User talk:Is123Biblio

A BeeStar for you!

Apis mellifera supports you!

Alas Wikipedia doesn't have a Bee barnstar, but you certainly deserve one! Thanks for learning from your previous warnings and really working to improve your edits. You are doing a lot of good work for the Bees and bee related topics of Wikipedia! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 00:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you friend, I have tried my best to try and be unbiased and not make or take anything personally! Your Star means a lot to me, thanks again :-) Bibby (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

European Dark Bee

On 15 April 2019 you undid my revision from 1 March about the name "Black German Bee" for Apis mellifera mellifera on the grounds that (as you write) the "Source" cited does not support this. You mean the source (Characteristics of Races of Honeybees, ...) given there does not support the fact that this bee is also called "Black German Bee"? I was surprised to read that. I mean, you added this source yourself on 19 November 2018 - so, you should know it well enough. And there right on page 1 it says: These bees were most likely of the subspecies apis mellifera mellifera, otherwise known as the German or “black” bee. Besides that source the name "Black German Bee" or "German Black Bee" is quite commonly used, not just among bee keepers. You can find that name in other places - besides your source - on the internet. Even a facebook page about the German Black Bee exists. That's why it fitted perfectly well into this article exactly at this spot where it is substantiated by YOUR source. Interesting in that context is that the name "German Black Bee" had been part of this article for more than ten years without any complains when you removed it on 19 November 2018. And on a literary note: The term "Black German Bee" is used many times in the novel The Keeper of the Bees by Gene Stratton-Porter. --- I certainly don't take part in any edit war here. That's why, please reverse your entry from 15 April 2019 and put back the name "Black German Bee" where it rightly belongs. --- Thank you for your co-operation. Stillbusy (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi wiki friend, hope I haven't caused offence by being pedantic :-)

In essence I think you're right about what you're saying about the name, I think I have heard the Amm referred to as the "German Black Bee" (I just can't remember where and so I couldn't easily add the source), but the Source does not say "German Black Bee" it says "These bees were most likely of the subspecies apis mellifera mellifera, otherwise known as the German or ”black” bee", I take from that it means, either "German Bee" or "Black Bee" not both combined, othrwise it wouldn't have said "or". Go ahead and add the book as the source that you mentioned, I don't have access to it, you don't need an online version of it, this isn't a big deal, so just go ahead and change it back to "German Black Bee" with the extra source added (The Keeper of the Bees), don't worry if you can't find the page number... is that Ok my friend? Bibby (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Right now, I looked up The Keeper of the Bees on google-books (https://books.google.is/books?id=qGeX1UazHdsC&printsec=frontcover&hl=is&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false) where only a small section of the book is shown as a sample. There the term Black German bee (all three words together) can be found on pages 77 and 152, and the term Black German (capital letters without the word "bee" because the context allows to omit it) is used about ten times. As I wrote here earlier today, the term "Black German Bee" or "German Black Bee" can be found in other places on the internet as well. According to the rules of conduct in Wikipedia, you should take back the entry where you reversed my revision because you can take back your own entry, but I shouldn't do a reverse of a reverse when it concerns one of my revisions, that just doesn't look right. Thank you and best wishes Stillbusy (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry didn't realise that, I'll revert for you, can you go ahead and add the Source, thanks. Hope I didn't cause any offence. Bibby (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This particular source is --- Stratton-Porter, G. (1925). The Keeper of the Bees (pp. 77, 152). New York: Doubleday, Page & Company --- Stillbusy (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Copvio

Hi. Please don't just "copy and paste" text verbatim from other works and include it in Wikipedia articles. As you did in this edit (as indicated by this COPYVIO/CLOP comparison). If unclear, please read the relevant WP:COPYVIO and WP:CLOP policies/guidelines. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you my friend for the help in tidying up the paragraph, it reads much better now, and I'll take on board using quote marks " " when needed instead of Copy and Paste, but best to summarize in my own words; wrap across the knuckles deserved, needed and appreciated :-) Bibby (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Honey bee wiki page Revert 20:12, March 15, 2022

Hi Dyanega, (I've just gone ahead and Pasted this into my Talk page which I had Posted onto your Talk page after you deleted a Citation request for Sources, looking forward to your linked Sources, thanks in advance friend).

you have Reverted my Edit, a Citation request, made at 16:38, March 15, 2022, on Honey bee page, the reason you gave was "these sentences are absolutely correct, accurate, and easily verifiable" however if you read my Edit Summary you will see that I am not referring to sentences but only one singular sentence - the one preceding the Source request; I'll paste it below for ease of reference:

"The different species of honey bees are distinguished from all other bee species (and virtually all other Hymenoptera) by the possession of small barbs on the sting, but these barbs are found only in the worker bees."

As you are clearly very knowledgeable on this subject (compared to me), can you please provide me a link so I can add a Source for the claim "(and virtually all other Hymenoptera)", I am not aware of other Hymenoptera that have barbs; I have read that some have very small barbs when examined closely, but they do not cause the same effect as Honey bees barbs (attaching to skin). I would be very interested in reading about other insects that possess these barbs? Thanks.

Also I have added a Source for the claim that the Queen Honey Bee does not have barbs, however I am not happy with this source, as the claim that Queens do not have barbs is explained by beekeepers in that the queens have been observed stinging multiple virgin queens in quick succession, I have not seen a photo of their respective barbs, but if you cannot provide me with a better source then I will arrange for a photo of one of them to be taken by a beekeeper that I know that does Instrumental Insemination. But you did say that this would be "easily verifiable" so it shouldn't take you long to Link it to me. Thanks.

It was my understanding that when a Citation request is made, the person writing the original sentence(s) would provide the Sources, as they would be notified of a change to the page. Failing that other Wiki Editors would jump in; I did not have time to search for Sources, so I decided to flag the sentence by a Citation request, and come back to it later when I had time (like now). The length of time you have spent reading this Posting is likely longer than it would have taken you to add the respective Sources for these easily verifiable claims.

Glad we are working together to be able to improve Wiki. Bibby (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I have undone your cut-and-paste page move

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Sliabh Beagh a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Slieve Beagh. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, Thank you for your help with this, but obviously not, it was my first time, I'll try again. Thanks again for keeping me right. Bibby (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Reptiles on Wikipedia

Hello Is123Biblio, I saw your talk page notes at the lists of reptiles of Ireland and Great Britain and wanted to encourage you to be bold. Unfortunately there is not a wide ranging active community of people on Wikipedia thinking about country lists to respond to your ideas. If anyone objects, they will tell you so. You seem like a smart person figuring out how things are done around Wikipedia, so don't hold back waiting for feedback. If it makes sense to you, you are probably right. Be bold! SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much SchreiberBike that's very kind of you to say. I really don't want to upset anyone, so before I be Bold I just give a quick mention on the Talk page and then I jump right in. Sometimes I'm not 100% certain about what it is I'm going to amend or add, thinking, this is really obvious ... maybe I'm missing something! I'll take encouragement from what you say. Bibby (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Beekeeping in the United Kingdom

Hello Is123Biblio, trying to find my feet here. Is this link any help for the Modern Beekeeping section: https://www.bbka.org.uk/past-spring-convention-programmes Beeloser (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually that would be a very good link, it gives a clear idea and excellent advertising for this... of course from a neutral point of view you know. Thanks Beeloser. If you want to try and go ahead and incorporate it into the Section for the page, please do, or I'll get around to it in the next some days. Good find! Bibby (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I've taken a stab at it. Also under Associations and organisations (BTW should we be using British English?) should/could we include IBRA which Eva Crane founded in 1949. Also the Eva Crane Trust which was founded after her death. Then there is Brian Dennis. He was associated with the BBKA for a long time and was one of the founders of the Bee Disease Insurance company in 1936. He bequeathed a legacy to create the CB Dennis Trust in 1990. Beeloser (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

That's very good.

Oh, your right, I hadn't noticed that IBRA wasn't included, and you make good points about the CB Dennis Trust and the Eva Crane Trust also being added to the Section "Associations and organizations", but be careful, I think you may have a connection to CB Dennis Trust, so to avoid anyone claiming WP:COI, just go ahead and Post what you think should be added for the CB Dennis Trust in this Section of this Talk Page and I'll then Post it myself on the Article Page, I think that's ok?

Again, good points, thanks for the input... the next thing I'm thinking about (when I get time) is to flesh out the descriptions in the "Associations and organizations" Section, to maybe a little paragraph for each.

Yes, you're right, we should be using British English for a wiki page based in the UK - I often forget this and revert to American English (helpful Editors will come along and change this for us every now and then, I've given up trying to change it back when it happens). Bibby (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of

The C.B. Dennis British Beekeepers' Research Trust supports bee research that benefits bees and beekeeping in Britain [1]

I'm curious now why you think that I have a connection to the trust. I am a beekeeper but I'm not connected with the CB Dennis Trust in any way. My local beekeeping group is associated with the BBKA but that does not give me any BBKA voting rights. The BBKA website does identify some UK organisations [2] but CB Dennis is not on their list.

I added some citations to the Modern Beekeeping section as there was a warning message about that.

I'll go ahead and make the other edits. I think that we can add Eva Crane to the list of beekeepers too. Beeloser (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, I may have misunderstood your sentences on your User Page were you say "I am a member of ..(BBKA) and have provided technical assistance to them. Also the C B Dennis Trust and Bee Diseases Insurance Ltd", I thought this meant that you were a member and had provided "technical assistance" to "the C B Dennis Trust and Bee Diseases Insurance Ltd", I misunderstood this to mean that you were somehow representing them. Apologies for my mistake. Please go ahead and continue to edit freely, I'll support and help were I can. Again my apologies for my misunderstanding. Bibby (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Aha! I could have worded that better.

Okay I've added CB Dennis Trust. Please let me know if you need any other citations. Beeloser (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Very good, this page is really starting to grow! It brings the attention of these organizations to beekeepers who otherwise may not have been aware of them. Bibby (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

January 2023

Your edit to Apis mellifera pomonella has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Fixed it Bibby (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Caucasian honey bee edit ref: Apis mellifera pomonella

NB: For context I am adding my posting to Dyanega's Talk page for my ease of reference: This in turn is replied to (below) under section, Formal status of names in genus Apis.

Hi Dyanega,

You have added to the Caucasian honey bee page the below info.

"...and ranges to the Tien Shan Mountains in Central Asia. where it was believed to represent a new subspecies ("pomonella"), a claim which has not been supported."

But from re-reviewing the source you have cited for the phrase "a claim (A. m. pomonella is a new subspecies) which has not been supported", the "A revision of subspecies structure of western honey bee Apis mellifera" source article only lists A. m. pomonella as a subspecies in Table 1., and lists the A. m. caucasia as a subspecies in Table 1. and then only in a paragraph 5 of section 3, discussing its lineage, with neither referencing each other, nor raising doubt over A. m. pomonella taxon status as a subspecies:

Also after looking at the sources and sentence structure for your sentence "and ranges to the Tien Shan Mountains in Central Asia" I realize there is no source cited (the source beside the word "pomonella" is to support the claim its a new subspecies, not relating to its range).

Can you explain why you made these edits without a source and claims that are not supported but contradicted by the cited sources? I'm guessing I've missed something, maybe you are aware of more recent DNA analysis but you have given the wrong sources?

Apologies if I've made a mistake and thank you for your help. Bibby (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Formal status of names in genus Apis

Hi. I'm a Commissioner of the ICZN, and a recognized bee taxonomist and researcher. The classification of Apis species in Wikipedia should comply with the most recent revision of the genus (Engel, 1999) and also comply with the ICZN Code. These are both things that are in keeping with Wikipedia's policies. For example, Engel formally synonymized "carpathica" under carnica in 1999 (and likewise "rodopica" under macedonica), and no subsequent taxonomists have formally reversed either synonymy. As such, "carpathica" needs to appear as a synonym of carnica in Wikipedia, and not be treated as a separate taxon until and unless someone cites Engel's synonymy and reverses it, and then THAT source can be cited. I am unaware of any such reversal, but if one can be found, then that would justify adding it to the list of subspecies. As for "pomonella", this name was not published in compliance with the ICZN, and accordingly there is not and - technically speaking - never has been a taxon by this name. The name was SUGGESTED by Sheppard & Meixner, but they never designated a type specimen, or gave a formal description, so their "name" has no standing in taxonomy or nomenclature; it is what is referred to as a "nomen nudum", and is permanently unavailable. It cannot be treated as a valid taxon name, even if the biological entity it was intended to refer to is a legitimately unique lineage. In other words, you really should not have an article in Wikipedia for "Apis mellifera pomonella", because there is literally no such taxon. You will note, for example, that the global catalogue of all bee names ([3]) does not include it at all - because it was not a valid publication of a new taxon name. That being said, this sort of thing has happened before, with a bumblebee name that was similarly "suggested" in 2021, also without a type specimen or description, and the name is also not available. It does, however, have a Wikipedia article - Bombus incognitus - that explains that it is not an actual taxon name. The difference between these two otherwise similar cases is that I was informed at some point a few years ago that "pomonella" was the same taxon as caucasia, and so instead of having its own article, it would appear under caucasia. The bumblebee has not been suggested as a synonym. The problem is that after several hours digging through my archives, to find who and when it was communicated to me that "pomonella" and caucasia were the same taxon, I cannot track this down. So, while I am positive that there has to be a source (I would not just make this up, I am a bit too meticulous about such things), I cannot now find that source. What would be an interim measure, if you feel it is necessary, is a semi-restoration of the "pomonella" article, as long as it is modeled after the Bombus incognitus article, and specifically states that it is not a valid taxon name and as of 2023 has not been formally named nor confirmed as a valid taxon since its original proposal. That is consistent with all of the facts, and not contradicted by any sources I am aware of. I will further note that the ICZN rules apply automatically to names in the published literature; there are only certain nomenclatural acts that require someone to formally publish a statement in order for an act or decision or rule to take effect. The Code does not, for example, require that someone has to publish that a name is a nomen nudum, in order for it to be considered as such - it is automatically unavailable. As such, there does not need to be a cited source, just as there is never a cited source for a change in the spelling of a name in order to comply with the Code's mandatory rules on gender agreement - one of the other automatic functions of the Code - or the lack of a requirement to cite the person responsible for a change in genus placement (which IS required by the Botanical Code). This feature of the Zoological Code runs afoul of Wikipedia's general sourcing guidelines, but the bottom line is that there are actually a lot of things that the Code treats as mandatory but that never appear with published citations. I hope this won't be a source for contention here. Dyanega (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi friend,

no this will absolutely NOT be a source of contention, in fact it's going to be the opposite, I don't agree with several of the subspecies designations, but I don't allow my personal opinions to influence my editing, you've given me a near perfect option, I can now go ahead and do what you suggest, with the Bombus incognitus, thank you so much for taking the time and effort in explaining that in great detail, I really do appreciate it.

It's late now, but I will start going through the different actual and proposed subspecies over the next few days. I will likely be getting back to you and asking you to review or just double check that I have got things right (I'll not expect a quick response I know your busy, and don't worry I'll try and get it right first time round). Bibby (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I sent a message with some of the details of the case of pomonella to the other ICZN Commissioners over the weekend, and the responses I saw this morning were enlightening. The consensus, after some discussion was this: the publication only marginally complied with the requirements of the Code, and if the name has been treated by subsequent authorities as if it were a valid name, then it should remain as such. Had others challenged the publication directly and promptly, that might weigh things differently. As such, I owe you an apology - but, ultimately, this shows you how and why the Commission functions as it does; my own personal interpretation of the rules does not outweigh the consensus of the full Commission. I will accordingly set about restoring the pomonella article to reflect its status as an available name. The "Bombus incognitus" example is NOT the same, and there is consensus that the name was not made available. As for A. m. meda, I don't know why it is missing from the ITIS list (the DiscoverLife page is treated as "official" by ITIS, not the ICZN), and I will try to figure this out by contacting the list owner. For now, I can find no evidence that meda has been synonymized after 1999, so please for now leave things as they are. Dyanega (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

That's so cool, thanks for looking into this!

Looking forward to hearing back on the status of A. m. meda. Bibby (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Is123Biblio. Thank you for your work on Apis mellifera siciliana. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article! Have a good day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@SunDawn: Hi there, thanks for the encouragement, unfortunately there isn't much info. on the Apis mellifera siciliana page yet, but that will start to change over time! Bibby (talk) 12:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Saint Gobnait (Clarke)

Apologies; didn't realise the (unused) source details the panel. Will incorporate. Ceoil (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Thor909 's complaint ("Secret email campaign")

As I see a "secret email campaign" (not my words but the assessors) has been ongoing BUT that the outcome (and conversation) has been deleted I am re-posting it here in case Thor909 wishes to discuss the matter (please FIRST read the section "Things that make me wonder what you are smoking?" on my User page, thank yoou!) Bibby (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Email

You haven't edited Beekeeping in Ireland, or anything else on Wikipedia in well over a year. I've also looked at the history of Beekeeping in Ireland and can't find anything that supports your accusations about being constantly reverted, or any other accusations about @Is123Biblio:'s behaviour about following you on other articles and deleting them (or the information you put in such articles).

In general, if you have an issue with people on Wikipedia, use the talk page to discuss it. Either of articles, or of users. Secret email campaigns will not get you anywhere. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Headbomb, you have obviously taken me up the wrong way, I have not edited anything in a year because this guy follows me around deleting my entries, that's why I am looking for help, I'm not secretly trying an email campaign, I have used his talk page and just ended up in a huge row where he insults me.

This is my entry for Rush he came straight into it an hour later and edited, I live in this town,

• curprev 12:40, 22 February 2022‎ Is123Biblio talk contribs‎ 26,395 bytes −101‎ →‎Kenure House: altered sentence to be more in keeping with source. undothank

• curprev 11:52, 22 February 2022‎ Thor909 talk contribs‎ m 26,496 bytes +1,301‎ Added in piece about portico saving and the christies cabinet undo Tag: Visual edit

I apologise if I have taken up your time but i just cant get anywhere with editing pages without it being removed and need advice or help. I do ppreciate your reply, ebst regards Thor909 Thor909 (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

They reworded paragraphs to match their source and removed inappropriate editorializing of the "man, just thing about what could have been!" kind. That's perfectly normal editing on Wikipedia. They even encouraged you to provide "A more factual re-wording would be better and welcomed". Again, if you have an issue with anything in specific, that's what Talk:Rush, Dublin is for. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Headbomb, yes, I understand that, I live in Rush,Wy did Biblio suddenly have an interest in a town nowhere near him one hour after I put in some information. Would you not think that strange. Hence I have not put anything in for over a year 62.17.129.161 (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)