User talk:Sarefo/Archive 02

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Taxobox

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

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):

Name (for species - binomial name, differed on 2 parts, for subspecies - on 3);
Taxon authority (s);
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. IronC hris | (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

ok, here's what i did:

create Template:WPArthropods by copying over from Template:WPSpiders, and changing all instances of Spiders in source to Arthropods; then realizing that you already did this in Template:ArthropodTalk ;)
trying to create Wikipedia:WikiProject Arthropods/Article Classification from Wikipedia:WikiProject Spiders/Article Classification, but realizing you already did that also :)
hm, as i can see it right now (can hardly keep my eyes open), you did everything needed. Maybe we'll just wait for a day, as the bot runs every morning and checks all projects linked through subcategories in categories like Category:Start-Class_articles. If there's nothing tomorrow in the afternoon, I'll check again :) --Sarefo 03:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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! IronC hris | (talk) 05:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? IronC hris | (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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! IronC hris | (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

go ahead :) --Sarefo 11:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad you remembered about this. I'd forgotten completely. --Stemonitis 13:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Bactrocera

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

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)[reply]

List of Pholcidae species

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

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)[reply]

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

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! IronC hris | (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. IronC hris | (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. IronC hris | (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Redback spider numbers :). Rocksong 05:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

sure :) maybe you could add information where you got the additional data from? --Sarefo 15:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

George and Elizabeth Peckham

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

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

Spider fighting

Hey thanks for improving the article. I'm not sure what species of spider is used as well. I believe various web-building spiders are used in fighting. Judging from experience (which I excluded due to OR) these spiders look like various species (due to the different colors ranging from amber, red and deep brown) of orb-weavers (due to the fat abdomen and the web-building skills). I pretty sure they are 1 cm or shorter in size. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a non-free (I think) image of the type of spider used in spider fighting. Too bad we can't see its face. Anyways I think this one is called a pulahan (red) http://www.flickr.com/photos/briancatacutan/65115994/ --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying spiders

Article badly needs cleanup (especially the descriptions) and references. I've done what I could.—Lenticel ^(talk) 08:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will not work on this article for now. The owner might not be thrilled if I overhaul the whole thing. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haplogynae

Hi Sarefo, ich habe de:Haplogynae angelegt. Vielleicht guckst du mal drüber. Ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob mein Englisch gut genug ist, aber ich denke, dass der englische Artikel doch abweicht (m.E. Fehler oder missverständliches enthält). Gruß -- Brummfuss 11:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

z.B. The cribellate Filistatidae are apparently sister to the entirely ecribellate remainder. - übersetze ich so:

"die cribellaten Filistatidae sind (offensichtlich oä) die Schwestergruppe der vollständig ecribellaten Restgruppe [der Haplogynae]."

das stimmt entweder nicht, oder ergibt keinen Sinn, wenn ich remainder mit Rest übersetze [7]-oder was?

Es soll ja durch Coddington belegt sein, aber das kann wohl kaum sein (war auch 1991 nicht so).

Gruß --Brummfuss 15:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

hab ich so verstanden: einerseits die ganzen ecribellaten Haplogynae. auf der anderen seite die Filistatidae (cribellat). sinn macht das fuer mich schon, obs stimmt weiss ich nicht, hab das damals auch nur gelesen. --Sarefo 15:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, genau - andersrum geht das auch, wenn es stimmen würde. Es gibt aber in beiden teilordnungen (haplogyne und entelegyne) sowohl cribellate wie ecribellate Spinnen. Wollt ich halt nur mal anmerken, weil ich nicht wusste, ob ich den Satz richtig verstanden habe. Gruß --Brummfuss 18:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

ecribellat vs. cribellat als systematisches trennungsmerkmal ist sowieso seit laengerem hinfaellig. aber in dem satz gehts ja nur um die haplogynae, und da ists wie ichs verstanden habe so klar verteilt. --Sarefo 18:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nein, auch der Rest der haplogynen ist nicht vollständig ecribellat (das ist ja meine erste Übersetzung). Die Pholcidae sind z.B. auch cribellat, also sind nicht alle anderen haplogynen ebcribellat. --62.134.226.107 19:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, damn. kann grad meine kopie von lehtinen(1967) nicht finden. den artikel Cribellum hab ich geschrieben, ich haette es also eigentlich wissen sollen ;) der hat geschrieben, dass das cribellum symplesiomorph ist, und deswegen ueberall da auftaucht, wo's nicht umgewandelt worden ist. und ich war zu faul, mir mal selber die uebersicht ueber die verteilung zu verschaffen und hab was ich gelesen hab veraltetes wissen reinimpliziert. In Coddington & Levi (1991) seite 576 steht: "However, cribellate taxa are not very speciose, and for nearly all cribellate ecribellate sister clades the cribellate lineage the cribellate lineage is less diverse. examples are filistatidae vs. the remaining haplogynes [...] and deinopoidea vs. araneoidea. only about 180 araneomorph genera in 22-23 families still contain cribellate members, although the diverse australian cribellate fauna is mostly undescribed." ok, das hab ich dann zu eng gesehen, ich hatte das so verstanden, dass die anderen *alle* ecribellat sind. danke fuer den hinweis mit den pholcidae, ich aender das in haplogynae. --Sarefo 21:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also ich bin froh, dass du das auch so siehst und danke für die Ergänzungen in de:Cribellate Spinnen. ich bin nämlich kein Biologe (außer einem verwandten Grundstudium Zoologie und Bestimmungsübungen etc.) und hab mich nur als Autodidakt eingelesen, da kann ich solche Links immer gut gebrauchen. Da ich schon soviel durcheinander gebracht habe bei dem Thema, war ich doch mal wieder sehr verunsichert. *puh* Gn8 --62.134.177.58 22:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lieber Sarefo! Das ist mir jetzt echt peinlich: Du wirst mir nie wieder was galuben. Pholcidae sind anscheinend tatsächlich ecribellat!! Sorry. de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Brummfuss... --62.134.230.11 11:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wie hast du's rausgefunden? ich hab dazu rein gar nix gefunden. ist witzig, wie man nach was googlet, und die einzigen hits sind die wiki-seiten, die man vor nem jahr selbst geschrieben, dann aber alles darin vergessen hat, zb. Palpimanoidea. bin grad dabei, den coddington (1999) nochmal durchzuschauen, da muesste ne uebersicht ueber die cribellaten gruppen drin sein. gruss :) --Sarefo 18:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jupp, geht mir leider genauso. AW auf meiner Diskussionsseite, war ein bißchen Zufall. Habe bei de:cribellate Spinnen weiter gemacht. Würde mich freuen, wenn du auch cribellate dort einträgst, wenn du was rausfindest. Gruß --62.134.232.90 13:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stegodyphus lineatus assessment

Hi Sarefo, I came across the article Stegodyphus lineatus relating to the infanticidal behavior of males. I saw that the article was assessed as a B, but it's only a few lines long in all. It's obviously very difficult to write in-depth articles about every one of the millions of species that do and have existed, but I don't feel such a rating is at all justified for something of this length. I've given it a start class rating, but I thought it would be wise to contact the person who assessed it, so here I am requesting you be just a little more conservative with ratings. Thanks, Richard001 03:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

my personal opinion is that the rating is relative to what's known about a species, and i'm not sure there's that much about S. lineatus. but the rating is of course highly subjective, and my guidelines are bound to change. thx for the message, i'll keep it in mind when assessing articles in the future (though not necessarily follow it 100% ;). what's that about infanticide in this species? i only wrote about the mother feeding its young. --Sarefo 03:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

map of yule island

hi aliasd,

i started the article for Yule Island (central province), and tried to add an infobox, but it needs a map to function. would it possible for you to draw one? cheers --Sarefo 21:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox works with a co-ordinates funtion. I have edited it to work. aliasd·U·T 02:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Platycryptus undatus

		The Fauna Barnstar
		For being a learned user in the field of biology and redirecting Metacyrba undata to Platycryptus undatus. I made the former article up based on what I could find, but I know very little about biology. Great job. VegitaU 14:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Eugène Simon; Lawrence of Arabia (film); Ocellus; Spider One; Willis J. Gertsch; Calvatia; Gavrilo Princip; Triforce; Spermatophore; Carl Ludwig Koch; Nicholas Marcellus Hentz; Lycoperdaceae; White Rose; The English Patient; Cricket frog; Spider and Fly; The Legend of Zelda (TV series); Black katipo; The Amazing Scarlet Spider

Cleanup: Sonoluminescence; Zoolander; Mario Superstar Baseball
Merge: Enforcers (comics); Alfa Romeo 1750; ReDead
Add Sources: Superorganism; The Amazing Spider-Man 2; Fasciola hepatica
Wikify: James Bannerman; Tewfik Pasha; George Estabrooks
Expand: Exoskeleton; R-400 Oka; Anansi

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Marc Reiser

HI please can you expand Jean-Marc Reiser thanks The Wild West guy 15:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i gathered he is notable but I am surprised if he was indeed so notable that he only has a one line article. You must admit all it does is say he was a comic book artists and died. It doesn;t do anything even briefly to explain what he really did - many editors would attempt to actually delete it. I can imagine you are busy but this article has been here two years without any developmentThe Wild West guy 15:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i expanded it a bit. yes, no idea why nobody has added to the article. maybe not too many French work on the English wiki? check out his works, he's really great :) --Sarefo 16:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know -wow it looks at least half decent now. I'm very surprised I would have expected a long detailed article or at least some development in two years - your're probably right about the editor on French wikipedia . I'm happy now The Wild West guy 17:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harvestman phylogeny

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Harvestman phylogeny, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: User:Sarefo/Sandbox1. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 17:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes bot, you're very smart :) and what a coincidence that is, that the text i just copied from my sandbox resembles the text in the sandbox itself ;) welcome to the digital age! --Sarefo 17:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article! DYK nom

...that the classification of Harvestman(pictured), who are arachnids and not spiders, does not make it clear as to whether they had a common ancestor? by Sarefo

OK? I think I understood it, but I found the intro tricky for a non arichnid expert. I'm hoping I havent over simplified or misunderstood. If so then please fix it. Hope you like ... you have ~4 days before it should be on the front page (im guessing the message above is from a confused bot)Victuallers 12:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi victuallers,

thank you for nominating the article, but what you wrote is not true. many thanks for pointing out that the intro to the article is not clear to laymen, when you're into some subject, it's very easy to forget about this, and as i'm although teaching children, i especially should be aware of this.

actually, it is clear that all harvestmen share a common ancestor (that is, they are monophyletic). on the next level, when the harvestmen are divided into four groups (suborders), these are also monophyletic. but below that, many relationships are not yet fully understood. and, spiders are also arachnids, together with scorpions, mites and the like.

that said, i'm honored that you find harvestmen noteworthy for a DYK :), and would propose to rephrase "did you know that harvestmen are closer related to scorpions than to spiders", or "that harvestmen are not true spiders, as is often believed, but are in fact closer related to scorpions".

cheers! --Sarefo 13:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine... sorry to misunderstand.. do you want to do the reword? Victuallers 14:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not sure what you mean. i guess the last sentence in my post above is ok as a rewording? cheers :) --Sarefo 16:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...that when classifying Harvestman(pictured) it is noted that they are not true spiders, as is often believed, but are in fact closer related to scorpions? by Sarefo nom by Victuallers 15:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On November 13, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Harvestman phylogeny, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-Wiki Browser

Congratulations!! You have been approved to use Auto-Wiki Browser. Just download it from here:

http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=158332

And continue editing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Placebo Effect (talk • contribs) 22:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Faraon ant.jpg

Du hast Recht. Das Bild kann nicht mit derzeitige Lizenz "hängen". Schade. Ich eliminiere das Bild in RUwiki — du auf commons. ;~) --Wassily (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golden-ringed Dragonfly template on discussion page

Hi Sarefo, I somehow edited the template on the Golden-ringed Dragonfly thinking it was meant to be edited as the talk page when it obviously wasn't. If you could delete what I put there that would be fine, and I will put it as it was meant to be. Samasnookerfan (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually, what you did is absolutely ok, it's just that nobody else uses this feature yet. you did not edit the template (check any other arthropod talk page, it does not appear there). Instead, you edited the Comment subpage of the dragonfly talk page. this helps assessing pages later. anyway, i changed it to what you originally intended, an entry on the talk page. cheers :) --Sarefo (talk) 14:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats ok then. Thanks for putting it as it 'normally' is anyway. Samasnookerfan (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goeldia obscura

Titanoeca obscura is definitely a synonym of Titanoeca quadriguttata, which I have recently created a page about and your description fits this spider well. Should we go about merging the two pages. If so, I have no idea how. Dixonsej (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

huh, that's not a trivial one. WSC says there is Goeldia obscura, which was described by Keyserling in 1878 as T. obscura. Then, there's T. quadriguttata, which was first described as Aranea obscura by Walckenaer in 1802. The latter was called T. obscura from 1932 to 1993 by various authors. But as the former has not been called T. obscura since 1878, i would say it's taxonomically clear that they are different species. It turns out that i messed this up when i did G. obscura :) i found "Titanoeca obscura" in Bellmann (1997), checked the WSC and took the first one i found, but didn't notice it's from South America... oh, i just checked the Talk page for G. obscura, and find an entry by myself stating exactly that. so, many thanks for pointing this out! btw, i changed some minor stuff on your page, check them out. most of the stuff is just how i like it better ;), but be sure to include parentheses around original authors if the taxon changed since then, to put genera/species in italics, and, much more important, to include a reference. you did a great job on this page, we're one step closer at getting all the 40,000 described species :) (then we can finally do mites ;) welcome to the Spiders WikiProject, glad to have you around! if you have any questions or suggestions, leave me a note,

cheers --Sarefo (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Porrhothele

Porrhothele Nice article but please expand, i like those spiders! Gaogier: 15:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

i only did this article to link the species page to the family page. as much as i would like to expand this article, i have other priorities right now :) --Sarefo (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Roger Woodward (Niagara Falls)

An editor has nominated Roger Woodward (Niagara Falls), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Woodward (Niagara Falls) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 24 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Drosophila endobranchia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 20:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images for species articles

Hi Sarefo. When you create an article on a species, please add an image (i.e. photo, I guess) request to the talk page if there is no image available. We want to have at least one image for every species, especially when they have an article.

In the case of the DYK above, you can use {{reqphoto|insecta}}, which will place it in the insects category. You can also use |needs-photo=yes on many project banners, though I don't think the arthropods banner has an insect specific photo request function. Richard001 (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myrmekiaphila

When the authorship of a species name is different from the authors of a paper, this is indicated in the description itself. In the present case, that would mean the text for a given species description would read "Myrmekiaphila neilyoungi Bond" followed by "n. sp." or "new species". If the text only reads - as it does for all of the taxa in that paper - "Myrmekiaphila neilyoungi new species", then that means that authorship of the name follows that of the paper in which it appears. This is standard practice in taxonomy. I think what has happened here is the popular press got ahold of the story and - having no understanding of what taxonomic co-authorship is - just gave credit to Bond and ignored his co-author. Dyanega (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you're absolutely right. thanks for clearing that up for me :) --Sarefo (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arachnids

[8]. Spiders are a subset of 'arachnids'. Arachnids are not all spiders. Please keep them straight. 24.76.169.85 (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oops, thanks for noticing. what happened was that i changed the spider-stub template, not noticing that it was a redirect to arachnid-stub. --Sarefo (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added pictures of mr. brown recluse

Added some pictures of the brown recluse. Too bad, I had only a digital camera. Everything was ready for a real camera.--Brown-recluse-guy (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Wandering Spider

Hi,

I have been busy with many other things and just had a look at this article for the first time in months. I see somebody has made an assertion about degree of toxicity of these spiders on the grounds of experiments on mice. The trouble is that humans, mice, and various other mammals react to any given spider venom in different ways. Also, the last time I checked statistics the widow spiders were the ones that actually killed the most people worldwide. Probably the kill rates for humans who get a good dose of wandering spider venom is quite high because the substance is indeed highly toxic to humans and because these spiders have such a high volume available. Widow spiders, having a far smaller volume of venom available, have a low kill rate. But with their world-wide distribution they nail enough children and adults with health rates to have several times the overall kill rate of any other genus -- or at least that is what my memory is telling me.

Have you been keeping up on these statistics and/or on the article? If not, maybe you should have another look at it. I'm rather busy with other things.

Best wishes,

Pat P0M (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi patrick, good to hear from you again :) i do almost no work on toxicity of spiders, as this field is of no interest to me. i'm into diversity, and i think the dangerousness of spiders is much overrated in many spider articles as it is. so what i do is when i find some exaggerated claim in an article on spiders, i rectify it, otherwise i don't touch the spider bite article. cheers! --Sarefo (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments please

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of types of spiders Shyamal (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]