User talk:Stemonitis/Archive32

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

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between April 29, 2011 and June 25, 2011.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarising the section you are replying to if necessary.

Neocrania anomala or Novocrania anomala?[edit]

I did wonder when writing this article which of these two names I should use. How should I decide in future? (If you think there are an excessive number of red wikilinks in the article, it is because I plan to work through them in turn creating new articles. I like marine invertebrates!)

To this end, when writing a new article this evening on the polychaete worm, Pomatoceros triqueter, I was undecided as to whether to attribute the binomial to Linnaeus or Philippi. Both were given in different references I found but I could not tell which was the accepted authority. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomenclature is a tricky field, and I doubt I can give clear advice. In this instance, I was able to find all the information I needed on WoRMS. I already knew from our article on Neocrania that there were at least two animal genera with that name (of which, of course, only one can be valid). WoRMS stated that Neocrania Lee & Brunton, 1986 was not accepted, and since that name is younger than Neocrania Davis, 1978, I concluded that Neocrania Lee & Brunton, 1986 is a junior homonym, and is therefore the invalid genus. In many cases, the arguments are much more convoluted that this, and I wouldn't expect every Wikipedia editor to understand the ins and outs of zoological nomenclature (I certainly don't!). In general, I would advise mentioning all the reasonably frequent names, either in the synonyms= field of the taxobox, or in the text, in line with our general policy on following published sources in all matters. If an organism has been known by two similarly frequent names, then choose a source that seems up to date and reliable, and use that name. Where it has been checked by humans (i.e. the author in the citation at the bottom of the page is someone's name, rather than "WoRMS"), WoRMS seems to be very reliable. I know of only one inconsistency in a human-checked WoRMS page. If you're planning to carry on with marine invertebrates, I suspect WoRMS will be your first port of call for all nomenclatural matters. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I will look to WoRMS in marine invertebrate matters and probably continue to get things wrong sometimes. I guess that an article with out of date zoological nomenclature is better than no article at all. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely! Also note that, in many cases, outmoded names are not wrong, anyway. The name of an organism may depend on one's idea of the circumscription of different genera. If one scientist decides to split the (invented) genus Wormus (inc. Wormus rubrus and Wormus viridis) into two genera, Wormus (inc. Wormus rubrus) and Neowormus (inc. Neowormus viridis), then Wormus viridis is still a valid species in a genus Wormus of broad circumscription. Thus, both Neowormus viridis and Wormus viridis can be acceptable names for the same taxon. This is not the case for Neocrania, where one genus name is invalid. I guess my point is that nomenclature is not the most important thing here. Concentrate on getting the information right, and don't worry too much about differences in naming. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about bot taxo changes[edit]

You should probably have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bot_problem. Cheers Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've weighed in there. Hopefully this will just be a hiccup; I'm glad to see that the cleanup categories are starting to empty. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Antennablennius[edit]

I didnt want to offend you by reverting your edits, but I (and a lot of other editors) feel species deserve to have their own articles. There is sufficient info to keep them as seperate articles and thus giving people the chance to expand on them. Furthermore, I dont really agree with the "redirect from subtopic" idea. I know that it would be highly frustrating to work with for me if this would be done to Lepidoptera species, since it would be hard to see which species do and which species dont have an article. I would favour deleting articles with no content such as "species x is a member of the .. family" without any further info instead of redirecting them. But that is besides the point here, because these articles had more info, but were only lacking a taxobox. I thought I would swoop in and add one to salvage them. I think we should just agree to dissagree in this case I guess, but I will gladly provide similar articles with a taxobox to save them from turning into a redirect. Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is that the articles you have "rescued" provide no information not already presented at the genus page (their main incoming link). The presence of blue links tends to suggest that you can click on them for more information, but in reality, there is no more information to be had. They are therefore extremely frustrating to an interested reader. I, too, agree that species deserve to have their own articles, but only when the information is at hand to do that. Creating placeholder pages for multiple species is considerably less helpful than providing informative articles about genera which make reference to those species. I see your actions in this case as a very clearly retrograde step. Even if you don't like them, redirects from subtopics are widespread and useful. Articles which just say "Aus bus is a fish from the Indian Ocean described by <authority>." aren't very useful, and I cannot see that repeating information presented compactly elsewhere is of any benefit. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I might add that actions carried out because of a philosophical position, rather than as part of an attempt to improve the encyclopaedia, could be interepreted as editing to make a point. I was making the encyclopaedia more directly informative, quicker and easier for readers. I have yet to see any direct benefit of undoing my efforts. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure, the info could be restricted to the genus page, but what if someone with less wiki experience wants to add info on a species. He would have to figure out how to restore all redirects (species, common name and talk page) to actually get to make a species page and add the info. I furthermore dont understand why these four species are transformed into a redirect, while all other species of the family have their own page. Many of these have the same basic structure and amount of info, although these had a taxobox. Clearly these pages were made to provide a framework on which others can expand later. Turning them into a redirect frustrates this attempt and I dont agree with it at all. I really appreciate the cleanup you do to articles with no info at all and agree these need to be dealt with (although I still think they should be deleted instead of redirected). Anyway: I could just as easily argue turning them into a redirect is also editing to make a point because you think it is better to have the info on the genus page, while the original author did not (and I agree with her in this case). Anyway: didnt know the category "missing taxobox" existed (although I put a missing taxo tag on articles regularly). I will help you clearing it out and I hope no hard feelings, because like I said earlier: I didnt want to offend you. Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't trying to hector you into cleaning out that category. You already do sterling work by flagging the articles that belong in there. I don't know how you find them, I really don't. The current backlog is all down to two editors, and has been there for a while. I try to deal with any new arrivals, but I see the old ones as less of a priority. Definitely no hard feelings: I don't hold grudges, and I very rarely take offence. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok great. I will see if I can do some from time to time though..! I find the new arrivals by scanning the new articles from time to time. If there are quick fixes I can make to a species page I will make them, but sometimes I just dont feel like diving into the taxonomy of a species and stick on the tag. Ruigeroeland (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Dinochelus[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Speciesbox[edit]

Whoops! I did originally know that Template:Speciesbox was for species, but as I've mostly been writing genus articles lately (for Silurian/Devonian plants), I'd not been using it and had forgotten. Thanks for fixing them behind me – I'll get it right in future. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. I half meant to write you a note, but I see you noticed anyway. One curiosity is that the combination of {{Italic title}} and {{Speciesbox}} means that you have to leave no new line between them, otherwise an empty line appears at the head of the article. I had to go back and correct a few of the articles to fix that. I also couldn't get {{automatic taxobox}} to work at white asphodel – for some reason it was asking after Template:Taxonomy/White the whole time. I put it back to using {{Taxobox}} directly, but with the updated taxonomy; if you can get it to switch over and appear the same, that would be fine. I failed, so I resorted to more familiar tools. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I just tried that one a few moments ago. It seems that "taxon = latin_name | name = common_name" doesn't work with this template. I'll leave a note at its talk page. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Done, see Template_talk:Speciesbox#Use_where_article_title_is_the_common_name. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Aloe vera is a difficult case. Sources suggest that this should be Aloe barbadensis. So should the article be re-named, or is "aloe vera" effectively a common name? I added {{italictitle}} but this may have been wrong. What do you think? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
My gut feeling (feel free to ask around on this) is that the plant is now called "aloe vera" in English, whatever the scientific name may be. I would be interested to know why A. barbadensis would be preferred anyway; the species name vera (albeit at infraspecific rank) has priority by 13 years over barbadensis. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Chelicerata[edit]

Hi, Stemonitis. I see you've reorganised some of the refs at Chelicerata. Next time, could you please send me a note at my Talk or the article's Talk first. Sometimes I work away from home and don't have my big book with me. Having ref names that identify the sections of the book help me to use the right page ranges for related WP articles. For example I'm into jumping spiders at present (I won't bore you), but in each case some of the basic zoology is "inherited" from Cheliceratae, e.g. having 2 tagmata rather than 3, and I use ref name e.g. "RFB2004CheliGen" - and then I use more detailed names for parts of the book's section about spiders, e.g. "RFB2004Body" showing the basic form of a spider body and "RFB2004Repro" of parts of jumping spiders reproduction that are common to all spider. All the best, --Philcha (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The reference names haven't changed in my recent edit or, as far as I remember, in any previous edit of mine. Code such as <ref name="RuppertFoxBarnes2004Spiders"> and <ref name="RuppertFoxBarnes2004ChelicerataGen" /> is still in place in the article. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
My mistake - I must have started my ref naming later. And now I'm using LDR with {{r|refname|page1=...}}, which uses 1 less click to get to the source details than Harv or Sfn - see e.g. Phidippus clarus. I'm sorry. --Philcha (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Titanomyrma[edit]

Request check out Taxonomy section in Titanomyrma, another DYK candidate. Expanded some facts from the key paper Archibald et al in plain English. AshLin (talk) 05:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Drat! Based on the abstract, I got the impression that the genus was monotypic. They didn't mention the new combinations there. I have altered the article accordingly. That does mean that there's quite a strong bias in the article towards T. lubei over the other two (non-American) species, which should probably be addressed at some point. I don't imagine it will be a problem at the DYK stage, though. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing taxon parameter[edit]

I made a change to {{Speciesbox}} this morning which means that the taxon parameter is now processed. If it has the wrong value, it will no longer be ignored, and the page does need editing. If it has the right value, there shouldn't be a problem. If there is, can you please point me to an example? I've checked those you changed and it seems that the revised template is working ok, but changing these complex templates is tricky, so I'll happily revert if the change is causing a problem.

It's also not necessary to add {{italictitle}} now when {{Speciesbox}} is present; I fixed this. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

In the ones I changed, the dissimilarity between the taxon and the page name was causing problems, either because of included formatting ("''Aloe ferox''" instead of "Aloe ferox"), or because the taxon was incorrect ("Tristagma uniflorum" instead of "Ipheon uniflorum"). Since there is no difference in output between including the correct taxon and removing the field entirely, I chose to keep the code simple, and removed it. I think this is a sensible course of action. I have seen no other articles appear in the cleanup category, so it may only have been those few which were affected. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I put back the taxon parameter in some of those you fixed only to test the revised template and to assure myself that it was working. Personally I slightly prefer this parameter to be present, even though it is redundant when the title of the page is the latin name of the species, because it ensures that the taxobox remains correct if an editor adds |name=common name or if the page is moved to the common name. However, I quite understand the argument the other way, and I won't add it when another editor has created a {{speciesbox}} without it. The key point for me was to ensure that the {{automatic taxobox}} and {{speciesbox}} templates really did have the same parameters, as the documentation said they did, although they actually did not. It was because of the difference that we both had some difficulty earlier in dealing with cases where the name parameter was present. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Need for taxonomy template dabs[edit]

Whoops! I completely overlooked the need to alter the link which is automatically supplied when fixing a missing Template:Taxonomy/taxon when the genus needs disambiguating. There are certainly others that need fixing. I'd be happy to do this if I knew an easy way to find them. I'll be more careful in future. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Realised that if I search my browser history for " (plant)" I'll find most of them. Note: I don't think you have to change to e.g. link = Lycoris (plant)|Lycoris. I think just link = Lycoris (plant) is what is needed. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I had a look (as you evidently saw), and only saw two others. I have my preferences set so that articles less than 1kB (which includes most disambiguation pages) show up in a different colour. Lycoris showed up, and I also suspected that Narcissus might be a disambiguation page, but you got to that before me. I'm sure any others will make themselves known in due course. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User-specified image sizes[edit]

Hi Stemonitis - thanks for your interest in the exploration article. I am not much of a user of images and am not sure what "User-specified image sizes" means. Could you please explain on my talk page - thanks.Granitethighs 09:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, now I follow - but what if the "natural" size of an image is inappropriate for the article - what do I do then?Granitethighs 09:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't follow. Can you give me an example? --Stemonitis (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
An editor once insisted that the pic that use with the Lead should be large - much larger than usual. How is that done without forcing the size? Also I notice that on your user page you have forced the image size - presumably for neatness - that is my problem.Granitethighs 09:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
If you just want to make it half as wide again as the other images, use upright=1.5. You can set it to an arbitrary figure, like 250px, but if any user has thumbnails set to 300px, then you will actually force it to be smaller than the reader's preference. In the case of European and American voyages of scientific exploration, I can't see any reason why relative sizing couldn't be used throughout. (Yes, my user page is different, but the layout rules don't apply in that namespace, and I just want something there that I like the look of, without worrying about anyone else.) --Stemonitis (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks S - that makes sense - I'll make the necessary adjustments.Granitethighs 10:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Taxobox error[edit]

See my post at Template_talk:Taxobox#Template_messed_up. As you're an admin, you may like to try this change. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hervé de Toulgoët[edit]

I thank you for the improvement of my page. Jacqueshb (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Titanomyrma[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 17:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Carex riparia[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Phidippus clarus[edit]

Thanks for your copyedits at Phidippus clarus. --Philcha (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Geograpsus severnsi[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

New status system[edit]

Stemonitis, do you think it might be a good idea to add a "suggested" status_system for cases like Drymoreomys? It occurs fairly frequently that describers of new species suggest an IUCN status, and it would be nice to have a standard way to record that in the taxobox. Ucucha 07:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I think it's enough to include that in the text, and not need to reflect it in the taxobox, which is only meant to be a summary after all. It is not meant to be a long-term situation that the status is suggested in a paper but not adopted by the IUCN. I would prefer to keep it out of the taxobox until the IUCN gets around to listing it. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Precisely because the taxobox is a summary, I'd like to include it. Conservation status is an important aspect that we normally include in the taxobox, and I think we shouldn't necessarily have to wait for the IUCN to update its listings (which can take a long time—mammals haven't been updated for three years). However, if there's consensus for your position, I'd be happy to remove the status from Drymoreomys and similar pages. Do you think a status like that at Oryzomys peninsulae should also not be in the taxobox? Ucucha 07:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
That would be my preference, and my understanding of the current guidelines. I don't claim, however, that this is the consensus view, and I don't try to remove them beyond the need to get the articles out of cleanup categories. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll ask at Template talk:Taxobox. Ucucha 08:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

... about making you waste your time fixing the hundreds of taxobox parameter typos I've made over the years without noticing. I've been fixing them myself too, but it takes me longer as I always find something else in the article I want to update or add. Will be more careful with my copy/paste fungal taxa stub creations in the future. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about that. I do it while I'm waiting for other things to run. If it bothered me, I'd try to launch a bot task to do it. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Defaultsort?[edit]

Hi Stemonitis: I notice you've been removing the defaultsort template from a bunch of bird articles, and I'm just wondering if it has been deprecated. If so, I'll stop using it!  :) MeegsC | Talk 12:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the method isn't deprecated. It's just that in these cases, I think it's being used wrongly. It sets the default sort key for all categories, including those that are produced automatically (e.g. cleanup categories). In such global, non-bird-specific categories, it doesn't make sense to sort, for example, "Great Tit" as "Tit, Great"; that just makes it harder to find items in the list. (I don't think it makes sense to do that in bird-specific categories either, but that's just my opinion, and there is clearly consensus among the ornithological editors to do so). I have been trying to retain the existing sort key for bird-specific categories (also mammal-specific for mammal articles), while allowing the sort key to default to something more intuitive for other categories. The default sort key should always be (again, in my opinion, but I think it's common sense) the one which one would want to apply in unexpected categories; it can always be overridden on static (non-automatic) categories. It's actually motivated by a desire to make categories such as Category:Animals described in 1758 internally consistent. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
In that case, might it make more sense to leave the defaultsort on articles like Least Grebe? There, you've removed the default sort (which applied to 20 articles) because it wasn't appropriate for two categories. Wouldn't it have made more sense to specify the sort for those two articles, rather than (as now) specifying it for 18? I know it's the same result, i t just seems like a lot more work doing things the way you've done it there... MeegsC | Talk 22:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
That would be the case if all the categories were manually called. However, because I'm also specifying the default sort, i.e. the sort code which will appear in automatic categories (cleanup categories, stub categories and other categories called by templates), it can only be done by setting the DEFAULTSORT magic word. The other categories must therefore be overridden manually to produce the less intuitive sort order, as I did at Least Grebe. DEFAULTSORT is seen by most people as a shorthand for adding the same manual sort key to all the manual categories, but I think that's a mistake. Hidden categories which the author did not expect will always tend to appear on an article. In Category:Articles with 'species' microformats, for instance (not a particularly useful category, I realise), there is no reason at all for Least Grebe to appear under "G". It should appear under "L", as it should in every non-bird-specific category. The only way to achieve this is to set DEFAULTSORT to "Least Grebe" (or remove it), and manually set the other categories to sort under "Grebe, Least". --Stemonitis (talk) 05:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah! Okay, that makes more sense now. As a biological scientist, I'm just so used to thinking in "index" fashion (i.e. where you'd look for all grebes starting with "G" rather than by their "first name") that it's weird to think of any case where I'd look something up any other way! Thanks for the explanation... MeegsC | Talk 05:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
The real trouble of course is that we can't make it appear as "Grebe, Least" in a category listing. That would solve all these problems, but would require a MediaWiki extension. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

IUCN[edit]

I have no clue about IUCN status, the horse just needs to be labeled as extinct. I appreciate you fixing that. Montanabw(talk) 06:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Bottlenose Dolphin[edit]

This is a short message, and I will quote a previous user, who highlighted the points of several previous users before him in your rvt practices.

"I might add that actions carried out because of a philosophical position, rather than as part of an attempt to improve the encyclopaedia, could be interepreted as editing to make a point."

All Wikipedia users, registered or not, are expected to collaborate, and you've demonstrated personal bias in your accusations of tone and POV. Edit wars lead to nothing. If you can find a constructive, collaborative resolution, that would be much appreciated.

Your perceptions of POV and "inappropriate tone" are unfounded. Please practice better editing standards by reviewing WP:LGL and WP:NOR specifications. Thank you. 98.89.62.107 (talk) 04:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Practise what you preach, my friend. You are edit warring, which must stop immediately. You have been reverted by more than one editor on more than one occasion. You must try to use the talk pages, or you will be blocked very soon. If I weren't already involved, I would have blocked you myself by now. Your edits suffer from a severely non-neutral POV, which cannot be tolerated, and are not supported by references. You refer to "mass-murder", rather than something more neutral, like "human-induced mortality". You use the most inflammatory comparison possible, by invoking the Holocaust (since this is your own comparison, not a published one, it constitutes original research, or at least a novel synthesis), and you top it off with apparent racism. The supposed adaptability of any human people is entirely irrelevant to the conservation of bottle-nosed dolphins which are – and let's be clear about this – not endangered. Everything about your edit, and the way you have gone about interacting with other editors, is wrong. --Stemonitis (talk) 04:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
"Mass Murder" is a fact of what it is. Human-induced high-rate homocide/mortality is an acceptable revision. You did not take it to a talk page before reverting, either, I'll point out. A parallel is a supported reference, I will link to the "Holocaust" article if it pleases you. The racism is not apparent, the disregard for sentient life is. It's not a personal bias, it's a fact, plain and simple. By becoming involved at all, and by such an impassioned talk-page response, you have relegated yourself far outside the grounds of neutrality. Apologies are offered for the way your perception of this issue has currently progressed. Thank you, please refrain from further edits without first posting to a talk page, or by improving edits instead of reverting them. Your perception of prejudice, or the offense one might take, is moot. It's an encyclopedia with encyclopedic content meant to inform, not to soothe, and maintains a neutral point. 98.89.62.107 (talk) 04:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Enough of this trolling. I will delete any further messages you place here. All further discussion must be at Talk:Bottlenose dolphin. --Stemonitis (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of fairness I have to warn you that you were also technically edit warring on this page as well (although I agree with you in this case that it should be appropriate to restore the consensus version, and you weren't the only editor who was reverting this editor). But the edit the IP is trying to make is so ridiculous it has to be either trolling or just plain incompetence, it's difficult to even dignify with a response. rʨanaɢ (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Had it been a less egregious edit, I would have been happy to take a less assertive stance, but there were distasteful aspects to it (possible racism, etc.), which I didn't want to leave up any longer than necessary. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Carex hirta[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much![edit]

Thanks so much for checking out my articles on decim periodical cicadas and making some very helpful edits there. Sharktopustalk 13:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. It's always nice to see good work being done on the arthropods. Playing with the formatting is far easier than actually writing decent articles. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Nice edit summary...[edit]

here. LadyofShalott 13:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It seemed appropriate. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Aenigmastacus[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Belated thanks![edit]

Thanks for being the third pair of eyes here and for this edit. I had a feeling the term fly-babies did not belong but was unable to make the change myself without a conflict, which it wasn't worth for me. So, thanks --Nakerlund (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I see removing unreliable information as an important part of improving the quality of Wikipedia, and I will gladly support others to that end. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Metanephrops challengeri[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Why?[edit]

(cur | prev) 11:16, 24 June 2011 Stemonitis (talk | contribs) m (3,138 bytes) (Reverted edits by Bulwersator (talk) to last version by Stemonitis) (undo)

Why 2.3 is better than 3.1? I fixed problem with broken box Bulwersator (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not that one is better then the other. The fact is that the assessment was made under the criteria, and into the categories, of IUCN version 2.3. It would be wrong to report is as being made under version 3.1. Similarly, it would be wrong to report as assessment made under version 3.1 and having been made under version 2.3. The version of each assessment is given on the IUCN website. For instance, the assessment for Abies cephalonica states "Red List Category & Criteria: Lower Risk/near threatened ver 2.3" [my emphasis]. Also note that if you have added a reference (ideally formatted using a template like {{IUCN2010}}), then the IUCN link probably shouldn't also appear in the "External links" section. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, I thought that IUCN conversion to new version (on top of the page) to new (3.1) scale is enough to use 3.1. Bulwersator (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that that's not the case. We're still using the old graphic to display the categories, for instance, and there must be differences in the criteria used. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Inssoc.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Inssoc.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

YesY Done --Stemonitis (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Roseau Cathedral[edit]

Thanks for the review. Also thanks for a very valid correction in the Wildlife of Zanzibar article.--Nvvchar. 06:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

European edible sea urchin[edit]

I proposed renaming the page European edible sea urchin to Echinus esculentus here [1] and the proposal was approved. When I came to actually perform the move, I was unable to complete it because the target page already existed. The Help page Wikipedia:Moving a page stated that an administrator could easily do such a move, so could I ask you to come to the rescue? Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Gladly. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for dyk help[edit]

I self-nommed with you as co-creator before i saw your DYK nomination of Dinocampus coccinellae. Thanks! Sharktopus talk 16:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha. You're welcome. I considered dropping you a note to let you know I'd nominated it, but then thought it would be a nicer surprise if I didn't. I hadn't thought you'd return to it; I don't know why. I hope you didn't waste too much time and effort on the repeat nom! --Stemonitis (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
It was a great surprise, and a better hook than I had come up with too. Sharktopus talk 19:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)