User talk:Stemonitis/Archive39

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between April 16, 2012 and June 10, 2012.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarising the section you are replying to if necessary.

Botany improvement
Please see post I just made at talk:botany. Thank you. 512bits (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Move request
Lapageria rosea should be at Lapageria under the normal policy for monotypic genera. (The Kew WCSP confirms that the genus is monotypic.) Could you move it please? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Another move request
Zigadenus glaberrimus should be at Zigadenus; the genus is now monotypic. (This is the last of a series of changes caused by the changed circumscription of this genus; all well attested by academic papers, WCSP, etc.) Peter coxhead (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. (Memo to self: I must remember the &amp;nbsp; when writing forms like Z. glaberrimus ...) Peter coxhead (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Have a look here
Hi Stemonitis, I again needed your help with the article Common eland. You know, I wish to make it a Good Article, and have been working on it since long. Please see if there can be made a few changes anywhere - I know there is a bit of problem with the sources but they are better now, and I remembered your points and fixed as much as possible. I am upset that even after so many efforts the article has not got to the GA status. I would be immensely glad if you help.-- Sainsf &lt;^&gt;  ( talk )  09:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * My first impressions are very positive. Clearly, a lot of effort has been put into the article since I last saw it. I will try to find time to check it more thoroughly during the week. Remind me if I forget. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Saxifraga spp.
Thank you for your review of my DYK nomination. With the limited resources that I had found I thought I had done quite a good job, but clearly I had not. I had a look at the source you suggested but there was not a lot more than was already included in the article (though it did mention that S. aspera could have yellow or even red dots on the petals). Even if I expanded the articles, I doubt I could find an interesting hook. So I think I will withdraw the DYK nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * On further thoughts, I worked on the articles and have submitted a new nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it best if I leave the review of the resubmissions to someone else, so that I'm not swayed by how the articles used to be. It also gives the opportunity for someone else's idea of what's interesting to come into play. I have reviewed your eel article, though, and passed it. Good luck with the saxifrages! --Stemonitis (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Outlying fells
Thanks for making the table, with grid refs. When I've finished adding the articles for the chapters (decided to aim for one a day from now on, have got to get on with some Real Life things!), I'll see about adding another couple of columns for chapter name and either page number or chapter sequence.

I see you've found names for some of the nameless summit, such as two of the Naddle Horseshoe which I've just created. What's the source for those? As the rest of the article is sourced from Wainwright it would be good to be able to reference the supplementary source in the article, for this and the other ones where it applies.

No-one else has yet commented on any of this stuff - presumably people interested in hills are sensibly spending their spare time out on the hills instead of sitting at a PC editing Wikipedia (though I can see the Howgills from my desk, while listening out in case Mother needs me!) Pam  D  08:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, the Howgill Fells are lovely. I've been once, far too long ago. The whole table is extracted from the Jackson et al. "Database of British and Irish Hills version 12.1". That seemed to be by far the simplest and quickest method for producing it. I don't know quite how to reference that, but I'm sure there will be a way. I agree that Wainwright's names should be included, although if other names are similarly (or more) widely used, we should also include them. There's room in the first column for alternatives, I think. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks - have added refs to Naddle Horseshoe. On alternative names, if the sort A-Z is going to be useful we'd need to add extra dummy lines for alt titles (with content "X see Y") so they could be found under either - padded out with something which files to end of sort sequence for all cols other than name. And then make the other entry into "Y, also known as X", so that its entry is as useful as possible when sorted by any of the other cols. Will have a think. Pam  D  09:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Paris polyphylla
FYI, see User talk:PJay23. BTW, this editor told me s/he's working on this article as a class project. I have seen several other new plant articles by new editors introduced today that all have a simlar feel and which I suspect are from the same class and assignment. Lady of  Shalott  03:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly related to this; see also this. Sasata (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reasonable guess, but I don't think so: I don't recongnize any of those user names or species articles. Also, I clicked on the first one listed, and it doesn't match the pattern I've been seeing (in terms of section names, etc.) in these. See my user contributions today (all the species names, well except for the algae) I think relate to this. There are also several currently on the list of New Pages. I've got to go to bed though. Lady  of  Shalott  04:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It may be in order to leave a polite note about things like in use and userspace drafts to prevent this sort of thing cropping up too often. We certainly don't want to put off a potential contributor with heavy-handed complaints. I was a bit annoyed at having to make changes twice (possibly 3 times?), but I'm sure it wasn't meant maliciously. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Trachysalambria curvirostris
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Your opinion as an editor of the page in question would be much appreciated, requested as not my area of interest, regards   Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  01:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

matter referred to a steward
I have referred the matter to a steward, see User_talk:Pathoschild Stho002 (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * From My talk page i have

Reliability of WoRMS
That's just the point! No offence, but I am not merely copying stuff from one place to another. WoRMS has stuffed up in a few places, and I can see that, because their info in those cases makes no sense and contradicts everything else ... Stho002 (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's keep this in one place, on your talk page. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * replied on my talk page
 * ditto


 * I know. I'm watching. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Heya email sent to you on request
--  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  07:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Stho002
Hi. In the light of User talk:Stho002, can I please ask you to stay away from Stho002's Talk page, at least until their block is lifted (if it is, indeed, lifted). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Certainly! I was hopeful that he could provide source material that would help the article. Now that he has refused, I have no further need (or desire) to interact with him. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments requested - Myuchelys
after our discussion the other night I decided to try and fix the Myuchelys page so if you are willing please comment on the talk page of Myuchelys please:Talk:Myuchelys cheers, Faendalimas  talk 08:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've left a comment. I would be interested to see how the article ends up. I have some formatting recommendations, but there's little point in worrying about them before a major edit. I also had a look at the history of the linked Wikispecies page(s), and I was amazed. Stho002 reverts edits, and then protects pages to keep them in his preferred state. Here he would be stripped of his admin bit for that, and it looks like he's done it more than once. I recognise that the Wikispecies community will be unwilling to castigate its most prolific editor, but evidence like that speaks for itself. He was briefly de-sysopped there before, and has been blocked, for edit warring and personal attacks, and further warnings were given in the last month. It doesn't bode well. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks for this saw and took into account your comments and another. Have started rewording the section. I did not reply earlier because of the issues below, thought it best just to let you be to deal with that. Cheers, Faendalimas  talk 06:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 09:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC) Your continual harassment of User:Sth002 while they are blocked is appalling. While blocked, they may only use their talkpage to request unblocks - your continual poking helped push them into what is currently an indefinite block ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 09:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm slightly confused here, not least because I haven't received any real warning, and I don't know what exactly I might have done. I have tried to discover which part of WP:HA I have contravened; it certainly wasn't my intention to harrass anyone. I wasn't offensive (at least, I hope not); my purpose was not to make Stho002 (or anyone else) "feel threatened or intimidated". I only returned to Stho002's talk page because he made an offer of a paper which would be very useful for resolving the issues at Munididae; as soon as it became clear that that wouldn't be forthcoming, I walked away. I didn't crow, because I genuinely think it's a shame when a knowledgeable contributor gets blocked. I can only assume that this is to do with the comments above about his admin actions on Wikispecies (which were made publicly, but were not "calculated to be noticed by the target"). I didn't make any personal attacks; I only made some observations in the context of a previous dispute he had with another editor, and that only because I was asked to comment on the article in question. I'll gladly apologise for anything I might have done, but without understanding the block, I can't really appeal against it. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your continued additions to their talkpage - which they had already stated were unwanted (thus meaning "go away") - have actually led to an escalation of the entire incivility situation there, which eventually led to his indefinite block. In other words, his indef block is due to his response to your comments that he had already told you were unwelcome.  If you read the linked essay on poking the sleeping bear, it would have been very obvious ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Stemonitis had actually agreed to stay away after I requested it a couple of hours before you blocked him, and has not been back to the discussion since - see a couple of entries above. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:12, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * [before ec] The only bit of that exchange that I can see that could be interpreted as "go away" is this one. Until then, I was hopeful that he might provide the Komai paper. After that, I only made one edit there, which was largely a farewell from the page. Is that what I've been blocked for? If so, a simple request here would have been sufficient. I am more than happy to continue without ever editing his talk page again, or mentioning him in other discussions. I have my opinions about his conduct on Wikispecies, but I can see that they are out of place here. As such, I think this block is probably unnecessary under the blocking policy. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Will do. I hadn't appreciated that last point. Thanks for the speedy response. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Tristram's Jird
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Too lenient
You gave 206.183.188.156 one too many chances. Yours was the second "last warning" that this "person" got and there's been nothing but vandalism coming from that source, and he's had multiple warnings prior to that. Check his history of submissions--he's got to go. Any innocent bystanders can get full accounts to protect themselves. But I don't think there are any--according to my searches, this is a solitary client of a small ISP network. Alex.deWitte (talk) 05:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I did a bit more checking and Wendell, Minnesota--the site of several vandalisms attributable to this address--is within a few miles from the location Whois gives for the IP address. Several other clues point in the same direction. The edits appear to be the work of a 13 or 14-year old jerk--who may very well self-identified in some of his posts. Alex.deWitte (talk) 05:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I think my warnings were appropriate. I jumped straight from ClueBot NG's level 1 warning to a level 3, and then on to level 4. Any further disruptive edits would have resulted in an immediate block. Fortunately, the IP seems to have realised this, and stopped making disruptive edits, which is exactly the desired outcome. Histories aren't always reliable for IPs, given the existence of dynamic IPs and shared IPs (different pupils at the same school, for instance), so you can only really base warnings on very recent activity. In this case, I'd be pretty sure that the crayfish edits on the 14th and 15th of May are related, but I can't be so sure about the Prairie Dog edits on the 8th. Maybe it was the same person, maybe not; it doesn't really matter. Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I suppose, that's fair. I usually prefer to refer someone for blocking rather than doing it myself. With naked IP it's even more difficult, precisely for the reasons you cite. Still, it should be noted that every single edit that's attributable to that IP address can be classified as vandalism--whether this is one person or multiple, the result is the same. I also don't see blocking anonymous edit privileges as a punitive measure (except for sock-puppeting). From the pages on my watchlist, crayfish appears to be the second most frequent target for vandalism--only Stamp Act 1765 gets more. My list, however, is rather short (only a couple dozen). Alex.deWitte (talk) 08:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hyperia macrocephala
Hello my friend. I thought you might like my description of Hyperia macrocephala, an absurd interpretation of http://species-identification.org/species.php?species_group=zsao&id=3442

I have absolutely no idea what a "P III-IV" is. Please, block me. Block me for the good of all Wikipedia. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It can be very difficult to convey tone in writing; as a result, I have no idea what you're really trying to say here. Requests to have oneself blocked are usually declined; see WP:BLOCKME. "P III" is shorthand for the third pereiopod; "P IV" is the fourth. The text you added appears to be close paraphrasing of the source you cited. Would you like me to work on it? --Stemonitis (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I was joking about the block.


 * Yes, yes, yes, please help me with the phrasing. I know it's super-close paraphrasing. I couldn't help it. Thank you so much, and sorry to mislead you. :) Oh, and isn't it the cutest little sea monster ever? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I found some good general info at http://www.sil.si.edu/smithsoniancontributions/Zoology/pdf_hi/SCTZ-0136.pdf I will add that in a few days. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, don't apologise. I did think it was probably a joke! It's probably just because I've had to deal with a number of insults and snide remarks (on and off-wiki) recently; I should have known better than to consider anything similar in this case. If you've got plans to improve the article further (please do!), it's probably best if I hold back until that's mostly finished, but it's nice to see someone else working on crustaceans from time to time. That Bowman paper looks very useful indeed (a much smaller file is available here, incidentally: 3 Mb vs. 30 Mb). Let me know when you want me to have a look at the article, and I'll see what I can do. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much. I will do my best to fix it up. Watchlist it if you like and jump in after a week. I'm afraid I must leave the close paraphrasing for a few days. It's not close enough I think to need immediate removal. I hope. :) If you think otherwise, just delete it and I can dig it out of the history later. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Paella
I just received your edit-warring warning for my edits on the Paella article. Unfortunately user:Jotamar seems to have appointed himself editor-in-chief of this article. Every time I make the smallest of changes he uses the excuse of consensus to revert my chages. I've made many efforts to compromise with him but no matter what the compromise he always rejects it. These conflicts have been going on for several months. They're evident on the talk page. He recently scoffed at my efforts at compromise by calling it "haggling". I'm aware of the three-revert rule and I'm careful not to break it. At the same time I see no reason why I or any other editor should accept his intransigence. Therefore I intend to continue editing the article in good faith and in the way seems reasonable to me even if that means reverting Jotamar's edits. Lechonero (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The three-revert rule is not a licence to engage in edit wars. You have both been involved in edit wars at paella before, and it must stop now. Any proposed changes should be discussed on the talk page, and consensus reached, before making any changes to the article. If I think either party is failing to work co-operatively and in good faith, I will block the transgressor. I am not interested in the article's history, or in its content. That is something you must sort out among yourselves. Act as if there's a zero-revert rule in place, and don't try to apportion blame; that is in itself a failure to assume good faith. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I find your attitude unyielding. Insisting that I must negotiate with an uncompromising man makes no sense and threatening me with me blocks strikes me as imperious. Also, saying that you're not interested in article's history is irrational. If that's case then why do editors bother to create it? Lechonero (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not quite what I said. There must be consensus on the talk page, but it needn't be unanimous. Why not invite opinions from other editors at WP:SPAIN, WP:FOOD or WP:LANGUAGE? --06:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is in fact exactly what you said. Just reread your statement. However, I have no problem at all encouraging other editors to participate. I've never stated nor suggested otherwise. My problem with Jotamar is that he behaves as if his opinion is the only correct one and he reverts any edit he doesn't like. My problem with you is that you seem to like issuing threats. Here's what you said, If I think either party is failing to work co-operatively and in good faith, I will block the transgressor. I am not interested in the article's history, or in its content. Imperious attitudes like this seem prevalent among Wikipedia administrators. Must I remind you of your role here? It's to promote good-faith editing, not to issue threats to make yourself feel important. Editors like Jotamar and admins like you ruin the Wikipedia editing experience. You may be thinking that if I don't like this reality then I should stop editing. Perhaps I'll do precisely that. Lechonero (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinions, and I am not required to share them. I am merely paraphrasing the blocking policy in reference to edit wars. It is exactly right that I should not arbitrate on the article's content; even if an editor is entirely right, engaging in an edit war is the wrong solution, and it is that behaviour that I am trying to regulate. That is my role in this instance, and nothing more. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Crabs
Thanks for fixing them up. Is fixing the cites after reflinks necessary? Also, I missed the category Majoidea because the superfamily isn't in the taxoboxes. Anyway, thanks. I will slowly expand them. Some have such nice pictures! Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it is. I probably wouldn't edit the article just to do that, but while I'm adding the categories, I think it's worthwhile. Reflinks is a very simplistic tool, and falls far short of scientific citation standards. It omits the authors, doesn't link to our article on WoRMS, and fails to italicise scientific names. A bigger issue, probably, is that a number of the new species articles have redlinks at the genus level, making them orphans. If you feel like filling in the gaps, that would be most useful. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow. I never knew reflinks was so bad. Okay. And I will do my best to de-orphan them as you suggest. Thanks again. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not bad; what Reflinks does is a big improvement over bare URLs, but it still leaves room for improvement. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Messed up the Kangacaris taxobox (again)
Hello, I added some information about a new species in the Kangacaris article. In doing so I again messed up the taxobox. I forgot I did this before, but now I remember and also that you fixed it in a breath. Could you please repair it again, because I have no clue what to do. Thanks in advance! Dwergenpaartje (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅. This wasn't as straightforward as you might think, because it necessitated a change from speciesbox to automatic taxobox. The two templates are related, but are not interchangeable. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Stemonitis - Hello - I want to get in touch with you, Please

 * I'm more than happy to discuss these species with you, or anyone else. The best place is probably here, or by email in the unlikely event that secrecy is required. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I will be so grateful if you will email me. I am sorely lacking in Wikipedia skills and I simply would be grateful to work with your or a consultant to present the information I have and cooperate politiely with the correct protocol there after. If what I have to contribute is incorrect by your standards, I will not make argument after thougtful consideration. I have been working in this area since 2005 and my short comings insofar as Wikipedia procedures,I hope, will not discourage you from working with me,please, to determine if I have something valuable to contribute. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novafish (talk • contribs) 21:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I prefer to carry out all my dealings on-wiki, unless there are issues of privacy. You can e-mail me, but it's best to ask questions here. [I have removed your email address only to stop you receiving spam.] More people will see the question, and may be able to provide quicker or better answers than me. If you have specific questions, please ask them here. One key policy that you should read first is verifiability. This is the requirement that all content on Wikipedia should be cited to a reliable source. One cannot add one's own opinions or research unless they have been published (and even then, it's probably a bad idea). The reason I have reverted your edits is that they were basically unsourced, and contradicted the existing (sourced) content of articles. Please feel free to ask for any clarification, or for assistance in finding the information you need. Wikipedia's help pages are diverse and not brilliantly organised, so finding the appropriate policies, mark-up, and so on, isn't always easy. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Novafish! In the case of overturning a synonymy, as you propose, Wikipedia typically requires a citation to a peer-reviewed journal article. Kaldari (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for removing my email address and for your thoughtful advice. I think i'm, atleast, learning how to communicate here with your help! Please, to begin:  The primary citation which was imbedded in my post, is that of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration with whom I have been working with since the species Lithodes santolla became commrecially identifed in 2007/8 and then more recently (with their update) in 2011. In additon we have been working with the company Applied Food Technologies in Florida. Do you know them by chance? They have done the genetic finger printing and species ID work. The copy currently posted are, in part incorrect, including the picture which is, in fact, of the species Litodes antarcticus not L. santolla. I have been working on this fishery since 2005 as well as working with FDA to correct the confusion. My Goal is to get these two species correctly identified should viewers look to Wikipedia. I would very much like to work with a consultant, perhaps yourself, to determine the best available citations to support the truth and establish a correct listing for each speices. I am not the best person to make the case, as you can see, but I am knowlegable and believe with someone such as yourself or someone you might be so kind to recommend, together, we can respectfully see posted the accurate descriptions / information. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novafish (talk • contribs) 17:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's continue this discussion at Talk:Lithodes santolla. Kaldari (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Martin Burkenroad
Hello! Your submission of Martin Burkenroad at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thais orbita
At the moment Dicathais orbita redirects to Thais orbita. I have been expanding the latter and will be submitting it to DYK in due course. (I am nominating my articles for DYK not because I have any wish for them to appear on the front page of Wikipedia but because this is my principal means of earning points for the WikiCup.) WoRMS does not recognise Thais orbita at all and it is presumably a synonym of Dicathais orbita. Dicathais is apparently monotypic and there is an orphan stub for it presently. Please could you transfer the content of Thais orbita to Dicathais and leave a suitable redirect after which I will be happy to rewrite the taxonomic part of the article and reference it to WoRMS. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, will do. There's a slight niggling concern, in that I haven't seen anything directly saying "Thais orbita = Dicathais orbita", but it seems almost certain (both are synonymised with D. vector, for instance, and have the same authority). It's a shame WoRMS doesn't include it as a synonym. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅. I realised half-way through that, as a monotypic genus, it should be at the genus title, so I've moved it on to Dicathais (the species-taxon date category is thus on the redirect Dicathais orbita). --Stemonitis (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Martin Burkenroad
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio
Please don't accuse me of doing it, but I found a site from which this user have copied a text, I do believe however, its just a coincidence, but who knows. I referenced the tag in the article for your convience: Amara angustior and Amara castanea. Also, can you visit my talkpage, I need to show you some of my good edits. Another question: Is putting {References} tag is a worthy edit? Many thanks!--Mishae (talk) 02:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: I checked all of the Amara genus, and it turned out that all except for the Amara fusca, Amara famelica, Amara aenea, Amara aeneopolita, Amara amplipennis, and Amara communis are all copyvios!--Mishae (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Question: Is this edit any good? Dicathais I added External links tag. P.S. I hope you wont block me yet. It takes me some time to learn a difference between constructive and distructive editing.--Mishae (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * For texts as short as the current state of Amara angustior, it would be very difficult to prove a copyright violation had taken place: what else could one say other than that it's a beetle in the family Carabidae? In that case, though, the external link is clearly a mirror of Wikipedia. It cannot be used as a reference, but nor is it a copyright violation (as long as it complies with the terms of Wikipedia's licences). I don't see that those articles are particularly useful – they tell us nothing of consequence about the species – but I don't think they're really disruptive, either. With regards to Dicathais, I have more concerns. I, for one, prefer to have the spaces between the pipe character and the parameter names in taxoboxes, for easier legibility; since this is a question of taste, there is no right or wrong answer, but also edits that merely change between styles should generally be avoided. I'm also not sure that "External links" is the right heading for a list which contains no external links. The literature included there probably has been used as references, but without inline citations (yet). There are also good reasons for including both italic title and the taxon name in the  parameter (in case the two differ, as in monotypic taxa, or extinct taxa which have the obelisk included in the name parameter, for instance). I guess the real question is this: why did you make that edit? What was the motivation? These are the sort of edits that suggest the person making them is trying to inflate their edit count. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * O.K. But don't we all try to inflate our edit count, and whats wrong with it (if I would have been a disruptive editor, I probably wont ask such questions)? So, how it is now? Dicathais. I wikified the countries, and added genus (biology).--Mishae (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The question is not "what's wrong?", but "what's the benefit?" Making an edit solely to increase one's edit count is the wrong motivation. Every edit should be an attempt to improve Wikipedia for its users. I still haven't heard what the motivation behind these edits might be. Why have you removed the spaces in the taxobox at Dicathais? It makes no difference to the article's appearance, but I have already stated that I would prefer them to be there, so you have gone against at least one editor's express preference for no clear benefit. Why have you made this edit? What's wrong with the spaces? I cannot understand why you continue with this. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * O.K. I will explain the edit: You see, this year I got 3 (yes 3!) error messages from Wikipedia servers (even on Ukranian Wikipedia somebody was unhappy about it). So, I ended up thinking what was wrong, and Rich's idea was a solution. Now, you might say that the technicians were doing bad job or that I have an old system, but I don't! I'm using Windows 7 laptop with 4 GB of RAM and 404/451 GB of free hard drive space (so it shouldn't be a problem). O.K. I wouldn't be too concerned about it if one of them wasn't a whopping one hour long! Now what will you say on this? As far as preferences go, so far its 2 agains one (with Uncle G in the middle). And as far as Wikipedia rules go, majority wins, am I correct? Question to you: If you would have experienced an hour long delay, what will you do? Another thing to mention, if my edits are pointless even if I combine them with wikifications than I don't understand the point of this rule. If I can't edit Wikipedia by myself, and if I do I will get blocked, because I didn't asked consensuses opinion, whats the point of that rule. So, O.K. I stoped doing them outside of my userpage, but I hope no body would mind if I will do it only to the articles that I write? Otherwise it will be strange if I will get blocked for editing my own articles! Another thing about preferences I forgot to mention, it will be easier to copy the text without white spaces in between. For example, you are writing an article on a specific species from a genus of an insect or arachnid, if that genus exists already without white spaces it will be easier to copy, and will take less space on your next article. As far as consensus and disruptive behavior goes, I don't see any reason (unless consensus on English Wikipedia have nothing better to do), to go after disruptive users. Wikipedia already have too much rules that everyone need to follow (and not everyone is capable off). I believe that while consensus is going after disruptive users, he is missing everything else, ignore them, and you will have no problem. Consensus should have much higher priority than fighting disruption, like fighting vandalism I would appreciate even more. Speaking of vandalism, somebody just did that to my userpage, by linking my userpage to hebrew one, and linking infobox: "This user is born in the USSR" to Hebrew, Polish, Russian, Ukranian, and Belorussian languages of Wikipedia. Now, I checked with other Wikipedias and there was no links to them there, so it is English Wikipedia problem only.--Mishae (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Remember, Misha, that they are not "my own" articles. They are Wikipedia articles and do not belong to anyone, so there are no special rules for you editing them. (And I'm with Stermonitis in saying that spaces in layout can be very helpful in letting editors see what's going on, and they cost nothing.) Pam  D  21:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's also potentially confusing if you edit your own comment several hours later without changing the timestampt at the end. Pam  D  21:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * O.K. Maybe I miss spoke about "my own", but I did wrote them. Thats I think is a correct way of saying. Question: What is so helpful about spaces in the layout especialy taxobox? You just copy it as one thing right? You don't copy word for word, like, copy top of a taxobox... save... copy second half, save again?.. As for "letting editors see what's going on", wandering, is it a prerequisite for me being blocked? Because, honestly, what can happen with a taxobox, or any other trailing space for that matter? Aside from vandalism, (which my edit is clearly is not!) I don't see a reason for editors to see anything. Your thoughts? Another thing to mention: I don't want trouble, especialy since I was blocked indefinitely on the Russian one (for copyvios). But, if its O.K. to edit, then I will combine my pointless edits with useful ones, I know that Richard and Uncle G were in support of such move. P.S. Thanks for calling me Misha, since thats my real name!--Mishae (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

If the only reason for removing the spaces is to save a few bytes of server space, then you can stop right now. WP:DWAP. If there are issues of server speed, then firstly they're not our problem, and secondly, they will not be solved by such slight changes. Wikipedia accrues an extra 800 articles every day (Size of Wikipedia), completely dwarfing the few bytes one can glean through removal of whitespace. Edits like this increase server load, without producing any tangible benefit, so if you are worried about performance, then: Removing desirable spaces from article is, however, entirely counter-productive, even to your aims. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * try to do as much as possible making as few edits as possible
 * donate to Wikimedia; this whole project is run as a charity, and can always make use of extra money
 * use manual taxoboxes, rather than automatic taxobox, in new articles – this is the only template I know that has a clear effect on loading and editing times
 * I unfortunately can't donate, as a person that is strugling with autism, I can't risk it, not that I am a greedy individual, but every penny saves my life, I work only once a week. How do I know the difference between manual and automatic taxoboxes, can you show me it?--Mishae (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, wanna look at my good edits?: Chrysomela populi and Dorcadion scopolii. So that you would know, that I can be of use sometimes, despite my pointless edits.--Mishae (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Those two look pretty darn nice. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Dorcadion: Couple of spelling/typing mistakes, a link to a disambiguation page, and the only source is a Youtube video - needs a bit more work (I've fixed the typos). Pam  D  09:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And I've disambiguated Herbst per List of authors of names published under the ICZN. Pam  D  09:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * May I delete all or part of this section?--Mishae (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I will archive this talk page soon; it's getting pretty big again. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How is this? I added a lot of info! Allophylus cobbe--Mishae (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Much better. I still don't think removing the spaces from the taxobox is helpful, but the rest of the edit is good. I have made a few small stylistic changes, and undone the changes to the categories. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't understand the reason why you did this: [Category:Allophylus|cobbe]. It just adds more bites, and doesn't change the way page look like either. It strange that while I can't remove the spaces from the taxobox, altough my preference is a bit different than yours (I hope I wont get blocked for doing it with other edits either), its perfectly fine for you to do edits like I mentioned above? What kind of dictatorship is this place? Like, I do like Wikipedia and such, but sometimes I am confused why people do it this way, not the other way around. Can you please explain to me the reason behind your edit I mentioned above? Thanks!--Mishae (talk) 10:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing the wikitext to makes a significant difference to the appearance of Category:Allophylus. See WP:SORTKEY. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Question: Should I name this species as Calocoris norvegicus or as Closterotomus norvegicus, one of them is a synonym, and I assume I wrote an article on the synonym. Can you please tell me which one is which? Thanks! Another question: Shall we change it from stub article into a start article here: Citheronia splendens--Mishae (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * How is this?: Sandbox Now, how would I get it out of it?--Mishae (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that your intention is to remove spaces from template formatting and then to find some other edits you can make at the same time, which might justify the edit being made in the first place. Is that so? Changing the spaces in templates is not helpful, so if that is your over-riding purpose, it doesn't matter what other minor changes you propose to make. Try concentrating on content for a while. Edit counts are not important, and nor is it important to change the numbers of spaces in articles' wikitext. What matters is the content, and that is the best thing to work on. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

So how is this?: Charles Frédéric Girard. Yes, I did the edit count again, but it was because I forgot to put the sources, I wanted to put a single sourced tag, but didn't knew how to do it, resulting in red error.--Mishae (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I seem to be repeating myself here. Adding sources is of course fine, but removing spaces from the template code, whether as a separate edit, or as part of a larger edit, isn't. If you just stop doing that, everything else will be fine. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why its not fine even with the larger edit? Fine, I wont tell you anything from now on! Like whats the point of "an encyclopedia that everyone could edit", if only admins could edit, and banning other users? Of course, thats your opinion that removing spaces is counter productive, my opinion is different. And from what I can tell my opinion is not even considered, so much for "encyclopedia that everyone could edit!" Maybe I just don't get the point, but then why removing spaces even with a large edit, is bad too? In either case, edit is an edit, as long as I don't vandalise a whole article (or a part of it). And accusing me of vandalism was uncivil to be honest.--Mishae (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Other changes made at the same time can't make undesirable changes desirable, or vice versa. If edits are unconstructive on their own, they are still unconstructive when made alongside others. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes they can! Its in your and your consensus head, because someone hit them with a hammer (or didn't hit them hard enough). I'm shocked how did this project got 16 million users, if the dictatorial admins like yourself, revert, warn, accuse users of vandalism, and banning them. If thats the future of this god forsaken project then very soon your 16 million users will drop to 1 million if not less. I hope then, we will have a different talk, and maybe the consensus will reconsider some changes (although I dobt it, because its so dumb and sometimes even dickish in my opinion). Wikipedia suppose to put a sign on their site saying that "its only free for an elite users" or something like that, so that people will know with what they are messing here. It feels like a fascist dictatorship to me! Like, you can do this edit, but you can't do that edit. And whatever big bro the consensus will say, everyone should say "hail" to it, and forget their freedoms. I came here to edit, and to write good articles, instead I receive block threats, prevention from edits and descrimination! And you guys calling it a "free encyclopedia"?! WOW! More like slavery to me! Russian Wiki was bad enough, and I tought that the English one would be better but it turns out its all the same! On one, you can't argue with anyone, and on the other you can't even do your own edit without being warned or blocked! This tells me that Nazi Germany was even more productive and even more civil than this site is. Sorry, but thats just my feelings. I don't get it Rich says this you say that, I hate picking sides, but my side is Rich. Its better if we will not talk again, because currently I am extremely mad on you and Pam! Your site have so much rules, that any user can get blocked for just a fart. Ofcourse, you wont care if it will happen or not, because you are as dickish as anybody else in your consensus. And yes, it will be my fault if I get blocked. Another thing, there are some articles with no trailing spaces, and so what? You guys just love reverts, and reverts, not edits are unconstructive to Wikipedia!--Mishae (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hoplophrys
Personally, I think it's the nicest crab. There are some nudibranchs that could learn a few fashion tips from this crab. :)

Thanks for all your fixes. I am learning by watching what you do. I promise to make auths small, and monotypes go to genera, but I make no promises about formatting worms refs because that makes me crazy. Oh, and I promise to slowly expand the stubs I made. :) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Bolding of synonyms/scientific names
I note that you've reverted my removal of the bolding of the scientific name at the grey whale article, citing MOS:BOLDSYN. However, it is my understanding that, per WP:CONTEXTLINK, the MOS specifically excludes scientific names from this requirement. Certainly, it seems to be the standard convention on other pages, but perhaps I've missed something? Anaxial (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the MoS appears to be inconsistent on this point, and bolding the scientific name is entirely within the spirit of the guide. I see no reason to treat species names differently from those of higher (or lower) taxa. The purpose of the bolding is at least in part to highlight terms that may have redirected a reader to that article, and that is just as true of binomina as it is of other alternative names. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, removing bolding from the scientific name is also entirely within the spirit of the MOS. There was an RFC on this issue last year, with a consensus that there should be no bolding (see archive here). You'll note that, at the time, I argued for the position you're currently taking, so I don't have an axe to grind here; just trying to be consistent. Indeed, only 13 of the 80+ pages for cetacean species use bolding, which would suggest to me that the consensus is still in place. I don't see any compelling reason to overturn it, myself. Anaxial (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The only arguments against it appear to be aesthetic (WP:JDLI), whereas there are functional reasons for including it. In my opinion, that decision was wrong. Had I been aware of the discussion at the time, I would certainly have argued strongly for treating genera and species like families and orders. I don't think there's a strong enough consensus to warrant making such changes alone to existing articles. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Image at external links section
I often add an image link at the external links section, especially if it's a good image, or if commons has few or none. Just because the same url may be used as a reference, why remove it? I've always wondered that. Thanks for any guidance you can offer. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure of the motivation behind it, but the relevant guideline is WP:ELRC. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:ELRC seems to say that it's okay if the site has a dual purpose. The motivation for my adding it twice would be just that: it is a source of fact and a source of a good image. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not how I would interpret it. The website you linked at Calappa japonica is not an official site, is not devoted to C. japonica, and does not contain multiple pages on that topic. I'm also not sure it passes the usual EL criteria – does it provide anything that a featured article on C. japonica would not? --Stemonitis (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a strange case. It's a blog. I never use blogs, but this is a museum blog, and couldn't find anything else. But let's talk about my previous post "...WP:ELRC seems to say that it's okay if..." in general terms. In a nutshell: If good content and good image - can the url be used as ref and ext link?Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * My interpretation would be that such a reference should not be repeated under External links. The link will still be present in the article, after all. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Respectfully noted, my friend. Not sure I agree. I am thinking from the visitors' point of view. They arrive and want to see the beast. They probably only click refs to get further facts. Many want to see pics of the thing. I would. Ext links item that says Image does that. That, in my opinion outweighs any argument against duplication. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Troublesome user
You are an admin right? I have been trying to assist a relatively new user User:Thine_Antique_Pen who is making massive amounts of species stubs, but I have grown tired of trying to get him to write at least decent stubs. Could you have a look at some of the stuff he created? He might be more impressed if an admin told him his stubs do not meet the minimum requirements. I dont mind helping others learning to use wikipedia, but this one is taking too much time and effort I would rather spend on making articles myself. Cheers Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've just seen User:AlexNewArtBot/ArthropodsSearchResult. I've never been a fan of mass-produced substubs, but it's hard to find anything actually wrong with them. Sure, there are better things one could be doing, but I don't think such actions actually contravene any policy or guideline. That style of contribution seems to appeal to a certain sort of person, and I've seen several come and go during my time. It's slightly odd, because Thine Antique Pen has apparently produced DYK and GA articles in the past. Usually when people start thinking about quality, they realise how meaningless quantity is. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I'll leave him to it then. I'll just check a few out of each batch to see if at least the template he is using is ok. The last batch all contained a ref to a paper which only deals with two fossil species and should not be included in the 100's of living species. I notified him of that and hope he will fix it. A sub stub like that should at the very least be correct in the minimal amount of info that is included. Lets hope some beetle enthusiast will come along in the future and fix these stubs. Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This might be quite wrong, but I've been watching Thine_Antique_Pen since he first started editing (he made an inappropriate edit to an article I wrote). I get the impression he is a precocious and impressively energetic and enthusiastic 12 year old, with no inhibitions on self regard. Users like Dr. Blofeld are watching and mentoring him, and they may be able to contain his output in a profitable way. Within a day or two, he is likely to switch to something other than beetles, so I wouldn't worry about it! --Epipelagic (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. It's just a shame that a single well-meaning user can make enough work in a week or two to require years of cleanup work. I'm still dealing with the effects of Polbot's perfectly well-intentioned actions, for instance, and I'm sure I'm not alone. I have yet to see a mass creation of articles that didn't make more work for other people than it took to produce. I suppose it's inevitable that beetles should see a disproportionate amount of the effects ("an inordinate fondness for beetles" and all that). --Stemonitis (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Scarabaeus sacer
You reverted an edit to "Like other dung beetles, S. sacer has no tarsi (usually the final segment of the insect leg) on its front legs, which are specialised for forming a ball of dung." This is inaccurate (implying that no dung beetles have tarsi, whereas even among Scarabaeid dung beetles, many species have tarsi of various degrees of vestigiality), unclear or at least vague ("...usually the final segment..." could have been better worded, but was best omitted and left to the link for clarification) and at least badly worded ("a ball of dung" when it always is a number of balls). I do not insist on dictating the wording, but if you don't like the proposed improvements, then could you please propose something more appropriate? The current text is unacceptable. JonRichfield (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * need not imply "all other dung beetles". My main beef was with changing a straightforward link into an easter egg: a tarsus is very different from a whole leg, so being redirected from one to the other is likely to be very confusing. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. however, in isolation "Other dung beetles" no matter how one might argue the point, will suggest to the reader that the intended meaning is "all". But never mind; I'll have another go. I wasn't aware of the stricture against Easter egging, but it makes sense I suppose. Do you want me to run it by you before posting it? JonRichfield (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think that's necessary. You know my concerns, so I'm sure you can work something out. I'm sure you know the facts of the situation better than me. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your faith, but I have done a rather more radical edit and found some useful material and I reckon that this article need some editing in coordination with Scarabaeus and with Dung beetle. If you have the time to look into Scarabaeus sacer before I get in too deep... Cheers JonRichfield (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks after being warned by User:Mishae. Thank you. Ryan Vesey Review me!  04:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. Let's hope this will be the fillip Mishae needs to become a good collaborative editor. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I got my hopes completely up, but the last edit comment he made really sets me back. Ryan Vesey Review me!  05:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)