User talk:Wikiklaas

Latin Translation
Dear Wikiklaas, please refer to my user page for the sentences you wanted translated from Latin. Many kind regards --VoiceOfThePnyx (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Magnolia
Nice work; I've made a few mainly grammatical changes (converting to third person, etc), but also changed Catesby's publication date to 1731, the date it was first published - I presume '1930' was an error, or did you have other reasons for that date? - MPF 11:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Stearn summary in Carolus Linnaeus
The wording is really awkward, independent of it being a paraphrase. As a summary, perhaps it would be best to say it first, and then give the reference, rather than the other way around as you have done. (I'm glad you're taking the time to shake things up on the article, though. I've wanted to, but haven't had the time.)--Curtis Clark 02:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the hint. I'll see what I can do. Don't understand though what you mean by awkward. Is it bad grammar? Or is is too familiar? I really hate those dry, uninspired, encyclopedia-texts. Is it style? Or don't you like the words I used? Wikiklaas 02:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think removing "William T. Stearn [1] gives an account on the name. What follows here is a summary of that account," and putting the [1] reference at the end, would make it read more smoothly. As it is, those two sentences just delay the reader getting to the important part.--Curtis Clark 06:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Following Berton's note, I saw Stearn's Botanical Latin on Amazon.com, but should point out that Timber Press are not the publishers, just licensed distributors, with the original publisher being David & Charles (as per my note on Berton's talk page, or here) - MPF 15:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * On the back of my copy, it says 'Timer Press'. In the copyright part, it reads: 'Published in North America in 1995 by Timber Press, Inc. [..] printed in England by Redwood Books for David & Charles, Brunel House, Newton Abbot, Devon.' Assuming that Redwood Books is only the printer, we are left with three publishers: Timber Press, David & Charles, and Brunel House. On the cover text Timber Press identifies itself as the publisher. So I took Timber Press as the publisher in my reference because the copy I used was published by them. I cannot be sure that the page numbers that I refer to will be the same in an edition of David & Charles that I never got to see. Again, if I was referencing publications of new plant species, I would do my utmost best to obtain or get to see the very first occurence, as I did indeed with the species in the Magnoliaceae. But the reference that we are discussing now is about citing a source. I even added an ISBN, so there cannot be confusion about my copy. If there's an English edition by David & Charles, it will certainly have a different ISBN.Wikiklaas 15:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess the important point to make here is that David & Charles was the only publisher of the first, second and third editions, and is still the primary publisher for the 4th edition; Timber Press didn't even exist when Stearn first wrote his book. For this reason, I think it is more relevant to cite the primary publisher, rather than some later look-in who has very little to do with the book other than reprint it under their own label. I find citing Timber Press a bit like crediting an Elvis song to an Elvis impersonator (obviously not directly comparable, but not entirely dissimilar either) - MPF 21:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I have to disagree. And I learned you've been praised for your scrutiny and so on but I really don't see why you can't see this point: I guess the only and utmost important point to make here is that contributors should cite their sources. My source was a copy of 'Botanical Latin', issued by Timber Press. Let's not spend too much time in criticising each other's soures but spend it to look for sources on statements that are not documented anywhere. There's still a lot of work to do. - Wikiklaas 21:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Magnol: clarification needed
As you have noticed I engaged in the translation of your entry on Magnol into Russian. I've got some questions and thoughts emerged as the tanslation is in progress. May I hope that you would not find it a burden to answer them here (I put this page on my watchlist for a while).

The first question is: in Pierre_Magnol you state: "Magnol was one of the founding members of the Société Royale des Sciences de Montpellier (1706) and held one of the three chairs in botany." Does it mean that these chairs were within the Société Royale des Sciences de Montpellier (which seems plausble if it only was modelled after the Academie Royale)? Or this pertains to his position within the University? I find the latter option quite unlikely, though I better ask. Quite unfortunately I do not have the sources you cite at hand, so I have to rely on your text only, and my English is not perfect enough to understand the subtle nuances.

I'll post some more questions as I formulate them. Tank you in advance for your consideration. Alexei Kouprianov 08:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I quite literally cited my source here, which is Tony Aiello's article on Magnol, for this statement. But at that time the name of the Paris academy was "Académie Royale des Sciences de Paris". The Montpellier variant was called "Société Royale des Sciences de Montpellier" and it seems more than likely that the latter was formed with the former as an example. I'm quite sure the Société had its own chairs and Magnol occupied one. So this was not the chair of medicine he held at the university. The chair of medicine by the way, was the chair Magnol held to be able to teach botany. It was not until 1889 that in Montpellier an "Institut de Botanique" was created (see this link), before that time botany and medicine had been heavily intertwined. I'll try to find another french source to study Magnol's chair of botany at the Société in more detail. I'll let you know. - Wikiklaas 13:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this explanation. I do know about the connection between botany and medicine. It should be noted, however, that there was a sort of the division of labor between the Professors of Medicine at that time. Say, one of them took botany and materia medica, while the other could take pathology, or something like that. Cf. example of Carolus Linnaeus and Nils Rosen who both were professors of medicine at Uppsala but taught different things. Alexei Kouprianov 13:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The second queston is about pronounciation of personal names. When one writes in Cyrillics, he or she faces the need to develop cyrillic versions of names according to their pronounciation in the native language. Meanwhile, I never heard how several names are pronounced, even though I saw them a lot of times spelled. The names in question are:
 * Guy-Crescent [Gai-Kressan] or [Gui-Kressan] (?), Petiver [Petive] or [Petiver]?, and Houttuyn (no idea) Alexei Kouprianov 09:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Guy-Crescent: [Gi-Kressan] . Petiver: [Petive] like in 'pet', the last 'e' would be an upside down 'e' in phonetic alphabet. Do we have the availability of phonetic in Wiki, b.t.w.? Nice cooperating with you, - Wikiklaas 13:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just noticed this query - the answer is yes; at IPA - MPF 15:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pronounciation hints. As for Houttuyn, it seems that his latinized name Hotton could be taken as a nearly-correct phonetic equivalent of Houttuyn? With this added, the Russian version of Pierre Magnol is nearly complete. I did not translate only the section on major contributions to science for I am waiting until I formulate something on the basis of his Prodromus. I'll write you some more after I translate more from the introduction to it. Alexei Kouprianov 13:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

(Magnolia) ext links
Hi Wikiklaas - MrDarwin just asked me almost exactly the same; here's my reply - such links are not outright banned, but they're not generally considered desirable; particularly not when the same user adds the same or related ext links to lots of pages without adding anything else, i.e., spamming. Generally ext links are best added only when they provide reference to something cited in the text of the page (which yahoo discussion groups don't). There are more detailed guidelines at External links and What Wikipedia is not.

Also worth adding, yahoo.com is a commercial site, supported by advertising (I'm in some yahoo groups myself, so know what they're like!), and groups postings are full of opinions, so External links items #1 and #5 are relevant - MPF 15:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Nomenclature
I see you have been active with the entry "nomenclature". This is very unfortunate. By this time I had all the really bad errors out and I am not happy to see them reappear. Could you indicate what you are trying to achieve? Brya 15:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

A new template proposed
As a follow-up of our discussion on Magnol I tried to create the Template:Pre-Linnaean botanist. Shouldn't we try applying it whenever possible? Or is it too bold? Alexei Kouprianov 21:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion
Hi Wikiklaas,

Would you ever be willing to consider writing brief descriptive summaries into the sections, subsections (and for the subgenus Gynopodium) of the selected species portion of the article Magnolia? They are needed, in my opinion, because while two subgenera have summaries, neither the sections, nor subsections have one. I would do them myself if I knew enough about the subjects to add them, but I am not at all knowledgable in this regard. You seem to be quite knowledgable about the Magnolia genus, and to me, you write in quite a readable style, and take care to be both accurate and concise. I'm sure there are many others at WP that are quite capable of doing this justice; I just happened to notice your mild admonishment to the anonymous user (75.100.81.162) at Talk:Magnolia and thought if you ever had the time and inclination, you could write them beautifully.

In case you ever do (and also to demonstrate how much there is lacking), here is the list that's on the page, and for the two subgenera that already have such a summary, what is written there:

Genus Magnoliaundefined   Subgenus Magnolia "' Anthers open by splitting at the front facing the centre of the flower. Deciduous or evergreen. Flowers produced after the leaves. '"        Section Magnoliaundefined        Section Gwillimiaundefined            Subsection Gwillimiaundefined            Subsection Blumianaundefined        Section Talaumaundefined            Subsection Talaumaundefined            Subsection Dugandiodendronundefined            Subsection Cubensesundefined        Section Manglietiaundefined        Section Kmeriaundefined        Section Rhytidospermumundefined            Subsection Rhytidospermumundefined            Subsection Oyamaundefined        Section Auriculataundefined        Section Macrophyllaundefined    Subgenus Yulania "' Anthers open by splitting at the sides. Deciduous. Flowers mostly produced before leaves (except M. acuminata). '"       Section Yulaniaundefined            Subsection Yulaniaundefined            Subsection Tulipastrumundefined        Section Micheliaundefined            Subsection Micheliaundefined            Subsection Elmerrilliaundefined            Subsection Maingolaundefined            Subsection Aromadendronundefined    Subgenus Gynopodiumundefined        Section Gynopodiumundefined        Section Manglietiastrum

Thanks for reading, Hamamelis (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Making smaller text displays
Hi Wikiklaas, I noticed your edit summary at Magnolia‎. To change the font size to small, you can do it with numbers:
 * "your text here"   result =  "your text here"

or with
 * "your text here"  result = "your text here"

The former should display slightly smaller than the latter. Hope this helps. Hamamelis (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Hamamelis, good to see you're still active. The use of seems favourable to me, because it will always be interpreted as relative. But seeing the large number of font-tags, I thought it wiser to first ask (and change only one to see the effect). I suspect the font-tags to have been copied from the file Dick Figlar made for the website of the Magnolia Society. That would also explain the capitalized names of the given regions. Thanks for your quick answer. I do not visit the English Wikipedia that often these days. Hope to meet you again, some day. Cheers, Wikiklaas (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Very good to bump into you again too. You are correct about the file being copied (but slightly modified, and credited to that website). I know, because I was the one who did it, so so long ago. Feel free to go berzerk on it with . If not, I may do it myself, if I'm not feeling too lazy. At the time I made the edit, I don't think I even knew about the other way of making text small; were I to begin it today, I would not go with the old method. Best of luck, Hamamelis (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James Edgar Dandy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Hutchinson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Solved. Wikiklaas (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Muppet Show, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uncle Deadly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Solved this one and several others. Wikiklaas (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitragecommissie
To the English readers: the following discussion was initiated by a user who abused his rights on the Dutch language Wikipedia and was blocked for vandalism using sockpuppets there on three consecutive occasions but still refused to learn from it. He is since permanently blocked on the Dutch language version and now claims to be a happy user of the English project. He was still unable however to contain his urge to vandalise the project and alreay did the same on the English Wikipedia, calling someone "a gay prick", with no reason to do so at all. Wikiklaas (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Dear Wikiklaas,

I have commenced a case against you at the Dutch arbitragecommissie as a result from your personal attacks (a violation of this page) on the Dutch Wikipedia. As I wrote in my letter against the commission, I hope we will able to solve this conflict without the need of the commission. I also asked the commission to be reluctant with blockages against you, as I don't doubt your best meanings stated at this page.

Yours faithfully,

Borvo (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Om even wat in ABN toe te voegen: ik begin de zaak uit wanhoop. Het voelt als een hetze tegen mij dat mijn verblijf in Hotel Wikipedia onaangenaam maakt. Naar mijn mening overtreed je WP:PA met taalgebruik als 'hufter' en dat ik aan een 'meervoudige persoonlijkheidsstoornis' lijd.--Borvo (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Als er iemand is, die het verblijf op Wikipedia voor jouzelf onaangenaam heeft gemaakt, dan ben je het zelf. Je kunt toch met de beste wil van de wereld niet zeggen dat het slim is als je serieus wilt bijdragen om daarnaast met behulp van sokpoppen andere gebruikers te treiteren en uit te schelden? Het is toch logisch dat je dan na verloop van tijd het vertrouwen van die gebruikers kwijtraakt? Na de eerste keer dat je met twee identiteiten werkte, waarvan je er een gebruikte voor het uitschelden van (een) andere gebruiker(s), ben je op je vingers getikt en heb je beloofd dat niet meer te doen. Toen je een tweede keer, met veel meer sokpoppen, op nog grotere schaal in de fout ging, ben je wéér op je vingers getikt en heb je nogmaals, in een lange brief aan de Arbcom, gezegd dat je enorm veel spijt had en het nooit meer zou doen. Je kreeg toen wéér een kans, zij het na een blokkade van twee jaar. En vervolgens word je er voor de derde keer op betrapt dat je met weer een ander IP opnieuw een gebruiker uitscheldt. Zelfs jij moet je toch realiseren dat je op die manier je kansen voor zeer lange tijd verprutst hebt? Niemand heeft je bevolen om deze belachelijke en schadelijke bewerkingen te doen. Je bent daar volledig zelf voor verantwoordelijk. Als gebruikers laten weten dat ze daar niet van gediend zijn, dan is dat niet het voeren van een hetze, dan is dat een poging om te bereiken dat een volstrekt onbetrouwbaar en schadelijk gebruiker geen toegang meer tot het project krijgt.
 * Je hebt nu drie keer laten zien dat je het plegen van vandalisme niet onder controle hebt. Je kunt de drang ertoe blijkbaar niet weerstaan. Daarmee lijkt het op een ziekelijke afwijking. Het eerste waaraan ik dacht, bij wijze van logische verklaring, was een meervoudig persoonlijkheidssyndroom maar je zult zelf ongetwijfeld het beste weten hoe je tot je ziekelijke gedrag komt. Overduidelijk is gebleken dat je op dit moment een bedreiging voor het project bent als je daar schrijfrechten hebt. Die zijn je daarom ontnomen.
 * Persoonlijk ben ik diep in je teleurgesteld. Je hebt, ook van mij, erg veel goede raad gehad. Ik heb tijd in je geïnvesteerd door je zaken uit te leggen en je een spiegel voor te houden, in het vertrouwen dat je goede bedoelingen had. Je hebt zelf op overtuigende manier aangetoond dat mijn vertrouwen onterecht was. Ik wil dan ook niks meer met je te maken hebben. Het ga je goed. Wikiklaas (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Dat het vertrouwen in mij geschaad is klopt, maar dat is nog geen aanleiding voor een PA. Ik heb zeer grote spijt, Wikiklaas, groter dan dat jij je kunt voorstellen. Ik was inderdaad een sukkel, ik heb iedereens adviezen ook in de wind geslagen. Daarvoor ben ik ook gestraft. Sokpopmisbruik is verboden, maar dat geldt ook voor persoonlijke aanvallen. Niet dat ik mijn gedrag goedpraat, maar iemand op serieuze wijze voor gek verklaren gaat te ver. Overigens was laatste vandalisme uit woede over de arbitragecommissie die mij gewoon voor 100% afwees. Twee jaar, kom op zeg, wie gaat nou werkelijk twee jaar wachten. Een jaar a la, maar twee jaar is werkelijk onzinnig. Dan kan ik net zo een ordinaire vandaal zijn toch. Nu moet ik zeggen dat ik de laatste tijd toch vrij goed ga op wikivoyage en hier. Ik hoop werkelijk, van harte, dat we dit constructief kunnen oplossen. Met vriendelijke groet, --Borvo (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Beste Borvo, je lijkt de ernst van je gedrag en de dreiging die ervan uitgaat helemaal niet in te zien. Een blokkade van twee jaar geeft aan dat het vertrouwen in jou ernstig geschaad was. Als je geen twee jaar kunt wachten met serieuze bijdragen leveren, dan kun je dat uiteraard stiekem anoniem doen. Waarschijnlijk heeft niemand dat door. De aanleiding voor de laatste CheckUser, verzocht door MoiraMoira, was echter opnieuw vandalisme dat onmiskenbaar jouw handtekening droeg! Dat is toch het beste bewijs dat de lange blokkade terecht is want dat je echt absoluut niet te vertrouwen bent en een gevaar voor het project?
 * Wanneer ik zeg dat je je "als een hufter" gedraagt, en dat de twee totaal verschillende typen bijdragen die je leverde het vermoeden van een meervoudige persoonlijkheid rechtvaardigen (twee andere gebruikers spraken al van "schizofreen", wat iets anders is), dan is dat geen PA. Het eerste is een constatering: ik maak je niet voor een hufter uit, ik zeg alleen dat je je als een gedraagt. Het tweede is een poging jouw bijzonder afwijkende gedrag te duiden want ik begrijp niet hoe iemand met zo'n sterke wens om aan het project mee te werken, de ongelofelijke stupiditeit heeft om tegelijk zulke schadelijke bijdragen te leveren. De enige verklaring die je er zelf tot nu toe voor gegeven hebt was "dat je dacht dat je met een dynamisch IP Wikipedia vrijwel ongestoord kon vandaliseren" en dat je je "onkwetsbaar voelde". Beste jongen, ook als ik op een of andere manier vrijwel zeker zou weten dat ik bijdragen kon leveren die op geen enkele manier aan mijn Wikiklaas-account te koppelen waren, dan nog zou het niet in me opkomen om te gaan vandaliseren. Jij doet steeds alsof het logisch is om de encyclopedie te gaan beschadigen wanneer niemand erachter kan komen dat jij degene bent die dat doet. Daarin verschil je dan op een heel negatieve manier erg van de andere 99,99% van de geregistreerde gebruikers op de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia. Het is inmiddels duidelijk dat je zo denkt en omdat het niet alleen bij denken bleef maar ook doen werd, is jou de toegang tot het project ontzegd. Of twee jaar belachelijk lang was of niet is niet aan jou om te beoordelen. Inmiddels hoeft dat ook niet meer want je blokkade geldt nu voor onbepaalde tijd. Ik vermoed dat je wel gelezen hebt dat ten minste één vandalistische bewerking die je op de Engelstalige Wikipedia hebt gedaan niet onopgemerkt is gebleven. Je mag dus denken dat je hier vrij goed gaat maar ik zie dit op dezelfde manier aflopen als op de Nederlandstalige, want ook hier blijkt dat je je nog steeds niet weet te beheersen. Je gaat ook hier ongetijfeld nog door de mand vallen als je van de eerdere affaires blijkbaar nog steeds niks geleerd hebt, en dan word je hier net zo hard uitgespuugd als je dat op de Nederlandstalige versie werd.
 * Tot slot schrijf je: "Ik hoop werkelijk, van harte, dat we dit constructief kunnen oplossen." Ik zie niet wat er op te lossen valt. Ik ben het van harte eens met je blok OT. Ik ben niet degeen die daar iets aan had kunnen doen of nog kan doen, en ik wil het ook niet. Ik zie verder geen probleem dat opgelost moet worden. En in alle gevallen geldt dat je tot nu toe je best hebt gedaan om te laten zien dat jij niet tot constructieve oplossingen in staat bent. Op het moment dat het erop aankomt dat jij je constructieve bijdrage levert, heb je tot nu toe namelijk in alle gevallen verstek laten gaan. In dat opzicht ben je werkelijk een meelijwekkend figuur. Wikiklaas (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Als je doorgaat met het verwijderen van mijn edits over deze discussie krijg je hier een blokverzoek aan je benen broek. Ik hoop echter nog steeds op een constructieve oplossing.--Borvo (talk) 05:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ik zie geen probleem waarvoor een oplossing moet komen. Ik zie hierboven ook geen enkel voorstel voor wat dan ook en lees ook nergens wat je van mij verwacht. Ik zie ook nergens staan wat je wilt bereiken. En vooral, ik zie niet wat voor rol je voor jezelf ziet weggelegd. Je hebt inmiddels op overtuigende wijze aangetoond dat je beloftes niks waard zijn want je houdt je er niet aan. Je jammerende spijtbetuigingen zijn ongeloofwaardig omdat je tot nu toe elke keer, zodra je de kans kreeg, opnieuw precies datgene deed waarvoor je je nog maar kort geleden zo verontschuldigde. Je bijdrage aan een discussie hier is niks waard want je bent niet te vertrouwen. Dat is geen mening maar een constatering waarvoor je zelf de feiten hebt aangedragen. Ik heb hierboven al gezegd dat ik niks meer met je te maken wil hebben. Dat is precies om die reden: je beloftes zijn niks waard gebleken. Ik heb liever dat je van mijn OP hier wegblijft, aangezien het hier gaat over een zaak die met het Engelse project niets te maken hebben maar die je bij de arbcom van een ander project hebt aangekaart. Ik denk dat ik dat bij een eventueel blokverzoek tegen mij ook prima als geldig argument voor het verwijderen van je bijdragen kan aanvoeren. Wikiklaas (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Dutchies: a few random comments, if you don't mind. Borvo, I don't know if this IP edit was yours or not--but let me tell you, that comment is good for an instant block on the English wiki. Wikiklaas, "Je bent toch een ongelooflijke stommeling als..." is a personal attack: comment on behavior, not on users. (You may go through my history and say "pot, meet kettle"--true, but I still know what's OK and what's not.) From a quick perusal it seems to me that Borvo is here mostly to continue the spat you all had on the Dutch wiki, and that's not OK. I propose the following: you stay away from each other. You don't comment on each other or mention each other, you don't go to each other's talk pages, you don't follow each other to articles or article talk pages. Simple. I could ask for this to be enforced on our Administrators Noticeboard (WP:AN), but I trust I don't have to. One more thing: Borvo, being blocked on the Dutch wiki doesn't necessarily mean anything for you here, though it may invite scrutiny. You are more than welcome to work here--but only if you stay away from Wikiklaas and if you--well, this should be obvious--don't resort to socking. Met vriendelijke groet, aan jullie allebei, Drmies (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your fruitfull suggestion, Drmies. Let me first apologize for using the qualification "ongelooflijke stommeling". I meant to describe a behaviour and I thought I did but you're right: it's a qualification of a person. I changed that. If you're good enough at reading Dutch, you will have noticed that the sentence ended in a question mark, and that I actually asked if he were such an "incredible blockhead".
 * Further, I already expressed my wish, in Dutch, that I don't want to have anything to do with Borvo anymore. I will very gladly live with the solution to stay away from each other.
 * I thought about moving this part of my talk page to my Dutch TP before, as this is about business on the Dutch language project and a request Borvo says to have filed there with the "arbitragecommissie" (Arbitration Committee), although I did not hear anything about it yet. I may still make the move in the next couple of days. Met vriendelijke groet, Wikiklaas (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Klaas, one of my favorite user names on Wikipedia is "Department of Redundancy Department". Very often the job of an administrator is to say the redundant: wie oren heeft om te horen enzovoort. I don't know about the Dutchies, but on the English wiki cross-wiki complaints are usually quickly whisked away; we do prefer that each keep to his own, unless things really get out of hand. Another side of that is that a block on the one wiki usually does not translate into a block on the other, for better or for worse. At any rate, you've been around here (and there) long enough (longer than me) and I trust your judgment. I hope the same will apply to your adversary. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Drmies, you obviously chose to find your way on a more international version of Wikipedia. As Dutch is your native language, you would otherwise have had the skills to check the policy or tradition on cross-wiki conflicts on the Dutch language project. Let me inform you then that the policy on the Dutch Wikipedia, as far as I experienced it, is the same: we do not offer a platform to fight out problems that originated somewhere else. Only when a case is discovered that can develop into a cross-wiki issue, details of it are passed to meta, usually via one of our stewards. So far, Borvo has not been judged to be such a case. I did not wish nor expect him to be blocked on this project and it will certainly not be me to present a case against him here, although I was instrumental in having him blocked on my home project.
 * You may have seen that one of your colleagues asked for information at the talk page of Trijnstel, one of our stewards. Steward Mathonius replied, suggesting Borvo is trying "to seek any kind of attention". With hindsight, it seems clear that Borvo chose to do high-profile edits (reviewing other user's contributions, proposing articles for deletion or improvement, organising a voting), apart from using several sockpuppets, mostly for vandalising user pages and user talk pages, making suggestion about the user's supposed homosexual nature, or wishing them to be off to Auschwitz (most of these edits have been hidden by our admins, later on, because of their abusive language and badgering nature).
 * It seems Borvo is trying to seek some attention on this project too. He already succeeded, without any help, in putting his abusive past in the spotlight. He's under scrutiny now. It's up to him to make the same mistakes again or to show that he finally learned something from his previous experiences. I certainly don't think he'll need my assistance to expose himself as a problematic user if he continues to be one, so I'll happily leave him to himself. Cheers,
 * I consider this chapter closed now. Wikiklaas (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a "nickname", and Linnaeus is not a lectotype
So, do you claim to be the "owner" of this particular Wikipedia page, and refuse postings by people on the basis of your perception of their identity? There are Wikipedia policies against that sort of censorship, and I would be happy to refer you to WP admins who can personally vouch for both my identity AND my position as an ICZN Commissioner AND about policies like WP: OWN. I gave a correct and appropriate citation, directly from the Code itself, which states the appropriate treatment for cases such as Linnaeus'. If your counter-claim is to enforce WP: NOR, it is not "original research"; you will not find an ICZN ruling on the case of Homo sapiens because it is not necessary for anyone to publish an opinion for something which the Code already covers. Stearns' lectotype designation is not valid, never has been, and it does not require any formal published refutation to establish this - that one reason we HAVE a Code of Nomenclature in the first place - so the literature does not become cluttered with claims and counter-claims. Just because Stearns' work was published and you can cite it does not mean it has any nomenclatural merit - the way nomenclature's rules operate are not the same as Wikipedia's, so I'm respectfully asking you to bear that in mind and allow the edit to stand - because claiming that Linnaeus is a lectotype is MISINFORMING THE PUBLIC. My job as a Commissioner is to FIGHT misinformation about nomenclature, not endorse it, and I would hope that you can understand that. Sincerely Dyanega (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * A follow-up, to give an analogy to the problem here: if there is a law in country Y that says (e.g.) "No free-standing work of art may be displayed in a public place that is over 10 meters in height", and artist X erects an installation that is 15 meters tall in a public place in country Y, and both the law and the dimensions of the existing work of art have reliable citations, it is not considered "original research" for an editor to state in a Wikipedia article "The work of art by artist X violates the law" even if no one in country Y has published any such formal declaration. It is very much the same with Linnaeus; the relevant Code articles are explicit, with the force of law, in declaring that the specimens originally examined comprise the type series - since the only specimen Linnaeus can be unambiguously stated to have examined is himself, he alone comprises the type series. Dyanega (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * One further note - I see that Bakker reportedly attempted to designate the skull of Cope as the lectotype for Homo sapiens - also in violation of the Code, and even more egregiously so, since Cope was not alive when Linnaeus wrote his description (Stearns, despite his error regarding the rules of typification, still at least chose the right specimen). The point is that under the rules of nomenclature (unlike Wikipedia), something that is claimed does not require formal (and citeable) refutation in order for it to be demonstrably not true; the only reference one needs is the rules - the ICZN Code itself. Dyanega (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, at least it is clear that you feel very stongly about it, having posted three messages here already without me having the chance to respond to the first one in the first place. Point one is that "Dyanega" is a nickname, and no one here can actually "vouch" for you to be a commissioner of whatever committee you claim to be a member of. That has nothing to do with who you are but with the system we use to register to Wikipedia. You should have been aware of it by now. It's not important however, as long as you do not claim to be knowledgeable just on the basis of who you claim te be. Be knowledgeable by showing that you are. Point two is that I asked for a proof for your statement. Even if you claim, as you do, that there is no need for a published statement on the type of Homo sapiens, then it should be very easy for you to point out where in the Code we can find proof for your claim that the remains of Linnaeus himself are the holotype. The problem here is your statement "since the sole specimen he is known to have examined when writing the species description was himself". In his lifetime, Linnaeus knew many other "humans", and being a doctor, he will have studied several in detail. There is evidence outside the publication for that. You did not provide any proof in the article on Linnaeus and you still do not do that here, why it is clear that the remains of Linnaeus himself should be designated as the type, let alone the holotype. Just citing an article of the current or any past Code would be fine but so far you failed to do so. That's really all that this is about. It's not about me acting as the owner of the article on Linnaeus. I don't even feel like that.
 * One more thing: you say your job as a commissioner is to FIGHT misinformation about nomenclature, not endorse it, and you would hope that I can understand that. I know my way in nomenclature. I know the Codes (botanical, zoological and bacterial) are aiming at stability of names; they are not about fighting the misinformation of the public, so I do not quite follow you when you state the opposite. Wikipedia, and this is what I am sure about, is not about fighting! It is about providing information for which evidence can be given. So in stead of boasting about your status, if you have any, just provide the evidence for your claim and I will be very happy to allow your edit to stand. Cheers, Wikiklaas (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case, the wording of Article 72.4 provides the relevant text that precludes the "extension" of the type series to specimens that were casually examined (in this case, every human being that Linnaeus had met prior to publishing his description). Art 72.4.1 states: "The type series of a nominal species-group taxon consists of all the specimens included by the author in the new nominal taxon (whether directly or by bibliographic reference)". The important things are that it says (1) specimens, and (2) "included by" not "examined by". Linnaeus made no mention of any specimens that would have been in addition to his own person, so Art. 72.4.1.1 taken together with 73.1.2 (an implied single specimen) resolves the issue of Homo sapiens as having a holotype by monotypy. The final point of clarification is that 72.4.1.1 is also explicit in saying "...to determine WHAT specimens constitute the type series" (emphasis mine); it does not say "...to determine HOW MANY". That is, 72.4.1.1 allows us to use unpublished evidence to determine the *identity* of the specimens in the type series, but not to extrapolate the numbers beyond what was stated in the description (unless stated otherwise, it is assumed that a single specimen was used as type). A very simple and obvious parallel can be drawn to the vast number of species of plants and animals named by Linnaeus which he encountered in cities, in gardens, walking in the woods, and even in zoos, many times prior to his formal description of those taxa in print - and no one has EVER taken the Code to imply that we would need to treat (e.g.) every cat or dog (or every elephant or every sycamore) that Linnaeus ever saw as part of the type series for those taxa, simply because Linnaeus did not formally designate a holotype for them when they were described (in which case, an interpretation like Stearns' would be to claim that there is "unpublished evidence" that Linnaeus saw dozens to hundreds of specimens of all of these taxa, all of which would need to be considered as syntypes, and requiring us to literally track down every step of Linnaeus' life to identify them all). Without exception (to my knowledge), all of these many, many species names are interpreted as having, as their types, SPECIMENS that were in Linnaeus' collection, or which were explicitly mentioned, or belonged to someone else but were labeled by him. The types for these many taxa are NOT all syntypes/lectotypes, which they all would be if Stearns' view had been correct; there are only syntypes or lectotypes when Linnaeus made reference to multiple specimens. It might be worth noting that the topic of the type of Homo sapiens does, for various reasons, crop up in discussion among the Commission from time to time, and I am unaware of a single present or past Commissioner who has ever maintained anything other than Linnaeus being the holotype. Yet, none of us (myself included) feel compelled to publish a formal statement to that effect, because the Code does not require a formal rebuttal to something which is not Code-compliant. Dyanega (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata
When you remove interwiki links, please check that the pages you remove are on Wikidata at all. At Pholidichthys, the German Wikipedia article was not on any Wikidata items. (It's mostly unnecessary to remove links that are already on Wikidata, since bots take care of that.) &mdash;innotata 03:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's a bit more complicated than just "leave it up to bots" because that's why it's such a mess on Wikidata right now, but I got your message: check before removing. Wikiklaas (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pugh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Pugh. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess it's time you are given a bit more "intelligence". If you would have had the means to look into this a bit deeper, you would have understood that this link to a disambiguation page was well intended. Cheers.  Wiki  klaas   10:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for sloth. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I'm just so busy on the Dutch project with correcting errors in our articles on butterflies, adding information about authors and papers in the same group of articles, and the occasional unblocking of useful users, that I only come here for wikidata related problems at the moment. While some frustrated users claim Wikipedia is about finished (in the sense of complete), I can only see that there still is so much work to be done! So I'm doing what I can.


 * I must say you had me shocked, when I read the word "blocked" in the edit summary, moments before I opened this page. Best wishes to you!  Wiki  klaas   19:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Dus de grap werkte. Gelukkig nieuwjaar! Drmies (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Zeg, Wikiklaas, misschien kun je me een klein plezier doen: wat is "Cloud cuckoo land" in het Nederlands? Bedankt, Drmies (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ik vrees dat ik geen directe vertaling ken, omdat uit "Cloud Cuckoo Land" zoals dat in het artikel beschreven wordt blijkt dat het een nogal alledaagse uitdrukking is, die vrij casual gebruikt wordt. Wij kennen natuurlijk het woord Utopia, maar dat is nogal formeel. Verder zeggen we tegen iemand die kennelijk in Cloud Cuckoo Land leeft: "Koms eens van je roze wolk af!" Ik zal op onze Helpdesk eens vragen of er mensen zijn die een directere koppeling met een Nederlandstalig begrip kennen.  Wiki  klaas   17:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ja, en Luilekkerland is het ook niet...ik heb op de Nederlandse wiki ook gezocht voor de Griekse termen, maar zonder succes. Bedankt voor je hulp! Drmies (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Good catch
Re Jan van der Kooi -- S Philbrick (Talk)  17:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for your effort. It was through my Dutch talk page that this was brought to my attention, so the catch was made quite easily. Cheers,  Wiki  klaas   18:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikispecies user box
I just wanted to remind you that you can promote Wikispecies by using the WS admin user box. Dan Koehl (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Lift per unit span
Hello Wikiklaas. Thank you for taking an interest in our article Circulation (fluid dynamics). On 22 Nov 2015 you made this edit to the article, inserting the term L in the right side of the equation. I have erased this term for the following reasons. It is unclear whether you intended L to be lift or length of span. Either way, it did not match the equation presented in the cited source, Kuethe and Schetzer.

In the main article, Kutta-Joukowski theorem, this equation is presented as:
 * $$L^\prime = -\rho_\infty V_\infty\Gamma\,$$

In this format, L' means lift per unit span. There are only three terms on the right side of the equation - density ρ, speed V and circulation Γ. Happy editing! Dolphin ( t ) 06:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reviewing my edit. When I first read the article, it said "$$l = \rho V \Gamma\!$$", with $$l$$ being lift, $$\rho$$ being density of the medium, $$V$$ being free stream velocity, and $$\Gamma$$ being circulation. Lift of course is a force, its unit is Newtons or kg&middot;m&middot;s-2. Now density has unit kg&middot;m-3, velocity has unit m&middot;s-1, and circulation has unit m2&middot;s-1. Combining these last three units gives kg&middot;s-2, so the left and right side of the equation were not balanced. If one would find a source citing just this equation, one would know that the source contained an error. I solved this by adding length (L) to the equation. It was obvious that capital L meant length, not lift, in the article, because in the definition, just one line up, L was already introduced as the parameter for length.


 * Your solution, of adjusting the left side of the equation, is of course more elegant, but now the equation is in conflict with the text, which still makes mention of the lift force. I suggest to change that into: "The lift per unit span (L') on a body...." etc. In that case, it will be clear that on the left side of the equation, there is lift per length, which also yields kg&middot;s-2. Happy editing to you too.  Wiki  klaas   21:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Klaas! Season's greetings to you. Dolphin  ( t ) 20:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Wikiklaas

 * Dear Lotje, I did hardly do anything for the project in 2016. You even sent me some e-mails asking me how I did and if I were perhaps angry (with you?). I must say that I only recently read those e-mails as I was indeed so very busy with thing IRL that I did not even check my wiki-mail. So I really don't know how to judge the "thank you for all you did for this project in 2016". Happy editing,  Wiki  klaas   11:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Small problem
Hi, It was me on your dutch page. I had to be quick before MoiraMoira would again censure it. I think you need to take action what she is concerned. "ich habe es nicht gewusst" will not be an axcuse for not action and you can do it. I trust you for that. You can delete everything I wrote to you but give a signal you will act. 2A02:A03F:167D:E200:D59A:2D4F:D7B8:FCC4 (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I won't. You obviously have no clue as to what editing Wikipedia means. Accusing other people of bad faith just because they criticize or revert your edits is not going to help you either. So please start reading the official Wikipedia policies and guidelines in stead of just assuming some rules yourself. And stop contacting me about it. I've seen the rather poor quality of your edits, and I'm not going to defend you.  Wiki  klaas   11:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Cat
Wikilaas.what part of this did you not understand? I am happy to explain any part of it to you .I look forward to hearing from you.

Regard, Veritylookingfortruth (talk) 08:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I at first answered this here, but as it is relevant to the article, I moved my answer to Talk:Cat.  Wiki  klaas   18:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverting entry on Arish
Wikiklaas.why have you said my entry on shore to ship attacks by ISIS in Arish are not relevant .Why can we not add modern history to this article.? Veritylookingfortruth (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * After I encountered your crippled contribution to cat, I had a look at your other edits. It appears your very first edit was made only very recently. Your first contributions (to Topal Osman) immediately show you're really new to Wikipedia. Your obvious intention was to add some truth to the article (as stated in the edit summary). You gave no reference for your statements, so they were reverted. So you started a discussion on your own talk page without letting the anonymous user who reverted your edits know. Of course you got no reply. After that, you tried to insert the same unsourced information two more times. The last time you shifted your attention from defending your edits to attacking the user who reverted them, questioning his impartiality (you accused him of making chauvinistically motivated contributions). And when your edits got reverted once more, you added whatever reference you could find (even a blog, and a Wikipedia-mirror) in order to have something accepted of very questionable importance. The main thing is that you wanted to state that Topal Osman was of Laz origin. The zeal with which you did that, was questionable. Combined with your user name, it gives the impression you're here for the wrong reasons. Wikipedia is not about truth, it's about knowledge that can be verified. You placed the information in the summary of the article, a highly visible place, where only the most important facts of the page should be summarised. This questions your judgement of notability.


 * The same held for your contribution to "cat": you added information on a coat pattern, based on a source that hardly dealt with coat patterns, but merely used that trait to show something else. It questions your ability to interpret and select proper sources.


 * So on with your question: In this edit you added text on an incident, thereby misplacing a superfluous instance of the reference, putting it in front of everything else, without correcting that yourself afterwards. Now you wonder "why we cannot add modern history" to this article. Well, we can, but you didn't. You added an isolated incident, justifying it with a link to a BBC news item. That's not modern history. Modern history would be if an expert on the history of Egypt or the Sinai would write a coherent story on Arish, that we could use to extend the article. One does not add modern history to an article by adding isolated news items. In that case the Wikipedia-users would write the history, which would be original research, and that's utterly unwanted. I guess the incident will eventually have its place in Wikipedia, probably in one of the articles on the several conflicts in the Middle-East. Only if the incident appears to have a real impact on the history of Arish, it will eventually also be taken up in the history of that city.


 * I think it's time you start reading some of the Wikipedia guidelines and policies. This would be a good starting point.  Wiki  klaas   12:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

My entry on Topal Osman reverted
Wikiklaas .why have you reverted my entry on Topal Osman? Who are you to determine notability of a topic? Who are you to determine whether a source is impartial or not?The sources are Turkish and /or Laz so i do not think you are a better arbiter than they are? Furthermore, much of it is from information gathered at the time so i do not think you are in a better position to argue. Are you also operating from ip address  85. Blah blah from the Netherlands who reverted my entry many times Or associated with Turkish nationalists in any way? If so, please declare your position.

I expect my entry to be put back by you as soon as possible or i shall take it further with wiki higher up than you. Regards

Veritylookingfortruth (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I think I gave you ample explanation above. But if you disagree, please feel free to contact someone "higher up than me". I expect you to refer to the explanation I gave on my talk page in that case. Oh, and by the way: I only edit the English language Wikipedia as a logged-on user, and only with this account. But if you should feel the need to have my edits checked against the IP 85.144.61.254, feel free to ask a checkuser. They will know if they should accept or decline your request. Cordially,  Wiki  klaas   14:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikiklaas .you fail to mention why you did not remove the entry regarding Topal Osman and ergenekon which was not properly referenced .where is your zeal regarding that? Furthermore ,you said to read Five pillars.I have, and i would still think that someones ethnic origin in the multi -ethnic ottoman empire is relevant and notable.

I know i have made mistakes and i will.However i have tried to let everyone know what has been hapenning via the appropriate channels from day one.if i used wrong protocol well i am learning aren't I. Rather than attributing motives to me ,cast a little light on yourself.I see no chastising of the anonymous user who removed my entries with no reason,then said it was due to references yet left the ergenekon entry in by someone else regardless. I asked for help and they smuggly declined.

Also everyone i have ever met say i have a superior command of the English language. You do not have a monopoly on that.

So to end you have not given me sufficient reasons why my entries are not notable, nor why arish attack is not allowed nor why you have removed lynx places names because somehow you reached the decision it is Balkan politics.As for cat article i will respond another day.

Yes i am after truth and yes i do believe it should able to be checked so rather than trawling my articles maybe you should worry about whether my entries were truthful or not.

I still do expect you to put my entries back in within next few days or i will take it further. Veritylookingfortruth (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As I said: I gave ample justification. I will not put your edits back as I'm convinced they did not agree with Wikipedia policies. That's not an error you can correct by putting your edits back. In order not to waste time, I think it would be wise for you not to wait any longer with taking it further, if that's what you intend to do if I don't respond to your threat in the way you hoped I would. Send them my greetings,  Wiki  klaas   15:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

My entry on Lynxs removed
Wikiklaas.You are really starting to annoy me.You have removed references to the animal being associated with the name of places and have decided to leave a name that is not officially known to the UN. What are you afraid of? Am i right about the name known in UN?If so,why have you not left it in?

Once again,I expect you to fix it yourself or i will take it further with wiki.

You have proven to be very disheartening to a new editor.

Regards, Veritylookingfortruth (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You incorporated Balkan politics in an article about an animal: Lynx; I explained that quite clearly in my edit summary. In this language version, the article on the republic of Macedonia is called Republic of Macedonia, not Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia of FYROM. Politics is no part of the article on the Lynx, and it's OK to refer to that republic by the name of the Wikipedia-article. The reader who wants to learn more will find it in the opening sentences of that specific article on that specific republic. Again, if you disagree, then I really urge you to take it further with wiki. Cheers,  Wiki  klaas   14:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Removing names of places named after the Lynx have nothing to do with politics.

Please put them back in and stop attributing motives about why i added the entry.I happen to like animals and lynxs in particular,thank you very much!

As for name of Fyrom ,why should it not be correct in every article of wikipedia where it is mentioned.After all, if they want constitutional name they can look it up in detailed article on the country,like you say right?

Stop attributing motives to me about my edits or i will then kindly return the favor.

Please put my edits back in next few days or i will take it further. Veritylookingfortruth (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Please stop annoying me just because I found a few of your edits unacceptable. You do not respond to the justification I gave, but just keep repeating your complaint. That's no proper way of discussing edits. It's running round in circles, and I'm not prepared to do that. If I find your next edit equally unconstructive, I will remove it from my talk page.  Wiki  klaas   15:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change
 * :  Wiki  klaas

to
 * :  Wikiklaas


 * :  Wikiklaas

—Anomalocaris (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * if you are really concerned with correct code, please be aware that you left a superfluous semicolon in the suggested alternative for my signature, just before the last .   Wiki  klaas   19:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for noticing. Sorry for the mistake. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. I let you know just in case you made the error in other suggestions too, so you could check. I implemented the new code in my signature. Thanks for letting me know.  Wikiklaas 19:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Strange that the stray semicolon was only in the visual markup, not in the working signature I made. I don't know how that happened, but anyway, thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It happened when you escaped a few ampersands, as I see now.  <b style="color: white">Wiki</b><b style="color: white">klaas</b> 20:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Mosasaurus page
Hi. I'm a Commissioner of the ICZN, and an error in the article on the genus Mosasaurus was brought to my attention today. There was a comment and citation that you had inserted back in June of 2011 that incorrectly claimed that original spellings MUST be preserved under ICZN Article 31, but in the 2000 Edition of the Code, Article 33.3.1 was introduced, which supercedes Article 31 in any case where an incorrect subsequent spelling (e.g., hoffmanni rather than hoffmannii) is in prevailing usage. Explicitly, the Code states: "33.3.1. when an incorrect subsequent spelling is in prevailing usage and is attributed to the publication of the original spelling, the subsequent spelling and attribution are to be preserved and the spelling is deemed to be a correct original spelling. Example. The specific name in Trypanosoma brucii Plummer & Bradford, 1899 is in prevailing usage but is spelled brucei; brucei is deemed to be correct and its use is to be maintained." Prior to the 2000 Edition of the Code, you would actually have been correct to claim the name should be hoffmannii (assuming that is how Martell actually spelled it - I cannot confirm this because the full reference is nowhere available online), but after 1999, prevailing usage overrules priority. The Commission made this change explicitly to stop people from resurrecting forgotten spellings when they got their hands on ancient papers and found that the original spelling was not the same as what everyone was familiar with. Now, the familiar name is the one the ICZN insists MUST be preserved, and the original spelling is forever thereafter prohibited, so anyone who published the spelling hoffmannii after 1999 did so in direct violation of the Code. Note also that Article 33.4 specifically discusses "-i" versus "-ii" endings, but is likewise superceded by 33.3.1, as noted above. I have made the necessary changes to the page, including a link to Article 33 of the ICZN. I realize that you made that edit a long time ago, but still felt you deserved an explanation for my undoing it. Dyanega (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"Unecesseary promotion"
So, you think that a photo that is tilted, larger part of the bottom of the building is hidden, and the top of the building is blurry is better that one that is considered a quality image? C messier (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * PS: And what do I promote? There is no website/social media links from the photo description page or the user page and the user name is a pseudonyme, an homage to an 18th century astronomer. --C messier (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyway, that was a change made before a relevant discussion, this is a conversation I had before. --C messier (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)