User talk:Keith Edkins

From Wikispecies
Latest comment: 6 months ago by Mariusm in topic ISSN 0370-5935
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archived talk: 1

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

[edit]

Dear Keith Edkins,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikispecies project for ten years or more.

Best regards,

Dan Koehl (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Application for Checkuser

[edit]

Referring to earlier discussions regarding a local Checkuser policy, I herebye apply to get Checkuser user rights, although we havnt reached a consensus reg Checkuser policy, but I want to give it a try if I can get the required votes. For a request to succeed a minimum of 25 support votes and an 80% positive vote are required (subject to the normal bureaucrat discretion). Requests for checkuser run for two weeks, and I ask kindly that somone starts the poll, like we do for adminship applications.

Please also note that CheckUser actions are logged, but for privacy reasons the logs are only visible to other Checkusers. Because of this, Wikispecies must always have no fewer than two checkusers, for mutual accountability. I dont want to suggest anyone, but hope that someone feel inspired and will step forward and also apply for checkuser.

My request to the Wikispecies community is here

Dan Koehl (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Another application for Check User

[edit]

As pointed out above by User:Dan Koehl, we need at least two Check Users for this wiki. I am nominating myself and would be happy to receive any feedback that you have to give (positive, negative, or neutral). Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Koavf. Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Additional Checkuser Application

[edit]

I also have added my name to those willing to be a checkuser. Please see my application here Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Faendalimas. I listed this yeasterday but have been encouraged to do a mass mail. I would also take the opportunity to make sure everyone knows that any editor can vote but that it is imperative that as many do as possible, for all 4 of the current applicants, please have your say. Checkuser voting has strict policy rules regarding number of votes. You will have other messages from the other Users concerned you can also read about it in the discussion on the Village Pump - Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Application_for_Checkuser. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Standing for role of checkUser

[edit]

Like some of our colleagues (who I support), I am offering to serve as a checkuser, not least to ensure adequate coverage in case one of the others is unavailable.

Please comment at Wikispecies:Checkusers/Requests/Pigsonthewing.

[Apologies if you receive a duplicate notification; I wasn't aware of Wikispecies:Mail list/active users, and sent my original notification to the list of administrators instead.] MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

RFC on Checkusers

[edit]

With one week to go I wanted to remind everyone of the importance of voting on the current CheckUser applications. They can all be found together on a single RFC: Wikispecies:Requests_for_Comment#Checkusers.

It is extremely important with votes such as this for everyone to be involved. There are strict rules in the Wikimedia Foundation Policy guidelines on these votes. I would urge people to have a good understanding of what a CheckUser does. This can be read up on here on the page discussing CheckUser's Wikispecies:Checkusers. Links on this page will take you to other policy information on Meta, HowTo for our site etc.

I would also urge people to look at our own policy development and some past discussion on this can be found here: Wikispecies_talk:Local_policies#Local_CU_Policy.

Wikispecies has in the past had issues that has required the intervention that is supported by the ability to do a CheckUser. Many of us are aware of this. The capacity to do this ourselves greatly speeds up this process. Although SockPuppetry can sometimes be identified without using a CheckUser in order to do the necessary steps to stop it or even prevent it requires evidence. We all know that sockpupets can do significant damage.

This is an important step for Wikispecies. It is a clear demonstration we can run ourselves as a Wiki Project part of Wiki Media Foundation. When I and several others first discussed this we knew it would be difficult at the time to meet all the criteria. We have only now decided to try and get this feature included in Wikispecies. By doing this it can lead to other areas where Wikispecies can further develop its own policies. In some areas we have unique needs, different to the other Wiki's. It is timely we were able to develop all these policies.

Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Request for vote reg use of BASEPAGENAME

[edit]

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

Please vote here on the Village pump!

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

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

Wikispecies Oversighter

[edit]

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

Application is located at Requests for Comment.

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

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

Oversight nomination

[edit]

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

source notes

[edit]

Hey there. I noticed Template:Curtis, 1840a and I think this is a case where a source page would be appropriate. You can link it from the template and collect all the relevant part templates together easily, as on Das Pflanzenreich. Circeus (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Author categories

[edit]

Hello Keith Edkins, for creating author categories, please use the Template:Taxa by author. This template automatically applies the Category:Taxa by author and its text is translated in several languages.

{{Taxa by author|James David Ackerman|Ackerman, James David}}

Just type the full name, and after the string add the sortkey (without diacritics ä, ö, ü, è...). Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 09:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Reference format

[edit]

Hi, I really really ought to have mentioned it before but didn't want to put you off, but at Wikispecies we don't use bold for volume numbers among other things after a poll on the reference format in Village Pump back in 2015. Hope this helps! Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is true. The (today) preferred format is fairly well explained in Help:Reference section. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC).Reply

Administrator poll ended

[edit]

Hello Keith Edkins. Since you didn't participate in the discussions/voting and the voting has been going on for more than seven days, could you please finalize the proposal regarding DannyS712’s administratorship? Thanks beforehand!

The reason I don’t finalize the request myself is that I was the one who nominated DannyS712 in the first place. Please note that I've sent this same message to all of the other uninvolved bureaucrats as well. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC).Reply

How we will see unregistered users

[edit]

Hi!

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrator poll ended

[edit]

Hello Keith Edkins. Since you didn't participate in the discussions/voting and the voting has been going on for more than seven days, could you please finalize the proposal regarding Kaganer’s administratorship, and add the standard "Poll closed as promoted" note to officially close it? It's about a week overdue. I know you know the procedure, but otherwise use the poll for 1234qwer1234qwer4's adminship just above it as an example. Thanks beforehand!

The reason I don’t finalize the request myself is that I was the one who nominated Kaganer in the first place – that's also why I didn't vote in the poll. Please note that I've sent this same message to all of the other uninvolved bureaucrats as well, so when you read this some one may already have ended the poll.
Happy New Year! Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC).Reply

This matter has been resolved. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC).Reply

ISSN 0370-5935

[edit]

Can you tell me please the difference between ISSN 0370-5935 created recently by you and ISSN 1124-5050? Specifically between Atti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei. Memorie della Classe di scienze fisiche, matematiche e naturali and Atti della Reale Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Rendiconti della classe di scienze fisiche, matematiche e naturali. Mariusm (talk) 07:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm very glad you asked that question, as it turned out to be far more complicated than I had imagined. It turns out that there are no less than 13 ISSNs for publications of the Academy of the Lynx-eyed which might contain zoological or botanical names. See table below (not showing publications on moral philosophy & history). From 1876 there are two strands - Memorie containing the whole submitted papers; and Transunti & Rendiconti which are reports of the sittings (seduta) of the Academy. The latter strand contains precis of the papers received, which may include some or all of the new biological names therein with bried descriptions. I imagine that the Rendiconti were published more rapidly - at least to members of the Academy - and that this may meet the criteria of the ICZN for Publication. Names not mentioned the Rendiconti, or only standing there as nomina nuda, will stand as published in the Memorie. It is therefore necessary to have an eye (lynx or otherwise) to both strands as sources of names.
Natural Science publications of the Reale Accademia nazionale dei Lincei (etc.)
ISSN 1124-495X Atti dell' Accademia Pontificia de' Nuovi Lincei 1847-1870
ISSN 1124-4968 Atti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei 1870-1877 (Ser. 2)
ISSN 1124-4992 Atti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei. Transunti
1876-1884 (Ser. 3)
ISSN 1124-4976 Atti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei.
Memorie della Classe di scienze fisiche, matematiche e naturali

1876-1920 (Sers. 3-5)
ISSN 1124-500X Atti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei. Rendiconti
1884-1891 (Ser. 4)
ISSN 0001-4435 Atti della Reale Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei.
Rendiconti della Classe di scienze fisiche, matematiche e naturali

1892-1920 (Ser. 5)
ISSN 1124-5042 Atti della Reale Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei.
Rendiconti della Classe di scienze fisiche, matematiche e naturali

1920-1939 (Ser. 6)
ISSN 0370-5935 Atti della Reale Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei.
Memorie della Classe di Scienze Fisiche, Matematiche e Naturali

1921-1944 (Sers. 6-7)
ISSN 0365-5946 Atti della Reale accademia d'Italia.
Rendiconti della Classe di scienze fisiche, matematiche e naturali

1939-1943 (Ser. 7)
ISSN 0392-7881 Atti della Accademia nazionale dei Lincei.
Rendiconti della Classe di scienze fisiche, matematiche e naturali

1946-1989 (Ser. 8)
ISSN 0365-0251 Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei.
Memorie della Classe di Scienze Fisiche, Matematiche e Naturali.
Sezione III: Botanica, zoologia, fisiologia e patologia

1946- (Sers. 8-10)
ISSN 1120-6349 Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei.
Rendiconti Lincei. Scienze fisiche e naturali

1990-2007 (Ser. 9)
ISSN 2037-4631 Rendiconti lincei. Scienze fisiche e naturali
2008- (Ser. 10)
Oh, and ISSN 1124-5050 turned out to be a mistake - it is one of the moral philosophy & history series. I have deleted it as I cannot imagine it is relevant to this site.
Compliments of the season!--Keith Edkins (Talk) 17:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC) — The preceding comment was moved from another user talk page, since the discussion was initiated here.Reply
Oh my! You got me dizzy... Mariusm (talk) 05:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply