I recommend you to continue a talk at that same place where it was initiated. In case you write here I respond here.

Personal attacks by Stho002 edit

Thanks for experimenting with Wikispecies. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to Wikispecies. Thanks.

You are making pointlessly antagonistic edits, which is not likely to lead to positive outcomes ... Stho002 (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply


This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikispecies.

There's the cliff, you can jump if you really want to ... Stho002 (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, you seem to be reading far more into the above (metaphorical) comment than was intended, so I retract it on that basis ... Stho002 (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I removed one non-taxonomic reference while you deleted two relevant ones: one with the introduction of the name and another one concerning major classification of Crustacea. I consider this (recurring) block as another personal attack. You have no right to do it. Kuzia (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
No, I simply reverted your vandalism, the fact that the reversion may have removed references is irrelevant (vandals can't prevent reversion just by adding valid new information alongside their vandalism). The fact that it was a "non-taxonomic" ref is also irrelevant: it was a general reference on Asellota which had every reason to be listed on that page ... Stho002 (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
You know it perfectly that I'm not a vandal. Moreover, I work in the very office where that paper by Dr Michael Raupach was written. Don't teach me what is relevant. Kuzia (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
It doesn't matter if you are Dr Michael Raupach, you still had no valid reason to remove that reference! Stho002 (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Don't lie, that was you, who deleted the taxonomic references first. Kuzia (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
The Latreille ref. is pointless to list, and the general Crustacea ref. only needs to be listed once on the Crustacea page, not on all of its thousands of children pages... Stho002 (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Who said that it is pointless? He is the author of the taxon. "the general Crustacea ref." contains some important novel notes on the classification of each group, including higher classification of Asellota. It was included not because Asellota belong to Crustacea, don't consider me an idiot. Kuzia (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Block edit

I have to ask again the admins of this project to officially censure User:Stho002 and unblock me, because I'm blocked with an absurd formulation: see above. Kuzia (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

As an admin, I will defend this Wiki from all forms of vandalism, as I see fit, unless there is consensus against any of my decisions or actions ... Stho002 (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
You defend nothing else than your personal power here. I have no idea why everyone is afraid of you. Or is there a holy message of the truth you transmit only personally? Do I deserve a letter as well, I just feel myself uninformed. Kuzia (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
You misunderstand. Nobody is afraid of me, and I have no interest in "personal power". The solution is simple: if you would just be sensible enough to work with us, adding useful information to the Asellota pages in a way that makes it integrate well into the rest of the project, then all would be well. The power is entirely in your hands, not mine (I may be the agent, but you are effectively blocking yourself by your actions) ... Stho002 (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC) BTW, not that it is any of your business, but the reference you quote that I made to an email concerned an unrelated issue at Wikipedia, and had nothing to do with you ... Stho002 (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hmm. I think I've skipped the moment when "us" began to exclude me. Don't exaggerate "the rest of the project". There was no discussion on the formatting you try to spread manually (and why manually?) and you don't want to discuss it. Or who ever said, for example, (other than you) that names of taxa higher than families deserve no authors: e.g. [1], [2] ? Kuzia (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Unimportant revisions edit

I can't see why you're so zealous on minor particulars which really don't matter much. You're being just provocative, and aren't helping WS with this stubbornness. Mariusm (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean? Kuzia (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
The dispute over the zfg template. Mariusm (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

New section edit

Hi all,

the only properties required for this project to function in biodiversity-database-like manner are: stability, involvement of specialist, properly discussed conventions and accurate use of bots. I think the 1. and 3. points are no more valid and the 2. point is being systematically eliminated. It's no more a near-scientific project with an atmosphere of mutual respect. Kuzia (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Conflict edit

Sorry but I have not been able to follow up on this. I have been in Brazil for some time and out of contact. I'm not sure whether it is possible to "referee" a disagreement on a Wiki project as there is no authority to enforce such judgements. My advice to both of you is to retain standard formatting wherever possible and not to use different, favoured, formatting for any specific group. If you find you are unable to reach agreement with another user, it is better to keep uploading valid material, and not bother too much about the precise formatting, rather than to get tied down in a conflict that results in no added material. Regards Accassidy (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

GRIN template edit

@Kuzia: Hello, you were kind enough to create this template in April 2011, however, the source has undergone a complete upgrade with a new web address. Would it be possible for you to offer a fix? I appreciate that after your unfortunate disagreement with Thorpe and his abuse of admin powers you have largely become inactive, but I do note that you have made some edits since I acted and got the agreement to place a permanent block on him. Given that the template and its earlier forms are generating 404 errors and I have tried to fix but I am not too good with the syntax! I have tried an ask on the Pump but to no avail. Another point is that GRIN is a much better secondary source that its older incarnation and even a GRIN critic like me would be happy to use it more often in order to cross reference with WCSP, TPL, Tropicos and so on. Thanks in anticipation. Andyboorman (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've corrected the template. One thing no longer directly available is lists of species and genera: this would require fully-specified rank names ('family' and 'subfamily' instead of 'fam'; 'genus', 'subgenus' and 'section' instead of 'gen'): see the hidden version of the template in the code. I will probably run my bot to make a global replacement of the rank parameter sometime, but not now. Kuzia (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much for the fix. The lists can be acessed on site, I will have a look at the hidden version, but will not make changes! By the way WS is a better place without Mr Thorpe! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Autopatroller edit


Dear Alephreish, 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)

As an autopatroller you may use the autopatroller user box on your user page. That is of course optional, but if you like it you can copy and paste the following code on your user page: {{User Autopatroller}}

Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 04:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC).Reply