User talk:Koumz

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 (April 8, 2011 - October 22, 2011)
Archive 2 (October 22, 2011 - October 1, 2014)

Zoological Museum Amsterdam (ZMA)[edit]

I am about to create repository page for ZMA. While searching Wikispecies for any previous entries, I came across one of your fish pages. It showed lectotype numbers. Is there a database for ZMA type numbers? The Museum website link appears to be broken. Database for Siboga type numbers would be even better, but I have not found one, either. Thanks. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

CoF template fix[edit]

Many thanks for fixing the Catalog of Fishes templates! I checked a few and most work perfectly. The CoF genus link for Maylandia is broken, but the reason is probably that FishBase has the wrong genID number for it. Anyway, your help is much appreciated, by me and, I'm sure, others. MKOliver (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

No, you're correct, it's working now. Yesterday the same Maylandia genus link sent me to a 404 on the CoF host site (Calif. Acad. of Sci.). Maybe an internal glitch there yesterday; nothing in the link at WS has changed. So, false alarm.

Acentrogobius kranjiensis[edit]

Dear Koumz, I saw that you have been involved in genus Acentrogobius, and Id like to draw your attention to the article on english Wikipedia en:Acentrogobius kranjiensis, which I think is unvalid as species, but synonymous with Drombus kranjiensis, why I initiated a discussion with the creator of the article and on en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes where I have listed some soruces that support that the valid species is Drombus kranjiensis. Your input is apprecieted. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl:, See my note at enwiki. I was actually only involved with this specific taxon from a format housekeeping standpoint, but when I am here I do work primarily on fishes and so am fairly well versed in the available online sources and their quality (or not, as the case may be). User:MKOliver is also a great person to ask on fishes-related questions, especially cichlids. Koumz (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


By chance, almost, I just came across Category:Paleoentomologists. Should it not perhaps be spelled "Palaeoentomologists"? Accassidy (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

  • @Accassidy: Alan, this is a British spelling vs. US spelling thing, as the spelling without the a is the standard usage in the United States. All the related categories currently use the US spelling, and I followed that existing pattern when I made this one (I am in the US, as you may guess). I have no interest in involvement in a debate over which should be used (and I suspect you also do not), so whatever solution people want is OK with me, but I do think all the related categories should use the same spelling system, whichever one it is. As I work here only VERY infrequently anymore, any decision on this is unlikely to affect me. Thanks as always for the quality of your work. Koumz (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Cyberlindnera jadinii (a.k.a. torula yeast)[edit]

As 'Torula,' I originally added cyberlindnera jadinii, but my original was deleted, with all the information, because 'torula' apparently isn't actually Latin, then the article with the proper Latin was created many years later. No thanks for not suggesting I move it to that and fix the original. I wish I had at least found out or been notified, since I would've read how to update, and the article could've been there years. Wikispecies doesn't seem as helpful as Wikipedia or some other Wikimedia projects.--Dchmelik (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Dchmelik: Language is not really the issue here, and – although we have a lot more work to do in that regard – Wikispecies tries to be as language independent as possible. This is important partly because there is only one version of Wikispecies, whereas for example Wikipedia is available in 299 languages, each with their own specific version of the wiki.
It is also important to know that Wikispecies is a database of scientifically accepted taxa and taxa names. Hence we never name pages by a taxon's vernacular name (regardless of language) such as "Mountain zebra", "Dandelion" etc. Instead the pages are named by the respective taxa's scientific names, which by the way rather seldom have much to do with proper Latin. Instead the scientific names are often made up by a mix of (frequently anglicised) Latin and Ancient Greek words, together with Latinized proper nouns of places and persons, and such.
Unfortunately "Torula" comes with a hidden trap... The English vernacular name "torula" is indeed often seen as equivalent to the taxon Cyberlindnera jadinii (family Phaffomycetaceae, in the order of Saccharomycetales). And as noted above its Wikispecies' page is named using the scientific name, not the vernacular name. However to complicate matters there is also a taxon that do carry the same word as its valid scientific name – the genus of Torula. But that genus is placed in the family Torulaceae in the order of Pleosporales, thus entirely unrelated to Cyberlindnera jadinii i.e. "torula yeast". The trouble with the Torula page you created back in April 6, 2009 is that it used the scientific name of the Torula genus, but most of the other information regarded the Cyberlindnera species. Also, you stated the author of the taxon as "Latin, 1862" while the original authors were in fact Sartory R., Sartory, Weill & Mey (and it was later redescribed by David William Minter). My guess is that User:Koumz decided to delete "your" Torula page after considering all of these issues, or (s)he might have deleted it unaware of the fact that Torula is a proper taxon name, aside from also being a vernacular name.
I hope this additional information helps. Feel free to bring forth any further questions or ideas you have here. I will answer to the best of my ability, as always. I'm sure that goes for Koumz as well, however Koumz is not very active at Wikispecies these days, nor any longer an admin.
–Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC).