User talk:Murma174/archive

Latest comment: 7 years ago by Tommy Kronkvist in topic Administrators' Notice

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!

VN Template edit

I added frr to the VN template Open2universe | Talk 13:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! --Murma174 (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Discussion edit

To contact me, please use my disc at frr! --Murma174 (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Autopatrolled rights edit


Dear Murma174, 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

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) 14:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Patrolling rights edit

Thanks a lof for using your patroller user right and doing some patrolling! Please inform me if you experienced any difficaulties, or if you have any questions.

Since you have made use of your patroller user rights, you will keep them, and I will remove your autopatrol user right, since there is no need for both.

  This user has patrollers rights on Wikispecies. (verify)

Patrollers may use the Patroller user box on their user page. Copy and paste the following code to your user page:

{{User Patroller}}

Please consider carrying out daily patrols of new pages and edits made by users who are not autopatrolled.

Dan Koehl (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Week edit

Thanks. --Ltblood (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Admin? edit


Dear, Murma174! Would you accept to be an Administrator on Wikispecies? Wikispecies need more admins and presently there are only 22, out of 200 or so active users.
Please see Administrators for information about Admin's rights. If you are positive, I can nominate you on the requests for adminship on your behalf. All the best, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC).Reply

@Tommy Kronkvist: Hi, Tommy, I already thought of asking for adminship on Wikispecies. That would help editing protected pages in first place. But there were two aspects holding me back: First I'm not a biologist and overchallenged with some discussions of scientific nature. And then I can't promise to work steadily for the project. (And English is not my mother tongue, but that should be a minor problem.) On the other hand I'm admin and bureaucrat on a small wiki (North Frisian), and have some experience with founding this project and keeping it 'well and swell'. And that's, what I'm mainly interested in re Wikispecies: Keeping the project going and avoiding inconsistencies. - It would be a great help, if you could comment my reservations mentioned above. But it is not a good moment for the application/election now, as I'll be on vacation most of October (researching flora and fauna of the Canarian Islands ;-D) with very limited access to the internet. mvh Jens --Murma174 (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
I would like to renew Tommys request if you would accept adminship on WS. Now October is past, and you seem to be active again? Dan Koehl (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@Dan Koehl: Yes, I'd be honoured. Thanks for your confidence in me. --Murma174 (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Great @Murma174:, please confirm here that you accept nomination. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Image file template edit

Thankyou. That is very handy Regards Notafly (talk) 21:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Notafly: It helps the articles getting a consistent shape. Best --Murma174 (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Author templates edit


Your author templates aren't correct. You have to fill it with the full author names. See as example

@PeterR: Thanks, Peter, for your note. What I'm doing at the moment is adding the {{reftemp}}-template in order to categorize the reference templates. There are hundreds of templates not yet categorized. I didn't check the correctness of the data. --Murma174 (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Its looks like you update them. But maybe someone have to update them after the correct agreements. PeterR (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
@PeterR: I started adding the author links in several reference templates now ... that's a "fulltime job". I have no idea, how we can update all of them. --Murma174 (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
Its a lot of work. Only can be done after original bulletins. If I see some wrong author templates I shall update them.PeterR (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Topics for the pump edit

We must discuss at the pump more thoroughly the following topics (1) the exact format of a species page with a subgenus (2) the option of giving a synonym/invalid name a page of its own and not just to redirect. Mariusm (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

IMO all the information regarding synonyms can easily be put together on one page. -> Wikispecies:Village_Pump#One_species_-_one_article --Murma174 (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Administrator rights edit


Dear Murma174, You have been granted administrator user rights, congratulations!

Admin userbox on Wikispecies edit

  This user is an administrator on Wikispecies. (verify)

Administrators may use the administrator user box on their user page. Copy and paste the following code to your user page:

{{User Admin}}

Userbox on Meta-Wiki edit

If you have a Meta-Wiki user page, you can put the Wikispecies admin user box for Meta on your Meta-Wiki user page. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Patrol stats edit

Thanks to Cgt on danish Wp, we can now see statistics on patrolling: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please note that the patrolling stats URL has now changed from the da:WP user Cgt's personal web page (listed above) to a URL within the Wikimedia project itself, more specifically at Wikimedia Tool Labs. The old "" URL no longer works without a proper SSL certificate. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:50, 17 April 2016 (UTC).Reply
@Tommy Kronkvist: Thanks for the update! --Murma174 (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Good job edit

Thanks a lot, apart from all other things you do, for participating in patrolling files. :) Dan Koehl (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

WoRMS edit

Hi Murma174,

I see that you have made a whole series of pages, based on WoRMS. These include many that are marked in WoRMS as being synonyms, dubious names and names that may not be applied to taxa. In effect you are creating fictitious taxa. Please take care. - Brya (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Brya: Yes, I decided to list dubious taxa, and I marked these as dubious! The reason is, that these names exist in scientific literature and Wikispecies users get information about these names. But these names are not fictitious (if I understand the meaning of that word properly). Could you please give an example of a page, that I better should not have created? --Murma174 (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
The main page of Wikispecies says "The free species directory [...]", not "the directory of dubious taxa [...]". There are taxa and there are names. A full species directory (unachievable) would run to, say, three million species. A full directory of "names [that] exist in scientific literature" would run to, say, thirty million (could be sixty, or three hundred million) names, many of which would be very obscure. In general scientific names are not fictitious (they do exist as names), although your Chrysoderma does not exist even as a name (nor does your Corynophora exist). Basing a Wikispecies page solely on WoRMS is not really a good idea, but this is especially so for protists where WoRMS obviously is stretching itself to provide at least some content, however tentative it may be. Acronema, Periptera, Sichuania, Vaucheriella cannot be used as the correct name for a taxon of algae: your entries are for fictitious taxa (and Phryganella has no current species). It is one thing to include important synonyms based on a solid taxonomic treatment, but something else to dump the contents of a database into Wikispecies, especially if the dregs of a database are selected. - Brya (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Brya: WoRMS usually refers to AlgaeBase as in this case: Chrysoderma: AlgaeBase. So it is not "my Chrysoderma", that "does not even exist as a name". I don't understand, what you really want to say. --Murma174 (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
P.S. Example Acronema, now with more information
Yes, and Algaebase says the name Chrysoderma does not exist. Wikispecies is supposed to be a reference (where people look stuff up), based on reliable sources. The user entering information is supposed to have done his research before entering the information. - Brya (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Author pages edit

Ok! Zorahia (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

James A Scott edit

There are two of us, I'm the younger Scott - the Canadian mycologist who studied under Dave Malloch at Univ of Toronto (although to make matters more confusing I've also worked on hymenopterans -- and dipterans). The elder Scott is a Lepidopterologist who studied under Jerry Powell at UC Berkeley. Medmyco (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Medmyco: Thanks for your message, is there anything you want me to do for you? Are you referring to a special page or taxon? --Murma174 (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
P.S. There are two pages now: James Allan Scott (the elder) and James Alexander Scott (the younger). --Murma174 (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Murma! By the way, the middle name of the lepidopterist is "Allan" (per: Medmyco (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Medmyco: @Accassidy: Thanks for the update and the link! --Murma174 (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Chytridiales edit

I tried to explain myself on the Chytridiales talk page. TelosCricket (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you @TelosCricket:. I will help reassigning these Familiae before deleting them from the Ordo-page. --Murma174 (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Issue on enWiki edit

Murma, I see you are online, hope you can help me out with an issue with my account on During my last edit there, I made an error, and submitted a javascript to my user subpage, which makes me looping around once I enter Enwiki, can you just revert my last edit, or go back in the history and save the version before I inserted that javascript, thanks, Dan Koehl (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Dan Koehl: I will gladly help, but could you please give me a link to the exact page? --Murma174 (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Great, presently I can't enter the enwiki without being redirected to another website,but you should be able to see my last edit at, I believe commons.js by checking en:Special:Contributions/Dan_Koehl, hope this works... Dan Koehl (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Dan Koehl: If you are talking of w:en:User:Dan_Koehl/common.js (your last edit), I can't edit that page, because I'm not admin on enwiki. I'm sorry. --Murma174 (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I can't enter the EnWiki website, can't do anything. Are you sure, that you can't go into the history, and save an earlier version? Dan Koehl (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Dan Koehl: No, sorry, your latest revision was (hope it helps):
Latest revision as of 06:36, 2 June 2016

importScript('User:Frietjes/findargdups.js'); // [[User:Frietjes/findargdups]]
// [[File:Krinkle_RTRC.js]]
// [[File:Krinkle_RTRCdev.js]]


I'm afraid, you have to ask an admin on enwiki ... --Murma174 (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Dan Koehl: No, sorry, above is the complete source text, the latest revision was:


--Murma174 (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks for your help, anyway, I contacted a steward on Meta. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Dan Koehl: This is a bit odd, but it seems like I am not able to make any standard edits to w:en:User:Dan Koehl/common.js, but that I am able to rollback the latest version of it. Say the word, and I'll give it a try. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC).Reply
Thanks @Tommy Kronkvist:, but that issue is solved since long time. I think I simply logged out before making the edit. Dan Koehl (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, sorry about my out of date heads up... I misread June 2 (the date of your last edit, above) for July 2, and didn't realize it was all sorted out. I guess that's one of the downsides with me making edits at 04:13 in the morning (i.e. 02:13 UTC)... Apart from that I still find it a bit peculiar that while I haven't got any rights to edit your enWP file, I still can do a rollback of it. Seems like some sort of a glitch in the wiki software. Then again – I guess Murma174's talk page isn't the proper place for discussing that... :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 07:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC).Reply
You're welcome to discuss anything you want here ;-) --Murma174 (talk) 07:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry edit

Sorry I made that edit the reason. I did that was because I was disappointed that the wiki only shows taxon info and doesn't show info about the species so I had no idea how to contribute. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Diamondback Rattlesnake (talkcontribs) 00:44, 14 July 2016.

@Diamondback Rattlesnake: Hi, thanks for your posting, but taxon info is exactly, what Wikispecies is made for. If you want more detailled information about e.g. Vipera aspis, please visit the Wikipedia article. You'll find the links to the Wikipedia articles in many different languages (including English) on the left of the page. --Murma174 (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hybrids edit

Hi. Regarding Haloferax volcanii × Haloferax mediterranei, normally we do not list hybrids. Is there any particular reason why this one should be excluded from that praxis? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC).Reply

@Tommy Kronkvist: Hi, the only (possible) reason is, that it is the only hybrid I came accross, when listing Archaea. And this source calls it a species.
Is it acceptable this way: Haloferax? Or should I better delete the link? --Murma174 (talk) 07:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hello again: please excuse the overdue answer. The truth is I have a hard time making up my mind, since the systematics of Archaea really isn't my bag... :-) I guess the main issue is that the Wikispecies community as a whole need better consensus regarding how to handle hybrids, and as a result also better (and more easy to find!) user guidelines on how to handle them. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC).Reply

Exosporeae edit

I thought I had deleted the page as soon as I realized that I was on Wikispecies, not Wiktionary. Thanks for WikiSpeciesizing the entry. DCDuring (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Arcellinida edit

Hi Murma, I'm using the following works:

  • Aescht, E. & Foissner, W. 1989. Stamm Rhizopoda (U.-Kl. Testacealobosia, Testaceafilosia). – Catalogus Faunae Austriae. Ein systematisches Verzeichnis aller auf österreichischem Gebiet festgestellten Tierarten, Teil I a, 79 S., (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften) Wien. (PDF)
  • Medioli, F.S., Bonnet, L., Scott, D.B. & Medioli, B.E. 2003. The thecamoebian bibliography. Palaeontologia Electronica 2nd edition, 61: 1–107 (PDF)
  • Nomenclator zoologicus, [1].


Reply edit

Hello! My intention is to write articles on the species and animals in Greek and English.--Ρητά και παροιμίες (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Ρητά και παροιμίες: Okay, but that's not in the scope of Wikispecies. Please contact the Wikispecies:Village_Pump for advice on how to contribute in Greek language. --Murma174 (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
I contacted with the village pump.--Ρητά και παροιμίες (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Ρητά και παροιμίες: Thank you! Other users will help you further. --Murma174 (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Bot articles edit


why are you creating so many bot articles (novum) which basically contain no content? This is more a task for Wikidata.--Kopiersperre (talk) 08:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, @Kopiersperre:. Und ich verstehe nicht, weshalb Wikidata items erstellt, die keine Entsprechungen in irgend einem Wiki-Projekt haben. Es macht doch umgekehrt viel mehr Sinn: Wikspecies erstellt Artikel über biologische Taxa, und Wikidata übernimmt sie dann mit Hilfe der zahlreichen dort vorhandenen Bots. --Murma174 (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Und warum? Welche zusätzlichen Informationen bieten deine Botikel bei Wikispecies? Wer sich professionell damit beschäftigt, nimmt gleich NCBI Taxonomy.--Kopiersperre (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
@Kopiersperre: Nur ein Beispiel: Wikidata listet d:Q19684092, synonym von d:Q26220379, vermutlich mit der Begründung, dass es wissenschaftliche Belege für beide Begriffe gibt. (Mein Löschantrag wurde abgelehnt.) Außerdem verweist d:Q19684085 auf d:Q19684092. Auf Wikispecies kann ich ein redirect legen von Haliangiaceae auf Kofleriaceae und dort alle Genera dieser Familia aufführen. - Ich verstehe, dass Du den minimalen Inhalt vieler Seiten kritisierst, die ich erstellt habe. Zumindest geben sie aber den aktuellen taxonomischen Stand wider. Im Gegensatz zu Wikidata, wo einige meiner Aktualisierungen reverted wurden, obwohl ich die aktualisierte Quelle genannt habe! --Murma174 (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Ich kann dir ja mal verraten, dass die Wikidata-Taxonomiker ganz bewusst keine Synonyme zusammenlegen. Wikidata soll die Taxonomie widerspiegeln, wie sie in bestimmten Werken beschrieben ist.
Ich habe eigentlich nichts gegen deine Arbeit, sondern denke lediglich, dass sie ziemlich umsonst ist. Wenn sich die Taxonomie bei NCBI ändert, willst du das hier alles nachtragen?--Kopiersperre (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Ja. --Murma174 (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Template:Liu, X.Z. et al., 2015 edit


I see that you make reference templates not after our agreements. You can find our agreement on village pump. for an example see

@PeterR and Voganaa: Thanks, Peter, for your attention! Voganaa, please have a look at the changes to Template:Liu, X.Z. et al., 2015 --Murma174 (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

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

  1. This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. 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.

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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.

Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk

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

Philherodius wrong spelling edit

Hi Murma, The page Philherodius pileatus was a wrong spelling and it was deleted. The page Philherodius Bonaparte was also wrong spelling and also a synonym of Pilherodius Reichenbach. It was also deleted and synonym included in main page. Thanks for yur review. --Hector Bottai (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Hector Bottai: Mucha gracia por respuesta. Saludo. --Murma174 (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Patrolling rights edit


Dear Murma174, You have been granted Patroller user rights, which may be granted to experienced Wikispecies users who have demonstrated an understanding of Wikispecies policies and guidelines.

The user right Patroller gives the user a right to have their page edits automatically marked as patrolled, but also to patrol new pages and mark them as patrolled. For more information, read Wikispecies:Patrollers.

  This user has Patroller rights on Wikispecies. (verify)

You may as Patroller use the Patroller user box on your user page. Copy and paste the following code on your user page:
{{User Patroller}}

Please consider carrying out daily patrols of new pages and edits made by users who are not autopatrolled. Here you can see the Patrol statistics for the last 7 days on specieswiki.

Dan Koehl (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! --Murma174 (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

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.

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

Filiola edit

I have move the species from Filiola to Lasiocesa after you ask me to use the function move. But I see that the species from Filiola exist via a redirect, but the species and genus have to delete, because the genus Filiola is preoccupied. Can I delete them? PeterR (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Great, @PeterR:!
1. In my opinion the species redirects should not be deleted. Why? If someone is searching for Filiola dogma, he will be automatically redirected to Lasiocesa dogma, where he finds all the information about that species including synonyms. This is a great feature of Wikispecies.
2. Another question is, whether you want to keep the page Filiola. If you want to keep it, please describe, that it is invalid now. P.S. If you do not want to keep it, Filiola should redirect to Lasiocesa, for the same reason as 1.
3. The link to Filiola appears on Lasiocampinae. I removed Filiola from the Genus list and put it into a new section.
4. P.S. Filiola (Gurkovich & Zolotuhin) can be deleted, as it is not used anymore.
Please let me know, what you think about these changes. --Murma174 (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
It is fine to me, but the genus Filiola (Gurkovich & Zolotuhin) have to stay for the author taxa. PeterR (talk) 09:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
@PeterR: O.K. In doubt it is always better to keep a page to avoid broken links. --Murma174 (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Mycobacterium edit

Hello Murma174. I recently created the page Francesco Redi and while doing so I came across the page Mycobacterium virus Redi created by you. Not being very familiar with bacteriology and the nomenclature involving it, I have four questions.

  1. Why is Mycobacterium virus Charlie and Mycobacterium virus Redi listed as members of the Charlievirus genus rather than the Mycobacterium genus?
  2. Should the taxon really be capitalised as "Mycobacterium virus Redi" [and Charlie]? In a PDF downloaded from ICTV Master Species List 2014 v4 I stumbled upon Mycobacterium phage charlie and Mycobacterium phage redi, which seems to contradict this.
  3. Are Mycobacterium phage charlie and Mycobacterium phage redi synonyms of their Mycobacterium virus equivalents?
  4. Are the "Redi" and/or "redi" parts of the names in some way related to Francesco Redi?

Cheers, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC).Reply

@Tommy Kronkvist:

  1. The page Mycobacterium appears outdated to me. I'll check within the next days. Mycobacterium is a Bacterium; Mycobacterium virus Charlie is a Virus, that infects the bacterium (a bacteriophage).
  2. The source for taxonomy and nomenclature of Mycobacterium virus Charlie and Redi (capitalised) is ICTV 2015 (no changes in the 2016 release). P.S. Unfortunately Wikidata sticks to the 2014 release, although there is a 2016 release meanwhile!
  3. yes, see source above Mycobacterium phage charlie and ... redi are redirecting there
  4. much likely, but I didn't find a source for that. P.S. Eponyms according Wikipedia.

Best, --Murma174 (talk) 09:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Tommy Kronkvist: P.S. This NCBI source might hold the most comprehensive information about the virus with names of the authors and the institute proposing. But nothing about etymology. Maybe there is some information in the J. Virol. 86 (4), 2382-2384 (2012), but I don't have access to the full text. --Murma174 (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Author of Archamoeba daughter taxa edit

Hello Jens. Do you know whether "Schulze" stated as author of for example Pelomyxidae and Mastigamoeba is identical to the German anatomist and zoologist Franz Eilhard Schulze, or is it some other Schulze that is referred to? All the best, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC).Reply

@Tommy Kronkvist and Zorahia: In the case of Mastigamoeba it obviously is Franz Eilhard Schulze (see refernece), in the case of Pelomyxidae it is much likely the same Schulze, but I didn't find a source. --Murma174 (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I have updated the Mastigamoeba page, for clarity.(diff.) As for Pelomyxidae there are quite a lot of "circumstantial evidence" available online that say Franz Eilhard Schulze is the author, but neither I have been able to find any truly verifiable source. I'll keep on digging… Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC).Reply
Update: Pelomyxidae is now done, though there are a lot of other Archamoeba taxa listing an unspecified "Schulze" as the author, and lacking proper references. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC).Reply

Administrators' Notice edit

An issue which involves you is being discussed in this section of the Administrators' Noticeboard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Murma174: In regards to the above discussion, what proof do you have that the block of Mariusm is "an act of revenge"? It is a fairly stern accusation, and such claims must not be made unless they can be verified. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 22:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC).Reply
@Tommy Kronkvist: I didn't accuse Pigsonthewing of anything. Please read the complete comment. --Murma174 (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
The complete comment reads "Hi Mariusm, I'm afraid, you are right, that this was an act of revenge. But if you want your block to be lifted, you should give a reasonable reply to his attack".(diff.) Since you claim that the "attack" here was Pigsonthewing blocking Mariusm "in revenge", how else should I interpret your comment?
Personally I generally have nothing against your or Mariusm's edits – the bulk of both your work here is in my opinion very welcome – but sadly this issue has arisen, and it has to be dealt with. However we certainly do not need a situation where several active users all go to war on each other (especially admins fighting other admins). Therefore I for one will try to go about the issue in an understanding, friendly, yet professional manner. It is my firm belief that all of these things can be fairly easily solved. Most of them seems to be the result of misunderstandings, rather than based on clean facts or deliberate malevolence. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC).Reply
@Tommy Kronkvist: "It's not what you say, but how you say it." Couldn't Pigsonthewing have said: "Hi Mariusm, I blocked your account, because I believe, your AWB edits are against our rules. Please let's discuss this first, before you continue with your bot-like edits." or some other moderate wording? But he preferred to use the club (figuratively). That's, what I'd call an "attack". --Murma174 (talk) 10:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Indeed he could have done that instead of hitting Mariusm with an immediate block, and perhaps that would have been preferable. However the issue in this discussion is not the block itself (or attack – whichever we chose to call it), but that the block was an alleged act of revenge. A block based upon Wikimedia policies is pretty straight forward, and sometimes necessary. All-in-all we admins often block several users every day, mainly as a result of unmistakable vandalism or the adding of promotional material. Contrary to that, a block made as an act of revenge is a misuse of administrative tools, and that's another thing altogether. As I said in my first post above, such an accusation must not be made unless it can be verified. Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC).Reply
@Tommy Kronkvist: Again, I didn't accuse anybody of anything. This would be a misinterpretation of my words. --Murma174 (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

───────────────────────── Okay, I have no reason not to trust you and will assume good faith, and leave it at that. However, please be a bit more careful with your wording in the future. Perhaps we all should be... :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 11:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC).Reply

Return to the user page of "Murma174/archive".