User talk:Ethmostigmus

Welcome

Hi Ethmostigmus! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Gderrin (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the welcome, and for the helpful links! I figure after using Wikipedia for almost my entire life it's about time I give something back :) Ethmostigmus (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Pterostylis angulata is a lovely page. Well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Pterostylis angulata

Hello Ethmostigmus,

Thanks for your fantastic work on the Pterostylis angulata article. I hope you don't mind the changes I've made. Please keep up your excellent orchid work. Gderrin (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Pterostylis antennifera is a terrific article. Great job! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

A centipede for you!

	Scolopendra sumichrasti, to be specific.
	Thank-you for your contributions! It's nice to find another editor interested in centipedes. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 15:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome to the drive! One editor cannot solve the whole backlog, but together we can do so much more. There are a lot of uncited articles that are about insects, such as these that you can test out your citation skills:

• Hermetia illucens
• Phidippus regius
• Eumenes (wasp)
• Spiders of Australia
• Armadillidiidae

– Good luck! You'll need it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I'll definitely be giving some love to the Eumenes, Phidippus regius, and Armadillidiidae articles :) Ethmostigmus (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, you can use [search term] incategory:"All articles lacking sources" in the search bar to find more articles to cite. Searching Arthropoda incategory:"All articles lacking sources" do give a fair amount of articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cape Barren goose, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anser. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 17:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

One source tag

Hello, a quick reminder that {{one source}} (this article relies largely or entirely on a single source) is a cleanup tag for articles that cite just one source, and that's a problem. Quoting from the template documentation:

A single source is usually less than ideal, because a single source may be inaccurate or biased. Without other sources for corroboration, accuracy or neutrality may be suspect. [...] Citing only one source is not a violation of any policy. Consider not adding this tag to stubs, articles that are being actively expanded, or articles that have no apparent problems with verifiability and neutrality.

If the cited source is reliable, fully verifies the content in the article, and does not raise any potential issues of neutral point of view, it's not a problem. This is often the case with stubs or short articles on uncontroversial topics. Since the purpose of citations is to allow readers to verify the contents of an article, asking creators to add redundant additional citations is not going to improve it, and in some cases might damage it (by obscuring the actual source of information). – DreamRimmer (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake, I was under the impression that pretty much any article relying solely on one source was inherently considered to be somewhat unreliable/undesirable and in need of at least one additional independent source for verification. Are there any particular articles I ought to remove the tag from? Ethmostigmus (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)