Welcome to my talk page. Please use the + tab to add new comments. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk



Welcome to Wikispecies!

Hello, and welcome to Wikispecies! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

If you have named a taxon, then it is likely that there is (or will be) a Wikispecies page about you, and other pages about your published papers. Please see our advice and guidance for taxon authors.

If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at Wikimedia Commons. This is also true for video or audio files containing bird songs, whale vocalization, etc.

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. Please also read the Wikispecies policy What Wikispecies is not. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome!

Welcome to my wiki-home away from wiki-home. Always nice to see a familiar face. ;) EVula // talk // // 14:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah. Wikispecies has al;ways intrigued me, and its good to see someone I know. Cheers, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Re: Monobi's RFA


On top of Open2universe's talk page, it says he's away till January 7. That's why he couldn't close it earlier. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

There are other bureaucrats, plus, today is Jan 8. ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Shameless canvassing...


Hey, if you could pop over to Wikispecies:Village Pump#Email sent with new talk page edits, I'd appreciate it. I'd like to get this feature activated for Wikispecies, but I need a wider sampling before presenting it to the devs. (of course, if you don't think it's a wise idea, please say so; I want the feature, but not if everyone else hates it) Thanks! EVula // talk // // 23:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply



Thanks for the message. User has been blocked. Lycaon 00:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

...and thank you for filling the request so quickly. ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply



Congratulations, you are now an admin. Ucucha (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

A belated thank you, and thanks to my supporters. Cheers, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Congrats, dude. :) EVula // talk // // 15:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
A very belated congrats... Good luck! :-) Maxim(talk) 20:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks both. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply



Yep, those categories should go. He has been making rather a mess of the Strombidae. I've been removing/adjusting his entries lately but there is still a lot to do. He started his own layout project ;-). I'm currently removing empty year cats. The non-empty ones are handy to know where he has been wreaking havoc and I haven't reached with the repair brush (or hammer as it may be). Lycaon 09:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Right, I'll flame all the empty ones then. Thanks. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for helping out on this one. There are actually more problems than just the categories (see this) to be dealt with. Lycaon 08:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Helix aspersa -> Cornu aspersum


To follow the genera used here, your photo of Helix aspersa on Helix should be moved to the Cornu page, with the caption Cornu aspersum. — Punctum 15:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply



Can you please unblock this user? He wasn't vandalising at all, he seems to be misinformed by where to post judging by the article content I saw previously. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 01:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

And can you check out Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Admin_assistance, plz, as well? Maxim(talk) 01:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
He seemed to have posted a nonsense article. Due to the regularity of huge posts like that, blocks like this are quite reasoned. If he was merely requesting assistance, why did he create a page name such as that, and why were there so many exclamation marks all over the page? ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have filled the latter request. ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
On further review of the deleted content, it seems justified that he should be given a simple caution and unblocked, as it doesn't seem as if he was indeed outright vandalising. ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I don't know about the page title, but the question mark is probably because you use a crappy browser, it was written in Russian (which is my mother tongue). Maxim(talk) 02:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
No, I rendered the Russian. There was still exclamation marks at the end of sentences. ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply



How do you add the WS:RFA shortcut to Wikispecies:Administrators's shortcut template? I tried and it doesn't work. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done. ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Author citation in botany


I've seen some of your contributions of mosses to Wikispecies. The author citation you wrote is in wrong format:

  1. Author citation in botany should be without year.
  2. In botany author name should be abbreviated.

For example instead of Macromitrium hemitrichodes (Schwaegrichen, 1827) it must be: Macromitrium hemitrichodes Schwägr.

For author abbreviations look here

I've noticed you got your information from ZipcodeZoo, but their format (in this familia at least) is wrong, and shouldn't be used...

Mariusm 11:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Then why is it no one else has ever pulled me up about it; certainly other prominent specians have seen my work, Lycaon is one. Are you sure that both are not possibly correct formats? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Look for example here how ITIS handles a moss, also look here for correct botanic handling. Finely look here for a wikipedia article on this issue!
Mariusm 08:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ok, fair enough. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

PeterR comment


Anonymus Dissident,

I have delete Graellsia, because there have to be write Taxonavigation etc.. I'm not interested in the meaning of the name , but Author etc. I have update the Saturniidae with Subfamilies, Tribes etc. You get your information from ZipcodeZoo, (This side is not reliable). I get my information from books and enthomologists.


PeterR 08:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't see how a critical analysis of my work here has anything to do with the edit in question. Blanking of a page is not an excuse for the incorrect formatting of a page. You have been warned. Cheers, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, would you please link to authors in the name section? I have made the change at Andropogon africanus. Thanks. --Open2universe | Talk 03:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, of course! I'm sorry, I'll go through my contribs and make links. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Reply



Pages I blanked contained informations not relevant anymore (according to the latest and accepted sources indicated in References).

I also edited a number of pages that actually contain information of those blanked pages under relevant systematic nomenclature, etc. I hope this is an explanation to you.

Feri 10:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually, no it doesn't make any sense. How can information be so spontaneously rendered obsolete? And, if it has, you should update it anyway, not blank the whole page. Please expound. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Pages I blanked were using taxonomical nomenclature invalid for at least 5, sometimes 10 years. I believe wikispecies is dedicated to represent the latest and accepted classification and nomenclature. Since I work as a research biologist, particularly on woodlice, I have a good insight in the changes in the systematics of that taxa. Therefore, say if there is something I did wrong with formatting, but systematics just change with new molcular techniques so it's not carved in stone. For more info please read the references indicated at the Oniscidea pages. It is not my fault that the fav sources of wiki users (eg. ITIS) aren't really up to date with - at least - oniscids. Moreover, after contacting ITIS I've got a promise that the'll update Oniscidea.

Feri 12:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

If they are invalid, do the appropriate thing: update them, or request that they be deleted. Blanking is not an option here. ---- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
Also, synonyms should ideally be redirects to the valid names, not blank pages. Ucucha (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Page content removal by PeterR


Hello there,
I've seen your reproach to PeterR on his emptying the contents of this page. I happen to know he did a great job in classifying this familia (the Tortricidae), assigning the genera of these "Unassigned Tortricidae" to the proper subfamiliae, so his action on this case is highly justified. I Permit myself to mark this page for delete.

Mariusm 10:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't care what his work is. This is about the tenth page I have seen him blank without reason. He cannot be allowed to do this. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply



If you think I cann't do this job then I stop. You can do now the Lepidoptera.


PeterR 10:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think you are one of our best content adders. You just need to remember to adhere to policy. Removing content without explaining why is a violation of this. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Plant species data


Hi there!
I've noticed you're creating many plant pages. While it is very nice, why don't you use a more proper source like this one. Just type in the genus name and select "search", and you shall get a very nice list including proper references. You'll have a line like:

Loranthaceae Arthraxon amplexifolium Tiegh. -- Bull. Soc. Bot. France 42: 353. 1895 (IK)

from this you can make this nice and scientific reference:

== Name ==
Arthraxon amplexifolium [[Tiegh.]]

== References ==
* {{aut|Phillippe Édouard Léon van Tieghem}}, 1895: ''Bull. Soc. Bot. France'' '''42''': 353.
* {{aut|The International Plant Names Index}} [http://www.ipni.org/ipni/idPlantNameSearch.do?id=547951-1&back_page=%2Fipni%2FeditAdvPlantNameSearch.do%3Ffind_infragenus%3D%26find_isAPNIRecord%3Dtrue%26find_geoUnit%3D%26find_includePublicationAuthors%3Dtrue%26find_addedSince%3D%26find_family%3D%26find_genus%3DArthraxon%26find_sortByFamily%3Dtrue%26find_isGCIRecord%3Dtrue%26find_infrafamily%3D%26find_rankToReturn%3Dall%26find_publicationTitle%3D%26find_authorAbbrev%3D%26find_infraspecies%3D%26find_includeBasionymAuthors%3Dtrue%26find_modifiedSince%3D%26find_isIKRecord%3Dtrue%26find_species%3D%26output_format%3Dnormal Arthraxon amplexifolium].

It's a little bit more work, but the result looks much more professional!

Mariusm 17:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks very much for pointing me towards this. I will make excellent use of it. Cheers, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
To make a satisfactory ref. you'll have to proceed like this:
  1. On the page [1] click Hook.f. you'll get: "Hooker, Joseph Dalton".
  2. On the same page click Fl. Brit. India [J. D. Hooker]. you'll get: "Flora of British India, The. London". Rearange that to "The Flora of British India. London".
  3. Now you can compose the following ref:
* {{aut|Hooker, Joseph Dalton}}, 1896 [Apr 1896]: ''The Flora of British India. London'', '''7''': 145.
alternatively, if you want an easier work, you can also use the publication's abbreviation too:
* {{aut|Hooker, Joseph Dalton}}, 1896 [Apr 1896]: ''Fl. Brit. India'', '''7''': 145.
In general the format of a good ref is: Author, year: Publication, Issue: Pages.
Hope you undestood the proccess. Mariusm 15:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
A slight correction: I got confused between the zoological and the botanical citations. In Botany (unlike in zoology) the correct order is: Author. Publication, Issue. Pages. Date - (the date comes the last, and not following the author). Exactly in the sequance it is printed at the IPNI site. Hope I didn't confuse you...Mariusm 12:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Admin access


I think that I may have placed it in the wrong place but I have an open RFA. Chemistrygeek 14:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please rename me


Hi, I have changed my username at my homewiki and want to do it here to. Please rename me to Calandrella. Here is confirmation. Thanks, Leo Johannes 08:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Seems like someone already did it. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Re:Just a question:


This reference section looks great. It would be perfect if you had included also the author's reference:

  • Carl Ernst Otto Kuntze, Revisio Generum Plantarum (1891): 762

Mariusm 09:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply



I hope you can visit that page and decide whether we should promote an individual who most of his contributions are made via IP and only until recently did that individual start editing via a registered account. You can directly read this discussion at Wikispecies:Administrators# OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

It has been done. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply



Just to tell you that I'm not very happy about how this was done. Lycaon 00:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The vote was 4:1, 80%...--Maxim(talk) 00:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
User:EVula also came up with same decision.[2] But now Lycaon is pissed and go on a wikibreak... OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, there was consensus to promote (or, at least, there wasn't consensus that it was an issue). No CU was needed; both the IP and the account were saying the same thing. The only thing that was strange about the entire situation was that the new admin performed most of his edits as an IP; as we were able to attribute the credit where it was due, though, it doesn't actually impact much of anything. (and the sysop bit wasn't placed on the IP itself) EVula // talk // // 23:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Sure everything is fine, nothing to worry about. I'm not pissed, I'm afraid your setting dangerous precedents. Lycaon 23:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
I know I supported, but the link above does scare me a bit, there may be a good chance that the person who actually did all the good job may not be the person given sysop rights or there may be an admin account-sharing between the ppl in that university and there is now actual way of knowing that since they all share the same ip ....--Cometstyles 23:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Look, guys: the IP was just me, and I am just one person - no account sharing or anything like that. Anyway, any account could be shared and there would be no way of knowing. Cometstyles could be several people sharing an account! Who cares so long as the account continues to do good work? Stho002 23:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
It may not matter if you are a mere editor, but it does matter if you are an admin, since many-a-times admins on english wikipedia has lost their rights for sharing their account with other admins or non-admins and this can be very harmful to the project, adminship has more to do with trust than the job done and eevn if a person has done a great job, but a simple error in judgment may become very detrimental in their future quest and the user would lose his sysops..--Cometstyles 06:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough - but I was just making the point that we really can't be totally sure of anyone being "one". Personally, I have no intention of putting the project at risk in any way - account sharing or otherwise. After all, I am pouring hundreds of hours of my free time into it... Stho002 07:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
There was consensus here. Lycaon, you're going to have to live with it. Respect the community's decision and our new sysop. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
A consensus of four is a big stretch, but still I don't feel like turning back decisions taken or not respecting them. All I'm saying is that it was a careless and not well thought about precedent. Lycaon 15:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Lycaon, over the last month or thereabouts I have been less active that I'd have desired, due to a number of matters that have been impacting me in real life. I came back to Wikispecies to close this RfA, as I had not voted due to my inactivity. My decision was based entirely from what the community desired. There was general agreement from those who participated that the user should be promoted. In this way, I was acting as an instrument, and my decision to promote was not my decision, but the community's. Please remember this. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
It ought to be noted that Lycaon went well out of his way to make sure that the decision to promote me is seen in the end to have been the wrong one. This is typical corporate tactics. I did nothing to be ashamed of, but as someone I knew once boasted (he was an army officer who used to inspect men's barracks): "no matter what they did, I could always find something wrong"! Someone should put Lycaon under the microscope as he did me, and see if he likes it!! Stho002 05:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Furthermore, I believe I had every right to try to block Lycaon for the stated reason - harrassment. Why should Lycaon get away with such heavy handed behaviour just because he is an admin? I was his fellow admin, and yet he ignored my repeated requests to maintain the status quo until the matter could be discussed properly, and that I would then respect the consensus decision. Instead, he just kept on unprotecting my page, so I had to keep protecting it again, and finally try to block him. Stho002 05:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)Reply



My continued ability to contribute to Wikispecies depends crucially on being able to protect just one page, called 'New Zealand', which is a faunistic page with links to (unprotected) pages on New Zealand taxa. My "friend" Lycaon keeps unprotecting it! I believe that such faunistic pages are well within the spirit and ideology of Wikispecies, and perhaps a new category ought to be created to accommodate them. However, I need to protect my New Zealand page for the following reasons: (1) in line with the Wikispecies philosophy, I am contributing this information for free, and there are potential conflicts of interest with other people/institutions here in N.Z. who are trying to extract as much funding as possible for similar projects; (2) if the page is open edit, it could very easily deteriorate into chaos, as what is needed is a single consistent view on the fauna. The classification isn't totally "objective", so other people may try to impose their own conflicting opinions and the result could be chaotic. Can the beauracrats please have a vote on this? Regrettably, if I cannot protect this one single page, I will have to leave Wikispecies...
Stephen Thorpe
Stho002 21:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
PS: Other editors can still create their own versions of my New Zealand page, expressing their own opinions, and they can give the pages disambiguated names, e.g. New Zealand, and link them to the appropriate taxa pages independently of me. Hence I am not trying to prevent alternative opinions, I am just trying to prevent alternative opinions from making my page into an unusable mess of conflicting opinions.
Stho002 22:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Request for comment


There is presently a [discussion on the use of daggers to denote extinct taxa. This will affect a large portion of the pages in wikispecies as the project grows so if possible please read the contributions so far and comment. Thanks --Kevmin 07:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Vandalism from Cheesecracker


Hi, I'm leaving this message on the talkpage of several of the Wikispecies admins. User:Cheesecracker has spent an hour and a half running riot through Wikispecies. I couldn't find an admin urgently so requested help from the Stewards. A two hour block has been placed while cleanup occurs. Can an indefinite block please be used? Beeswaxcandle 08:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I reblocked the user indefinitely, and undid their vandalism. (I'm one of the stewards who responded to Beeswaxcandle's request.) —Pathoschild 08:25:32, 02 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for being on the scene so quickly. Because of school, I was unable to respond. Your swiftness of action is appreciated, Pathos. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've just looked at the Village Pump and see that Lugnuttz was blocked for making edits of the same nature. Are the two the same person? If so, what remedies are available? Beeswaxcandle 08:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
They may be. The vandal could be IP-hopping. Difficult to tell, though. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

"Templates" at navigation toolbar


Hello. Thanks for your execution. But Translation subpages are not needed (and not used), because MediaWiki:Sidebar was already edited. --Hisagi 17:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Im know, but I thought it would be good form to convert them anyway, in case of future usage. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 01:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

ip vandal


[3] Regards, Finnrind 17:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Andropogon binatus


I see you have make a link to a not reliable side. This is not in according with the Talk in Village Pump. Species Wikimedia should be an information side on his own. PeterR 14:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC) In general other sides are not reliable such as EOL, ITIS, Funet etc. We have to add species etc. with type locality and holotype in our pages see Village Pump "Model" taxonomy. We should create a reliable side of our own with links to bulletins or books. See for example Anura from mariusm, Lepidoptera from me, Insecta from Stho. PeterR 09:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Re: Reference format


Hello, Your references for Andropogon binatus Could be improved in the following way:

1) The ref. "Observationes Botanicae 5: 21. 1789. (Observ. Bot.)" does't mention the author's name (which is Retzius, A. J. [or Retz. ]). The proper ref. should be:

  • Retzius, A.J. Observationes Botanicae, 5: 21. 1789. (Observ. Bot.)

2) The site ref. Andropogon binatus Retz. should include the site information like this:

Mariusm 09:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

The date is rather essential, but only for zoology (animals). Botany entries don't need the date for the name section, but in the reference section, the publication date should be mentioned.
zipecodezoo.com is awful: it collects its data from all sorts of dubious sources, and has many many species which are synonyms or obsolete. I can't give you all-encompasing site-names. Each site has its strengths and its weaknesses. For example: ITIS is very good on bees, but way outdated on frogs. Please specify the name(s) of the familia that you intend to work on, and I'll try to give you some useful sites for these specific groups. As a rule, you must not rely on a single site, but cross-check your data. Mariusm 16:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I wish to complete the Andropogon genus. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
The Andropogon symptomizes my warning about zipecodezoo.com: You have there a L O T of synonyms! Of the 700 species which are listed on the page only about 100 are valid! A small example: Andropogon altus (or alta) is a synonym of Bothriochloa alta. I suggest you use for starter this site which is reasonably reliable. Take note that only the bold names in this site are valid, and the rest are synonyms. You'll have to redirect a lot of names... Sorry, but you really wasted your time on zipecodezoo.com... Mariusm 08:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Your revision of Chrysopogon aciculatus and redirect are OK except that you need to put the synonyms in a separate synonym subsection (with 3 "===" ) under the "name" section. (See an example of a synonym subsection at Pheidole). You'll have to make a major overhaul to Andropogon to make it reasonably acceptable... Mariusm 16:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Wikispecies having more Andropogon names than "GRIN" doesn't mean it is more complete, if most names are wrong, which is the case here. Andropogon has 100 species at most, so when you list 1000 species, you can't call it more complete... Botany is a difficult science because lots of synonyms are lurking there. I suggest as a first step to size-down the page to comply with GRIN, then you can add to this sparingly, when you find an additional species if you're sure it's not a synonym. I'm not an expert botanist, and I'm not aware of a site which is 100% accurate and complete. GRIN is the best site I know of. Mariusm 15:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC). You can list all the 1000 names in the discussion page of Andropogon as a reference. Mariusm 08:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Comment Requested


Wider opinions and comments are requested on the village pump here regarding a proposed change in formatting of the taxonavigation section. Please read the and comment.--Kevmin 00:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Discussion closes 26 April 2009 Stho002 00:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

rename request


Hi AD, could you also rename me here. Thanks, Jayvdb 08:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

All done. Thanks. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply



I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I sincerely hope you are also reprimanding both Lycaon and Kevmin, for being out of line, particularly Lycaon. I'm not sure how relevant this is, but I have Asperger's Syndrome, which can cause people to misunderstand my intentions and manner... Stho002 02:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I condemn the actions of all involved. I'm sorry about your condition, and I do thank you for your work on Wikispecies. You are prolific and hard-working. However, you have used your administrator tools inappropriately in protecting Animalia, in revert warring on the page, and in threatening to block those you were in dispute with. This is the misconduct I was referring to. Please, before you do anything, consider the position you have been elected to and the responsibility you have in that position. Best wishes, —Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

>However, you have used your administrator tools inappropriately in protecting Animalia, in revert warring on the page, and in threatening to block those you were in dispute with

Just to be clear:

  1. I only protected the Animalia page from unregistered users, because it is a pivotal page, it seemed fair enough to me that you at least need to register in order to edit it. In fact, it was so protected (and not by me) until fairly recently, when Lycaon unprotected it for some reason
  2. I threatened to block Lycaon only because he was hounding me by targetting my edits and nitpicking. This seems to me to be a valid reason to give someone a warning. Kevmin chose to interpret something I said to him as a block "threat" (=warning), but it was not so.

Stho002 22:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

May I offer you a trout...


To slap on yourself for blocking yourself indefinitely (+ account creation disabled) for "vandalism-only account"? OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

You may indeed. I could hardly believe it when it happened. >_< —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Main Page


I disagree with the removal of "classification still unclear" on Main Page[4] It's good to point out this fact and also keep the English main page having same contents as all other languages. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Constancy is a poor argument. It just means the other languages should be updated too. The main page is not the place for content-specific information. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)Reply



Hi Anonymous Dissident. I wanted to inform you that Anthony 5432 (talkcontribsblock logall projects) is faking votings here on Wikispecies (& making a ton of senseless ones crosswiki too - see here). I reverted the edit and I only wanted to inform admins. Best regards, --Dferg 17:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note. It appears someone else has dispensed a warning. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hello again. He's back under Anthony\934 (talkcontribsblock logall projects) . He created a RfA that ought to be deleted in my opinion. Cheers, Dferg 19:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Reply



Do. Believe in ufo I. Saw. Them in Google look half human in flying disc ufo 18:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply