User talk:Kaldari
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Bay Area WikiSalon series kickoff, April 27
.jpg)
The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts in the San Francisco Bay Area will gather to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas. We have two brief presentations lined up for our kickoff event in downtown San Francisco:
- The Nueva Upper School recently hosted the first ever high school Wikipedia edit-a-thon. We will hear what interests them about Wikipedia, what they have learned so far, and what they hope to achieve.
- Photojournalist Kris Schreier Lyseggen, author of The Women of San Quentin: The Soul Murder of Transgender Women in Male Prisons, will tell us about her work and how she researched the topic.
We allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. We will have beverages and light snacks.
Please note: You must register here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. The building policy is strict on this point.
For further details, see here: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, April 2016
We hope to see you -- and until then, happy editing! - Pete, Ben & Wayne
You're a really cool person and you should be proud.
<3
On 08-Sep-2018 at 23:15 UTC, you edited a Wiki Page on Ramdas Kadam, through InternetArchiveBot with a serious complaint embedded in it. What ever was written, is it true?
Just Curious !
- )
Dendryphantina
I noted your addition of subtribe Dendryphantina to Zygoballus. However the Dendryphantina article has a genus list based on an out-of-date and hence unreliable source. Can you update it? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: Will do! It's sad that our most cited source for spider taxonomy is Joel Hallan's Biology Catalog. Which is just a self-published list based largely on Simon's Histoire naturelle des araignées from 1903! Kaldari (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sad indeed! I've usually tended to bypass or ignore ranks that aren't in the WSC. We're supposed to use secondary sources, but what other taxonomic databases are available for spiders? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: The WSC made a good choice in not including minor ranks between genus and family, as few people actually use them and they have been constantly in flux as new molecular studies have been done. Now that Maddison's long-awaited phylogeny for Salticidae has been released (which was decades in the making) I expect that it will serve as an authoritative taxonomic reference for that family for a while. For the other families, I'm not sure. The WSC is the only body doing comprehensive cataloging, and honestly we're quite lucky to have it, as that catalog has a long pedigree of excellent scholarship going back to Platnick who took over from Brignoli who took over from Roewer – almost a century of continuous work, as each stood on the shoulders of his predecessor. Personally, I'm fine with ignoring the minor taxa indefinitely. After all, this is an encyclopedia, not a taxonomic reference, and we frankly don't have the man-power to keep up with all the changes, especially now that molecular phylogenetics lets us define potentially infinite clade levels. Let people read the references if they want more detailed taxonomy. I'm sure other people will disagree with me and want us to include as many taxon levels as possible (which is how we ended up with Joel Hallan's catalog). Personally, though, if I'm not willing to maintain it, I'm not interested in creating it (under the assumption that someone else will do the maintenance). That's a recipe for burn-out and rotting data. Kaldari (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with you entirely. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: The WSC made a good choice in not including minor ranks between genus and family, as few people actually use them and they have been constantly in flux as new molecular studies have been done. Now that Maddison's long-awaited phylogeny for Salticidae has been released (which was decades in the making) I expect that it will serve as an authoritative taxonomic reference for that family for a while. For the other families, I'm not sure. The WSC is the only body doing comprehensive cataloging, and honestly we're quite lucky to have it, as that catalog has a long pedigree of excellent scholarship going back to Platnick who took over from Brignoli who took over from Roewer – almost a century of continuous work, as each stood on the shoulders of his predecessor. Personally, I'm fine with ignoring the minor taxa indefinitely. After all, this is an encyclopedia, not a taxonomic reference, and we frankly don't have the man-power to keep up with all the changes, especially now that molecular phylogenetics lets us define potentially infinite clade levels. Let people read the references if they want more detailed taxonomy. I'm sure other people will disagree with me and want us to include as many taxon levels as possible (which is how we ended up with Joel Hallan's catalog). Personally, though, if I'm not willing to maintain it, I'm not interested in creating it (under the assumption that someone else will do the maintenance). That's a recipe for burn-out and rotting data. Kaldari (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sad indeed! I've usually tended to bypass or ignore ranks that aren't in the WSC. We're supposed to use secondary sources, but what other taxonomic databases are available for spiders? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
HotArticlesBot
Hi, I've recently found your bot and I love it! Currently I have to update vi:Wikipedia:Dự án/Khủng long/Trang hot by hand according to edits for the last 7 days. Could you tweak your bot so that it could run there too, because my IT knowledge is limited. Thank you very much :) Khủng Long (talk) 🌴🦕🦖 -- 21:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
creation log
Hi.
The main (and maybe the only) reason from the community behind requesting/supporting the create log was to see the creators of a a deleted article. But when it seems it is not working properly, for Anirudh Tanwar. It beging shown up in deletion log properly. Would you please take a look at it? Thanks. 03:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Usernamekiran: It was originally created as a draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=create&user=&page=Draft%3AAnirudh+Tanwar&wpdate=&tagfilter=. Kaldari (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- oh, lol. I didnt know about that option. Sorry for such a stupid question
and thanks for the answer. See you around :) —usernamekiran(talk) 03:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- oh, lol. I didnt know about that option. Sorry for such a stupid question
