User talk:Shyamal/archive27
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Towards a New Wikimania results
Last December, I invited you to share your views on the value of Wikimedia conferences and the planning process of Wikimania. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report summarizing your feedback and important changes for Wikimania starting in 2018 as an experiment. Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page. Thank you so much for your participation. I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, 22:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Megarhyssa macrurus
Please restore the deleted edits of Megarhyssa macrurus to complete the history merge from Megarhyssa macrura. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- @GeoffreyT2000: hope this fixes it. Shyamal (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Merger discussion for Tigers of Chowgarh
An article that you have been involved in editing—Tigers of Chowgarh —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. WikiWisePowder (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
INCOTM
Hello Shyamal, how are you? WP:INCOTM is planned to be restarted this months, if you have some time in hand, could you please have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Collaborations of the month/Nominations/2016 March? 
Thanks. --Tito Dutta (talk) 09:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: February 2016
| ||||||
No sole glory for me!
Thanks Shyamal! I changed it based on the ICZN rule (?) of having to cite all authors upon first usage. I guess it should be alright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seshadri.K.S (talk • contribs) 14:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Seshadri.K.S: It is not a rule but a recommendation. I would still prefer the taxobox to be trim. The bibliographical reference is complete in any case. Shyamal (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for improving Selaginella willdenowii. You wrote "The blue iridescence is produced by thin-film interference produced by confirm the presence of a a thin layer of lamellar structure in the upper cuticle leaves."[1] I think something is missing in the middle of the sentence but I'm not sure how to fix it. If you have time, could you please give it a look? — Reinyday, 18:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you
For the barnstar, and for information on User:Dyanega (I was not aware about him!). Chhandama (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Invitation to discuss on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)
Hello! As there is already an only proposed Wikipedia guideline on naming conventions (Cyrillic). The proposal is still in development, under discussion and needs of gathering consensus for adoption. Since I am well experienced on this subject, I would like to criticize the official transliteration of Bulgarian as it gives too many errors, which also causes some losses of sounds “ǎ (a hacek”), decentralise itself from other slavic languages (“c” and “š” voices), which is also conflicting in itself (see street signs 1 and 2). By this revision, it is away from being accurate and not able to satisfy the needs of an encyclopedia which claims to be scientifical. These are the reasons I invite you to read Scientific transliteration of Cyrillic and involve the discussion in order to contribute a possible concensus. Wish to see you here thanks Manaviko (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: March 2016
| ||||||
Tagging redirect pages
Hello, I see that you reverted my tagging of a redirect page for WikiProject Insects. The project just implemented the expanded class categories, which includes redirect pages separately. These pages won't be cluttering the other WP Insects categories, so I'm not clear what the concern is. Is there a policy against tagging redirects for WP Insects? If there is, where can I view it? M. A. Broussard (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- I am not sure there is a policy against it but a policy for it would be best to discuss as I have not seen many other zoology projects do this presumably since there is very little use for them given that we really have a very large number of redirects, synonyms, alternate names and so on. I imagine that the important purpose of project tags is to classify quality and direct project participants to the poorer articles. I am not sure if there is much purpose to knowing how many redirects exist. Shyamal (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your careful edits. I see there are a lot of errors due to the erroneous scientific names. I am no expert on botany, but I will try to be more careful while adding these names and using those journals. Thanks again. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 08:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
you've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
--Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jean Baptiste Joseph Gentil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mughal. 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) 10:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Your recent edits have introduced a lot of underscores. Could you please check them? Thanks. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: April 2016
| ||||||
2016 Uttarakhand forest fires has been nominated for Did You Know
Hello, Shyamal. 2016 Uttarakhand forest fires, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know
. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 17:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
DYK for Beekeeping in India
On 11 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Beekeeping in India, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Honey and Bee Museum has been established at Ooty to promote beekeeping in India? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Beekeeping in India. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Beekeeping in India), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
DYK for 2016 Uttarakhand forest fires
On 23 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2016 Uttarakhand forest fires, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2016 Uttarakhand forest fires affected about 3,500 hectares (8,600 acres) in the Himalayan state of Uttarakhand, claiming seven fatalities? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2016 Uttarakhand forest fires. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 2016 Uttarakhand forest fires), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
changing all the Dipteran articles labeled XXXX (genus) to XXXX (fly)
Hi, Shyamal. There is either a superhumanly fast user or someone running a bot that is moving all the Dipteran articles labeled XXXX (genus) to XXXX (fly) - e.g.[2]. It was my understanding that it was always considered better to use (genus) in article titles, since the rules of nomenclature prevent re-use of the same names except across kingdoms. That is, unless there is an (e.g.) Epistrophe plant genus, there is no reason that "Epistrophe (genus)" needs to be made more specific, since if it applies to a fly, it cannot be used for a beetle, or moth, or anything else in teh animal kingdom. I do not, however, see any specific protocol regardin this on the WikiProjects Insects page, and don't have time right now to track down which higher-level WikiProject it might be policy for. I don't like the idea of someone making major bulk changes like this that potentially affect hundreds of articles, with no opportunity for other editors' feedback in advance. If there is any way you could look into this, it would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Dyanega (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Dyanega: The best place to raise it is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life. Shyamal (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Anepsion image
Hi, how did you identify the spider whose image you uploaded as File:Anepsion Munsiari.jpg? From the location, it seems that if it is indeed an Anepsion, it has to be Anepsion maritatum, the only species found in India. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: I have to admit that it is not specialist identification (I usually add specialist identifier credits to the image if so) but it seemed to be agreed (at least not in contention!) on an amateur spider discussion group for India. I did notice the species list and geographic distributions but given the state of biodiversity information in the region and the number of new species being described from the region (not to mention the fact that the id could be wrong), I have left it as is. Hopefully it should at least prompt some better-informed visitor to fix it or offer better images of carefully identified genus representatives. Shyamal (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about this genus, but generally spiders are notoriously difficult to identify from external appearance; for many species, nothing short of microscopic examination of genitalia is satisfactory. So I'm not sure that much more can be done from the image. I do understand your point about the state of biodiversity information in the region. I guess the image ID is better left as it is. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I am quite sure it is quite a similar looking Araneid so at least I hope it will prompt a passing specialist to fix something glaring. I of course completely agree that some pictures will have to forever remain unidentified as well as unidentifiable for the same reasons you mention. Just for info - this File:LeafInsect.jpg is an as yet undescribed new species according to the world expert on the group Joachim Bresseel who notes that it is "... a new species of Phyllium (Pulchriphyllium). The species belongs in the bioculatum species group". This File:Sataspes_India.jpg has the world expert Ian Kitching baffled. The world expert (Vladimir Gnezdilov) on this group is sure that this one is a new species File:Gergithus_India.jpg. I had to wait almost a year for my one-time advisor and some others to describe this new species (new and only megalopteran in a major biogeographical region) and the image had to be on Commons in an unnamed state till then - File:NevromusAustroindicus1.jpg. And all that is just one person's contribution to Wikipedia - imagine what would be the situation if more did!! Shyamal (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed! You're clearly a keen observer.
- Actually, on looking into the literature a bit, it can't be Anepsion maritatum, because this has a strongly black-patterned abdomen (see here and the Jose (2011) reference in the paper). It seems that Anepsion was only discovered in India (in Kerala, rather a long way from Uttarakhand!) in 2015 (having previously been misidentified) so if your image is an Anepsion, it's quite a find.
- In view of the uncertainty as to the identity, I'm not sure the image should be used in the genus article. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- I wonder if it could be an Araniella? Compare your photo with File:Araniella proxima.jpg. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, that definitely suggests more uncertainty than I had to start with. Do remove the image. I will recheck with some other sources to see if it is identifiable with some confidence. [I was under the mistaken impression that you sought a solid species id - in which case my position is that it is ok if only the species id is unclear - ie it is ok to have a picture where the genus is reasonably certain but the species is not - especially so when no better image is available - as in the above example of the Phyllium (Pulchriphyllium) which is the taxobox image for leaf insect - known to be an unknown/undescribed species.] Shyamal (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree entirely that where the species id is unclear but a higher rank is definite then an image is fine at that rank. Initially, I just wondered if we could pin the species down a bit, but it seems not. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, that definitely suggests more uncertainty than I had to start with. Do remove the image. I will recheck with some other sources to see if it is identifiable with some confidence. [I was under the mistaken impression that you sought a solid species id - in which case my position is that it is ok if only the species id is unclear - ie it is ok to have a picture where the genus is reasonably certain but the species is not - especially so when no better image is available - as in the above example of the Phyllium (Pulchriphyllium) which is the taxobox image for leaf insect - known to be an unknown/undescribed species.] Shyamal (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I am quite sure it is quite a similar looking Araneid so at least I hope it will prompt a passing specialist to fix something glaring. I of course completely agree that some pictures will have to forever remain unidentified as well as unidentifiable for the same reasons you mention. Just for info - this File:LeafInsect.jpg is an as yet undescribed new species according to the world expert on the group Joachim Bresseel who notes that it is "... a new species of Phyllium (Pulchriphyllium). The species belongs in the bioculatum species group". This File:Sataspes_India.jpg has the world expert Ian Kitching baffled. The world expert (Vladimir Gnezdilov) on this group is sure that this one is a new species File:Gergithus_India.jpg. I had to wait almost a year for my one-time advisor and some others to describe this new species (new and only megalopteran in a major biogeographical region) and the image had to be on Commons in an unnamed state till then - File:NevromusAustroindicus1.jpg. And all that is just one person's contribution to Wikipedia - imagine what would be the situation if more did!! Shyamal (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know anything about this genus, but generally spiders are notoriously difficult to identify from external appearance; for many species, nothing short of microscopic examination of genitalia is satisfactory. So I'm not sure that much more can be done from the image. I do understand your point about the state of biodiversity information in the region. I guess the image ID is better left as it is. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Book of interest
Given your interest in biographical articles about naturalists thought a book I recently came across would be of interest to you:
- Fan, Fa-Ti. British Naturalists in Qing China: Science, Empire, and Cultural Encounter. Belknap Press. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004.
What do you think are the chances of an academic writing a similar book about India? Solomon7968 00:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Featured Picture nomination
Hi Shyamal,
Great working with you over the last week – looking forward to more!
If I could bother you for a second... I submitted my "Tiny Planet" of the Last Supper sculpture in Esino Lario for Featured Picture on the English Wikipedia. If you think it qualifies, could you please support my nomination?
Thanks in advance,
cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 22:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Was great meeting you too Gordon. Seems like the folks at FPC have more technical points to make than I can see. Never mind, it is a good image. Making this IP edit to see signature left by internet from an aircraft. 213.52.184.7 (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC) (which resolves to the UK) - Shyamal (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC).
Mangalore
Hi Shyamal
Was lovely to meet you at Chandigarh.
Is there any chance of you being able to come to Mangalore around the 28th Aug and 29th August?
Would like to organise an editing event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outofindia (talk • contribs) 04:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Outofindia: Thank you Harriet, it was great meeting you too. I am not too sure about August, have been travelling a bit too much but can certainly help online in the editathon. Shyamal (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikiquote
Hi, I would like to invite you to contribute to our sister project Wikiquote. Some articles there that may use more informative quotes include:
- q:Zoo: Needs more quotes on Charismatic megafauna (example a quote which explicitly states their names, i.e. fills in the gap between "aardvark to zebra" (I added this quote) and their depiction on movies (example the Kung Fu Panda franchise for Giant panda).
Do let me know if you are interested in this. Solomon7968 04:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry my email did not reach you - it's about a bird image of yours
Hello,
As you can probably see, I am very new to this and just trying to figure out how it works... :)
I've incorporated one of your images (the top left one here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red-billed_chough#/media/File:ChoughsDiff.svg) into a project I am working on; I've created a sort of "crest" based on Cornish imagery and want to see if I can sell a few t-shirts of local interest, incorporating that crest. I had initially thought that whatever was on Wikimedia Commons was free to use, but, as I said, I'm really new to this and just want to be sure that it's OK to incorporate your image into the work I am doing. That's what I tried to send you an email about. Is this something that you would object to?
Thanks for your time and for all the lovely images! Miseridog (talk) 11:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- You are welcome to reuse it for the t-shirt without having to add credits. I can mark it as public domain so that you can use it. Go ahead. Shyamal (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for that! Miseridog (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Indian botanists / Signpost
Thank you for your suggestion. I would be interested in this for the mid-September edition of the Signpost. Are you interested in authoring such an article? I would be happy to work with you if so. If we need to find a reporter to write it, that might be a bit more difficult, as we are a bit spread thin at the moment. Looks like a great story, though -- I hope we can include something. -Pete (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Peteforsyth: I was hoping that the text there had enough of the story. Let me know what parts or background need more amplification and I will modify that text. Shyamal (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- OK -- it certainly does have a good amount of information, and we can work with that if necessary. It's a very good tip. I will need to interview some of the people you named, so any suggestion about who might be best to talk with would help. Also, can you tell me who is the one planning to donate 20,000 images? Thank you, we'll get to work on this as soon as the current edition is published (next couple days). -Pete (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- The persons to interview are Vinayaraj and Jkadavoor - best via Commons. The 20000 plant images donor is Dinesh Valke who is not a Wikipedian yet. Shyamal (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: August 2016
| ||||||
Wikiquote followup
Did you got a chance to reflect on my above Wikiquote request? Furthermore I wonder if you would be able to find a short succinct quote in q:Species which explains nicely the discrepancy between the non-existence of Charismatic megafauna in invertebrates (including: insects, corals, mollusca, arachnids, crustaceans) and the comparatively larger ~1.3 million number of species compared to vertebrates. Solomon7968 15:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection
Hello, Shyamal. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
- Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
- A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Please semi-protect this article. --Martian Manhunter xyz (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- There is no reason to make such a request on any editor's page. Any such request should be posted at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Shyamal (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: September 2016
| ||||||
Reference errors on 21 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Rufous-bellied hawk-eagle page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Shyamal, I mentioned you edited the article about jackdaw. Could you please to provide source of the information that Peter Pallas introduced the genus Coloeus? I'm talking about this edit. My records indicate the genus was described by Johann Kaup in 1829. Thank you!--Vicpeters (talk) 23:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Merge? — LlywelynII 01:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Fourteen years on
Apparently yesterday was my fourteenth WikiBirthday. Thank you, the numerous folks who have been in touch, for keeping me inspired with your scholarship, curiosity and need to let others know what you know. Shyamal (talk) 04:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Shark drawings
There is no need to add drawings when we have plenty of photographs. With all due respect, please stop.
- A bigger problem is that those drawings are very old, and mostly categorized by obsolete binomial names, so that it is not always trivial to identify them with modern ones. Materialscientist (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Ledikeni
Thank you for doing something about that molten sugar statement, which would make it a very dangerous comestible, as you say. Do you know what these sweets are actually like? Are they eaten hot? The molten sugar claim is clearly wrong, but I've seen a statement that they are made with a lump of gur in the middle. Perhaps that dissolves, or perhaps it undergoes some process through heating, but I don't know. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I am not sure I have tried a genuine "Ledikeni" but from what I understand it is a close "relative" of the Pantua and Gulab jamun. The latter two are soaked in sugar syrup and the last afaik can be served either warm or cold. I am quite sure there are many variants and will make no claim of expertise on this :) Shyamal (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding. Until someone can produce an authoritative historical document, I think your edit is a considerable improvement.
Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding. Until someone can produce an authoritative historical document, I think your edit is a considerable improvement.
File:ThrushUpperWing.jpg
Hey Shyamal! I am currently working on a draft of a bird glossary. (It's probably 30% done; started because I keep seeing nowhere to link to for terms in bird articles; the plan is to create a template for linking to its definitions, equivalent to the way {{Cuegloss}} functions for billiards articles.) In my travels to populate it, I came across the headlined image, naming the coverts. I'd love to use it – thank you for making it – but I feel the text is so small, that at any normal image size for an article, it's impossible to read the annotated text. I think you'll see what I mean if you look at its display in Covert feather. I was wondering if it might be easy and possible for you to upload a second version with [much] larger text? I could probably fumble my way to do it with GIMP but image editing is not something I am very adept at. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have just looked for the image in my hard disks and it is not findable which means it is in a stack of old CD/DVDs which will take some time but I suspect it would be much easier to find some nicer illustrations. Will let you know when I find some substitutes or the original source image. Shyamal (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- PS: I found the image - feel free to work on the basic image if that works better for you. Let me see if I can work it up to produce an improved version of the earlier file. File:Zoothera_citrina_cyanotus_under_wing.jpg Shyamal (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. That's a lovely image. I think I might try my hand at annotating it with numbers and then keying them to coverts listed in the caption, as linked to their definitions (in similar fashion to File:Birdmorphology.svg).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- PS: I found the image - feel free to work on the basic image if that works better for you. Let me see if I can work it up to produce an improved version of the earlier file. File:Zoothera_citrina_cyanotus_under_wing.jpg Shyamal (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
Administrator changes
NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13
Guideline and policy news
- A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
- Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
- Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
Technical news
- When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
- Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
- The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.
Obituaries
- JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Guest
Just signed to get to know each other as we interacted at TTT 2017. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Nice meeting you @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: Shyamal (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Papilionoidea
Hi, Shyamal. That was the accidental inclusion of an extra asterisk. Hesperiidae was the sixth family in the list (as the text stated), and not a 14th subfamily of Nymphalidae. I've fixed that. I will note, if you feel it warranted, that I did not go ahead with the inclusion of Hedylidae - I was only accommodating the inclusion of Hesperiidae which had already been added by a different editor. There are two citations, together in the lead on the Papilionoidea page, and if you want to make the edits necessary to add Hedylidae, please go ahead. Also, the Nymphalidae page uses an automated taxobox which contains a completely different higher phylogeny (a redlink to "Papilioniformes" in italics), so there is internal incompatibility in the various higher taxonomic ranks in the various articles. I really, really hate automated taxoboxes in Insecta articles - the higher classification is far too unstable. Thanks! Dyanega (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Maharaj Libel Case
Thank you for creating it. I was thinking for last few days to create it and finally you did it. These article series give in depth understanding of case. 1--Nizil (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)