User talk:Kempm

From Wikispecies
Jump to: navigation, search

User talk:Kempm/Archive January2007

Thanks[edit]

Thanks Michel!--Alnokta 09:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Images I uploaded[edit]

Hi Kempm,

sorry about the missing copyright info - should all be CCLASA2.5, I am adding the info now.

Per Erik Strandberg 17:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No I am not - I am adding them to commons :) (The template had another name). Will this/these proposed logo/s ever be used? If it is highly unlikely they could just as well be removed? Per Erik Strandberg 17:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Start here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikispecies_006.svg Per Erik Strandberg 17:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

RFC[edit]

Please comment on my contribs. Just want to know if i'm getting the hang. 82.39.9.197 19:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome at wikispecies. There's a few problems with your additions. First we are trying not to use any specific language except for the scientifically accepted language Latin, therefore there's no reason to redirect english words to articles. On the article Arachnid you used text only, which is more for a wikipedia article. Our wiki is fundamentally different from wikipedia. And with good reason. You can find an explanation on what we're doing and why we're doing it on Help:Contents. If you like to contribute and share your knowledge with us, you will also find formatting and syntax rules in that section. --Kempm 20:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Some advice[edit]

Using Latin is fine, but there is no reason not to have #R for those of us who are not so well versed in Taxonomy. So for example, all the variations in the English language of Canis lupus familiaris should be redirected there (likedog), simply to increase traffic and participation.

The majority of Wiki editors aren't schooled in the finer points of taxonomy and I think we deserve a helping hand as such. Now another point, the main page simply isn't good enough to attract interested readers and contributors, no FAC, and i don't see much of a discussion going on in the V pump.

I don't mean to barge in here and boss you around and spoil your work, but i think you should have more of a free card to do what you like as an administrator and even make a featured article today if you and another sysop agree on it. This is simply because you are at a very early stage and need to generate more interest. Thirdly and finally, i think you need to explain on the main page a brief intro as what WikiSpecies is and is not. Cheers.

172.200.50.23 12:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Giving all the variations of a word in a specific language is the responsibility for the wikipedia's. For taxonomists there's only one word Canis lupus familiaris. Everyone from every little corner of the world knows what it means, and there can be no misinterpretation. That's why Linnaeus thought up this system in the first place. The words Canis lupus familiaris are linked to a scientific publication, describing the species.
There's a very specific reason for the existence of Wikispecies. Unlike wikipedia, we don't want to attract everyone, but our target audience is the scientific world. Wikimedia foundation is working on project Wikidata, and once that has been implemented our purpose will become clearer. Every project will then be able to fill their taxoboxes with data from wikispecies. Words like dog, canine, saint-bernard, Rottweiler, or whatever can then be linked to Canis lupus familiaris at will.
We are bound what we can do by what the wikimedia foundation has layed upon us. We are limited to actual data, and we will have to remain language independent, as there will only be one wikispecies database. No language forks.
If you have ideas for making a better Main page, go ahead and make an example. I will gladly bring it in for discussion, and if the community likes your idea, we'll use it. Note that we're currently discussing implementing an article of the month section. And we will probably add that to the main page, within considerable time. Thank you. --Kempm 12:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying.

Thanks also for enlightening me on those points. From what I understand you don't want give credence to none scientific terms even if it meant making the data base more accessible to an interested but non scientific readership. I understand this but in my humble opinion its not a viable approach because the scientific community doesn't like the general idea of wikis in the first place. The scientific community believes in credentials, so ultimately as a very young wiki looking for more participation you must have good PR, even if this will attract the wrong crowd, because along with every fire comes smoke.

I like the idea of the article of the week/month idea, I'll make a mock of what i think the main page could look like and show you. Please can we discuss the above point further, my take is that WS can point words to articles even when Linnaeus didn't assign to a species. Has this been discussed fully anywhere? Cheers.

172.141.157.193 13:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I always like to discuss things in order to make wikispecies better. I don't have all the knowledge in the world, and make many mistakes. And I'm sure many things need improvement. For some things I'm aware, others not. Ideas from others will help improving, even if the ideas will sometimes get rejected.
I have here a link from Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikimedia. He specifically mentions how different wikispecies MUST be. You can find more points about why this, is shattered on the site. Starting point would be Help:Contents.
I don't specifically exclude anyone from editing this wiki. But we are limited to what we're allowed to do, and because where we are going to in the future. Those are two big restrictions.
Help:Contents will show that a species name should always be bound to an original description, as published in magazines, or books. The name itself doesn't mean much, but when a holotype is given (a specimen in a museum), and a reference to the magazine in which the name was first described, and given to that specimen, it becomes clear to what was actually meant. A lot of this information has been lost through time, holotypes have been destroyed, by fires, bombs in war etc. But we gather this information nevertheless. Because we need to make sure the Canis lupus familiaris is actually a dog, and not a cat.

--Kempm 13:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

yes, im reading through the help:contents, im working on a mock of the main page right now. i also understand jimbo's point, and accept it, and yours. plz understand my suggestions are in good faith so that I and others can understand more about wikispecies. i have a question regarding the featured article, how will it work? we will feature a WP article about an order that is also listed here so as to promote it? another question, i would like to create a WS template for WP to show that an order is listed here, any advice? 172.143.223.86 14:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I know it's good faith :) Keep discussing, so we stay awake.
Here's a link to our discussion on featured article: Wikispecies:Featured articles I was thinking that we will need as much room for this as the box with all the language links (the pink one). And move those language links to somewhere else. I think what should be shown on the article of the month is: The special star, picture of the species, name, and link to wikispecies. Maybe if there's enough room links to other wikipedia's.
Linking to wikipedia articles can be done with interwiki links. en:Main page. Leaving the : off will move this link to the sidebar. On wikipedia there are special templates to link to wikispecies. We do have templates like: Template:Wikipedia. There's a couple more, but really only use interwiki links. --Kempm 14:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks for keeping the thread going.

I don't know how say the following point strong enough so that you understand the weight of it, please understand... i've arrive late and would have pushed for this in the discussion on the FA, this is not about whether Panthera tigris should be featured or not, its about whether we should feature one of our own articles on an order or Wikipedia more descriptive article on the same subject, for a combination of both.

The FA (featured article) should not be to showcase existing work here, but to attract attention to the portal as a whole. On WP the FA is indeed to showcase their exemplary articles but that is because they are past the stage of gathering a large enough base to claim the article is all comprehensive. They already have a readership and are merely entertaining them with their FA.

With WS, we need to attract a readership... with a new template leading to WS from WP, which ill make soon... so that we get the right people to contribute... the result being WS gets a stable readership and become an established source! Now here is my biggest concern, article here look to me to be lists, which is fine from taxonomic point of view, but the Featured article box on the main page is going to look very weird. I think the featured article should be an article we choose from WP. The reason being that we don't have such a boring looking main page. Taxonomy is very interesting but its subjects is even more interesting, when i thought of WS (even though id never been here) i thought of it as a WP all about animals/living things, and how they are taxonomically categorised, but when i came here i saw its all bear bones, no info about the animals integrated here, just lists etc. This is taxonomy, which is very good, people are going to come to WS all the time from WP to check what an animal/plant is when we affix all the WS templates in the relevant WP articles, but we have need to have a bit more colour.

Do you have another note from Jimbo saying somewhere that even if you wanted to you cant stoop from your high level and make the content a bit more educative? It is my belief that the Internet is becoming an educational institution.

I hope you understand, its only one point I'm making, more colour, more prominence for WS, more contributors, the best date base on the subject in the world.

Specify 15:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you have a point here. I'm going to copy part of this discussion to the other discussion, so others can join in on this discussion. I do see the Wikimedia projects as one big project, and I think there should be much better cooperation and coordination between the seperate projects. As such it DOES make sense to feature articles from wikipedia, like you have made. But, since we are language independent, so does featuring an article from Chinese wikipedia (or any other language).
Let's see what others have to say about your idea.

Thanks, I really like the idea of WIkiSpecies if its graphical and content policy is modernised to take into account my above point. I beleive my approach will bring allot more traffic to WS, we could interwiki on tens of thousands of WP articles and bring over thousands of editors with a good knowledge and provide a general service to WP of giving the taxonomic status of any certain species they have an article on. Specify 15:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thx for making the Main page. I added that to the discussion. Don't forget to check back to see if your idea has made it. Of course you try promote your idea too :) --Kempm 15:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Languages of Martinique and Guadeloupe[edit]

The language who I add is to different kind of creol. It's the historical and second official language of Martinique and Guadeloupe. The creol is different as a pidgrim and th gramatical basis is very different of the french one. The creols of Martinique, Guadeloupe and Haïti is a bit similary. There is 400 000 peoples in Martinique and 400 000 in Guadeloupe and everybody in this islands speaks creol. At last, for melanerpes herminieri, it's an endemic species of Guadeloupe and it's logical to put the vernacular name on the page... Thanks for your interessed.

Remihh 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Linnaean taxonomy[edit]

I find the idea of living things being into a hierarchy very interesting. In Kaballah the issue is dealt in great length. According to Judaism, there are five hierarchical levels in existence, angels, humans, animals, plants and rocks, each split up into 70 hierarchical nations. There is a further concept that there are a further 4 in between each, apes, bacteria and salt. Can this make any scientific sense? Specify 19:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what the scientific sense is of that classification. But I do know current classification differs in as much that the scientific world doesn't recognize angels :) I'm not saying they don't exist, but noone ever caught one and put it in a jar to study them.
Taxonomy is not a boring scientific branch, it's very vibrant. And giving things a name is absolutely necessary before further studies can be made. Current taxonomy reflects how organisms evolved, as the scientific world believes. With every skeletal find the taxonomy can change. --Kempm 19:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Lolz! I wasn't wondering about angels making scientific sense. In kabbala a human is an assigned in-between form of an ape and an angel, sometimes leaning one way or another morally, but its totally a religious concept, admitted. Questions, is bacterium a "hybrid" of plants on the path to being Animalia? In know for example in chemistry components of ions in salt can be inorganic (Cl−) as well as organic, which earns a scientific source on this kabbalistic concept. It is possible the Hebrew word is wrongly translated and this concept is not referring to bacterium/yeast. Specify 20:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Vernacular names[edit]

hi Kempm, I went througt help on wikispecies and find the specifications from vernacular names, that, infact, are very usefull. Can you give me some hints about this, as you've reverted my edits back to previous version. I followed the specifications to show the names correctly. Is there some other rules applaying in this field. In wspecies I'm a newby but as a specialist on grasshoppers I have a plan to commence major work with my collegues in comming weeks in this field.

thanks for your answer and good woork from your side

Peter Podgoršek

Hi sorry for reverting. We have had a new system in place that moved the interwiki's to the sidebar. I didn't think of changing the help pages. In fact we're discussing currently how to deal with the vernacular names in WS:VP. One thing is for sure is that we want to keep interwiki links in the sidebar. By the looks of it we will be using a template to write down all the different languages. Currently we have an example on Panthera leo. Thanks for adding content on wikispecies. And I'll work on the new layout for vernacular names as soon as we decided on the format. Feel free to add to the discussion! --Kempm 20:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

--

Hi Kempm

The listing of Plasmodium species is incomplete to say the least. I have been trying to create a full listing of these. These can be found on the Plasmodium page in Wikipedia. I have refrained from dumping these onto your page if case you wondered what was going on. DrMicro

Maan[edit]

Pas op voor het mannetje op de maan. Tot ziens. Ucucha (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Changes[edit]

Would you please give some feedback at wikispecies:Village Pump#Proposed changes from Henk_K? Thanks --Open2universe 23:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

test layout[edit]

MÔj, what do you think of this testlayout? : Harpago , it save a lot of space within sight, the tabel as created can be formatted into a template, so user only have to fill in some answers, the template place them where you want it, we even can work with coloures and images, Henk_K 17:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Classification is never provided[edit]

Hi,
It is a desperate call that I make here. Wikispecies is doing wrong, many french admin think so, and I can't let it happen without reacting. I already posted something here, without success.
Wikispecies has for purpose to provide the classification of taxons, right?
But each taxon has a different content and parents depending on the classification. And there are a lot of classifications for each taxons.:

  • Here is a small list of those classifications.
  • Here is an perfect sample that shows that a taxon name doesn't mean much if you don't provide the classification name.
  • commons:Category:Liliopsida Here is a sample that commons now provides the classification. And of course, there are classical classification and phylogenetic classifications.
  1. From what I understand in reading your articles, wikispecies provides only one classification for each taxon (in wikifrance, we provide 1 classical and 1 phylogenetical classif per taxon)
  2. But you never provide the classification followed.

I think it is urgent that you provide the classification followed by each article in the article. You will discover that all your articles follow different classification.
Look at Liliopsida. It is a total shame. The classification is not provided. The reason is that nobody ever described it that way. Cheers Liné1 06:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please rename me[edit]

Hi, I have changed my username at my homewiki and want to do it here to. Please rename me to Calandrella. Here is confirmation. Thanks, Leo Johannes 08:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I see it was done by User:Maxim --Kempm 11:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

URGENT PROBLEM[edit]

My continued ability to contribute to Wikispecies depends crucially on being able to protect just one page, called 'New Zealand', which is a faunistic page with links to (unprotected) pages on New Zealand taxa. My "friend" Lycaon keeps unprotecting it! I believe that such faunistic pages are well within the spirit and ideology of Wikispecies, and perhaps a new category ought to be created to accommodate them. However, I need to protect my New Zealand page for the following reasons: (1) in line with the Wikispecies philosophy, I am contributing this information for free, and there are potential conflicts of interest with other people/institutions here in N.Z. who are trying to extract as much funding as possible for similar projects; (2) if the page is open edit, it could very easily deteriorate into chaos, as what is needed is a single consistent view on the fauna. The classification isn't totally "objective", so other people may try to impose their own conflicting opinions and the result could be chaotic. Can the beauracrats please have a vote on this? Regrettably, if I cannot protect this one single page, I will have to leave Wikispecies...
Sincerely,
Stephen Thorpe
Stho002 21:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC) PS: Other editors can still create their own versions of my 'New Zealand' page, expressing their own opinions, and they can give the pages disambiguated names, e.g. New Zealand, and link them to the appropriate taxa pages independently of me. Hence I am not trying to prevent alternative opinions, I am just trying to prevent alternative opinions from making my page into an unusable mess of conflicting opinions.
Stho002 22:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have ideas to make wikispecies better, I would advise you to follow procedures, and try to get community consensus for your proposals. First step would be to start a discussion in Village Pump --Kempm 16:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to pull a technicality on you (too much like Lycaon's tactics), but I would just draw your attention to the following dated correspondence on Maxim's talk page (Maxim was the one who nominated me for adminship, so it seemed appropriate for me to ask his advice on this issue):
OK, so what do I need to do now to become an admin? Also, I quite like the idea of having pages for localities (maybe just countries) on which one could list their biota as links to the species pages. Has anybody thought of this? Would anyone object? 130.216.1.16 02:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
He didn't respond to this, even after I asked again, so I'm afraid I interpreted this to mean that it wasn't a big deal - so I just went ahead and "used my initiative". Oh well, I learn from my mistakes, and I have learned a lot in my life so far!!! Stho002 20:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

There is presently a [discussion on the use of daggers to denote extinct taxa. This will affect a large portion of the pages in wikispecies as the project grows so if possible please read the contributions so far and comment. Thanks --Kevmin 06:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Request of username change[edit]

Could you please rename me from PAD to Petrus Adamus, so as I would have the same name in all the projects? Thank you beforehand.--PAD 13:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for late response, but seems it has been done --Kempm 08:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


Comment Requested[edit]

Wider opinions and comments are requested on the village pump here regarding a proposed change in formatting of the taxonavigation section. Please read the and comment.--Kevmin 00:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Discussion closes 26 April 2009 Stho002 00:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

your inappropriate conduct[edit]

You are backing Lycaon, when he is clearly in the wrong! You say:

You DO NOT block anyone because you happen to have a personal issue with someone

I do not have any such issue with Lycaon, nor anyone else here, and I would block him for what I consider to be intimidating behaviour towards me. He is constantly criticising me for no valid reason, and deliberately picking on tiny issues just to annoy me. If you interfere, I will take this higher in the Wikimedia foundation, and we shall see which of us they think is acting in the best interests of the Wiki ... Stho002 00:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You are free to take anything higher in the wikimedia foundation ar all time Stho. You will find that the foundation is very open, and you can at any time contact any other user, just by looking up their talk pages. Even the founder of the foundation has such a page, and you can contact him at anytime.
I am not going into any discussion with you about who is wrong and who is right, I have said on your talk page that the only way for you to rollback another administrator's contribution on this wiki is to give arguments, as to why you think that administrator is wrong. You have just reverted 2 edits from me, without giving any arguments. Prior to that you have reverted edits from administrator Ucucha, and Lycaon. --Kempm 00:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I have given the arguments against authors/dates for names above family group several times. It is meaningless and pointless to add them. The only point of authors/dates is to establish priority, but priority does NOT apply to names above family group. Stho002 00:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Then I'm sure you wouldn't mind linking me to page / discussion where you have reached community consensus for your argument. I admit that I am not up-to-date with all the latest discussions, but as far as this concerns, I have only seen that you see no point in adding that to higher levels. That's a valid opinion, just as well that my opinion is that I think it does have a point. The only thing we have to be concerned about as administrators, is what community consensus wants. And then we follow-up on that. --Kempm 00:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
You know as well as I do, that "community consensus" is almost impossible to get about anything. When I first brought the issue up (now in VP archives), nobody cared either way. The most serious thing is that regulation of names above family-group may be going to happen, i.e,
  • Dubois, A. 2009: Incorporation of nomina of higher-ranked taxa into the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: the nomenclatural status of class-series zoological nomina published in a non-latinized form. Zootaxa, 2106: 1-12. Abstract & excerpt

The rules governing their authorship/dates could turn out to be anything, and we could be left with a Wiki full of incorrect and misleading information if we put them in before the rules are made.

Besides, my main argument is: why are we even wasting time discussing this? Let's concentrate on adding more articles, rather than getting hung up on a trivial issue. However, Lycaon is deliberately drawing attention to this issue in order to annoy me and turn others against me.

Stho002 00:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

So you are reverting several administrator's contributions, because it is not in line with your personal taste. That is not a trivial issue at all. There is no room for personal taste in matters like this. I am sorry but your personal taste is not good enough, and I'm going to revert Animalia back to what it is in line with our guidelines.
It would indeed be much better to concentrate your time on more articles, and I'm pleased you contribute so much. I hope many viewers will appreciate your work. --Kempm 00:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect, you are ignoring my cogent arguments against the citation of authors/dates for higher-ranked taxa. Not "personal taste" at all. I can only assume that you are doing so because you have some sort of personal affiliation with Lycaon. So I am going to revert it back, and if you continue to push this issue, I will let the stewards decide. Stho002 00:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Stho002[edit]

> Hi Ohana, not sure if you have seen my post in Village Pump Wikispecies:Village_Pump#Admin_rights_user:stho002, about the same subject as you posted on Stho's talk page. Personally I think it has gone too far already. But if you think this final warning and a last chance is the best way to deal on this matter, I gladly leave that to you. However, considering Stho's history and persistence, giving another chance may not be the best solution. --Kempm 08:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The only thing Ohana posted on my talk page was about images (Alphitobius)! Given my history and persistence as the most active editor, "another chance" probably is the best solution (for the project, if not for the fragile egos around here). It may or may not be relevant, but I have Asperger's Syndrome, which can taint other people's perception of my motives and manner... Stho002 08:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't talk anything about Animalia. You seem to be mistaken. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Your admin status[edit]

Hello. I'm a steward. A new policy regarding the removal of "advanced rights" (administrator, bureaucrat, etc.) was adopted by community consensus recently. According to this policy, the stewards are reviewing administrators' activity on wikis with no inactivity policy.

You meet the inactivity criteria (no edits and no log actions for 2 years) on specieswiki, where you are a bureaucrat and administrator. Since specieswiki does not have its own administrators' rights review process, the global one applies.

If you want to keep your rights, you should inform the community of the wiki about the fact that the stewards have sent you this information about your inactivity. If the community has a discussion about it and then wants you to keep your rights, please contact the stewards at m:Stewards' noticeboard, and link to the discussion of the local community, where they express their wish to continue to maintain the rights, and demonstrate a continued requirement to maintain these rights.

We stewards will evaluate the responses. If there is no response at all after approximately one month, we will proceed to remove your administrative rights. In cases of doubt, we will evaluate the responses and will refer a decision back to the local community for their comment and review. If you have any questions, please contact us on m:Stewards' noticeboard.

Best regards, Rschen7754 17:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)