User talk:Lark999

Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC

File:Information.svg Hello, Lark999. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Xylaria Hypoxilon Var Rosa Tincta, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello, Lark999. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Xylaria Polymorpha var Corylus Fuscus, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Lark999. Thank you for your work on Philodromus rufus ssp. pacificus. Another editor, Memer15151, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

{{Bq|1=Articles should be written from a neutral point of view; I would remove "important" and rephrase the "Appearance" section to read something like "...is a distinguishing feature from its parent species" other than "...is notable because". Regardless, thank you for creating the article!}}

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{code|{{Re|Memer15151}}}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

UserMemer (chat) Tribs 00:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{Re|Memer15151}} bad habit... ty for reviewing !

:wont use that language in future. Lark999 (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Lark999. Thank you for your work on Philodromus rufus pacificus. Another editor, CFA, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

{{Bq|1=Subspecies are not inherently notable. Please cite independent sources with significant coverage to establish notability.}}

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{code|{{Re|CFA}}}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

C F A 14:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{Re|CFA}} I have cited more sources with coverage and records to establish notability. if I must add more just let me know! Lark999 (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Lark999. Thank you for your work on Acorynus luzonicus. Another editor, Memer15151, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

{{Bq|1=See tags placed on article. iNaturalist observations can be wrong. Also, I would consider adding a speciesbox. Good start, though, thanks for creating this article.}}

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{code|{{Re|Memer15151}}}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{Re|Memer15151}} I also helped with the identification of this observation and have also deep dived. its definitely luzonicus!

:http://gaga.biodiv.tw/9501bx/546.htm Lark999 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

::also see:https://www.pinterest.com/pin/acorynus-luzonicus-lanhsuanus-shibata-1982--584623595379392375/

::which I cant site but also is.

::there are multiple subspecies and they are distinct. the one shown in the observation just has smaller spots. Lark999 (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

:::info on subspecies :https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/22250#page/115/mode/1up

:::takes an insane amount of time to load tho. Lark999 (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We rely mostly on secondary sources. If no secondary sources that are considered to be reliable analyze the observation, it will not be appropriate to include it in the article. Although I do believe that your analysis of the photograph shows that it is the species, it would be classified as original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I would say the statement could be kept if a subject-matter expert IDs the observation as sp. luzonicus. In summary, it would not be appropriate to analyze the observation yourself and make a conclusion without confirmation from a reliable source or subject-matter expert; doing so would result in original research. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 00:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page :Novius pumilus, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Novius_pumilus&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit§ion=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1261934839%7CNovius%20pumilus%5D%5D Ask for help])

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Lark999§ion=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:Novius pumilus}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1261934839 report it to my operator].

Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning pn.svg

{{Quote box|quote=

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on :Ptenothrix Species 3 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an individual animal that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "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 deleted 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 {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Ptenothrix+Species+3|deleting administrator}}. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

There's some uncertainty about how Wikipedia should handle (or not) species which have not been formally described but which have placeholder names. (Note speedy deletion notification above.) I suggest that you join the discussion at WT:TOL#"Ptenothrix_species_4". Lavateraguy (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)