User talk:Stho002/Archive 7

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Sorry, was in rush, used wrong brackets. Dec 19 is my 7th day learning HTML. Thanks for species format on Pseudoctomeris sulcata. I plan to completely finish Chthamaloidea before tackling the next superfamily in detail. Neferkheperre (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for Ross and Newman, 2001. Good reading to absorb tonight. Will get it incorporated. One question: Why is the taxonomy page for Catophragmus giving Chthamalidae as family, when Catophragmidae page is showing Catophragmus and species thereof as children? I created the genus and species by clicking from the Catophragmidae page. Neferkheperre (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. I am concentrating on the genus/species before worrying too much about the family placements Stho002 (talk) 05:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I have question: On G.B Sowerby's reference I have been using with Catophragmus, Poltarukha, 2006 has been using 1825 pretty consistently as publication date. Ross and Newman, 2001, gave it as 1826 in text and References. I pulled up the digital copy, and the only date I could find said 1820-25. Can this be clarified? Neferkheperre (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Dates of publication can be problematic. There is no easy solution to this problem ...Stho002 (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Found something. While working some detailed reading of Ross and Newman, 2001 for editing Catophragmidae entry in Wikipedia, on p. 78, there is a small mention. This particular dating problem has been going on for 106 years. Their opinion is 1826, based on Sykes, 1907. So that might be it. Neferkheperre (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Sykes, E. R. 1907. On the dates of publication of Sowerby's "Mineral Conchology" and "Genera of Recent and Fossil Shells". Proc. Malacol. Soc. London, 7:191-194.

I have found small problem with reference template

  • Darwin, C. 1854. A monograph on the sub-class Cirripedia with figures of all species. Vol. 2: The Balanidae, The Verrucidae. London: Ray Society. Reference page. . The BHL tag included is for Darwin, 1851, pedunculate barnacles. Not related. I had wanted to insert page links as I am doing for Newman & Ross, 1976. I would like to do this wherever possible. Which is my next learning project; how to harvest BHL links. Neferkheperre (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • hi, I want to identify plants by life form. annual, biennial, perennial, Hemicryptophyt.. I wanted to use templates. this is just a test.. --Fagus (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

On Tetraclita; I had used another page on WoRMS (106065) for the extended species list. It did show all of them as valid, some as subspecies of T. squamosa or T. stalactifera. A few have been discussed as valid full species in T. ehsani paper, others by Chan, et al., 2007. Very complicated. I will send you what I have figured out in regards to your check section.

Tetraclita hentscheli is Newmanella, see Ross & Perreault, 1999: 4. I am finding WoRMS to be kind of wormy, and updating is haphazard at times. Neferkheperre (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but pls remember that everything we put on Wikispecies has to be cited and clear to readers what is going on. I have made a temporary change to that page, but will work on it further when I get time Stho002 (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I wanted us to be working on the same page on allocating these species. I had put Tetraclita hentscheli as redirect to Newmanella back when I built that part. Tetraclita pacifica which was listed under 'check' is in that case preoccupied by T. wireni pacifica Now is replaced by T. kuroshioensis. What threw me there was Chan, Tsang and Chu 2007a has replacement name, while 2007c has original T. pacifica. Sounds out of order, but that is how several later references list it. I put T. pacifica as redirect. T. formosana and T. rufotincta are cited in T. ehsani paper as valid. Others have not been cited for some years. Tetraclitella is next, as I shall finish up Tetraclita tonight, probably. Tetraclitella is another mess, but not as bad. Neferkheperre (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

A few minutes ago, you revised my Microlasma entries. I am on Pachylasma, and did just what is visible with your revisions, and it comes up in red Template:Pachylasma. What are you doing that I am not? Not first time. that is why I was using format in Catomeris, then results had good appearance. Neferkheperre (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop reducing informations of my entries[edit]

Please stop reducing informations of my entries, like reducing authors in reference entries, etymology in articles and so on! --Haps (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding redundant information to pages that I have created. Redundant in this case because the full list of authors is only a mouse click away in the link to the article abstract (doi) Stho002 (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that it makes sense that one had to follow some links to find such important informations as a complete reference. What is a reference section good for, if it only gives an idea where to find the complete one. I fear that your attitude to this subject is part of an already repeatedly noticed unpleasant manner of you, which is not very useful in this open community. Not too long ago it has led to a considerable discussion (Wikispecies:Village pump/Archive 25) - you realy should become more open minded to opinions of others.--Haps (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, etymology has never been acceptable in articles. It is not covered in Help:Contents and is contrary to language-independence scope of the project (see FAQ on meta). OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, Andrew, though I was trying to be open-minded to the opinions of others! Stho002 (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I have only seen etymology used in original taxon name proposals, and that is how I do it myself, when I am describing. In any subsequent treatment of any species, original description reference should always be cited. Neferkheperre (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The Plant List[edit]

Hi Stephen. You may wish to modify your protected Plant List template to link directly to version 1.1. Hope all is well with you and summer in New Zealand is better than winter in the wet and murky UK! Regards Andy Andyboorman (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)  Done Stho002 (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Salticid tribes[edit]

Regarding [1]: Tribe taxons haven't been used for salticids since the 1950s. Most of them were invented by Simon circa 1900 and very few could still be considered valid. Current practice is to use unranked clades between subfamily and genus within the Salticidae family. Even the use of subfamilies has become somewhat obsolete, although you will still see them from time to time in new salticid papers (generally for the small handful of subfamilies that have molecular evidence of being monophyletic). Kaldari (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused, why do we want to list deprecated invalid taxons? Kaldari (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
So if I wanted to add the newer unranked clades, where would I put them? Above or below the tribes? (The newer clades have no relation to the tribes, since the tribes have long been ignored.) Kaldari (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
So Wikispecies is just supposed to be a time capsule of pre-21st century taxonomy? What's the point of that? Kaldari (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
How unstable they are depends entirely on the group being studied. How about Magnoliids or Angiosperms? Those clades have been stable for decades. Many of the unranked clades in Salticidae, for example Salticoida, have been stable and well-used for a decade. Salticoida has 35 citations on Google Scholar, while most of the salticid tribes have zero (and only one or two that were ever published). Why would we favor a deprecated taxon with 1 citation over a currently used taxon with dozens just because the old one happens to be Linnaean? Should we also delete the Magnoliids page and all the other unranked clades on Wikispecies? That seem counterproductive if we expect biologists to put any stock in Wikispecies. Personally, I'm fine with avoiding unranked clades when possible, but I think it's a bad idea for us to list deprecated taxons that have actually been replaced with more modern taxonomies. In those cases, I would prefer we list nothing. Kaldari (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Tampering with one's User page?[edit]

Dear Mr. Thorpe,

Yesterday, you deleted my User page.  You provided the following rationale:  “Sorry, but this is a serious site.”

Every edit I've ever made to any article page on Wikispecies has been serious and appropriate.  And, I intend to keep it that way.

But, when it comes to a user's individual User page, the user is typically afforded the luxury of throwing in a couple nonseries things.  Why?  Because it's not an article.  If the one and only thing I had placed on my User page had been a short, simple pirate joke, wouldn’t that be regarded as acceptable so long as all of the edits I make to serious article pages are serious and constructive?  If the one and only thing I had placed on my User page had been the words “I am sexy,” would that not be regarded as acceptable so long as all of the edits I make to serious article pages are serious and constructive?  I feel my User page was perfectly acceptable qua User page, but that what-I-had-written-in-my-User-page would only be acceptable on my User page, and not acceptable in any of the article pages.

I feel it is perfectly acceptable to remove nonserious and unconstructive edits made to article pages—indeed, that it is actively constructive to remove said nonconstructive edits.  But I feel that tampering with someone's User page is another story, as it does nothing to improve the site.  Had I been making nonserious and unconstructive edits to article pages, I believe that would be appropriate grounds to take action, to undo said edits, to reprimand me on my Talk page, to even ban me if the unconstructive edits continued.  But I hadn’t done that, and moreover I never intend to do that.

Perhaps you deleted my User page because you inferred from it that I might to inclined to make nonserious edits to the article pages, but I assure you that is not the case.  I give you my word.

If you can undo the edit you made to my User page, I would greatly appreciate it.  If not, I hope you’ll take the time to let me know why my User page has to be without frivolity.

Respectfully yours,
Allixpeeke (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The main problem is that it looks like an article, and so is potentially confusing to other users (for example it might come up in a Google search for a term in the Taxonavigation). Stho002 (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Steven, userpages are not indexed by Google so you don't have to be concerned about it appearing on Google. Therefore, I think your concern has been alleviated and I have un-deleted the page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll put __NOINDEX__ to that page to ensure it'll not be indexed. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Andrew.  I have also added a few things to the page to make it more clear that the page is a User page.  (1) I added a disclaimer at the top of the page explicitly stating that it is a User page.  (2) I added a Babel box indicating that I am a user who speaks English.  (3) I added my religion (or, more accurately, my lack thereof).  (4) I added my political persuasion.  (Further, both categories that appear at the bottom of the page indicate that I am a user.)  Hopefully, These additions leave little ambiguity on the matter.  Thanks again, and best regards, Allixpeeke (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
And I look forward to seeing your serious contributions to this project ... Stho002 (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Antheraea (Antheraea)[edit]

Hi Stho002, in the above mentioned article you changed {{sgsp|A|ntheraea to {{sp for some species. What is the purpose? --Olei (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Subgenera are optional parts of names, and it overcomplicates this project to include them in page titles. Ultimately, we will remove all subgenera from page titles and just have them as a rank in the taxonavigation. This is particularly important for automatic cross linking to other external databases (like CoL, etc.). These links will not work if subgenera are included in the page titles. Stho002 (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


Hello Stephen, you may be interested in this paper for which I have found a full copy.

Thanks, but you should put the PDF link on the reference template page (I have done so now)! That is what such templates are for! Stho002 (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
No problems. Did not really want to mess with your template here, but your modification has helped give me clues how I should proceed in the future. However, I will bear this in mind and I really do need to get to grips with reference templates in a more organised manner! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Missing spider families?[edit]

According to Platnick's World Spider Catalogue four families are missing from Wikispecies: Anyphaenidae, Euctenizidae, Micropholcommatidae, and Zoridae - and there's one extra family: Halidae. A, M and Z are included also in Jocqué & Dippenaar-Schoeman: Spider Families of the World.

Don't you agree with Platnick and Jocqué? Markku A. Huttunen 15:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Firstly, only Euctenizidae was "missing from Wikispecies". The other three families had articles, but the families were just missing from the "Overview of familiae" section on the Araneae page. As for Halidae, we had missed the recent synonymy with Pisauridae. I have fixed that now, and I will consider the outstanding issues soon. Stho002 (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Stephen - and sorry for not having checked the articles. I now added Micropholcommatidae to the family list and updated the count. Markku A. Huttunen

Hadena (Miselia)[edit]

You have make Hadena subgenus Miselia. But Miselia is synonymized with Hadena subgenus Hadena. That you make this mistake comes you use wrong data. They are not reliable.


Can you please delete Thomas Frederic Cheeseman? I don't know why it hasn't been deleted yet. --Goldenburg111 (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

subgenera redirects[edit]

Stephen, the reason I did not delete the pages which included the "G. (Subgenus) sp" designation, but redirected them to the binomial pages, was in case anyone elsewhere had hyperlinks to them. A redirect would lead searchers to the pages we have agreed we want. Once the page is deleted, anyone linking in will just get an unhelpful error message. Alan Accassidy (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks. I agree its a rather remote possibility. Alan

Colchicum hungaricum[edit]

Hi Stho002! May I ask you for controlling my edit in article Colchicum hungaricum? (I've found the original article on internet, but I'm not well-versed in using of formulas in references.) Thank you! --Sphenodon (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Preoccupied name[edit]

I just now tripped over this; as insect specialist, you could probably deal with it faster. Megatrema Cameron, 1907 (Ichneumonidae) is preoccupied by Megatrema Sowerby, 1823 (Pyrgomatidae) ION. Has that been fixed already? Neferkheperre (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)  Done

Formatting questions[edit]

Howdy Stho002, I have been away for ~3 years and I am trying to get reacquainted with this project. Help me understand your page formatting. Why is it a good idea to have pages for synonyms and for the synonyms to be listed in the Taxonavigation section instead of under Name (see Heptathela for an example)? Why waste space putting sub-headers like "primary references," "selected references," "additional references," and "links" under References? Why state the number of taxon in the Taxonavigation section [ex. Species (34):]?

Panthera tigris is listed on Wikispecies:Templates as an example of an "ideal" Wikispecies page. The tiger page does not have any of the formatting that I am inquiring about above... Panthera does state the number of species. If your way is the best way, can we vote on it and update Wikispecies:Templates? --Totipotent (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

We are going through an experimental phase in terms of formatting, and most of us have agreed that the specifics of formatting are secondary to the useful content and so not worth arguing about, as such arguments tend to drag on ad nauseam. I am getting close now to what I, at least, consider to be "ideal format", but it is not what you refer to above, which was an earlier attempt. According to my "ideal format", the three main principles are as follows:
  1. The references section is called "Selected references", and lists only the most useful refs. for the taxon (often the latest revision, and often not the original description). The very last thing we need to do is to try to account for a comprehensive listing of all refs. which mention the taxon, as 99% of these will be useless;
  2. The original description of a taxon will be listed under "Selected references" only if it is useful, but it (actually its reference template) will always be hyperlinked to the author/date citation of the taxon. Such hyperlinking also removes the need to visibly disambiguate refs. (Smith, 2000a; Smith 2000b; etc.);
  3. Nomenclatural and synonymic details are included, but are not very useful to most users (who find them rather daunting), so they are included in show/hide boxes;
  4. References should always be templated.

Here is an example page: Metaphycus alberti. Note that the original description is not useful enough to be listed in the Selected references section, but is hyperlinked in the Name section.

Stho002 (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

PS: It is clear than some users will not be able to understand the best practice formatting outlined above. Therefore, we need to be able to accept formatting that is less than "best practice", but, at the same time, we must not let such users prevent Wikispecies from achieving "best practice" formatting. Stho002 (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I like idea of Metaphycus alberti being used as example page alongside Panthera tigris. P. tigris is great for globally known species. The overwhelmingly vast percentage of described species will be more like M. alberti, mostly technical references, few if any vernacular names. I have been trying to keep my reference list to include original citation, any supraspecific re-assignments, and major taxonomic revisions or summaries, with Syn box for junior synonyms and homonym work. Hence Selected references. Neferkheperre (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


Somewhere along the line, in Balanidae, I got Taxonavigation into the templates. When reworking Concavinae, I noticed that title coming up twice, so I knocked it out of species pages, figuring I was saving many keystrokes down the line. Misdirections were unintentional consequence. I ordinarily do not edit by sections, except reference or name sections. I will fix them. Neferkheperre (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomenclatural acts in reference templates[edit]

As I have been installing lists of new names into noinclude parts of reference templates, what about genus-group and other re-assignments of existing species? This would be listed under subheading "New combinations" below "New names". Neferkheperre (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

These are not nomenclatural acts (they are taxonomic changes). Unless you want to do it for ALL reference templates in Wikispecies, I suggest that it is unnecessary ... Stho002 (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Works for me. I have enough to do right now, anyway. Neferkheperre (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Qianzhousaurus/Qianzhousaurus sinensis[edit]

Creation I was making that at the same time as you. I saved on top of yours. Thanks for making the Q. sinensis page, too. —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for creating pages for Blattella asahinai & Bombylius major, mind editing Brachiosaurus altithorax? 2601:8:1580:27D:9925:90B3:2D05:3146 21:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)  Done


PeterR and PeterRoelofs are the same. PeterR (species.wikipedia) and Peter Roelofs (nl.wikipedia). PeterR (talk) 08:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


Hi Stho002! May I ask you again for controlling my edit in article Xerocomellus (I don't know, is it okay)? I set out all Xerocomellus-species from cited article (Šutara, 2008, pp. 49–50.). And I have a problem: I can see some species of Xerocomellus amongst Boletus spp. (e.g. B. armeniacus, B. porosporus, B. pruinatus, B. rubellus), but I cannot mention these synonyms on their wikispecies-pages, because they haven't got. What shall I have to do? May I do their wikispecies-pages on the base of Xerocomellus chrysenteron and after this delete them from Boletus? Thank you in advance! --Sphenodon (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for setting in order! --Sphenodon (talk) 13:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


Do you mind creating a page for Dorcus rectus? 2601:8:1580:27D:D0FB:F3F6:D9E3:DA8 03:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)  Done

Thank you, could you make pages for Gasosaurus constructus & Anthia maxillosa as well? 2601:8:1580:27D:4D51:B384:2C7F:35A4 08:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)  Done
Mind expanding on Eurypterus remipes? 2601:8:1580:27D:3DF9:E1B6:C194:54F9 03:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)  Done
Could you also make Anomalocaris canadensis? 2601:8:1580:27D:3DF9:E1B6:C194:54F9 06:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)  Done
Can you make Apis cerana japonica? 2601:8:1580:27D:E11F:9A2C:B110:B054 05:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)  Done
Stephen, could you explain what we are to make of the list of references on page Anomalocaris canadensis? There seems to be one usable reference and then a whole list of possible article titles, but with no idea about their authorship or publication. Thanks, Alan. Accassidy (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I created the page in response to a request to do so. I put the original ref. in full, but only had time to copy and paste the other titles from ION (who don't cite the refs in full). I figured it was better than nothing, and the requester can probably find most of them by googling the titles. Stho002 (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC) PS: I have now added the missing info for two more refs., but in general I don't have time to do so for requests Stho002 (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I see. Perhaps we could encourage the "requesters" to work out how to do it for themselves and enlarge the editing base. Accassidy (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
My apologies, I came on behalf of the Digimon wiki which links to this one for Digimon based on animals. Unfortunately, the pages that were being linked to did not exist yet hence my requests as I know very little about binomial nomenclature or the editing protocol here and didn't want to create problems by making a page incorrectly. 2601:8:1580:27D:D8C2:D89E:A54E:6B42 23:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You deleted my user page[edit]

You deleted my user page and I am curious as to why that was done. Alden Loveshade (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't know on Wikispecies you couldn't link to your own homepage on your user page. I've done that on other Wikimedia site and it hasn't been a problem so I didn't know it was here. My homepage includes links to articles on animals I've published for Yahoo. Can I post direct links to articles I've written on my user page? Alden Loveshade (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Acropyga bakwele[edit]

I just created the article Acropyga bakwele. If you or another admin could check this to make certain I did it correctly, I would appreciate it. Alden Loveshade (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'll check out the edits you made and use those as a model for editing in the future. Thanks again! Alden Loveshade (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yang et al., 2014b template[edit]

I would like to know why did you create the template "Yang et al., 2014b" in Tylototriton liuyangensis (and deleted mine), when it's obvious that the Yangs of "Yang et al., 2014a" and "Yang et al., 2014b" are different persons:

a is: Zhong-Qi Yang, Liang-Ming Cao, Yan-Long Zhang, Xiao-Yi Wang and Mao-Kui Zhan [2] and b is: Daode Yang, Jianping Jiang, Youhui Shen, Dongbo Fei [3]

Introducing these kind of errors just to vex and annoy fellow contributors isn't a proper way to behave. Mariusm (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

It is not an error! I created mine before you created yours, so I deleted yours. It doesn't really matter what the ref. templates are called (but I try for some consistency) as their names aren't visible. The Yang's don't have to be the same person! Ref. templates don't work like that. Stho002 (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
There're plenty of Chen's, Yang's, Zhang's (and more) publishing things each year so this type of conflict will continue to exist. What about using date of publication (or acceptance of manuscript) as a tie-breaker for the order? OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no need to disambiguate authors on ref. templates! There is no implication that Smith, 2014 is the same author as Smith, 2014a. There doesn't have to be any disambiguation. This is not the function of the template. You could call the template anything! Stho002 (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Authors are disambiguated within the template. Stho002 (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
"I created mine before you created yours" as you say, and this is what makes me angry: you don't allow me a minute time to complete my edits before jumping in and "correcting", usually doing more harm than good. I would like you to stop this practice and to let me edit in peace! Mariusm (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

As we grow Wikispecies, we shall encounter many author disambiguation problems. This is one place where botanists, vertebrate, invertebrate zoologists, and those who work with prokaryotes/protists will actually have to come together and achieve some commonality. This is going to be found especially in reference template and taxon authority concepts. Above fields are accustomed to work without encountering each other. Custom, at least in present invertebrate zoo., is to cite authors as (last name), (initials). Using auth template for authors will direct searcher to taxon authority page for fuller information. This would cut down most disambiguation. Only if same initials occur would disambiguation be required. I am very much in favor of general unity in format on this Wiki. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Your practice stands in stark contrast to your above declaration of intents. I in fact introduced the initials in my Yang template, which you unwittingly deleted and replaced with your ambiguous and misleading one. This is especially grave since you specified in the template's body just "Yang et al., 2014" in both cases. The reader has no way to know that these are different authors. Ostensibly the reader conceives both to be the same person. My deleted template included both the template name initials and the co-authors full names instead of just the laconic "at al". I suspect your intention was more to harass me than to "improve" my edit.Mariusm (talk) 04:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
There are at least 16 authors named Yang (and probably many more) in wikispecies. How could you possibly keep track of them all if you're naming templates "Yang et al., 2014"a, b, c etc. without regard to specific person or to what "al" stands for. Before rushing on and deleting other's contributor work, stop and think for a moment about the consequences of preferring quantity over quality. Copying and pasting like crazy wont make wikispecies the site you're dreaming about. Mariusm (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
To quote Basil Fawlty, "Please try to understand, before one of us dies!" Names of reference templates carry no information. Authors are disambiguated within the template. You are seeing (or manufacturing) a problem that does not exist! Stho002 (talk) 04:41, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm starting to see a bigger picture. I think what Mariusm is trying to say is that there's no justification for using a, b, c because they're different authors (which is true). I also understand what Stho002 is trying to say is that the a, b, c serves no meaning because we could call it whatever we want (which is also true) and as long as the actual information is contained in the template then it's fine. So we need to settle this somehow. Neferkheperre, what are your thoughts? OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Not quite an accurate assessment, Andrew. I'm not just saying that the a, b, c, ... serves no meaning, but the whole ref. template name serves no meaning. It is just a dummy. You could call Yang, 2004a something like 6546sdtgshfds76f76, and it would make no difference (except that it would be harder to remember). The ref. template names aren't visible on the taxon pages. They are just a way of naming a template so it can be used several times. Stho002 (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a very misleading argument; this isn't a case of template names only: also in the template's bodies only "Yang at all" are mentioned without any author-name link or any further elaboration. Stho002 may reply that the links are to be added later in the future, yet in 98% of the templates he creates, he fails to provide the links. He doesn't have time nor inclination to do that, because he rushes on to create his next template. I, on the other hand, specified in the name "Yang, D.G. et al., 2014", and in the body: "Daode Yang, Jianping Jiang, Youhui Shen & Dongbo Fei, 2014". I'm asking in what way his template is better than mine, so he had to delete it, and replace it with his? can he provide a reasonable answer for that? And one more thing: I don't know what is Stho002's level of politeness and good manners in real life, but it was expected of him as a minimal courtesy to at least notify me or to ask me of his intentions and to provide me with reasons for deleting my work, before actually doing it, right in the middle of my edit procedure (5 seconds after I posted my template it was deleted). Mariusm (talk) 07:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
My experience and usage of reference citations is this: (author1, initial(s)) (year). Now, if said author published more than once that year by himself, then we get xxx (year)a, b, etc. I have seen up to seven (g) for Kolosvary. For two authors, citation is (author1, initials); (initials, author2) (year). For Wikispecies, with Taxon Authority pages, we must use author/initials, or create many re-direct pages. For reference template titles, author/year or author1/author2/year creates nice simple easy to remember title. Use a,b,c disambiguation where necessary, according to citation custom. For three or more authors, spelling out template titles become cumbersome and hard to remember. Thus, (1st author et al.,) (year). Really, all authors should be cited in body of template. Mariusm brings up good point. Et al. can present disambiguation problems for titles, simply from compacting several authors into one title. Perhaps we should look into titles of (author1); (author2) et al., (year) to reduce this problem? Another solution might be to title templates with (author) (first initial) et al., (year). At least for very common names, like Jones, Anderson, Yang, Chen, etc.
I do like reference template system, as updates then pass to all transclusions without having to hunt them all down. The system is flexible enough so that we should be able to iron out problems. Neferkheperre (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Neferkheperre, thanks for your clear response. I totally agree with what you say. The problem is that Stho002 can't be persuaded to cooperate with what we establish around here. The current template format is of his own devise, enforced on everyone else without consulting with other members. As my experience goes, it doesn't help to speak reason to him. He will delete without warning any template which stands in opposition with his rules. Because he creates about 95% of the templates here, and because he manipulates the ones that seem to be unfit in his opinion, anything we agree on would be futile and inconsequential. I'm sorry to sound to pessimistic, but as my experience goes at this site, Stho002 amassed the power and the support of the other members, so he can act like a dictator and a censor. Recently I worked 30 minutes on a template, which he than deleted 5 seconds after being posted, replacing it with his own, without warning, without explaining, just like that. In such an environment, we have no other alternative but to comply to his standards or leave this site. I'm refusing to raise the white flag of surrender yet, so I'm being constantly targeted with his brutal manipulations of my edits. Mariusm (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for doing the revert. I have added a very recent reference that seems to definitively indicate the synonymy. So Plant List is not quite right or a bit out of date once again. Older references exclude a couple of species of Gynandropsis from their analysis so there is a bit of an explanation for their error I guess. Got there in the end! Andyboorman (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi Stephen, I notice that you have made these two families synonymous, but added a reference,

supporting the most recent work

and both of these support their separation. Is this an error? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Please move Luis Agosto Grandvaux Barbosa[edit]

Hi Stho002. I can't figure out how to move pages in Wikispecies. Could you please assist in moving Luis Agosto Grandvaux Barbosa to Luis Augusto Grandvaux Barbosa? The name is misspelt in many places, including JSTOR and the Harvard databases. I have just written to a number of these institutions to make the correction. Thanks, regards, Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)  Done

Fromia family?[edit]

Thank you for cleaning up my first page here, Fromia. I am wondering why it is listed under Ophidiasteridae here. According to

  • WoRMS and most of the sources you posted on Talk:Fromia, its parent is Goniasteridae, but that page doesn't list Fromia. (GBIF lists both.) It's been this way since 2005, and Goniasteridae never listed it, so I went along with that, but am not really sure, so I thought I would ask you. If that is correct, some Wikipedia articles need updating. Thanks. PC-XT (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New Zealand[edit]

I just started working up reference template which was published in above journal. I cannot find their ISSN, after trying WorldCat, their website, BHL, or Google. Fairly recent series, surely they mus have one. Can you help? Neferkheperre (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It is succeeded by ISSN 0303-6758, but probably doesn't have an ISSN of its own Stho002 (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Restoring page[edit]

I understand that you have deleted Wikispecies:Collaboration with ZooKeys and PhytoKeys and removed the link from the Main Page. Given that in Commons, the template still contains a link to that page, I have restored the page so that other non-admin users will still be able to see the page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


Hi Stephen
This is relevant to our discussion on the Portal (hopefully no offense can we call it a score draw?). I have made some changes to Nothofagaceae and Nothofagus reflecting Heenan & Smissen, (2013). As you are NZ based please feel free to massacre my edits!. Seriously, what do you think - too clunky and not WS enough or OK? Regards Andyboorman (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that this cannot be done consistently over WS as a whole (and would be a big mess if it could). I guess I must, very reluctantly, follow Heenan & Smissen on this, though I disagree 100% with their proposed changes! Stho002 (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Likewise I agree with your changes, but still unhappy with making a major change when only one peer reviewed paper proposes it and there is no other independent corroboration or agreement (as yet). Still it will keep many NZ botanists happy! Andyboorman (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but it is the dilemma between general rules vs. specific cases. "Major change" is a vague concept, and a lot of taxonomy is based on only one opinion Stho002 (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Exactly! This is why, I feel, it is important to take into account the views of academic experts working in a field, whether they accept or reject a proposed change. Particularly if this view is expressed across institutions or through a collaborative group. No doubt this will duly appear in a peer reviewed journal or similar mechanism, but months or even years after the original proposal. Sorry I should have given examples of "Major change", in this case proposing to segregate a valid generic concept, whilst still acknowledging this may not be acceptable to all taxonomists given the evidence. See also Tainia/Ania Andyboorman (talk) 09:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


?? As far as I can see, it's a valid name in the Psylloidea, authored by Buckton 1896 (though I have found at least one resource citing 1894). The definitive resource online seems to be at I guess I don't understand why you're asking me.

  • And I don't understand why you are telling me! I didn't ask! Stho002 (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, it appears that I did ask, in 2010! I have no idea why! Stho002 (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


Why can't you leave me alone??? You have millions of species to work on. Why are you stamping on the particular genus I'm working on? Why? Why? Mariusm (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Just setting up the genus page so that it makes sense. I'm not going to do anything with the species, so they are all yours Stho002 (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't delete those templates[edit]

Please don't delete these templates for now!!! Mariusm (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please don't use them on live pages, or I will have to delete their use on anything other than a sandbox page Stho002 (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


My explanation is on the Village Pump. Its now past my bedtime. Please draw breath, have a short break, and take time to realise that this is a community project. Your effort on Zootaxa is appreciated, but it is not proprietary, none of our work here is. I could understand your pique if Marius had removed information, but he added more. Let it go. I don't want to see anybody dismissed from WS, but I also hate to see other contributors driven away. We need them all. Accassidy (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC) Now you are threatening an edit war with me. Are you obsessive-compulsive? More information is more information. Neither you nor I need go and change all the previous ZooTaxa references. No such uniformity is demanded except in your mind. Others may come along and decide to add full authorship details, maybe in a year, maybe in 10 years. Will you still be hovering over the pages to revert reverts then??? Take it easy. Accassidy (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC) I see your solution with Category pages for authors, but this seems cumbersome as we can just have author pages with lists of publications. The solution of putting all the authors names in the reference and linking to author pages is more page efficient. Good night. Accassidy (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't! Good afternoon! Stho002 (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Any chance of tidying up Template:Crous et al., 2011, thanks in anticipation Andyboorman (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Also I am trying out a reference layout on Proteaceae, but for it to really work you will need to edit your templates. I am sure you will not like the format - just revert if you do not! Andyboorman (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


I have reverted your edit on Persoonieae. I thought the consensus on the Pump was not to use the nomen or syn templates, particularly for botany. It just seems a fluffy format for just a typus. Also I have not finished yet so please leave for a couple of days then you can do what you like, as you said once up it is fair go and that applies to all of us I assume? Thanks Andyboorman (talk) 10:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


I am out of Proteales, Sorry I will contribute to other pages and projects. This is getting stupid, better things to do with my time, if you want to delete tysp then it is up to beaurocrats. Andyboorman (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
And you are not stubborn or ever wrong? I admit to both Andyboorman (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Isolation Policy[edit]

It seems that you are somehow determined to be the last crewman still afloat on this ship. I do not know the validity of The Plant List, not surprising as I am a lepidopterist, but Franz Xaver seems to argue quite reasonably that it is unsound. This is exactly what I would do if you started listing all the species names (many mis-spelt) included on the LepIndex database by BMNH, as this is also out of date and not subject to review. I also find the collapsed "Synonyms" box an un-helpful and non-standard embellishment and will not use it myself; there is a limit to minimalism. After MariusM and now Franz Xaver, and possibly soon AnduBoorman, how on earth can we expect to make this site comprehensive and an authority of wider value, when it just seems that there is you me and Uleli left? Accassidy (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I am merely determined to get WS on track, and loose some excess baggage. I haven't time to explain it blow by blow, but The Plant List differs from what Franz Xavier wants only by a mere handful of the hundreds of names (and I have tried to explain to him that he can make changes but explain them in the Justification box, but he does not listen). On the other hand, LepIndex really is crap! Franz Xavier had no verifiable justification at all for his species list, which contravenes the most basic core principles of Wikimedia. He was also unwilling to cooperate or listen to reason. Good riddance, I say. You would be well advised to give these matters some thought. I would say that "justify and link" should be the motto of WS. Think about it, please ... Stho002 (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You are totally misrepresenting facts. You claim "Franz Xavier had no verifiable justification at all for his species list ...". For what reason do you think I included the following references?:
  • Berazaín Iturralde R. 2006: Notes on the taxonomy and distribution of the Ochnaceae in the Greater Antilles. Willdenowia 36: 455–461. - DOI: 10.3372/wi.36.36143 .
  • Sastre C. 1988: Studies on the flora of the Guianas 34. Synopsis generis Ouratea Aublet (Ochnaceae). Bulletin du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Section B, Adansonia, Botanique Phytochimie 10: 47–67. – Online.
  • Sastre C. 2003: Ochnaceae. In: Steyermark J. A., Berry P. E., Yatskievych K, Holst B. K. (eds.): Flora of the Venezuelan Guayana. Vol. 7: Myrtaceae–Plumbaginaceae. Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, ISBN 0-930723-13-X. pp. 124–161.
  • Sastre C. 2007: Ochnaceae. In: Funk V., Hollowell T., Berry P., Kelloff C., Alexander S. N.: Checklist of the plants of the Guiana Shield (Venezuela: Amazonas, Bolivar, Delta Amacuro; Guyana, Surinam, French Guiana). Contributions from the United States National Herbarium 55: 445–449. – Online.
  • Flora Mesoamericana: Ouratea. Missouri Botanical Garden. Published on internet. Accessed: 2014 September 14.
  • Catalogue of the Vascular Plants of Ecuador: Ouratea. Missouri Botanical Garden. Published on internet. Accessed: 2014 September 20.
  • Peru Checklist: Ouratea. Missouri Botanical Garden. Published on internet. Accessed: 2014 September 14.
  • Bolivia Checklist: Ouratea. Missouri Botanical Garden. Published on internet. Accessed: 2014 September 20.
  • Chacon R. G., Yamamoto K. 2014: Ouratea in Lista de Espécies da Flora do Brasil. Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro. Accessed: 2014 September 14.
Actually, these are regional floras and checklists of accepted species that cover most of the distribition range of this Neotropical genus. And in their combination these where the "justification" for the species list I had compiled from these references. And then you stepped in and added a lot of names, claiming they represented 403 species. One might come to the conclusion you were not aware there is a difference between names and species. The list from TPL included the following rubbish:
Misspellings: Ouratea homaliifoha which is a misspelling for Ouratea homaliifolia, the latter being a nomen subnudum anyway; Ouratea juergenzii, a misspelling for Ouratea juergensii, the latter being a "correction" by the combining author that is in contrary to the Melbourne Code (see the Tropicos entry); Ouratea oleaefolia, a name that has to be corrected to Ouratea oleifolia according to the Code - correction referenced by the IPNI entry.
Synonyms of accepted species within Ouratea: Ouratea alaternifolia (see Berazaín Iturralde 2006), Ouratea australis (see Brazil checklist), Ouratea crassa (see Sastre 1988), ...
Most important, synonyms of accepted species in the Palaeotropical genera Campylospermum and Rhabdophyllum: Ouratea acutissima, Ouratea affinis, Ouratea afzelii, Ouratea ambacensis, Ouratea andongensis, Ouratea arcta, Ouratea arnoldiana, ... (all synonymizations justified by at least one reference in the species article)
All in all, almost half of the number of these names added does either not belong to Ouratea as defined today or is a synonym anyway.
Finally, before you accuse me of not reading your "advice", you should have read also my arguments. You obviously did not read this text and you did not refer to any of my points. Moreover, you added insults: (1) By protecting the page, insinuating me I would step in an edit war. (2) Naming my "behaviour/attitude ... inappropriate" (3) Later adding some more hits at Wikispecies:Village Pump#Farewell guys! and User talk:OhanaUnited#Roupaleae and User:Stho002. --Franz Xaver (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
You persist in taking a counterproductive aggressive stance instead of trying to calmly discuss the issue. I will respond to your points (above), but only if you express some willingness to listen and discuss like a rational adult (rather than like a testosterone charged teenager!) So, do you want to discuss, or not? Stho002 (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see, some more insults have followed. I am quite calm, you may believe. --Franz Xaver (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, let me try yet again to discuss the issue: The Plant List may not be perfect, but since most of the names already have pages, it can't be too far off the mark, so it will do as a starting point. Above you have pointed out to me why a few of the names should not be in the list of species, even though they are on The Plant List. I have tried to explain, several times now, what you can do about that. Instead of me saying it all over again, perhaps you can look over my recent comments to you, and then tell me what the solution is? Stho002 (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
You are counting redirects for pages, isn't it? --Franz Xaver (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Maybe language is preventing efficient communication between us? The answer I refer to is this: You can disagree with a source (and modify the species list accordingly), but you should explain your reasons (more or less as you have done above) in the "Justification for checklist" box. This is why I made it a show/hide box, in case explanations get long and complicated. Try it, and I will review what you do. Stho002 (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
By the way, here I am missing references? --Franz Xaver (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I see you have added one. However you did not check if it is correct - see the correct place. TPL really is crap, believe me. --Franz Xaver (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
We need to work through this slowly and carefully, not hastily with knee-jerk reactions. I suggest that the first thing you should do is to create pages for all the redlinked species in The Plant List species list. The pages will either be valid species or redirects. When there are no more red links, then we can reassess the situation. Stho002 (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Please, read ICN, Art. 6, there is nothing like "valid species" in botany. The Code only knows "validly published" names, which does not tell anything, if this is the correct name of an accepted taxon. --Franz Xaver (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
PS: Both TPL and Tropicos list O. angusta, without proper citation! Stho002 (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and still I am missing a reference that justifies its status as an accepted species. Van Tieghem writes the original material has come from Brazil, but the Brazil checklist does not list this name at all - probably will stay to be "unresolved" until the next generic revision. --Franz Xaver (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Finally, it is time to get rid of mentioning Botanische Jahrbücher .. The species was published in: Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Botanique, série 8, 16: 261. You may check all issues of Botanische Jahrbücher from beginning of time until today and will not find a diagnosis of Ouratea angusta - see the IPNI entry. --Franz Xaver (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the O. angusta page is fine as it is now. It would be "original research" to change details from the sources (TPL and Tropicos) which many readers will trust, but we have effectively flagged that there may be a problem with the name. That is all we can do in these cases, frustrating as it may be! Stho002 (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think so. Why don't you consider to use different sources? The IPNI entry is OK and you may cite the French paper that contains the original diagnosis. Ouratea angusta now perfectly represenst the errors of TPL. I hope, now you have learned this is straightforward rubbish. Get rid of it and switch to correct references. --Franz Xaver (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you explain this edit? Is it based on a reference (which one?) or is it based on "own research", I mean guessing? --Franz Xaver (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
It is based on the title page of the journal volume (I have now linked it to the date) Stho002 (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Great work, the paper you are linking to is dealing with African Ochnaceae, but Brazil is not in Africa, is it? You continue to bark up the wrong tree. --Franz Xaver (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
You misunderstand! I am simply reporting what the source says, and flagging it as a likely error. The reader will want to see for themselves that the name is not mentioned on the page that TPL says it is on. If this were Wikipedia, we couldn't even do that, and would have to accept the source unchallenged! Stho002 (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
You have the choice on which references you are basing an article. As I have told above, switch to the IPNI entry and to the French paper - and forget about the errors in TPL, simply ignore this "source". You may, moreover send an email to Tropicos and provide them the link to the correct original diagnosis. They usually are reacting within hours - probably tomorrow they will have corrected their entry. Contacting TPL is useless. They will update their content maybe in months or even years, and only when Tropicos had updated before. --Franz Xaver (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Great, now Ouratea angusta almost is OK, still missing an note that it's an unresolved name. And, of course, the publication datails in the name section may be OK for zoological articles, but they are non-standard for botany articles. In order to get an idea of botany standards you may look here or there. --Franz Xaver (talk) 02:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Great, unresolved status added. You are learning quickly. --Franz Xaver (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the full reference still needs to be created and templated, etc., but I have not the time to do that now. The page is OK as it is. Stho002 (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


In the exchanges above there now seems to be some active co-operation, which I applaud. I am a little surprised that at the same time you made the effort to reformat some lines on Euchrysops for no real taxonomic benefit. I hope I can look forward to more collaboration and less confrontation, less name-calling and fewer insults for a while. Accassidy (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Adding genera[edit]

It is not helpful to deliberately and seemingly maliciously (unintentionally I hope) add unverified names to an existing list of genera that is in the process of being carefully constructed using multiple sources. You have lost considerable amounts of information and did you even bother to check the sources? The list, even as you have left it, is only partially based "uncritically on the Plant List" so that is untrue anyway. As it stands your list has minimal botanical value. Would you be prepared to revert? I live in hope that you can be consensual and collaborative. Andyboorman (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not prepared to revert. As you had the list of genera, I couldn't tell where you got the information from, so I added an explicit source (and the list is exactly the same as the list in the linked source, so I don't know what you are talking about?) You wrote on the talk page that the list needed a massive amount of work anyway, so The Plant List as a source is a reasonable starting point. All the red linked names need to have pages created for them (either genus pages or redirects), before we can think about making the list better. Stho002 (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Please let's not have another edit war over whatever (unidentified) page this is. Have a list of genera that is clearly identified as originating from "The Plant List" whatever that is. Have a second list of Genera that might not be in the "PLant List" list, but which are referred to the publication(s), possibly more authoritative, from which the placing of that genus derives. Both sources can live side by side on the same page and the reader will understand why there are two lists immediately. Stephen, your user page suggests that you are primarily a zoologist, as am I. I would not dream of modifying a page created by a botanist and imposing a list of anything from a source that has previously been flagged as unreliable. If I did that, a botanist might reasonably suggest I was being contrarian. Imagine how I would feel if a botanist made a large revision to a page in Lepidoptera, removed my careful work and pasted in a whole load of nonsense from Lepindex. Please tread more carefully, and seek solutions that do not obliterate the work of others who may also have a point. Accassidy (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The page in question is Acanthaceae. I will not get into an edit war, as I will back off the page but no doubt this admin will find me wherever I go on WS. Andyboorman (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Accassidy This is my reply to Stho002 that I was going to add before you posted yours had to wait to avoid a posting problem! Fair enough you can fill in the red links yourself. I was trying a different approach, that is, taking an existing old list of genera built without references and modifying it with deletes of synonyms and additional genera. References, such as Profice et al. (2014) and Omlsted et al. (2012) were being added as I went along. I often use the shotgun TPL approach, if other more robust sources are not available, but not this time. You could have communicated and been consensual see Camellia × williamsii. Botanically, in my somewhat worthless opinion, your list has little value even compared to TPL, for example, it does not even tag the rag tag bag of names as accepted, unresolved or synonyms. As it stands, in the English idiom, it is a pig's diner not an Overview of Genera. Of course it is a start, but that is somebody else s job not mine, at least there are three out of five robust references in the list for somebody to make a start. You will be glad to know that I feel it is not worth me continuing to edit on WS, if this is the typical result. Andyboorman (talk) 10:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Of course, according to AGF, we are convinced that this edit was intended to assist with work, isn't it? However, when you read here "... it will be days of work for somebody to get it on track" and then for whatever reason increase the heap of junk to be sorted to double size, this can not really be regarded as a helpful contribution, I suppose. There was an alternative option available: You could have notified Andyboorman that the list of genera needed a reference. Anyway, you have selected from existing lists, that here could serve as a starting point, the least useful one, i.e. TPL. Two other lists, i.e. the lists from Kew and GRIN are better, as in both cases at least some review by taxonomic experts has happened. TPL not only has been added "uncritically" to the article by you, beyond that it also has been constructed uncritically and by deliberate neglect of the Code and good taxonomic practice. I can show this be some examples: (1) The TPL list, by bold green letters seems to show Adhatoda as an "accepted genus". According to the Index Nominum Genericorum database and Tropicos its lectotype is Adhatoda vasica which (correctly) in TPL can be found as Justicia adhatoda. So, when according to the same source, i.e. TPL, both the type species of Adhatoda belongs to Justicia and Adhatoda is suggested to be an "accepted genus", that's a bit crooked, isn't it? The explanation for this is, that TPL is an automatic compilation of data from different sources largly missing any review. Adhatoda simply shows up as an "accepted genus", because in the Tropicos database there exists Adhatoda densiflora which by TPL is understood as being an "accepted species". (The background is a very narrow circumscription of genera in Flora of Southern Africa.) Actually, TPL does not attempt any synonymization between genus names, but builds on the assumption that this can be demonstrated by synonymizations between all included species. I mean all species, not type species. (2) TPL shows both Aster squamatus and Symphyotrichum squamatum as "accepted species". Both names are based on Conyza squamata Spreng. Ok, in one of both records you can find the sentence "A cross-taxon basionym link was ignored while processing this record ..." Not really a good idea to allow such ignorance? Anyway, proceeding this way, it's given the possibility that one name (basionym) can produce the justification for two different "accepted genera". Hopefully, now you understand that I advise not to use TPL at all, if other sources are available. By the way, many of the genus names that in the TPL list show up as "unresolved", in both alternative lists are synonymized. So, using these as a starting point, does leave a less voluminous "unresolved rest". --Franz Xaver (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


Can you explain what in your opinion is wrong with these notes: [4], [5], [6]? They clarify why these genera are not classified into a tribe. As all other genus pages within Orobanchaceae indicate an affiliation with a tribe, some visitors might think something is missing in these three articles. --Franz Xaver (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Please excuse me inserting myself here, but I think the answer to your (User:Franz Xaver) question is that "Notes" such as this should really go onto the article's "discussion" page. If you find a situation where some taxa (perhaps species listed on a genus page) are assigned to a lower taxon group (perhaps subgenus) and others are not yet assigned to a subgenus, then I think the best solution is as I have just suggested for Xestia. This avoids using, for example, "Subgenus: Incertae sedis" and the split can be justified by reference to papers listed in the References section. Does this help? Accassidy (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
@Accassidy: OK, the Xestia example looks well. But these notes are not visible very well, when they are placed only at the talk page. I don't understand why they should really go onto the article's "discussion" page. I cannot see that this does any harm. If such notes generally were allowed, this would concern probably less than one percent of the articles. By the way, I agree that "incertae sedis" cannot be used as if it were some taxon. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
We must be very careful about editors here inserting notes which reflect their own "understanding" (or lack of, in some cases). The talk page is the safest place for such notes. Stho002 (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: perhaps a compromise would be to put a link on the taxon page along the lines of "See discussion page." Accassidy (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
We do that already for disputed taxa. I don't think it is necessary to do it more widely, simply because the discussion page should always be looked at Stho002 (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
@Accassidy: OK, I understand this reason. Such a link pointing to the talk page will work for me. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
@Stho002: Oh, I know many persons who very often use Wikipedia searching for information, but who are surprised when I tell them there is also a talk page. When they visit a page they are focused on what they are searching for and they don't even notice there is something behind. OK, "understanding (or lack of ..)" - that's not different from wikipedia. This need not be removed, it also could be rectified. That's a wiki, I suppose. --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikispecies is not Wikipedia. We have different focus and scope here. If you want to write notes on main pages, try doing it at Wikipedia and see how far you get! Stho002 (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I have no problem doing this, see eg. de:Bathiorhamnus or de:Altingia cambodiana - "note" = "Anmerkung". --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
That's my point: Wikipedia is the place for notes, not here Stho002 (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
What is this, when in Ouratea angusta you are writing that TPL gives an incorrect citation? A note? --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Simple annotations on references/links are OK if they warn of errors Stho002 (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
By the way, you will have to correct the Tropicos link there. --Franz Xaver (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
It was correct when I added it. Another example of a source correction without leaving a history! Stho002 (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I sent them an email. Why does the template redirect to "subordinatetaxa" when there don't exist any. --Franz Xaver (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The template was created primarily for genera, but it also works for species Stho002 (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
You think that's working. Funny. --Franz Xaver (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Tropicosp does not work fine. The MBG template does, but of course has too much detail for Stho002 and only uses the page name, whereas Franz Xaver would prefer it to accept the index number. Andyboorman (talk) 09:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Tropicosp really should be used only when you want to link to a species list in a genus. In this special case it certainly works fine. But a species article is the wrong place for this template. I don't replace it by the better template, certainly would be reverted. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Recently, they have corrected record 22800061 from Ouratea cassinifolia to Ouratea cassinefolia. So, now they are in accordance with ICN (and also with IPNI). The MBG template would not have worked before the correction, but the index number produced the correct link all the time. --Franz Xaver (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


Stephen, perhaps you could explain at greater length your deletion of Nymphalis timidar Scott, 2014. Accassidy (talk) 09:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no such species. See: Nymphalis californica timidar and read the original reference! Stho002 (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Very well. I looked for the paper, but could only find up to edition 18 on the web. The rank accorded in this paper is pretty certain, so thanks for the link. Accassidy (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Hotheadedness and Reason[edit]

This latest conflict between yourself and @Franz Xaver:, in an article that has been under discussion for days, if not weeks, is astonishing. It appears to me that you are at least as guilty as is he in the context of "hotheadedness" and unwillingness to talk about differences of approach. To respond to his farewell note with such an ad hominem comment is contrary to my standards of politeness, and probably those of most others. A simple compromise with regard to a list of species under Ouratea would surely be to keep one list of species justified by the Sastre C. 1988 reference, which is available online for everybody to inspect. Then those "unresolved" or otherwise uncertain species level taxa from The Plant List/Tropicos, which you seem to agree are less authoritative, could have been listed separately in an Unresolved Taxa list, showing immediately where there remains a lack of certainty. Such an amendment would have left Franz Xaver's list as he compiled it and your additional list below, helping others to gradually work through the list and decide on synonymies etc etc in due course. After your monolithic change, it will take a lot of research by someone to extract the reliable names from the unreliable ones. Thus you have made the page less helpful, in my view, by this action. We are both Admins here, and it is not in my power to block a fellow, but I must urge you to try to be more open-minded and co-operative, less superior and bloody-minded. That is how it appears to me. This is supposed to be a community project, not a personal fiefdom. Accassidy (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Abusing admin powers?[edit]

Dear Stho002, some members in the Wikispecies project is of the opinion that you abused your admin powers when you protected the page here, without discussing on the page discussion page etc. members of this project claim that it seems you did this, not in the role of defender of the project against attacks from outside, but as a method of winning a debate over a fellow project member?

What is your own idea and opinion regarding this, are you claiming that the rules and standards of the Wikipedia projects is in support of your protection of the page?

best regards, Dan Koehl (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl: It was a temporary measure only (as you can see from the log), in order to try to explain my reasoning to an editor who, in my opinion, wasn't going to listen and would just continue editing the page any old way he wanted to, without any regard for my opinion, the opinions of others, or the rules and standards of Wikispecies. In retrospect it may have been a mistake on my part to do this, but only a small one. It certainly was not intended as a means of winning a debate, but rather as a necessary prerequisite to even having a reasoned debate with the "fellow project member", who I had good reason to think wasn't inclined to discuss the issue properly. Stho002 (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks @Stho002:. Do I understand you right, that you claim to have defended the article and Wikispecies project, against another member, who violated the Wikispecies project, the opinions of others, or the rules and standards of Wikispecies? Can you please give a link as to where the member committed those violations? Dan Koehl (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: Not exactly right. It was a very temporary preventative measure, as I had good reason to think that Franz Xaver (based on my previous exchanges with him) would ignore my attempts to discuss what he was doing, and would just keep editing the page. Maybe I was wrong, but being wrong is a very different issue to abuse of admin powers. I had no intention of protecting the page permanently, nor of protecting it in order to win an argument. I protected it temporarily in order to get the attention of @Franz Xaver:, so that we could discuss what he was doing. End of story ... Stho002 (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the common action in such a situation, is to ask another admin to protect the page, in order to avoid accusations of abusing the admin powers. Further, a discussion, with ambition to reach consensus, should have been kept on the discussion part of the page, but theres no discussion at all on that page, it is blank. Such a discussion could now have been important for the community now.
Because regardless how long time you protected the page, I guess that you also can see, that such a measure could be viewed as misuse of a power tool, where you gave yourself a larger power on the wiki, meanwhile closing a fellow contributor out from editing, instead of followoing the standard way, and try to reach a consensus with him on the discussion page? By all means, as elected admins, never are we to grant ourselves any exceptions from the resposibility we have as admins, or to use them in a debate with fellow contributors with different opinions as ours.
Just to get this straight, I ask for your patience and understanding, and with all respect for you as one of the most important contributors to Wikispecies, and repeat my question, when you protected the page, regardless during which time, in what way had User:Franz Xaver violated the project, motivating you to use your admin rights and protect the page? (Im then refering to how his actions violated the Wikispecies project, not that his edits were in conflict with your private opinion)?
As an admin, I suppose you have looked into relevant rules and recomendations for admins, and Im sure You are aware of the fact that protecting a page where you are personally involved in a conflict, is considered a serious issue according to and sometimes even a reason to remove the admin rights from an admin? This is why I regard it as very important to understand in which way Franz Xaver was violating the project, which would motivate you to protect the page. If he didnt, then it seems to me that you abused your admin powers? Or is there further angles that this can be viewed in, which I have foreseen?

Dan Koehl (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl: What is this, a witch hunt? I made an error of judgement in a moment of frustration with Franz Xaver, who refused to discuss/cooperate. Technically, he was not sourcing the information that he was entering in a way that could be straightforwardly checked by others, so I added The Plant List as a source for the time being, and tried to explain to him how we could improve on it, but he refused to listen and kept editing. Sourcing is the number one principle of Wikimedia sites. If I look at a page and can't tell where the info. has come from, then that is problematic. Franz Xaver knew what he was doing, but could not see that other people could not follow where the information was sourced. My attempts to explain this to him were unsuccessful, so I protected the page in the meantime. This is the last I have to say on this issue, so please either have me desysoped or get on with doing something more constructive, as this is becoming a waste of time. Stho002 (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
No, its not a witch-hunt, it is giving you the possibility to defend your reasons, when you are accused of violating a wikimedia collaboration project and abusing your admin powers. To directly and openly confront you with this can not be a waiste of time for the project? And it seems it was not the first time during your time, here, it seems that you have protected pages at least 3 times before? Which means that "an error of judgement in a moment of frustration" is actually a repeated behaviour, or a pattern, in combination of blocking your fellow project members, when they dont "obey"?

Dan Koehl (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have made a few similar mistakes before, a long time ago. But, as a proportion of my 500,000+ total edits, it is actually an extremely low mistake rate. More edits => more mistakes. Now, time for you to move on from this and cease harrassing me ... Stho002 (talk) 06:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I dont see this as harrasment, you have, as an admin, been accused of abusing your admin powers. Im trying to find out if you agree with this. Viewing you as an admin, accused of abusing your powers, it doesnt matter how many edits you did, or if you personally consider your abuse of your powers minor and of less importance. The question is, did you, or did you not, abuse your powers? If you claim you did not, then please give a link where the community can get insight in how the users you refer to, violated the Wikispecies project? I hope I managed to present my question more clear to you now. (The question is not as to how many edits you did on Wikispecies, or what you personally think is a minor mistake or not, or wether you fell harrassed by my questions or not, or where you personally think I should move on to, or not.)
-Did you abuse your admin powers? Yes or no?

Dan Koehl (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You are badly misrepresenting what I wrote. The relevance of my total number of edits is that it shows that any inadvertent "abuse of admin powers", although it may indeed have happened more than just once, is nevertheless an extremely low proportion of my total number of edits. Therefore, your insinuations that it is a repeated pattern of behaviour is entirely unjustified, given that there are just a mere handful of examples over a 6 year period, none of which were considered serious enough at the time to do much or anything about. I strongly suggest that you take a step back and see this issue from a proper impartial and objective perspective, in which you recognise the role that Franz Xaver played in creating this present situation. Otherwise you would be badly failing in your duty as a crat here, if you just focus on one side of a two-sided story and use that one side to try to justify an agenda of your own Stho002 (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

From your discussion page history[edit]

Stephen, you should NOT protect pages when they are not vandalised or in danger of being so. This per wikimedia policy. Thanks. Lycaon 20:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC) Please have a look at Protection policy. Your action are not justified. Please stop. Lycaon 21:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC) I suggest you relax--there was no need to protect that page, if it's not going to get vandalised. If it is, you can revert and block the IP.--Maxim(talk) 00:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused about protecting a redirect on the old New Zealand page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Because of abuse behaviour you were desysoped in 2008:

Lycaon and Stho002 ( desysoped: EVula and I conferred and asked that a steward (DarkoNeko) desysop those two admins for wheel-warring over New Zealand. Stho002 blocked Lycaon, while Lycaon seems to have been wiki-stalking Stho002 over the RfA. I'm not sure how to proceed--I would think Lycaon should be restored as sysop (in a week or two without RfA) but Stho002's use of tools was very abusive, and I think he should go again through RfA to regain them. Thoughts?--Maxim(talk) 02:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

As a non-regular here, I have to say it was a big mistake to make an IP an admin. I say give Lycaon adminship back right now. Stho002 doesn't seem to have any clue whatsoever, and imo has gone rogue. Majorly (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

And then you were given back your sysop status on condition: I would suggest a community-wide dispute resolution and give admin tools to both users as long as Stho002 promises that he won't do any controversial actions without first gaining consensus. Stho002 is a valuable contributor, and we surely don't want to lose someone like this in Wikispecies. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Your lines from 28 november 2008 sounds very bizzare: Besides, I was on the defensive because admin Lycaon has been against me from the beginning (being the only admin to vote against my adminship), and so I tried to block him for harrassing me. I think it is a major exaggeration to say that "Stho002's use of tools was very abusive" - I was acting in self-defense.

-You blocked another contributor because he had voted against you in admin election? And you call this self defence? Did you keep the promise not to do any controversial actions without first gaining consensus? Appreantly not, since you were blocked from Wiispecies:

Dear Stho002, I have blocked you from editing for a day because of edits like [7], [8], [9], and [10]. Please be more respectful of your fellow Wikispecies editors in the future. Ucucha (talk) 08:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

In 2009 you got your sysop status back: I have restored your admin status because it was taken away without community consensus and it was supposed to be a "temporary" measure. That act was not to be meant to be a punitive action. So now, your status is restored and you can delete any vandalism pages. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

In June 2009 it seems that you are involved in some conflicts again: Seriously, I have been watching you for some months, and your attitude here is not helpful. Please stop being so belligerent, and maybe assume good faith just a little? J.delanoygabsadds 02:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

and you threaten to block other contributors: I trust this has been the last time you are reverting edits from other administrators on this project. If you feel there is a need to edit an other administrator's edits on this project, you can do so with arguments. Arguments can be raised on taxa pages, or the Village Pump, or on the talk page of the administrator if you want him to ask a question.

Other than that I wanted to add that the following comment "Either you are back with us as an editor (which is fine, you are a good editor when you can keep your ego under control!), or not. However, if your only "contribution" is to add a tiny bit of pointless information to the Animalia page, just because you know that I don't want it to be added, then you are not welcome here, and I will block you.", which you left on Lycaon's userpage is totally out of order. You DO NOT block anyone because you happen to have a personal issue with someone. You only block clear vandals, or you can block after a discussion of an idividual case in the appropriate places. --Kempm 00:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems your Wikipedia account was blocked in 2012? according to more comments on your talk page:

It would seem that you are conflating two separate ideas here. You are entitled to have your edits given fair treatment based on their content. Your treatment, on the other hand, instead has been (and should be) based on your own behaviour. Until and unless you understand this point you are very unlikely to ever be unblocked over at WP. In the end, the matter is entirely in your hands. - Nick Thorne (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC) Thanks for you input, Nick, but such a massively sociologically skewed subset of humanity as wikipedians are completely unqualified to dictate behavioural ethics, as is highlighted by their failure to uphold even the most basic principle of rationality, i.e., consistency, for my behaviour was no worse than that of Stemonitis .... Stho002 (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC) PS: I do not want the block lifted so very badly that I am willing to resort to ego stroking ... Stho002 (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

and in November 2012 you are blocking fellow contributor PeterR. You did this as an admin, where you were involved in debate, with the very person you blocked?

And in January 2013 protecting a page again? Note, please, that this kind of your conduct may be regarded as an abuse of administrative privileges, forcing your self-concept of WS. Ark (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC) I'm not forcing anything of the sort. The reason you gave for unprotecting the template page was just plain wrong: I protected it for a valid reason in the menu of possible reasons. If you must unprotect it, then pls at least come up with a half-right reason! The formatting issue here is EXTREMELY MINOR, i.e. capitals vs. lower case! Haven't people got anything better to do?? Stho002 (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

and blocking other users again: You are using admin tools to gain an advantage in a dispute in which you are involved. For something like this you can be blocked. Ark (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

-No, there is no dispute, I blocked Kuzia for vandalism (removing a reference) after he had been warned...Stho002 (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

and you got blocked: You are blocked. One day should be enough to think about your attitude. Ark (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

-I suggest you reconsider, and quickly, or else I will be reporting you as a rogue admin. I blocked Kuzia for vandalism, after he had been warned. He unjustifiably removed a valid reference from a page. I did NOT use my admin tools to gain advantage in any "dispute", I simply blocked him for vandalism, and only for 3 days, to try to deter him from further acts of vandalism ... Stho002 (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that during the last month, you feel like you have freedom to dictate for other contributors how things should be done, and if they dont follow your command, you will delete the pages they create?: Please don't delete these templates for now!!! Mariusm (talk) 06:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

-Please don't use them on live pages, or I will have to delete their use on anything other than a sandbox page Stho002 (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Since your arrival to the Wikispecies project it seems you have acted in more or less the same way, following the same nature. People try to communicate, like Accassidy: Please draw breath, have a short break, and take time to realise that this is a community project. Your effort on Zootaxa is appreciated, but it is not proprietary, none of our work here is. I could understand your pique if Marius had removed information, but he added more. Let it go. I don't want to see anybody dismissed from WS, but I also hate to see other contributors driven away. We need them all.

I regard his words as friendly, and trying to calm you down, and he writes further: It seems that you are somehow determined to be the last crewman still afloat on this ship. I do not know the validity of The Plant List, not surprising as I am a lepidopterist, but Franz Xaver seems to argue quite reasonably that it is unsound. This is exactly what I would do if you started listing all the species names (many mis-spelt) included on the LepIndex database by BMNH, as this is also out of date and not subject to review. I also find the collapsed "Synonyms" box an un-helpful and non-standard embellishment and will not use it myself; there is a limit to minimalism. After MariusM and now Franz Xaver, and possibly soon AnduBoorman, how on earth can we expect to make this site comprehensive and an authority of wider value, when it just seems that there is you me and Uleli left? Accassidy (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

and he continues: This latest conflict between yourself and @Franz Xaver:, in an article that has been under discussion for days, if not weeks, is astonishing. It appears to me that you are at least as guilty as is he in the context of "hotheadedness" and unwillingness to talk about differences of approach. To respond to his farewell note with such an ad hominem comment is contrary to my standards of politeness, and probably those of most others. A simple compromise with regard to a list of species under Ouratea would surely be to keep one list of species justified by the Sastre C. 1988 reference, which is available online for everybody to inspect. Then those "unresolved" or otherwise uncertain species level taxa from The Plant List/Tropicos, which you seem to agree are less authoritative, could have been listed separately in an Unresolved Taxa list, showing immediately where there remains a lack of certainty. Such an amendment would have left Franz Xaver's list as he compiled it and your additional list below, helping others to gradually work through the list and decide on synonymies etc etc in due course. After your monolithic change, it will take a lot of research by someone to extract the reliable names from the unreliable ones. Thus you have made the page less helpful, in my view, by this action. We are both Admins here, and it is not in my power to block a fellow, but I must urge you to try to be more open-minded and co-operative, less superior and bloody-minded. That is how it appears to me. This is supposed to be a community project, not a personal fiefdom. Accassidy (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Steven, looking through your talk page history, it seems you doesnt really accept the idea of a collaboration project in your heart, while at the same time, you are an impressing producer and value the wikispecies. Numerous bad comments about other people gives me that you are not really that fond of cooperation in general? Still, this IS a collaboration project, and unless theres specific rules written for wikispecies, the wikimedia rules, and code of ethics apply. An admin should actually be a defender of those code of artics, not an abuser of them. When you are blocking fellow contributors, or protecting pages so other people cant edit them, with the argument that other contributors are vandalizing the pages, it is you who is vandalizing the entire project. An admin should protect the PROJECT against people who protect pages, and block their fellow project members, if they have different opinions?

You say that other project members doesnt cooperate discuss/cooperate, but on the pages that you have protected, there are no discussions at all?? On the discussion page is no motivation why they were protected, and no invitation to discuss and try to reach consensus?

Somehow, it seems you have misunderstood the entire idea behind this project. Or you are so engaged to do what you believe is right, so you forget. But it is a part of the wikimedia project, and each member and contributor should fellow the rules and code of ethics and the five pillars. If anyone would have suggested othervise in 2004, Wikispecies would never had been granted to become created. It is therefore important that you, as largest present contributor, dont violate the project, regardless how productive you are. And none of the wikimedia projects is accepting that an admin is abusing his or hers powers. Which is why I have invested all this time, writing on your discussion page, in order to try to find out if the accusations against you are valid or not, if during the years when you have several times blocked other people, and protected pages, did it to defend the project, or if you acted in your own interest?

So I repeat my question: in what way had User:Franz Xaver violated the project, motivating you to use your admin rights and protect the page And I add: in what way did the other contributors violate the Wikispecies project, when you blocked them, or protected other pages during the last years?

Dan Koehl (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This is beginning to sound like harrassment and therefore an abuse of your bureaucrat powers. I have already told you several times that I made a small error of judgement - a mistake, not an abuse of admin powers, but just a mistake. It was the result of Franz Xaver being totally uncooperative, so you might want to talk to him about that Stho002 (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Dear Steven, If you claim you did not abuse your admin powers, then please give a link where the community can get insight in how the users you refer to, violated the Wikispecies project? Dan Koehl (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
My name is spelled Stephen, not Steven. Technically, I may have inadvertently "abused my admin powers" in this case, due to an error of judgement. But please note two things: (1) I unprotected the page myself after a very short time, thus correcting my own mistake of protecting it in the first place; and (2) the matter arose because I added a source to an unsourced list of species of Ouratea, which Franz Xaver then removed, returning it to an unsourced state again (see this diff). This violates the core philosophy of Wikimedia projects. I attempted to discuss the issue with him, but he would not cooperate/discuss. Please feel free to remove my "admin powers" at any stage, as it is really only an "unpaid housekeeping job", and I will be happy to refer all admin issues in future to you to sort out. My only interest on Wikispecies is content, not admin. Having said that, I apologise for the inadvertent abuse of said "admin powers", and I have no wish for a repeat of all this, so I will be more careful in future anyway. Stho002 (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
As I already have tried to explain to you before, I have to repeat again, that the species list in "my" version of Ouratea was not unsourced at all. As far it concerns sourcing the species list, I cannot recognise any difference to "your" version of Alloxysta. Especially for justification of inclusion of Alloxysta thorpei, I cannot find any reference/source in the genus page. Don't worry, this is OK for me, as the references in the species article itself demonstrate its acceptance. I only point to this, as the same criteria should be applied to all users. --Franz Xaver (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
You are missing the point. I added a source for the species list, and you removed it, which is tantamount to vandalism. I accepted your point that The Plant List is not 100% correct, and I tried to explain to you how you can correct it by providing explicit justification in the justification box. The Plant List is 90+% the same as your list, so it is much better than no source, and can be corrected as above. The fact that there are many other pages on WS without such justifications/sources is irrelevant. In many cases there are no available comprehensive sources. The point is that adding a source, where there was none, improves a page, so removing it is tantamount to vandalism. Stho002 (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I see, probably we both will never come to the same view of this situation. So, it is up to the community to make up an opinion, who of us both is right. What about Alloxysta? Will you be able to fill in the justification box? --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The difference is that I did not remove a source from the Alloxysta page, and I don't think that there is an available comprehensive source for that genus anyway. Just listing references on a page is not the same as providing a source, particularly not when there is a species list with many red links (as there were, at the time, for Ouratea). You are guilty of reverting my edit without prior discussion. Unfortunately I reacted in a way that was in retrospect imprudent (i.e. temporarily protecting the page so that I could talk to you without you ignoring me). Let me be clear, I am only too happy and willing to cooperate and even compromise with you Franz Xaver, as you obviously have good botanical knowledge, but you have not come across to me as a cooperative person Stho002 (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not "we both will ever come to the same view of this situation" is irrelevant. I made an edit to a page, which added a source, clearly with the intention of improving the page, and you removed it without prior discussion. And yet now you come gunning for me on a technicality, that I may or may not be guilty of, in response to your initial act of (effectively) vandalism! What does that make you?? Stho002 (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
You know, in my opinion TPL is a totally useless source, it contains simply too many mistakes. So, adding this actually can be rated as an act of vandalism, if this is done deliberately and being aware that it is crap. Before reverting your edit, I had pointed to these mistakes. (In my understanding, obvious mistakes of this extent have to be removed immediately.) So, when using your admin tool, you would have been aware that you protected a strongly deteriorated version. Has it been about protecting a grotty version in order to enforce power? (I cannot tell, as I am botanist and not psychologist. AGF.) On Saturday, I had sorted out from these 403 names (not species!!!!) more than 80 synonyms, almost as many unresolved names and a lot of invalid orthographic variants. So, the TPL list and "my" version" are much less than 90% the same. (254/403 is about 63%) --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
You need not complain about these 30-40 red links in my version of Ouratea when you compare with Alloysta, I suppose. --Franz Xaver (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Again, you defend yourself with empty rhetoric! TPL is manifestly not a totally useless source. Maybe it is as low as 63% in the case of Ouratea (I'll have to take your word on that), but overall it is much higher (>90%). At the time you removed my addition of TPL as a source, it was the best verifiable source we had. If you have improved the situation since, that does not excuse your immediate removal (without prior discussion) of a source that I added in good faith to try to improve the page. I am not the one obsessed with power!! As I have already stated, to compare Ouratea to Alloxysta is totally inappropriate. Nobody removed a source from the latter, and there isn't an equivalent of TPL for cynipoid Hymenoptera. I am willing to accept that I made an error of judgement in temporarily protecting the page. What are you willing to admit?? Not much, I expect ... Stho002 (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
"Empty rhetoric" is a matter of POV. I am convinced, I did not make any mistake. So, I do not have anything to admit. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Q.E.D. Stho002 (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
This diff, which you yourself try to use (above) in your own defence, illustrates my point perfectly: Starting a comment with "I will revert your edits" and then giving your opinion hardly constitutes "discussion". It is simply being dogmatic, and illustrates the extent to which you think your opinion is the correct one and will not discuss Stho002 (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Your edit war on page about admins[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikispecies, you may be blocked from editing.

Dear Stephen, please avoid edit war 1, 2 at the page Wikispecies:Administrators, which is a list of active, elected admins, and not a page for your personal opinions reg why I, or other members, disputed your status as admin. You have submitted the text "Resigned due to constant hounding by User:Dan Koehl", where your name presently should be absent, since you are not an admin anymore. After I removed your name and the lines: "Resigned due to constant hounding by User:Dan Koehl" you reedited the page, with your name as admin again, followed by the text "Resigned due to constant hounding by User:Dan Koehl" and with comment A neutral person should remove that remark, not the antagonist. I will now remove that text a second time, but after that not letting me being manipulated into some silly edit war, or likevise, I will not protect the page, but if you repeat, I will bring your behaviour to steward level. I ask you kindly to think about the project that you care for, and your personal dedication to Wikispecies, and ask you not to develop in such a way that you may end up like on english wikipedia 3, 4, 5. Dan Koehl (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no edit war, except on your part. I just don't think that it is proper for you to be the one to remove that remark. I would happily accept its removal by anyone else, but I have zero confidence in your objectivity or credibility as a crat here. However, I have made my point, and I have better things to do than to get into an edit war over it. Stho002 (talk) 03:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
BTW, it is only your opinion that the text in question was non relevant, but the world doesn't revolve around your opinions, does it? Stho002 (talk) 03:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
BTW(2), your threats of steward intervention once again betray your lack of experience as a crat here. Steward intervention is no longer required, now that I am not an admin any more (due, incidentally, to my voluntary resignation!) Anything that a steward can do to me you can do to me all by your self, though, of course, you need to be very careful not to overstep the mark, or steward intervention will be required ... against you Stho002 (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I dont believe so, because notifying Stewards is in this case understandable, and I can read that its not the first time in your case?

Even if you after two days chose to ask to have your adminship removed, it doesnt remove the fact that you were accused of abusing your admin powers, which I believe you were also accused of one year ago? in 19 November 2013, according to the page regarding blocking of your Sockpuppet investigations where it is written: allegations of admin abuse on Wikispecies, might want to notify the bureaucrats over there, if it's any use; he was blocked and desysoped back in '08 for admin abuse as well.

By the way, do I understand right, that OhanaUnited was the only admin who ever unblocked you from the english Wikipedia? See Block log

I can only repeat OhanaUniteds words to you, when he unblocked you on the english Wikipedia 8 August 2011, after you became blocked for edit war on 25 June 2011 :(6): Please keep your promise and better understand what consensus means. If in doubt, discuss in the talk page first before editing the article. Also, review the policies and ask around if you're unsure.

Here are the Wikispecies policies:

The most important parts are:

Editing policy[edit]

Because of the fact that science is an ever-changing field, often, new researches may find contradicting results to the old and perceived view. Therefore, we ask editors to:

  • Be civil
    • Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and stops Wikispecies from working well. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally.
  • Do not start an edit war
    • Edit war is two or more users with opposite views continuously adding the content they believe is right and remove others that they deem is incorrect. Editors are asked to solve disputes and work for a compromise or consensus in the talk page. You can request an administrator to solve disputes.
  • No personal attacks
    • Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikispecies. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users away from editing. Nobody likes to be abused.
  • No one owns any articles
    • If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and within reason you should not prevent them from doing so.

Enforcing policy[edit]

In the case of misbehaving editors, such policy may be enforced to keep the community in good order.

  • Warning
    • This is usually the first step to remind editors to behave properly.
  • Block
    • Users will have their editing privilege removed for a period of time (or indefinitely) as determined by the administrator. The blocked editors are still able to access and view Wikispecies, but unable to do any changes to it. It is NOT necessary for editors to receive a warning prior to receive a block if the administrator believes that there is a clear indication that the editor is disruptive.

-If you follow those rules, Stephen, and if you can combine your high producation, with a positive cooperation, I believe that you will be a valued and respected contributor to Wikispecies. If you dont, I believe the risk of becoming blocked again, is high, and maybe even permanent. Therefore I ask you kindly to respect Wikispecies policy rules, and collaborate, because this is a project of collaboration.

Dan Koehl (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl:Well finally! Thank you for the final paragraph, which is the very first time that you have kindly asked me to do anything at all. Of course I am more than happy to collaborate, cooperate, and indeed even compromise. My only worry is that some other editors here are doing poor quality work, which is excusable in itself, but, what is not excusable, is that they are protecting their work from correction/improvement by me by way of "kicking up a fuss" and generally refusing to discuss, and twisting things to make me appear to be the villain. My other worry is that you are not in a position to judge matters of content as you seem to lack any significant knowledge relating to WS content. We really need admins and crats who know a bit about biodiversity, nomenclature, etc., in order for them to be in a position to see problems with other editors work (which the editors themselves will never admit to). However, I am happy to refer all such matters to you and the other crats here for resolution, without getting into any disputes with the relevant editors myself. My only wish is that consensus be based on rational reasoning, rather than the mere banging of fists to affirm personal preferences. enWP is a hotbed of such fist banging and power play by admins/crats. That's the reason I am permanently blocked there. So, are you willing to cooperate with me or not? Stho002 (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
No, it was not the first time that I used the word kindly, and I will not make any comment about why you claimed that. I believe that your prime worry should be that you dont get permanently blocked here. Its a question of radically changing attitude towards other contributors. Respecting and speaking politely to anyone else on Wikispecies, and respecting the rules I pasted above. Dan Koehl (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


It is clear from recent events that you are spending time eagerly monitoring the edits of selected contributors and then making reverts after a very short time without attempting to initiate any intercourse on the relevant discussion page. I deduce this most recently from the history of Campanulaceae, but there have been others previously. This despite requests from myself and others that all those closely concerned in recent disputes try to step back from persistent confrontation and return to co-operative editing. I would like, once again, to encourage you to step completely away from these controversial reversions and to stop making such reactionary reverts without discussion. WS is currently in considerable dis-array and you must accept a significant part of the blame, though not all of it, for this sad situation. If this trend does not end pretty much straight away, I will feel I have no alternative than to block one or more protagonists for a significant cooling off period. Accassidy (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Accassidy: I can see how you might view things that way, but there are alternative ways to view things which you don't seem to have considered. I am not aware that there is a required length of time which must pass before I (or anyone else) can edit a page after it has been edited by someone else, and I am not aware that every edit must first go through discussion on the talk page. Therefore any blocking action on this basis might not be justified. Can you pls tell me exactly what you consider to be improper regarding my edits to Campanulaceae? Andyboorman removed a disambiguation which was actually needed, so I restored it and did a bit of tidying up at the same time. There simply was no "controversial reversion", only a fully justified one. However, if you insist, I am happy to refer such bad edits to you, as an admin, to try to sort out. I am not being uncooperative, so why the big fuss?? Stho002 (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm also going to step back for a week and see if the temper dies down. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Since my note above, you have made three contributions on others talk pages and the admin page, including a sarcastic, perhaps mildly abusive, remark on User_talk:Franz_Xaver. You are prolonging the "big fuss" by these protestations, rather than stepping back and reflecting. It is rather disingenuous to ask what the "big fuss" is. It must be clear to you above all people. Please let all this interaction go for a while, put aside your apparent paranoia, and start to re-establish your reputation as a positive contributor by new work in areas of taxonomy that will benefit from your specialist knowledge. Hold back from 'correcting' what you see as errors for some days and until you have discussed your views with others involved in the editing process. Try to show respect for others in the project, too often you treat others with what appears to me to be lack of respect verging on contempt. These are the key elements of co-operation. Accassidy (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Accassidy: OK, you want cooperation, well it cuts both ways. As I see it, I am fighting for my "Wiki-life" here, so I defend myself against attacks (sometimes with a hint of sarcasm) because I can't count on anyone else defending me. So, if I do as you ask, can I count on you to defend (unblock) me against the inevitable next step when some other admin or crat blocks me without due cause (i.e. for retrospective reasons only)? That's the deal, Alan. You watch my back (against UNFAIR attack only), and I'll abide by your preferences regarding how I should act from now on. Deal? Stho002 (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Everyone already has this deal, including you. Stop fighting for your life and it will no longer be under threat. You will escape being blocked if you compose yourself and work collaboratively, show respect and treat other editors as equally valuable members of the community. If others treat you unfairly, then I will give them similar advice to that which I am currently giving you. Respect breeds respect. Hopefully my next edit will be in Harpendyreus. Accassidy (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
@Accassidy: I ask the question again, Alan: If someone blocks me for reasons which you consider to be unfair, will you unblock me? Stho002 (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
You have taken on the role of admin, and with that comes the responsibility to uphold fairness. Stho002 (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I would treat a block on you as I would treat a block on anyone else. I would investigate the background first. If I felt it unwarranted I would seek to engage with other sysops concerned over the best course of action for the project as well as for any individual. I would exhort them to exhibit tolerance and co-operation, as I am exhorting you so to do. The best way to ensure that this remains a theory only, is for you to stop fighting, stop worrying and to start turning red links blue. Don't study "Recent changes" for edits by others with whom you have had exchanges in the past. If you really feel the urge to make significant changes to other pages that have been created or amended by others in the recent past, talk to them first on the discussion pages to try to resolve issues over source reliability and so on. I have just exemplified this on Talk:Agrochola. It is not necessary for you to explain to me the role of an Administrator. Accassidy (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: Stephen, I see also now that despite my request yesterday that you show some respect for others supporting the project, you have initiated a string on the Pump entitled "Integrity of Crats" which is simple a continuity of previous pleading about how you view the activities of others. Please just stop "fighting for your Wiki-life" and return to making useful contributions in areas of your expertise, avoiding confrontation. If you continue to "fight" by questioning the integrity of other editors, admins or bureaucrats, I will see no alternative to blocking you myself. Please, please take this hint and show that this Wiki will not for you be a repetition of the past!Accassidy (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Rschen7754:@Accassidy: Well, Alan, if you are comfortable to have one crat try to pressure another into compromising their objectivity/impartiality for the sake of solidarity, then good for you, but I am not! Stho002 (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I will not be expressing any view I hold about exchanges between other sysops on your talk page. Here I am just trying to have a conversation with you, but I am not yet sure how much you are prepared to take my advice on board. Please consider again my request in the second sentence above. I urge you to refrain from protestation and re-establish yourself as a contributor. Accassidy (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Accassidy: I'm sorry Alan, but I don't need to "re-establish myself as a contributor", because I haven't stopped contributing new information to the project, despite being sidetracked by a silly dispute, which is more than can be said for the other disputants. I'm not interested in "cooperating" with you if all that means is that I have to do what you want me to do, while you (1) refuse to do what I ask (i.e., promise to cover my back against UNFAIR attack with APPROPRIATE use of your admin powers) and (2) fail to act or even comment on more serious matters like User:Dan Koehl's antics, particularly in relation to putting inappropriate pressure on User:OhanaUnited to compromise impartiality for solidarity. Protestation is sometimes justified. Stho002 (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Come to me with a proposal for cooperation that is worthy of the name, and I will be more than keen to persue it with you Stho002 (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Stephen, I propose the following:
a. We both do our best to spend our time adding new content.
b. If you discover an edit from User:Andyboorman, User:Franz Xaver, User:Mariusm, User:Dan Koehl or another with whom you have recently had "misunderstandings" you will send a message to me with your concerns, rather than hastily reverting their edits, and I will endeavour to come up with a solution that you can both live with.
c. If it appears to me that you have been unfairly treated by another, then I will intervene and do my best to find a solution that allows you to continue making your valued contributions here.
d. You will, in turn, refrain from making public comments about the competence or motivations of other contributors. No more "knives out" or other "conspiracy" remarks.
e. We continue in this way until the New Year, after which we will review how things are going and discuss whether the co-operation is working.
Accassidy (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
@Accassidy: Agreed. Stho002 (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Breach of agreement![edit]

I thought we had an agreement that you're not meddling with my edits (or any edits for that matter, unless they amount to vandalism) for 2 hours after they have been posted. I hope you'll be fair enough to keep your word. Please click sparingly the "Recent changes" button! Mariusm (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes Mariusm, of course, but if you refer to Aaaba, I would like to defend Stho002. As the history is showing, your edits this morning at the end had not changed anything. Moreover, the page had been created originally by Stho002. OK, his edit is an indication that Stho002 has the page on his watchlist. Probably, everyone of us has a watchlist and this is OK, I suppose. It seems to be too rigid to me in this case, that he should have waited two hours. On the other hand, considering the nature of his edits, these IMO do not seem to be of top priority. Anyway, AGF. Regards --Franz Xaver (talk) 10:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
@Franz Xaver: I'm sure you sometimes start working on a certain page, save a temporary copy, and go searching for more material or more references. When you came back after half an hour or so, you expect to resume your edit from the point you've left it. But what if you are into a surprise: the page suddenly looks entirely different from the one you've left not long ago. I'm sure it won't be a pleasant surprise, having worked so hard in gathering information, and realizing you can't proceed as you wish. What is the rush? Why can't we give each other a space of time to organize what we intend into something final? Why the urge to step in and immediately change and modify? I've never done this kind of intervention myself. It's not productive and it's annoying. Can't you really find in this course of 2 hours anything else to work on except for the same pages I just edited? And something else: why do we have to always step on each other's toes, when millions of species are waiting in the limbo for resurrection? And another thing: why do we have to argue on everything like a flock of geese in the breeding season? Why? Mariusm (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I understand. Later I haved noticed your edits in Aaaaba nodosus. So, probably you first wanted to finish this before adding species to Aaaaba. I like your comparison with the "flock of geese". --Franz Xaver (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
@Accassidy: @Dan Koehl: @Franz Xaver: @Mariusm: As far as I am concerned, that "agreement" became null and void when you continued to lobby against me despite the supposed "agreement". There is no policy basis for such an "agreement", so unless our only remaining active crat wants to draft one for our consensus evaluation, there is no such agreement. If you start meddling with pages that I created originally, I have no intention of keeping away from those, in the absence of a policy change requiring me to do so. On the other hand, I will, by my own volition, keep away (for a couple of hours) from pages that you edit that I haven't previously edited. I consider this to be a suitable compromise in the spirit of cooperation. Thanks, Stho002 (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know you accepted an agreement with @Accassidy: using following words @Accassidy: Agreed. Stho002 (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC).
It seems you have removed that sentence where you agreed since then?
@Accassidy: @Dan Koehl: If you looked into it properly Dan, you would realise that (1) the agreement Mariusm refers to is a different one to the one Accassidy proposed; and (2) my apparent removal of agreement to the latter was a mistake resulting from a copy/paste error from something else I was doing unconnected with WS. I didn't notice that the "agreed" had disappeared, and I will replace it now. Stho002 (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I would be happy to assist in suggestion of a draft, or of any document that reduces conflicts in this project, but want to put your attention to a possibly easier solution to the presently problem, which may be the use of the Template:In_use or Template:Under construction. The would remove the 2 hours agreement, and instead letting the editor decide how long time he or she needs to complete. Do you think that concept could be applied as solution? Dan Koehl (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
"Under construction" is used to warn the reader that the information may not be complete and correct at present, and so is not appropriate to the present context. Both templates are from enWP. You might be able to get consensus here to adopt the "in use" template from enWP. It seems to have a 2 hr expiry, which seems appropriate. Stho002 (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
@Accassidy:, @Dan Koehl:, @Stho002: Maybe the use of templates or working offline can facilitate in preventing users interference with each other's work, but this would certainly make the editing more cumbersome. My original "agreement" with Stho was made after he repeatedly intervened seconds after I've posted my edits. Usually I edit not one but several pages simultaneously (i.e. species in a certain genus), and I occasionally return and retouch then as the work progresses. In the present dispute, I think, we need not new rules, but merely good faith, or may I say good manners, to allow some time for one's edit to "settle down" or "cool" before jumping in and reediting. Stho: I think we all will benefit (including yourself) if you discard some of your grumpiness and become more "malleable" and "pliable". You remind me of some English football fans who will smash and hit and curse, but in the end of the day, their favored team will be punished as a result of their inadequate conduct. Mariusm (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: @Franz Xaver: @Mariusm: there is also a Template:In_creation which people might consider using. All these are options, as is the suggestion above for "good faith" and patience before moving in to add/change/revert information on a recent change. I am pleased to see that the language from all is becoming more co-operative. Please stay positive. Accassidy (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
It appears that the Selected References list for Masdevallia was probably made a Template so that it could be used on many of the sub-genera pages and probably some of the species pages. I haven't checked them all. Its not something that I have thought necessary, but it clearly helps the editors who use it. Accassidy (talk) 09:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
@Accassidy: I don't see how it works, since either you just list those refs on the genus page, or you specify page references for the lower taxa at the end of each of the refs., which you can't easily do if it is a template like that. Orchi is simply repeating the generic refs. on each species page! Do you think that this is sensible? Stho002 (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
@Accassidy: Also, combining several refs. into a single template seems very odd. What if a species is mentioned in some, but not all, of those refs? Stho002 (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, in this case it is not just genus and species pages, but a lot of sub-genera as well. If the subgeneric and species classification is expounded in a lot of the individual references, then it might help to cite them in one group. I wouldn't do it myself, but neither would I step in to change what clearly works and makes sense to others. Ultimately, our principal concern is the data that can be read from the page, not the way it is constructed. I understand your questions, but I don't have detailed answers, as I don't intend to check every species page against every reference. That would be a waste of my time and of yours. I have learned from a lot of experience that what seems logical to one person seems illogical to another. I trust other editors enough to allow that they have logic for the way they do things, even though I cannot always see it, and not to interfere unless they are clearly posting misleading or incorrect information. This is a liberal, tolerant approach which would not be supported in many political systems but seems to be appropriate here. Accassidy (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
@Accassidy: Another way of looking at it is as an editor going their own way without consideration of good advice from others ... Stho002 (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Please explain this diff![edit]

The rest are synonyms; the page was last updated 5 years ago (for example Phrynocephalus affinis is a synonym of Phrynocephalus przewalskii). Please skip the "Wtf" staff, will you? Mariusm (talk) 06:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Look for example at the reptile database: [11]. Mariusm (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm requesting you very politely, not to threaten me, not to swear at me and not to bully me. If you think that every edit must be backed-up by a source, or else it's a vandalism, then you're categorically wrong. I asked you many times, and I'm asking you again: get off my back. Don't scrutinize under your microscope every edit I'm making. I've seen many edits which you've left in a mess, so let's not discuss on edit quality. You're not an expert in every taxon group you edit and you don't supply sources for every species-list you make. Many species-lists you make are based on arcane or outdated sources (I've seen it many times). I expect you not to interfere with my edits, not to waste my time with trifles, not to engage with me in endless conversations. I'm not your enemy and I don't wish to quarrel with you, so let's keep as much distance between us as possible. Thank you very much for listening. Mariusm (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


I have completed more on Ooia found another species! I have deleted some rubbish posted here earlier, please ignore. Thanks for sorting out my sloppy template Wong and Boyce (20010), but I did have it on my radar to do today, but I do need more practice with these! Regards Andyboorman (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion[edit]

Please avoid speedy deletion as a method, when having a conflict with a fellow user regarding an article or a template, since speedy deletion was not intennded for this use. When in dispute regarding an article or a template, please use the talk page. Dan Koehl (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Warning: Edit conflicts[edit]

WARNING!!!, you are again working simultaneously on my edits. I consider this as vandalism, which can result in punitive measures under the wiki rules. Mariusm (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Stephen, I am very sad that you have caused this reaction from Mariusm and that you are having an argument elsewhere over individual commas in references. Furthermore, I can see no real purpose in taking a list of publications off an Author Page and creating a separate Category page just to list the same publications. This is simply making work for the sake of it and ensures that anyone seeking information has to keep clicking for longer. I refer to Thomas Pennington Lucas in this case, but no doubt there are others. These additional Category pages are not standard, as you seem to think. This template Template:Lucas,TP, 1889a has stood since July and was inoffensively enhanced today by WikiKlaas. Then you stepped in, I deduce because you are watching his edits on "Recent Changes", and the template has now gone through a radical and un-necessary change, including an argument over a comma. I have tried patiently over the last few weeks to guide you into more co-operative behaviour, but this has clearly failed. I am going to put a temporary block on your editing privileges later today unless you can give me a meaningful and sincere promise that this behaviour will stop. Alan. Accassidy (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Accassidy: Alan, you can and will, of course, do what you like, and take the consequences, but your admin powers are not a mandate to force me into obeying your wishes/desires, and it would therefore be a serious abuse of those powers if you blocked me for inadequate reasons. Are you gullible or what?? I didn't provoke that reaction from Mariusm, he is simply in attack mode against me. I made an edit to a page that I created and he has never edited! It was an edit to a noinclude section of a template, so it makes no difference to pages that use the template, such as the page he was editing at the time. HE THEREFORE HAD ABSOLUTELY NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ABOVE REACTION. Regarding WikiKlass, he has not, to my knowledge, made a complaint about anything, and if he does, then you will, of course, ask me for my side of the story before indulging in any blocking activity. I will report any abuse of your admin powers to the stewards at Meta, without delay (be aware that a WS block is limited to WS, and does not affect Meta). So, do what you like, and take the consequences. But bear in mind that I am only trying to improve WS, in the face of irrational opposition from a handful of other editors who are claiming territoriality and want to be left alone to do it their way. I have a perhaps uniquely wide perspective of the whole site and what is best for the project as a whole, but my reasoning is regrettably being ignored. Stho002 (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Stephen, this was not an appropriate response and I have taken the action forewarned. I have been trying to smooth matters over for some while and to accuse me of gullibility is disingenuous. You are of course free to take up your case with other more senior sysops wherever you wish. There will be a lot of history fr them to look through, if they are new to your behaviour patterns. You really must try to develop a less aggressive and dominating mindset if you are to be of value in this community. Even if you were the only person here who knows what they are doing, and even if you were honest and correct in everything you say, that is still no reason to behave repetitively in an overbearing and inconsiderate manner. The best way to improve WS is to work collaboratively and to encourage those with less experience than yourself. This seems beyond your ability at this time. Accassidy (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with @Accassidy:, and although Im sorry to see that you have not listened to warnings, I fully support the blocking of your account. Admins and the Wikispecies community have had tolerance with your aggressive attitude, but theres a limit, and in the end we must all follow the Wikispecies:Policy rules for this project. For me, its totally clear that Accassidy was in full right to block you, since you dont respect the Wikispecies:Policy rules for this collaboration project. Dan Koehl (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I am noticing considerable argument over trivia (commas indeed), and lack of communication as to reasons. In this last case, @Stho002: is right, no format custom places comma between author and year in reference citations. @Stho002: is hardliner for format, but he did teach me well when I first joined Wikispecies. And we did intercommunicate.
  • I observe that we are not so much territorial as specialized and almost unaware of each other. In this, we mirror biology at large. As life is interactive, our study in this venue should be as well.
  • I have unblocked @Stho002:, more symbolic now, with suggestion that we move to Village Pump with discussions on greater interactivity and collaboration. Neferkheperre (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Stho002: @Neferkheperre: @Accassidy: @Dan Koehl: I would like to ask Stho a simple question to be answered only by "yes" or "no": Do you agree to co-operate and to comply with the majority's votes/decisions even when they stand in conflict with your wishes? Mariusm (talk) 05:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Stho002: @Neferkheperre: @Mariusm: @Dan Koehl: I would find this a difficult question to answer with a simple "yes" or "no" and have it applicable to all situations. The main difficulty is because we will find it hard to determine a meaningful majority if only a few people express an opinion and we do not know the true size of the population. For example, there has been relatively little feedback on my recent VP suggestion about the use of et al in Name and Synonym sections but not in References unless the number of authors is exceptional. It is almost impossible to draw a conclusion about consensus when so few people express a view. I hope we can all keep open minds and learn from each other in co-operative ways. Accassidy (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is sensible to use reference templates when the paper concerns many species and will be linked to many pages. Yes, you had contributed to this page in the past and so had it on your watchlist. But in the current delicate situation, you still decided to go onto the page after just 4 minutes after Andyboorman made an edit. This is not a coincidence, and it is something I specifically suggested you should try to avoid. I think sometimes that your impulsiveness is your own worst enemy. Please stop monitoring Recent Changes so closely and have a little more restraint. Make a note and go back a day or so later. Take it easy. Let things sit for a bit. Accassidy (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dan Koehl: @Tommy Kronkvist:@Stho002:@Andyboorman: For goodness sake!! There have been different versions of citations of journal titles for centuries and they will continue to vary in the future. Conventions chage over time and there is no right or wrong, just different peoples' habits. You can see journal titles cited in numerous different ways in different papers. A few days ago you were warring over a single comma, and now it is over a capital J for Journal. Can you not understand that such un-necessary fiddling is counter-productive and, inevitably when you insist on being the sole arbiter of rectitude, irritating to just about any and all of the editors whom you are trying repeatedly to "correct". In this case you were the first to fiddle with a Template previously worked on solely by one author. Yes, templates will occasionally need editing when more data or links become available, but please don't edit war over trivia.Accassidy (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: @Tommy Kronkvist:@Accassidy:@Andyboorman: I have no intention of editing this trivial issue any longer. Nevertheless, the protection of the pages is unjustified and requires undoing. Please see to it Stho002 (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
@Dan Koehl: @Tommy Kronkvist:@Accassidy:@Andyboorman:, Protecting and reverting pages where they are involved in edit conflict is a no-no for admins. Please remove any protection. I want to repeat that I would be happy to setup a local version of the en:Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment, which at least could be a central point to bring conflicts to the community. Dan Koehl (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Done Andyboorman (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


The online ISSN for this journal should be 1868-6397. See [12]. Andyboorman (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought we had agreed?[edit] not change each others template formats and to work collaboratively. I was wrong more is the pity. Andyboorman (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


Stephen, I see you have recently edited a Reference Template I created, and have changed the full stop (.) after the publication date, and before the title, to a colon (:). I have looked at the latest of your own publications cited on your user page. In that document, which I imagine you co-wrote and approved, the style used within the references is to place a full stop between the date and the title. This full stop has also been the style in all the papers that I have authored or co-authored, and in a large number of papers from many sources that I have just taken down from my book-shelf and consulted. In all the of these, the only occurrence of a colon (:) is between the journal title/volume data and the page enumeration. So I am wondering why you are now changing these well established full stops to colons, and from where you got the idea. Could you please explain? Alan Accassidy (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

  • @Accassidy: Firstly, note that I didn't edit your template just to replace full stop with colon. Secondly, when one publishes, one must follow the style of the journal (or it doesn't get published!) The colon style is in wide usage, and I adopted it here early on. Therefore, since I have created probably most of the reference citations here (mainly Zootaxa and ZooKeys), the colon style is almost certainly the majority here, so it makes sense to adopt it (or at least not to complain if another ref. gets changed to colon style). But, as I said, I'm only changing full stops to colons if I encounter them while doing something else - it isn't a crusade! Stho002 (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a bit odd. I published a paper in Zookeys in 2011 and the style of reference citation had either nothing between the date and title or sometimes a full stop. Here is a clip in their style then, without any other formatting:

So in neither of these cases did the editor put in a colon between the date and the title, and didn't really bother about a full stop or just a space. Perhaps you could say when they changed their house style to a colon. Accassidy (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

  • @Accassidy: That is not what I meant. I didn't say that I was following ZooKeys inhouse style for the purposes of WS! I said that since I had adopted the widespread colon style early on, and have created on WS many thousands of ref. templates which use it (mostly Zootaxa and Zookeys, but nothing to do with their inhouse styles for publication in these journals), the colon style is the predominant one on WS, so it makes sense to use it. Stho002 (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Accassidy: In other words, if we do ever decide on a single consistent style on WS, choosing the colon style will minimise the amount of work to render all refs consistent. Stho002 (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Stephen, simply being prolific does not make you "right". Nor does it mean that you are setting standards that everyone else must follow. This colon idea is a personal idiosyncrasy of your own. Clearly common publishing practice, both historic and current, is to separate date and title in a citation with a full stop or a space. So please do not expect others to follow your example. If you continue obsessively to change full stops to colons on reference templates, you will just cause more friction. Accassidy (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

  • @Accassidy: Why do you persist in putting a negative spin on everything? It has nothing to do with "me", per se. It is simply the fact that most ref. templates on WS use the colon makes it sensible to go with the colon style. Otherwise, there will be unnecessarily (and significantly) more work required to render all refs. consistent in style. The colon style is in widespread usage, and is not an "idiosyncracy". I do not expect others to follow this style, but I do not expect them to bleat if someone changes a ref. template to the colon style. Stho002 (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I have looked briefly in your reference material, and extensively in my own, for instances in publications where the "colon style" exists and have found none. Can you give me examples to look at of its "widespread usage"? I have no intention of spending time deleting your colons, so do not worry in that respect. Accassidy (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
It is not just you Alan! Andyboorman (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Read the paper![edit]

Your reverts on Chrysophylloideae mean that you you have not read the paper you used as a reference! See Swenson et al., 2013 page 748 end of first paragraph. Andyboorman (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Author pages[edit]

Stephen, your own user page lists a number of your publications as links to reference templates. Yet, for some as yet unexplained reason, you have deleted links to two reference templates that I added to the author page for Volker Assing. Can you explain this deletion, please? Accassidy (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  • @Accassidy: Simply because they are all here. You are confusing user page with author page. Assing has an author page, but not a user page, as he is not a WS user. What I put on my own user page is up to me. Besides, what the heck is the point of listing 2 random references by an author who has published hundreds of papers? Stho002 (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I see that now. I missed it earlier. But I am not confusing pages. There are many author pages on which references are listed. On most, probably. I don't understand why you have created a second tier of page, such as Category:publications of... when it has been normal practice here to list publications directly on the author page. For example Hans_Fruhstorfer. This second tier buries the information deeper and has the potential to be missed by less familiar users than me. I added the two references, to a page I had recently been involved with, as it appeared at first look that no references were listed for that author. As far as my experience extends, it has been WikiSpecies convention to list publications on author pages, or contributor pages, rather than in separate Category pages. That method seems an un-necessary complication to me. Accassidy (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Accassidy: Well that is POV, but publications of an author are a prime example of how we can make better use of our facility for categories, and it is straightforwardly sensible to use the category page to list/discuss the items in the category. It is only one click away from the author page, which really seems trivial to me Stho002 (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, clearly we have different points of view. Over-use of 'categorisation' has potential to split information to separate pages without real purpose. Its only one click, but after you have perused the author page and realised that a click is needed to find publications. I still don't see what it gains over listing the publications on the author page directly. Its not as though there is a huge amount of other information on the author page that would be diluted by the reference list. Accassidy (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
@Accassidy: The point is that categories are a quick and easy way to keep track of an author's publications. Using categories, we can keep track of an author's publications without having to list them (since the category facility does it for us). We can also list the references on the category page, but we can do so at our leisure, without losing track. Stho002 (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I am not convinced. It is simpler to list templates on an author page and the end result is as effective but less complex. We will have to agree to disagree. Accassidy (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
@Accassidy: When an author has hundreds of publications, and one cannot list them all in one go, categories are essential Stho002 (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
No they are not essential, even though it may seem that way to you. There are numerous authors for whom I have listed some publications, but not all. I just add a section on the author page titled ===Works Include=== and list the templates I have created. Others can add more at their leisure. I don't see that it helps to have them on a separate "Category:..." page. I will continue to work in my way and you, no doubt in yours. Accassidy (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
What did you gain by changing the author formatting detail on Template:Talbot,G, 1935? The template now links to G. Talbot and so has to go through a redirect to get to George Talbot. As yet, you have failed to lead me to a reputable taxonomic publication in entomology that puts a colon between date and title in its references. Is this because you are unable to do so or because you think I have forgotten about it? With the Druce, 1905 template, what is the point of the link to the Wiley Online Library when the paper is readily available for inspection on the BHL website? Accassidy (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
@Accassidy: Since the redirect makes no difference to the way things appear, I trust that you will assume good faith that I know what I am doing. I'm not going to bother to answer your colon question because it is irrelevant. The point is that it is a perfectly fine format (among many), and it is the predominant format now on WS, so you would be creating much more unnecessary work for us all if you decided to standardise on a different, and equally fine, format. You just need to learn to think things through a bit more clearly and detach your thinking from personal issues. Stho002 (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I have emailed you privately about this. Accassidy (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Puma concolor/bn clarification[edit]

Hi. As for Puma concolor/bn (deleted by me a few minutes ago) my guess is that the editor added the "bn" as a language code for Bengali (a.k.a. Bangla), since the image caption in the article was written in Bengali. All the best, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC).



In the tribus Antillocorini is mentioned 16 genera. I'm missing Baeocoris, Lethaeaster and Siniasinensis. See [13] PeterR (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Taylor & Francis[edit]

Stephen, I see you are still wasting your time reformatting full stops to colons and changing author links to intermediary redirect pages. You astound me. Can you please explain why it is beneficial to link the reference template for Template:Butler, 1899d to the commercial website of Taylor and Francis, when the article concerned is already downloadable from BHL? Accassidy (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

DOIs act as identifiers for articles. In this case, the link provided by the DOI is redundant, but the DOI itself is important. Stho002 (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Template:Endemic[edit]

Why are you deleting endemic template. but It is necessary. --Fagus (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikispecies not your monopoly. You are deleting all of my work. Thank you. I will not contribute. --Fagus (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You can not write my user page to retired. --Fagus (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Fagus, do not stop contributing, but raise your concerns with a bureaucrat, such as User talk:Dan Koehl. Andyboorman (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


Hello, Stho002, is this you? Tf yes, I would add the image to that article. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 07:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

  • @Lotje: No, not me. I am Stephen E. Thorpe. Stho002 (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@Stho002: Thanks!, btw, why was that ? Lotje (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
@Lotje: A group of aggressive WP editors took a disliking to me and forced me into an an impossible situation. In retrospect, the sockpuppetry was a mistake that played into their hands, but who cares? It is only Wikipedia, not real life ... Stho002 (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment deletion[edit]

Stop Don't delete my comments from the Village Pump. Editing like this is why other users find it impossible to cooperate with you. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


According to consensus on the Village pump, your account has been blocked from Wikispecies, until October 17, when your account will be unblocked, if you accept to follow the Wikispecies:Policy and meet the conditions of the community. Dan Koehl (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Stephen, I would like to ask you if can promise to follow the Wikispecies:Policy and stop any activities which you have been accused for a number of times, like harrassing other users by bullying and creating a negative working environment? I can imagine that you may want to twist this question in some way, but would I would be happy for, is a straight, honest answer to the questions. A yes, I promise, is probably the fastest and easiest option, if you are prepared to give such a promise.
Dan Koehl (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

An advise[edit]

I advise you cordially not to go against prevailing opinion, and not to perform edits against the common wish of the community. I refer to Agathis which largely isn't a native genus of New Zealand (except for one sole species, namely Agathis australis). Adding categories for those species is contrary to common sense and is apt to disorient the readers. I therefore ask you to remove the categories yourself, so as to prevent further complications.

One additional topic is the fact that you reduced content from the following pages: Agrumenia and Template: Efetov et al., 2014 which I restored back to their original state. This reductions may be regarded as vandalism, so I would suggest that you leave those couple of pages in their present state.

I hope that you will cooperate and will not keep banging your head against a brick wall. Mariusm (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

ION - Link[edit]

I just clicked the link to ION on the talk page of Anthene otacilia arora. The destination page gives a message: "Query contains an invalid character, please correct it and try again." You might want to check again the Global Template, or the page titling. Accassidy (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Accassidy: It is a small bug which is not easily fixed in the global template, but is very easy to fix when you encounter the problem. On the ION search page, just replace the underscore between species and subspecies epithets with a space. Stho002 (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday I pinged you with a question about doi links on Template talk:Druce, 1905. Any prospect that you can give me an answer soon? Accassidy (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Revert explanation[edit]

See here I reverted only because the situation there is getting heated and unproductive. If you want the statement to stand, please revert me. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Last warning over edit wars[edit]

I noticed you've started an edit war with @MPF: over Template:Krajewski et al., 2010. If you'll revert again this template, you'll be blocked without further notice. Mariusm (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm with MPF on this one. It seems like a good compromise to include both the PDF and the DOI. (It would be a different story had the PDF not open access and we provide a direct link to the externally hosted copyrighted content.) OhanaUnitedTalk page 08:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
@OhanaUnited: Please try to pay attention Andrew! The edit of mine which Mariusm reverted did include both PDF and DOI! I have therefore reverted Mariusm's nonsense. Stho002 (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Andyboorman: and Stho002. Let's break that edit war down edit-by-edit. My description will be commenting principally on the edit itself, not on the editor

  1. Stho002's original version only contained access to journal (paywall) page.
  2. MPF's edited version added the PDF link, with PDF listed first and DOI listed second.
  3. Stho002 reverted, claiming that DOI already provides access to the article.
  4. MPF then restored the version, stating that the DOI page is a paywall.
  5. Stho002 switched the order to DOI listed first and PDF listed second but calling this an undo.
  6. Mariusm then changed the order back to PDF first and DOI second (plus replacing "," ";" between names with "&")
  7. Stho002 changed it back to DOI first and PDF second (and changing "&" back to "," and ";").

The entire confrontation is all because of one mislabelled edit summary at step 5 (which was switching the ordering of DOI and PDF while labelling it as an "undo"). Undo is considered a complete revert of content with no modifications unless the edit summary says something like "partial undo". 5 days have already been spent on whether PDF or DOI should be listed first. Are we really going to waste more time on the ordering (that is based on personal preference) or blocking someone which stems from one erroneous edit summary? OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited: You missed the fact that we always put journal volume in bold, but MPF covertly removed the bold in step 2, just to be an insidious little contrarian! Stho002 (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Not according to our reference guide. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Nevertheless, unbolding it had no justification Stho002 (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Again, that's just personal preference (no different than using "," or "&" between names or listing PDF/DOI as first item and the other after). If someone knows Javascript, they can write a gadget in preference and this will solve everything because the Javascript will alter the look to suit personal preference on browser side. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree, but the preferences of the page creator must stand. Subsequent edits which merely alter preferences ad nauseam are clearly counterproductive and only serve to inflame tensions Stho002 (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Your reverts on other pages I am editing have no justification whatsoever. Also note that Botanical Magazine Monograph is capitalised, contrary to your insistence. And I trust you will make a full public written apology and withdrawal of your insult "an insidious little contrarian". MPF (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@MPF: For someone already facing investigation for defamation, you are acting in a most imprudent manner. And your ability to get factual matters completely wrong is astonishing Stho002 (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Although Stho002 is again engaging in edit wars despite my warnings, I'll refrain for now from blocking him and wait for the WMF investigation to take its course without disturbance. Having said that, it doesn't mean that business is as usual. Stho002 actions as practiced before this crisis broke out will not be tolerated any more. Mariusm (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mariusm: Stephen you are in grave danger of entering another edit war with me over pages in taxa under Fagales and Alberteae. I appreciate some of your edits are useful and informative, but others are just your preferences for non-standard formats for the main taxon pages. In addition you removed a paper, which was important for the circumscription of a list of genera and a link to the original genus description in BHL. I have done some partial reverts and additions. Please be careful and think before you act in the present climate. It maybe best to back off these pages for now and use discussion or talk pages. Andyboorman (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I will take the edits to the pump for discussion and so have protected temporarily. Sorry we could not agree to disagree. I did not revert your Huguet, V. et al. 2005 template, but re-added it. I will not complain but seek views on the format. TPL is not required if WCSP is used in a reference IMO. Andyboorman (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Appeal to WMF[edit]


I know that and I don't react. But I thought you don't communicate with me because my english is bad. I'm sure you have block me, but I don't have proof. PeterR (talk) 09:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


I see that:

  1. Over a half of the village pump is dedicated to discussion of your contributions.
  2. There is no consencus yet about the points you and other contributors are making. At some of these points, you still disagree. There is a need to wait for everyone to agree before you can continue doing some of the things you are doing (even if they are correct).
  3. You continue to chat there at the rate of a dozen of messages daily. It is difficult to follow for me as a reader (and I am not trying to maintain the wiki, mind -- many others also have the additional load of removing some part of what you did, which means the load on them is bigger).

I suggest that you step back and take a couple weeks break from the project. Doing otherwise subjects everyone to a need to maintain these discussions and the wiki at the same time, and they are running out of the human power resources.

It is even hard for me to approach and evaluate the issue properly to shape an opinion, because it keeps growing every day. Gryllida (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gryllida: we all need to know: are you representing some WMF official investigation or are you just trying to figure out the situation here on your own? Mariusm (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Section[edit]

MPF explained the reasons, not all "trivial" for his temporary protection and I am not going to argue with you about that. Calling me hypocritical is somewhat offensive, so I suggest you take more care over the words you use. I am sure you know that abuse of other users is another thing that is likely to get you blocked. Accassidy (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Accassidy: Yes, MPF offered "reasons", all of them weak/nonexistent, and yet you "refuse to argue", presumably because you have no argument, and, call it what you like, MPF is now doing all the same things I used to do as an admin, unchallenged. I am very disappointed by your apparent lack of integrity ... Stho002 (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You are free to take legal action against MPF in New Zealand, but I suspect that he will not come to you in response. You will not find lawyers inexpensive. And now you have attacked my "integrity" as well as branding me a hypocrit. Do you really want to keep going down that road? Accassidy (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Accassidy: I'm just saying it as it is. Questioning your integrity is massively less serious than false accusations of breaking the law, made on a public website. Besides, WMF have a clear policy forbidding such defamation/libel. I'm not, at this stage anyway, contemplating legal action, but rather trying to make it clear to WMF that MPF has seriously breached Wikimedia terms and conditions ... Stho002 (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Stephen, no doubt you have seen the comments on the VP, suggesting that removing the OD from a References section as being tantamount to vandalism. You see what happens when you poke a hornets' nest? Can I prevail upon you to leave the references to original description on taxon pages? Surely this is simpler than making the effort to delete them. You are in this instance clearly in a minority. Accassidy (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Template IPNI[edit]

As the creator of the current version you may like to fix this template. It does not work with disambig pages. Andyboorman (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
It also does not now work with families! Seems like an IPNI problem with some families on the simple Plant Name Search will check this one with them apologies! Andyboorman (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hall & Harvey[edit]

You include a "doi" link to a Wiley Online Library page for an academic paper. The publisher directs exactly how they expect this paper to be cited, but you ignore this. You even revert my small formatting mods which had made the citation compliant with the publisher's statement. Then you change the author name formatting in such a way that you have to create new redirects as well because for some unknown reason you disapprove of my direct links to the specific author pages. You justify this reversion by a note that says "Do it properly". This comment is both rude and insulting, especially as, if there is such a thing as "properly" for a reference citation, it is surely to do it as requested by the publisher of that paper. Please explain in detail your reasoning for your ineffectual nitpicking and why it is a good use of your time. Accassidy (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

So, it seems that it is OK for you to select references that you consider relevant, but if I select a reference that I find relevant, especially because it is the Original Description, and add it to a taxon article you revert my selection. Sadly, I am not surprised. Why is it only your selections that are valid? No, don't answer that, because there can be no acceptable answer. I am fairly certain that removing a reference to an original description from a taxon page would be considered by many, if not all, as vandalism. So I am now offering you the chance to reinstate my "Selected Reference" to sit alongside that you have selected. If you do not, then I will raise this issue on the VP with a view to requesting a block for vandalism. Accassidy (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
You repeated the reference, I removed the duplication. Removing duplication is hardly "vandalism"! If anything, adding duplication is vandalism. The OD reference is there, just not under "Selected references". The OD tells us nothing useful about the species, so should not go under "Selected references". Block me if you wish, the only loser will be Wikispecies ... Stho002 (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Another advice[edit]

I wrote the following paragraph at the pump:

Your manner angers and dismays everyone who is unfortunate enough to conduct a discussion with you, so I would advise you not to exaggerate with your edit wars and with your disrespectful behavior. Now that we know that no WMF investigation is taking place, we the admins are feeling free to exercise the necessary measures to enforce this wiki's policy and this wiki's rules. Mind, this IS NOT a threat, not an intimidation but also it is not a bluff. Mariusm (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Listing authors in references[edit]

You have new messages
Hello, Stho002. You have new messages at Peaceray's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.