Stegana

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:

• Help:Contents provides a good introduction to editing Wikispecies.
• Templates are there to help you to follow our syntax and formatting standards.
• Have a look at Done and to do.

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! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Formats

Are you prepared more or less to use the agreed format for references in the future? See

• Moleón, M.S., Kinsella, J.M., Moreno, P.G., Ferreyra, H.D.V., Pereira, J., Pía, M. & Beldomenico, P.M. 2015. New hosts and localities for helminths of carnivores in Argentina. Zootaxa 4057(1): 106–114. DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4057.1.6 Preview (PDF)

In addition journal name nouns all to be capitaised e.g. American Journal of Botany, where applicable. I notice that you are using your old style format for references as well as non-standard formats for taxon pages themselves. I do appreciate there is still a bit of a dogs dinner for reference styles, but the older ones are being updated regularly. There is an advocacy for you to resume contributing to WS in spite of suspected (Duck Test) persistent sockpuppetry, as long as you are not abusive and petty. However, at least one valuable editor is likely to cease just because you are back. Andyboorman (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Blocked

See User:Stho002 We suspect you are a sockpuppet of this user. If you want to respond, you are allowed to edit your talk page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Settings I just checked them and you should be able to edit this talk page. I will unblock so that you can only edit this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Disputed edits Your edits may be factually correct--I'm not even arguing otherwise. I am simply asking this: are you the same person as Stho002/Bioref/other sockpuppets of Stephen Thorpe? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

By using a real name (viz. Stephen Thorpe), you are violating Wikimedia privacy policy. I will not answer any questions relating to this matter for that reason alone. You have got your "duck test" for that purpose. You don't need me to tell you anything. Stegana (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Why? What is the purpose of this childish name-calling? Even if you aren't the user whom I suspect you are, that kind of language is wildly inappropriate. That is why the above-mentioned user was blocked. Not because his edits were incorrect as such (in fact, he is an authority) but because he refused to collaborate. It seems like you have the same attitude, so you will be blocked as well if you continue. If you are Stho002, then please state so here and we can talk about what to do next. Evasion and name-calling will only result in this account being blocked again. There's no point in doing this over and over again. Also, in case it wasn't explicit before, you are unblocked only to edit your user talk, so please do not edit anything else until this is resolved. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No, "the above-mentioned user" was blocked because a territorial mob of other editors couldn't handle the thought of someone else being able to make bigger and better contributions than they are capable of, so they hounded him and "poked the bear" to the point where a certain amount of biting back, using vulgar language and insults, was inevitable. "The above-mentioned user" is and always was ready and willing to cooperate, but cooperation is a two way street and the mob refused to cooperate, thus starting a war which rages on now for years without any end in sight. You lack the technical capacity to keep out a determined sock, so repeated blocks aren't going to solve anything, only negotiation has any chance of resolving this issue. I called Boorman a "fucking idiot", not because he is lacking in the basics relevant to what he is trying to edit here, but because he thinks he knows better and keeps trying to attack me for doing what is actually right, but insisting it to be wrong, based on his own ignorance! You have a moral responsibility to ensure that the basic principles of Wikimedia are upheld here on WS, and those basic principles include the facts that nobody here owns their edits, and anybody can edit any article provided that their formats don't deviate too much from standard formats and they properly reference their edits with sources and citations. That is all that I am trying to do here. Any friction is a result of the fragile egos and rabid territoriality of others here. Stegana (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI this user is a sock of Stho, now indef blocked on Meta. Confirmed by CU. Ajraddatz (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Stegana: I'm assuming you mean wmf:Privacy_policy which I haven't violated. Referencing the real name of someone who is identified by his real name in no way violates this policy. Ludicrous. You're a grown man and playing these childish mind games and hiding behind (inaccurate!) technicalities. It's frankly sad and embarrassing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Koavf: Stegana is not identified by their real name! By using a real name in connection with Stegana, you effectively "out them" by implication. Stegana, as with all users, has the right to keep their real world identity private. What is sad and embarrassing is the lengths that I must go to to try to keep contributing positively to WS, in the face of overwhelming opposition by a mob of sad and embarrassing individuals who want to turn the project into a territoriality war ... Stegana (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Stegana: Asking if you are a user is not outing a user--especially if said user specifically traded on his personal name and identity. Ridiculous. Stop creating sockpuppets please. If you want to be unblocked, you can go about that by email an admin. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Stegana:, @Alucitation:, @Australotarma:, @BiodiverseCity:, @BioLibrarian:, @Bioref:, @Biota~specieswiki:, @Eviota:, @Flycatcher007:, @Gelechiidae:, @Leiodidae:, @Leptostiba:, @Macarostola miniella:, @Merophyas:, @Noctuoidea:, @NZcat:, @NZcat0:, @NZCat2:, @Pachliopta:, @Stho002:, @Targaremini:, @ZooBank: Stop editing here. If you want to edit, then email an admin from the Stho002 account and discuss it directly. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Disputed Taxonomy and Classification

Your recent synonymy of Lycopsis with Anchusa s.l is not universally accepted - see references on the tribe, subfamily and family taxa pages. Anchusa is universally accepted as polyphyletic on molecular and morphological grounds and the inclusion of species of Lycoposis and Achusella are just some of the reasons for this. I for one was not making the synonymy, as we were hoping that the required work will soon be available, therefore your edits may be both incorrect and premature. See also APG IV and APW. Admittedly this leaves an important genus and indeed family in a bit of a mess, but that is what it is for now. Andyboorman (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: @Koavf: Please look at the relevant history properly before you make accusations! I was just tidying up after MPF, who moved the type species of Lycopsis to Anchusa! Therefore his edits "may be both incorrect and premature", not mine! Stegana (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Why, if Lycopsis arvensis is transferred, should the whole genus follow? It is just another combination and there is no automatic reason why other combinations should be affected unless they are part of this or other transfers. You made the generic synonymy not MPF, which is what I was on about. Andyboorman (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

WHY??? Because MPF transferred the type species of Lycopsis, you fucking idiot! Stegana (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps @Franz Xaver: would like to comment on the botanical nomenclatural issues here? Franz may be a nasty piece of work, but at least he isn't an idiot ... Stegana (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

See User talk:Franz Xaver#Type species. --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Franz Xaver: Yes, I know the complications which can arise, but there are fairly easy solutions. It is not within the remit of WS to decide which taxonomy is or isn't "correct", or even to judge "general acceptance" In the case of Lycopsis orientalis, we can do one of two things: (1) have it as Alkanna orientalis, given that the combination does formally exist and there is literature sources suggesting that the placement is correct, be they right or wrong; or (2) list Lycopsis orientalis as a valid combination on the Anchusa page (it is a little bit messy to do so, but the mess comes up somewhere no matter what one does) ... Stegana (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

As I wrote before, Lycopsis orientalis L., Sp. Pl. 1: 139, 1753, has nothing to do with Alkanna orientalis (L.) Boiss., Diagn. Pl. Orient. 4: 46(–47), 1844, which actually is based on Anchusa orientalis L., Sp. Pl. 1: 133, 1753. So, your first option is no option. It's simply wrong. There is recent literature accepting Lycopsis as a genus separate from Anchusa, e.g. the treatment in Flora Iberica from 2012. And there are phylogenies showing both Lycopsis and Anchusa "s.str." as non-monophyletic. We may draw the conclusion from non-monophyly, as also is done by Weigend in Kadereit et al. (see Talk:Anchusa), that Anchusa should better be treated in its wide sense, including also Anchusella, Hormuzakia, Cynoglottis and others. The same solution is e.g. also practised by the old Flora Europaea treatment from 1972. In this case there exists a replacement name for Lycopsis orientalis in order to avoid an illegitimate homonym: Anchusa ovata Lehm., Pl. Asperif. Nucif. 1: 222. 1818. --Franz Xaver (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Franz Xaver:I was not aware of the homonymy, which you did not make clear previously. However, I note that this makes the synonymy of Lycopsis under Anchusa even more straightforward, since both species are included here on WS under Anchusa, but I'm the only one who rendered that consistent by treating Lycopsis as a synonym of Anchusa, which @Andyboorman: then tried to hit me over the head with insisting that I did wrong! Stegana (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Franz Xaver:I would also like to bring this to your attention, though I have no idea if it is plausible or not ... Stegana (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know, that's the name used in Flora Europaea in 1972. Since then by molecular methods it turned out, that Anchusa arvensis, when including subsp. orientalis, is not monophyletic. Of course TPL, no more comments on this. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Franz Xaver: So where are all the literature citations and justifications on the relevant WS pages? Stegana (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do you ask me. Did I delete some? --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Franz Xaver: No, I was just trying to make the rather important point that unless placements are explicitly justified, citing proper references, so that the reader can follow the logic, WS pages are pretty useless, and nobody is seriously going to take much notice of what is written here ... Stegana (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you going to tell me, which piece of work I will do next? Or do you just need someone for smalltalk? --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Franz Xaver: Or maybe you just missed my point altogether! Have a nice day ... Stegana (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course, that's because my pages typically never have any references and links and so on, e.g. Cespedesia spathulata. No, here it is one past midnight and I am going asleep now. Have a nice day too --Franz Xaver (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Franz Xaver: Don't be so knee-jerk defensive! I wasn't criticising your edits, though, since you have cherry picked an example page (i.e. Cespedesia spathulata), you would be better to explicitly cite references for each individual heterotypic synonym, not just list everything at the bottom of the page. As it is, it is just too complicated and opaque to make much sense of. Anyway, I am far more concerned with the edits of other people, e.g. matters which "don't concern you", but should) Stegana (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Quoting from Kadereit et al., (2016) section on Boraginaceae (M. Weigend) "The delimitation of Anchusa L., characterized by radially symmetrical flowers, from Lycopsis L. with curved, slightly zygomorphic flowers, has been contentious in the past. Morphological differences are small but striking, and the segregate Lycopsis is currently not generally recognized. Hilger & al. (2004) advocated the subdivision of Anchusa into several smaller genera, including the separation of Lycopsis. However, their molecular data failed to retrieve the two species of Lycopsis as monophyletic, and there was no statistical support for Anchusa excluding Lycopsis. Generic limits in Anchusa s.l. clearly require more work, and it seems more sensible at this stage to recognize a single, more widely defined genus Anchusa until much better data are available." Kadereit, et al., 2016. Which changes are needed to render all genera of the German flora monophyletic?. Willdenowia 46(1): 39-91. DOI: 10.3372/wi.46.46105. Andyboorman (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

So apologies from a fucking idiot! I will leave this tribal mess to the original editors. Andyboorman (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Alucita

@Koavf: @Accassidy: @Neferkheperre: @Tommy Kronkvist: Somebody please revert this edit by PeterR, and edit this page to a simple redirect to Pterotopteryx dodecadactyla. Otherwise the result is chaos! ... Stegana (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Stegana and subgenera

@Murma174: What you are doing is counterproductive. "Consistency" isn't violated by the need for disambiguation for nominal subgenera like Stegana (Stegana). The main reason why we want non-nominotypical subgenera to be pages named like genera is consistency with the fact that genera and subgenera are both just genus-group names (uninomials), and it makes changes a heck of a lot easier if subgenera are elevated to full genus or genera are downgraded to subgenera, which often happens. Stegana (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice --Murma174 (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. And what you are doing (as User:Alucitation), is called an edit war :-( --Murma174 (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Murma174: It takes two to have an edit war, and my edits make sense, whereas yours appear to be a sad and pathetic attempt to "show me who is boss". Pathetic ... Stegana (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Now you showed me, who is the boss. Feeling better now? --Murma174 (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm most certainly not trying to be "the boss". You have got me all wrong, which is the problem here. I'm just trying to contribute to the project as any other user would, using my knowledge and skills. Unfortunately, some other users can't seem to handle that, presumably for reasons of deep-seated insecurity or something like that ... Stegana (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Editing without knowing what he is doing!

(CC @Tommy Kronkvist:, @Franz Xaver:) @Neferkheperre: FYI, @Andyboorman: is making a mess of your work (by removing a recent Zootaxa reference and taxa), here and here. There has been no published synonymy. We only have the non-peer reviewed opinion, on FaceBook(!), of a small group of entomologists to the effect that Olmi (who they dislike) has got it wrong! These pages and taxa should be restored until such a time as a synonymy is published ... Stegana (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Please, don't ping me for matters, that do not concern me. I am no sysop and keep out of zoology. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It is a general WS matter, which should concern you! Editing pages to agree with a small group of entomologists on Facebook, who all hate Olmi, is hardly good form for WS, and since WS is a community rather than just a platform for individuals, bad editing by anyone here undermines the work of all here ... Stegana (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Old sock?

• @Koavf: This one has been resurrected BandyOarman me thinks. No is not an alliteration! Andyboorman (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)