MKOliver

Hi, if you put in synonyms, you need to cite a published reference for the synonymy, thanks Stho002 (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Is the Oliver (1989) ref in the book by Eccles & Trewavas? Does the book have an ISBN number? Stho002 (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you know that you need to create genus template pages also? I have created a couple of them for you. Stho002 (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That's it - good. The only problem is that Hemitaeniochromis‎ doesn't seem to be listed in the genera on the Haplochromini page, so you need to add it... Stho002 (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a good idea to add doi, like I have done for you here: Haplochromini, then you can just click on the doi (number part) to get the abstract page (and PDF if you have subscription) Stho002 (talk) 02:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Connected with this, it is best not to directly link to a PDF if there is an abstract page with a doi or handle. Stho002 (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply

There is no "official guideline" here, but I would prefer if you didn't use capitals in journal titles if they can be avoided, so American Museum novitates would be best, for example. I don't cite issue numbers unless the pagination starts again from page 1. However, both these things are pretty trivial, and not worth fussing over, so I don't really mind ... Stho002 (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin nomination

Please accept nomination for admin here Wikispecies:Administrators, so we can proceed ... Stho002 (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations

The admins' T-shirt

You're now an admin. Please ask if you're unfamiliar with some of the additional tools you have been granted with. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

New tools for new admin

Block is to stop someone from damaging further by preventing their username/IP from editing for a set amount of time (or indefinitely). For accounts which are outright vandalizing, you can click on the block button and choose the expiry time as indefinite. If it's an IP account, we generally start with 24 hours and escalate the duration if that IP comes back after the block expires.

For rollback, you can consider it as "undo button on steroids". Rollback allows you to undo ALL changes made by a SINGLE, most recent user. Before, if a user made 10 damaging edits, you have to click undo 10 times. Now, all it takes is 1 click of rollback and those 10 edits are gone. Downside is that if those part of the 10 edits are useful, or is not the most recent user who edited that article, you still need to use undo.

You will also have delete and protect buttons on the top of each page. Delete is to delete the page (duh!) and protect is to prevent certain categories of editors from editing or moving the page. If you click on the protect button (don't worry, no harm is done until you confirm your actions), you can choose to let the page be edited and moved by anyone (this is default). Alternatively, if large volume of vandalism occurs on certain page, you can choose to make the page to block unregistered (IP accounts) or new users (those whose accounts are less than 4 days and/or made less than 10 edits). If people disrupt by moving (i.e. renaming) the page to something else, you can use the second box to stop them from doing so on that page. Both options allow the restriction for a set period of time or indefinitely.

There are other trivial tools but you won't need it (e.g. allowing you to create more than 6 accounts per day for your colleagues). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem, just don't abuse it. The tools are used to prevent disruption, not to win an argument. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Aren't you forgetting something??? YOU can delete the page Care bears, and warn the vandal by putting {{test}} on their talk page ... Stho002 (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well done ... Stho002 (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Next time, don't forget to sign after warning somone with a {{Test}} OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Use of Creative Commons-licensed Flickr images?

Those images are in fact licensed under Creative Commons. However, the reason why Wikimedia Commons does not host such files is because the license itself prohibits commercial use (hence the "no dollar" sign part for the license).

Attribution are usually done by including a link to the source in the image page.

We can definitely open up a discussion in Village Pump to see if we can host non-commercial use of Creative Commons images locally (as opposed to the current settings, where all files must be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and follow their rules). That's up to us to decide. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox?

Dear MKOliver. Please take a look at my reaction here. Thanks. Kind regards, Trijnstel (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ídem. Aleposta (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Metapocyrtus

When you say 'deletion of junior homonyms', I just want to check that you are not deleting unreplaced junior homonyms? Stho002 (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

At this point, I don't yet know if the junior homonyms were ever replaced or not. (I'm just trying, as a nonspecialist in weevils, to get one of the big, speciose tropical genera preliminarily represented and eventually fleshed out, as also with Lebia.) The homonymous names would only exist as isolated specific epithets in the Overview of Species listing at this time, so would appear to be an error (duplication) to readers since there are no authorities mentioned in species lists. E.g., M. quadricinctus – M. quadricinctus – (moreover, both entries would incorrectly link to the same page). In other words, I can't realistically research all the homonymies, at least not yet. Feel free to help ;-) MKOliver (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

also, in relation to sandbox section above, be careful to distinguish vandals from vandalism reverters ... I've made that mistake a few times initially! Stho002 (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

if memory serves (from 4 months ago), I tried carefully to verify that the guys above had only vandalized, before deleting the pages which did obviously consist only of vanadalism when I deleted them. But, I may have goofed somehow. If so, sorry to all. MKOliver (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

CoF ID numbers

Some info on more complex situations with these at my talk page , if you're interested. Koumz (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Characiformes

I have read (with great interest, as you might guess) many sections of the paper by Oliveira et al. (incl. Vari & Correa e Castro). That order has needed this work for a long time, as far as I understand, so I am very glad to see it. I am doing the best I can to help out with all the work of reorganizing pages that has to be done to match the paper's conclusions. Please excuse any missteps, and thanks of course for getting such a great paper on here so quickly. Koumz (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This paper was probably #2 on my list of papers I hoped to see (with #1a and b being someone fixing either of the 2 large wastebins in the order, Hemigrammus and Hyphessobrycon). Question: do we want to list out the genera of each of the two unnamed clades in Characidae (similar to what others have done for species groups and the like on insect pages) on either Characidae or on the Incertae sedis page, without making individual pages for the clades until (eventually) they are named? I think this would be a useful way of treating them. Koumz (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

One of those clades (Clade A, or Clade 55) they have treated as an expanded Stevardiinae in the body of the paper, and I have adjusted that page accordingly. Koumz (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Clark Hubbs

CoF references have this middle initial. I think I saw it somewhere else, too, but I'll have to dig that up again. Koumz (talk) 01:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

In this particular case CoF does actually use the full first name (Search "Clark Hubbs" on the CoF species search or look up one of Clark's references, for example CoF reference 12145). That said, I find no support for this in the primary literature after a search of some depth and will remove it. Koumz (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The article you cite is one of several I found like that, thus the conclusion to self-revert. Thanks for catching that. I actually delved into the question in some depth when I disambiguated the links to the Hubbs page, but missed that detail. Koumz (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Standards

The problem with "standards" is that they don't allow for experimentation to see what works better. I don't really mind what you choose to do (mostly I was trying to sort out the Athetina homonymy, but it looks now to be more complicated, as Athetiina may not have been validly published as a replacement name), but since I first started the "Cited sources" thing, I now abandon it in favour of "primary references", which then allows us to add a new verification template {{nv}} to a page (nomenclature verified against primary sources). I am not going to worry too much about capitalisation. Cheers, Stho002 (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Name section convention

Hello,

Thanks for your work at WS. We have some problems here with standardization. I'm refering to the name section.

The name section according to the help section [1] should look like this:

Neolamprologus helianthus Büscher, 1997: 701

Holotype: MRAC 97-27-P-1

Paratypes: MRAC 97-27-P-2-3 (2), 97-27-P-4 (1), 97-27-P-5 (1), 97-27-P-6 (1), 97-27-P-7-10 (4)

Type locality: Democratic Republic of Congo: Lake Tanganyika, near "Siedlung Kamakonde", 7°52'S, 30°18'E, about 110 km south of Moba

and not like this:

• Neolamprologus helianthus Büscher, 1997: 701
  • Holotype: MRAC 97-27-P-1
    • Paratypes: MRAC 97-27-P-2-3 (2), 97-27-P-4 (1), 97-27-P-5 (1), 97-27-P-6 (1), 97-27-P-7-10 (4)
  • Type locality: Democratic Republic of Congo: Lake Tanganyika, near "Siedlung Kamakonde", 7°52'S, 30°18'E, about 110 km south of Moba

Should we change the help section, and the scores of pages that comply with it?

Should we make your version a standard?

Please tell me what are your thoughts on this issue. Mariusm (talk) 08:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

---

---

Thanks for your thoughtful and elaborate answer, but let me add a few points for thought here:

(1) As a scientific site, users are distracted when facing with too much variation, and as a result may consider us too much amateurish and non-serious.

(2) The bullets can be taken to an extreme as in the following case:

• Zeanecrophilus thayerae Newton, 1997: 134
  • Authority for current placement: original
    • undisputed by all subsequent authorities
  • Original genus: Zeanecrophilus Newton, 1997
  • Original status: valid species
  • Primary type: holotype
    • Fixation: designated
    • Description: [adult] male
    • Repository: NZAC
  • Type locality: 'New Zealand, North Island, TO, Moerangi (0.6km w), 650m'

(3) To my taste the "plain-vanilla" is the easiest for writers, most comprehensible for users, and more elegant.

(4) Newcomers are confused to see the help-section breached, and may turn away in dismay.

(5) I understand the desire to put in a personal touch, but we must sacrifice this for the cause of a better site.

(6) Everyone's desires can't be satisfied, so it is better to stick to the rules, and not let anarchy dominate. Mariusm (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Scarabaeidae genera

Rather a lot of them! Stho002 (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, 2339 is quite a few ... but Staphylinidae has them beaten handily, with 3847 genera as of 2001. (OK, so they're not all listed here yet...) MKOliver (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Photos

I don't know if you have add the photos by Antheraea polyphemus. I had allready make a head with Photos. If their are more photos people can add them better under photos then add images, because the page with information about the butterfly will be too full.

Regards,

PeterR (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Rhaphipodini

Do not you think that Rhaphipodini is a junior synonym of Remphanini (Lacordaire, 1868)? Merci de votre avis, bon souvenir de France... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Agnosthaetus

Mike ... thanks but would you mind leaving this one to me, as I want to register the new taxa on ZooBank etc., so if you go ahead, we will end up doing more work than we need to on this ... Stho002 (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheers ... you could try to find out the exact publication date of hard copy, and any ISBN number. I only have access to the online version at present ... Stho002 (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ... that is useful info. ... Stho002 (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Stunning bug!

Check this out: Anisoscelis flavolineata ... Stho002 (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

FishBase links

FYI (and perhaps you've noticed already), I am in the process of converting all the remaining FishBase links over to Template:FishBase from the four separate templates. I have done all the genera and am working on the species. I am leaving the italicized species name as the second parameter (even though it's not necessary for it to be there unless it's different from the page name) in the conversion only because it's much easier to automate that way. Koumz (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on converting the Haplochromis pages to the new template. You are quite right that both Template:CoF and Template:FishBase do not need to be given the genus and species name, and, indeed, I use the templates without genus or species names when I create new pages. My comment above (which seems to have been clumsy speech on my part, and muddied the water) was more a reference to the AWB work I am doing in converting the pre-existing links that use the old Template:FishBase species. Since those links already have the names in them (because it was required by the old Template:FishBase species), and removing the name is hard to automate, in those cases I am just leaving the names in during the conversion, since the result is equivalent, even though my first preference would have been to remove them if it were simpler to do, since the template does not need them except in cases where the taxon name differs from the pagename. Hopefully I've now spoken more clearly than before. Koumz (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Look what I found!

http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sparassidae_sp._1_%28adult_female%29.jpg Ironically, the taxonomy of that group of species is a little unclear, but N.Z. ones are being called Isopeda villosa ... Stho002 (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Emergence trap sounds like a good idea. On the subject of the sparassid, I'm not actually that comfortable with big spiders, so it was "interesting" to be alone at night in a city park, with just a small torch and an alarmingly small container, trying to capture that beast! ... Stho002 (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Mike, when you find a name which is used for both plant and animal genera, it is best to disambiguate with Genus (Plantae) and genus (Animalia). If you use a narrower category, like Genus (Curculionidae), this may be unstable due to instability of classification (there is no consensus on family limits within Curculionidae sensu lato) ... Stho002 (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

FishBase and subfamiliae

Since FishBase doesn't have subfamily pages, we can't use the template for those as it now stands, but there is something close I think we can use, but it will require a modification to the template. I'll start on the modification. Koumz (talk) 03:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

User account creation

Thanks Mike. I don't know enough about it myself, but I have emailed OhanaU. Maybe it is just WP accounts automatically transferring over to WS? I don't know, but I'm sure OhanaU. will sort it out ... Stho002 (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC) OhanaU. has replied on my talk page ... Stho002 (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

CoF template URL update

I have updated Template:CoF to fix the URLs, all template links are now working properly again. Thanks for bringing this up although it took me a while to notice due to inactivity. Hopefully this will be useful to all. Thanks for your work. Koumz (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The Maylandia CoF links SEEM to work properly for me, so I am not sure what it is that's broken or why, but I'm interested to find out what it is I'm not seeing so that I can work on it. Koumz (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The difference could be because I only just fixed the URLs in the template this morning, but in any event, all's well that ends well. Koumz (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Small request

As I am no longer an admin (not wanting to hold any sense of responsibility for involvement in the various conflicts), would you please unprotect my user page so that I may edit it (I forgot to do this before having myself desysopped)? Thanks very much in advance, Koumz (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Carabidae of the World

FYI, since you have worked on many of the affected pages, on a random tangent from my work on the CoF links, I discovered that Carabidae of the World has also moved URLs, breaking all the links to it. So I have now created a template for those links and am in the process of AWBing the template onto all the affected pages to fix the links and make them all much easier to update in the future. Template can be found at Template:CotW. Koumz (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Zt templates

As at 3rd week of January, 2015, we agreed to do away with ZT templates for Zootaxa citations. They are unwieldy, hard to remember, and are difficult to intermesh with while editing. In addition, they are not in line with citation standardization we have gradually adopted. I had just now made citation for this article, and saw yours when checking Recent Changes. Neferkheperre (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Application for Checkuser

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

Dan Koehl (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Another application for Check User

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)

Additional Checkuser Application

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

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

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.

Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for vote reg use of BASEPAGENAME

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikispecies Oversighter

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.

Dan Koehl through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Oversight nomination

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)

Psammophilocyclops

Stumbled across this, which has a note on the talk about "provisionally" keeping it as a separate genus dated 2012. Maybe see if the situation has evolved? Circeus (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Urbański & Baraniak, 2015

This paper is slatted for deletion, as creator do you have a comment or preference? Andyboorman (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

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.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

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)