User talk:Hexasoft

Hello, my name is Yannick, and my main account is on fr.wikipedia.

This account is only for minor access to the en.wikipedia, such as interwikis.

Please use my main talk page for any message.

Hexasoft 11:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More snakes

Hi Yannick! Would you perhaps have a moment to support me in my efforts to fix up the Boidae section? No real work; just a mention of your support for moving a few articles there to their scientific names. After that, I'll take care of the rest. It only involves six articles: Boa, Anaconda, Calabar Python, Puerto Rican Boa, Rosy boa, and Rubber Boa. No big fight; just want to do things by the book. If we lose, then we'll just have to work around it somehow, but with your support I'm sure that won't be necessary. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Yannick. The Boa article now looks certain to be moved to Boidae with something like 4-1 in favor. The other articles I've mentioned above are still not certain, most still being a 1-1 statemate, so that's where I need the most help. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yannick, You know, if you were just vote on one more of those pages, then at the moment this would be the place where I could use your vote the most. Thanks! --Jwinius (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your support on the name changes!

Regarding the TIGR Reptile Database, I used to use it as a taxonomic reference, but after a while I encountered a number of inconsistencies that caused me to lose confidence in it. Dr. Peter Uetz is a really nice fellow, but unfortunately he's not a taxonomist. In addition, his consulting expert, Dr. Wolfgang Wüster, is just one man, and no matter how respectable he is, in my view this means that the TIGR Reptile Database (previously known as the EMBL Reptile Database) is more a reflection of his opinions than of a consensus within the herpetological community.

Several years ago, we had a discussion about general taxonomy at WP:AAR and this was what Dfcisneros, our only resident herpetologist (albeit a frog specialist), had to say about it:

"... In terms of reptiles... McDiarmid et al. 1999 is the best available sources for reptile taxonomy... however, now there are many new publications that have changed the classification of some groups. The ITIS database is much more updated, and it must be used together with McDiarmid et al. 1999. The EMBL is useful, but it is not complete, and sometimes it does not cite all sources. ..."

ITIS is based on the continuing work of Dr. Roy McDiarmid, who is working hard to produce Snake Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, vol. 2. Many experts -- Wolfgang Wüster among them -- contributed to vol. 1, so this has to be a better reflection of general consensus.

There is another issue too: correcting mistakes. For instance, when I discovered a few mistakes in the EMBL database and mentioned these to Dr. Uetz, he confirmed but never corrected them. On the other hand, I also discovered a fair number of mistakes and omissions in the ITIS database, but these have now all been corrected (although it took almost a year).

There are more problems with Uetz's database. For example, with the geographic range data, if his source would say "From country A to E", he lists "Countries A, B, C, D and E" in the database; an assumption that may not always be correct. Also, many of the the common names listed in the database come directly from Frank & Ramus' infamous book, A Complete Guide to Scientific and Common Names of Reptiles and Amphibians of the World; it's a well-known fact that F&R just made up lots of those names.

Almost two years after switching to ITIS, I'm still very happy with the decision. In WP articles, I still create links to matching or equivalent TIGR Reptile Database entries whenever possible, sometimes even citing them, but I use them strictly as a secondary source. --Jwinius (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Conversation continued on my talk page). --Jwinius (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rican Boa

Hi Yannick, Yesterday I saw that, back in July, you (and AshLin) had continued that conversation on the Puerto Rican Boa page after I took it off much watchlist. I realize now that I should not have been canvasing you and others for their votes, but I wanted to thank you for your support anyway. It was a learning experience for me, even if it was also somewhat depressing. I like that you found another common name for the species, and also your idea of how googling for these names to see which one gets more hits can only be an indication of the truth and possibly also regarded as "own research." I'm going to remember that! Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]