User talk:Dan Koehl/Archive 3

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Happy new year 2015![edit]

Happy New Year 2015 Fuochi d'artificio Happy New Year to you Dear Dan Koehl/Archive 3 --Grind24 (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User page and User talk page editing[edit]

Goddag herr Koehl. Please take a look at Revision history of "User:Fagus" and Revision history of "User talk:Fagus", as a result of these entries: User talk Stho002: Regarding "Template:Endemic". Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Not good, thanks for notifying. Dan Koehl (talk) 11:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]



You deleted the genus Comphotis in december 2014. Can you tell me who have ask you this to do? Comphotis is a valid genus. PeterR (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Restored. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Peter, this file was deleted because the file was on speed delete, let me check who asked to have it deleted. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please can you restore Roeberella floccus too? It is a valid species. I have the bulletin. PeterR (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Peter, I believe that Roeberella floccus was never deleted, its still active? Dan Koehl (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Robospam deletion[edit]

Yesterday I deleted ResortsCondos spam page. I note you separately deleted its talk page. Deleting mainpage does not automatically delete its talk page? I know moving mainpages also automatically move associated talk pages. Neferkheperre (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct, as a rule, talk pages doesnt automatically get deleted, if, or when, the main article page is deleted. Dan Koehl (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you[edit]


Dan, I am not sure exactly how your suggestion of seeking a commitment could be put into action or enforced. However, you may have experience of this elsewhere. Perhaps you could draft something. My personal email is Alan. Accassidy (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Community consensus and proximity[edit]

I was pointed to a discussion at your VP. As someone with a little experience xwiki, can I suggest that in a circumstance like this that it is often best to close the first part of the discussion, summarise your findings, and then go back to the community about how to progress. Acting as judge and jury is generally not useful in a community, especially with community decisions. Good adminship and leadership in a community is not about your own opinion. Billinghurst (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry @Billinghurst:, I get a little bit confused here, in your reccomendation, are you refering to the previous five blocks of Stho002 with start 28 November 2008, (as well as his permanent block on the english wiki), all blocks where I was not involved and when the community was never asked, or do you refer to my block, the sixth one on Wikispecies, which was after discussions on the Village pump? I believe this was the very first time an admin asked for the opinion from the community, and where there was a clear consensus for block after 36 hours, and for sure this can not be wrong? Is it possible that you had wrong information from the person who contacted you? Always before, block were promptly done by an admin, in a way which you describe, but not this time. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was just suggesting that in circumstances like this that a two part and open process is better. Then you are twice the judge of the consensus, and not open to personal attacks or accusation of bias, interaction, etc. Community consensus is the foundation of the way we work, and stewards will regularly point to a community consensus to say that a decision is clearly not the will of the administrator. Billinghurst (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear @Billinghurst:, could you please tell me word for word, what people have written about me? Dan Koehl (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Billinghurst: with all due respect it is exceptionally unfair on your part to drop the above accusations when you're not familiar with the exact situation here at Wikispecies. I'm an admin here, and I would like to know who exactly made these accusations against Dan Koehl. It would be helpful if you didn't pay attention to accusations which an offender is making, and instead help the community in establishing order and in respecting the rules. The offender, who is probably the person who contacted you, is disrupting this wiki for a very long time, and you must not come in his support without thorough investigation. Mariusm (talk) 08:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Umm, I have dropped absolutely no accusations. Please reread what I have written. I write solely about a good process to protect an administrator from accusations. Billinghurst (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must support Dan in this instance, perhaps his procedure could have been better, but I am not one to comment, as I am not a steward. However, @Billinghurst: "Community consensus is the foundation of the way we work...." and the apparent and persistent refusal of Stho002 to act according to this principle, along with lack of respect and consideration to others in the community, are at the centre of the disputes. I for one would be happy for you to review the dispute logs, personal discussion pages and pump archives for 2008 onwards. Would you then be prepared to come back to the pump with your suggestions for resolution? Andyboorman (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My opinion on the outcome is irrelevant, stewards implement community consensus, I take that seriously, and I also do not take sides. I have not expressed and will not express an opinion on the outcome. My message is more subtle than that, and some seem to be missing the word proximity in the section heading. If that word is understood and practised then accusations later cannot stick. Billinghurst (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah so what you are hinting is that neither the originator of the poll nor any one who votes should then go to implement the block. Subtle and very fair I guess, but at least Dan did not vote. However, with such a small community there will be few, if any, active admins or crats unaffected by the disputes and so total impartiality is very difficult. Andyboorman (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Billinghurst:@Andyboorman:Wtf are you talking about Andyboorman? In what way did Dan not vote in the pole??? Stho002 (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Billinghurst: No need to swear Stho002 I made a mistake and withdrawn the above statement! Andyboorman (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(@Billinghurst:)@Andyboorman: I would suggest that you make at least some effort not to make such a simple "mistake" when you are in the midst of a heated argument. Try thinking first, and only then writing! Stho002 (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Billinghurst:)@Stho002: No need to swear during a "heated" discussion. Andyboorman (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Billinghurst:, Thanks for at least trying to bring more insight in your thoughts, Could I just repeat my question what people have accused me for, and what according to you, makes it relevant to mention Acting as judge and jury and Good adminship and leadership in a community is not about your own opinion associated to my name and person? Dan Koehl (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Roswell UFO[edit]

Hi! See this: Zolapin. I made mention just now on village Pump. Seems this is one of over 100 sockpuppets. It created User:Laythekat, and all identities are globally blocked. Seems more serious than our usual capitalist robospammers. One of us should put on our watchlist, now that account officially exists. Neferkheperre (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, thanks for the info! Dan Koehl (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for reference template restore[edit]

@Stho002:I can not see any kind of discussion on the talk page. Obviously there is not many different opinons about this, since the public talk page would othervise show a discussion on the subject. If there is a conflict, it should be discussed on the page designed for that, the talk page. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Sthoner did not learn anything of his block. He have delete all the species group names that I had add by the subgenera of Zygaena. Allso he delete the authors Axel Hofmann, Gerhard Tarmann, Walter Gerald Tremewan in the author template Efetov et al., 2014. If I add those authors again in the author template Efetov et all, I'm afraid that he block me. I had made Zygaena the same as Anthene. PeterR (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dan Please can you restore The subgenera from Zygaena for me?
 Done. The file was reverted, but please check User:Stho002 added links (below) and wether they they should remain. If you and User:Stho002 hace different opinions, please use the article talk page
@PeterR:, User:Stho002 can not block you, he is not an admin. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC). He have block me last year.Reply[reply]

@Dan Koehl: @Accassidy: @PeterR: I have a feeling that Peter R also meant sub-genus Zygaena (Zygaena) looking at the thread above, as this taxon has deleted species group names. Andyboorman (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Dan, here is the proof for block me BLOCKING LOGReply[reply]


Just out of interest what sort of evidence is required for a CU on m:SRCU? Andyboorman (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Im sorry, I can not give a sure answer, since it seems to be not 100% sure what is needed, to meet the policy on meta for checkuser.
If local CheckUsers exist in a project, checks should generally be handled by those. Presently Wikispecies is among the few projects, with no local policy, see m:CheckUser_policy/Local_policies. On any wiki, there must be at least two users with CheckUser status, or none at all. Wikispecies have no local checkuser. Therefore, the meta checkuser policy apply. Among other content is: The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects. and There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position).
The community must approve local CheckUsers (stewards not counting as local CheckUsers) per consensus. The user requesting CheckUser status must request it within his local community and advertise this request properly (village pump, mailing list when available, ...). The editor must be familiar with the m:privacy policy. After gaining consensus (at least 70%-80% in pro/con voting or the highest number of votes in multiple choice elections) in his local community, and with at least 25-30 editors' approval, the user should list himself under m:Steward requests/Permissions with a link to the page with the community's decision.
If an insufficient number of voters vote for at least two CheckUsers on a wiki, there will be no CheckUsers on that wiki. Editors will have to ask a steward to check if UserX is a sockpuppet of UserY. To do so, simply add your request to m:Steward requests/Checkuser listing these users and explaining why you ask for such a check (with links). You also need a community consensus (like above). The steward will answer you if these two users are from the same IP, same proxy, same network, same country, or are they completely unrelated (see discussion for what the Steward should more precisely say to the editor).

Dan Koehl (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the links. If I read it right, on WS it seems that to request a steward to perform a CU an editor needs to ask and be granted permission from the community before making the request. How to ask for this permission without being opened up to accusations of "judge, jury and executioner" and compromising privacy policy is difficult. That is why I @Billinghurst: just in case he is willing to offer an opinion or advice. Do you have any thoughts on this matter? Andyboorman (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies, my ping settings on this wiki were incorrect, and I wasn't getting notified. If you have issues of sockpuppetry and it is against policy, and you cannot manage it solely by blocking (ie. we need to block an IP), then a couple of admins agreeing that the problem needs a great level of control on a talk page is suitable to lodge a request on m:SRCU, just point to wherever the discussion took place. Permalinks are good. Billinghurst (talk) 10:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the information @Billinghurst:. Dan Koehl (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur with the request for a CheckUser to be carried out - MPF (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support in issuing a formal Checkuser request. Mariusm (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also support the request for a CheckUser. Andyboorman (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF:, @Mariusm:, @Andyboorman:, a request for CU is forwarded to on m:SRCU Dan Koehl (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Request for CU outcome (see on m:SRCU):
I have been reading through the discussion, where I see he confirms to be the same person as Biota, thereby making this check unnecessary. Considering BiodiverseCity has not contributed, I believe the outcome of a check on that account is irrelevant as Biota has been confirmed by him as a sock. I heartily encourage all users involved in that discussion to calm down. Savhñ 17:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dan Koehl (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this has answered my sockpupetery question satisfactorily, if we need to go through the procedure in the future. I may be wrong, but it seems as if WMF are "washing their hands" of the current problems on WS and are more or less saying it is an internal problem and sort it out yourselves. Thanks for your help anyway. Andyboorman (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I also understand that it is regarded as an internal problem to be solved within the Wikispecies community. As for Checkuser issues, we have the possibility to approve local CheckUsers, and a local policy, see m:CheckUser_policy/Local_policies. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At meta:CheckUser_policy#Access_to_CheckUser meta: Access to CheckUser theres information about setting up a local policy:
The community must approve local CheckUsers (stewards not counting as local CheckUsers) per consensus. The user requesting CheckUser status must request it within his local community and advertise this request properly (village pump, mailing list when available, ...). The editor must be familiar with the privacy policy. After gaining consensus (at least 70%-80% in pro/con voting or the highest number of votes in multiple choice elections) in his local community, and with at least 25-30 editors' approval, the user should list himself under Steward requests/Permissions with a link to the page with the community's decision. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note this important section: The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user. Note that alternative accounts are not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of the policies (for example, to double-vote or to increase the apparent support for any given position) ... Stho002 (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dan, since Stho002 was blocked a new user named "ZooBank" has been making edits that bear an uncanny resemblance to the style of Stho002, and are made at a time of day commensurate with an antipodean Longitude. As this would be more sockpuppetry and a serious breach of his block, perhaps this is now the time to make use of that CheckUser system to investigate User_talk:ZooBank a little more. Accassidy (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with you @Accassidy:, this looks like a Stho002 sockpuppet, but I believe we need the support of more admins, in order to have a formal request granted for a CU on the account ZooBank. Dan Koehl (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 SupportTommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]
 SupportMariusm (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support - Andyboorman (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support - MPF (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Accassidy:,@Tommy Kronkvist:,@Mariusm:,@Andyboorman: and @MPF:; A new CU request has been submitted at meta:Steward requests/Checkuser.

@Accassidy:,@Tommy Kronkvist:,@Mariusm:,@Andyboorman: and @MPF:; CheckUser results for sockpuppet:

Confirmed; Stho002, ZooBank, Biota and BiodiverseCity. No evidence of collateral damage if range block is needed, though it is something that would require vigilance and a means for users caught into the future to seek IP exemption. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Local CU Policy[edit]

I believe we should consider setting up local CU policy, in order to handle further CU requests within the Wikispecies project. Dan Koehl (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tommy Kronkvist:,@Mariusm:,@Andyboorman: and @MPF: Yes, it would be good to be able to do CheckUser investigations initially internally. Dan, as you seem to have the best understanding of the system and its uses, would you accept nomination to be the first CU-capable sysop here? Accassidy (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with your suggestion Alan, if Dan is OK with this. Andyboorman (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I would accept, but there must be at least two users with CheckUser status, or none at all, please see see m:CheckUser_policy/Local_policies. In any case, if there is a support for a local policy within the community, we can start to prepare a local policy. I guess the easiest would be to simply import an existing policy from another project, but I may be wrong. I kindly welcome all opinions and ideas for this. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having a local CheckUser policy would certainly make things easier, especially since the number of Wikispecies users is increasing. I agree with Dan that the easiest and probably also best way to go about creating a Wikispecies' specific specification is to adopt and adapt a policy already present at another Wikimedia wiki. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]

The question is if the demand at meta that a local CU must get at least 25-30 editors' approval, can be fullfilled, since the number of users on Wikspecies that engage in similair matters is normally not so many? Still, I think its a good idea that we develop a local policy. Read more CheckUser Policy at Meta, english Wikipedia, with language links from the english wiki you may read other projects CU Policies, like commons, Wikidata and Wikivoyage and the different Wikipedia language projects. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would recommend that we adopt a policy very close to that delineated here. In view of the reduced size of the community here, and the number of contributors in agreement here, I would suggest that we have a consensus in agreement with setting this up. Accassidy (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Sehe meine e-mail adresse in Preferences. Es ist peterwillemalbertroelofs@hetnet.nlPeterR (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

log out[edit]


When I want change something in the templates from Sthoner, species.wikipedia log me out. I have first log in and than I can add the changes. Can you look at that and repair it? PeterR (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterR:, this sounds very strange. Can you please give an example, a link to a template where you became logged out and had to log in again? Dan Koehl (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is an example Template:Garcia et al., 2015 PeterR (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, do the system log you out now, if you press that link? Dan Koehl (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes it do. 12:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we need to consider CU on User:BioLibrarian. He seems to be Stho002 sockpuppeting again. Mariusm (talk) 05:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see. In order to get an CU, theres a need of 3-4 admins supporting this action. Dan Koehl (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support. This time if this hits the target, please ask for a range block. Mariusm (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support. This user has also been editing some of Stho002's contributions and is working in his area of expertise. Andyboorman (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support. Though this time, at least pretending (see the talk page) to be Japanese? But the knowledge of template use and style used is very suspicious for a new contributor. - MPF (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He wrote on his talk page "Thank you" in Japanese, but this can be easily accomplished with GOOGLE TRANSLATE! It's laughable that someone who can read and understand what the English welcome message means, and who knows that the writer can't read Japanese, responds like this. Mariusm (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
is interesting. Neferkheperre (talk) 10:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mariusm:, @Andyboorman:,, @MPF:, and @Neferkheperre:, CU request is now active at Steward requests/Checkuser.

Range block has been requested if sock puppet is confirmed.

Dan Koehl (talk) 11:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mariusm:, @Andyboorman:,, @MPF:, and @Neferkheperre:, User:BioLibrarian has been blocked, confirmed as Sock puppet for Stho002 on Steward requests/Checkuser, as follows:

Confirmed and I will leave blocking of the account to local admins; other measures initiated. I will hazard a guess that they will avoid it and come back, and we can broaden measures. If there is symptomatic posting then we could look to spam filters too. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Dan Koehl (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mariusm:, @MPF: and @Neferkheperre: I have extended the block on Stho002's "retired" page to indefinite are there any objections? Andyboorman (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Agree with the extension - MPF (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cannot disagree really, he just will not learn... Accassidy (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Andy, I agree also. Stho002 has emailed at least four of us, which he can do again once he is prepared to stop bully other users, and cooperate with the community on equal terms. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Andy, I totally support your decision - especially after Stho impersonated a Japanese user in his "BioLibrarian" talk page. Mariusm (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My block on Swedish Wikipedia[edit]

Discussion moved here from the Village pump, where I informed about being blocked on the Swedish Wikipedia. Since the discussion are about my person, I moved them here from theVillage pump.

Sounds like Soviet Socialist Republik. Neferkheperre (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is not a truthful description. I know you where one of the first users on Swedish Wikipedia, but like you say, "everyone is equal and have the same value" and that should not give you the benefit of doing things of your own bidding. Its true, some users have been blocked for NPOV-pushing. I understand you have a very different opinion about what NPOV is - actually those blocked users didn't even support you on this. Your idea is that anyone should be able to write whatever they like. A matter of fact no one in the discussion supported you, but instead you called everyone that opposed you tools of the illegitimate leadership, dictators and insinuating others of being sock puppets of blocked vandals. Your interpretation of the five pillars is not the one shared by Jimmy Wales, or anyone on Swedish Wikipedia as far as I can see. When you still, after being opposed by 30 or more users on Swedish Wikipedia kept on and claimed you where the voice of thousands of silent voices and a majority you where blocked. You or anyone else don't have to "confess" any crime - still - you need to realize this is not a way to debate, otherwise you will probably not be unblocked.--FBQ (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I did not wish to have an extended discussion on the Village pump, I asked for anyone who had questions or comments, to make those on my talk page, therefore I moved the discussion here.
  • I felt it was needed, as burocrat on Wikispecies, that I didnt hide the fact that I have been blocked, so I made an official declaration.
  • If I wouldnt had written what I did there, to my defence, I would have passively confirmed that I was guilty to the accusations. I felt there was a need to explain the situation, as I see it.
  • I was accused to provoke and not make a good Wikipedia and I never asked for any benefit, except for a human and normal threatment, where it must be very clear, that with my history, Im not a vandal. But to support the present leaders of SvWiki - which should have no leaders - is not the same thing, or equal to make a good Wikipedia. Throughout history, all people in power has felt provoked by critisim, but a wikimedia projekt must be tolerant for critisism, especially if there is an accusation of decreased democrazy, and that admins break rules. Wikipedia, and all Wikimedia, should be free.
  • During my years of admin 2002-2007 on svWiki theres no case where I misused the tools. I quit as admin through my own wish, not accepting a new nomination, I was not removed as admin. Theres no case where I used them to try to take power. Such a user is hardly a vandal of the project?
  • actually those blocked users didn't even support you on this. NO, The blocked users can not support me, since they are blocked, and the people that was treated like this before, has left the SvWiki. And those who would like to support me, should know what to expect, like the user that was requested by the admin group on his talk page, to give his support for your action against me, which he did, appearently on request. I asked him before on his talk page OK, I understand that you accept that they delete your comments or else they will block you? and he replies: You understood correctly, and he added that he has the rope around his neck with permant risk of being blocked if he makes a mistake or says something wrong (who ever says something like that if they feel free in our society??) yes, this user, under your power with his neck in a rope, do support your actions, as any prisoner under torture confessed any crime in the past.
  • no one in the discussion supported you, No, as always the group of 10-15 people support each other, this is the way they took power. And if someone wanted to, they would be to scared to come in conflict with this group. Obviously such a situation doesnt have any support in the Policy rules. What you dont know, hoever, is how many people that have sent me private messages with support.
  • You generic wish to take the liberty to tell what my wish is, is a dead end, obviously you can not define my wish, goal, or opinon. Normally that is normally viewed as a very clear case of manipulation. Please, let me define my opinions myself.
  • I never claimed to be the voice of thousands of silent voices and your entire sentence only confirm what I have discussed. Those arguments sounds like from another world for me, Im still astonished about where you power has lead you, and what you obvioulsy regard as OK and normal.
  • Your last threat, this time not on Swedish Wikiedia but on Wikispecies, illustrates very good the situation, where a block is only lifted, if the blocked person officially understands the block, and on the discussion page you have refered to, this is also clearly said and written, something which you claim not exist.

Dan Koehl (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My goodness! We have our own share of problems to deal with! We do not need to be drawn into other wikis' debates! Dan is measured here in accordance with his conduct at Wikispecies, which is to my mind impeccable. Therefore I personally haven't lost any of my faith in Dan's integrity and rectitude and I don't see why any disputes happening at the Swedish wikipedia should have relevance to us here. Mariusm (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On Comments about administration it has been very clearly pointed out, by several users, admins and non-admins, that Dan Koehl was not blocked for expressing his opinion. He was blocked for agressive discussion style, to consciously ascribe other users standpoints they do not have, and for refusing to argue objectively. All users who have spoken on the issue have supported the block, although many think that it was a shame that it was needed. /Esquilo (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Esquilo:, I can understand many Swedish users' gut reaction when they see a message about internal Swedish affairs which they feel is not true; there is however no excuse whatsoever for spreading the conflict to other Wikimedia projects. This has to stop now! / Ternarius (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There seem to be different opinions on why Iwas blocked, and maybe this reflect the most tragical part of this, if everyone support something they cant agree on what it is. Officially, on the block log, Im blocked for trolling. On my talk page, the person who blocked me, claims that he knows that my goal is to provoke and not make a good Wikipedia, and with this knowledge, that he claims he knows better than me, and for most people is contrary to my history since 2001, I was blocked.

What can be noted though, is that
  • I have not destroyed a single file on swedish Wikipedia
  • I have not performed edit wars
  • I have not vandalized the project
  • I have not misused any admin tools
  • I have been accused of being aggressive discussion style, as if everyone else were totally innoscent and when they threatened me to be blocked for my opinions, obviously dont break any of those rules?
  • There was no need to block me, it would have much more normal to start a discussion, what can be improved.
  • On a wiki, where a user is afraid to speak, and wont even argue when an admin delete his comment, (which is a NoNo, and normally the admin should be desysoped) with the xplanation, that he has a snare around his neck, its not very surprising if everyone agree.

Its like pulling a prisoner out of his prison, where he may stay for ever, or being released from if he behave good, and ask him to confirm that everyone loves the leading party, of course a prisoner with the snare around his neck will happily be the peoples voice and follow your recomendations, and praize the leaders. Dont you realize somehing is very, very wrong, when such a thing is happening 2015 on a wikipedia?

There is presently not very much room for different opinions on the Swedish Wikipedia, and since several cases of people who raised their voices has been blocked, people are scared to criticise. It doesnt reflect how it should work, you have passed the barrier where people feel that they can talk free. You even think that you can threat me here, on Wikispecies, with the words you need to realize this is not a way to debate, otherwise you will probably not be unblocked. You can not control what I am, and what I think. And you can not remove people their right to debate, when a minority take over power over a project, without having the right to do so, or the support from the Policy rules.

Dan Koehl (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dan Koehl: Thanks for having informed Wikispecies. I am sorry, that you came into a situation where you are feeling to be mistreated. However, I do not understand Swedish. So I cannot evaluate, what really has happened. Anyway, in every conflict, both parties usually are deviating from the NPOV. When an established group does not tolerate to be criticised, it usually is not wise to present ones criticism with even greater emphasis. To be honest is one thing, to be wise need not be the same. OK, if really works, as you have described, this system may collapse by itself sooner or later. Such groups usually disintegrate into fractions, as soon as the "common enemy" has disappeared. Nevertheless, these controversies on do not change your position in Wikispecies. Best wishes --Franz Xaver (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you, and issues on SvWiki has a connection to NPOV or APOV (Admin point of view). In general, keeping a high level of succesful NPOV cases is a lot of work and energy for everyone involved. And contrary, not to reach a high number and have a lot of ongoing unsuccesful cases, can be regarded as a failure, even though I dont always see them as that. But to abuse the NPOV, act with APOV and leave a lot of cases, pretending they are solved, after at least one of the contrahents has been blocked or thretened with block, and officially the case is closed, is in my opinion the largest failure of all, as it will create POV articles, a permanent conflict in regard to the articles, and in general make the Wikipedia less thrustworthy.
Secondly, Its a common strategy when a group take power like this, is that they try to make every case look like an individual problem, but what I address is that blockings of registered users is becoming more and more common, users leave the SvWiki to enWiki or simply quit with wikies, OR they become obedient members of creme de creme, after showing their loyality (being "good" people, who support the other "good people"). The admins all over Wikimedia may very easy unite as admins, while individual users on the different projects, doesnt really belong to a group, since "users" is not really a group. Its very easy that this situation turns from admins protecting the users and the project against vandalism to an admin against users situation. Lately, numerous complaints as wether admins on SvWiki are left-winged has been raised, and admins have been accused of POV articles in that direction. The same admins may accuse users of POV and in the end it becomes a kindergarten, when an admin snap their finger (call for help on IRC) and another 3-4 admins turn up and declare that there is a consensus for a certain POV. The user with different opinion realizes that this "consensus" is all fake, and gets furious about the non exisiting NPOV process. Or just leaves. Meanwhile, enWiki is a winner, since it seems a lot of those frustrated users becomes "refuges" on EnWiki.

It is for those users some of them blocked now, or in the past, that I raised my voice, not really for myself, and for some reason I never thought they would act so transparent, as to block me. The sentence I have heard complaints about svwiki from a few different places, but haven’t looked into it that much since there are so many other projects that are even worse off. written by a steward, also gives an indication that these are not single cases, and that the situation is at least partly known at meta level. Lets hope for the best for the swedish Wikipedia! Dan Koehl (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dan Koehl: I echo the thanks for informing WS and the regret for your situation as regards I also feel the actions of some people in bringing the dispute onto your WS talk page is unsatisfactory. I can not think of an example of an "aggressive discussion style" here even given some strong provocation. Franz speaks some wise words! You have my support as a very fair bureaucrat and admin and for stepping in here when needed. Kind regards Andyboorman (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks Dan for my Patroller nomination. Now, could you pls give me short instructions how I autopatrol or patrol an edition? Regards --Hector Bottai (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear @Hector Bottai: in Special:NewPages you will see the not patrolled pages with yellow background. Presently there are none, since the pages made today and the last days has been made by users who already have 'autopatrolled' and/or 'patrolled user rights. But if you do later, or you choose to see the last 500 newly made pages, you will se files with yellow background. While in Special:RecentChanges you will see a red colored ! in front of the unpatrolled file.
You can click on such a file, like Montanelia tominii, Zhe-Xi Luo, Martinus van Marum and Guineobius baliemensis, and scroll down to absolute down-right corner, where you can read "mark as patrolled" or similair, because the contributor does not have autoptarolled/patrolled user rights. When you click on the link, the file becomes patrolled.
Dan Koehl (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Dan. --Hector Bottai (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for granting patroller rights also from me. --Murma174 (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Me too I've already started marking a few contributions. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, thanks @Hector Bottai:, @Murma174: and @Koavf:, that you check up contributions. Ive already seen that this was needed, and when more assist by patrolling files, the quality of the project will of course increase. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi , Dan

Thank you for your gift!

--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, thank you for your welcome message. :-) --Phyrexian ɸ 17:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Sorry if I've gone against any conventions, but why doesn't Fox redirect to Vulpes? Green Giant (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Green Giant:, Wikispecies seldom use titles for files with common names, mostly, or always, the scientific names are used. But zoologists are also mentioned, and in this case Fox is abbreviation for U.S. zoologist and herpetologist Wade Fox, why the redirect you changed was correct, and your edit has been reverted. Please dont see this as an accusation, feel free to contribute, but make sure your edits are correct. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the explanation, I shall tread more carefully. Green Giant (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Dan, thanks for your confidence. May I suggest that you subst the template, instead of having it transcluded on our talk pages? When I wanted to thank you, clicked the edit button, and then saved my changes, it turned out I had been editing the template. Wikiklaas (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for pointing out my mistake @Wikiklaas:, I should have noticed when another user had the same problem. Ill fix this ASAP. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

re:Autopatrolled rights[edit]

Many thanks! --Esculapio (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Autopatrolled rights[edit]

Thank you Dan, that was unexpected! Have a nice day --Ruthven (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re:Welcome to Wikispecies![edit]

Thank you very much for the welcome, --PePeEfe (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the welcome of, too... but I just made an edit before I realized I hadn't logged in. MKOliver (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Autopatrolled rights[edit]

Hello Dan Koehl, thank you for your confidence. I'll do my best. Best regards. Orchi (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re:Autopatrolled rights[edit]

Thank you very much Dan, --ZorglubAB (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re:Autopatrolled rights[edit]

Thanks for your confidence. I'll do my best. Best regards.--Alfredalva (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you[edit]

For welcoming me after I caught a spambot here and subsequently was blocked. Fellow admin and steward Trijnstel notified me and acted as well. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


(Message moved to User talk:Rberchie, where the discussion started.)


Thanks :) --Richiski (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to help Wikispecies[edit]

How exactly can I help Wikispecies? I'm not a biologist but I know enough about taxonomy to be able to help. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its great if you want to contribute more @PiRSquared17:! Theres different ways of helping:
  1. Since you have a lot of cross-wiki activity, try to recruit more taxonomy interested contributors from different languages on Wp, and other projects.
  2. Adminstration/anti-vandalism: since you have patroller rights, you can help and go through all edits which have not yet been patrolled.
  3. Transwiki/language links: make language links and vernacular names from taxon articles to any language of your choice. I believe this will serve an important cause, and reduce future work, once Wikispecies gets connected to Wikidata. Please see Pages without language links
  4. Submitting pictures from commons on taxon articles without pictures.
  5. Create missing articles, and update existing articles about species and other taxons, see Help:General_Wikispecies.

Dan Koehl (talk) 02:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Twi alphabet?[edit]

@Dan Koehl: thanks a lot for granting me the autopatrol status.I have noted what you said I will go over all my edits and effect the changes. But if I may ask how do I get those letters for the Twi alphabet?--Rberchie (talk) 10:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rberchie:, I believe you may find an answer to your question at Akan_language. Maybe just copy the characters you need from there and paste...? Dan Koehl (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks @Dan Koehl:I am most grateful.

Re: Autopatrolled rights[edit]

Thank you very much! :) --minhhuy (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Backlink from ViWp to Wikispecies[edit]

Hi Dan Koehl, I have joined Wikispecies some years ago, but it seems that this project doesn't have much to do with Vietnamese and Japanese (the languages which I understand intensive). So I only partial support for translations introduction pages and Vietnamese names of the plant and animal species.

Vietnamese Wikipedia has a ton of articles about plants and some butterflies species, which has helped us reach 1 million articles in a short time. These articles created by bot, so most of them are relatively sketchy. We focus on improving the quality of these articles by adding information about sepcies and a linked to Wikispecies for each articles. Many members in our WikiProject Biology always pay attention to additional Wikispecies links, vie two templates as you have suggested. These works take a lot of time, but still in progress.

We always hope a strong growth for Wikispecies and all Wikimedia projects! I wish to express appreciation to the members who are developing this project, such as you. Thank you for all! --minhhuy (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Autopatrol rights[edit]

Hi Dan,

thank you for the auto patrol rights. In the past I have had difficulties with wikispecies and after your recent nomination for me to have autopatrol rights I decided to look at some of the issues that had arisen in the past and see that some of them have now been resolved. I would appreciate discussing some of this if you could, send me an email if you wish my email is I would like to see wikispecies improve. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unpatrolled statistics[edit]

Why don't we do a day-to-day statistics for unpatrolled edits on Wikispecies? See this. Jianhui67 (talk) 06:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A very good idea @Jianhui67:, thanks for making that suggestion, I made a a formal request to Jelte. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you have any suggestion as to how this could be developed tailor-made within the Wikispecies project, it would be even better. I think in general, we lack statistics, and anything that will inspire the development of the project, is of course positive. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, thank you for your message. I'm french. My template Langage is goog or not ? Sorry for my not very good english :) --Bastenbas (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear @Bastenbas: in english it is Template:Language, so I moved the file to Template:Language, hope you dont mind. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dan. Regarding your email earlier, I have made a suggestion on User talk:Bastenbas you might want to look at. Alan Accassidy (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE:Autopatroller rights[edit]

Dear, Thank you very much for giving me the autopatroller rights. I will try to be up to it ! See you, Fabien

Back for now[edit]

Hi Dan, Ive been following the Sth002 drama off and on since I left WS. Im glad to see he has finally been removed from action and I will take a stab at adding pages again, though its been a long while since I last edited :/ --Kevmin (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good news @Kevmin:, Happy that you are back! Dan Koehl (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kevmin: Hear, hear. Accassidy (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link from it.wikipedia to Wikispecies[edit]

Hello. For what I know, the template {{interprogetto}} should automatically provide a link to Wikispecies, if the page does exist, as it do for Wikimedia Commons. I'll look for what's missing and will let you know. ;-) --Phyrexian ɸ 21:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are right @Phyrexian:! I tried with the follwing link,

and it worked perfect. Thanks a lot!

(edit conflict) Ok, I think I found the problem. Wikispecies is not yet implemented in Wikidata, am I right? In this case the template {{interprogetto}} on it.wikipedia will not automatically create a link to Wikispecies; instead in every single article you have to add the parameter |wikispecies to the template, like this:
== Altri progetti ==
Note that you added the parameter in it:Chelidae, but removed the Commons one, that is now implemented in Wikidata and is no longer necessary. If you have question please just contact me again. Ciao! :-) --Phyrexian ɸ 22:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome. Note that I removed the string =Chelidae that is optional and in most cases not necessary. Bye! :-) --Phyrexian ɸ 22:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jasmine perfume[edit]

I deleted that page some few minutes before you did. We need to keep eyes out. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Patroll rights[edit]

Hello Dan,

I think I can not use the rights, because I do not have the time and knowledge needed. Anyway, thanks! Zorahia (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem @Zorahia:, thanks for telling me. You can always become a patroller again later, if you wish. Dan Koehl (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Patrolling rights[edit]


1. I dont understand the use of it. 2. How can I add them. PeterR (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dan, I'm sorry but I don't see "[Mark this page as patrolled]" on my pages. PeterR (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PeterR:, It seems that Eucestoda has already been patrolled, but please try with Chamaecytisus podolicus, Chamaecytisus rochelii, you should see the "[Mark this page as patrolled]" in the lower, right corner. Please let me know that its working. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dan Koehl:. It don't work see Melasina abacodes. PeterR (talk) 09:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Patrolling rights[edit]

Good evening Dan,

I have the same problem as PeterR :

"1. I don't understand the use of it. 2. How can I add them." "Dan, I'm sorry but I don't see "[Mark this page as patrolled]" on my pages".

--ZorglubAB (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ZorglubAB:, please try with Chamaecytisus podolicus, Chamaecytisus rochelii, you should see the "[Mark this page as patrolled]" in the lower, right corner. Please let me know that its working. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it's working! --ZorglubAB (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Patrolling rights[edit]

Hi Dan thanks for your note. I tried to experience first with my own old unpatrolled pages and there is no tab in the lower corner of the page to be marked as patrolled. Same with other pages. Please instruct me. My only potential patrolling knowledge will be limited to aves pages. Thanks--Hector Bottai (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Yes Dan I can see the yellow pages and also see the "Mark as patrolled" tab, but, all my previous editions continue with the non patrolled red exclamation and no tab appears for me to auto-patroll. Thanks--Hector Bottai (talk) 03:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strange @Hector Bottai:. If you go this list and press the link to the left labelled "diff", and once in diff-mode, can you see a text "[Mark as patrolled]"? (You may try with older and newer pages, since the problem may be that you can not patrol pages which were created, or edited, before you got the patrol user right. Dan Koehl (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No Dan, even doing that the text does not show. Somebody will have to patrol all these previous editions. Seems like a small bug...thanks.--Hector Bottai (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Dan, thanks for your message. I tried to find some page just to test the patrolling rights, but seems everything is already patrolled. To be honest, I do not consider to have nor the knowledge, neither the time to do that activity. Editing Wikipedia en español and Wikispecies bird pages with my limited availability is enough for many many years of hard work. You may remove my patrolling rights but I would like to keep the autopatrolling status. Best regards.--Hector Bottai (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely, you will remain with autopatrolled rights, and just let me know if you want to have patrol user rights back, in the future. Dan Koehl (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello. I hope you don't mind but I subst'd the BASEPAGENAME on Faendalimas' talk page. I think it makes it seem more personal but feel free to change back if you wish. Green Giant (talk) 09:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you @Green Giant:, it sure looks better. Dan Koehl (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


While patrolling I stumbled over Template:Lien_wikipédia, which e.g. is used in Melaleuca_leiocarpa.
It obviously is intended to link to the French WP, but it doesn't (misconfigured template).
What to do? My idea: Substitute this template by Template:Wikipedia in these pages in case there is an article in the English WP or delete in case there is no corresponding article in the English WP. --Murma174 (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. Actually I don't get the sense of this template, as there are Interwiki-links doing this job. --Murma174 (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Murma174:, I agree with you that some decisions around those French language templates has to be taken, and that the Interwiki links actually provide enough linking. Still, I suggest you bring the matter to the Village pump, and let more users give their opinion. Dan Koehl (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done -> Link Thank you --Murma174 (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE: Patroller Rights[edit]

Thanks for giving me patrolling rights. I don't see any page to control now, so I can't try for the moment... Fabien — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wuefab (talkcontribs) 09:51, 22 March 2015.

Thank you for the welcome[edit]

Thank you Dan for the welcome. For the moment I feel better on wp in native language ;-) Thank you for the job done here: WikiSpecies is a Must-See! Regards, --BonifaceFR (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problem with your AWB procedure[edit]

Dan, please note that your AWB procedure is adding redundant {{commonscat}} to many pages! See for example Tenebrionidae. Mariusm (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, Ill look into that. Will be some extra job, but on the other hand now the commonscat are on more pages.

Just wanted to use the work for a second use. Thanks for observing. Dan Koehl (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Patrolling pages[edit]

Hello Dan. I didn't realise that I have to patrol pages. Undortunately I am already very busy with many regular activities to be able to do so. I hope I will be forgiven for not patrolling. Cheers --B. Jankuloski (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AWB Criteria[edit]

Discussion moved to Wikispecies_talk:Project_Cleanup AWB Criteria Dan Koehl (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What qualifies as a stub and what is not[edit]

Discussion moved to Wikispecies_talk:Project_Cleanup What qualifies as a stub and what is not Dan Koehl (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Duplicate and/or dead inter-wiki links[edit]

Please note that some of the AWB edits creates duplicates of (sometimes incorrect) inter-wiki links; for example see this diff. Also, some of the linked pages simply doesn't exist on enWP, i.e. are dead links, like these: diff
Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Yes I have noticed, its because I submit one IW link to EnWp as default,since many pages miss IW-links at all. This can be taken care of rather easily on a second stage, with option which of the two present en: links that is preferred. Dan Koehl (talk) 05:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. In some cases it gets a bit extra weird though, as for instance regarding the first diff in my above examples. The Wikispecies page is Gill, an author disambiguation page mainly linking to ichthyologists. The IW to English Wikipedia on that page links to en:Gill, a page concerning respiratory organs in fish. Hence close – but no cigar… :-) This is not at all optimal, but as you say I guess most of it can be rectified in a later stage. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Yes, and especially since those issues will occur mainly with people, and less with taxons. But I only made IWlinks to EnWp which as per standard often has the scientific name as standard, or at least a redirect from binominal name to common name. Atually, I think it would be much better to have those IW links integrated with Wikidata. But I know theres different opinions about this. In general, it seems like the IW links has been low priority within Wikispecies. Some make links to existing pages in different lang sections, others ignore them. I belive its good for the future that at least theres links to EnWp, but of course, as you say, the link should be correct. Dan Koehl (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Norwegian start page and diffrent Regni[edit]

I have made a norwegian start page, as you asked me to do. But I have a problem to get the translation in "Wikispecies in other languages". So I wonder if you could help me with this, by explaining me how to do it, or make sure somone other more capable to do it. :) If you are unsatisfyed with something, please notice me.

One other thing that I don't understand, is the list of different Regni here. The University of Oslo operates with more Regni. Professor Klaus Høiland has made a nice article in norwegian about the diffrent Regni, with some self made drawings. And here is Artsdatabanken's list (list of almost all species named in norwegian). So I wonder why some of the Regni, are not Regni in Wikispecies. Alveolata, Amoebozoa, Cercozoa and Chromista. Is it because Artsdatabanken is outdated? --Amdb73 (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for delay in answer, Ill soon back here on Wikispecies. Dan Koehl (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Patroller?[edit]

Hi Dan Koehl, please forgive me for taking so long to reply. Unfortunately, as mentioned before, I don't have much experience with Wikispecies (at least until this time). I thank your suggestions very much. --minhhuy (talk) 04:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On your recent cleanup of this page, I have 2 questions. Why "&nbsp:" in place of space in Poltarukha entry? Also, with Darwin, 1854 and Newman & Ross, 1976 entries, you removed final square bracket. This left page entry citations open, as there were opening square brackets. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can see what you mean @Neferkheperre:, ({{Darwin, 1854}} [see p. [ 460]], thanks for noticing this. Appearnetly the AWB has a problem with this syntax, it may be slightly against the wiki rules, but I will not change that futurevise, will keep an eye on those. But most probably we should check this up, what can be wrong with this type of syntax, in order to avoid futurevise problems? I think maybe the correct wiki syntax should be to use the html characters [ and ] which would make the sentence as follows: {{Darwin, 1854}} [see p. [ 460]] which would come out as {{Darwin, 1854}} [see p. [ 460]], and that the extra brackets Dan Koehl (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Worth researching. It might go against syntax for external links, which do use single square brackets. I don't see where they are overwhelmingly necessary, is one of Stho's format details, when I was learning Wikispecies. He might have just used them to set apart that section from main reference citation. Zootaxa and housekeeping my cirriped author pages will take into next week, so there is time. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Neferkheperre:, that makes it different, if it were only Stho002 private concept, it could actually just as well be omitted, since it creates problems and errors in the wiki syntax? Dan Koehl (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Odd this first time I have seen any problem since November, 2013. I can go through and remove them, as I am revising Balanomorpha pages for updated formats. I have those brackets on SO-O-O-O many pages. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be great if you can put the time. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Geographic categories[edit]

Why are you removing all my geographic categories? Stho did not make those, I did. I am working on concept of bracketing taxa with geographic categories and ecologic zonation categories. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Neferkheperre:, There was a decision to remove all those country related categories, but I thought all of them were done by Stho002. Did you not follow those discussions? I have been removing such categories since about two weeks now. If theres a wish to keep them, I have no problem with that, as long as it is the wish of the community. Now Im not sure how to go on with this, shall we reactivate that discussion? I have no intention what so ever, to remove your work, but if theres certain country related categories you need, its good if this so to speak approved by the community. How shall we do about this? How can I contunite work? Is there a very limited number of categories you use, which I can avoid, while removing the others? Dan Koehl (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was seeing those discussions, but I got impressions that they were related to Stho's rather oddball format etc. on non-standard categories on New Zealand, Australia and New Caledonia, no matter whether included taxa occurred there or not. My geographic categories are patterned on Kamf EK's ostracod categories. I did mention on Village Pump today about discussing categories after we got some of this cleanup out of our way. I don't want to get too much happening at one time. My Australia and New Zealand country categories are my only ones, because they are insular and isolated, with highly endemic unique faunas, land and sea. Neferkheperre (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK; I will await the outcome of those discussions. If there will be somewhat different rules regarding such categories, depending on the user, I guess we need to establish a green and read category of ctegories, so everyone will know that categories that generally should not exist, may do so if they belong to green list. Or, how can we make a walka around here, any other suggestions, ideas? Dan Koehl (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are you removing my geographic categories for Ostracoda? I am not creating categories for single countries, but for greater areas in order to attract users to WS. There is only a relative small number of such categories for Ostracoda compared to more than 20,000 categories that are going to be created for "Authored taxa". Kempf EK (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I had no idea that you also had personal categories on Wikispecies. Im just following a community consensus to remove categpry: something (New Zealand) and similar categories from pages. This is all a very tiring work, and if you have a list of cetagories that shouldn't be removed, Id be happy to leave them, as long as this is the wish from the community. If I don't have a list (see my request above to Neferkheperre, then this work gets very, very complicated. As for now, I interrupt the cleaning process again. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems that you are deleting categories via AWB like a blind person. I established the Category:Australasian Ostracoda for this ecozone like for other ecozones (Category:Nearctic Ostracoda, Category:Afrotropic Ostracoda, etc.). Please, re-establish the Category:Australasian Ostracoda with all its species. Categories are able to stand for 50 % of the quality of Wikispecies in comparison with other online databases dealing with species. There is no consensus of the whole community of deleting all categories. It is only the consensus of a few contributers in regard of the Category:New Zealand; as there was no clear difference between endemic and non-endemic taxa, etc. Kempf EK (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI yesterday I deleted Category:Type locality: North Island: ND and Category:Type locality: North Island: ND: Te Paki, both created by Stho002 and with him as the only previous contributor. They were both "empty" so I guess this is okay? Both in terms of prior consensus in the Village Pump regarding New Zealand-related categories, and as per Wikimedia praxis (since if possible, non-empty categories really shouldn't be deleted, before emptied). Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Please, stop deleting my categories. You should have a look at the categories you are deleting. My categories have nothing to do with the categories of Stephen Thorpe. Deleting the work of others are no contributions to Wikispecies. It is done with no respect of the work of others. Kempf EK (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, Dan.

This is a great site.

In order to learn this I now focus on finding authors not formatted in Small Capitals (by looking at random pages) and then adding the ... or .... It is great fun, now to start with this simple task :)

Best regards Scabba (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Excuse me but could you please add Pelorovis oldowayensis? I would be very much appreciated. 2601:8:1C01:2971:40E9:E7F4:5B8:E9EF 02:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added Pelorovis oldowayensis on Requested_articles. Dan Koehl (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


[Quack] Oh dear me! Andyboorman (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And while joking, Quack II turned up in the shape of User:NZCat2 who was contributing a couple of minutes until blocked. By the forth and fifth Quack, there may finally be a correct CU performed, and a range block. Until then, manyana, manyana :) Dan Koehl (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

please explain[edit]

Hi Dan is Autoblock #3783 an example of a global block derived from a CU? Excuse my ignorance. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Andyboorman:, No, I don't think so, I believe this is just the effect from when checking Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent IP addresses they try to edit from when blocking an account. Dan Koehl (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the info. Andyboorman (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cirripedia categories[edit]

I have not been able to put in as much time as I want till next week, but categories saying "Cretaceous Cirripedia", or "Pacific Cirripedia", or "Blah Cirripedia", are mine, and modeled after @Kempf EK:'s ostracod system. They are not based on political units. Some of these are ecological categories. Neferkheperre (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, thanks alot, I will remove them from the clean up list. Thanx again!Dan Koehl (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry @Neferkheperre:, Category:New Zealand fossil Cirripedia, Category:North American Fossil Cirripedia and Category:New Zealand Cirripedia as well? Dan Koehl (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had made those too, so leave them in for a while. I can see where those could be confused with Stho's categories, but I don't use BASEPAGENAME, nor one category per taxon. He never did use "Cirripedia", so that is good indication. If my time clears up next week, as I expect, I can get on with creating new special project to explore categories in general. That project will probably take some time to hammer out, but should result in inclusive flexible systems everyone can smoothly add to. Neferkheperre (talk) 05:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Named taxa: list or categories? or both?[edit]

Hi Dan, I'm new to Wikispecies and just feeling it out. I'm working on a very prolific taxonomist (Ralph Vary Chamberlin), and am trying to figure out the best way to store data. I've seen some taxon authority pages like José Vicente Barbosa du Bocage that have lists of named taxa, while others like Carolus Linnaeus have categories, is there any consensus on which is the better system? Additionally, isis there a way to convert all incoming links into a list/category? Thanks. Animalparty (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Animalparty, Neferkheperre, Faendalimas, PeterR, Tommy Kronkvist, and MPF:, I would actually like to move this discussion from my talk page, to some place where more users can take part and give their input and opinions. Any suggestion as to where? Wikispecies talk:Local policies or Village pump? Dan Koehl (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This one would be better off on the pump. Faendalimas talk 03:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved to Village pump.. Dan Koehl (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi! Why i received this test warning? I just label an improper page for deletion...--Leon saudanha (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Im so sorry, going through the log I see that i mixed up your name with the creator of MASTER OF TIDES, which you, contrary submitted to speed delete. Please accept my sincere apologize, I acted too fast. So sorry. Dan Koehl (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
smoothly, everyone makes mistakes, have a nice week start :-)!--Leon saudanha (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The AWB you are using is destroying good information[edit]

There is something wrong with your AWB. At present you are for instance entering a single space within a reference. But at the same time you are deleting the bold type-face from the species in question, which should be shown in bold type-face. Example: "Species: Cypridopsis vidua" and others. I strongly recommend to stop using that AWB. You are producing a lot of deletions that have to be reverted afterwards. That is no clean-up. It is only producing "Contributions". Kempf EK (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear @Kempf EK:, Im not 100% sure what you are referring to. Today was discussions about making links back to its own page, which you can follow here. If this is the issue, then please read through and see that I wait a consensus reg that question, and haven't made that particulair change since yesterday afternoon. Even if you don't speak about the same thing, it may serve a cause to take up the issue at Village pump, so everyone gets insight, and can make their opinion heard. I am sorry if my work in a couple of instances became a source of frustration for you, and I ask you to think about the huge volume of work behind the clean up. In case you have a better suggestion for this, (although I believe its almost finished), I believe its better to discuss the details rather than the program. Anyway, the question weather Wikispecies should establish routines opposite to other projects is of course also something to discuss. For the benefit of the project, please involve in those discussions on Village pump, and if you think I have misunderstood you, then please explain again. For sure, I don't want to destroy anything. It has been a major work, but seems to soon be finished. Dan Koehl (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diuca speculifera Vandalism[edit]

Hi Dan Koehl, Anonymous makes vandalism. He adds all of website that he find. Later, trying to show as source. --buzulkuşu: penguen (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your intention is very obvious, you try to spread the word 'buzulkuşu' by meaning 'penguin', even your signature shows this. -- 21:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Time to let the Dead ends cross over?[edit]

Hello Dan :-) here's a friendly question! I see that you created the template {{Dead end}} back in March earlier this year, but that it is no longer used on any pages. (If it ever was: hard to tell right now, since the WMFlabs page statistics tool seems to temporarily have kicked the bucket, too…) Also, there is no Template documentation subpage describing the purpose of, or how to use the template. Might I ask what your intended use of the template was? Is it still useful – i.e. do you think we should still keep it available in our steadily growing stock of templates, or should we delete it?
–All the best, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 20:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Tommy, I believe that was automatically implemented with AWB during my early experiments, for sure, theres no reason to keep it.
If you want to delete, please feel free, othervise Ill do it, Ill soon increase my activity here. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now deleted. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 23:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot, Tommy! Dan Koehl (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unexpectedly flicked by a Swedish 18th century poet?[edit]

Hi Dan. If you're struck by a sudden "Lidnersk knäpp", please bring it forward to the Template:Taxa section at the Village Pump. Any good idea is welcome. :-)

Herbstliche Grüße, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC).–Reply[reply]

Yger val svwp[edit]

Jag vill bara upplysa dig om att det pågår adminomröstning om Yger på svwp nu. Omröstningen avslutas tidigt imorgon så det är lite bråttom om du ska hinna rösta. Mvh Theralen GAP (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. Do you know of any (easy) way of marking a whole bunch of edits from a specific user as "patrolled", after the fact that the user has been granted the "autopatroller" usage right? If so, that would certainly help in regards to User:The wub and others, whom might not have a hefty track record on Wikispecies, but no doubt have a very nice record in Wikimedia as such. I know it might be awkward, since the patrols themselves are edit- rather than user-based, but I'm asking anyways :-) –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), |15:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Sorry, no @Tommy Kronkvist, as far as I know theres no function to mark several edits as patrolled in one click. But in my opinion, RTRC makes the job a lot easier and faster. Theres a link to RTRC at the left. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe we need more Patrollers, as well as pushing all admins to do some Patrolling. Dan Koehl (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, thanks. Also, nice of you to remind me of RTRC – I keep on forgetting that it exists… :-)
At the moment I'm doing 40 or so patrols a day, but more patrollers would certainly be good, since not every field of taxonomy is within my expertise. Quite a bunch of other users know quite a bunch more than me, of course. :-) I'll look in to it. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 08:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]


Thanks. --Allforrous (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]