User talk:Ninjatacoshell

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

Additional species[edit]

I hesitate to plug my own site, but most of your additional species are mentioned in my alphabetical index pages. Just go to the proper letter, find the genus you're looking for, and the vast majority of species that have been assigned to it should be there (I don't keep a record of typos, though). J. Spencer 23:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


Nice work on the List of dinosaurs! Please remember to italicise all generic names (e.g. Diplodocus not Diplodocus). Happy editing, Mgiganteus1 15:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed all subjective determinations of nomina dubia, though. The page stated "As this can be an extremely subjective and controversial designation (see Hadrosaurus), this term is not used on this list." If it were to be included, there should ideally have to be a source given for each determination, preferably one authoritative source used throughout. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I missed reading in the article that the designation nomen dubium wouldn't be used in the list, so I'm sorry for the inconvenience. However, the designations were based solely upon what the articles said. If an article reported the genus as nomen dubium, then I indicated it on the list. So my sources were the articles themselves, and so there would be no point sourcing them. However, I agree that the articles should have a source when such a claim is made. Ninjatacoshell 21:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
No worries; it wasn't difficult to remove a few words, so need to apologize. Just glad to have you aboard. I agree that each article should cite a source when it claims the genus in question is a nomen dubium. However, List of dinosaurs is a Featured List, representing one of the best articles on Wikipedia. Everything in a Featured List needs to be cited with an external source (Wikipedia itself cannot be used as the source). Since nomina dubia are often subjective based on the opinion of the authors, it's likely two different sources will differ on which genera are considered dubious, which, I believe, is the reason someone or other decided not to use the term in this list. If you really did want to try to add the words nomen dubium to each dubious genus in the list, you could (and I'm not trying to discourage you), but this would take quite a bit of work, since external sources would have to be found, and cited, in order to maintain this article's status as a Featured List. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 22:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


I learned in a class that this genus is tetraploid. Should this be noted in the article? Ninjatacoshell 17:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, perhaps we should. You certainly know more than me, so:

  1. Do you know how unusual or notable it is?
  2. Do you happen to have a reference?

If so, go ahead I would guess. And welcome. Fred 17:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Type strains[edit]

Good catch and useful discussion on the type strains for bacteria. KP Botany 03:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Phytopathogenic bacteria[edit]

Great to see all the contributions that you're making! Somanypeople 22:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. -- MarcoTolo 17:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


Hello, you had created an article about Sphingobacteria which is given as one of three classes of Bacteroidetes phylum, whereas in Brock biology of Microorganisms 11ed. by Madigan/Martinko, only two classes Bacteroidetes and Flavobacteria are given. I want to create some stubs for this phylum in other language wikipedia and am wondering which classfication is right and up to date? Thank you. --Katoa 17:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Queen of Demons.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Queen of Demons.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Queen of Demons.png)[edit]

Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Queen of Demons.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits of 2007 April 16[edit]

Sorry it took me so long to get around to thanking you for them. --arkuat (talk) 06:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:MendicagoCategory:Medicago on WP:RM[edit]

This doesn't require admin assistance because there's no real content to move or existing things blocking the changes. Just change the spelling in the [[Category:…]] tags on the articles themselves and they will get put into the other-spelling cat. When you're done, tag the old one for deletion (WP:CSD about empty cat or obvious-mis-spelling). DMacks (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

To add to this, you can instead list it at WP:CFD where the category can be renamed (categories can't be moved like normal pages can). Parsecboy (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Act of Marriage[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The Act of Marriage, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

This is merely a book summary; see WP:NOT#PLOT. No secondary sources given.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. B. Wolterding (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Great work[edit]

Great work on the articles you have been creating. I've already requested that you should have autopatrolled rights here. I recommend you get reviewer rights here; it's almost automatically given to users over 100 rights. MC10 (TCGBL) 19:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Taxoboxen work[edit]

Hi there! I noticed your many edits on taxoboxes (alternative plural: taxoboxen) and reverted a few. In plant articles, we follow the APG III system for higher taxonomy, and such names as Rosidae and Angiospermae are not included among those clades. We also don't list minor taxa ranks or the taxobox gets too large (minor ranks are accepted in articles where the minor rank is directly above the article ranks, e.g. a genus article can have a subfamily rank listed in the taxobox, but a species article shouldn't); see WP:TX for more guidelines. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for updating your edits :-) We've been slow to adopt the APG III system since it's a lot of work to get to our near 40,000 plant taxa articles and to get everything right in the process. I appreciate you working on the Fabaceae. Is there a particular infrafamily taxonomy reference that you use when updating the taxoboxes? Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem. I just wanted all the Faboideae articles to be consistent in their taxoboxen, so your input was most appreciated. I've been using the USDA GRIN, the Systema Naturae 2000, and UniProt. Most of the articles are based on the International Legume Database (ILDIS), but as you can see, it has been down for a while, so I can't refer to it. The sources I'm using don't always agree, so I'm doing my best to generate a consensus between the three. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
USDA GRIN isn't the best source... It's often fairly outdated. I'm not familiar with the other two (rosids aren't among my strengths). If you're ever looking for input, advice, or run into something really strange that you can't resolve, you can always ask at WT:PLANTS; there are some fabulous experts and taxonomists there that can help. Best, Rkitko (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
How good is Catalogue of Life? Do you know? Ninjatacoshell (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, I see it's run by ITIS, which is also usually outdated. Databases tend to lag behind the most current and accepted names from the literature, so we usually find the most recent authoritative article from the literature, like a phylogenetic study or monograph on the genus/family/taxon. A cursory search turns up a decent article from 2003 on the Fabaceae, but I have no idea how well that's received or if it's considered too old. Another rosid editor is User:Lavateraguy, who might have a better idea of the best source for your work. Rkitko (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sri Lanka map[edit]

Just writing to say thanks and to let you know I wrote a reply to the map you created at Evan.oltmanns (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I replied again. Evan.oltmanns (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the work you did on the Sri Lanka Naval Areas map, it turned out great. Evan.oltmanns (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

hi i <3 ninjas and tacos[edit]

Trophy.png hi i <3 ninjas and tacos
NinjaJacob05 (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


That is a pretty controversial one, as the type species is Acacia nilotica. JMK (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@JMK: Yeah. That whole thing was a mess. I personally was in favor of transferring the Australian acacias to Racosperma. But the taxonomic treatments have moved forward with the scheme ratified in Vienna and Melbourne. That gives us verifiable sources for the name change. So I've decided to put aside my personal feelings on the matter and accept the transfer of the African acacias to Vachellia. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. As per the Acacia web page, this change has not been accepted by most scientists, despite the decision by the Congress. Even some taxonomists are urging that we wait before making these changes (again, see the Acacia page). I realize that this situation is unique, where the very authority of the Botanical Congress is in question, but that is the reality. Web of Science reveals that virtually no one is using Vachellia for this clade. In other words, your 'personal feelings' are in fact still the scientific norm. Please put these pages back in Acacia. Mukogodo (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@Mukogodo: By "the Acacia web page" I assume you mean the Wikipedia page for Acacia or List of Acacia species, not some other web page on the internet. 'Personal feelings' and Web of Science search results (which qualifies as original research) notwithstanding, there are verifiable, published sources placing these species in Vachellia. There are not verifiable, published sources transferring them back to Acacia (and consequently transferring the Australian species to Racosperma). It's possible that this scenario will play out at the XIX IBC in China in 2017, but until then these species are Vachellia. If you feel strongly about this, then we should avoid an edit war by opening a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants and let the whole Wikipedia (plant article) community decide how these pages will be named. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

However, there is a verifiable source (by a professional taxonomist in the leading taxonomic journal) asserting that is it premature to accept these new names in actual use at this time: Gideon F. Smith & Estrela Figueiredo (2011). "Conserving Acacia Mill. with a conserved type: What happened in Melbourne?". Taxon 60 (5): 1504–1506 (cited on the current Acacia page). And even if we accept your premise that the Congress decision takes precedence over dozens of practicing scientists who do not yet acknowledge the change (for legitimate reasons and backed up other leading taxonomists), I suggest we need to use in Wikipedia titles such as 'Vachellia (Acacia) drepanolobium'. Why confuse Wikipedia's audience unnecessarily, especially in this case?

I agree that this is something that needs to be discussed, and in fact it is being discussed within the professional community (e.g., the reference above, and the striking lack of penetration into the [peer-reviewed!] scientific literature of these new genera, even after seven years). I find it fascinating that for the first time that I can recall, there has been a wholesale rejection of a decision by the Botanical Congress, whose authority essentially rests on the willingness of the scientific community to acknowledge it. You can assert all you want that the 'name has changed' but it only actually changes when people choose to use the new name, not when the Congress asserts it. We are living through a test case that has yet to be resolved. I argue for conservatism. Mukogodo (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@Mukogodo: If you've read the paper you cite above, then you know that the style you propose—'Vachellia (Acacia) drepanolobium'—was soundly rejected by the congress (as was the adoption of Austroacacia for former subgenus Phyllodineae and Protoacacia or Acanthacacia for former subgenus Acacia). I think it would be better to list the synonym separately in parentheses, e.g. 'Vachellia drepanolobium (syn. Acacia drepanolobium)'. And note that there is also a verifiable source (by professional taxonomists in the same leading taxonomic journal) asserting that the community needs accept the IBC decisions and move on: Thiele et al. (2011). "The controversy over the retypification of Acacia Mill. with an Australian type: A pragmatic view." Taxon 60 (1): 194–198. But these are attempts to influence behavior, not statements of fact.
And we should also be clear that this is not a taxonomic debate (virtually everyone agrees with the evidence that Acacia sensu lato needed to be split into multiple genera), this is a nomenclatural debate (over which segregate genus should have had priority to retain the name Acacia). When I search for Vachellia using Google Scholar it returns hundreds of papers that have updated to that term, the majority in the last two years (i.e. since the second IBC decision), which would suggest that the change is being implemented, though perhaps slowly (there are only about a dozen uses of Racosperma and searching for Acacia and Africa together returns nearly 3000 hits). As I stated before, such search results count as original research and using them—even as a guide for how to structure Wikipedia (or an article herein)—should be out of the question. I am unaware of any verifiable source that denotes when scientists "choose to use [or reject] the new name"; but there are verifiable sources that the name has been changed (regardless of how well it is accepted by the broader community). That said, I think it's more confusing to the casual Wikipedia reader to tell them that Acacia has been split up and then proceed to talk about it as though it hadn't been and to conflate the properties of what we now know to be very different genera. Conversely, it's not at all confusing to say, "Vachellia nilotica used to be called Acacia nilotica" or "Vachellia horrida (formerly known as Acacia horrida)…".

List of U.S. state tartans[edit]

Hi there, please note that the list is for official state tartans. Please look at the talk page for a discussion about what that means. The images are nice but the ones for states without tartans should be removed. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Valfontis: Ah, yes. My source for creating the images was the Scottish Register of Tartans and it appears that its accuracy has been called into question. To be honest, I don't feel up to verifying all the tartans I just put up. If you don't, either, I suggest you revert to a previous version of the article. Since it appears that this is a perennial problem for the article (e.g. the failed tartan for Oregon), you might save yourself some trouble by indicating in the article which states don't have official tartans (with references, of course). You can also use <!-- --> to leave notes to future editors so they don't make the same mistake I did. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I just got bold and started gutting the article and adding an explanatory note at the top. I had planned to do this 8 years ago, but last night I discovered that digging through 25 states' legislation is kind of tiresome. I removed all the states that didn't have a tartan listed, as I think the empty slots were too tempting for everyone! I'll keep working on the refs for the rest, then go back and look at the other states to see if they have added tartans. Sorry to remove your hard work. Tartans are pretty and it's nice to have illustrations of them. Valfontis (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Valfontis: Why not leave all the states in the table? For those that don't have an official tartan, merge that row into a single cell and write "[State name] has not officially adopted a tartan." As it stands, well-meaning editors can still come in and add incorrect information because the correct information is lacking. I already did this for Oregon.

Microlophus in the Galapagos[edit]

Hi there! I recently enlarged the stub at Microlophus albemarlensis, which seems to be a diverse and complex group of lizards. I noticed you've created a couple of subpopulation articles (Microlophus jacobi, and Microlophus indefatigabilis) and range maps, citing a single, primary study (Benavides et al. 2009). It does not appear that these proposed or resurrected species are widely adopted, however, even by some of the same authors (see Jiménez-Uzcátegu et al. 2012, which notes M. jacobi and M. indefatigabilis are nomina nuda). Reptile Database similarly does not recgonize M. jacobi or M. indefatigabilis as separate species, and Benavides and colleagues themselves stressed their genetic study represented "candidate species". I think unless there is more recent evidence to the contrary, the Santa Cruz Island and Santiago Island populations should be subsumed within Microlophus albemarlensis for now, especially since there there seems to be little definitive morphological or ecological differences. This would also involve combining the range maps of each into an M. albemarlensis "sensu lato" range. What do you say? --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@Animalparty: Sorry for the late response. I agree that combining the articles for these three makes sense. And the map you've replaced the old one with looks fine. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

About exact name of Bidi leaf tree[edit]

Hi, I noticed that the name Piliostigma racemosum is not now the accepted scientific name. In every major botany site it is justified that the name of the plant should be Bauhinia racemosa. So if you can, please change the name back. Thank you.

@Gihan Jayaweera: Looks like it's already been moved back. It's been so long, now, that I don't remember why I originally moved it to Piliostigma.

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) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 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) 00:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Amblytropis (disambiguation)[edit]

A tag has been placed on Amblytropis (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
  • disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Gorthian (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages[edit]

Hi! It's good to see someone knowledgeable adding to the biology content here. I have a couple of pieces of advice about dab pages, since that's where my experience lies.

First of all, please don't create a dab page until there is more than one article already written that needs disambiguation. Dab pages should not be all red-linked entries. In other words, write the article first, then see if it needs to be disambiguated.

Second, keep in mind that dab pages are meant to be navigation aids, not articles. So a minimum of description is used. Authorities aren't necessary, unless it's crucial to distinguishing between the articles. Please read WP:DDD and, even better, MOS:DAB.

Thanks! — Gorthian (talk) 00:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Gorthian: I haven't made a habit of creating disambiguation pages when there isn't more than one article already written. I felt like this was a special case, but obviously I was in error. Anyway, I've added Amblytropis Kitag. as a synonym on the Gueldenstaedtia Fisch. page and pointed a hatnote on the Amblytropis (Mitt.) Broth. page directly to Gueldenstaedtia. So now I think it would be best to speedily delete Amblytropis (disambiguation), since it only disambiguates [sic] one page. Do you agree? Ninjatacoshell (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I do agree. As the creator, you could tag it as a combination of WP:G7 (author requests deletion) and WP:G6 (deleting a disambiguation page that links to zero articles or to only one extant article and whose title includes " (disambiguation)"). Thank you. — Gorthian (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Gorthian: Done! Ninjatacoshell (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)