User talk:Stho002/Archive 5

Re: Vandalism

Hello, and thanks for providing critique on my activities. However, considering that the edit that I made which you pointed out on my talkpage was over a year ago, and I thus have little memory of why or what I did since, why bring up old issues that are best left alone? Anyways, the edit seems more like harmless adjusting of the layout of the page, and certainly did not look like vandalism to me. I always thought that headings like "links" should begin with capital letters. Regards, TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Agnosthaetus

No problem Stephen. Coleopterists Soc. journals are one of my few personal 'taxonomic' subscriptions (just 3), in a fam. of particular interest to me, and this revision looked nice and meaty so I could hammer out a bunch of species pages tonight. I'll try to leave the NZ taxa to you in future. Have fun. MKOliver (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

The hard copy gives no publication date that I can see, but inside the front cover it states "Mailing date for this issue: December 20, 2011". It carries no ISBN, only an ISSN. In fact, the ISSN it carries is that of Coleopterists Bulletin rather than of Colepterists Society Monographs, which is a bit weird. I had to run down the ISSN of the Monograph series online. This issue's front cover is headed: "The Coleopterists Society / Patricia Vaurie Series • Monograph 10 / Supplement to the Colepterists Bulletin Volume 65 Issue 4". But, the running head on all inside pages is "The Coleopterists Society Monograph Number 10, 2011". One other bit of funkiness: the author, on both the cover and the title page, is given as "Dave J. Clarke" -- in fact, I had started to create a new author page for him but then found him as David J. Clarke. MKOliver (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hosts of parasite taxa

I am a beginner here and I would like to know the official rule about hosts of parasite taxa in Wikispecies. I have indicated the hosts for families of nematodes and they have been deleted. As a parasitologist, I believe that hosts should be indicated for all parasite taxa; hosts are an extremely important character for parasitic taxa. All formal descriptions of parasites indicate a type-host (the species in which the holotype of the parasite species was found), and possibly other host species. I suggest to indicate, when it is possible: - for parasite species, the type-host, and possibly the other host species, at least those which are mentioned in the original description. - for supraspecific parasitic taxa, a general indication of hosts (such as "parasitic in such family of mammal", or "parasitic in Teleostei"). This is also the rule in the literature about parasites. This rule should be applied for parasitic animals, and also for plants and fungi. What do you think?Jeanloujustine (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Taxonav

Trying to fix a linking problem with it. Will stop for now and run on a test template until I have it sorted. Koumz (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue I am trying to fix is that if you use it to call the name (and template) of an order or superfamily to be displayed, and that taxon has a homonym at another level, then Taxonav links to the dab page instead of the correct taxon page. The case I ran into is with Lestoidea. Koumz (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Got it. We can pipe link in taxonav now for those problem cases like Lestoidea. Koumz (talk)

re: Stunning bug!

Yes, I saw that earlier today. Stunning indeed! I've now added it onto the MP pictures/proposals. --MKOliver (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:2 letter genera

Can you enlighten me what this category is used for? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It's cool, nothing against the category or anything. Just a bit curious. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Synonym

Hi Steven, yes of course I know about the problems with synonymies. Some species have more than 20 synonyms, which makes it eventually difficult to read the species pages. In general I am trying to follow your page style as long as I am not such an experienced user, so I will think about it. 84.141.63.211 22:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Screen color

It certainly is eye-jarring, isn't it? Koumz (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That school has numerous combinations of greens and oranges (almost all of which I can do without) in the colors it uses, though, so I guess it's not that much of a surprise. Koumz (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh my god, even my 24-year-old eyes are hurting. But don't blame this fellow, that page hasn't been modified since 2004 so things were still slow back then. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Lycoriella agraria

Hi Stephen,

I noticed, that you changed the subgenus page Lycoriella (Lycoriella) from sgsp to sgsps style, but I do not completly understand the reason, why. In that context you added Lycoriella agraria although there was already my previous entry Lycoriella (Lycoriella) agraria with type information and original references, which now remains unlinked. I would like to restitute that information and have the name with subgenus as the main species page back again. Your entry of Lycoriella agraria contains a lot of references from NZ, which are not verified and should therefore perhaps not be listed there. I would prefer to have additional faunistic information like that on a separate page like this one on Species-ID. If you don´t have a better idea, I will merge the two species pages of Lycoriella agraria. Anyway, quite soon we will publish a revision of that species with further synonyms.

Best wishes Kheller (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Leaving out subgenus names in the title sounds very reasonable to me now. It should then be part of the general rules. As a "newbie" I was simply following the common usage. Kheller (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

ZooBank reference templates

I mainly adopted your style of ZooBank references, but slightly modified it in that respect, because the "see all references" part disrupts the references. If there are references with and without ZooBank templates, it looks a bit strange in my eyes. In principle I could also live without the "all references" link at all, because these could be retrieved directly from the template, if needed. So my format was meant as a kind of compromise. But the advantage of a reference style is, that it can be changed easily, when a common agreement is found. We should proceed with ZooBank and reference templates, but it is a lot of work. I will eliminate the IA reference for the Winnertz paper. Thanks for the hint. Kheller (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Reversion

Why? - dcljr (talk) 06:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow. OK, I'm going to try not to consider this a simple potential abuse of your administrative powers. I think you have reacted too quickly, without actually examining all of the changes you've reverted. Please go through each individual diff to see what was changed and the accompanying explanations. As you can see (and check for yourself by, for example, following links) many of the changes were actual fixes to problems (e.g., bad language codes, nonexistent WP articles), and most of the rest (by amount of text actually changed) were legitimate additions of more "In Wikipedia" links. As for the images, I think we can stand to have an actual photograph of a human being on the Homo sapiens page, as we have photographs of gorillas, frogs, and so forth. You might not agree with the specific choice of images, but that can be discussed on the (or my) talk page. And please don't threaten users with blocks unless you have a very good reason to do so... - dcljr (talk) 07:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC) edit: change wording, since you haven't actually done more than any regular user could do...

OK, you've given your opinion. I've reverted back to the last change I made before I changed the images, which should be acceptable to everyone (as I said, these were fixes of real problems and additional links to WP, which is explicitly encouraged by the policies here). Please remember that although the community is smaller here than, say, the larger Wikipedias, there is still a community, and work still needs to be based on collaboration and not intimidation. Also, "I don't have time to do a proper job of things" is not an acceptable justification for ham-handed reverts. Proper care should always be taken to make sure we're improving the site and not retarding its development. As for the nature of my edits, each editor is free to contribute in the manner they wish and to the extent that they can, consistent with policy, so I'll make the kinds of edits I want to, thank you. - dcljr (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Legitimate edits don't "waste" anyone's time. Stop being so disagreeable. And don't try to assign ulterior motives to my editing activities. - dcljr (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Family group names in zoology

Re: Please only give authors/dates and primary references for zfg (family group names in zoology), genus and species group names! Not for higher names like class, order, etc. Thanks ... Stho002 (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, those names, for higher taxa are in fact very valuable info, which is hard to find and should be preserved here, You are not a taxonomist, and you do not know how valuable this info is. Please restore all deleted info. Best --Leszek Bledzki (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. Those names are not regulated by the ICZN, so they have no meaningful authorship or priority. The information is ill-defined and useless for any practical purposes. Time spent adding them is wasted time ... there are PLENTY of other things to be done which are far more important. Otherwise, keep up the good work .. thanks Stho002 (talk) 05:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Archiacanthocephala

Hello. Possibly I'm ignorant but I can't imagine what “not zfg” can mean in that context. Could you please use some normal words? Mithril (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Family-group name in zoology. Names of higher rank than these are not regulated by the ICZN, and so have no well-defined or meaningful author/date. Thanks ... Stho002 (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It is so in your imagination only. Zoologists do use taxa authority with taxa of higher level. Mithril (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that zoologists didn't do it, I said that it was neither well-defined nor meaningful. It is a waste of time and effort, when there are plenty of other more important things to do. Think of it this way, for a name that is regulated by the ICZN, the author/date is not necessarily the first time that the name appeared in the literature, as it may have been a nomen nudum, etc. ... Stho002 (talk) 04:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You've no right to delete my contribution because of your fantasy that I can have spent my time some better way. See Help:Name section: “Mammalia Linnaeus”. Mithril (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you think I'm an idiot? You've changed Help:Name section after I refered to it. Mithril (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think you are an idiot ... I expected you to see that I had changed it. The point is that those help pages are subject to change, and ultimately the admins and bureaucrats decide how to change them, so unless I get outvoted by the other admins, those are the new rules Stho002 (talk) 04:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the Wikispecies a project of the Wikimedia? Opinion of administator is equal to any other users opinion. The only difference is in technical abilies. P.S.: Please do not spread the discussion all over the WS, answer where the discussion has been. Mithril (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No, or vandals opinions would also be equal ... Stho002 (talk) 04:44, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Template

This is one way to do it, although there might possibly be a simpler that I don't know yet. {{#switch:{{{1|{{{rank|}}}}}}|X=do this|do the other}}. The word rank in this case is just an arbitrary name for whatever category X and all of the other similar options belong to, like a taxonomic rank in the case of many templates here. Koumz (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done on Template:AFD. I learned much of what I know about this by copying other people's syntax. Koumz (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Conduct unbecoming

I do wish you would stop threatening users when they simply make edits you don't agree with. There is a difference between vandalism and what you might call "unhelpful" edits. It should be clear when someone is adding information to the wiki in good faith, and such users don't deserve to have the Riot Act read to them as if they're criminals. Moreover, as pointed out by User:Mithril, admins are not the unquestioned "lawgivers" on this wiki; they must work through consensus-building, just like everyone else. - dcljr (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

template:HOM

Can you explain why you altered my template? It makes no sense any longer. It was originally intented to simplify, just so I didnät have to write the full formula everytime I used the the title "homonym"... in BOTANY. Junior homonym is a zoological term. Please change it back. Uleli (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Subgenera - formatting

Stephen, It seems that the formatting of subgenera has changed a bit recently; q.v. your changes to Templates for Deudorix (Virachola). Some while ago when creating pages for the Lycaenopsis group of genera, I followed Eliot and created quite a lot of sub-genera and dealt with these as you can see, for example, in Udara. It would seem that for consistency, similar changes should also be made there. Regards, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm perfectly happy with this new system, and I am sure the advantages you list are sensible. I will go back to the Lycaenopsis group myself when I get the chance, but it may be some before I get round to it. I'd like to finish with my current work on Deudorigini first, and that will take a few weeks yet. Regards, Accassidy (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The wikipedia mess

I have glossed very quickly over the overly long debate. I can't do a huge blow-by-blow thing but I see the two issues here.

1. I'm sorry if it sounds insensitive but you have let yourself get overconfident by your work on Wikispecies. Because Species editors tend to be specialist and relatively low in numbers, we do accord each otehrs a lot more leeway and a bit of an innate argument from authority, you do not have anything more than any newcomer editor on WP: (although you are not a newcomer, you came off very much as one).
2. You have run into what is an issue on WP:, but not of expression (raising that red herring only made you look needlessly defensive): that of source selection, which does represent a problem when the sources used is patently incorrect in a way only specialists can notice.

Working as a "rogue editor" has been your undoing here, and if I had been aware of the issue or noticed it earlier, I would have pointed you toward forums better suited to raising the issue (at least the WoRMS one, others as I can see are more of formatting, something you will have to accept you cannot have your way on WP:) without attracting unnecessary attention. Circeus (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Circeus, but I don't think that you have fully grasped all the issues, though there are certainly elements of truth in what you say. I will respond more fully by email ... Stho002 (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I believe a discussion in an open forum is warranted, and here is a fine one to do it. If you want to do that behind closed doors, I'm sorry to say you won't find cooperation in me. Wikipedia works because it can be criticized openly, if you can't voice your issues in the open, I fail to see how Wikipedia could eventually adapt to correct itself for them. Circeus (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Well I tried that "open forum" approach on WP, and got blocked as a result. It's not that I don't trust you, but how do I KNOW that you aren't just encouraging me to rant here in similar vein, resulting in a block here??? ...Stho002 (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I might review the whole thing later (it is past 1:30am here, after all). I'm willing to try and help resolve the issues on both sides, but I just wanted to make it clear to you from the start that no, it wasn't just an admin being hardheaded and that you did worsen your case. Circeus (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me try to make some cautious comments: I am not trying to change WP format or content policies regarding biology or any other articles. The main issue, as I see it, is certainly not source selection, for Stemonitis and I are both fully aware of the errors in the WoRMS page for Munididae ... we are not arguing whether it is a good source or a bad source for the article, we agree that it is a bad source for the article, and it is unnecessary, for it brings nothing over and above what is sourced from elsewhere except the misinformation. I can (though barely) accept that to tag the errors as errors would be OR "tainted", so why the heck doesn't he just drop it as a source???? Just don't mention it. As editors of Wiki sites, we have a duty to select sources wisely, but it is not the problem of source selection that you allude to, it seems to be something more specific to Stemonitis. This article isn't the only one where he has dug out a bad source, and insists on sticking with it come what may. The main issue, as I see it, is that nobody can go near "his articles" without first getting "consensus" [=his consent], and admins are backing him, by blocking anyone who tries to raise these issues! Stemonitis got a token block for "poking the bear", which was lifted again almost immediately! This isn't justice! These comments represent my own personal opinions, which may be factually totally incorrect, and no offence to any person is intended, sincerely ...Stho002 (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

PS: To see Stemonitis "in action", please look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Munididae ... Stho002 (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC) It is well worth another read of the previous link, as there have been some developments ... a useful appeal to Stemonitis by Doug Yanega, followed by what must be the most audacious statement in history by Stemonitis, i.e., [quote]We can choose as editors to disregard WoRMS, which would involve removing the whole last paragraph. No-one has argued for that yet, but I could see it working. I'll give it a go[unquote] Hold on Stem., this is what I have been trying to tell you for the last 2 days!! It is even written, by me, further up on that very page, i.e. [quote]There is no compulsion for you to use WoRMS as a source for this article. You have a responsibility to the readers to make a good choice of source, but you have made a bad choice and you are sticking with it[unquote] ... Stho002 (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC) He has now "noticed" this little oversight of his, and "self-corrected" ... Stho002 (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Stemonitis' antics are gaining some scrutiny now from professional biologists around the world on the listserver Taxacom and on Twitter ... Stho002 (talk) 08:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

<sarcasm>I can see why he'd want the discussion to "move on" at this stage...</sarcasm> I'll have a deeper look into the huge mess on your talk page sometime today.Circeus (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

More blunt thoughts

I'm not going to sugarcoat this. I'm not good at sugarcoating, and frankly, although Stemonitis let himself get pumped into some inappropriate reverts, most of the blame rests with you.

First, like it or not, you did earn your block fair and square. Me I would have blocked out right off at 'misinformation terrorist of Bin Laden proportions, feeding the world misinformation due to some misguided ideal about "verifiability over truth"'. That was indefensible. [I DIDN'T call him that! I said that IF he removed the unreliable source tags, then he would be that... Stho002 (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)] There is such a thing as basic decorum and your constant incapacity to remain basically civil in the conversation alone probably served to poison the whole debate. You know what your comments on the debacle at the edit warring noticeboard come across at for me? Shrill, frothy-mouthed, almost conspiracist screaming. I am amazed and frankly disappointed that this could come from you. Sometimes you need to put distance between yourself and a dispute to consider what is going on, and your lack of perspective (see my point 2), not any boneheaded reliance on "bad" sources (for that see my third point), is what did you in.

Second, you do not realise it, but you have a lot of status and clout on Species (few editors+few admins amounts to those admins having little accountability). Sometimes from the sidelines where I stand, I find you to treat the project much like you complain Stemonitis of doing. As a result to be honest this whole thing came off more as a pointless clash of egos than a genuine attempt at data improvement. As others have noted on the Munididae talk page, you two could really have used some time off to calm and try to fix the external issues: you as a scientist all the more! If I (a bachelor of translation) can send corrections to the World Compositae checklist, surely you can send some to WoRMS! (which incidentally has been fixed since) As a further aside, I'm going to on the record and say I found your removal of primary references over WoRMS puzzling, if only because databases are only so good as their sources, and hiding away said sources that can and probably will be used later to add good content (e.g. descriptions and taxonomic statements) is not going to make Wikipedia better either. [I have no idea what you are referring to by that last statement ... I expect a confusion lies somewhere behind it? Stho002 (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)]

Third, it's generally accepted across _all_ Wikimedia projects that they are not reliable sources for each others [There is confusion here ... I never suggested that WS act as a source for WP, but that if the sources are already set out on a WS page, then why not just refer a WP reader to the WS page, instead of wasting effort by copying it all over (and WP's awful referencing formats makes that very complex in some cases)? Stho002 (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)]. Along the same lines, you have to accept that just as editors coming to Wikispecies have to play by its rules (which often amounts to saying your rules), when editing Wikipedia, you have to accept that project's rules. That is why the whole reverting of stuff that said "see wikispecies" in the article body was entirely appropriate. Making the improving edits was not so complex that you needed to wave big red flags by deleting sourced content without proper reasoning. It was not _that_ out of date, and taxonomy as a whole (not just our articles) is littered with areas where everyone knows that the taxonomy is wrong but nobody bothered to publish the needed new names or classification, so an article being a bit out of date on taxonomy is not that huge a problem that required your quick and dirty fixes (removal sourced content is detected by most vandalism-fighting tools, hence why I talk of "big red flags"). If you don't want to bother making the proper updating, fine. Someone will eventually come along and do it. That's how Wikipedia frickin' work. [This was an element at the start of the dispute, but it soon gave way to more serious issues, like Stemonitis having to give his approval for any changes by anybody to certain articles ... Stho002 (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)]

In summary, I understand the concerns you had, but the way you went about trying to fix the content was entirely improper, and your escalating reactions to the reverts only worsened the entire situation. If you can't accept that (especially that your edits where inappropriate in the first place), you will not find much commiseration coming from me.

I went back and helped fix some of your appropriate edits that got caught in the crossfire. If after hearing all this you are still willing to try and work with Wikipedia, I'm perfectly willing to be a mentor for you (and am going to say so on your wp: talk page). Wikignoming and taxonomic list are one of my wiki-areas of specialty (and as it happens, I'm an admin there myself). Circeus (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

As always in life, there are no "absolutes" in terms of "right" or "wrong", but we do what we can to make things better. There are elements of truth in your comments above, but other important gaps (issues that are highly relevant to the difference between myself and the other party, that you have not mentioned), though this *really* isn't the best place to discuss those. Let's just say that I, as a volunteer editor on Wikimedia sites, have never, nor will I ever donate even $1 (or 1 cent) to Wikimedia, because I am donating my time and expertise, and that is sufficient, and I expect no favours in return, just fair treatment based on the content of my edits... Stho002 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It would seem that you are conflating two separate ideas here. You are entitled to have your edits given fair treatment based on their content. Your treatment, on the other hand, instead has been (and should be) based on your own behaviour. Until and unless you understand this point you are very unlikely to ever be unblocked over at WP. In the end, the matter is entirely in your hands. - Nick Thorne (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for you input, Nick, but such a massively sociologically skewed subset of humanity as wikipedians are completely unqualified to dictate behavioural ethics, as is highlighted by their failure to uphold even the most basic principle of rationality, i.e., consistency, for my behaviour was no worse than that of Stemonitis .... Stho002 (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC) PS: I do not want the block lifted so very badly that I am willing to resort to ego stroking ... Stho002 (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the more I read your answer, the more I grow concerned that you clearly do not understand why you ended up blocked (more accurately, you seem to reject right off the possibility that you did any wrongdoings). That's not an attitude that benefits ANYONE on ANY wikimedia project. Circeus (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I am starting to wonder what game you are really playing, User:Circeus??? Actually, I don't much care whether I remain blocked at WP or not, it is always going to be the bottom of the pile in terms of article quality for taxonomy related stuff (though may be quite good for other stuff that I have no interest in). In my answer above, which makes you "concerned", I was merely trying to get the facts right, that's all. Unlike some, it would seem, I still believe that truth and accuracy are things to be aspired to. The main thing that invalidates the rantings against me by the others is that Stemonitis is guilty of all the same "crimes", plus creating bad articles, and yet he only copped a slap on the wrist! You are accusing me of all sorts of things, some of them are true, but others are false. Until we can agree on which are which, then there is no way forwards that I can see. You can't just go around accusing people of any old thing in response to them having made a much smaller subset of mistakes. The things you accuse me of HAVE TO BE TRUE in order for me to accept them ... some are, but many ARE NOT... Stho002 (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker

Yes, literally rollback edits one by one. While I was at it, I updated links, added names, etc. You should thank its screwup for getting me back into active mode. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh I do thank it for that! Meanwhile, I have unprotected Wollumbinia and Myuchelys, simply because protection as such isn't necessary, and Thomson (as User:Faendalimas) is busy trying to round up a gang to bash me over the head. See here though for some recent discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faendalimas#Myuchelys_versus_Wollumbinia Thomson *must not* be allowed to make Myuchelys out to be the valid name here on WS, or else we should all probably give up and go home ... Stho002 (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Simply wow. It just shows you how drama-prone the WP project has become. Someone can be a really good spin doctor and turn everything from being right to being wrong while getting away with it without any sanctions. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, for a moment there I thought that was me talking! Stho002 (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Stephen, I have not tried to bash you over the head at all. What you do here is your business I have not edited here lately. Have not been intending to. I told you of some changes you should make, eg moving novaeguineae but that is all, what happened to you on WP recently had nothing to do with me, I have not read all the pages concerning it, and its not my area of expertise. From what I can gather of what others have said you may be right about the Worms page, whatever that is, I have not seen it. My email to ZooPro was mostly about another site he and I both edit, but I did mention you seemed to be causing a stir, a little petty maybe in hindsight, and I apologise for that, but all I did was mention it, he decided to respond to that. But that was all there was to it. Whatever you want to believe on the subject of Myuchelys is your business, your problem. I am not going to change it here because that would not be consensus, and thats not how wiki's are meant to work.Faendalimas (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

D'Entrèves

Stephen,

You have make by Scythris Zootaxa 3323, 50-56 (2012) as author D'Entrèves. This have to be Passerin d'Entrèves as last name. I don't know how to change it.

Regards,

PeterR (talk) 09:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Strange category

Explanation provided here. But in short, I don't know how to deal with it. However, I do notice that it appears on page where {{Global}} is used. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Reference titles (Proasellus)

Thanks for your observation. I will try to be more careful...--Panellet (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hello Stho002, could you delete the vandalism on my Userpages please. Thanks and grettings. Orchi (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

...thanks for your tip. Orchi (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't require bureaucrat to do it. Admins can delete specific diff and remove obscene username/edit summary by going to a page's history, check off the edit(s) that needs to be hid, and click on the button on the right which says "show/hide selected revisions". Then check the options and click apply. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Darn! I was hoping to offload all the tedious jobs to a 'crat!! ... Stho002 (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Stephen, thanks for sorting out the Venezuelan water plants. Accassidy (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Re:taxon counts

It is quite useless if this isn't a WS standard. I've seen you made quite a lot of your own proprietary augmentations, but this only confuse and deter newcomers, who can't figure out what the correct way of doing things is. Mariusm (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

In what way are these counts "useful" ? Mariusm (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Look what I found!

Magnificent! ... but I wouldn't want to meet one in a dark alley. There are sparassids here in N. Am. also, but I've never found one. (Then again, I haven't looked for one!) At this end, I set up an emergence chamber (Ferro & Carlton 2011, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1649/072.065.0202) filled with fallen hardwood branches on my property. It's a large opaque plastic storage bin, with a couple of cloth-covered vents and a hole in one lower corner with canning jar attached, containing some propylene glycol. Emerging beetle imagos are attracted to the only light - the hole over the jar. It's been going since April. About 30 beetles so far, nicely diverse. It should continue to produce for at least another 18 months. - MKOliver (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Aww, I thought it's a new species to science. But it's good to find something totally new in the country. What caused the shift in distribution? Climate change or increased global commerce/travel? And yes, thank god I'm not studying in spiders. Their eyes look creepy. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Serica grahami

Excuse me, but why did you delete the entry for Serica grahami? It was correct, it had been there for quite a long time. I just added a picture of the Holotype specimen from the Smithsonian Institution, and then five minutes later the whole entry was deleted. It was properly cited to Ahrens, 2005. Choogendyk (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I did panic. All I saw was the deleted statement. I see now that you recreated it. Thank you. Choogendyk (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

May I ask if there is a proper way to link to the collector after whom the species was named? I had the image caption with a link to D.C.Graham. I hesitate to add that back in since you just got through revising the entry. Choogendyk (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Bleekeria

Bleekeria its clearly a case of disambig page, but it looks ugly to use it as a valid genus name in fishes, if I need to add the authors name for instance. Any advice, please? --Haps (talk) 09:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, found how to do it. --Haps (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Epigonus machaera

Please explain reduction of information on page Epigonus machaera--Haps (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

all right, but how about the etymology, it would make Wikispecies different to other databases (and more attractive?).--Haps (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

well, I can understand your point, but I think it would be good, especially in fish, to have a difference in WS to CoF or FB.--Haps (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your many good advices.--Haps (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

New discovered species

September 4, 2012; Hebelomagriseopruinatum --Zeljko (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Pachylaelapidae

Stephen,

What is the just family? Pachylaelapidae or Pachylaelaptidae. There are a lot new species under Pachylaelaptidae.

Regards,

PeterR (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Zfg formatting for Taxonavigation

Hi. I honestly quite uncomfortable with that formatting (plz see: Echimyidae). The example is Panthera tigris page, it is not? It becomes "bold-less" when showed as base page. Can you explain the reason? I'm just a "citizen scientist", don't know much about taxonomy. Also thanks for the corrections. --Ultima.ramza (talk) 03:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't quite understand what you are trying to say. The zfg formatting is mainly to highlight that ONLY these names (plus genera and species names) have an author/date. Many people add author/date to order, class, phylum, etc. names, but this is meaningless and a pointless waste of time. It's not perfect, but nothing in taxonomy (or this world in general) is perfect ... Stho002 (talk) 03:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Ok then. What I mean with "bold-less" is the word becomes bold only on it first alphabet. For example: Template:Zfg. See? Sorry for my bad english. (And also, is it used for animal only? Zoology=animal? --Ultima.ramza (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand fully! But, yes, only use it for animals (actually anything covered by the ICZN), not plants! Stho002 (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I know what Ultima.ramza means. At the moment I'm using a large flat panel monitor and Template:Zfg looks fine, with all letters bold and the initial capital simply larger. But, when I view WS on a small netbook computer, with smaller, lower resolution screen, I have noticed that zfg formatting such as Template:Zfg does not display well; only the initial capital looks boldface and the other letters do not seem to match the initial letter in stroke thickness. Zfg formatting looks obnoxious on my netbook screen. Probably not enough pixel density to display the letters properly. MKOliver (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see! Well, I'm not too worried about such aesthetic matters for small screens! Is it only a problem with bold type? Otherwise, the same problem should occur with the author template Smith, except that author names are rarely bolded Stho002 (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand Geological Survey paleontological bulletin ISSNs

I noticed that New Zealand Geological Survey paleontological bulletin had two ISSN entries (ISSN 0078-8589, ISSN 0114-2283), so I tried to elucidate this. After some research, it would seem that the journal started as Palaeontological Bulletin (a name probably with homonyms to complicate matters) and stopped publication in 1975 before being relaunched in 1979 under the longer name and continuing the numbering (hence why many catalogs treat them as a single publication for convenience).

The 0078 ISSN apply to the original run, and the 0114 one to the continuation. Cheers. Circeus (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually I've found a few other places where the same journal is listed under multiple ISSNs, either because it changed name at some point, or the name listed is incorrect/not the most used. I'll see if I can disentangle the stuff on my own. Circeus (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

They're all corrected now (not sure what happened as to the two Philippine Journal of Science entry, one of which seems to not be in actual use). I've added a note to its page concerning the case of Palaeontological Bulletin. Circeus (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Drosophila

Can you please explain why you've reverted my edits for Drosophila? The current state of the page contains many errors, and the partition into subgenera and species-groups is omitted. Mariusm (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I expected you to "spit the dummy", as we say, but you are going to have to "bite the bullet" on this one, I'm afraid! The Drosophila page in question has a partition into subgenera, but, as an added extra also has an overview of species, which is referenced to Catalogue of Life. Any errors are the fault of CoL. My intention is to gradually refine the overview, making appropriate addenda and corrigenda to CoL, but it will be almost impossible to keep track of all those species names if you remove it! And removing it to the talk page won't cut it either! You can put your version on the talk page if you wish. IF the species list was a regular species list, and not an overview, then your suggestion would be a good one, but, as I said, we already have the species put into subgenera (or at least the pages to complete that task). Please think about it ... Stho002 (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The partition into "Species groups" is very useful if not essential for a genus of this magnitude. All the recent authors of Drosophila are taking them into account. I'll put the detailed partition into the subgenera pages and leave the main species page as it is. Mariusm (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The search issue isn't really a problem: you can perform a search either from your browser or from the Wikispecies search box. The pages get too much cluttered if both partition and alphabetic order are present. Mariusm (talk) 06:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation of generic homonyms

Thanks; I've revised it. I was working from examples in List of valid homonyms, which vary all over the place as you know. MKOliver (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

deleted introduction

Would it be possible to know about your reason(s) for bluntly deleting my presentation in wikispecies ?

This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.

03:36, 23 October 2012 Stho002 (Talk | contribs) deleted page User:Bibliorock (wrong Wiki)

Should it be your error, please put it back.

Thanks --Bibliorock (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Changing my work

Stephen,

If you one times again change my work without consultation with me I shall with my friends destroy all your work

PeterR (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Stephen, Peter is a prolific contributor to this site and has often posted in areas where I have expertise. I have always found that discussing matters has allowed a reasonable settlement of differences of opinion. I am disappointed so see him blocked, and wonder whether it might not be possible to make a more constructive dialogue. Clearly threats to destroy work are very serious, but if something has so clearly got under Peter's skin, then it would be better for the project as a whole if this could be resolved with less dire action. Is ther some way we can fins a mutually beneficial resolution here? Alan Accassidy (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The 3 day block is entirely appropriate, and will stand ... Stho002 (talk) 22:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably so, but is there nothing you would reflect on that may have caused this threat, a very strong reaction from Peter to something that clearly provoked him? Accassidy (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You have change the Mythimna subgenera (which I setup after original buletins and books). All the information I add by those speccies you didn't take over on the new species. I spend thousands of Euro's in a year to get this information. If you don't agree with my work (I know you do) you have to inform me like Alan does. And not when I have an original bulletin with genera groups I add those a few hours later you have destroy them. If you have new ideas you should debat them on village pump and after every body agree with this new idea you have to make new templates. So every body can work after the new idea (or delete some templates). You can block me off but than it will be a real war. I don't agree how you make some references. For me it is a mist. I can't see the authors. Only Zt with numbers. There is no template or instruction to change them (for example Li, H. in Li, H.-H). The same with new genera (2012, 2011) No instruction how to add them.

PeterR (talk) 10:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Peter,

Firstly, no, it won't be a "real war" if I block you, you will just be blocked, that's all ... so, for the second and final time, please don't make threats, for your own sake...

Now, you have raised a couple of different issues:

(1) Informal species groups/genus groups: please just don't put these into Wikispecies. There are various reasons why they aren't a good idea here. I have no time to explain fully. PLEASE, just stick to the core Wikispecies information, i.e., put in genera and species, each with authority/date and original reference, and please DON'T waste time on other things like informal species groups, or subgenera, or subspecies. There are hundreds of thousands of such basic genus/species names that still need putting into Wikispecies, so that should be our highest priority ...

(2) Reference templates, like "Zt" for Zootaxa: I am using these to make Wikispecies more powerful, but you don't have to use them. As I said above, all will be well if you create pages for genera and species, each with authority/date and original reference, where the reference can be written out in full if you wish (though I, or others may replace it with a reference template at some point)...

Please think hard about what I have said...

Stephen

(1) You don't explain why you have change my contribution with species with subgenera in subgenera without information i added. Why?

(2) Some authors use subgenera or species groups or both. I asked some authors about the status of the subgenera. They are official and so I add them in Wiki. If I see other sides (Funet, Russian beetles etc.) I see these species with subgenera. So official I have wright. Therefore I'm going on with add them.

(3) subspecies are official, so I add them after original bulletins or books. (Alan does the same) If I have a bulletin with four species and two subspecies I add them all.

(4) point 2 and 3 are core Wikispecies information.

PeterR (talk) 10:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Both of you frickin calm down already.

• I mean, are you seriously having edit wars over page formatting when no damn recommended formatting has ever been properly documented? The documentation pages as they currently stand are a joke that don't even cover half of what stephen typicall adds to a page. You will get a chance to argue over that stuff when such documentation actually exists. Btw, Stephen, you do NOT get to make arguments such as "DON'T waste time on other things like [...] subgenera, or subspecies." when your own disputed edits here—in the Mythimna case anyway—were 120% issues of formatting!
  • This includes formatting for zoological subgenera (if your nomenclatural code can't mandate a specific formatting, that's not Wikispecies' problem, but given subgenera of the same name can exist in different genera, I don't see why the hell they should be pagenamed as if they were genera...), the inclusion of species in the genus or lower rank pages and the formatting of references (personally I loathe template:aut).
• On the issue of species-groups, though, I am very much behind Stephen. If it's not a code-sanctioned taxonomic rank or nomenclatural status (i.e. sanctioned botanical name, nomen oblitum...) it has no business being on Wikispecies. Again if your code can't be bothered to get finer than subgenera, that is not Wikispecies' problem: we are a repository of taxonomic, not phylogenetic data.

Circeus (talk) 16:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Peter (and Circeus): As I expected, there is some misunderstanding here. It was merely my *advice* to Peter not to bother with subgenera or subspecies ... good advice, by the way! I *do* add subgenera and subspecies, and yes, we do want them here on Wikispecies, but not as a priority (look at CoL, EoL, for example ... do you see subgenera? No!) Actually, subspecies aren't a problem, but subgenera are a HUGE problem because of the way they have been handled up to now on Wikispecies (=the way Peter handles them). For various reasons, it is a HUGE mistake to include subgenus name in the species page name! THAT is the only thing I object to. It complicates everything for no benefit. For example, automatic links to external databases like Col and Eol don't work for such page names. But Peter can be very reluctant to change his ways ... Stephen

If you mean pagenames of the form "Genus (subgenus) species", then I very much agree! The subgenus is NOT a part of species names under any nomenclatural code I know of. It is only ever used in publications as a convenience. The only trinomials under either ICZN or ICN are infraspecific names. Circeus (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I mean ... but Peter doesn't seem to get it ... Stho002 (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, it is an *optional* part of the name according to ICZN, but here on WS it just complicates matters for no benefit ... Stho002 (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I meant that given the way pages are structured, with the taxonavigation, it's entirely superfluous. Circeus (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, yes ... Stho002 (talk) 05:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation terms

What to do in cases of species names where one already puts () around the author's name due to being assigned to a genus other than the original, like Megaselia halterata (Wood, 1910)? Make the page as Megaselia halterata ((Wood))? If not, don't you lose the information about the genus assignment that way? Koumz (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The () in a page name is purely for disambiguation, and nothing to do with () in the name section of the page ... Stho002 (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

So a page for "Genus species" Wood, 1910 and a page for Genus species (Wood, 1910) would both be titled Genus species (Wood) if disambiguation were needed? Koumz (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes ... Stho002 (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems a bit of an inconsistent treatment, but I'll follow it anyway to avoid creating problems. Koumz (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It isn't in the least bit inconsistent, bearing in mind that page names and disambiguation are quite distinct things from rules about taxonomic names ... Stho002 (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

okey, sorry.. --Fagus (talk) 06:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of my userpage

Hi, you seem to have deleted my userpage without noticing that it was merely vandalized, not created by vandals, would you be so kind as to restore it so I can revert it to the correct revision? Kind regards, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)