Ceremonial pole as an umbrella article and want to have historical, mythological, anthropological aspects, reverence or worships wherever concerned as a small part.

While Ceremonial poles have a long past and strong presence but usually less discussed subject. Even before we seek translation of this article in global languages, we need to have more encyclopedic information/input about Ceremonial poles from all global cultures and languages. And we seek your assistance in the same.

Since other contributors to the article are insisting for reliable sources and Standard native english; If your contributions get deleted (for some reason like linguistics or may be your information is reliable but unfortunately dosent match expectations of other editors) , please do list the same on Talk:Ceremonial pole page so that other wikipedians may help improve by interlanguage collaborations, and/or some other language wikipedias may be interested in giving more importance to reliablity of information over other factors on their respective wikipedia.

This particular request is being made to you since your user name is listed in Wikipedia:Translators available list.

Thanking you with warm regards Mahitgar (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Allegra Versace

If you want to, you can take a look at the article about Allegra Versace. That article is this weeks TAFI.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of national parks of Spain, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Basque Country and La Rioja. 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) 12:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done jonkerz ♠talk 19:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tatuidris

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tatuidris you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 11:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: Ping! jonkerz ♠talk 16:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

List of ant subfamilies

I think you shouldn't need to worry about the delegates closing the candidacy because there is an active discussion going on, and it seems that most comments have been addressed anyway. Due to that, I see no reason to close it and it would be irresponsible to do so. As long as Dudley Miles supports and if FunkMonk decides to support, four editors agreeing it should be promoted is plenty. Aside from that, what do you think about forming a good topic with the extinct Formiciinae? My work with Myrmeciinae is nearly complete, so I'm starting to plan another good topic. It would be something like this:

Formiciinae

3 articles

Formicium

Titanomyrma

(Note that none of them are GA yet, but it's just a vision for now). Burklemore1 (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: Sounds lovely :) That would make Formiciinae the second or third subfamily article elevated to GA, and Titanomyrma is another important article well worth expanding. Another thing: Once the List of ant subfamilies nom has been closed and I have more time on my hands, I'd love to continue working on Tatuidris (another article mostly based on OA content). Do you have any pointers? It is a decent candidate as is, but I'm not ready to take it to GA yet. jonkerz ♠talk 17:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I think Formiciinae will be promoted before Myrmeciinae becomes a GA, owing to how much info is known about it. I am open to work with you on Tatuidris, it will be nice to learn about its subfamily more. We should also try and work on Ankylomyrma, another Agroecomyrmecinae ant that is reasonably well studied (lots of "theories" about its biology too). I have also been looking at Megaponera, Amblyopone, Paraponera clavata and the extinct Sphecomyrma and its relatives as future nominees. Aside from that, Nothomyrmecia is a must to work on for this time around. Burklemore1 (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, we should first focus on Tatuidris because of how complete it looks. Do you have any suggestions on what could be done to it before nomination? Burklemore1 (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: I was thinking that the sections about pilosity variability and the eyes may be overly technical and not that important to the average reader, but let's find out what the reviewer thinks. I've nominated the article with you listed as a co-nominator. jonkerz ♠talk 14:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, we'll just address whatever comments are given to us and do any further edits that the reviewer forgot to comment on. After Tatuidris, do you have any other ant articles we should expand from stub or GA? I think we'd do pretty well if we do further collaborations. :) Also, I am planning on nominating List of Myrmecia species for FL soon. It's not complete obviously, but what do you think of it so far? I know there are some images for the four species described in 2015, and others for M. croslandi, M. pavida, M. queenslandica and M. urens, but I need to contact the original owners for permission. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: List of Myrmecia species looks promising, and with 94 described species, very ambitious. I can help out by adding a description or two and by trying to find more photos. Does N/A mean that there's no photo on AntWeb/Commons or just that there's no photo on Commons? Flickr is another source that may surprise you (the Myrmecia rubripes photos in the link are not free, but photographers who license their work as CC-NC tend to be more likely to release their work as CC-BY or CC-SA if asked).

GA shopping list: top/high/B-class

Since you mentioned it, are you more interested in expanding stubs to GA, or expanding anything to GA? High importance stubs/start-class. Basically all articles on weaver ants and leaf-cutter ants are under-developed. I've created a sandbox/zoo here where we can work on articles. My first suggestion is Atta cephalotes in sandbox1. Here is an awesome A. cephalotes family photo that is free to use (although unfortunately "free" as in GNU Free Documentation License, which is kind of useless for printed content). I'm open for any collaboration, and working on a couple of different articles at the same time means we never get bored :) jonkerz ♠talk 19:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, there may be a few grammatical errors around because I'm sort of rushing through it, but I'll do some ce and request another editor to go through it before I nominate it. I'm stuck as to whether or not to move the image section next to the species name or not. N/A means no free image is available, even though some images may surface online (that are not free). Myrmecia chrysogaster was the only one not on AntWeb that I found on Commons. If you easily want to add a description and its distribution, Clark 1951 is the best option for you. The best option that could have been done is to redistribute the images found in Clark's 1951 publication, but Australian copyright laws prevent me from doing it. I'll have a look around Flickr as well.

I think we should expand whatever we think has potential. Xxpanding the weaver ants and leaf-cutters ants should be a priority. At this time around readers would be disappointed with what they get, which is why we should work on them to GA or higher. I'm planning to form a featured topic with the weaver ants and create a standalone article for the fossil species, so I think we should do some collab with that. I have begun work on Formicium and will probably finish it by tonight, give it a ce and pesto, a nice new GA. This page can also help us with promoting many articles to GA and FA (222 potential GA and FA articles to be exact). Burklemore1 (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: Copyright sucks :/ Here's a regex and substitution pattern for moving the images next to the species names:

\|- ?\n(\|.*\n)(\|.*\n)(\|.*\n)(\|.*\n)(\|.*\n)

|-\n\1\5\2\3\4

Result. Add a g to the modifiers input if you're using a Javascript-based online service such as [1]. jonkerz ♠talk 13:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

After looking at it, I think the table with the image next to the name is more readable, because these are the most interesting columns and not having to jump between the two is easier on the eyes. jonkerz ♠talk 15:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Moved the images, it visually looks more appealing now. Thanks for the help! I'll be sure to work vigorously on Atta cephalotes once the list has been finished. Because the ant is well studied, I expect this to be a large project. Also, here is a link that indirectly provides a taxonomic history of the species. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: I expanded the distribution to M. comata include NSW, based on the description of their larvae by Wheeler & Wheeler. AntWeb also lists a specimen collected in Victoria. jonkerz ♠talk 19:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay cheers, I am free for today so I should get a lot of it done. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Btw, do you have any Swedish ants in mind to work on? I feel a little European-orientated and see if any ants you heavily associate with or see all the time would like to see their articles promoted? ;) Burklemore1 (talk) 04:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: That would be Lasius niger and Formica rufa, both widespread in Europe. These ants are very common and the "most ant" ants I know of, listed as #2 and #3 on Pengo's list. The L. niger article is very stubby (only 1½ references); the F. rufa article is in better shape, but both could be improved a lot. jonkerz ♠talk 16:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I see, we'll probably look into these later on when we get other articles done. Thanks for the ping too, I'll try and respond swiftly when you're not available. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: Great :) With you in Australia and me in Sweden, we got most hours of the day covered :) jonkerz ♠talk 17:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, that is what I call an effective team. ;) By the way, do you mind if I add Tatuidris to my list of GA's promoted (once we successfully promote it)? It's only on the basis that I helped promote it during review and I'll mention that 99% of work was done by you, just so I don't steal the credit from others who are deserving. It's vice versa with the help you've done with list of Myrmecia species, which I really need to work on. Burklemore1 (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: Of course, we're both co-nominators, and truth to be told, this article would not be a GAN if it weren't for you. Btw, are you on Dropbox? I can setup a shared folder with all the PDFs used as refs. jonkerz ♠talk 17:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Sweet, and yes I am. I only just realised that I needed to confirm my email address on there, although I thought I did (just confirmed it). :P Burklemore1 (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Nylanderia

Although I'll be occupied for tonight, I'm going to get around to this by adding a few paragraphs on its distribution and among other things. I think there was a lot of info about its phylogeny too, but I may have misread this. If so, I will work on that. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:59, 16 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) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I just discovered my old account!

As you can see, I do have some history on Wikipedia. Note the name there, my current username and my gmail, and you'll see a close relation. ;) ...Oh and the articles I briefly focused on. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Damn... I could barely write in English. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: Three Burklemores editing the same page, how cute :) Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, I have not edited WP lately because I've put all my Wikipedia time into contributing to AntCat's source code; by a huge coincidence their developer visits my city often because his girlfriend lives here. We met up this week and are currently working on improving the code which I'm really excited about! jonkerz ♠talk 12:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I found it amusing that even I worked on ant articles in 2010. I would join on improving this code personally because why not, but I live slightly too far away. Maybe if Australia shifted a little bit north I'd feel less isolated. ;) Burklemore1 (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Congrats!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Well done on passing Tatuidris to GA status! Absolute pleasure to read, and the first Agroecomyrmecinae related article to reach GA.

Tatuidris has been passed as a good article, so congratulations!! Apologies that I wasn't around to actually work on it more, life has been really stressful this month. With that said, I may not be really active on Wikipedia for the upcoming days, need a bit of time to clear my head (when I return, the number of GA nominees/articles will skyrocket again). I'll be around dropbox to see any updates you've done though. :) Burklemore1 (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: Thanks! :) As you might have seen on Dropbox, I've put in some work on Nylanderia which you are very welcome to contribute to. jonkerz ♠talk 16:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, already made two edits. The antwiki article has excellent information along with the sources cited next the text, so it will be much easier to find. I'll expand distribution once I am more active. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I forgot to respond in regards to this proposal you mentioned. If you feel like it should be designed like that, we could experiment in the sandbox page itself. I really need to get it done, hopefully by the end of the year. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: Let's make that a goal -- to complete the list before 31 December 2015. I may be able to generate a list of the 178 missing Myrmicinae genera (including author/type etc.) directly from AntCat's database (but no promises yet). Also, I'll look into alternative designs of the list. jonkerz ♠talk 21:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sweet, cheers for helping out with it. I would have made it a priority much earlier, but so many articles had to be worked on. By the way, I only made the type species names consistent with the genus they are placed in to reflect their current taxonomic status, but I'm fine with adding their original taxon name. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: Actually the type species never changes, that is, the type species of Myrmecia is Formica gulosa, not Myrmecia gulosa (M. gulosa however is a senior synonym of F. gulosa). I know because someone pointed it out to me when I changed the type species in articles to reflect the most recent taxonomic placement :) I was kindly sent the most recent AntCat database dump today, which made it possible to generate all kinds of cool things. Here are all Myrmicinae genera (and Ponerinae for comparison). The ref is from the initial description. More to come. jonkerz ♠talk 06:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense now. Thought it would be more reasonable to use the current name instead of the original one, but I can see why, it never changes as you just said. The list looks great, did you want it added to the sandbox and work it from there or are you still doing some extra work to it? Also, we need to rename and update Aphaenogaster cockerelli (I created the genus article for it btw, more to come soon). Burklemore1 (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: I need to fix a couple of issues first: the url for the cite template, find the current taxonomic status of the type species, group duplicated refs, and generate citation templates for nested references. I'm not sure that {{cite book}} completely supports nested references. There's a |contribution param for the inner title; like this:

Ward, P.S. (2000). "Broad-scale patterns of diversity in leaf-litter ant communities.". Ants: Standard Methods for Measuring and Monitoring Biodiversity. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. pp. 99–121. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)

But refs like this one uses one |pages param for the inner content, and a second |pages param for the whole book. There's an ongoing discussion aka wall of text about nested references at Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Foreword. jonkerz ♠talk 07:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah okay. Let me know when you are done with it and we can do some additional work to it. Don't worry about the images, they aren't exactly important for now and we can just add them in the sandbox itself. I have been feeling horrible for the past few days so I may be absent for a couple of more days by the way. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: I'll paste it into the sandbox when the issues have been sorted. We have a lot to do (and not just with this list) once you feel better and return to editing, which I hope is soon! And by a lot I mean a lot of fun stuff (I'm not trying to pressure you, heh) :) jonkerz ♠talk 05:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Definitely, I don't mind working on many things, it helps build the Wikipedia. :) 2015 has been a good year if you look at how many GA articles we have now. Last year we only had a single GA, now we have 15. This year marked seven years since the first ant related article was promoted to FA, only to be broken with the promotion of Banded sugar ant last September, and we now have our first FL. 2016 will probably be more promising! Burklemore1 (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way, did you want to be a co-nominator of List of Myrmecia species when it gets nominated? We still have a lot of work to do on it, but I thought I'd ask if you'd like to be. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Make that 16 GA articles, Myrmecia inquilina will be on the list soon! Burklemore1 (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: Awesome :) Some fun stats: out of all insect FAs, 22% are ant-related, 50% of the FLs and 32% of GAs. If this continues soon all articles on the whole Wikipedia will be about ants. Only looking at stats from this year would also be interested, and stats for Burklemore 2015 vs. Everybody Ever :) I can be a co-nom, or at least help resolving issues and expanding the list. So far I've only added two.. writing descriptions can be tricky with all the synonyms. Would you be interested in helping to take List of ants of Andorra to FL? It's basically a wikified version of [2], so it has already been through a peer-review once, but it needs to be checked for accuracy, and the layout can be improved. To be honest, the list is not terribly important (unless you're an Andorran myrmecologist, which seems to be a rare thing these days -- in fact, once Google has crawled this page, it will be the only page mentioning the term, heh). But it's a good candidate as is and I think more featured content lends credibility to Wikipedia, which is obviously a good thing. jonkerz ♠talk 07:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Nothomyrmecia may be our next GA nominee, since it is almost complete. I'm also thinking about getting it to FA status, since an ant such as that needs an extremely high quality article. I just need to look around for more sources to see if there is anymore relevant information though. Give it a few years and we may have hundreds of GAs and dozens upon dozens of FAs and FLs. For the Myrmecia list I will complete after I deal with Nothomyrmecia so I know that all Myrmeciinae genera are GA. I can help out with the List of ants of Andorra whenever you need, although it looks like we don't have to do much (it looks complete but we can always do some overview beforehand. Possible copyedit?) I think we may need to check if anymore ants living in Andorra have been described and not added to the list. However, given how small Andorra is, the diversity will unlikely to change a lot. Oh, and the citation you provided was only published two years ago, so that makes it even more unlikely but moral to double check. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way Nothomyrmecia is going to be our next nominee, I will nominate it as soon as I finish writing this sentence. After an extensive copyedit done by myself, I think the prose is good enough for GA level, but I will need another editor to check it if we go for FA. Burklemore1 (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: Quick comments on the Nothomyrmecia article (it's pretty solid in general, btw): I am aware that "discovered/collected by" doesn't have to mean that the specimens were personally collected by that person, but the current wording gives the impression Amy Crocker personally collect the original specimens, but a "Miss Baesjou" is mentioned as the collector in the original description. In any case, I do not think her name belongs in the lead. You could also add the Taylor 1977 ref to the initial sentence in the taxonomy section (I could not find Crocker's name in Clark 1934; correct me if I'm wrong). "A member of the subfamily Myrmeciinae, Amy Crocker collected two workers ..." seems like a non-sequitur. Re the list of genera: I've solved some of the issues, but have yet to figure out the best way to handle repeated refs. jonkerz ♠talk 22:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Mrs. Baesjou and Mrs. Crocker appear to be the same person unless it's a coincidence that they have the same initials. If we want to be sure, is it best to use her "first" last name if this is the case? If not, is it necessary to add a note to explain this just in case readers may get confused as well? I have made some changes to the article. For the list, that is excellent, we almost have less than a month until we meet our goal to get it published by the end of the year, so I better get working on the Formicinae section (almost done though). Iridomyrmex is now in review, so expect our 17th GA. ;) Burklemore1 (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Re Nothomyrmecia: Appears Mrs. Crocker is infact Mrs. Baesjou, see here. Burklemore1 (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: Thumbs up for good detective work! I suspected that "Baesjou" was an aboriginal name and "Miss" was her first name, but I'm no Sherlock :) For the list, the next thing I'll do on WP is to continue working on it (probably not today though). Thumbs up #2 for banded sugar ant on the main page :) jonkerz ♠talk 10:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

To me it sounds French, but I am not entirely sure. As soon as you incorporate the list into the sandbox, I'll start working on it because why not? ;) Is it a coincidence that a banded sugar ant worker in my captive colony hatched moments before the article was featured? Burklemore1 (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Burklemore1: She knew :) she wouldn't want to miss seeing her mom on the main page :) It's already 12 December and I haven't delivered any of the promised changes to the list. I'll continue working on it NOW!! jonkerz ♠talk 12:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

"Get me out of this cocoon, I gotta see my mother featured on Wikipedia!" Perhaps I should write some observations down when a C. consobrinus colony is in its early stages of colony founding, maybe others will find it interesting to read this through someone's personal observation. For the list, we have 19 days until we will reach our goal of getting it published onto its affiliated page (if I recall 31 December being the correct date!) Burklemore1 (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

???

Hey there, Jonkers. I wish to inform you that I am not a troll and would not try to do that at all (unless it was done to Jar Jar Binks). Pardon me for the occasional Yo Mama joke, but I have not done those recently. I am watching your talk page, and YOU were the one who mentioned me. Please inform me on the nature of this supposed incident, OmegaBuddy¹³_{find me here} 15:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It's still trolling no matter how long ago it was. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Help

Please take a look at the article about Julia Kronlid, any help is appreciated. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@BabbaQ: Looks good! jonkerz ♠talk 07:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want to, take a look at Lisa Aschan.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)