User talk:Isfisk

Welcome to Wikispecies!

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!

Open2universe 12:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, thanks for adding all those newly described species. It is very much appreciated. What sources do you monitor to find out? Lycaon 10:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

100,000

The 100,000 article mark is just around the corner. Please consider stating your preference for a celebration logo on this page. Additional logo proposals are also very welcome. Thanks. Lycaon 09:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hoffstetterichthys

It's nice that you included a reference in the edit comment for Hoffstetterichthys (http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2007f/zt01418p300.pdf) but why not include a more formal citation in the "==References==" section on the page? I made an attempt at doing just that, on that one page. A separate issue is Magnolia Press's copyright statement in that PDF... I'm not sure if the Wikimedia Foundation (or just someone contributing to Wikispecies) would need to (or just as a professional courtesy) get permission before drawing upon that work, especially since the work is mostly a "checklist". You may want to ask around before continuing to draw from that PDF. It would be unfortunate to take more time entering information here and then have a request to remove it. I do not represent either party, I'm just raising the possible issue. --Georgeryp 16:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I moved it from my userpage to my talk page. --Georgeryp 01:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

Thanks for dealing with that vadal named Oop the Duck. I have blocked his profile and IP indefinitely. Totipotent 08:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandal2

Again many thanks for fighting wikicrime. If you want your userpage deleted too, just tell me, but I thought it would be a good idea that the red link to your name has finally turned blue, after all this time of editing! Even though it's empty, you have a userpage :) --Kempm 09:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Kurtamia Entry

Hey there.......I was going through the Percoidea and came to Kurtamia. I noticed no Fishbase or ISIS entry and when I did a MSN search, all I came up with was the Wikipedia/Wikispecies entries. I then went to your Wikipedia user page and saw that you entered some entries that were questioned, so I deleted the link on the Apogonidae page. I subsequently found good a reference on Google, but Fishbase is pretty good about keeping up to date with recently discovered species. My guess is somewhere after 2006 it was decided to locate the fish somewhere else???? In any event, you can still find your entry, but it is still delinked...........Feel free to do as you wish, particularly if you know the fish to still be valid, which is more than I know..........Pvmoutside 22:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have update your side with genus Petascelis. There where a lot of mistakes. You didn't make a template for tribus Petascelini and youdidn't make Taxon Authorities for Signoret and Dallas. The authors in the genus or species have you do with Dallas, 1852. If you have questions about make Templates or Taxon Authorities you can ask me or Mariusm. Please look to this side if you want make new species et.

Regards,

PeterR 12:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You make the same mistakes.

• 1. Authors you wright them with ...
• 2. You have to make

References

• , 2008, then the information and then [The link]
• 3.Have you create the Authors?
• 4. You have to fill the species. Only the link is not enough.

Regards,

PeterR 17:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Isfisk,

I see you make everytime the same mistakes. Authors have to be wright in Lowry and you have to make a Catalog Taxon Authorities for Azman. Further you don't mention the References like ==References== J.K.Lowry & B.A.R.Azman, 2008, Zootaxa 1760: 59-68 [1]

I have update your side Gbroidea. If there are questions you can ask me for help.

Regards,

PeterR 12:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please try look at Help:Taxonavigation section and Help:Name section to see how it should be properly formatted. We have changed the formatting several times after you first registered. Please make sure you're following the latest formatting. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Isfisk,

I have a question about Pseudophasmatidae. I see only tribus, but no subfamilia. The genus Malocomorpha is subfamilia Pseudophastimatinae without a tribus. See allso Zootaxa 1748: 1-64 (2008).

What is your speciality?

Regards,

PeterR 18:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your replay! We have rigid conventions at WIKISPECIES. Also Meyrick permits us to link to the page of author's details while "Meyrick" does not link! (see the blue color)

If you had made the page Gbroidea on my way, than you can see that there are no Templates. I did't create any Lepidoptera page either, but when I see mistakes, I make Templates for Family, Subfamily, Tribus etc.

I have allready update my mistake.

You didn't answer my question about your speciality. My speciality are Lepidoptera.

Regards,

PeterR 12:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Brevisiphonaphis

You have type:

Taxonavigation: Aphidoidea

Superregnum: Eukaryota Cladus: Unikonta Cladus: Opisthokonta Cladus: Holozoa Regnum: Animalia Subregnum: Eumetazoa Cladus: Bilateria Cladus: Nephrozoa Cladus: Protostomia Cladus: Ecdysozoa Cladus: Panarthropoda Phylum: Arthropoda Cladus: Pancrustacea Cladus: Allotriocarida Subphylum: Hexapoda Classis: Insecta Cladus: Dicondylia Subclassis: Pterygota Infraclassis: Neoptera Cladus: Eumetabola Cladus: Paraneoptera Superordo: Condylognatha Ordo: Hemiptera Subordo: Sternorrhyncha Superfamilia: Aphidoidea

Familia: Aphididae
Subfamilia: Aphidinae
Tribe: Macrosiphini
Genus: Brevisiphonaphis
Species: Brevisiphonaphis hirsutissima

Name

Brevisiphonaphis hirsutissima Stekolshchikov & G. Xia, 2008

References

• Stekolshchikov & Ge Xia, 2008, Journal number: pages [link to journal]

You have add it as upstares.

If you have the journal on internet than you know the names and forenames of the authors and than you can make the Catolog:Taxon Authorities.

Regards,

PeterR 20:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Zootaxa

I don't know how you works, but I look everyday on Google and surge for Zootaxa. The insecta from 2008 jan., febr., march, 2007, 2006 etc. have to be done without the Lepidoptera. If you can pick it up than I can go further with the Lepidoptera.

Regards,

PeterR 20:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Amazonatolica

Please can you update Amazonatolica?

Regards,

PeterR 07:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Pericapritermes

I see that you have done the new species of Pericapritermes. On 4 may 2008 I have ask you to do the Genera and Species with Pericapritermes and Pericapritermes papuanus. Why don't you do this?

Regards,

PeterR 07:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please improve your edits

Hi Isfisk,

I want to thank you for your valuable contributions to Wikispecies. I nevertheless want to ask you to make a minor improvement regarding the author's names:

Instead of writing:

 
==Name==
''Pericapritermes papuanus'' Bourguignon & Roisin, 2008
 

Please write:

 
==Name==
''Pericapritermes papuanus'' [[Bourguignon]] & [[Roisin]], 2008
 

This is important so we could link to the author's names, and make Wikispecies more imformative.

Thanks for your cooperation!

Mariusm 09:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

You're perfectly right about the author name's ambiguity, but in my opinion the case of Lynch is somewhat rare. Some author pages do contain more info than just the name, and may be extended in the future, putting some "meat" in them. It is also nice to have a uniform and standard format for all Wikispecies pages, and not everyone including or omitting info according to his inclinations. In any case I would be glad if you inform me about such author discrepancies, and I'll give it a try to sort them out. Meanwhile I'll be glad if you could make the effort and add the author links in-spite of all your justified reservations.

Mariusm 16:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up comments

1. As for the case of the author Lynch which you rightly pointed out, I added a new page for the Colombian Herpetologist John D. Lynch. I'll try, if the time allows me to change the links to [[John D. Lynch|Lynch]]
2. I happened to see your mail to PeterR, where you ask him why he made the modifications in your page. I'm afraid he's rightly done so: The templates {{g| }} and {{sp| }} were constructed for handeling lists of genera in Family pages and lists of species in Genus pages. The line "Species: [[]]" must contain the full name of the species and not the abbreviation resulting from the template.

Mariusm 06:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the genus you're correct: no difference.

Mariusm 08:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm working now on the Anura, and I'm intending to change the position of Alsodes as soon as I reach this familia... Please be patient... Thanks for your observation.

Mariusm 08:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Cymothoe

I don't know what you means. If you have a genus than the rules are

Genera: Cymothoe
Species: C. capella

With species:

Genus: Cymothoe
Species: Cymothoe capella

What is wrong with Cymothoe?

Regards

PeterR 09:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ecnomina

I see your busy with Ecnomina. First Genus is Genus: Ecnomina
NOT Ecnomina

This is in according what Mariusm says.

2. There are species group.

Genus: ...

Species Group a...

[[...{{{2}}} {{{3}}}|.... {{{3}}}]] – ... [[...{{{2}}} {{{3}}}|.... {{{3}}}]]

Species Group b...

[[...{{{2}}} {{{3}}}|.... {{{3}}}]] – ... [[...{{{2}}} {{{3}}}|.... {{{3}}}]]

...

Regards,

PeterR 19:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Polyura

One of my contact informants is Nigel Robinson from Thomson. Every month I get a new update for many years. I'm a specialist of Lepidoptera so I get information from authors all of the world. But thanks for the information. Therefore groups and subgroups are important for the science. The groups are sisterspecies in a species. I have allso the disposal about thousands of books in the library of Entomology.

Regards,

PeterR 09:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Answer to wour qustion

HI,

I happened to see your question to Peter. Visually speaking, there's no difference beteen <br /> and <br>. But if you want valid XHTML code, the <br /> is required by specification. Using <br /> is a way to signify termination of an element instead of using <br></br>. Using <br> on it's own is essentially an unterminated element, so if you want Wiki to work best on all browsers please use the <br />.

Mariusm 12:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Neuzina

I have add the Type species by Neuzina. I see in your work that you often forget the Type species or Type locality and Holotypes.

Regards,

PeterR 15:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Makrokylindrus

There are two subgenera Adiastylis and Makrokylindrus see [2]

Regards,

PeterR 12:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Fabricinae

The subfamily is Fabriciinae see allso [3] and [4]

Regards,

PeterR 09:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Requested

Wider opinions and comments are requested on the village pump here regarding a proposed change in formatting of the taxonavigation section. Please read the and comment.--Kevmin 00:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Discussion closes 26 April 2009 Stho002 00:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

BASEPAGENAME

Hello Isfisk, thank you for your contributions to Wikispecies. Please note, that the use of the "magic word" BASEPAGENAME is not wanted, so please copy the full name of the species for the taxonavigation section and the name section. (See Wikispecies [Help pages]). Kind regards, Thiotrix (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Autopatrolled rights

Dear Isfisk, You have been granted autopatrolled user rights, which may be granted to experienced Wikispecies users who have demonstrated an understanding of Wikispecies policies and guidelines. In addition to what registered users can do, autopatrollers can have one's own edits automatically marked as patrolled (autopatrol). The autopatrol user right is intended to reduce the workload of new page patrollers and causes pages created by autopatrolled users to be automatically marked as patrolled. For more information, read Wikispecies:Autopatrollers.

This user has autopatrolled rights on Wikispecies. (verify)

You may as autopatrolled use the autopatrolled user box on your user page. Copy and paste the following code on your user page: {{User Autopatrolled}}

If you have a Meta-Wiki user page, you can put the user box for Meta on your Meta-Wiki user page.

There's always a need of patrolling files edited by unregistered users, and if you think you have a good understanding of Wikispecies policies and guidelines and want to help out with patrolling, you can request patrol rights at Patroller.

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Taxa described in year categories

Hi, and thank you for contributing to Wikispecies! I don't think there's any consensus for categories such as Category:Taxa described in 1890 currently. Most of them were created by Philippe rogez in the last year or so, but oddly nobody has spoken to him about this yet? (Admittedly this includes me, but I also think he is primarily a French speaker, and I do not know enough French to communicate with him most likely.) Monster Iestyn (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the information.

Is there consensus regarding categories on "New species [year]" for individual species pages? Isfisk (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

None for those either that I know of. Actually, when I asked about all these kinds of categories on the Village Pump last year (Wikispecies:Village Pump/Archive 63#Categories for taxon pages), I was directed to several old discussions, though it reads as though no consensus was ever really reached on them? Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)