hi, i've been working on spider systematics for a while. Currently I'm building the South African spider section, enriching it with Ansie Dippenaar-Schoeman's spider guides and the late Peter Webb's photos. All specimens in the photos were later identified in the lab.

Around 2006, I created the page Spider families as a (temporary?) entry point, and worked on getting the 111 families up to a certain standard. My favorites are jumping spiders, where I created a page for every described recent genus. I also created Category:Lists of spider species to help people get an overview of what's still to do ;)

• I am very active on iNaturalist, where I am portioid.

Info This user participates in WikiProject Tree of Life. This user is a participant in WikiProject Arthropods. This user has an academic degree in Biology. This user participates in WikiProject Spiders. This user has been a member of Wikipedia since August 14, 2005 (UTC). 15,000+ This user has made more than 15,000 contributions to Wikipedia. jbo-2 ti poi pilno cu cremli lo ka jboselbau This user contributes using Linux. en-3 This user can contribute with an advanced level of English. This user is a member of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists Est omnino difficile iudicare inclusionis meritum cuiusdam rei in encyclopædia cum ratio sciendi quid populi referat incerta sit, sed nihilominus aliquid encyclopædiam dedecet It is generally difficult to judge the worthiness of a particular topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia considering that there is no certain way to know what interests people, but some topics nevertheless are not fit for an encyclopedia. This motto reflects the desire of these Wikipedians to be reluctant, but not entirely unwilling, to remove articles from Wikipedia.

Everything below here is probably vastly outdated :)

• User:Sarefo/Templates
• User:Sarefo/Sandbox1

• Template messages

• todo ;)

• Spider predators

• Psychodinae

• Delia species list

• salticid subfamilies [1] (maybe enhance List of Salticidae genera)

• Eugaster spinulosa

• list of fossil spiders (from joel hallan's biology catalog)

• merge Archaeidae and Assassin spider

• tear-drinking moths: Hemiceratoides hieroglyphica, Mecistoptera griseifusa, etc.

• Pardosa species that have pictures in commons (at least)
• Pirata (spider)
• Frontinella
• Sitticus floricola

• list of termite species, + pages [2]

• mine Psyche for texts and pictures.

• done: Araneae 1957-1967
• todo: Araneae up to 1956, 1968-2000, other animals ;)

• upload pictures from Lindsey + Starr.

• add contact info to lindsey pics up to lichen.

• suggestions for range maps

• hard edges -> easier to re-color

pages needed

pages needing extension

created/ significantly expanded pages

• Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 1928-2006 (southeast Asia)

• User:Olei
• User:Aka
• commons:User:Fabelfroh (mosses)
• User:Fir0002 (nice pics)

• Amphibian species of the World database

		The Fauna Barnstar
		There you go. Greater love for spiders hath no man... except Marshal Hedin maybe. Dysmorodrepanis 04:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		Thanks for answering my question on where to find spider information. VegitaU 19:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sarefo. You were suggested as someone to contact regarding the I'm a fellow contributor to WikiProjects Arthropods. I was wondering if it would be possible to modify the statistics script so that the statistics table includes links within cells, allowing one to select articles of a given quality and importance (to make it easier to prioritise articles to work on). Asking around elsewhere pointed me to the Geology version. It seems they have additional categories - so an article wouldn't be "Category:FA-Quality Arthropods articles" and "Category: Low-Importance Arthropods arcticles", but rather (or as well) be "Category:FA-Quality Low-Importance Arthropods arcticles".

I don't want to create too much work, but this seems to me to possibly be a better approach, allowing users to go straight to high importance stubs to work on, for example, rather than getting a list of all the stubs and manually looking for high importance ones of them (based on a view that importance should prioritise activity).

Grateful for your thoughts. Heds (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)