Please note that if you post something for me here, put this page on your watch list -- I'll respond to it here.

If I posted on your talk page, you can reply on your talk page and I'll be watching your page.

This makes it easier for both of us to keep everything in context.


Taxon Formatting Templates Edit

Please stick to 'standard' syntax. Following templates may assist. Also Genera in italics.

Type of list What to type What it makes
Species {{sp|G|enus|species1}} {{sp|G|enus|species2}} {{splast|G|enus|specieslast}}

G. species1 – G. species2 – G. specieslast

Subspecies (Non-plantae) {{ssp|G|enus|s|pecies|sub1}} {{ssp|G|enus|s|pecies|sub2}} {{ssplast|G|enus|s|pecies|sublast}}

G. s. sub1 – G. s. sub2 – G. s. sublast

Subspecies (plantae) {{sspplant|G|enus|s|pecies|sub1}} {{sspplant|G|enus|s|pecies|sub2}} {{sspplantlast|G|enus|s|pecies|sublast}}

G. s. subsp. sub1 – G. s. subsp. sub2 – G. s. subsp. sublast

Subgenus format 1 {{subg|G|enus|subg1}} {{subg|G|enus|subg1}} {{subglast|G|enus|subglast}}

G. (subg1) – G. (subg1) – G. (subglast)

Section format 1 {{sect|G|enus|sect1}} {{sect|G|enus|sect21}} {{sectlast|G|enus|sectlast}}

G. sect. sect1 – G. sect. sect1 – G. sect. sectlast

Lycaon 21:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

while updating... Edit

Hi. Thanks for your help. Could I ask you that while updating, you also remove distribution data? It should not be on wikispecies. Thanks. Lycaon 17:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is not a problem. Kevmin 19:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Taxonavigation" Double Header Edit

Template:Leptostrobales doesn't need "==Taxonavigation==" because the article page Leptostrobales also has it. Peltaspermales had the same issue - it was fixed. --Georgeryp 23:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Georgeryp. I double checked the remainder of those I enetered this afternoon and fixed the others with douulble headers also. --Kevmin 03:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sphecidae Edit

Kevmin you create the Sphecidae with tribus. I have a new species Solierella cerinusipedalis from Hai-Yan Zhang and Qiang Li, 2007. Sphecidae:Larrinae:Miscophini. Why didn't you add the subfamilia and tribus too your page?


PeterR 12:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

____ Schmidt Edit

I think you're looking for Johannes Schmidt. He seems to be the candidate that falls into the biologist area and quite close to the timeframe. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

__References Edit

Hi, do we really need that Treatise on invert paleontol. reference under Mengea??? It isn't really crucial and is just one of thousands of low relevance references that could be listed...


Having worked there as a volunteer for several years, I can assure you that the correct name for AMNZ is Auckland War Memorial Museum! Cheers, [[User: 03:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)]]Reply[reply]

I apologize for the revert, we get a fair amound of IP vandals through and I thought this was as some. Kevmin 06:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tambulyx Edit


You add Tambulyx in the Ambulycini. I don't know the genus Tambulyx. Which species have Tambulyx and which information you have?

I have my informations from Ian J. Kitching.


PeterR 15:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replies Edit

  • Parazoa image: Ok, I'm not too bothered about that one, but it made the page format look odd, and there is an image of a sponge under the phylum Porifera anyway, which is the only phylum within Parazoa. Hence the Parazoa page itself really is just somewhat redundant.
  • Replacing content: MUST WE REALLY BE STUCK FOREVER WITH REDUNDANT AND NOW IRRELEVANT TALK ON THE TALK PAGES??? It is still in the history archives if anybody wants to read it (which I'm sure they won't)

Stho002 03:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Just as people won't think to look in the history, they also won't bother to wade through a whole pile of irrelevant and outdated rubbish to see if there is anything worth reading on the talk pages. It is a perfectly valid edit to remove something that is no longer relevant - just as one would remove a name from a taxon list after it has been synonymised ...

Stho002 03:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requests for comment Edit

One of the people you just requested comment from I would not personally ask for comment on anything! Judging from his edits, that is! Stho002 06:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And that person is User:Biotaman??? and fyi I am asking everyone who has been active in the last couple of days on wikispecies for comment on this community issue--Kevmin 06:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requests for comment part 1 Edit

I get a request from you about use of daggers. I don't understand your request. Have I done something wrong?


PeterR 19:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Authority/date for names above family-group Edit

Authorities/dates for names above family-group are not regulated by any code, and so are meaningless and pointless. Please let us concentrate on adding meaningful and useful information. Stho002 03:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regulation or no every database, encyclopedia, and scientific paper which gives credit, gives credit to ALL names at ALL taxonomic levels. Just because the ICZN currently doens't want to regulate above the Family level does not mean the names there are not worthy of having the original author and date noted. And in case you haven't notice I AM spending most of my time adding information, so the "concentrate on adding meaningful and Useful information" statement is rather insulting, imho. --Kevmin 08:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, we have already discussed this issue in the Village Pump some time ago, and nobody really cared either way. If you target my edits and keep reverting, then I am justified in taking measures to stop you. Move on from the Animalia page, please. One problem with having authors/dates for such names is that it implies that priority applies, but it doesn't. These days, Metazoa is often used instead of Animalia, mainly because Animalia implies the inclusion of "Protozoa", which are now assigned to other regna. Stho002 21:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not "targeting your edits" Animalia happens to be one of the pages I have on my watchlist. Also you will notice that I have been concentrating the vast majority of my editing time on other project so the insinuation that I am "Wikistalking" does not hold water. I found the "discussion" on VP, considering it consists of one comment by you I would agree tehre was not much interest at that time. However considering the timing of the comment and the fact it involved you and Lycaon, it is not surprising that others didn't comment and so I wouldn't classify that as a "we have discussed" situation. Please point me to spots where Metazoa is preferred of Animalia and the standard practice of noting the describing author is not used due to lack of regulation above the family level.--Kevmin 02:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are reverting an edit of mine against all rational argument from me as to why authority/date for class-series zoological nomina is not a good idea. You need to read:
  • Dubois, A. 2009: Incorporation of nomina of higher-ranked taxa into the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: the nomenclatural status of class-series zoological nomina published in a non-latinized form. Zootaxa, 2106: 1-12. Abstract & excerpt

There are no rules at present governing authority/dates for such names, and if they do come they could render incorrect any that are already on Wikispecies, so we would then have to correct them all. This is a perfectly rational (and strong) argument, so I am reverting your edit accordingly. Thanks, Stho002 01:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Furthermore, Lycaon is clearly behind this whole silly dispute - he is focussing attention on it in order to stir up trouble for me. He has been around long enough to still have some friends here. Stho002 01:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I see that Wikispecies has finally begun the shift to an actual system of plant classification, namely APG II (2003), instead of a self-invented one. This is a great relief. Perhaps there is hope now for the English Wikipedia (as you may know, MPF organized to have me banned there, merely for trying this). Keep up the good work. - Brya 11:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Synonyms and Daggers Edit

You seem to be the one using the dagger, Kevmin! Anyway, a name is trivially a synonym of itself, and I use that fact to keep the Name section as simple as possible, while adding more details about the name in the Synonyms section. There is a fairly widely held view here at Wikispecies that editors be given some small amount of freedom to do things their own way (within policy limits), and if you don't like that, then perhaps you would be better off elsewhere. Also, please do not target my edits - for your own sake, as this is against policy and could result in action against you. BY the way, just out of interest, are you Bruce Archibald, or connected with him in some way??? Stho00207:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC) NOTE:Copied from an email sent to my personal computer rather then to my account here at WS --Kevmin 07:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NOTE: This was using Wikispecies "E-mail this user", a perfectly proper facility that WS provides for communication - I think Kevmin is reading too much into it! Stho002 08:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Including the Current valid name in the synonyms section is needlessly confusing to editors and users.
Your opinion. Stho002 08:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)].Reply[reply]
Yes my opinion as one who has been on species since 2006 and never seen the practice anywhere before.--Kevmin 08:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
everything starts somewhere! Stho002 08:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have not seen a paper list the current name as a synonym when a new taxon is being described, this is why I removed the synonyms section.--Kevmin 07:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WS is not a "paper" Stho002 08:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)].Reply[reply]
But if it is not used in papers and publications why include it here?--Kevmin 08:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might be missing the point: WS is not a paper. WS is basically a database. Hence, you must judge what I'm doing relative to the facilities/strengths/weaknesses of WS's structure, not by comparing it to a "paper". Stho002 08:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am aware of the latitude and policies of ws. I would also note that the extinct taxa represented on WS would be almost nonexistent , excluding the well known groups, if not for my contributions so I think I belong here fine. --Kevmin 07:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I might be right up there on the extinct taxa contributions, actually! But it isn't a competition! Stho002 08:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I can state taht moset of my 6466 edits have been in or related to extinct taxa. Im impressed if you have that many edits in extinct taxa.--Kevmin 08:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is hard for me to count my edits on extinct taxa, as I also do extant taxa... Stho002 08:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will state again I am not "targeting" anyone's edits. I clarified two of your edits out of how many you have made in the last few weeks? That is anything but "targeting" and would like clarification as to what type if "action would be taken against me?--Kevmin 07:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You will be asked, politely, to refrain from doing it!! :) Stho002 08:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
THe porble m with this answer is that the statement was IN and e-mail politly asking me to "refrain from doing this" , which clearly implies more severe action will be taken next. This is what I want to know about. --Kevmin 08:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem with your answer is that you are clearly "pushing" for something. I think you need to lighten up a bit. Go buy a teddy bear and punch the stuffing out of it, or something! Just kidding! :) Stho002 08:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding DR. Bruce Archibald, as you should know having received my email informing you that i would answer here, I am not Dr. Archibald. I do know him as he is working extensively with the fossil insect collections at Stonerose. -- Kevmin 07:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK - I was just curious! Stho002 08:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eukaryota Edit

Honestly, what were you thinking with that revert[1]? Why did you remove references? OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have just unblocked you, but that does not mean you are right. You need to provide a good and satisfying answer to why you did such a stunt. However, you're free to contribute on anything outside of the dispute page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I stated in my email to you personally I was in the process of posing my reasons and concerns regarding the changes made to Eukaryota when I was blocked. I will post my comment there for all to see and comment on--Kevmin 05:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Email received. I'm sure both sides have their valid points, so that is why I allowed you to post your views. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

APG II reference: broken link Edit

Hi Kevmin - saw you'd added a link to the APG II paper on several pages; unfortunately, the link you added is a now broken one, giving an error page. There was also a typo in the title. I've repaired it on a few pages, but not sure how many more pages need doing. If you know where you've put it, copying and pasting in the following will repair it:

* {{aut|Angiosperm Phylogeny Group}} (2003). An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG II. ''Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society'' 141: 399–436 [ pdf file]

Hope this helps! MPF 13:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the notice about the link, and thanks for the fixes on the pages needing it. I'll sub in the correct info on the pages I notice needing it.--Kevmin 19:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translated names aren't vernacular Edit

This isn't something I invented, I was merely "improving" that page's use of the "pattern"...
Eonatator Stegosaurus armatus Pachycephalosaurus Micropachycephalosaurus Dracorex Triceratops Torosaurus Torosaurus latus Pentaceratops Diceratops Albertaceratops Ceratosaurus Coelophysis Camarasaurus Saltasaurus Keraterpetontidae Microsauria Paracyclotosaurus Hybodus Helicoprion Heterobranchia Platecarpus Hypsognathus Neognathae Megadyptes Antiarchi Acanthopterygii Monoclonius Pachyrhinosaurus Einiosaurus Pentaceratops sternbergii Triceratops prorsus Triceratops horridus Arrhinoceratops Anchiceratops Hongshanosaurus Psittacosaurus Pampatheriidae Chasmosaurus canadensis Anchiceratops ornatus Chasmosaurus belli

The presence of translated names in the vern. names sections on these pages doesnt change the fact that these organisms are referred to by taxonomic name only. "Bells opening lizard" is not found in any literature anywhere, it is universally referred to as Chasmosaurus belli. Please do not add translations of taxonomic names to the Vernacular names section.--Kevmin 07:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DOI templates Edit

Please use the DOI template when citing DOIs, so that you can just click on them to link to the publication. The template is: {{doi|}} Thanks, Stho002 05:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I wasnt certain how to link in the DOI.--Kevmin 05:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another handy hint, particularly with old literature, is to add Internet Archive links to references, whenever they are available, e.g., see the second reference here: Phymatophaea longula Internet archive is really cool because you can link to a specific page and then read on or back by "turning the pages"! Stho002 05:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aaveqaspis Edit

Good to see this, but just one thing: the Peel & Stein paper is currently only published electronically, so should be listed as 'in press'. IF it doesn't come out in print before the end of the year, then the new names will be Peel & Stein, 2010. Also, it does have a DOI, so please use it (it makes it easier to update the details when it is published in print). Thanks, Stho002 23:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Reference Template Edit

Yeah, that's ugly. I'll look into how we can update this. First, I'll bring the template over and then see if we need any updates to our css. The template actually uses <references/> (a MediaWiki extension, not a template) but applies some formatting. Rocket000 16:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok,   Done. Let me know if there's any problems. You can use <references/> by itself as that now works the same. {{Reflist}} just changes the format a little like making the text smaller. Rocket000 16:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. Don't forget the refresh your browser's cache. Rocket000 16:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

nbsp Edit

I don't really know what nbsp does, but I remember it saying somewhere on the format guidelines pages that it was important to put one after at least the first item in a list of taxa, or some browsers wouldn't be able to read the list. On the other hand, I might be misremembering??? At any rate, there was NO NEED to remove one that I put in (it doesn't do any harm to have it) ... Stho002 03:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Calm down, there is no need to shout. The &nbsp; is a non-breaking space meaning that whatever is at the right side of the &nbsp; code is linked to whatever is on the left side of the code. I ahve not seen anything on nbsp templates being crucial for browsers, I I know is that prevents the dashes between taxa from appearing at hte beginning of a line if there are multiple lines of taxa by attaching it to the last taxon on the higher line. Basically its an aesthetics thing. --Kevmin 03:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am calm. So, it doesn't really make much difference, so no need to add OR REMOVE... [caps just for calm emphasis!] Stho002 03:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Might I recommend the use of bolding or italics instead, as all caps is the net equivalent of shouting and creates problems when missread and/or not clarified. --Kevmin 04:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay! — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stho002 (talkcontribs) 04:22, 22 February 2010.

Autopatrolled rights Edit


Dear Kevmin, 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.

  This user has autopatrolled rights on Wikispecies. (verify)

You may as autpatroller use the autopatroller user box on your user page. Copy and paste the following code on your user page:

{{User Autopatroller}}

Dan Koehl (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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.

Dan Koehl (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ive been on sporadically, and i will do my best to auto-patrol when I hop on. I cant say how confident I would be outside insects and fossil taxa lol.--Kevmin (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Kevmin, 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) 23:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Local policies Edit

Dear Kevmin, some time ago you showed interest in a future establishment of local policies. I believe we can now setup a project for this, and invite the community to such a project, and I just want to ask if you are still interested in this, and would be willing to participate? Dan Koehl (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see Wikispecies_talk:Projects#Project_local_policies. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]