User talk:EncycloPetey

Hello, and welcome to Wikispecies! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• Help:Contents provides a good introduction to editing Wikispecies.
• Templates are there to help you to follow our syntax and formatting standards.
• Have a look at Done and to do.

If you have named a taxon, then it is likely that there is (or will be) a Wikispecies page about you, and other pages about your published papers. Please see our advice and guidance for taxon authors.

If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at Wikimedia Commons. This is also true for video or audio files containing bird songs, whale vocalization, etc.

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. Please also read the Wikispecies policy What Wikispecies is not. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome! Lycaon 08:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Need help of an admin? Just give a shout ;-) -- Lycaon 05:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I expect to need much advice as I first start on the project, and periodic help throughout. --EncycloPetey 18:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I hope I'm not nitpicking too much but note my changes to Pellia - mainly using the "sp" and "splast" template for species (see Help:Taxonavigation section). It should save you some typing? I also removed the "== Vernacular names ==" heading because there's only an "en" interwiki there so no content appears under the heading. I only use that heading if the {{VN|en=...}} template is used. --Georgeryp 17:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nitpicking? No. I'm glad to find out about templates and formatting now, as I'm still learning such conventions here on Wikispecies. Thanks for telling me about the {{sp}} template; I've just been copying the formatting from existing pages that were mentioned at the Village Pump as being a "fairly full representation of the conventions used on Wikispecies". (see Deania profundorum and its higher taxa) Anything missing from the pages I'm using as models are things I'm going to miss, unless someone tells me about them. So, thanks again. --EncycloPetey 19:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for describing your learning process. I could see future contributors following the same path so I'm updating the format of the Deania branch. --Georgeryp 01:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you update a page according to a reference, like Goffinet, Buck, & Shaw 2008, then please list the reference in the References section, and preferably say on the taxon page that you are following that reference. As for synonyms, I have replied at VP. Stho002 21:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would do so except that the situation is more complicated than that. Also note that, in most cases, the page had no references to begin with. I fully intend to add proper references for all the basic moss taxa (eventually), but right now am simply trying to get in the basic archiecture of the moss classification, so that the various Wikipedias can make use of it. The authorities, references, etc. will be added on a later pass. --EncycloPetey 21:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

...but whereabouts in the World are you? Do you have access to a good library? Stho002 01:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

California. I only have access sometimes. I used to be at UC Berkeley and still know many people there. However, I'm far enough away now (by a major commute freeway) that it takes a significant time to get there now, against heavy traffic on weekdays after work. By the time I get down there, most things are closed for the day. As a result, I can no longer get down to the campus to do research except on days off from work (but not holidays when the campus libraries and museums are closed). Additionally, the current state budget crisis has caused UCB to close its libraries on Saturdays, so now I can't go down for research on my days off from work. So... I do have contacts whom I can occasionally e-mail for a check on certain topics, but I only have access to the library materials during the summer and winter breaks, when I'm not teaching. The same is true of the internal libraries of the herbarium and paleontology museum. I do have a pretty good personal library for certain things, when it comes to nomenclature and clasification of plants, but I usually have to keep running lists of articles to check the next time I visit the campus. It may be some time before I'm able to go down again, since our school starts its year this Monday. --EncycloPetey 01:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have simply redirected Phaeophyta, as there was nothing useful on that page (and the content is still in the history, anyway). It is part of a very messy at present area of Wikispecies... Stho002 01:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not only here, but on the English WP as well. I strted to work on w:Phaeophyceae there, and ended up spending a full day just removing or correcting errors from that page. Then I spent a day categorizing brown algal images at Commons (so I'd know what images were available), another day sorting the stubs for the Chromalveolata (so I could find the articles to expand), half a day correcting the taxoboxes for the browns and diatoms (which were in three different colors), etc. At least I had a phycology contact at UCB to help me clean out the most atrocious problems in the WP article. Now I just have to write in the new content, which is what I'd wanted to do at first. Then, I today discovered there was no WS page on the class, so I spent my time getting that together. Getting this group going is a Sisyphean task. --EncycloPetey 01:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Because although I've had an accountsince 2005, I didn't seriously edit until April 10 of this year XD. I'm really not that familiar with how thing goes around here (I'm finding more and more that it's kind of like a gigantic WikiProject: in practice most people work on their own stuff and there is not that much "cross-collaboration"), other than the formatting guideline (and I'm giving myself some latitude there), plus I know frommy experience at WP (Ihave barely done anything as an admin in the last year and half!) that I'm just not that useful with the mop. Pretty much the same reason I said no twice over at Wiktionary back in 2008 XD. Circeus (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations, you are now an administrator. Maxim_(talk) 19:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think so too. That's why I didn't delete templates. I hope, it's temporally resolution. Ark (talk page) 16:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I ask here since it's related to Wikispecies XD I've been trying to come up with a snappy formula for my Wikispecies tweets, but I'm fairly sure "Notulae Wikispeciei" is incorrect. I'm not sure if the ablative is the correct form or not for "notes/findings from Wikispecies". While I'm at it, would Latin help shaving a few characters from "Progress in Wikispecies Senecioneae"? (I suspect it would become too incomprehensible though, but I'm curious) Circeus (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well, notulae means "note-lets" (the diminutive of note), which will look awkward. You could use annotationes (pl. of annotatio "remark, note"), which looks and sounds classier. Then use the adjectival form "Wikispecienus", to make the metrically mellifluous Annotationes Wikispecienae (it's trochaic pentameter all on its own). And no, Latin would would not simplify or shorten "Progress in Wikispecies Senecioneae". --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've seen "notula(e)" used in the scientific litterature (i.e.), plus it's short, which is always a big plus. Circeus (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I mean，select species-related Pictures on Commons "Featured pictures". So how to select image onTemplate:MP pictures/proposals? I speak English very well :( --Shizhao (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just a reminder that we don't have a Description section on our taxon pages, but please feel free to add it to the associated talk pages, thanks --Stho002 (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've never added a Description section to any page. I did edit one already present on a page earlier today, but have never created one. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

I didn't actually say that you added/created it, I just reminded you that we don't have them on the taxon pages --Stho002 (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for pointing out the mess I'm creating. Any suggestion how I link without listing all levels of pages? Uleli (talk) 05:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm glad someone is looking and noticing... Well, I wanted to point out some important endangered species, which are obviously vertebrates. In addition it's hard to come by good pictures of spiders, ants etc., and also there's not much to write about a grasshopper or a coral.

If you have any specific suggestions, please put them here, and I'll be happy to use them. Mariusm (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I disagree about there being "not much to write about a grasshopper or a coral". It depends on the species. Some corals have extremely interesting mutualisms, ecological damage, etc. I'l see if I can pull together a few suggestions for you. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

• It is E. Lana trying to put in all the species named after him ... the information content is good, but the formatting is crap ... Stho002 (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I plan to delete Template:ALGAE, as my Template:AlgaeBase has accidently swallowed up its functionality. KuziasBot has already made necessary changes. OK? Kuzia (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

My biggest concern here is that you've made a lot of changes using a bot, but the bot has never been approved as required by community policy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am vexed to hear that. All those edits are of the simplest type allowed by Wikispecies:Bots. The only nontrivial thing was a set of automatic pages for some species of Asellota, the group I curate here and work on off-line. Still my approval request is there since last Monday. Kuzia (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why are you vexed? The policy clearly states that "Bots must be approved before they may operate." Why should my concern over a bot that has not been approved vex you? It's policy, and as a long-time contributor, you ought to be familiar with such basic policies. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

"Contributors may carry out limited testing of bot processes without approval..." "In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it: is harmless, is useful ets". Hence: 1. My violation is subjectively not great and concerns the number of edits. As the edits are of the same kind it is easy to check whether they are harm. 2. The procedure of approval has no meaning in case Bot makes no edits. So, if you are concerned (others are clearly not as my approval request still has no feedback): just solve the problem by applying your administrative tools in the way supposed for such a situation. Kuzia (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

With regard to the template, I object to he changing of the parameter "accessdate" to "date". Standard usage across projects uses "date" as the name of the parameter for the date of publication of the source material. This is inevitably lead to confusion on the part of editors. The parameter should be changed back to its former name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

It has no "former" name (the Template:AlgaeBase was not developed as an expanded version of Template:ALGAE), but that change is not a problem as you realize. Kuzia (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have replied on my talk page Stho002 (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why do you not accept the accepted taxonomy of KEW Gardens? Orchi (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why do you think I do not accept it? What part of it don't you think I accept? The problem is the page name, not the taxonomy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

You make a synonym to the Lemma and the aceppted name to a redirect [1].Orchi (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hybrids are placed under the cross name on wikispecies. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think, now I understand the rejection of the bio-experts of the German Wikipedia of wikispecies. Cross names are more important as correct taxonomy!! Bravo. Orchi (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wikispecies attempts to provide structured taxonomical data, providing it according to the relevant nomenclatural code is a prerequisite to having it being used. Circeus (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi there,

Thanks for correcting my stupid mistakes! Mariusm (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I came across two Bryophyte pages during VN cleanup. It looks to me like these two pages (Andreaeales and Andreaeidae) are just orphaned junk, but I wanted to get the opinion of someone who knows the subject well before I did anything further. Thanks, Koumz (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually Andreaeales was a valid name displaced by incorrect Andreaeaeales, which has apparently been hanging around for a while. I've cleaned up that situation; thanks for bringing it to my attention. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

See bulletin Macluf et all, 2010. You see there more references.

Regards

PeterR (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am actually quite certain about that edit, as it is taken directly from the original paper here. Horatio Wood actually published a fair amount in botany as well (I've now updated his page to say that). He published this paper while still a student at Penn. See also his article at enwiki. Koumz (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Wikielwikingo (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is a somewhat contentious issue. zfg stands for family-group name in zoology. Only these names (and genus-group and species-group names) are Code governed. Only these names have a correct spelling, author and date. Names for orders, classes, phyla, etc. do not. Pretending that they do is utterly meaningless and pointless, though some people (including some taxonomists) will do it. There is enough to do here without adding meaningless and pointless information ... Stho002 (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

yes, it may be different for botany, but I don't do much with plants ... Stho002 (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, Petey. I can't find the item you say. Would you mind to tell me the URL so I can mend it? Wikielwikingo (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, I think it´s mended now. But I don't remember having changed that part. Anyway, I'll take care. Wikielwikingo (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK. I'll check them. Wikielwikingo (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have replied on my talk page Uleli (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for my english. Thank you for contacting us. Of course, in an area where I work I make corrections immediately. TMzander (talk) 20:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

It seemed to me that the footnote is obsolete. But in future I will be left posted earlier footnotes. Thank you for your feedback. Yours. TMzander (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

What is the species' Acronurus aegyptius "? It's a mistake or just want to keep? TMzander (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

My expertise is with plants, so I am not sure. It may be a published name that has not been synonymized yet, and so it does not have a current name. You ought to ask one of our zoologists, like User:Stho002. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Type "Colisa" has been moved to "Trichogaster". This happened at a time when the taxonomic position of the type have not been confirmed. Today we know that "Colisa" and "Trichogaster" are two separate types. We must therefore redirect the page back to the kind of "Colisa". I can not do, could you take care of it. Thank you and best regards. TMzander (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

See my comments on this idea (which seems to be sourced from ITIS) at TMzander's talk page. Koumz (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK. Very nice. I'll use Andrias japonicus next time (in about 2 weeks). Mariusm (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I am introducing separate pages for true synonyms (not alternative combinations) because it makes a great deal of sense to do so, for several good reasons. Please just go with it! Thanks, ... Stho002 (talk) 04:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I am only doing this with animals (ICZN), plants could be a different story, but I don't know the botanical code well enough to make a call on that ... Stho002 (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is a taxon in my area which is clearly a homonym in need of replacement, but nobody has yet got round to doing so in a reputed journal. See details at Amblypodia anita andamanica. I have simply added a section ===Homonyms=== after the ===Synonyms== to make a note of the situation. This may or may not help others. The main criterion should be that it makes things clearer to the reader. Accassidy (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

As for the template, in principle, understand fully. But when it comes to ITIS, it gives me trouble. Refine please: when ITIS be construed as references, and when it exclusively as a link? TMzander (talk) 08:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

That is really just about the form (language) record. Am I overlooking something? TMzander (talk) 09:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I guess you're right, but I can not find on the page FishBase. TMzander (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I took advantage of the template. It works! It's simple:) Thanks. TMzander (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can you look at the final appearance of a page describing the kind of "Bostrychus". If that version is acceptable to let me in this way create new pages. TMzander (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I understand. It's by my poor knowledge of English. It seems to me that you mean it on the page describing the type of species do not include the names of the biologists. Is it so? TMzander (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK. Already straighten. TMzander (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Updated "Species of the week" to your "European Mistletoe" (with minor changes). Mariusm (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's really a shame that fixing Aves didn't work out. The problems with the Aves linkage has been known for around 3 years now. Tetrapoda lists Aves only under "traditional groupings" whereas avialae lists it as a subtaxa. Is there something that can be done? There are of course probably 10s of thousands of pages under aves, did my change break more than just hundreds? Because right now, pretty much any bird I browse to will not use the collapsed taxonavigation style, and will show superclassis tetrapoda and classis aves. In what way did my change break those hundreds of pages? I checked to see that everything looked okay, but obviously I didn't look hard enough. Unfortunately there's no good way to stage these kinds of changes, especially with the templates. If you could give me some more information on what got broken, I can take another try at it, and ensure nothing breaks this time. Jacob Robertson (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

"the intervening taxa do not appear in the Aves page" is the problem I was trying to solve, and the second thing was that I was worried that the appearance of those intervening taxa on all the pages would in some way annoy the maintainers of those pages, so I was thinking that the collapsable taxonavigation would solve that. Obviously I was wrong. I will just do: "the parent relationship just needs to be switched to Avialae" Jacob Robertson (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I see your point, but it isn't vandalism, and it doesn't seem too much of a problem, so I'm happy to leave it to others to decide what, if anything, to do about it ... Stho002 (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ask him, not me! Stho002 (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, I don't personally think he is editing on a big enough scale to be a problem, and a few meaningless category pages don't bother me, but I won't object if you delete his contribs ... Stho002 (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Could you help me in this case? Administrator Stho002 is reverting me specifing authority with ridiculous reasoning that taxa higher than family group are not regulated by ICZN. When I refered to Help:Name_section he changed it by his will. Now he is promising that I will be blocked for vandalism if I would continue to specify authorities. I wonder if I missed something and the Wikispecies became his property. Mithril (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

My reasoning is not ridiculous, but Mithril refuses to accept good reasoning! To make my reasoning perfectly clear: (1) names above superfamily are not regulated by the ICZN; (2) this means that there is no well-defined or meaningful author/date for these names; (3) the author/date of a regulated name is *not* necessarily that of the first published instance of the name (which could be a nomen nudum, or unavailable for some other reason), so what meaning does the author/date of the first published instance of an unregulated name have?; (4) priority does not apply to these names, so knowing the date is pointless, and there are lots of better things to be getting on with on Wikispecies, without getting hung up on this issue ... Stho002 (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

See also this discussion. Stho002 states that he is allowed to change any rule he wants just because he is an admin. That's a Wikimedians' nightmare! Mithril (talk) 04:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Crap! I didn't say anything of the sort! I said that ultimately the admins decide (together) whether or not to change help guidelines, and so my change stands until such time, if ever, I am outvoted by the other admins ... Stho002 (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Guildlines can only be changed after community of all users (not only admins) reaches consensus. It's the basis of all Wikimedia projects. Mithril (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Reaching consensus cannot be achieved in practice. Anyway, I consider it to be a correction, rather than a "change". Stho002 (talk) 05:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

“You agree to follow relevant policies and respect consensus of Wikispecies' users.” Wikispecies:Administrators. I hope you won't change this page. Mithril (talk) 05:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

there is no consensus of users to respect ... Stho002 (talk) 05:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Are you kidding? If there's no consensus all users have equal rights. It's obvoius. And of course admins are not allowed to use credentials for upholding own point of view. There is widely used practice of specifiying author of the zoological taxa irrelevant to their ranks. Calling it meaningless is arrogant of you. Your point of view is marginal. Removing refered data from articles could well be construed as vandalism. Mithril (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Blah, blah! Go buy a teddy bear and beat the stuffing out of it! ... Stho002 (talk) 06:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Trientalis boralis on the main page photo line is treated in the Wikispecies under its current name Lysimachia borealis. I can't make the correction. Uleli (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Please see my latest comments at Project:Village Pump#Thumb sizes and reply there. Thanks. - dcljr (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your wish came true. Mariusm (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Syringa microphylla is treated in Wikispecies as Syringa pubescens subsp. microphylla Uleli (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Is there a page which explains transliterations? Ivan Ivanovič Martinov, for example, is under Ivan Ivanovch Martinov? The source listed for Martinov as an author citation for Acoraceae cites a reference that spells the name "Martynov," and this seems confusing, as that is one of the questions that might arise, which spelling is correct, and may be answered by using a source with the "i" spelling. --AfadsBad (talk) 03:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

There are very few pages on Wikisource that explain things. In the case of transliteration, it depends upon the system that was used by the publisher. There are several major systems in current use for transliterating Russian, for example, and that's just among publishers in English. The Germans and Poles have their own different transliteration systems, so that a citation in a German or a Polish journal will have a different spelling. I always list spellings exactly as they appear in the publication, so if I add a Russian or Ukrainian citation that was published in the original language, then I'll use the Cyrillic script exactly as it appeared in the original. For authors, this means that we often have to have multiple redirects, because we can't guarantee that there is just one form for their name in the literature. The best practice is to follow a published standard for spelling of author names, such as R. K. Brummitt & C. E. Powell (1992) Authors of Plant Names, and use that spelling for their primary author page here. Then, create redirects for other published spellings and other script forms. For works, I try to include the original title when I can, followed by an English translation as that is one of the more common international languages for taxonomy. See magnoliids, where I have listed a Takhtajan publication with the original Russian title. The original title is preferred, when you can find it. Hope this helps. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

APG III may well be an internationally accepted system, but it is not universally followed and it is extremely unsuitable for our puposes on Wikispecies. We use a Linnean system for animals (and Fungi), so we should use a Linnean system for plants. Stho002 (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

As Stho002 knows I disagree with his call to abandon APGIII and I can not see why it can not be used for plants on Wikispecies. In addition there is no consensus on Wikispecies about what should replace it it from the suite of formal Linnean systems available. But, in my opinion this is not that important, given that the phylogenetic (APGIII) approach has forced major accepted changes from family to species, which has left Wikispecies extremely out of date for many important plants. See the work on Orchidaceae and ongoing efforts for Poaceae. However, in my opinion, whatever happens at the higher levels, Wikispecies must have orders, families, sub-families (if applicable), tribes (if applicable), sub-tribes (if applicable), genera and species. Personally, I am not bothered about sub-binomial classifications. Andyboorman (talk) 11:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Neither APG III nor any other current system puts the diatoms or euglenids in kingdom Plantae. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

That's just one of many problems you have created, including the fact that you have placed certain orders in a division and a phylum that are separate from each other. You are using an oudated and inherently inconsistent system. Everything was fine before your edits. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am trying to sort it out, and make several things consistent with each other, but it will take time to do so. Perhaps a week long block will teach you some patience? Stho002 (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Abuse of admin tools is not the way to sort out a problem. Why not figure out the solution with me before introducing your errors? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I am not "introducing errors", you just don't understand what I'm trying to do, and you didn't ask what I was doing, and as soon as I start to fix something, you revert my edits! Stho002 (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please, your comment is needed on issues concerning the user Stho002. See here: Wikispecies:Village Pump Mariusm (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Happy to see you back on WS! :) Dan Koehl (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not sure yet whether I will stay. Testing the waters at this point and noticing some of the massive problems that would need to be tackled in high-level Plantae pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dear EncycloPetey,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikispecies project for ten years or more. I believe you made your first edit on WS in 2006-09-28.

Best regards,

Dan Koehl (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

The previous discussions regarding if we should subst:ing BASEPAGENAME and change all [[BASEPAGENAME]] into [[susbt:BASEPAGENAME]] did not really reach a consensus.

Please vote here on the Village pump!

If you are not sure on your opinion, you can read and join the discussion about the claimed advantages and disadvantages of using BASEPAGENAME

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikispecies has no local Oversighter. Since I had the communitys confidence regarding the previous application for Checkusers rights, as per local Oversight policy on META, I hereby apply to get Oversighters user rights, as a request to the Wikispecies community.

Application is located at Requests for Comment.

Please also note that Oversighter actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Oversighters. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two oversighters, for mutual accountability. I don't want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for oversighters rights.

Dan Koehl through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please refer to Wikispecies:Oversighters/Requests/Koavf for a second Oversight nomination. Note that we must have at least two Oversigthers in order for anyone to have these user rights. All feedback is welcome. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Agradezco su interés en mejorar la edición de las Bryophytes, pero debo comentarle que después de revisar las fuentes de referencias externas, PlanList era la más moderna y con la mayor cantidad de datos, a pesar de su mala reputación. Si tiene algún enlace más moderno le agradecería que me lo hiciera llegar. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

@MILEPRI: For bryophytes, the Plant List is terrible. It contains many, many, many errors. The most recent published treatment of liverwort species is:

• Söderström, L., Hagborg, A., von Konrat, M., Bartholomew-Began, S.E., Bell, D., Briscoe, L., Brown, E. (†), Cargill, D.C., Costa, D.P., Crandall-Stotler, B.J., Cooper, E.D., Dauphin, G., Engel, J.J., Feldberg, K., Glenny, D., Gradstein, S.R., He, X., Heinrichs, J., Hentschel, J., Ilkiu-Borges, A.L., Katagiri, T., Konstantinova, N.A., Larraín , J., Long, D.G., Nebel, M., Pócs, T., Puche, F., Reiner-Drehwald, E., Renner, M.A.M., Sass-Gyarmati, A., Schäfer-Verwimp, A., Segarra-Moragues, J.G., Stotler, R.E., Sukkharak, P., Thiers, B.M., Uribe, J., Váňa, J., Villarreal , J.C., Wigginton, M., Zhang, L., Zhu, R.L. 2016. World checklist of hornworts and liverworts. PhytoKeys 59: 1–828. Full text Reference page. 

and it is the current standard. The Catalogue of life has been updated by the authors of this article, via the ELPT database (early land plants). It is a far better source than the Plant List. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Apologies and copy in @Discanto:, I have rolled back your edits on Magnoliids, why? See the vote here. Andyboorman (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I saw that vote. The discussion was to "spell names correctly". No decision was reached regarding capitalization, which is not an aspect of spelling. You can see throughout the discussion that the issue was raised, and one editor claimed consensus, then another disagreed. There will probably need to be another discussion to clarify the community's opinion on capitalization, and it was not voted on, and no consensus was reached. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

In Vernacular Names, take 2 there is a vote regarding capitalisation. I will revert your edits until this issue is resolved, as they may lead to bad feelings with other users. It is separate, although linked, to the discussion regarding "correct spelling". This is a move to prevent such unnecessary tit for tat changes you are undertaking with Magnoliids. Not sure how much consensus we will get, but at least it is worth trying before there is another move to delete VN altogether. Lets face it WS is taxonomy and classification and arguments over VN are counter-productive. By the way, thanks for your thoughts on the value of the Plant List in relation to Bryophytes! Cheers. Andyboorman (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have already commented there, but it looks as though options were put forth before the discussion, which seems backwards to me. Surely the discussion should come before the voting options are laid out. I (for one) don't agree with either of the voting options. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for checking up on the Catalog:Taxon Authorities subpages. Many of them have grown rather messy over the years with incorrect dates, a large number of redirect links to author pages rather than direct links, etc. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC).Reply

Gracias por el aviso. Saludos.--MILEPRI (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Following the discussion about the use of template Taxonbar in Wikispecies articles, I now propose a vote. Please feel free to leave your opinion. Cheers, --Caftaric (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

This is not as simple as you make out! See Dicranella rufescens where I have had to add a disputed to its taxon page, with reasons of course. My feeling is the the main Tropicos taxon pages are very out of date compared to COL. However, I am not an expert in Bryology, but we ought to resurrect the Anisothecium rufescens page with a disputed as well, unless there are recent primary sources that help to disentangle this dilemma. Andyboorman (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have made a template {{Catol-Crosby}} to accommodate links to MOST/COL. There is an example of its use on Dicranella. Hope it helps you I do not usually edit on Bryophytes unless I come across a problem, such as the circular redirect that was a problem with these two genera. Andyboorman (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I did not say it was simple; it seems you did not read my entire set of comments. Also, the Central American Mosses is simply pulling data from Tropicos; it is not an independent database. Please note that disputed status discussion is supposed to go on the taxon's Talk page, as evidenced in the text of the template you added. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Reply added to the taxon's Talk page. CAM is not Tropicos, I think it's Crosby, as far as I can gather, but of course it is as definitive as COL and Tropicos without some recent peer reviewed papers. The main Tropicos is always an out of date source, compared to some of it's specialist sites and other more rapidly updating secondary sites. I treat it simply as an emerging secondary source and as a useful link to protologues and possible synonymy to be checked. To be fair this not my expertise so will leave the poor treatment of Bryophytes on WS to others, as I was only drawn here by a circular redirect. All the best. Andyboorman (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

The Dicanaceae is still undergoing a lot of revision. I expect the names will change again before too long. It's one of the messier moss families. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I like that - messier moss family! Do we make a disputed taxon page for Anisothecium rufescens to mirror the information or leave things as they are? Andyboorman (talk) 07:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Right now it's a redirect, so that would mean having a duplicate page. I think having the redirect for now will handle things. The fact that it's marked as disputed alerts readers to the issue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Pretty well what I thought. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello. We tend to use the family name rather than author for disambig pages - I noticed you made the rather unnecessary change for the above. There has been discussion but no consensus. The problem is the numerous changes required if we do go for one over the other. If you feel strongly about this matter then perhaps a discussion on the Pump? Andyboorman (talk) 10:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

You are commenting with incomplete knowledge. We've had conversations about this issue before. Both methods of disambiguation for taxonomic names are acceptable, and we tend to leave the page at whichever option it was created at. I moved the page back to where it was originally, as that's where the page has been since the initial disambiguation. The page was originally disambiguated by author, so that's where the page should remain. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please rename these ones back, like this https://species.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Gradstein,_2013&action=history I don't know how many you renamed. I hope that not many--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please explain why this is not acceptable. It is an issue of Phytotaxa, and most templates for articles from that journal are named in this way. You have been editing here for about three months and are telling admins what to do? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello EncycloPetey! Here's a friendly note about author links. Perhaps you're already aware, but I wish to tell you that the four "shorthand" author links

• {{a|Crosby}}
• {{a|Inoue}}
• {{a|Ochyra}}
• {{a|Steere}}

in your User:EncycloPetey/Bryology authors subpage list (which is transcluded in your main user page) does not link to the four author pages

• Marshall Robert Crosby
• Hiroshi Inoue (bryo.)
• Ryszard Ochyra
• William Campbell Steere

even though the format of your list may suggest that they do.

Instead they link to the disambiguation pages Crosby, Inoue, Ochyra and Steere which all in all refers to 14 different authors. Hence using for example the code string {{a|Crosby}} in a taxon page may be misleading, since it doesn't really tell which of the three listed "Crosbys" it refers to. Instead using the full author page name like {{a|Marshall Robert Crosby|Crosby}} is a lot better, since it will link directly to the specific Crosby author page intended, rather than to a disambiguation page. And it will still only be rendered as "Crosby" on the page, so no fuzz there. :-)

Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC).Reply

Thanks. That subpage was set up for identifying bryologist authors who did not have any page in existence and tracking the creation/existence of author pages. It is a "working" page, and so will have such redirects. It's primary function is to ensure that pages for the authors exist on Wikisource, and not specifically to provide the links for them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply