User talk:Kevmin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Please note that if you post something for me here, put this page on your watch list -- I'll respond to it here.

If I posted on your talk page, you can reply on your talk page and I'll be watching your page. This makes it easier for both of us to keep everything in context. Thanks.


I see that you did not think much of my describing dinoflagellates as algae in Lobophyllia hemprichii‎ and changed it to protists. Wikipedia has many instances where these symbionts are described as algae, some added by me but many preceding my involvement. Outside sources such as this also use the term. The article Pfiesteria piscicida identifies this organism as a protist but says it can cause an algal bloom. The Wikipedia article on protists says that "protist" is a deprecated term. I would be interested in your comments. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Algae is used in Campbell biology 9ed uses protist as an informal grouping of uncellular/multicellular organisms, including dinoflagellates and the algaes. However, Campbell specifies that Dinofl. and algaes (red green and descendant land plants) are two separate entities. Dinoflagellates belong to the group Chromalveolata where as algaes are in the group Archaeplastida. Until the ?50's? iirc dinoflagellates were classed as algaes, but molecular and DNA work has shown they are not related at all. The term "algae bloom" is one those inaccurate vernacular things that is not a good baseline for taxonomy, its used for population booms of any unicellular organism. That is why i changed the wording to protist.--Kevmin § 22:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I will avoid describing them as algae in future. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Elektrithone[edit]

Harrias talk 12:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 10 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Acer taurocursum[edit]

Harrias talk 12:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Allorapisma[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 08:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Principiala[edit]


With one small correction by you, the above nomination is GTG.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi Kevmin. Would you be interested in joining me in pursuit of FA status for John Day Fossil Beds National Monument? I took it to FAC about 3.5 years ago, but it was not promoted. You later said on the article's talk page that there were still problems with the way the article dealt with the geology and paleontology. I lack the technical expertise to correct the problems, but I think the article was (and presumably is) ready except for some minor updating. It occurred to me quite recently that perhaps all I needed to do to get past the stuck point was to ask for help. If this is of any interest to you, I'd be more than happy for you to co-nominate the article when you think it ready and to share the credit, if any is forthcoming, for success. Finetooth (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK: Zigrasolabis[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Zigrasolabis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Borsoka (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


Re this: I obviously made an oops by editing the wrong template, but Myrmecinini was synonymized under Crematogastrini by Ward, Brady, Fisher & Schultz (2014). The placement has been accepted by AntCat/AntWeb/AntWiki, though I've yet to see it either accepted or rejected in any academic articles. I've already updated the other former Myrmecinini articles. What do you think? jonkerztalk 14:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I missed the syn article so I didnt realize. Just be careful about AntCat/AntWeb/AntWiki as sources, since they are all edited by the same small group of myrmecologists, and opposing opinions have not had a good change to be published. Admittedly Ward and Brady are the powerhouse phylogenists at the moment so there's not likely to be much push back. --Kevmin § 16:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Good to go[edit]

... is what you said in your DYK review of Maitland Volcano, but you need at least to supply one of the approval icons to make it go, green for all sources readable, blue for (offline or other language) sources accepted assuming good faith (AGF). You can copy an icon from above the nomination in edit mode. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Oops, forgot to do that, fixed now.--Kevmin § 20:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Principiala[edit]

Harrias talk 01:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)