I can also be contacted at w:en:User talk:UtherSRG, but you should feel free to leave me a message here. - UtherSRG 15:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why did you obliterate the 5 major lineages??? That way we lose most of what we know of the group! - Gacp

I do not find those lineages in a Google search. I find Heroini, and I find the genera. - UtherSRG 20:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And? Did you find my thesis "Phylogeny and biogeographical history of the cichlid tribe Heroini" (2002)? Sorry, it's off the web right now :-(, it was online and will be back ASAP. For now, check this old page http://golab.unl.edu/projects/Cichlidae/ About the thesis: no prob, it's copyleft--ready for a big upload of 250+ pp.? - Gacp

That's exactly the resource I used. Tribe Heroini, with a South & Meso American split (not formal groupings) for several genera. One's own personal work that is unpublished (in hard or electronic format) I find to be unacceptable source material. If you can't point to something that someone can use to verify your edits, you might want to reconsider your edits. I can point to the UNL cichlid site and know that it's at least something people can use to double check the edits I've made. - UtherSRG 20:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
PS. Please use ~~~~ to sign your "talk" edits. - UtherSRG 20:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Concheiro Perez, G.A. 2002. Phylogeny and biogeographical history of the tribe Heroini Kullander, 1998 (Perciformes; Cichlidae; Cichlinae). MS Thesis, University of Nebraska at Lincoln, USA.

Will be again on line as soon as I solve the issue with the hosting. -gacp

blocking policy edit

hi, have you ever thought about the sense of blocking dynamic IPs as "indefinite" or for 1 week? please see Special:Log/block and look after the identification of the IPs with http://www.ripe.net/fcgi-bin/whois -- perhaps you can read en:IP address and en:Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol so that you learn that it is absolutely nonsense to block dynamimc IPs for more than 1 or 2 days, normally an hour is enough because you can get a new IP with every new login.

I also wanted to write to Benedikt, but he was already informed there.

thx, peter 02:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good morning edit

I did my best to ward off the vandalism last night, but there's still a bit of backlog in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Andrevan 14:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Soldier green edit

Sorry for the change of Ara militaris, I was actually tring to make Ara hyacinthinus, although this species is not in the list on page Ara, meybe it belongs somewehere else now? Dan Koehl 13:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, misunderstanding here. Ara militaris was ok I think, can be undeleted! (I just changed it wrong, but after you restored the file it as correct. Dan Koehl 14:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Vernacular names edit

Hi UtherSRG. First of all, thanks for welcoming me to the site. This is my first few edits on Wiki in general, so I don't really know anything about Wiki politics yet...

You left me a message saying not to put in links to vernacular names (like no:Hjort) when the page it links to does not exist. Is this a wikispecies policy, or a personal opinion? Has there been any discussion on this that I can read up on?

My personal opinion about it is that it shouldn't matter whether the page exists or not. When looking at a wikispecies page, people might wonder what this species (genus, family, whatever) is called in a given language. I want to put that information there, regardless of whether or not there is a page in the given wikipedia. I can't see any good reason for this information not to be there. Please enlighten me.

I thought at first that it was the dead link you didn't like, so I tried adding the name without link. Apparently, you didn't like that either, since you just removed it (this time without telling me).

Is the criterion simply that the page I link to exists? What if I create a skeleton page for someone to fill in the future, would that help?

Thanks. User:Sverre 22:15, August 13, 2005 (GMT)

Hi UtherSRG,
Thanks for your welcoming message. I also got a similar message from you as Sverre above, so I decided to reply here:
I'm sorry if I acted against a Wikispecies rule. I (mis?)understood the Vernacular names section in exactly the same way as Sverre above. The introduction is not clear about whether it is bad to link to a non-existing article, but I won't do it again if it's not taken well. As you can see, Sverre has not made a single contribution since the week you told him to stop interlinking. I hope that was not the reason he left Wikispecies, but I would understand it.
I thought information about the name of a species in many languages would not belong in the Wikipedia, as it is not a dictionary, nor in the Wiktionary, as it is impossible to browse taxonomically there, so I thought this kind of information would fit in Wikispecies. I now see there is no place for it in the Wiki world.
What use is Wikispecies if it is for speakers of Latin exclusively? I don't think it's any good to tell people to first make a Wikipedia page in every language they want for every level in the taxonomic tree they want to take before they dare place a translation in Wikispecies. If you do all that in the Wikipedias, why on earth would anybody need Wikispecies, then?
I do understand that it might be bad to set links to pages that do not (yet) exist. However, I would not like to see all the work I have put into finding out living-language terms undone. Instead, I suggest that I simply remove the linking property out of all concerned contributions, leaving them as plain text. I admit I haven't seen that anywhere on Wikispecies, but I cannot see how it would hurt anybody.
Kind regards, Wikispezi 13:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Hi UtherSRG,

I was also pointed out not to add non-linking subjects of Japanese vernacular names by admin Ucucha. I agree with what user Sverre and user Wikispezi says.

Wikispecies FAQ says that "Wikispecies is not a fork of Wikipedia" and "Wikispecies aims to feed into the Wikipedias". I thought (and still believe) it means whether link exists or not, Wikispecies should actively propose to Wikipedia. So, I decided to add non-linking subjects. I would like to say the same as user Sverre. It may be all right to wait someone will describe the subjects in the future.

I can find many many red-colored links in Latin names. These are the waiting subjects, aren't they? Could you tell me why the Latin names are welcome and vernacular names are not?MUK 11:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

The difference is that the red links are obvious. Anyone knowing the smallest amount about wiki will know that a blue link leads to an existing article, while a red link will lead to article creation. Interwiki links all look the same; one can not tell if it leads to an existing article or not. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
If you answer MUK, would you also answer me, please? I suggested that I simply remove the linking property out of all concerned contributions, leaving them as plain text. As long as you don't agree, I don't want to start doing that because I'd always have to fear a complete removal of all vernacular names by you, rendering my work useless as Sverre above said you have done with his de-linked VNs. Who are you to make up your own rules? As far as I can tell, there is no concensus on the vernacular names issue yet. On another note, not adding comments to deletions like this can further contribute to irritating users. Not that I challenge this particular edit, but a short explanation would be helpful, even though I see how that would increase work for you.
Despite our differences: thanks for your work on the project, which you seem to carry out in almost bot-like speed. Amazing. ~ Wikispezi 03:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
P.S. Leaving linkless VNs in place might also ease Wikipedia editors' task of creating articles there, what with taxonavigation and all. ~ Wikispezi 03:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
I suppose unlinked vernaculars would be ok, although I dread the collection of possibly unrelated-seeming words and phrases there. Yes, putting in a edit comment is not always easy to do. I try when I can easily copy & paste, but if it's just a revert or other garbage clean up, I'm less likely to do so. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
That collection of possibly unrelated-seeming words could indeed be a problem. Who will be the authority on 'official' names for a certain language? As a marine biologist, I know several (up to ten) different Dutch names for some species of fish. All but one,—we have legal names in Belgium for fishes, that e.g. have to be use in supermarkets etc.—would be local vernacular and not suited for Wikispecies, I think. — Lycaon 12:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

You probably know my stance. I think we should include vernacular names. I think this was the original intention. It is clearly stated in the original template of an article. I think the issue of a collection of possibly unrelated-seeming words is not that big of a problem. If it is a well known species, there will be an article in wikipedia in that language and that should mention all of the possible names and we won't need to keep them all here. I think it is also clear that we should have vernacular names because almost everyone who has come to wikispecies and has added content has tried to add vernacular names. Thanks for listening. Open2universe 14:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Vernacular names, where no article exists for interwiking, should go in a "vernacular names" section of the article, like other information, without links. There is no doubting that they are valuable information that should be included in the article. In fact, I would argue that some of the original intent was that these should be included. Sardino 03:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Whither Search? edit

Howdy. Just getting started here, so if I fall short of the style guidelines I encourage you to drop me a note. Does the search feature on this Wiki work at all? It seems to be totally broken. -Wayne Steele

Mammal subclasses edit

Hi UtherSRG,

I've started to convert all pages to the Prototheria/Theria system (seems the best-accepted one for now, although I should use Australosphenida/Theriiformes). I have started to run a bot (User:UcuchaBot) to convert "::::::Subclassis: Marsupialia" into "::::::Subclassis: Theria". Please comment if it's not good. Ucucha 11:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I'm also doing Placentalia -> Theria now. I noticed that your Template:Primates does not use the infraclass. I simply changed {Placentalia} into {Theria} for now, but if you want to have Placentalia (infraclass) in the taxonavigation, you'll have to put an extra ":" in all pages. It might be possible to do that with my bot if you want. Maybe the superorder Archonta, Euarchonta or Euarchontoglires can also be included then. Ucucha 13:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Bot at your leisure - I've yet to figure out how to make a bot that works. - UtherSRG 13:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
It's not very hard, I think. Should I add the :'s to the Primates (or try it in any case)? Ucucha 13:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I'm sure it's not, but I've not ever been given any clear instructions. I'm not sure if I want just the extra ":"s, or if we should expand and add the various superorders below Placentalia. Does MSW3 talk much about the taxons down to the order level, or does it mostly focus on order and below? (I can't tell much given only the Primates chapter.) - UtherSRG 13:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Vernacular names, again edit

I see you have removed some vernacular names I added. Please explain why. Thanks. Open2universe 12:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

It is better to not add interwiki links to articles that do not exist. If you are creating these articles on en:, then make the en: article first before creating the link to it here. - UtherSRG 12:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I will grant you that. Do you think there is no value in noting vernacular names when they are known? If so, and others also agree, then I think the Template should be changed. It currently reads as follows:
VERNACULAR NAMES: Give names of the species in other languages as well as links to articles on this species in the particular wikipedia, for example: en:badger (links to the English wikipedia on badgers), de:Dachs (links to the German wikipedia article on badgers).
Given what you are doing I believe it should read
VERNACULAR NAMES: Give names of the species in other languages only if there are links to articles on this species in the particular wikipedia, for example: en:badger (links to the English wikipedia on badgers), de:Dachs (links to the German wikipedia article on badgers).
I personally do not care one way or the other, but I hate to see wasted effort.Thanks Open2universe 15:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I think the VERNACULAR NAMES should be changed into "LINKS TO WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES" or so. After all, there are interesting articles in Wikipedias about animals that do not give a common name (nl:Cryptonanus for example ;-)). We may make two separate sections "links to Wikipedia articles" and "Vernacular names". I made a list of common names (together with nl:Gebruiker:De Klauw) of mammals at nl:Gebruiker:Ucucha/Lijst. Most mammals for which we have a common name don't have a page. Ucucha 15:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I believe the script that carries through the deactivation of the name is disactivated until to arrive at an agreement.Alessandro70 15:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
What script? There is no such thing. - UtherSRG 02:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Script is automatic exclusion. You are deleting all Vernacular name in English, same what they having link. Vide Megalops atlanticus Vernacular name en:Tarpon. .Alessandro70 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I know what I am doing - I'm deleting incorrect or non-existant links. en:Tarpon is not the correct link. en:Atlantic tarpon is correct, but not yet written. - UtherSRG 01:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
I had writted the link en:Atlantic tarpon, but it have deleted. You are delete the vernacular name en:Large Marble in the page Euchloe ausonides. I would like to know the reason..Alessandro70 01 September 2005 (UTC)
Simply making a one-line, typo-filled stub does not count as an article. If you are going to make a real article on en: wikipedia, put in a good effort of at least a full paragraph and a taxobox. Also, make sure it is consistent with eisting articles. One wikispecies article you had listed two en: articles, which you then created. This was also a bad play; there should only have been one article listing both names, with the other being a redirect. Since English is not your primary anguage, I suggest not making the en: links unless they already exist, and using whatever is your primary language (Espanol?) and linking to existing es: articles. - UtherSRG 13:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Can I make ?
==Vernacular Names==
*en:Large Marble
==Vernacular Names==
*[[en:Large Marble]]
for a non-existant links
Alessandro70 1 September 2005 (UTC)
No. Neither. - UtherSRG 19:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Unplaced Didelphimorpha Genera edit

Except that it should be Didelphimorphia ;), I don't think this is a good idea. You put another, unused, taxon between the order and the genus, while these genera just belong to the order immediately. Szalinia, for example, is probably the sister taxon of all other didelphimorphs. Hyladelphys might be something like that, too. They're not "unplaced", they simply don't have a family name. In some cases, the classification scheme shouldn't be used too strictly ;-). Ucucha 19:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Looked at another way, these are all genera which belong to one or more families which have yet to be erected. While I may agree that the classification scheme shouldn't be followed too strictly for intermediary taxa, I have to disagree when it comes to the major taxa. - UtherSRG 20:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Maybe, maybe, but I think it becomes more difficult to find these genera. I don't know why we can't simply put them directly into the Didelphimorphia article. Ucucha 14:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
To the uninitiated, it looks like we're listing all the (in this case) families and all the genera. Then some newless cluebie comes along and does the same to a new article or twelve, and I end up being the cleanup crew making dovens of new pages simply because they were "following the pattern". If each article only goes so far as the rank immediately below, and any taxa that skip that rank are lumped into one (or more - there's at least one of those) "Unspecified" listings, everything is consistent and there's less cleanup to be done from mistakes. - UtherSRG 14:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Another possibility is to write "Unplaced genera" and link it to a page in which an explanation is made. Ucucha 14:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
And just have one page for all of the unplaged geera in the whole tree of life? - UtherSRG 15:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
It will get very, very long, I think. Many fossil genera are not placed in a family. Ucucha 15:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Right. So doesn't Unplaced Didelphimorpha Genera make more sense? - UtherSRG 15:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I think you misunderstood me. I meant that a page - unplaced genera or so - should be linked from the Didelphimorphia page. This page should include information about unplaced genera, why they are unplaced, and so on. Ucucha 15:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I didn't misunderstand you. I disagree with you. Having one huge article describing the lack of placement for all of the unplaced genera across the entire tree of life is unhelpful for folks drilling down through the tree. Instead, place each grouping of genera in an article unique to that grouping and, like any placed taxa, describe what's going on there. - UtherSRG 16:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Again, it should not be a list, but simply something like:

"Some taxa are not placed in a family, order, class, or phylum. This may have several causes:

  • Some taxa are not known well enough to assign them to an appropriate subtaxon;
  • Some taxa should have a subtaxon of their own, but this is not yet erected.

On Wikispecies, these subtaxa are listed under the taxon immediately above it."

What are you going to do with phyla containing one species, like Symbion pandora, but no orders or families? Ucucha 16:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks edit

You're much more active, I think. Anyway thanks for your support :-). Maybe I had an even more overwhelming consensus when becoming an admin on nl: than you had on en:: 50+ votes for, no votes against ;-). Ucucha (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Chinese vandalism edit

Can you block This person inserted chinese links into various WikiSpecies pages. (See Special:Recentchanges)

I reverted the changes (I'm getting good at that ;-)) Thanx Lycaon 09:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Admin edit

My poll has ended, it seems. Can you please make me an admin? Ucucha (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Benedikt did it already. I'm sorry. Ucucha (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
That was good timing, wasn't it? ;D --Benedikt

blanking pages edit

Thanks for the deletion tip. Lycaon 16:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Orchids edit

In the process of 'cleaning up' orchid taxo, sadly a number of genera got lost (read deleted). What about e.g. Aceras anthropophorum (L.) R. Br. ex W. T. Aiton (The genus Aceras featured under Orchidinae)? Also some subtribes are now missing. I didn't check the whole lot though. Is it not a bit too thorough to delete pages immediately without the possibility of discussion and/or revert? (e.g. Habenariinae). Which sources did you use for your revision? Just wondering... and a bit worried... Lycaon 19:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

It was on our To Do list. Specifically, the task was to take w:Taxonomy_of_the_orchid_family and import it here. If I was too hasty in the few deletes I made, rest assured that I can restore the articles almost as quickly. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
I was only a bit worried anyhow ;-). I also noticed that 'anyone' can put 'anything' on the To Do list (I did: I changed Done's in ToDo's and added Peracarida...). Lycaon 19:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Common name redirects edit

Hi, I think common name redirects like Araignée should be included. They make it easier to use Wikispecies for some persons. Ucucha (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Puma edit

Hi, am I correct to assume that vernacular names should be with the species, not with the genus? Lycaon 16:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Point taken Lycaon 16:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Is this statement also valid for descriptions (cfr. Babyrousa)? Lycaon 18:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

With the caveat that I don't think the text you point to is much in keeping with the Wikispecies concept, yes. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Insecta edit

In answer to your message, yes, I've done some restructuration on the Insecta (and I'll done some later to), cause this class was really messy. Some ordre and familly was treated as sous-class, many taxonomic system was mixed up, and in general, was the taxa was very incomplet when not totally wrong. It's sure that the Insecta will be something hard to keep correct cause the systematic change all the years, and they are many different taxonomic system. It's sure that I'll try to keep the articles in concordance with the others... but sometimes, it's just impossible.

For my informations, I take it from different books, and also, I'm doing an entomology cours at university, and I take some informations there. The principale book that I use is "The Insects: An Outline of Entomology" of P.J. Gullan and P.S. Cranston out in 2005. So the information about the systematic are at date.

-Trépas (talk)

Arabic edit

Hi Uther ... Thanks for ur Welcome Message , actually i have putted a question in village pump about making an arabic interface of wikispecies , but i got no answer , so i made it u can see it at الصفحة الرئيسية , please tell me if i need to apply a request for it or not --Chaos 19:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for ur reply .. could u please add this العربية (Arabic) to the template:Languages --Chaos 13:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Done. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Insertae sedis edit

Are you checking every single entry? I hope I didn't make more of those silly mistakes. Thanx for correcting. Lycaon 19:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Deletion request edit

Since you're an admin, I was wondering if you'd like to delete the following pages (now redirects) you moved to other places a year ago (some were re-redirected six months ago by someone else):

I've checked that nothing links to any of these pages (as of the hour I'm posting this). - dcljr 00:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've taken the liberty... Lycaon 07:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Tetrapodomorpha Insertae sedis edit

Apart from the other problems you have been fixing, surely the word is INCERTAE not INSERTAE?--Keith Edkins (Talk) 14:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Quite so. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Username change request edit

Greetings! I'm a Wikipedia admin, and I've recently changed my username there to counter the trend of vandals digging for personal info on admins, in order to disrupt their non-wiki lives. I'd like to do the same here - can you please change my username to User:BD2412? BD2412 T 05:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've changed your username. I'm not exactly UtherSRG, but I came across your post and I wanted to test the rename-user interface ;-). Ucucha (talk) 07:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for wandering by! BD2412 T 08:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Logo discussion edit

Hi! I just wanted to draw your attention to a change to the logo I proposed at the village pump, since you seem to be one of the active administrators on this project. Looking forward to hearing your opinion on this! —Nightstallion (?) 13:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dispute about Parazoanthus edit

Hi, User:Fsinniger is new to Wikispecies. Potentially, he is a very valuable asset as an editor. However, after making just a few edits (some of which were very sloppy and I had to fix), he has fixed on a minor technical point of disagreement with me, and is being aggressive (I have had several emails from him). I suggested several times that he proceed by adding more useful information to Wikispecies, and we can sort out the minor points of disagreement in due course, but he is apparently not willing to do that, so I blocked him for just a few days to make the point that he does not have a mandate to insist how we do things unilaterally, O.K.? Stho002 (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

by the way, I have undone your revert of my edit of Parazoanthus. The last version was mine, so it is my version to be locked. Thank you ... Stho002 (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
since the page is locked, I will unblock User:Fsinniger Stho002 (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
That was the wrong move on both accounts. the right move is to follow my request and not edit the article, or proceed with admin actions. You and he are in a dispute. You should not use your admin powers within a dispute. This is very bad. Please provide me with the information I request so that I can help settled the dispute. - user:UtherSRG (talk) 23:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
You are obviously known to User:Fsinniger, as he has "called you in" to help him. It would be an ABUSE of YOUR admin powers to do this. I am not using my admin powers to win the dispute, but to stop a newbee editor from insisting unilaterally that things are done the way he wants them to be (particularly on an issue so minor, yet complex as this one). Stho002 (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I do not know either of you. I don't know why he picked me. Please just comply. I think I can resolve this in the best interests of Wikispecies. - user:UtherSRG (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Like I explained to Stho002 already, I picked UtherSRG randomly in the administrator list after the two first admins I had picked appeared to be "retired" from wikispecies. I do not care which admin moderates this issue, but I do think an external administrator is necessary when a dispute involves an administrator using his "admin privileges" to impose his point (referring to my ban and the simple deletion of references without explanations, references for species names still did not reappear by the way). I suggested to follow the ICZN rules (see my last message on the discussion page. I do believe that it is in wikispecies interest to follow scientific rules, but as said, I am just a newbie and I might be wrong... user:Fsinniger (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2010 (EDT)
This is complete drivel! I am the one following the ICZN rules! It is a very small disagreement about a not very important issue that the "newbie" is blowing up out of all proportion! He is the one trying to impose his will on the Wiki... Stho002 (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Stho002, instead of saying that you do everything right, please provide the references and justifications to it. I still don't know why you removed the references to the original descriptions of the valid species listed. and about ICZN, I provided the article of the ICZN in the discussion page of Parazoanthus (where I think this discussion should be done...) but I will copy it here "32.5.1. If there is in the original publication itself, without recourse to any external source of information, clear evidence of an inadvertent error, such as a lapsus calami or a copyist's or printer's error, it must be corrected. Incorrect transliteration or latinization, or use of an inappropriate connecting vowel, are not to be considered inadvertent errors." Now, like I said, I might have missed some articles in the ICZN and in this case I would like for you to come up with the missed points, rather than saying that you do right. The essence of science is not about being right or wrong, is about providing reference or demonstration to our assertions. Else it is not worth more than any tabloid information. Personally I do think that on a site that is about species names list and taxonomy, the modification of published names and the removal of reference is a major issue. I am not trying to impose my will, I am just asking for justifications that I am still waiting for... For the time when I contacted another administrator, it is totally public, there is no conspiracy, simply user:UtherSRG seems to have another talk page, that as an admin you will find easily (no time to dig up this link now, sorry). user:Fsinniger (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2010 (EDT)
I am not aware that I removed any references to original descriptions - what are you talking about? Article 32.5.1 does not apply to incorrect (according to the Code) original spellings. Please learn your Code! Stho002 (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well it seems that the discussion part of the page Parazoanthus is useless, so let's continue here (sorry UtherSRG). About the references, your answer is a little scary coming from an admin. This would mean that you deleted my edits without even reading them (?!?), well if you want to motivate professional taxonomists to invest time in wikispecies, I think there are better ways. So just check my last edits that you deleted and you will find the references for all the valid species I had listed. Concerning the code, the article 32 is all about "original spellings". As I said I might have missed some points, and I am wishing to "learn my code", but this would be helped if you could mention on which article of the code you base yourself, because this time again except of affirming that I am wrong and I should learn, you still do not provide any reference for your assertions. user:Fsinniger (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
BTW, you must lock pages on the current version (as this is verifiable), not on the version when you were contacted about the dispute (which only you know) ... Stho002 (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
So it has been now over two months, and surprisingly the "vandal" (me) has justified every actions (except yesterday when I did not log in with my pseudo) but I somehow cannot find any justification from the administrator User:Stho002 who keeps simply deleting the changes... Maybe at some point Wikispecies got mixed up in the definition of vandalism and the roles of administrator to prevent such vandalism... So if like User:Stho002 you want to include all the species that at one time in history were placed in a genus (like he does for P. tunicans, which is now Hydrozoanthus tunicans and this is published research) then I wish you very good luck, but I am sorry to inform you that such list will become totally useless (then Parazoanthus axinellae should be also in Palythoa axinellae, and also in Polythoa axinellae, etc...) Maybe see my point there, for wikispecies to be useful (from my point of view) the information presented should be referenced in scientific literature (or at least the author should explain his modification when modifying referenced work... Such open access database is great if administrators respect the rules, or simply should I become an administrator to lock the page after my modifications? user:Fsinniger (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey edit

Hey UtherSRG, can you take a look at this? Cheers. Pikolas (talk) 00:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Forced user renames coming soon for SUL edit

Hi, sorry for writing in English. I'm writing to ask you, as a bureaucrat of this wiki, to translate and review the notification that will be sent to all users, also on this wiki, who will be forced to change their user name on May 27 and will probably need your help with renames. You may also want to help with the pages m:Rename practices and m:Global rename policy. Thank you, Nemo 17:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

An important message about renaming users edit

Dear UtherSRG,

I am cross-posting this message to many places to make sure everyone who is a Wikimedia Foundation project bureaucrat receives a copy. If you are a bureaucrat on more than one wiki, you will receive this message on each wiki where you are a bureaucrat.

As you may have seen, work to perform the Wikimedia cluster-wide single-user login finalisation (SUL finalisation) is taking place. This may potentially effect your work as a local bureaucrat, so please read this message carefully.

Why is this happening? As currently stated at the global rename policy, a global account is a name linked to a single user across all Wikimedia wikis, with local accounts unified into a global collection. Previously, the only way to rename a unified user was to individually rename every local account. This was an extremely difficult and time-consuming task, both for stewards and for the users who had to initiate discussions with local bureaucrats (who perform local renames to date) on every wiki with available bureaucrats. The process took a very long time, since it's difficult to coordinate crosswiki renames among the projects and bureaucrats involved in individual projects.

The SUL finalisation will be taking place in stages, and one of the first stages will be to turn off Special:RenameUser locally. This needs to be done as soon as possible, on advice and input from Stewards and engineers for the project, so that no more accounts that are unified globally are broken by a local rename to usurp the global account name. Once this is done, the process of global name unification can begin. The date that has been chosen to turn off local renaming and shift over to entirely global renaming is 15 September 2014, or three weeks time from now. In place of local renames is a new tool, hosted on Meta, that allows for global renames on all wikis where the name is not registered will be deployed.

Your help is greatly needed during this process and going forward in the future if, as a bureaucrat, renaming users is something that you do or have an interest in participating in. The Wikimedia Stewards have set up, and are in charge of, a new community usergroup on Meta in order to share knowledge and work together on renaming accounts globally, called Global renamers. Stewards are in the process of creating documentation to help global renamers to get used to and learn more about global accounts and tools and Meta in general as well as the application format. As transparency is a valuable thing in our movement, the Stewards would like to have at least a brief public application period. If you are an experienced renamer as a local bureaucrat, the process of becoming a part of this group could take as little as 24 hours to complete. You, as a bureaucrat, should be able to apply for the global renamer right on Meta by the requests for global permissions page on 1 September, a week from now.

In the meantime please update your local page where users request renames to reflect this move to global renaming, and if there is a rename request and the user has edited more than one wiki with the name, please send them to the request page for a global rename.

Stewards greatly appreciate the trust local communities have in you and want to make this transition as easy as possible so that the two groups can start working together to ensure everyone has a unique login identity across Wikimedia projects. Completing this project will allow for long-desired universal tools like a global watchlist, global notifications and many, many more features to make work easier.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the SUL finalisation, read over the Help:Unified login page on Meta and leave a note on the talk page there, or on the talk page for global renamers. You can also contact me on my talk page on meta if you would like. I'm working as a bridge between Wikimedia Foundation Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Stewards, and you to assure that SUL finalisation goes as smoothly as possible; this is a community-driven process and I encourage you to work with the Stewards for our communities.

Thank you for your time. -- Keegan (WMF) talk 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society edit


Dear UtherSRG,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikispecies project for ten years or more.

Best regards, Dan Koehl (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Request for vote reg use of BASEPAGENAME edit

The previous discussions regarding if we should subst:ing BASEPAGENAME and change all [[BASEPAGENAME]] into [[susbt:BASEPAGENAME]] did not really reach a consensus.

Please vote here on the Village pump!

If you are not sure on your opinion, you can read and join the discussion about the claimed advantages and disadvantages of using BASEPAGENAME

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

Wikispecies Oversighter edit

Wikispecies has no local Oversighter. Since I had the communitys confidence regarding the previous application for Checkusers rights, as per local Oversight policy on META, I hereby apply to get Oversighters user rights, as a request to the Wikispecies community.

Application is located at Requests for Comment.

Please also note that Oversighter actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Oversighters. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two oversighters, for mutual accountability. I don't want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for oversighters rights.

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

Oversight nomination edit

Please refer to Wikispecies:Oversighters/Requests/Koavf for a second Oversight nomination. Note that we must have at least two Oversigthers in order for anyone to have these user rights. All feedback is welcome. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

De-adminship warning edit

Dear UtherSRG. I am writing to inform you that you are in danger of losing your adminship on Wikispecies because of inactivity.

If you want to keep your adminship, you need both to sign at Wikispecies:Administrators/Inactivity Section within 30 days of today's date, and also to make at least five further admin actions in the following six months. Anyone who does not do so will automatically lose administrator rights.

You can read the de-admin policy at Wikispecies:Administrators/Admin Review.

Thank you. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

As per the Admin Review Policy a request to the Stewards has been made (here) to remove your admin and bureaucrat user rights. Many thanks for the time you put into Wikispecies and we hope you may have time to coninue in the future. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
The Stewards have removed your advance3d user rights. If you would like to continue with Wikispecies in the future your input would be welcome. Thank you. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 22:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply