User talk:Stho002/Archive 1

Explain

"La salle de travail" was a space for french people to coordonate our action.

 Edit : Thank you

Delete

Why did you delete french page like "la salle de travail" --Darkflames0 12:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

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! OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleting nonsense pages

If you delete a nonsense page/vandalism, then you should put a warning on the offender's talk page. Lycaon 13:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocking users

If you see someone such as GoblinReh that is clearly not going to help the project at all, give them an indefinite block instead of going up block duration ladder. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

IPs are usually blocked 1 to 3 days, and at max, 1 year. Accounts, on the other hand, should be blocked indef because not doing so is like inviting them to come back for another round before being blocked forever. We have 3 warning templates (in increasing severity): {{Test}}, {{Test1}}, and {{Test2}}. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of admin buttons

Stephen, you should NOT protect pages when they are not vandalised or in danger of being so. This per wikimedia policy. Thanks. Lycaon 20:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look at Protection policy. Your action are not justified. Please stop. Lycaon 21:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

New Zealand

Personal research has no place on Wikispecies (or on Wikimedia for that matter). We do not want to be associated with somebody's personal views. I think it would be better in the interest of all parties that you remove that page from wikispecies ASAP. But do not leave, we value your other contributions. Lycaon 21:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

NOT PERSONAL RESEARCH

It isn't personal research - it is a compilation of published information, with full references cited on the (unprotected) genus/species pages. It is just that it needs to be consistent in order to be of any possible use to anybody. Stho002 21:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop shouting, there is no need for that. If your research is not original then anybody has the right to edit it. If not please delete it. Lycaon 21:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

May I also point you at item four of our editing policy? That is not a suggestion, it is policy. So may I kindly ask you to remove the protection yourself and delete the article. Thank you. Lycaon 21:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop.

This is behaviour unfitting an admin. I can assure you my advice is friendly and sound. Lycaon 21:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the New Zealand

I suggest you relax--there was no need to protect that page, if it's not going to get vandalised. If it is, you can revert and block the IP.--Maxim_(talk) 00:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't quite that simple. I am thinking more about the long-term, rather than just me looking out for vandals. Besides, vandalism isn't the big issue, it is consistency: as I said, taxonomy is never completely objective, people will trust my opinion on New Zealand beetles etc., but if others start to add things according to their opinions, it will get messy. But other people can still express their opinions by creating alternative 'New Zealand' pages if they want to. I am not preventing others from expressing their opinions, just preventing them from fiddling with mine. So, it all comes down to this: do I have the right to protect the integrity of one single page - a page that wouldn't have existed anyway if I hadn't created it? I believe that what I am doing preserves the spirit of what Wikispecies is intended for, but without this there is no way to ensure reliability of information, so no "serious biologist" will be able to take us seriously...

Stho002 00:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You have to remember that this is a wiki--which means anyone can edit (unless there's vandalism et cetera)--so you should discuss, if there is a dispute, at the talk, instead of protecting at your version (see m:The Wrong Version).--Maxim_(talk) 01:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that Lycaon moved the page from New Zealand to User:Stho002/New Zealand. You can always work and edit in the new & protected User:Stho002/New Zealand, and periodically (say once a week or once a month) move the contents in your page back onto New Zealand. This way, the New Zealand page can remain unprotected yet you can work at the pace you wish without large disruptions. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I have the compromising solution. I have made a duplicate copy from your page back to New Zealand. I have unprotected the New Zealand page (and Stho002, please try not to protect it again) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused about protecting a redirect on the old New Zealand page. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Your actions

are completely unacceptable. You discuss, and don't reverse mindlessly other sysop's actions. Your account is blocked until a steward desysops it.--Maxim_(talk) 02:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Notice of discussion

Given the recent edit warring over New Zealand, you and Lycaon have both been desysopped. Discussion about this can be found at Wikispecies:Village Pump#Lycaon and Stho002 (130.216.1.16) desysoped. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

While I share your concern, you need to understand that this is Wikispecies. No one person's edit can trump over another's, nor preventing them from changing your text (that's your mistake there). You should take some time to watch how idea -> proposal -> consensus and what to do if you disagree with the consensus (by contacting individuals, a 3rd-person opinion, or asking for community to revisit the issue and see if consensus should be changed). I know you're eager to use your newly-gained tools, but part of the admin process is by watching others and see how they work. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikiversity

At http://en.wikiversity.org you can do original research and create pages that contain your opinions without others adding their two cents to your pages. 4.251.120.250 18:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see that you're still here

Now my next question is, have you authenticated your email in this account? If not, you can go to Special:Preferences. Scroll to the section where you can type in your email address. Do that and go to your email address to verify that it's your email address. This way, people can communicate with you via email, in addition to using talk pages. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, your email is enabled now. And about your block on Lycaon, it's kind of too quick. You should have discussed it first with other admins & wait for some time to pass by before doing something. It's no rush to update New Zealand, right? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Block

Dear Stho002, I have blocked you from editing for a day because of edits like [1], [2], [3], and [4]. Please be more respectful of your fellow Wikispecies editors in the future. Ucucha (talk) 08:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hoangus

I gave him a warning. I'm more lenient and usually issue 1 or 2 warnings before actual block takes place. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Indicating lectotype species of genera

Thanks; on "There is no such thing as "lectotype species of genera", just type species", they are called lectotypes in botany; I guess just 'type' is zoology terminology? On "We already state the type species (when known) of a genus in the name section of the genus page" - maybe it happens, but I've not seen any in my roaming around (generally restricted to plants). Can you point me to a page or two where they are shown so I can see the placement and formatting, please? "The type species might be a synonym which therefore isn't on the species list for the genus, so it could get confusing if you do it your way" - I'd assume one would just highlight the accepted species of which the type name is a synonym. - MPF 23:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! If/when I get round to adding any I'll follow the Austrovelia example - MPF 00:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Melolonthinae

Hi,

There are new genera and species in the Melolonthinae. See Insecta Mundi on Google with full text.

Regards,

PeterR 17:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Rhabditophora

Have a look at this. Lycaon 14:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Replacing content

Was this a mistake? — Mike.lifeguard | ^@meta 00:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently it was not as your revert was subsequently reverted. I have replaced the blanked text.

Stho002 DO NOT arbitrarily replace talk page content if you do not like it UNLESS it is definite vandalism. Anyone is allowed to give input and if you disagree than make comments as to why. --Kevmin 02:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The page history is to record each change to the page, not to act as an archive for what was there, that is what creating page archives are for, within reason. If the content is remove then most people wont even know it existed. Wiki policy is that talk pages are not to be replaced like you did but added to and archived when the page length gets unmanageable. --Kevmin 03:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that you know what everyone will and will not want to read? If someone has the page on their watchlist they will be notified of changes. If they are new to the talk page how do you know they wont want to read what has been written before? And as I said before its against policy to blank and replace pages because you don't like the content. The talk page is not a taxa list it is a forum for discussion thus the comparison is not a valid one --Kevmin 03:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Odd edits of yours

Why did you remove the authority and why did you move the English vernacular name? [5] --Open2universe | Talk 02:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your point about the authority at higher levels. However I strongly disagree with you about moving the vernacular name. This is not an English wikispecies. It is more like Commons and Meta. There has been some discussion that one would see only the vernacular names of the language you are logged in with. Please don't move any more vernacular names until there has been further discussion. Thanks. --Open2universe | Talk 13:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

English is the universal main language of science, just as Latin (or latinised Greek) is used for the actual scientific names. This is a scientific wiki. Hence the English vernacular is the most important, and ought to be given precedence, rather than be lost in a big list of minority languages.

Stho002 20:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Aucklandella

It may not be your intention, but don't bold the items in the Name section[6]. By the way, that genus name is funny. Anyone could tell which country the species can be found in. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Numbered references

I think it's a good idea and possible, but not needed at this moment in Wikispecies since all of our articles are very short (except some genus which have over 100 species). So in short, not necessary for now. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 14:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Kolibác

I have ask the library if they have this bulletin. But do you have part 1?. Band 27 2005.

I can't send copies because I ask the library for the whole books. A whole bookcost me €4,50 and the copies €6,50. I order the whole bulletin because I can add the other items too.

I have now the copies. Can you give me your e-mail address. I didn't save now the information.

Regards,

PeterR 09:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hoangus and pdf

Well, someone from Amsterdam doesn't want to see his pdf up here, by the looks of it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Weird! I use this and it returns Amsterdam. I have thought about semi-protecting it too, but right now it's only 2nd incident. 1 more time and I will do it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Arctiidae

Arctiidae is now a subfamily of Noctuidae (Arctiinae}} with the tribus Lithosiini; Syntomini and Arctiini after Lafontaine and Fibiger in The Canadian Entomologist 2006 number 138 pages 610-635. I have add all the families, Subfamilies, tribus and subtribus after this document.

Regards,

PeterR 09:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: you comment

Thanks for jumping in to help. I still couldn't quite understand what he was talking about, so it helps to know that I haven't done anything wrong in following policy. By the way, how did you know of the discussion between me and PeterR? Meganmccarty 17:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your words of encouragement. Sometimes it's hard to tell what I should or shouldn't be doing here, but I do sincerely appreciate all the feedback I've received. As I understand it from all concerned, all our goals are to provide the best reliable information that we can based upon the resources we have available. And I will continue to do that. Meganmccarty 20:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

comment

We have had a discussion about other sides. No other side is reliable. Maganmccarty connect the species with zipcode. If you now say this can he do, than I stop with this work.

PeterR 18:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Lithosiinae

I have update all. Lithosiinae can now delete. PeterR 19:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Kolibac

I'm waiting for your normal e-mail address since days. Do you want to have the copies yes or no. PeterR 19:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Co-operation

I have also been trying to be helpful and cooperative with Megan, and will continue to do so. However, could you explain why you think you need to copy large paragraphs from the village pump to my Talk page, even though I am obviously reading it there? Accassidy 09:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'd say we have a truce. The issue with Cercyonis is that there is a lot of instability in Nymphalid taxonomy at the moment, especially the Satyrinae/Satyridae/Satyrini if you see what I mean. There is quite a bit of difference between tolweb and Markku's funet, primarily, apparently, because the latter is familiar with current mtDNA studies of Wahlberg at NSG and this is not all carried onto the American sites. I am fortunate in that the Lycaenidae (at least the Oriental/Austalian fauna where I am trying to create pages) are more stable. In the US there is much more dissent regarding the Neotropical Theclines with Robbins almost declaring war of Johnson in his 2004 checklist. I think Peter and I side with Lamas, but these arguments always cause disruption.

I agree that Megan is entitled under Wiki to submit work where she wants and how she wants. I also think experienced editors also have the right, duty even, to give advice/help as they see fit. My approach to this will, I hope, always be co-operative in nature rather than confrontational. But such nuances are easier for us to understand as we share a common first language. Enough for now... Alan Accassidy 23:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate conduct

Hello,
I feel your behavior towards PeterR is inappropriate. Your arguments may be acceptable, but you must control the way you express them. My impression is PeterR is a serious contributor, even if his English is not always easily understood. Please try to be more polite. He really deserves an apology. Mariusm 09:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree - I initially simply stated my objection to Megan being told what to do in moderate fashion, but PeterR refused to accept my argument, so my wording got stronger. He still refused to aknowledge the point, threatened to quit, and invoked his 30,000+ edits, etc., so then my wording got even stronger still. Tell you what, I'll apologise to PeterR after he apologises to Megan! Particularly for the hypocrisy of complaining that he had to run around after Megan fixing up her edits, when I have had to do the same on several occasions with his edits! Stho002 20:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This arguing won't lead us anywhere, and to me it sounds a little bit childish. No one will gain from this type of discussion! The main thing is that a man who was doing an honest and persistant work has been hurt. Keep in mind that nobody is perfect, and that you must impose on yourself some restrictions if your main concern is the benefit of this project, and not who wins a fight of egos. I still think an apology is the best way to end this argument... Mariusm 07:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I accept your apology and I go further with add species. You have some points. You never delete species that I have add. You make some updates in the references. If I did something wrong in Wiki I was happy with peoples supply. I saw that Megan add species that did not excist in my information. I thought I shall warn Megan that he (she) add species from a not reliable side. You have for lepidoptera two sides that are reliable www.tortricidae.net from John W. Brown and www.funet.fi. in part. Only Hesperioidea-Papilionoidea after Lamas and Wlliams. But we have to discus many things how to add species. I know that my english is not the best but since the sixties i never write in english again. I started writing in english again in 2008 in Wiki.PeterR 09:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks... Mariusm 16:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Noctuoidea

I see you have update Noctuoidea. The two families wit ? are subfamilies in the Noctuidae after Lafontaine and Fibiger 2006. PeterR 09:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Overviews

See Lycaon's talkpage for my comment Mariusm 17:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Bolitophaginae

Sorry about that! Some of the references I use aren't completely up to date. Do you know where the genus Bolitotherus would fall? --IvanTortuga 00:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll just wait to do anything with it then. What I originally wanted to do was make a page for B. cornutus. --IvanTortuga 00:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nomen Nudem

Have I allso add the nomen nudem species? Example: Mesene glisa (nom. nud.) TL: Brazil by Gerardo Lamas in Atlas of Neotropical Lepidoptera; Checklist: Part 4A; Hesperioidea-Papilionoidea.

I don't see you as my boss, but someone who I can ask for an advice. In Holland is that normal that people who do a project each other gives advices. Maybe not in New Zealand?

PeterR 10:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No, not in New Zealand ... we all just argue, argue, argue over here! :)
Stho002 19:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: changes

Don't be impatient, I am not a beginner. I just was processing the references. Kuzia 20:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

So, what should we do with Scalidophora? Ignore it? The system (which is still active now) I tried to introduce is very conservative: to keep ranks for those taxa, which originally had a rank and traditionally have a "stable" opinion on it. I don't have any rights to rank higher-level taxa if they have no official rank. Kuzia 21:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Either Cycloneuralia and Nematoida have very disputable monophyly. (Just a note.) Also, taxa within Scalidophora are not certainly phyla. Unranked structure should be preferred, but conservatively we may use clasis-levels. (Just a recommendation.) By the way, "Overview of..." is a good find. Kuzia 21:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

About scalidophoran taxa. Of course, ranks are not suitable in many respects. But your "ranked decision" is not better than mine as you had left orphant ordines within phyla. The last revisions of the internal classification of Scalidophora are of Adrianov & Malakhov (many papers and books from 1995 to 1999). They utilised the Cephalorhycha concept and treated Cephalorhyncha as a phylum and Kin., Lor., Pr. & Nematomorpha as classes. Nematomorpha was later moved from this assemblage as it is not probably a member of the clade. In other respects Adrianov and Malakhov's system of mentioned "classes" is still valid. So I prefer to give them no rank than to make them phyla. Don't try to reconcile conflicting views on ranks, just move them in such cases. Kuzia 22:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I know: every decision would be disputable. Anyway we have much more work at the lower levels of the System. Kuzia 10:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Re:Template genus

Thanks for explaining. Now I understand what I need to do. Meganmccarty 21:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Jamides walkeri

I believe that Jamides walkeri is correctly attributed to Druce. The Poulton & Riley reference (which should actually be 1928 not 1929) is the description of the taxon ruruturi which Riley considered a subspecies of walkeri but which more recent authors have considered to be a subspecies of bochus. I have a pdf scan of page 464 of the Poulton & Riley paper and could send it to you if you wish. Regards Accassidy 10:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Stephen, OK, I understand why you put the note. I have made it more explicit and linked it to J. b. ruruturi. Some might suggest that this note should be moved to the discussion page, but it takes little room and seems more likely to be seen where it is. Thanks, Alan. Accassidy 21:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Jamides overview

Stephen, Is that what you mean? Alan Accassidy 10:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts?

See here. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Distribution

How come you are putting this on talk pages? It's seems like something that could belong on the articles themselves. I'd be interested in working on adding some. Arugula999 06:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I see. To me it's basic enough information to put on the main page. Oh well, I just started working here, so I'll go along with it. :) Arugula999 06:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you missed

I have restored your admin status because it was taken away without community consensus and it was supposed to be a "temporary" measure. That act was not to be meant to be a punitive action. So now, your status is restored and you can delete any vandalism pages. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Eois

Please can you tell me where the genus Eois (Geometridae) to which subfamily and tribus its belongs? I can't find it on internet. PeterR 20:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Check contributions

Want to help me on something? Go through User:Scuila's contribution and see which ones don't make sense. I have reverted one already because he replaced the genus template with subtribus template (and skipped the genus page in the template before heading straight to species) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi. I was just trying to update family Fringillidae to subfamily Fringillinae, and family Estrildidae to subfamily Estrildinae inside Passeridae. But I'm quite new here and I sort of messed it up a bit. So sorry about that.
I'm already fixing it. Please contact me if you undo my edits, or I will go dizzy!
Thanks. --Scuila 18:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Cyrtonota

Stephen,

Can you tell me where the genus Cyrtonota belongs? Now it is in the tribe Stolaini Genus: 18 477-485, 2007 but in Genus 18 671-676, 2007 Genus 19 19: 291-295, 2008 Genus 20 (1): 1116-116, 2009 it is placed in the tribus Mesomphaliini. PeterR 00:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks PeterR 00:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

italics

I have learned from mariusm to do the bulletins like Zootaxa in italics. After that you came, we mentioned now allso the title of the bulletin. If I understand you well we do not the title in italics and well Zootaxa? PeterR 22:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have allready looked and understand it what you means. PeterR 23:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding all New Zealand species

Hello, thank you for your suggestion that we add all of the New Zealand species into wikispcies, it's a noble goal.

I currently have a day job in which I'm working on something not unrelated, but it's too early to say where it will lead. Certainly I expect to be in a position to add / correct / enhance some entries. Stuartyeates 04:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply to message left on my enwiki talk page

Hello Stho002.

I am not a vandal. I am simply monitoring an IRC channel which has a bot that filters recent changes feeds from many of the WMF's less-active projects for potentially vandalistic edits. If you require verification of my credentials, you may ask m:User:Spacebirdy or m:User:Mike.lifeguard, who are two stewards who also monitor the channel.
Or, if holding administrator rights on another project would also work, you may look at en:Special:ListUsers/J.delanoy to verify that I hold administrator rights on enwiki, and at this link to verify that I hold the SUL account for my username.

Regards,

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Synonyms

It's generally a bad idea to throw others into an endless circle, which is confusing. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 12:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

About the Countries Project

Hello Mr. Thorpe,
I just wanted to thank you for the page New Zealand. It was really helpful. Is this part of a Countries Project? What other countries are there? Was it your idea? Thanks -- Scuila 19:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

216.208.8.232

They're vandalizing the wiki. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@meta 17:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries

The many pages you've created here are useful especially for finding authority information, as with my latest addition Harmonia conformis. Richard001 01:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

References

Thank you for you note, I didn't relize this as I have used the standard for Swedish Wikipedia. Epibase 20:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleting attack pages

Please be careful to not leave attacking/defamatory content in log summaries. I had to poke a steward to hide it. Maxim_(talk) 20:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Alan

What I know is that he is making a tour. He comes back but when I don't know. He write that he goes traveling very much.

PeterR 07:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Coelophora photo

*Looks around the room* Well, it is called the variable ladybird. Hopefully the picture was based on a real and not imagined variation. I caught one yesterday at the university. I think I have a photo too; I'll upload one some day and change it to that. If you take a look at some on Flickr you'll see they don't always form a cross (well, unless they've misidentified them), which surprised me too when I looked at them this evening. Richard001 08:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Have uploaded a photo now: File:Coelophora inaequalis on stem, Auckland.jpg Richard001 02:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still here

Stephen, Your plea to Peter is touching, but I'm afraid he cannot answer it. My recent lack of posts is due to being very busy in my day job and also in volunteer organising I am doing this summer. My time for Wiki is always going to be more in winter than in summer (northern hemisphere) because of seasonal work. I wil continue the submissions when I have the time. Alan. Accassidy 10:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocking IPs

You should not block IPs indefinitely, and not for very long periods of time unless it's a highly static IP. The reason for that is that IP addresses change, and as a result, an indef block may affect an innocent person. Maxim_(talk) 01:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

new comments on Stuartia/Stewartia

Hi, it looks like we are editing the same articles. You seem to know what you're doing and this is a lot more complicated than I expected so I'll leave it to you. Stewartia is the right spelling, check Wikipedia and ALL the botanical literature. Check Wikimedia Commons too, I was working there and clicked on a link and didn't know it took me to another Wiki-something-or-other.

Hi Stho - the above comment (and a fair bit of modern literature) is wrong here; the original spelling "Stewartia" is correctable under ICBN Art. 60, as the genus is named after John Stuart, Earl of Bute (1713-1792), not a "John Stewart", and 'stewart' is not an intentional Latinisation of 'stuart' (so 60.7 does not apply). Linnaeus was misled over the spelling of his name due to an earlier error in the caption to an illustration of S. malacodendron by Ehret. If one does check ALL botanical literature (as commented above!), you will find extensive support for the correction to Stuartia. See discussion in e.g. Bean, Trees & Shrubs Hardy in the British Isles vol. 4. - MPF 08:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely you're joking. An obscure regional horticulture reference from the early 20th century (I had to look this one up) trumps all the current botanical literature? And I do mean ALL. I cannot find a single modern botanical reference--and I have checked several--that accepts the spelling as "Stuartia". I would very much like to see where this "extensive support" is coming from.

You call Brummitt's Vascular Plant Families and Genera "An obscure regional horticulture reference from the early 20th century", not to be counted in "ALL botanical literature"? Most would say Brummitt is a highly respected standard authority on plant name orthography.

The issue is of course something of a political hot Solanum tuberosum; as well as being a competent botanist, Stuart was also Prime Minister of Britain in the period running up towards the American Revolution, and therefore not liked in the USA where the pro-Stewartia lobby originates. It seems that anything which helps dissociate the name of the plant from the man is welcomed in some quarters. Worth pointing out too that the current Earl of Bute uses Stuartia [7], and he certainly has a legitimate interest in the spelling of the plant named after a member of his family. MPF 10:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This is quite incredible. If this is really what passes for scholarship at Wikipedia, it's no wonder so few scientists take it seriously.

1. I was referring to Bean's Trees and Shrubs Hardy in the British Isles, the same book YOU were referring to. I looked it up and discovered that this book has been udpated several times, but it is still a regional horticultural reference. (It's even unfair to Bean to cite him for "Stuartia" as in the first edition he used "Stewartia". When it was changed, or by what subsequent editor, I do not know.) Incidentally, the tale about the portrait and name spelling in the most recent edition is told without any citation or source information whatsoever, so I'm inclined to disregard it as unreliable and quite possibly apocryphal.

2. Brummit's book is a list. A very large, and impressive, and useful list, but still just a list. It has its errors and 1992 is already quite out-of-date. A better reference would be IPNI, a far more comprehensive and up-to-date nomenclatural database produced by Kew (among others) which does indeed recognize the spelling as "Stewartia".

3. Linnaean names are not lightly "correctable". If you're going to cite Art. 60 from the ICBN then you would do well to read the rest of, not just the single line that you think supports your position because there are several counter examples that go directly against it:

Art. 60.1: "The original spelling of a name or epithet is to be retained, except for the correction of typographical or orthographical errors...."

Example 1: "Retention of original spelling: The generic names Mesembryanthemum L. (1753) and Amaranthus L. (1753) were deliberately so spelled by Linnaeus and the spelling is not to be altered to "Mesembrianthemum" and "Amarantus", respectively, although these latter forms are philologically preferable....

Art. 60.3: "The liberty of correcting a name is to be used with reserve, especially if the change affects the first syllable and, above all, the first letter of the name."

Example 7: "The spelling of the generic name Lespedeza Michx. (1803) is not to be altered, although it commemorates Vicente Manuel de Céspedes"....

4. Is "Stewartia" an orthographical "error"? Most certainly not. Linnaeus consistently used the spelling "Stewartia" over several years, in several publications, so there is no question that he did so deliberately. Why he did so is unknown as he provided no etymology for the name. He may have had a reason to prefer "Stewart" over "Stuart" and it's quite possible that he fully intended to insult or snub the Earl of Bute--it would not be the first time he did such a thing. In fact if the Earl of Bute was as prominent as you say, it's even more clear that Linnaeus used his spelling deliberately. Yet even if it were an orthographical error, Art. 60.2, Ex. 1, and Ex. 7 show that the original spelling is STILL to be retained. Any later spelling is an orthographical variant that can only be validated by formal conservation.

5. A "pro-Stewartia lobby"? Because of some kind of American revolutionary anti-U.K. sentiments? Give me a moment while I pick myself up off the floor. There are numerous Chinese and British references using "Stewartia"--in fact pretty much all of them (have you checked Mabberley's Plant Book, at least as good a list as Brummit's and far more up-to-date?)--that can hardly be accused of such prejudice. If there is any "lobby" it is a pro-Linnaean lobby, as "Stewartia" is the original spelling deliberately given to the genus by him.

6. The bottom line is that this was settled decades ago. Brummit notwithstanding, modern botanists have not adopted the "Stuartia" spelling and I'm still waiting for some examples of the "extensive support".

Autoblock

Hi there, I'm m:User:Dferg, I saw that you blocked then unblocked David0811's account but David0811 is still blocked. Could you please remove the autoblock from David0811 account?. Thanks and sorry. Dferg 21:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Type specimen institutions

I know it't some way off the guideline, but the Holotype page is too big and has some duplicate entries largely due to different abbreviations by individual authors. I thought, by converting them to separate pages and making redirects, it could be better. For now I'm converting only big museums. If you don't like it feel free to delete them Category:Type collection holdings. --achtSegel 01:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Udara

Stephen, "Better" is a matter of opinion, not a statement of fact. What my original page said was "there are 4 sub-genera and here is a quick way of seeing which species falls into which group". Your proposed system would say "there are 4 sub-genera and here are all the species, but you will have to look elsewhere to see which species falls into each group". The modification made by the unregistered user says "there are 4 sub-genera but you will have to hunt down among the 4 separate sub-genus pages to find any particular species". Clearly, there will not be total agreement over which of these statements is "best"... I still think mine is clearest and finding a particular species among the 4 short alphabetic lists is not too hard a job. Accassidy 22:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Bee species

Hey Steve, what was that introduced bee around Auckland called? The yellow and black hairy one that hovers. I'm useless at finding it on the net. Richard001 10:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Beetle species

You don't know what these copulating beetles are do you? Even if it's just to the family level it would help. Richard001 03:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added a photo to the Stethaspis entry. If you're able to identify the species please do (looks like S. suturalis to me but it's very similar to S. longicornis and there may be other species I'm not aware of). Richard001 06:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

New species

Stephen,

If you have information about new species of Lepidoptera Please inform me. I can add the new species like Lithophane.

Regards,

Peter

RE: Authors/dates

Sorry, I respectively disagree. It may not be as useful as species, genus, and family-group names, but consistency is better and it's obviously other people want to list the author. The Code is irrelevant here because like you said it doesn't govern these ranks, but doesn't mean we can't as a community decide to do it a certain way. It's you against every else, even if we're wrong, you should let consensus play out. But I agree it's a waste of time so I won't revert. You should do the same if you believe that too. Rocket000 23:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, will do. :) Rocket000 00:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Lycaon‎

You do know that Lycaon‎ is a sysop on Commons, and nywiki, and a rollbacker on enwiki? He has almost 65000 contributions across Wikimedia.

Seriously, I have been watching you for some months, and your attitude here is not helpful. Please stop being so belligerent, and maybe assume good faith just a little? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Animalia

I trust this has been the last time you are reverting edits from other administrators on this project. If you feel there is a need to edit an other administrator's edits on this project, you can do so with arguments. Arguments can be raised on taxa pages, or the Village Pump, or on the talk page of the administrator if you want him to ask a question.

Other than that I wanted to add that the following comment "Either you are back with us as an editor (which is fine, you are a good editor when you can keep your ego under control!), or not. However, if your only "contribution" is to add a tiny bit of pointless information to the Animalia page, just because you know that I don't want it to be added, then you are not welcome here, and I will block you.", which you left on Lycaon's userpage is totally out of order. You DO NOT block anyone because you happen to have a personal issue with someone. You only block clear vandals, or you can block after a discussion of an idividual case in the appropriate places. --Kempm 00:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Zizina

You're right. I misunderstood how the reference was being use. I missed part where they said they were using an older classification for their report. Sorry, about that. Rocket000 06:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

About Alphitobius

You got a better image? There are some images in Commons. This one is a featured picture, but species not identified. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Just in case your interested...

I'm about to upload some really high-res scans of beetle illustrations by Jacob Sturm. There's going to be 96 plates in total so a lot of cropping will be needed (which I hate, but these aren't like some where everything's all packed together and you can't make a simple rectangular crop. For the most part, you won't have to download these to extract a single species if you use CropBot on Commons). Also, identification may be a challenge since the descriptions are handwritten (the illustrations were also colored by hand!) and of course many names have changed since 1802. There's some scans of his work here from a different book (which aren't the best quality but still usable). Rocket000 06:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Where do you guys get all these specimens from? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid the only thing that I can identify (and not doing a great job either!) is freshwater fish in Ontario, Canada. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Images

Yes, we agree there. :) Photographs should take the place of illustrations when available. It's just that obtaining free images for many species out there (especially Coleoptera) can be downright impossible (unless of course you can make them yourself!). That's why I'm working on upload these old illustrations. When I add an image here, I always chose photographs, if decent quality, over drawings no matter how well done. I just started the batch upload, they'll be ending up in commons:Category:Abbildungen zu Karl Illiger's Uebersetzung von Olivier's Entomologie (of course they still need cropping, cleaning up, and describing). Rocket000 07:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, these images I'm uploading are much better quality then that Alphitobius drawing. I may extract some species out of the plates, but that's not really my thing. However, if anyone on Commons, who's good at cleaning/restoring old art, feels like it they can make many useful images out of those. (I wouldn't use them in the raw form they are now even if some plates have only one specimen like File:Abbildungenzukar00stur 0283.png or File:Abbildungenzukar00stur 0039.png). Of course, if you later upload actual photographs of any of these species, then please do replace the illustrations. Rocket000 09:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Subgenera

Stephen

I have a problem with subgenera. First there was the genus Phyllodesma. In 2004 have Zolotuhin and Witt make a subgenus Phyllodesma (Phyllodesmoides) for the species ursulae in Tinea 18 (1): 36-42, April, 2004. Means this that all the other species become the subgenus Phyllodesma (Phyllodesma) or have i make in Wiki only subgenus Phyllodesma (Phyllodesmoides).

Regards,

PeterR 17:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Animalia

This is not good. Whatever your viewpoint is, surely you can see that this is not right. We can't have admins revert warring like this. It's to the detriment of our project, to the content, and our administration. Please resolve the issue with healthy discussion, and discontinue your monopoly over the page. If I see you revert on this page one more time further evidence of misconduct, I'll take efforts towards getting your adminship removed. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've changed my original message. If I see further evidence of misconduct in any form, I will take action. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I condemn the actions of all involved. I'm sorry about your condition, and I do thank you for your work on Wikispecies. You are prolific and hard-working. However, you have used your administrator tools inappropriately in protecting Animalia, in revert warring on the page, and in threatening to block those you were in dispute with. This is the misconduct I was referring to. Please, before you do anything, consider the position you have been elected to and the responsibility you have in that position. Best wishes, —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 04:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

On another Animalia note: I have finally come around to answering your question on my talk page. I am sorry for the delay. Ucucha (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Laniatores

Stephen,

The Suborder Laniatores is divide in infraorders Insidiatores and Grassotores. Insidiatores have the Superfamiliae Travunioidea and Triaenonychoidea. Grassotores have the Superfamiliae Epedanoidea, Phalangodoidea, Samooidea, Zalmoxoidea and Gonyleptoidea. The Superfamiliae have several Families. Can I update the Laniatores with the above information?

Regards,

PeterR 10:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)