Hi Ypna. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
- Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
- Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
- Rollback should never be used to edit war.
- If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
- Use common sense.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Unintentional (?) change of sortkey
- Hello. Oops, I thought that was just some leftover cruft and intentionally removed it. I looked it up, and I see now what its function is. Thanks Ypna (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Can you explain why you changed the list of Synonyms from a Specieslist format to a manual list? It just seemed to be an edit for editings sake to me and adds nothing to the article as seen by the reader.(talk) Quetzal1964 07:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- As seen by the reader, it adds dot points. This is the style I've seen throughout Wikipedia; I've never seen Specieslist used for synonyms. Ypna (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, I have both seen it and used it in the past. e.g. Tetragnatha montana, Dissosteira carolina or Raiamas senegalensis, admittedly I don't always use it myself but I was informed at some point that Specieslist was the best format to use, especially with the automated taxoboxes and the Speciesbox. (talk) Quetzal1964 08:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Ypna, You recently edited a taxobox for the dragonfly family Austrocorduliidae to add two lines:
| subdivision_ranks = Genera | subdivision = See text
- Hi John. Good question. I don't think it adds much either, but since I have seen it in use I have been adding it where possible for consistency. I'd like to find out whether there is a consensus on these subdivisions and what the reasoning is. Ypna (talk) 07:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Ypna. If you find anything can you report back here. Then I'll follow your example. John Tann (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
- Found it! See Template:Taxobox/doc#Subdivisions. Both using a subdivision with "See also" or omitting the subdivision section are stated as acceptable options. I suppose the idea is that the reader might expect to find all taxonomic information in the taxobox, so if you haven't included it it could be slightly helpful to signal that species (or whatever taxonomic level) are listed in the body text instead. I think ideally articles within a certain group would at least be consistent; if you think the subdivisions with "See also" are redundant you could remove them from Odonata articles. Ypna (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. If you haven't discovered it yet, you may like to join WikiProject Insects where you can meet likeminded people, ask and answer questions, and help coordinate Wikipedia's coverage of insects. You're also welcome to ask me anything too. Ypna (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Fair Use in Australia campaign update
I'm writing you this followup message, as you took the time to vote in support of a Wikipedia banner campaign for the introduction of Fair Use in Australia.
After much planning and coordination with the WMF, Australian Digital Alliance, and Electronic Frontiers Australia, as of Monday the banner-campaign is active on English Wikipedia to a portion of logged-out readers in Australia (technical details). The banners direct people to this page on Meta: FairCopyrightOz. That page, alongside lots of information, further directs people towards the campaign website faircopyright.org.au where Australians are invited to write to their local MP to express support of Fair Use. If you are interested in supporting this campaign, please, send a letter yourself using the template letter provided at that link.
Furthermore, and with the support of the ADA & EFA, we have received fantastic media coverage - with article "Fair Use: Wikipedia targets Australians in bid to change the law" appearing on page 2 of the Sydney Morning Herald and page 10 of the Melbourne Age on Monday's edition. It was for a time the 3rd most read article the Fairfax website, and Fair Use was "trending" on Twitter in Australia. We are running the account @FairCopyrightOz on twitter, and we are tracking other press-mentions on the talkpage on Meta.
Today, day 2, we published a detailed post about the campaign on the Wikimedia Blog, ran an "Ask Me Anything" Q&A session on the Australia page in Reddit, and [by happy coincidence of timing] the article History of fair use proposals in Australia appeared on the en.wp mainpage as a Did You Know. [The creation of that "history of..." article was a specific request arising from in the community consultation in which you voted].
And, most importantly, in a little more than a day nearly 800 letters to MPs have been sent encouraging them to support the Productivity Commission's recommendation to adopt Fair Use in Australia. I urge you - please add your own message.