You've already been here for a while. You also seem to know what to do, without any help. However, here is a welcome to let you know we appreciate your contributions. Keep doing good work!
Welcome to Wikispecies, Floscuculi!
We like having new people contributing to Wikispecies. Here are a few things that may be interesting:
Please ask further questions in the Village Pump.
If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at the Wikimedia Commons.
We hope you'll enjoy the time you spend on Wikispecies!
You can sign your messages with ~~~~.
Official Finnish names edit
Fine to use the official Finnish name (I had assumed that the linnaeus.nrm.se website would have used the official ones; they do for the other languages they cite), but please just stick to the single official name, not adding the 'alternative' name as well as that makes it confusing as users won't know which one is right without lengthy explanation (which the VN template doesn't allow for). Thanks! - MPF (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear, Floscuculi! Would you accept to be an Administrator on Wikispecies? Wikispecies need more Administrators and presently there is only 27 out of 222 active users.
Please see Administrators for information about Admins rights. If you are positive, I can nominate you on the requests for adminship on your behalf.
- Well, thank you very much for your confidence! At this moment I think I'm not passionate enough about to receive an administratorship. So far, my aim in the near future is to concentrate on primary edits and avoid all disagreements. Especially those current issues in Wikispecies. --Floscuculi (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for your kindly suggestion. After consideration I'd like to say all right, why not. I'm just a little suspicious how administrator status affects my edits and position at large - or could it affect. Heretofore I have been focusing only on my own work in Wikispecies. --Floscuculi (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Autopatrolled rights edit
Dear Floscuculi, You have been granted autopatrolled user rights, which may be granted to experienced Wikispecies users who have demonstrated an understanding of Wikispecies policies and guidelines. In addition to what registered users can do, autopatrollers can have one's own edits automatically marked as patrolled (autopatrol). The autopatrol user right is intended to reduce the workload of new page patrollers and causes pages created by autopatrolled users to be automatically marked as patrolled. For more information, read Wikispecies:Autopatrollers.
You may as autpatroller use the autopatroller user box on your user page. Copy and paste the following code on your user page:
Patrolling rights edit
After you were granted patroller user rights, it seems you did zero patrolling. (since you are autopatroller, the pages you edit gets automatically marked. But if you have patrolled pages , and marked them patrolled, your edit gets a "marked revision (number) of page (page name) patrolled")
If you dont wish to patrol pages, this is no problem at all, but please inform me if you tried and experienced any difficaulties, or if you have any questions.
Since you have not made use of your patroller user rights, I need to know if you still want to keep them, because you plan to use them in the future, or likevise. If you are not interested in patrolling, you dont need to do anything, and I will remove the user rights in a couple of days.
In any case you will keep your autopatrol user right, but there is no need for both.
But please consider carrying out daily patrols of new pages and edits made by users who are not autopatrolled.
If you want to try to patrol pages:
In Special:NewPages you can see the not patrolled new pages with yellow background. Presently there are probably none, since the pages made today and the last days has been made by users who already have 'autopatrolled' user rights. But if you do, or you choose to see the last 500 newly made pages, you may se files with yellow background. You can click on such a file, and scroll down to absolute down-right corner, where you can read "mark as patrolled" or similair, becasue the contributor does not have autoptarolled/patrolled user rights. When you click on the link, the file becomes patrolled.
But theres older files that need patrolling. In unpatrolled pages on recent changes, and you will see a list of unpatrolled pages. You will see a red colored ! in front of the unpatrolled file. If you click on each diff, you can mark the diff patrolled.
Dear Floscuculi, I removed your patrol rights since you havnt used them during the last month. You are still autopatrolled, and should you wish start patrol pages in the future, you will get your patrol rights back. Best regards, Dan Koehl (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Administrator rights edit
Dear Floscuculi, You have been granted administrator user rights, congratulations!
Admin userbox on Wikispecies edit
Administrators may use the administrator user box on their user page. Copy and paste the following code to your user page:
Userbox on EnWp and Meta-Wiki edit
Theres also a Wikispecies userbox which you can use on the English Wikipedia, located at en:Template:User admin Wikispecies.
Application for Checkuser edit
Referring to earlier discussions regarding a local Checkuser policy, I herebye apply to get Checkuser user rights, although we havnt reached a consensus reg Checkuser policy, but I want to give it a try if I can get the required votes. For a request to succeed a minimum of 25 support votes and an 80% positive vote are required (subject to the normal bureaucrat discretion). Requests for checkuser run for two weeks, and I ask kindly that somone starts the poll, like we do for adminship applications.
- Please also note that CheckUser actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Checkusers. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two checkusers, for mutual accountability. I dont want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for checkuser.
My request to the Wikispecies community is here
Another application for Check User edit
As pointed out above by User:Dan Koehl, we need at least two Check Users for this wiki. I am nominating myself and would be happy to receive any feedback that you have to give (positive, negative, or neutral). Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Koavf. Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Third application for checkuser edit
Further to recent messages, I am also offering to serve, so that we have three checkuser operators, to ensure adequate coverage in case one of the others is unavailable. Please comment at Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Pigsonthewing. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Additional Checkuser Application edit
I also have added my name to those willing to be a checkuser. Please see my application here Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Faendalimas. I listed this yeasterday but have been encouraged to do a mass mail. I would also take the opportunity to make sure everyone knows that any editor can vote but that it is imperative that as many do as possible, for all 4 of the current applicants, please have your say. Checkuser voting has strict policy rules regarding number of votes. You will have other messages from the other Users concerned you can also read about it in the discussion on the Village Pump - Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Application_for_Checkuser. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Standing for role of checkUser edit
Like some of our colleagues (who I support), I am offering to serve as a checkuser, not least to ensure adequate coverage in case one of the others is unavailable.
Please comment at Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Pigsonthewing.
[Apologies if you receive a duplicate notification; I wasn't aware of Wikispecies:Mail list/active users, and sent my original notification to the list of administrators instead.] MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
RFC on Checkusers edit
With one week to go I wanted to remind everyone of the importance of voting on the current CheckUser applications. They can all be found together on a single RFC: Wikispecies:Requests_for_Comment#Checkusers.
It is extremely important with votes such as this for everyone to be involved. There are strict rules in the Wikimedia Foundation Policy guidelines on these votes. I would urge people to have a good understanding of what a CheckUser does. This can be read up on here on the page discussing CheckUser's Wikispecies:Checkusers. Links on this page will take you to other policy information on Meta, HowTo for our site etc.
I would also urge people to look at our own policy development and some past discussion on this can be found here: Wikispecies_talk:Local_policies#Local_CU_Policy.
Wikispecies has in the past had issues that has required the intervention that is supported by the ability to do a CheckUser. Many of us are aware of this. The capacity to do this ourselves greatly speeds up this process. Although SockPuppetry can sometimes be identified without using a CheckUser in order to do the necessary steps to stop it or even prevent it requires evidence. We all know that sockpupets can do significant damage.
This is an important step for Wikispecies. It is a clear demonstration we can run ourselves as a Wiki Project part of Wiki Media Foundation. When I and several others first discussed this we knew it would be difficult at the time to meet all the criteria. We have only now decided to try and get this feature included in Wikispecies. By doing this it can lead to other areas where Wikispecies can further develop its own policies. In some areas we have unique needs, different to the other Wiki's. It is timely we were able to develop all these policies.
Request for vote reg use of BASEPAGENAME edit
The previous discussions regarding if we should subst:ing BASEPAGENAME and change all [[
BASEPAGENAME]] into [[
susbt:BASEPAGENAME]] did not really reach a consensus.
Please vote here on the Village pump!
If you are not sure on your opinion, you can read and join the discussion about the claimed advantages and disadvantages of using BASEPAGENAME
Wikispecies Oversighter edit
Wikispecies has no local Oversighter. Since I had the communitys confidence regarding the previous application for Checkusers rights, as per local Oversight policy on META, I hereby apply to get Oversighters user rights, as a request to the Wikispecies community.
Application is located at Requests for Comment.
Please also note that Oversighter actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Oversighters. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two oversighters, for mutual accountability. I don't want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for oversighters rights.
Oversight nomination edit
Please refer to Wikispecies:Oversighters/Requests/Koavf for a second Oversight nomination. Note that we must have at least two Oversigthers in order for anyone to have these user rights. All feedback is welcome. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Community Insights Survey edit
RMaung (WMF) 14:31, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Reminder: Community Insights Survey edit
RMaung (WMF) 19:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Reminder: Community Insights Survey edit
RMaung (WMF) 17:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Your edits edit
Trying to be helpful here, but most of your recent edits are minor format tinkering. No problems. I was wondering whether you would be better off approaching somebody with a view to semi-automating these using a bot. This would enable you to have time looking though the edited pages and see if you could improve the pages by updating species lists, adding protologues and the like. Just a thought. Andyboorman (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe so. I'm really not sure how needful recent edits made by me look like, although usually don't edit pages only to add space etc to the page code. But tried to fix (minimal) errors visible in actual pages, like broken links or templates or no-good italics. If there's any semi automatic tools or action, I'll be happy to leave this kind of admin work to the others. --Floscuculi (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
please block edit
How we will see unregistered users edit
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Thank you. /Johan (WMF)
18:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
- Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.