User talk:Dan Koehl/Archive 2
Request for Bureaucratship
I'm not a programmer. I have had a great support from MariusM and we work after templates. (See Templates). It is very difficult for me to follow Sthoner. He makes a lot of templates etc. without making templates (under templates). So i'm not the person you looking for. I'm one of the older contributors who are left. Sthoner is trying to leave me the side, but I'm still working. I'm an amateur who is working after original bulletins and books.
- I see. I was just thinking since you spend a lot of time and energy here, that it would be good if you are be able to delete vandalism etc. Dan Koehl (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Dan, thank you. I would like to help as administrator.
- I have nominated you. Please confirm that you accept nomination at nomination page below the nomination, and above the line support. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
As you know, I am new to this administrator thing. In my opinion another administrator abuse pages by making edits on templates, changing the meaning of them. All without discussion or notice... and does not reply on request of explanation. What to do? Uleli (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
An important message about renaming users
Dear Dan Koehl,
I am cross-posting this message to many places to make sure everyone who is a Wikimedia Foundation project bureaucrat receives a copy. If you are a bureaucrat on more than one wiki, you will receive this message on each wiki where you are a bureaucrat.
As you may have seen, work to perform the Wikimedia cluster-wide single-user login finalisation (SUL finalisation) is taking place. This may potentially effect your work as a local bureaucrat, so please read this message carefully.
Why is this happening? As currently stated at the global rename policy, a global account is a name linked to a single user across all Wikimedia wikis, with local accounts unified into a global collection. Previously, the only way to rename a unified user was to individually rename every local account. This was an extremely difficult and time-consuming task, both for stewards and for the users who had to initiate discussions with local bureaucrats (who perform local renames to date) on every wiki with available bureaucrats. The process took a very long time, since it's difficult to coordinate crosswiki renames among the projects and bureaucrats involved in individual projects.
The SUL finalisation will be taking place in stages, and one of the first stages will be to turn off Special:RenameUser locally. This needs to be done as soon as possible, on advice and input from Stewards and engineers for the project, so that no more accounts that are unified globally are broken by a local rename to usurp the global account name. Once this is done, the process of global name unification can begin. The date that has been chosen to turn off local renaming and shift over to entirely global renaming is 15 September 2014, or three weeks time from now. In place of local renames is a new tool, hosted on Meta, that allows for global renames on all wikis where the name is not registered will be deployed.
Your help is greatly needed during this process and going forward in the future if, as a bureaucrat, renaming users is something that you do or have an interest in participating in. The Wikimedia Stewards have set up, and are in charge of, a new community usergroup on Meta in order to share knowledge and work together on renaming accounts globally, called Global renamers. Stewards are in the process of creating documentation to help global renamers to get used to and learn more about global accounts and tools and Meta in general as well as the application format. As transparency is a valuable thing in our movement, the Stewards would like to have at least a brief public application period. If you are an experienced renamer as a local bureaucrat, the process of becoming a part of this group could take as little as 24 hours to complete. You, as a bureaucrat, should be able to apply for the global renamer right on Meta by the requests for global permissions page on 1 September, a week from now.
In the meantime please update your local page where users request renames to reflect this move to global renaming, and if there is a rename request and the user has edited more than one wiki with the name, please send them to the request page for a global rename.
Stewards greatly appreciate the trust local communities have in you and want to make this transition as easy as possible so that the two groups can start working together to ensure everyone has a unique login identity across Wikimedia projects. Completing this project will allow for long-desired universal tools like a global watchlist, global notifications and many, many more features to make work easier.
If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the SUL finalisation, read over the Help:Unified login page on Meta and leave a note on the talk page there, or on the talk page for global renamers. You can also contact me on my talk page on meta if you would like. I'm working as a bridge between Wikimedia Foundation Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Stewards, and you to assure that SUL finalisation goes as smoothly as possible; this is a community-driven process and I encourage you to work with the Stewards for our communities.
Hello, I’m Marius, an admin here at WS. I would like to ask you to contribute to an important ongoing vote which will practically decide the future of WS. As you probably know, the user Stho002, an admin, is forcefully endorsing his concept of the content and format of WS. His “system” includes a complex mesh of templates and links which is nowhere specified or written down, is not considered as a consensus, and is not easy or trivial to use, especially by newcomers. As my experience goes, when I save an edited page, Stho002 will delete or change it sooner or later, sometimes in a matter of seconds. This is no way of maintaining a healthy community. It is a lamentable fact that the aggressiveness by which Stho enforces his way deters many users and causes many newcomers leave this site.
The original WS help pages (, , ) contain a much simpler system, where the resulting taxa information is no less clear nor less detailed then Stho’s format, and which is being used successfully for years by experienced users as well as by novices.
If we decide that our current page format is outdated in need of improvement, we surely must make the change through collaboration and discussion. It is unacceptable that a single user will dictate his concept, however better-suited for our purposes he thinks it is.
We therefore have three options: (a) to make Stho002 system the official WS format; (b) to endorse the system specified in the help pages; (c) to devise a new system by mutual cooperation. After we reach an agreement, we’ll modify the help pages accordingly, resulting in a consistent way of doing things, without having to fight among ourselves, without having to resort to deleting and modifying each other’s work.
Therefore please read the discussion here and take a moment of your time and make your choice here. I think it is your obligation as an admin to participate in the vote. Thanks, Mariusm (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Reminder about jurisdiction
As mentioned in the email, I thought I would like to remind you again about the jurisdiction of Wikispecies. You cannot import or borrow rules from other WMF projects. Why? If the rules on those projects change without notice, we as Wikispecies would receive any collateral damage that may be unforseen, unanticipated, and not discussed by the community. Furthermore, any editor would then be able to cherry-pick specific policies from project(s) that are advantageous to them. You also can't borrow evidence from projects outside of Wikispecies because their rules are different than ours. A good example is conflict of interest policy. We don't have that rule here. A number of individuals off the top of my head includes User:Mpvalim, who would have otherwise broken the rules if we import rules from elsewhere. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- It seems numerous rules were submitted without discussion on Wikispecies:Policy 19 August 2008? Dan Koehl (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I have just written some advice on the User Page of Stho002. I ask also that you contribute to a period of quiet reflection, while everyone calms down a bit. Thanks. Accassidy (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Andyboorman: Stephen, Maybe the dispute is over, and maybe it isnt. But the main point is that the talk page should be used as place of discussion, where a motivation for the deletion should be clear and politely defined, while the revert, and speedy delete, as far as I know, should not be used as tools for such a dispute, while a consensus is still not reached. You are now performing an edit war with me Stephen, without discussing on the talk pages of the templates. Dan Koehl (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- That has never been the practice on this site. I am not performing an edit war. You are failing in your administrative duties to delete two templates that aren't in use on any pages. It's a no brainer to delete them now, since the discussion I pointed to shows that they have been replaced by superior versions already. Stho002 (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- I can assure you, that it has been the practice on this site to use talk pages, the intention of a talk page is to talk about the articles. Or, the templates. As an example, heres a link to the first time when I used a talk page, the same page where you discussed a week ago. See also this link. Furthermore, even if a page can be undeleted, the speedy delete should not be used in any situation of a dispute. Dan Koehl (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
but its polite and doesnt hurt to communicate
>but its polite and doesnt hurt to communicate< Actually, it may "hurt", given that the editor in question has communication difficulties which means that he is very likely to misunderstand the issues and object to the speedy deletion for no good reason. For deletions as obvious as these, which are linked to no pages anyway, it would have been far more expedient to just do it Stho002 (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
This page is a candidate for speedy deletion
I have given the template,Pierre,Pierre-Baltus, 2003 the status This page is a candidate for speedy deletion. Can you see that someone this template have to delete? PeterR (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dan, thank you for the warm welcome! I am writing the articles about the Cnidaria phylum on the Italian wikipedia, and the taxonomy was old and messy. So I decided to mirror the work here on Wikispecies. However, it's kind of a new environment for me (I just discovered the Taxonaviation template!) so feel free to advise me whenever I miss something. Cheers! --Ruthven (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Dan, and thank you for the welcome message!
Is there anything like Administrators' noticeboard on Wikispecies? I have unfortunately created the page Bombus (Bombus) terrestris not realizing Bombus terrestris already existed. I guess Bombus terrestris ought to be moved to Bombus (Bombus) terrestris, rather than the latter deleted. / Ternarius (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- I merged them at Bombus (Bombus) terrestris, Which I understood from you is the proper name now. Dan Koehl (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Vitelline masked weaver
Dear Dan, Thanks for your reaction. Maybe I dit not react correctly. I discovered that there are 3 misplaced images for the Vitelline masked weaver. The pictures of birds with complet black haeds are in fact not from the vitelline, but from the yellow-backed weaver. I posted a reaction to the uploader. Further I have no experience in activities in this field. Maybe you can inform me how I can effctively correct this situation. Thanks in advance & greetings from Henrik de Nie, --Hwdenie (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)