Contents

User talk:Bfpage

Hello Bfpage. When seeing your proposal I checked the language of WP:NCFAUNA. That guideline prefers using the common name of a species in most cases. This is not always feasible. Sometimes the common name can't be determined, or in other cases it may be unclear what species is designated by the most commonly-used name. The Monarch doesn't seem to have either of these problems. For such a famous species, switching it to the Latin name is bound to be controversial. If you still think a move is a good idea, consider opening up a WP:Requested move discussion on the article talk page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. On the bird project, we have have evolved a standard style of presentation for featured and good articles, so they all look much the same. I don't know if there is any thing similar for insects, but no reason anyway why the bird model should apply. My comments below assume that you are aiming for GA and are mainly MoS

• the lead should summarise the article; as it stands, it omits major sections, like reproduction
• as a summary, the lead should have few if any references. It's all going to be referenced later in the body of the text
• Image captions should not normally contain the name of the article. It's assumed that the pictures are of monarchs unless the caption says otherwise
• Only first word of a section heading is capitalsed
• Galleries per se are discouraged. Yours tells a story, which is fine, but some of the adult pictures are superfluous
• You don't really need to link countries or continents
• consistency is important. A quick glance shows that the capitalisation of monarch is inconsistent, and that your retrieval dates for references are formatted inconsistently
• There is some overlinking. Install and run this script
• Lists are rarely a good idea. For the food plants, I'd put several species of milkweed and.... If you don't want to lose the list altogether, hive it off as List of monarch butterfly food plants and link
• Web references need a publisher
• On-line versions of real journals and books don't need retrieval dates, that's for web-only publications
• refs 31 and 32 appear to be identical
• binomials should be italicised in references too
• Other referencing inconsistencies include capitalisation of article titles, full stops after initials, surname/first name order, book publisher location (give for all or none)
• Spell out journal names and US states in full (but the country should be US, not written in full)
• You may have some dead links
• Up to you, but I prefer to put explanatory bits like your refs 19 and 20 as footnotes (see Fulvous Whistling DuckorEuropean Nightjar) but that's certainly not required
• Personally I avoid linking to google books unless it's fully free to use. Access varies from country to country and often changes, so I prefer not to give the courtesy link. Up to you though. I also don't link to journal abstracts, only full text if available
• I can't see a ref for your claimed IUCN status
• You have some bare urls

I'll have another look when I've a bit more time, there's some good stuff there, just needs tweaking a bit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redback spider is a current insect FA, I don't know if helps you Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bfpage, I would like to take this moment and thank you for the trust you had placed in me and for your support in my RfA that happened a while ago. Although it didn't turn out as I had planned, I certainly appreciated all the comments and suggestions given by you and other people. I will learn from all of them and will hopefully run again someday when I'm fully ready. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the article: Interior reconstruction, the assessment you placed on the page is not appropriate on the talk page, so I removed it and added two WikiProject templates instead.

My editing on this article was limited to a spelling correction, done by the tool WP:AutoWikiBrowser (AWB) as shown in the history of the article. Such a change does not imply any knowledge of the article at all. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on User:Harikarank requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nominationbyvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Drm310 (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the log of edit history of the article Monarch buttrfly the following edit was posted: 07:49, July 15, 2014‎ Mdann52 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (68,291 bytes) (-635)‎ . . (→‎top: rv link to copyvio material (Ticket:2014071510000218)) I would like to maintain that no copyright infringement was done. I referenced a url to a website, a normal and typical practice. No copyrighted material (the raw data itself) was/is used in this section of the article. No word-for-word text was copied from the reference and then pasted to the article.

I would suggest that User:Mdann52 may also be known as User:Southwest Monarch Study. There seems to be some confusion of what constitues a copyright violation. I can only say that this/these users are well-intentioned and are responding in good faith, wishing to enhance and improve the article. I have been privately contacted by a representive of Southwest Monarch Study via email. I would rather resolve this issue with the assistance other editors who have the expertise of determining copyright violations here on wikipedia rather than thru private corespondance.

bpage (talk) 02:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please take care not to add {{stub}} to an article such as Parshuram Temple which already has a specific stub tag - it just wastes other editors' time. Thanks. PamD 12:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Lyon (politician) is notable: he was a Member of Parliament - see WP:POLITICIAN: "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". Please take more care over your tagging. Thanks. PamD 13:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And your COI tag on Tunnel problem duplicated an existing tag. Please slow down and take more care. Thanks. PamD 13:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I was reviewing the article Scott Slapin as it appeared in the new pages feed filtered by the oldest articles needing review. After reading the editing history of the article I was unsure of what had actually occured with the article becuase it seems to have been moved around and renamed. I will pass up on this article's review but would appreciate someone else's interpretation of this article's editing history.

bpage (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That article was deleted following this discussion, was undeleted and turned into a draft to allow for improvement, was improved and now has been moved back into articlespace. I've just declined a speedy deletion nomination because the current version is significantly different from what was discussed and deleted before. That doesn't imply there are no other reasons to delete the article, though; I haven't checked references or content beyond comparing them with the old version. Huon (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bfpage, thank you for your support. The Churches and Christian Sites in Nagasaki, Japan, were submitted on the Tentative List of the UNESCO World Heritage in 2007 and Adami was martyred in Nagasaki. I keep the Wikipedia notability guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshisato (talk • contribs) 16:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshisato,

You have created a great article. I reviewed the article and found it perfectly acceptable. I don't have any notability issues with the Adami article. Are you sure that was a comment that I made? If I questioned the notabibilty of the article I would like to sincerely apologize and wish you the best.

bpage (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Butterfly count, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Migration. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Hello Bfpage Recently you have signed my guestbook! Thank you very much for signing my guestbook. Cheers NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 02:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pat on the back. I created the page on OP San Juan because my comrades and I served there and it was an important operations outpost at that time during the Iraq war.

Unfortunately, I am having difficulty finding sources to use as reference which are not original. Do you have any suggestions as to where or how I might be able to better validate the history of this place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyjumper77 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick google search and found this, except is probably a different point of view from the arab side:

http://www.matrixmasters.com/blog/iraqarchive/2006_10_01_archiveiraq.html Are you familiar with searching on Google?

bpage (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. This was not a violation of AWB rules. I did not believe the bold belongs, end of story. People do edit with AWB and not just run bots. Your original edit is also against accessibility rules.
2. We do not revert because of a violation of AWB rules. There has to be a valid reason. You specifically wanting a bold is a valid reason.
3. WP:Deviations of the accessibility rules clearly state that <b> is not allowed. Currently, there are no articles on Wikipedia with this tags.

Bgwhite (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bgwhite,

Thank you showing interest in the monarch butterfly article. I will certainly defer to you on this issue seeing that you have much more editing experience than I do. I don't know about any people that edit with just bots (does this really happen? If so, this is the first time I have read that this practice occurs - I'll just assume that I am clueless about this.) I certainly don't think you edit with just bots. I read your contributions log and know for a fact that you do not.

This is also the first time I have heard of accessibility concerns. I have read up on it since your post here and I understand now why you have this concern. Thank you bringing this to my attention, I learned something important from you. I think though you might mean 'accessibility guidelines' or 'accessibility practices' or some other issue settled upon by consensus. I write this because of what I read here: WP:IAR Therefore, I would like to suggest that I most certainly did not break any rules. In the spirit of good faith, I again defer to your well-intentioned comment about me breaking the rules.

Again, I defer to your opinion that the bold doesn't belong - your "...end of story" addendum might be a little harsh, or I may just be over-sensitive.

I reverted because I thought my edit was valid and added to the readability of the article. You cited AWB, I went to the article describing AWB guidelines and determined that my edit was insignificant/inconsequential. You also wrote: "You specifically wanting a bold is a valid reason." You probably meant the opposite, but I actually agree with your original statement. I really do believe that wanting a bold is a valid reason. If the use of bold is not used on any Wikipedia articles, then why does the option to use bold even exist?

I assume good faith on your part, I defer to you on this issue, and please assume good faith on my part.

The Best of Regards,

bpage (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not edit via a bot. AWB is a tool. If the editor's name has the word "bot" in it, then it is a bot. I'm used to editing this way. If the edit is going to be complex, then I edit a browser. Some people edit via the Visual Editor, some a web browser and others a tool.

I think you misunderstood and I have trouble explaining things. There are two separate things going on.

1. One should never use <b>, but instead use '''. This is spelled out in accessibility rules.
2. I removed the bold entirely because I didn't think it belonged there. There is no rule about this. This is entirely an editor preference.

You were entirely in your right to revert because of the removal of the bold. I had no problem with this and even said up above, "You specifically wanting a bold is a valid reason." Yes, I meant removing bold entirely is a valid reason to revert. What I objected to was adding back in the <b> instead of using wikicode and saying what I did was a trivial edit against AWB rules. I see no foul or harm in any of this. Looks like there was confusion on both parts.

I do think you misunderstand IAR. IAR is not a reason to go against any rule. (I use rule, policy and guideline interchangeably). If there is a valid reason for needing to go around the rule, then it is acceptable. When it comes to accessibility, there are very, very few valid reasons. Going against an accessibility rule usually means somebody not being able to view/read information. Some of the other MOS rules are more easily "broken".

I do miss seeing Monarch butterflies. I haven't seen one in years. There used to be a ton of milkweed plants around and not there are none. I lived in the country and walking home from school, the side of the road was full of milkweed plants. What a beautiful creature. Bgwhite (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy shifting gears with you here. I could write forever about the monarch. I am hoping to get access to JSTOR so that I can cite more recent journals and monographs with up-to-date information. I travelled to Mexico to the sanctuaries there filled with overwintering, dormant butterflies. The sight of millions of butterflies was completely overwhelming. Even, sitting here at my dining room table, I have my eyes on six crysalids that are soon to be adult monarch butterflies. I raised from eggs I found on the milkweed in my front yard. I have sent away to the University of Kansas to participate in their citizen-scientist program of tagging southbound, migrating monarchs. I hope this not considered original research.

Shifting again, do you assess articles and their importance?

Best Regards,

bpage (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rock Symphonies (David Garrett album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Garrett. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded on what a previous user said. Sorry if you have already received a notification. NickGibson3900 ^{Talk Sign my Guestbook Contributions} 07:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at this again. There are no references. Fiddle Faddle 07:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Garbhagirha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Idol. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edittoHazara virus may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• {{issues|{{cleanup-bare URLs|date=July 2014}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hazara virus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antiviral. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Monarch butterfly migration, Bfpage!

Wikipedia editor I dream of horses just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I'm sure this page will look great when it's done.

To reply, leave a comment on I dream of horses's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monarch butterfly migration, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stratification and Migrate. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I sent you an email concerning this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NODE_(wireless_sensor)). Maybe you can help me out? Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyishaC (talk • contribs) 15:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Myisha and thank you foe getting in touch with me. I checked my email and did not see anything from you for the past few days. I am sorry if that made you wait for a response. Are you referring to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NODE_(wireless_sensor)&oldid=624816737 This looks like an archived page to me but I am sure that is probably not the case. Can you ask your question here on my talk page?

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the Monarch page today and did something different with the references. This is how the more scholarly and Featured Articles do it. Give me a yell if you have questions. Bgwhite (talk) 07:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the only US butterfly I've seen in the UK! I've just got back from a couple of days in Norfolk, I'll look tomorrow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bgwhite I like what you have done. I think we need to take discussions to the article's talk page. Someone has reverted some of your edits.   Bfpage |leave a message  17:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello bfpage. Could I make a suggestion to improve your "Registering new users" template? It would be good to create wikilinks to the three bulleted pieces of guidance on "Five pillars", "first edit" and "first article", so that the new user can more easily access these guidance notes. Also, in the first line of the template, shouldn't it read "thank you" and not just "thank"?: Noyster (talk), 10:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it's been along time since I've logged into my account honestly. I'm currently finishing my degree in Uni so I haven't been active in what must a be a few years but I check back in on and off for nostalgia's sake; It's also nice to see my contributions haven't been forgotten. I honestly was hoping the Wikiproject would take off the ground without me but it seems that it is rather slow, hopefully in the near future I can pull some time together in-between work and my studies to get back into being a regular Wikipedian :) Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 17:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]