User talk:Jwinius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Click here to leave a new message.

Please note that if you post something here, I'll respond to it here.
Similarly, if I post on your talk page, I temporarily add it to my watchlist
and request that you reply to it there.

Vandalism? Really?[edit]

Hey, it's not really my business, but I noticed a vandalism warning you levelled at a new user, who very clearly to me is making good faith edits. Could you explain what made User:Windustsearch's edits vandalism? cheers, Murderbike (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's debateable. I wrote the paragraph in question, which comes from a very reliable source (see attached ref tag). All too often, I've seen anonymous and new editors come in and make significant (usually ridiculous) changes to such passages without quoting a source, leaving the text inaccurate when compared to the original and only quoted reference. This is bad even if the information they added is actually correct, because now nobody can verify that. Anyway, I see your point in that in this case the editor may indeed have meant well after all, so I'll leave him/her an additional note. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
That it's debateable is exactly why we have to assume good faith. cheers, Murderbike (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sidewinder (snake)[edit]

Why does this page redirect to Sidewinder instead of Crotalus cerastes? Crotalus cerastes is the only snake in the disambiguation page. (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That's because it's currently serving a more useful purpose. It didn't used to, but take a look at this category and read the explanation at the top of the page (it's short). Okay. This page gives us an easy way to systematically check on, or work with, all of the disambiguation pages that mention snakes -- including the ones that can no longer be included directly in this category. So, in this case if "Sidewinder (snake)" were to point to the Crotalus cerastes instead, this project would eventually lose track of the "Sidewinder" disambiguation page and the snake-related entry on it.
Does this still sound weird? Well, it's not really a high price to pay. After all, articles that need to link to the snake should link directly to the "Crotalus cerastes" article anyway, while at the moment only four articles link to "Sidewinder (snake)" and none of them are articles. Hope this clears things up for you! Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Leiopython, common names[edit]

Listen, your ignorance sometimes is really annoying! If in a description of a new species, the ethymology says named after John Hook, you would consider a common name like "Huck's python" as wrong, no matter who cites the reference. In fact, I wouldn' only stick to this terrible book of John Mehrtens. Perhaps you remember the Cold fusion proposed in scientific journal by two scientists (Fleischmann and Pons) years back? This definitly didn't work at all, but, however, there is a reference to this crap! So, in your opinion this must be true, right? Not everything that is cited by someone is a true fact. But, it is fact that the name of the person honored was Luigi D'Albertis, and I don't see Luigi D'Albert mentioned in the description, hence, the proper name is D'Albertis - full stop! If some ignorant spreads wrong common names, created on ones real name, than, there should at least be a note, that this name is wrong, and that's why I did not eliminate it from Wiki, but set an additional note for people, not to use the wrong name in future. You want a reference: Check Taxonomy & Relationships at, although, there are also some errors in that desription! This was definitly my last attempt ever to share something with the Wiki community. Cheers, Wulf Schleip (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, calm down! I would have been happy to explain at any time, but that's not easy to do with anonymous users; make yourself an account already... it's free. On the subject of common names, how can one that has a reference ever be considered "wrong"? Common names are completely unregulated, so there is no right and wrong about them. Sure, someone may have misspelled this one (although you never know: they may have spelled it this way intentionally), but once such names have been published it is no longer "wrong" for us to mention them. Besides, "D'Albert's water python" is the only common name for which we currently have a normal reference, while you've consistently failed to provide one for your own assertions. Even now, the reference you give is a mere webpage, which is considered inferior at Wikipedia (because they're here today and gone tomorrow). Regarding this reference or yours, I also consider the relevant statement -- The proper name for this snake is "d'Albertis's python," and not "Dee-Albert's python." -- to be problematic. Not only are we unsure of its origin, but although it may include what you believe to be the "correct" spelling of the common name, it also includes a new "wrong" one, which, when we consider that all common names are equal, we would then also have to include in our list. On the subject of Mehrtens (1987), I bought the book because it's cited so often in other literature, so it has had a certain amount of influence regardless of your disapproval. --Jwinius (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I give up! You want references for the other common names. Ok, for
White-Lipped Python see e.g.,
  • Barker,D.G. & Barker, T. Pythons of the World, Vol. 1 Australia, 1994.
  • O'Shea, Mark, A Guide to the Snakes of Papua New Guinea, 1996, Independent Publ., PNG, ISBN: 981-00-7836-6;
  • Walls, Jerry G. The Living Pythons, 1998, TFH, ISBN: 0-7938-0467-1;
  • O'Shea, Mark, Boas and Pythons of the World, Princeton Univ. Press, 2007, ISBN:0-691-13100-7
for D'Albertis' Python see e.g.,
  • Barker,D.G. & Barker, T. Pythons of the World, Vol. 1 Australia, 1994.
  • O'Shea, Mark, A Guide to the Snakes of Papua New Guinea, 1996, Independent Publ., PNG, ISBN: 981-00-7836-6;
Barker and Barker (1994) also refer to D'Albert's Python as other common name because it's in use. I simply placed a note in the Leiopython section, stating that this is not the correct name due to misspelling.
But hey, where are the references to the common names of e.g., Apodora papuanus, for the Antaresia species group, the Liasis species group, the Python species group, and others? And why did you redirect Broghammerus reticulatus to Python reticulatus, although the generic name Brohammerus is valid and the taxa reticulatus and timoriensis were considered distinct from members of the genus Python by Rawlings et al. (2008) [1].
Whatsoever, I won't argue with you anymore. Wulf (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, decent references! This is something I can't and won't argue with, so we'll have to include these names in the article, along with some of the references. It'll be my pleasure! Regarding the common names of other species, I only helped to organize those articles, but didn't have much source material to work with; most of the books I have are all on viperids. However, seeing as you do have some relevant publications, you're more than wecome to contribute. If I had your books (and I'm now tempted to order them), I'd be adding every common name I could find for each species mentioned.
As for Brohammerus, I'm not sure what to think of that. I started by organizing all of these articles according to ITIS, which is why reticulatus and timoriensis are currently classified as members of the genus Python, but have recently agreed to let go of this idea. Consequently, we may very well end up moving them to Brohammerus based on Rawlings et al. (2008), but I personally do not know how well this paper has been received. Do you know of and subsequent publications that have followed or rejected Rawlings et al. (2008)? We should be very careful about this, because any reclassification of such a famous species is bound to be met with skepticism and possibly even resistance. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


  1. ^ Rawlings, L. H., Rabosky, D. L., Donnelan, S. C. & Hutchinson, M. N. 2008. Python phylogenetics: inference from morphology and mitochondrial DNA. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 93, 603–619

Footnotes & page numbers[edit]

I saw your note at Help talk:Footnotes#Footnotes with page numbers and was having exactly the same thought. I'm using a lot of the same sources (course catalogs, common data sets, big reports, etc.) at the Northwestern University article and I just know I'm gonna get killed not having page numbers when FAC time comes around. Keep me in the loop if you figure anything out! Madcoverboy (talk) 07:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Aha, so maybe the idea is not so far-fetched after all! If you like it, what you need to do is to add your support for the idea on that page. That way it will carry a bit more weight and have a better chance of being taken seriously. Thanks! --Jwinius (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yo Jwinius[edit]

Hey, is it actually common knowledge all over the world that NZ is snake free? I mean obviously as a local kiwi, WE all know there's no snakes here, but is it actually well known over the world? I'm not questioning you my man, but living in NZ have no idea on the global perception. (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand, snake free? Don't be so sure. First of all, the pelagic sea snake, Pelamis platurus, occurs as far south as northern part of the country, so specimens will occasionally wash up on the beaches there. It would probably be more accurate to say that there are no snakes found on land in New Zealand, but I wonder if it's even possible to be 100% sure of that: Ramphotyphlops braminus, a.k.a. the flowerpot snake, has been transported all over the world and has managed to survive in all places where it is warm enough. I don't know whether it has ever been reported in (northern) New Zealand, but I'm not sure I would bet against that happening some day.
Moving along, knowledge of snakes isn't common anywhere, but even if no snakes at all occur on land in New Zealand, it's too specific (i.e. overkill) to say that no viperids occur there. After all, why not go on to mention in the articles for all of the other snake families that they are not represented there either? It would be more logical to restrict that information to the more generic Snake article, but even then you would have to ask yourself whether this would be interesting. After all, it's more informative to say what anything is (or where it is found) than what it is not. If we were to include a list of all the islands in the world where snakes do not occur, then this list may become very long indeed. --Jwinius (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed on the sea snake point, I should have made it clear I was talking about terrestrial snakes. The flowerpot snake you mention quite possibly has been inadvertantly imported to New Zealand, although I would highly doubt that snakes that have been imported have ever made it past MAF, we have strict biosecurity measures in place at border control, i.e. ports and airports, in place to prevent the introduction foreign species, in order to protect our native flora and fauna. That being said land snakes are definately not found in New Zealand either as a native or introduced species.
Agreed upon too, is the overkill on the viper page specifically, it was just a page I happened to stumble upon whilst exploring the wealth of knowledge that is wikipedia, the generic snakes page would be a more appropriate page in terms of relevancy. Whether it is actually relevant is not, is debatable, but I guess I added it because of Australia being mentioned. I am not sure of your awareness of the relationship between NZ and Australia, but because of close cultural, economic, geographic, and sporting ties, kiwis like to feel (if somewhat misguidedly) that we are every bit as, if not more, important than Australia, despite the 'little brother' or 'poor cousin' role to that we really are. And despite our country being a little island nation, we're not really that small as far as islands go. We're only a bit smaller than Japan, and larger than the UK I think.
Also agreed is that the distribution of where something is as oppposed to where something isn't, is far more helpful, however snakes have a near global distribution. So perhaps a list of notable exceptions which are 'snake free' to use my incorrect term again, would be shorter. Countries like NZ, Ireland and Iceland I believe dont have land snakes, but could be wrong about those. Hope that clears things up a little bit. (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
"Notable exceptions." I like that idea. If I get involved in rewriting Snake (which needs it), I will make a point of adding this to the "Geographic range" section (which doesn't exist yet). By the way, there aren't any viperids in New Guinea either, which is apparently three times larger than New Zealand. I guess Australia often makes this kind of shortlist because it's considered a small continent. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I had no idea NZ was free of terrestrial snakes. St. Patrick must have spent time there. - --Boston (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


I noticed this last night, and see you reverted it. The informal name is all over the sources in the article, how have you determined the prominence of one over the other? Other species have names appended that do not appear at ITIS. Should I assume they are mentioned in the other reference. Why not keep it a simple list, leaving all the specious names out. Or add several of the most prominent ones, along with the distribution. I suppose it depends on the purpose of the list ... can it be supplemented with a second (third) source? cygnis insignis 03:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no preference for any one common name over another, so if you prefer royal over ball or want to change any others, be my guest. It's just that there's a list like this for every snake (sub)family (except Colubridae), all entries of which have a maximum of one common name per taxon to keep the overview simple and uncluttered. I'd like to keep it that way. The common names were only meant to act as a guide for people unfamiliar with the scientific names. For an overview of all common names, see Category:Pythonidae by common name. --Jwinius (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Please read this diff again, then considering revising your comment. cygnis insignis 11:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Jaap. Please excuse my seemingly trivial request; I did appreciate the sentiment of your post, but others in the future could have used it to justify taking a tendentious position in discussions with me.
I followed the ITIS discussion after making the second edit to the section you opened, the consensus was the basis of my edit. I was perusing your solution while considering a not unrelated problem. I hadn't read your user page in quite a while, but I should have - you have declared things I have been hesitant to point out to you. Our views differ, but are largely in accord. We should recognise how this fact will help to reinforce the emerging and broad-based change in consensus, I don't think I'm being to optimistic in anticipating that.
I'm considering whether there will be advantage in putting your user page up as an WP:essay, it is a good summary of the many problems with folk taxonomy. The more I look around, the greater the deviation from cornerstone policies in articles. I have thought of linking some examples to you, because I know you would appreciate how ludicrous some of these articles and discussions become. Did you know, for example, that career wikipedians, having contributed to great archives of blather about capitilisation, now consider this so utterly defining that common names have been disambiguated by Policy wonk as the genus and Policy Wonk as the species!? You can admire the inventiveness of solutions like this, if they were not in such stark contrast to well established policies.
cygnis insignis 10:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
You might be interested to know that Caissaca and I recently entered into another discussion regarding subspecies. You're welcome to comment.
Broad-based change in consensus? I sure do hope you're right. On that topic, you will also be interested in this recent discussion.
I'm flattered that you think well of the points I made on my user page, but I'm really pretty scatter-brained compared to some of the guys in the botany group. Have you followed any of the recent, lengthy debates at WP:NC (flora) and WP:NC? It's been an idiotic attack, but the botanists made many arguments in their defense that we can also use. You're welcome to use information from my user page, but it could probably stand a little revision and updating.
Folk taxonomy indeed! That sounds like what we're up against. Actually, if you can think of any arguments that are missing from user page, or find some good examples of how ridiculous the management of common names can become, or can think of any other good changes, feel free to make them yourself. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Look again Jaap, at the page title itself. You will get a pleasant surprise!
And excuse me if I toy around with Morelia, I want to demonstrate something regarding the subspecies discussion. I'll revert to your version if it doesn't work out, cheers. cygnis insignis 12:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
It took me a minute to figure out that you were referring to another discussion, but now I see it. Cool!! Those name entries have got to disappear. Wanna help? --Jwinius (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I want to help improve our document. I'll do 'em as I see 'em. This includes articles we are both interested, in the scope of subprojects (pl.), containing material that "[y]ou irrevocably agree[d] to release" when you clicked save. It is not reasonable to revert every edit to these, drawing contributors into debate (worse than voting) or accusing them of vandalism.
Not one hour after apologising for your rash implication re. my edit summary, you have failed to assume good faith in my editing. Assume that I have carefully considered my edits, and that I have attempted to give this in the edit summary.
In short: every taxobox should be unique. Each one would have at least one name in bold, contemplate this from a navigation pov. I'll edit the list to fulfill your request, remind me if I don't. Some stuff for your consideration:
  1. You may find the discussion at WikiProject Mammals/Archive 1 interesting. It forms the purported consensus for naming of mammalian articles. This section is particularly illuminating. More on this later.
  2. I have read numerous articles that are wedded to common names. Even amongst the plant articles someone cherry picks a name, plum forget to include others, and prune away anything that might contradict the title.
  3. Cod.
  4. A link that contradicts the notion that the accepted name is only used by specialists or will frighten children. I once had a conversation with a five year old who used these.
  5. Wikipedia is not a database.
  6. The link to my email.
First, regarding the taxoboxes, I'm sorry if you found my remarks irritating. Bad faith never crossed my mind for an instant; I just want you to know that I put some thought into these things as well, not to mention a lot of work (not one, but many such articles). If you think that taxoboxes should always be unique (even though I'm not sure if that's a guideline), and so should not be used in list articles, I might be willing accept that, but I would also like you to take my efforts and concerns into account. For instance, if we change these list articles, then I would first like to develop an alternative format.
Moving along, I think that find of yours regarding common names for mammals is important. I will also read the article. Thank you very much!
As for the database analogy, Database is a nice article, but they use a very strict and technical definition. Other definitions are not so strict. For example, if I look it up in the dictionary (Collaborative International Dictionary of English) I find "an organized body of related information."So, by that measure WP is definitely a database! At least, that's what we're aiming for, right? --Jwinius (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Systematically using common names[edit]

Yours is a useful and considerate post. Thanks for taking the time. --KP Botany (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was more worried that it would come across as sounding too self-satisfied. Sometimes I think I may have gone overboard with my efforts, but then, things are different over here: WP:NC (fauna) is not on my side. --Jwinius (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, after the latest, if you had spit on us with a nice wave, we probably would've thought you were being nice. It's nice to have something to discuss though, rather than just an attack to fend off. --KP Botany (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Scientific name as article subject in lead[edit]

You might be interested in taking a look at this discussion. Talk:Leatherback_turtle#No_bold_for_Latin_name. Your 2 cents on the issue? :P Shrumster (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents on this issue is that you shouldn't be arguing about this -- particularly the two of you. With very few exceptions, I don't work on articles with common-name titles at all, precisely because you can so easily end up in silly arguments. However, for typical WP fauna articles with common-name titles I believe he's right: only the name of the article and any other common names are usually bolded in the introduction as opposed to any scientific names. Of course, you could always try to start a new formatting trend, but it probably won't be worth your effort. --Jwinius (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Good point. Sigh, common-name titles are so frustrating to work with especially because they're usually the "popular" ones that many people tend to work with. Hehe, been trying to keep sane the past few months doing articles on prehistoric fauna, specifically so nobody can come around and say "hey, that article should be named *common name x*" BTW, I'm going to try and adapt your "X taxon by common nama" categorization of disamb pages with a few fish articles, going to see how it plays out. Shrumster (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and along that train of thought, I've only seen "X genus by common name". Is this the most reasonable cat, or would I go ok with "X family by common name"? Shrumster (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I let that depend on the size of the main taxon. For instance, Category:Viperinae contains less than 200 subtaxa (the max. no. a cat. page will display), so I didn't think any subcategories were necessary and I created a complimentary Viperinae by common name category for it. On the other hand, Category:Crotalinae has well over 200 subtaxa, so I decided to split off the largest genera it contains and then created matching common name categories for all of them.
By the way, now that I seem to have your attention, what would be your honest opinion in this debate? I've developed a certain appreciation for the opposing point of view, but don't think that with that option it would be as easy to achieve the current level of organization. --Jwinius (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Subspecies[edit] personal inclination would be, separate articles for subspecies as well, given a healthy dose of references and thus info on different subspecies. Haven't personally worked with any articles about organisms that actually have subspecies except for a short stint with Carabao, but I think there's a lot of expansion that can be attained with separate subspecies articles (in general). Shrumster (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And what about nominate subspecies? --Jwinius (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm...well, to be fair to the other subspecies articles of equal rank, theoretically they should also have separate pages. But I think I'm ok with the nominate subspecies' info applying to the species article, with a separate subsection on how the nominate supspecies differs from others. But I'd prefer the 1st option, consistency-wise. Shrumster (talk) 10:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
In that case, if a new subspecies is added to a monotypic species, the information regarding the nominate would have to be separated out into a separate article. Then if subsequently the new subspecies is elevated to a full species, the article on the nominate would have to be merged back into the species article. As I see it, the nominate is special because it is the only subspecies that cannot be disassociated from the main species article. --Jwinius (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Good point. #2 would be cool then. Although would the nominate subspecies article itself be a redirect to the appropriate subsection of the main species article, or a shortened take of the subspecies-specific info? Shrumster (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, the current method is to introduce an article on a polytypic species as being about the species in general and the nominate subspecies in particular. Therefore, the redirect for the nominate simply points to the species article. This also makes it easy to revert to a monotypic format. On the other hand, there might be something to say for clarifying the separation between those parts of the description that deal with the nominate and those with the species in general. If that was your opinion, how would you go about improving, for example, the Agkistrodon piscivorus article? Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


It is so funny what can be found on an other editors User page...I also once collected snakes as a child-many years ago...(Garter snakes Thamnophis sirtalis semifasciatus from the train tracks nearby)...And, of course, there is the Low Countries connection which I always enjoy discovering. Anyway, nice to meet you.--Buster7 (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't only kinds stuff for me; I kept and bred them for six years in the 1980s too. Do you also have some sort of association with the Netherlands?
I was born in Belgium in 1947...Live in America since 1951. I speak one of the old Flemish dialects. Being in the states almost 60 years mij Nederlanse es niet zo goed :-)--Buster7 (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

My email[edit]

Whitelisted! --Jwinius (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You should have mail ;-) Notify me if it has arrived OK, so I can delete your addy from my Talk page lest some spambot picks it up. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've received it. Thanks! --Jwinius (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy Jwinius's Day![edit]

Featured article star.svg

Jwinius has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Jwinius's day!
For your work in herpetology articles and WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles,
enjoy being the Star of the day, Jwinius!

00:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, bibliomaniac15. I'm pleased that my efforts, however obscure, have not gone entirely unnoticed. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


Sorry, B2c. You and PBS have been a real pain for the past two months. Perhaps you both mean well, but you are apparently incapable of learning. It's ironic that your efforts have only helped to highlight an important problem -- one of many -- that exist with the current version of WP:NC (fauna). Surly, this is the opposite of what you intended. --Jwinius (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion about PBS and me is perhaps interesting and entertaining to you and others, Jwinius, but it is inappropriate and irrelevant, especially in that section, since it does not address at all the content of what I posted there, and so borders on a personal attack. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
It's an observation, not a personal attack. Like I said, I believe you both mean well, but nobody is ever going to agree with your arguments just because you bring them up for the umpteenth time -- that's simply tiresome. --Jwinius (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You may not consider remarks such as "As usual, this is a pointless discussion. B2c and PBS are basically a pair of naming zealots, incapable of recognizing merit in any arguments other than their own.",[1] but I do and I would appreciate it if you would read WP:CIVIL. --PBS (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, then why don't you try being reasonable and fair for a change? Debating with you is like playing touch-football with someone who steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that they've ever been touched. Apparently, all that matters to you and B2c is that your concerns are addressed, period. If others argue that WP:NC (flora) does not conflict with any policies, that similar exceptions also exist, that finding "the most commonly used common name" for every possible plant article -- or for that matter now, any natural history article -- is an impractical and fundamentally flawed process, you systematically evade and ignore their remarks to instead reiterate your position over and over and over again. For over two months now you've been at this!! You behavior is unconstructive, and uncivilized because so much of everyone else's time has been wasted due to your underhanded tactics. In addition, your campaign of attrition has definitely been bad for our readers, because by now it's quite likely that at least some of them will have come here to look for information that could have been there, but still isn't because the editors who could have supplied it have been needlessly tied up for so long in this "debate." --Jwinius (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
"Well, then why don't you try being reasonable and fair for a change?" does this mean that you think it is OK to be uncivil if in you opinion the person you are debating with is being unreasonable?
My position is simple. If the wording at the start of WP:NC (flora) was to closely reflect the wording in the policy then there would be no debate over the minutia of the policy because it would be self evident that the wording reflected policy.[2], the exceptions could then be written into the guideline to reflect those specific issues that need to be addressed in the flora guideline -- as they are in half a dozen or more other guidelines, which do not start off totally contradicting policy. I am not as active as I one was in WP:RM issues, but if I was to close any debate -- I sometimes help out with the backlog -- then were I had to weigh up a requested move (using "purpose of consensus") then policy wins over guidelines when they contradict each other. If however the guideline give more specific advise, then I will follow that more specific advise. I think it is unreasonable of a few plant editors to defend wording in a guideline which contradicts policy, and forces disinterested administrators in a position where they have to choose between a policy and a guideline (as it happens in most cases the scientific name is the most common name, so this will not be an issue, but it will in some cases (if the survey I conducted on KPB's moves is a reflection of plant moves in general, then in about 15% of moves policy and guideline give conflicting advise). Any administrator will tell you that on controversial moves they frequently get hassled by disappointed participants to a requested move debate, and such a dichotomy as exists between the naming conventions policy in the policies and flora guideline will not reduce the correspondence.
BTW, The silly part is that if the wording in flors was changed along the lines I have suggested so that policy and guideline were in harmony,[[3] then the exceptions would reduced that 15% down to a much lower level because of the problems that have been raised and could be dealt with as exceptions. But so long as the guideline does not complement policy, those exceptions can not be dealt with in a constructive manner. --PBS (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
PBS, I understand why you think WP:NC (flora) (a guideline) conflicts with WP:NC (a policy). You've explained this so many times now that you sound pedantic, to say the least: Since WP:NC is a policy page and states that ...

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

... as far as you're concerned all of the guidelines it refers to as exceptions are subsidiary to it must therefore first follow that general rule before their more specific recommendations can be added. Simple, right?
Not true. When it was first agreed that an exception was needed for the naming of plant articles in mid 2006, this could just as well have been described on the WP:NC policy page itself, in which case you would have had no argument whatsoever. Instead, to prevent the policy page from becoming too long and to give the new rules more room, the minor decision was made to publish this information on a separate page: WP:NC (flora). You're now (ab)using the fact that they neglected to declare this new page to be a policy also, even though it's likely that this was done simply to limit the number of policy pages that Wikipedia maintains. I call this wikilawyering. That other administrators active at WP:RM may actually share your interpretation of this situation is totally irrelevant (more wrongs don't make a right).
Actually, I'm reasonably satisfied anyway that we've reached this point, because it has served to highlight the urgent need for WP:NC (fauna) to be changed also. We badly need a default policy for using scientific names for all article titles on organisms, or else we will never attract the editors we need to complete our gargantuan task, and even stand to lose those we have. My interpretation of the first version of WP:NC (2001) is that it prescribed using "the most easily recognized names" largely to get more hits on the various Internet search engines at the time. Now that we've become huge and Google even gives our articles a search preference, I don't see that this is necessary any longer. There are simply too many advantages in using scientific names to be ignored. The longer we postpone making this switch, the more difficult it will become for us to recover.
PS -- It's no longer a lack of search engine hits that we have to worry about, it's the competition: EOL (Encyclopedia of Life). This system is becoming huge, perhaps in part because of our failure. I still think we can do better because of the breadth of our available information, but then we must first get our act together ASAP. --Jwinius (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi, my name is Lukasz Lukomski, I am Polish Wikipedia editor. One of my collegues translated this article and encountered difficult word during his work. I checked history of edits of Snakes page and found, that you were the person, who put disjust in this edition. Could you please explain the meaning of this word or give a synonym for proper use in translation of this article? It would be great, if you could answer here - it's our zoology discussion page. Thanks a lot! Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lukasz, Sorry, that was a spelling error. I meant to write "Disjunct," a word that describes when one population has become separated or isolated from the rest. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

common names[edit]

typically we put the common names in the first sentence of the article after "also known as" not on top, which is where the disambiguations go. Green Squares (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm well aware of that. Please read the link I gave you. --Jwinius (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Civility warning #2[edit]

Please note I am reminding you about WP:civility because of edits made here. As only a week ago, another editor (User:Philip Baird Shearer) also found it necessary to remind you of this important policy, I urge you to take it to heart. --Boston (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That was an entirely different matter. I was engaged in a dispute that lasted for over two months and ended with User:Philip Baird Shearer being accused by others of wikilawyering and disrupting Wikipedia. Honestly, I don't know where I've been uncivil with you, only insistent, and you know that I'm not alone in my opinion in this matter. --Jwinius (talk) 11:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, Boston has gone crying to the admins here, and as usual, is trying to avoid informing us of this so he can get admin action behind our backs. Mokele (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

vandalism again...[edit]

Hi Jwinius,

obivously the watch list change detection didn't work. Someone messed up the Leiopython page again, causing confusion about L. hoserae being a subspecies and things like that...No references were given... Cheers (talk) 06:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think it's okay this time. I've recently had a change of heart regarding the following of ITIS's taxonomy only. See this conversation, as well as the change to one of my four original "core opinions" (I don't like the word "belief") on my user page. In short, they convinced me that ITIS will never be up to date and that it is not in Wikipedia's interest to ignore recent research that seems to be sound, or has already been widely accepted.
In this case, the changes are based on Schleip, 2008. IIRC, it recognizes L. hoserae and (some of?) the other taxa that Hoser "first described." In this case, it may feel a little disappointing (it does to me), because Hoser truly does not deserve this honor, but if you think about it there's no way around it: he based his 2000 paper on other people's unpublished research, which was sound, and since the ICZN refused to censor his "work" it was only a matter of time before his taxa were recognized. It makes me sick to think about it, but there it is.
Anyway, I'm still coming to grips with this new strategy. It means that there are one or two new Bitis species to add, some of the Echis subspecies to elevate elevated, Atheris anisolepis becomes a synonym of A. squamigera, Trimeresurus needs to be split up, etc, etc. There's so much work to do it almost makes my head spin. I need help. Are you interested? Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


you often bothered me because I didn't give references, but you now accept Hoser to state he had published something in Jan. 2009 without providing a reference? Furthermore, Hoser had messed up the taxonomy section: a) His own L. hoserae is NOT a subspecies as he states here. b) He claims to provide evidence such as DNA, morphological and ecological stuff, without a reference, c) he claims, that I had recognized one of his taxa as nomen nudum in late 2008, ALTHOUGH he had redescribed it in Jan. 2009...btw. He used some of my morphological characters, to redescribe his taxon, and if it wasn't a nomen nudum, as I had assumed, the redescription is of no use at all... Cite the paper, and you will understand... Cheers (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm well aware that Hoser is a complete and utter cad, that his 2000 publication is shit, and that the ideas in it were based on someone else's unpublished research. Simply outrageous. However, there is now a new publication to contend with -- Schleip, 2008 -- that apparently argues convincingly that there are indeed a number of distinct (sub)species. Since this work is recognized by a couple of prominent herpetologists, and the ICZN considers Hoser's names to be the senior synonyms, what choice do we have other than to recognize those names? The last important taxonomic changes to the article were made not by Hoser, but by Wulf Schleip himself (as based on his own publication (see his posts further up on this page).
Those are the only publications I'm aware of. I think all that's left to do now is to fix things up a bit by adding a species table and a missing reference tag to the changes in the "Description" section. If you know of some additional publications that will shed yet more light on this subject, then by all means: edit away. In any case, we should always make sure that this article clearly explains the underhanded manner in which Hoser succeeded to in getting his names associated with these snakes.
By the way, what's your name and how are you associated with all of this? Would you happen to the unfortunate researcher whom Hoser scooped with his 2000 paper? If so, you have my deepest sympathies. --Jwinius (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The last important taxonomic changes to the article were made not by Hoser, but by Wulf Schleip himself  (as based on his own publication (see his posts further up on this page).
are you blind or what? Check the page, and see the IP that had chaned the text a few days ago!
It wasn't me (Wulf) that wrote that crap on 8. Feb, it was Hoser ( who messed it up, without providing evidence or references to his claims! You always undid my stuff due to me not having provided references, but you tend to let others just write any kind of stuff without any references given, and you tell me everything is ok? Ok, Jwinius. This is really pissing me off now, and for sure, you can do what ever you want with this site. You won't hear anything from me again on the Wiki! Wulf (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, this is so confusing. Wulf, please: I had no idea I was talking to you. I should have noticed that the IP address I was quoting was the same as yours, but I just wasn't paying attention. You could have avoided this if you had simply created an account for yourself as I had suggested back in early January. With such an account (the same as mine) you would also be able to revert any edits yourself. In the mean time I've reverted the offending edits, but I'd much prefer that you maintained that article, since you're supposed to be the expert on the subject. --Jwinius (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


please also note discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

There are little red wikialerts similar to the wikialerts for vandalism that people use for civility infractions and personal attack infractions. Although it would be justified IMO, I'm not posting one here because I want you to understand I'm not trying to get you in trouble or have some kind of dominance. My goal continues to be to point out the necessity of communicating differently on Wikipedia that you have been communicating with me. One way to approach it is to try to talk to everyone as polite as you would if they were your grouchy boss upon whom you rely for pay, your tough teacher upon whom you rely for a good grade, or some traffic cop whom you hope won't put you in handcuffs. The advantage is that most editors will speak to you the same way. Examples:

The most important advice is to comment on content, not on the contributor unless it is to ask for civility. BTW, I'm absolutely happy with making compromise in the retic article and always have been. Less examples? Sure, no prob. I'm not too fond of being told what the compromise will be -- that's not compromise -- but I should have been more clear about that point. Hope you can take this note to heart in the spirit that it's given. --Boston (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, see my reply here. --Jwinius (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


I work with the topic, that's why I have additional information. I shall look up some good source for the added facts.Ronny vika (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Review of snakebite for GA status[edit]

Hello Jaap, I am reviewing Snakebite for GA status and felt you'd be the person to ask about comprehensiveness - see the review page at Talk:Snakebite/GA1 and let me know what you think regarding snake related issues. I am asking some other doctors too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming Conventions. RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.[edit]

This is to inform you that removing exceptions to the use of "most Common Names" as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles needs you![edit]

Ahoy there! We're conducting our annual purge of the participants list for WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, in an effort to make sure our members stay current with events at the WikiProject. If you would like to renew your participation with the WikiProject, simply drop by the participants list and re-add your name to the list in alphabetical order using the following format: {{user|YOUR USERNAME HERE}}. Also feel free to add your specialties or points of interest. If you don't have the time or don't feel like rejoining, then ignore this request; you can rejoin at any time you'd like. Cheers, bibliomaniac15 00:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Vipera berus GA Sweeps: On Hold[edit]

I have reviewed Vipera berus for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 04:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

  • This permission does not give you any special status or authority
  • Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
  • You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
  • If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

request to merge snake subspecies into species[edit]

Would you mind if I merged natalensis int the sabae species article? It was already a little akward how we had our species article also covering one of the subspecies (rather than a mother article with two daughter articles). Since then I've been integrated some donated content from ARKive and adding photos and such. And that treated the subspecies together. See hyar. Also natalensis has sat for last 2 years. Think I can do something pretty decent with the species article by putting all the content together.

Thumbs up or down? (It's a big wiki and I don't mind editing elsewhere...don't want to mess up someone's baby.) I asked Mike Searson and he was fine. You are the original author though.TCO (reviews needed) 04:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Jaap has been retired since March 2009. While his views are given on his user page, I think you will have to take the call yourself. Its nice to see the courtesy though. AshLin (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks man. I'll give it a few days at least, in case he sees orange. He did have a couple contribs in 2011. I don't want to annoy him.TCO (reviews needed) 05:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Cottonmouth distribution[edit]

I Love you work with cottonmouth, Your Map On Distribution Of Cottonmouth is inaccurate. I live in Clarksville Tennessee, and I not only live just a Mile from heavy constricted, But I Also Know You can Find them near Chatham dam Tennessee. I Think You should check to see the new distribution area. Just like it to be accurate , I belive They are found all Over Tennessee Kathleen chute with reptileus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fawnfoto (talkcontribs) 17:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Science lovers wanted![edit]

Science lovers wanted!
Smithsonian logo color.svg
Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Crotalus horridus[edit]

Greetings. In 2007 you added a clause to Geographic Rangesection of Crotalus horridus that doesn't pass the "smell test." To whit, "although Schmidt (1953) proposed that this be restricted to "vicinity of New York City." Looking at the footnote reference, from a scientific journal, it's doubtful that very unfactual statement was in there. I removed it 15 minutes ago. It was in in the vicinity of vandalism. I recognize that 6 six years is an eternity @ Wikipedia, but the edit looks odd compared to your 'curriculum vitae.'Tapered (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

* Southern limit of the distribution of the green anaconda[edit]

Good evening:

Please allow me to share an article with you. Maybe you will find it interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Epicrates in need of revision[edit]

The Epicrates article, as well as all the articles for all the species currently listed under this genus, is need of revision.First of all the article lists ten species within the genus including nine insular species in addition to E.cenchria. Recent phylogenetic studies indicate that all the insular species belong in a separate genus (Chilabothrus) and that E.cenchria may represent as many as five species with five of the seven described subspecies being given species status.The new species are Epicrates alvarezi, Epicrates assisi, Epicrates crassus and Epicrates maurus . The split of the genus is supported by the fact that it has been shown that the E.cenchria complex actually forms a sister group to the anacondas (Eunectes) with the insular species forming a sister group to this.Finally Epicrates striatus (using the old nomenclatuure) has been split into two species,the first E.striatus consisting of three subspecies ( E.s striatus, E.s warreni and E.s exagistus) occuring on Hispaniola and the Tiburon Peninsula and the second E.strigilatus consisting of five subspecies (E.s ailurus,E.s fowleri, Es.fosteri, E.s mccraniei and E.s strigilatus) occurring throught the Bahamian archipelago.The Reptile Database has already adapted this nomenclature and,as a big fan of the Epicrates genus,I would love to see these pages updated on Wikipedia.You appear to be a big fan of snakes and I hope you find it a worthy undertaking.--Jamaican college grad (talk) 05:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
By the way, more info about these revisions can be found here and here .

Please join the discussion[edit]

Please express your view on the talk page of venomous snake article concerning with clinical mortality rates and death time.Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Acontias (synonym) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Acontias (synonym). Since you had some involvement with the Acontias (synonym) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. DexDor (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Aniliidae (synonym) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Aniliidae (synonym). Since you had some involvement with the Aniliidae (synonym) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. DexDor (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Gapper (surname)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Gapper (surname) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable surname per WP:APONOTE since there is not at least two notable people with the name, or is otherwise notable per WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity[edit]


Articles that you have been involved in editing—Monotypic taxon and Monospecificity—have been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Nessie (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)