User talk:Koumz/Archive 2

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Thanks[edit]

thanks! Stho002 (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Another favour[edit]

Can you pls remove [[Category:New Zealand endemic genera]] from all the pages on which it occurs (i.e. all pages listed on the category page)? I have a better way of doing it now... Stho002 (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

just gonna say thank you[edit]

On the Archaeplastida page I want to say thank you for deleting the link that was there. I can't figure out how to make it not link to the main page!

thanks for Cetoniinae[edit]

many thanks! Stho002 (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Hello Koumz; thanks for your help! Could you please remove the vandalism from my "User page" and my "User talk:" ? Greetings. Orchi (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

...thanks! Orchi (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

French main page protection[edit]

Sure, let's see how that goes. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Authors of taxa[edit]

I am just a beginner, trying to understand Wiki syntax. I have seen that you edited the author I just added (Guy Oliver). Thank you for this, I will use the same syntax for other authors. Could you please do the same magic on P.C. Young... I am sure that there are many authors named "Young" but only one describing monogeneans. Thank you.Jeanloujustine (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Taxonav[edit]

Please don't mess with Taxonav, man! If you want to experiment, pls do it with a "proxy" template ... Stho002 (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

the main problem which sometimes happens with Taxonav is if someone inadvertently uses it at more than one level, which is why we only use it for familiae ... Stho002 (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Oxyuranus[edit]

Why this genera listed as a Hydrophiinae? It is not a sea snake, nor is it in anyway aquatic. It is part of the Elapidae family and the Elapinae subfamily just like Dendroaspis, Notechis, and Pseudonaja. RedGKS (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

All sources list it as part of the Elapidae family - here, here, and here. It belongs to the subfamily Elapinae because all Oxyuranus species are terrestrial and not aquatic. Sea snakes and sea kraits belong to the subfamily Hydrophiinae. Oxyuranus is actually convergent with Dendroaspis, especially Oxyuranus scutellatus and Dendroaspis polylepis. They are similar in morphology, behavior, and ecology. RedGKS (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Laxotan lists it as an Elapinae, not an Hydrophiinae here. I'm going to go ahead and change it, do you agree? RedGKS (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Your paper sure does carry a lot of weight, but I think there are differing views even among experts. The subfamily Hydrophiinae is relatively newly described and for the longest time the Australian elapids were classed under Elapinae. There was always question regarding the sea snakes and sea kraits as they never belonged to Elapinae because of major differences in morphology and even behavior. RedGKS (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and leave it as is simply because the paper you brought forth is very compelling. RedGKS (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I also want WS to be up to date on everything. I found this paper here, which puts Oxyuranus in a subfamily called Oxyuraninae. Hydrophiinae are "advanced sea snakes". It was so simple when all terrestrial elapids were under Elapinae. RedGKS (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this is all new for the Australian elapids. There is a lot to learn and understand since their split from the subfamily elapinae. I think the experts will eventually come to define the Australian elapids in a subfamily of their own, slightly distinct from hydrophiinae and elapinae. That's my opinion on the issue, anyway. RedGKS (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I do appreciate it. Cheers! RedGKS (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I was wondering what to do with the subspecies. RedGKS (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Ethmiidae[edit]

Please can you update the Ethmiidae as the other families?

Thanks,

PeterR (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Good advice!![edit]

NEVER make your screen THIS COLOUR!!! http://www.famu.org/zoraptera/bibliography.html Stho002 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm blind, I can't see ... !!!

Carposinidae[edit]

Please can you updte the Carposinidae as the other families?

Thanks

PeterR (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Coleophoridae[edit]

Please can you update the Coleophoridae as the other families?

Thanks

PeterR (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Eucosmini[edit]

Please can you update theEucosmini in the Olethreutinae as the other tribus?

Thanks,

PeterR (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Metarbelidae[edit]

Please can you update the Metarbelidae as the other families?

Thanks,

PeterR (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hello Koumz, I thank you for your corrections. Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Vernacular name redirects[edit]

I must have missed it or forgot about it. Time to nuke them all. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Tenx[edit]

Tenx for keeping a vigilant eye on S.O.T.W. Mariusm (talk) 06:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Author names[edit]

Oh Sorry! Thanks for your comment and expect your help.--Rojypala (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

FishBase links[edit]

Thanks for the explanation. I thought I had switched to your latest and greatest version, which I thought had obviated (deleted) the genus & species name. I'll be sure to use the current template going forward. Thank you for your truly marvelous work! MKOliver (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Content deleted[edit]

Hey, Mistah Koumz, I am puzzled, I understood that Wikispecies is a repository for information regarding the species of the world. Yet when I added some information you flushed it, said it was not appropriate, and replaced it with a bland comment 'Endemic to Southern Africa'. You removed some pretty detailed observations which might well have proved useful to others. Please clarify. TvdK

Assistance[edit]

Pls, can you copy the contents of Agrilus aureofasciatus into all other red-linked Agrilus pages? Thanks ... Stho002 (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Stho002 (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Typo[edit]

Please see Template talk:Species of the week#Typo. - dcljr (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Koumz (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for updating

PeterR (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

HTML syntax[edit]

What is the syntax for a template like {{X|1|2}} for this: if {{{1}}}=A then do this, else do the other

I still don't get it ... I want to write a single template {{AFD}}, where if you put {{AFD|f}} then it changes {{BASEPAGENAME}} to capitals as {{AFDF}}, but no f, then no caps
Nice, thanks! :) Stho002 (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Check out the code for Template:AFD now! No need to add an f any more for families: works for families, genera, and species! Stho002 (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Bot request for reference templates[edit]

Hi, I am starting now to use templates for references, which in my opinion are much more flexible than static references. Now I would like to change some of the edits, which I have already done to the template form. Is it possible to make these changes automatically with a bot? And could I do this by myself?

My first sample request would be to change

* {{aut|Tuomikoski, R.}} 1960: Zur Kenntnis der Sciariden (Dipt.) Finnlands. ''Annales Zoologici Societatis Zoologicae Botanicae Fennicae „Vanamo“'', '''21''', 1–164.

to

{{Tuomikoski 1960}}

Can you help me with this? Thank you Kheller (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank for your advice with AWB. It works quite well and will be very useful for future editing. There is still much to learn about templates. Kheller (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Your help[edit]

...thank for cleaning my userpages. Greetings. Orchi (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation terms[edit]

Hi, please use disambiguation terms in ( ), like Ijimaia (Sauter), not Ijimaia Sauter. This is because certain useful templates remove what is between ( ) and then insert the rest of the pagename into website searches. Thanks ... Stho002 (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Template (reply)[edit]

Thanks Koumz for your assistance. I really realize that I should make such template in each genus (I am just creating a new one right now), actually I don't know how to make this template. Every genus that I input data is happening the same. Appreciate any help... Michel P. Valim (talk) 21:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Template (reply) - solved![edit]

Thanks anyways Koumz...

Now I get it, I just made the Bothriometopus page. Check this out. Best, Michel P. Valim (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

FishBase and subfamiliae[edit]

Right; I knew that template was for use with families only but guess I got confused because I was switching back and forth between editing the family page and the nominate subfamily page. Thanks for catching my error, and for the hope of a template useable for subfamiliae. It will be used a lot! MKOliver (talk) 04:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Cypris madagascarensis‎; 19:27 . . (-2,064)‎ . . ‎Koumz (Talk | contribs)‎ (Redirected page to Tanycypris madagascarensis)[edit]

Dear Koumz, please, don't redirect pages of original species descriptions. In most cases only those pages give information on type locality, etc.. And under that name in many cases information on biology, morphology, other localities etc. of that species is published for years or decades. A paper with a new combination often only gives the name of the new combination, and nothing else! Kempf EK (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Kempf EK is doing things slightly differently to me, currently. Let him continue, for now ... Stho002 (talk) 02:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear Koumz, many thanks for your information. I checked the case and found out that in September 2011 I myself had inadvertently deleted Cypris madagascarensis from the list of species of the genus Cypris. The species is listed again now and I checked all links so that the Cypris madagascarensis page should no longer be listed as an orphaned page. Kempf EK (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hola[edit]

Feliz Navidad y un Prospero Año Nuevo. Con cariño Veronidae La Osa Gruñona

--Veronidae (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Restarting User:KoumzBot task[edit]

Will you be interested to get the bot to autocreate articles again? OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Active disagreements between users over formatting make this wiki an unpleasant place to automate. Koumz (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Then what's your suggested course of action? OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I have one, really. The situation (in terms of WS' coverage of all known taxa) looks pretty hopeless to me, but the project would still be an interesting place to work anyway if it weren't for the dispute issues. IMO, the only real way this wiki would catch up to the number of taxa being described would be if the number of competent active users (those with sufficient skills and taxonomic understanding to contribute correct information without needing to be cleaned up after by the rest of us) were to somehow increase significantly, and based on what I've seen in my time here, that is not likely to happen any time soon. We might eventually use more automators, but only if the wiki were somehow to be able to find agreements (and by agreement, I mean an arrangement in which all parties are satisfied, rather than an uneasy default settlement in which one or more parties put up with having their contributions overridden and go on contributing anyway) on the formatting disputes (allowing the automators not to be caught in the middle of disputes as I have been), and I don't think that is likely to happen any time soon either. Koumz (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Part of the problem is this: we need to be able to evolve and test formats which best suit content, but there are so few people here competent to judge the result that most just want to stick to the old ways. The format issue cannot be thought of as independent of content, the two are meshed. So those editors with little taxonomic knowledge, and who just want to copy stuff over from some other website, will take a heck of a lot of convincing that a change in format is needed ... Stho002 (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
So it looks like both sides agreed that difference in formatting is the source of the problem. Can we sit down and have an open dialogue? OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
"There are so few people here competent to judge"... this statement dismisses the validity of the opinions of other users. People, in general, tend not to enjoy having their opinions dismissed. I doubt I could get a better piece of evidence for my belief that the number of usefully-contributing users is not likely to increase substantially any time soon if I had written it myself. The overlap between the set of potential users "competent to judge" and the set of potential users willing and able to contribute large quantities of time here is not likely to be a large group of people, based on what we have seen so far. Whether that is a problem is a different question. For the record, I do not have a preferred format. As an automator, all I am looking for is an agreed-upon consistency (i.e. not my being caught in the middle of disputes, and not any one side driving away or overriding the other), and as I said above, I don't expect that to happen any time soon. Koumz (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no point denying the reality. What I mean is that there are so few contributors here with the level of knowledge of taxonomy and nomenclature required to make meaningful decisions about the pros and cons of particular associated formatting questions, that most of them just want to stick with the way it was, which wasn't great, to say the least. For example, I seem to be the first person to start sourcing lists of red linked taxa. What i mean is that a list of red linked species, for example, on a genus page, doesn't just come out of nowhere, you have to source it. If they are not red linked then you can individually source them on their individual pages. Sourcing information is surely the number one core principle of Wikimedia sites, and yet we were not doing it!! Stho002 (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
These are the reasons to not force new solutions. This is not good time to discuss format or other non-essential issues. To do the job WS needs active community. So, Stephen, I propose we end our conflict. I ask you for the withdrawal of your editing on User talk:Kuzia, after all, he is not vandal. If you choose to do this, I accept our case as finished. Let's try to repair trust in WS admins. OK? Ark (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Authors[edit]

Again thank you for the link you gave me for the authors. Do you happen to also know a website/database for mammals and reptiles, were i can find out which author they exactly have. Just like the Catalog of Fishes. Thanks in advance, Kennyannydenny (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Lecithocera aulias[edit]

Dear Koumz.

I have a problem with Lecithocera aulias. The species Lecithocera squalida is redirect to Lecithocera aulias. In 2010 K.T. Park say that Lecithocera squalida is a distinct species. How can I delete the redirection?

Thanks, but I see that Sthoner have done it. But not the way I have add all the other species. I shall change it.

Regards

PeterR (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Carr and Nicholls[edit]

Hello Koumz, could your Bot change the links of these [1] and [2]] pages please. Thanks. Orchi (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

There are actually more than two authorities named Carr and more than two authorities named Nicholls in those links, so it's not really a bot job, but one that has to be done by hand to check each link and edit it to point to the correct author and create pages for the Carr and Nicholls authors who don't have them yet. Since those two lists are short, I'll try to work on them if I have time. Koumz (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:VN[edit]

Hello Koumz, could you add "mrj" and "koi" in Template:VN please. Thanks. Orchi (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Koumz (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your comment needed[edit]

Please, your comment is needed on issues concerning the user Stho002. See here: Wikispecies:Village Pump Mariusm (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Vote request[edit]

Hello, I’m Marius, an admin here at WS. I would like to ask you to contribute to an important ongoing vote which will practically decide the future of WS. As you probably know, the user Stho002, an admin, is forcefully endorsing his concept of the content and format of WS. His “system” includes a complex mesh of templates and links which is nowhere specified or written down, is not considered as a consensus, and is not easy or trivial to use, especially by newcomers. As my experience goes, when I save an edited page, Stho002 will delete or change it sooner or later, sometimes in a matter of seconds. This is no way of maintaining a healthy community. It is a lamentable fact that the aggressiveness by which Stho enforces his way deters many users and causes many newcomers leave this site.

The original WS help pages ([3], [4], [5]) contain a much simpler system, where the resulting taxa information is no less clear nor less detailed then Stho’s format, and which is being used successfully for years by experienced users as well as by novices.

If we decide that our current page format is outdated in need of improvement, we surely must make the change through collaboration and discussion. It is unacceptable that a single user will dictate his concept, however better-suited for our purposes he thinks it is.

We therefore have three options: (a) to make Stho002 system the official WS format; (b) to endorse the system specified in the help pages; (c) to devise a new system by mutual cooperation. After we reach an agreement, we’ll modify the help pages accordingly, resulting in a consistent way of doing things, without having to fight among ourselves, without having to resort to deleting and modifying each other’s work.

Therefore please read the discussion here and take a moment of your time and make your choice here. I think it is your obligation as an admin to participate in the vote. Thanks, Mariusm (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Request[edit]

You are always welcome to carry around the tools, even if you are less active than before. We can always use a few extra pair of eyes on catching and removing vandalism. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)