User talk:Pigsonthewing

From Wikispecies
Jump to: navigation, search


Category:Wikispecies protected edit requests[edit]

Hi! Please check Category:Wikispecies protected edit requests. --Kaganer (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kaganer: It is not clear to me, what is being requested. Try asking at Wikispecies:Administrators' Noticeboard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. --Kaganer (talk) 13:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Potentilla and Drymocallis[edit]

Hi You are completely wrong to edit out Drymocallis calycina in favour of Potentilla calycina. The former is npw the accepted combination. I am editing it and Drymocallis with the supporting references at the moment. Please give an half an hour or so. Unless, of course, you have references to support your view point and then we will need a disputed taxon page. Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not editing anything in favour of anything else. I have removed a circular redirect (A redirects to B; B redirects to A). This was explained in each of my edit summaries. My only viewpoint so that such redirects are both illogical and harmful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Of course they are illogical and harmful, but it would be better to sort out the taxonomy rather than just blindly deleting as a part of housekeeping. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Nor was I "blindly" deleting; my deletion was informed and considered. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough one mistake does not make a deluge. I will check through the some of the others where I have experience. Cheers Andyboorman (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Nor was my informed and considered action a "mistake". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Potentilla calycina is widely accepted as Drymocallis calycina, although not all proposals by Soják (2010) are taken up by other botanists, so deleting the later was a mistake, as you could have added data as I did. Given that I can not find more details of the original publication. Taxonomy in botany is sometimes an opinion more the pity! Likewise with Microlepis and Blyttia where again the taxonomies are an opinion and work in progress, but Alstonia longifolia belongs in the list of Alstonia R.Br. even if red linked. Sorry if I have caused offense none intended and apologies if I have left a bit of a problem. Andyboorman (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleting a circular redirect was not a mistake. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Siegius crenulatus (Q21252625)[edit]

Could you please check out d:Siegius crenulatus (Q21252625) in Wikidata? There is some generic re-assignment by inference in crustacean members of Bilobatus due to homonymy. I probably did not do it right. Neferkheperre (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)