User talk:The editor 2345

Welcome to Wikispecies!

Hello, and welcome to Wikispecies! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• Help:Contents provides a good introduction to editing Wikispecies.
• Templates are there to help you to follow our syntax and formatting standards.
• Have a look at Done and to do.

If you have named a taxon, then it is likely that there is (or will be) a Wikispecies page about you, and other pages about your published papers. Please see our advice and guidance for taxon authors.

If you have useful images to contribute to Wikispecies, please upload them at Wikimedia Commons. This is also true for video or audio files containing bird songs, whale vocalization, etc.

Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username (if you're logged in) and the date. Please also read the Wikispecies policy What Wikispecies is not. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or in the Village Pump. Again, welcome! -Burmeister (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! You're not supposed to copy+paste contents of one page to another, like you're doing with Hyaena brunnea to Parahyaena brunnea for instance, but instead move the page itself to a different title. That way all the edit history stays with the current version of the page, and not on what is now the redirect you just created at the old title. Burmeister (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I see now! Thanks! And thanks for your help, too! The editor 2345 (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Taxonavigation templates

Hi! I already update the templates for Genetta and Poiana, it' automatically update the species taxonomy. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! The editor 2345 (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Aplodontiidae

Hi! Genus Aplodontia already listed in the subfamily page. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Moving pages to new names

Thanks for your contributions. Meanwhile, despite the instructions given by User:Burmeister in last October (see above), you continue to do a wrong procedure for moving page names, as in Lonchura fuscata to Padda fuscata, Estrilda perreini to Glaucestrilda perreini which I corrected, and probably others. Just repeating what Burmeister told you "You're not supposed to copy+paste contents of one page to another, like you're doing with Hyaena brunnea to Parahyaena brunnea for instance, but instead move the page itself to a different title. That way all the edit history stays with the current version of the page, and not on what is now the redirect you just created at the old title." The procedure needs to follow the following steps:

• In the case of Aves, first be sure that the new name is accepted by IOC, which is the accepted taxonomic source here at Wikispecies, then edit the page to be changed with all the corresponding information for the new name.
• Then Move the page to the new accepted name using the Move tool on the right, the old name will be automatically redirected to the new name.

If you are not allowed to Move a page, please ask help to an administrator, I am fully available should you need. Please let me know if you understand this instruction, since English is not my mother language. Cheers. Hector Bottai (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright, sorry about that. The editor 2345 (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I see that you've now started to use the recommended method, i.e. moving instead of copy-pasting. This is of course good, but I thought I'ld give some more information in order to explain some of the underlaying reasons why it's important. Doing it the wrong way may actually be a breach of the user agreement. The reason is that copying data within Wikimedia (including Wikispecies) requires that the attributions regarding earlier edits of a page are copied as well. This is often impossible, since that data is embedded in the edit history of each page, which is of course not included when we only copy taxon information. And if material is used without attribution, it violates the licensing terms under which it was first provided, which in turn violates the Reusers' rights and obligations clause of Wikimedia's copyrights policy. See for example the Wikipedia page "Copying within Wikipedia" for more information.

Lastly, and apart from all the above: thank you for edits! Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 16:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC).

Thanks and you’re very welcome! The editor 2345 (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I am getting back to this matter because I see you did a great amount of moves in line with IOC 15.1., thanks for that! Meanwhile, there are some basic things that have to be observed when moving a page to a new combination: a. the old combination should show in the synonymy list; b. the existing redirections to the old combination have to be changed to the new redirection; c. when a species is demoted to subspecies, the subespecies that eventually where part of it have also to be included in the new species complex. Additionally, and if existing, it is recommended to add in the "additional references" section, the paper that is justifying such change. Cheers.--Hector Bottai (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Will do! The editor 2345 (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Will do! The editor 2345 (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Replacing a genus by other

Thanks again for your many valuable contributions. In the case a genus is replaced by other for some taxonomic reason, as in Hypogramma by Kurochkinegramma and Crocias by Laniellus, is a different case than changing a taxon name; the replaced genus becomes a synonym of the new one. The recommendation in theses cases is to keep the synonym page and his history and create a brand new page for the replacement genus. See how I fixed Kurochkinegramma for better understanding. I am working now on Laniellus. Additionally, you have to be carefull when changing, in the case of Laniellus, you are leaving a reference that belongs to Crocias. Cheers. Hector Bottai (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! The editor 2345 (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Paruromys

Hi! I revert your edits about Paruromys. Mammals in WS follow the ASW list. See Handika et al., 2021 for references to place Paruromys in synonymy of Taeromys. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I revert your last editions (Castoria, Eothenomys) for the same reason! WS follow ASW list. Reconsider your updates! Regards, Burmeister (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Tarentola

Hi! ReptileDatabase treat Tarentola in Phyllodactylidae, what is your reference to change to family Gekkonidae? Regards, Burmeister (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Glaucidium

Hi! I reverted your edit. This is an unnecessary move. "Glaucidium (Surniinae)" is not wrong and is only the way to differenciate from the homonym "Glaucidium (Ranunculaceae)". Some editors would use "Glaucidium (Aves)" or even "Glaucidium Boie" (which is my personal preferred format). As far as I know there is no preferred form to differenciate homonyms. For your change to be complete it would be neccesary to move templates and some redirections and links affected. Regards. Hector Bottai (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Hector Bottai that "Taxon Author" is a much preferred naming scheme over "Taxon (Higher rank)". The reason is that taxa are sometimes moved, in the case of a revision of the taxonomy. For example, it's quite common that a genus is split into several new genera, and some of those are moved to new families. As a result we will then have to move the page "Taxon (Higher rank)" to "Taxon (New higher rank)". Hence it's better to use the author name instead, since that never changes.
–Tommy Kronkvist (talk),16:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC).

Duly noted. The editor 2345 (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Moving pages to new accepted names

Hi! Your work on updating taxonomy is impressive, thanks for that. But moving to new name require some additional works:

• Change all the subspecies names to the new combination.
• Add the previous name to the Synonymy section, or create it.
• Change the existing redirections to the new name, a redirection that redirects to another redirection is not recommended.
• Additionally, and recognize this is quite more difficult, the recommendation is to cite the paper that justify the change. And for that, in general, is necessary to create a template. But OK, this is a learning process and takes some time and experience.

For your illustration, I have been working in a number of pages that you updated on Leiothrichidae. Thanks for your understanding. Hector Bottai (talk) 15:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I deeply apologize for that. Thanks for the positive feedback, though! I appreciate it! The editor 2345 (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Just repeating what is above. You are not following these basic steps, see examples: Hydrobates leucorhous and Hydrobates markhami. Thanks. Hector Bottai (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Bubulcus

Hello. I will revert your edit on this genus. There is a way of preserving all the previous content while keeping it redirected to Ardea. Just give some time to show you, I am busy now. OK? Hector Bottai (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Whoops! Sorry. The editor 2345 (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Removal of overviews of families/genera

Hello, why? Do you think you might like to get agreement on policy from the Village Pump before doing so? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 02:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry! I won’t do that again. The editor 2345 (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I reverted your edit on Trochilinae removing the list of genera. An anonimous editor with no talk page has done a number of good editions and some not so good. Higher taxa like tribes and subfamiies are controversial. Most of taxonomies, like eBird/Clements, IOC, AOU, Avibase, they just do not follow and stay at the family level. Many other wikis linked to WS do not follw either, most because they are just outdated. So, keeping the list of genera is, in my opinion, very healthy. In the case of Trochilinae, where this anonimous user created some new subfamiles, Lesbiinae, etc. he should move the proper list of genera to the new created page, and not just remove it. The easy work sometimes is not the correct work. Hope you understand.--Hector Bottai (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Again removing overview of genera!! Have you discussed this on the Village? As Maculosae tegmine lyncis told you above. If not I cannot understand why.--Hector Bottai (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Please!

Dear friend, I noticed every time I start working/updating certain taxon group, you immediately start editing over the same. Honestly, this is causing to me some sort of confusión. My method is complete editions, including references, etc and this, of course, takes more time for a work-in-progress, like Rallidae. Thanks for your comprehension. Hector Bottai (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I’m only trying to help you! The editor 2345 (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@Hector Bottai: Please note that we have the template {{In use}} which is helpful in situations like this. It was created already in 2003. Please remember to remove it when you're done! –Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 18:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC).

Thanks @Tommy Kronkvist:! Didn't know it. Hector Bottai (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Page moves

Hello, and a request... With your pages moves, eg, of Cacajao calvus rubicundus to Cacajao rubicundus, the wikispecies page move is actually only step one. The pages are linked to wikidata, and wikidata has a different item for each name. So the wikispecies link needs to be moved from Q12761038 to Q40983986; and the wikispecies taxonbar id needs to be updated. You wouldn't be the only User not to bother, but that is more than "best practice", as it prevents mess in wikidata and ensures the right taxon identifiers are picked up in the taxonbar on the wikispecies page. Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 09:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! The editor 2345 (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

​ In most cases it's best to use the template without any parameters, i.e. {{Taxonbar}} instead of {{Taxonbar|from=Q377612}}. Hence there's no parameters that needs to be changed when we move a page. However, Cacajao rubicundus is of course an exception since we need links to two Wikidata items, i.e. {{Taxonbar|from1=Q40983986|from2=Q12761038}}.

By the way I've updated Cacajao calvus rubicundus (Q12761038) to point out the taxon name as a synonym of Cacajao rubicundus (Q40983986), and I've also updated the references for the protonym Brachyurus rubicundus (Q123002713) accordingly.
–Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 10:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC).

Gerbillus

Hello, I've reverted Gerbillus as the species list as it was seems to agree with this listing; out of interest, what list were you using? Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Some or those species were for the new genus article I created Dipodillus. Sorry about not warning you. The editor 2345 (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I apologize that I didn’t check the MDD. I undid more. I didn’t use any list, Wikipedia used Dipodillus and thus made an article on that when I shouldn’t since I did not check the MDD website. The editor 2345 (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Rhinocryptidae

You have removed subfamilies. The two subfamilies are based on Ericson et al., 2010 and Ohlson et al., 2013. On which paper are you based to remove? Hector Bottai (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I thought they were outdated. The editor 2345 (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

​Just as a side note, I've added Wetmore's protologue from 1930. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC).

Okey dokey. The editor 2345 (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

You didn't correct yet... Hector Bottai (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Please !

Please do not edit on pages that I am editing, it creates editing conflicts and I end up losing all my work. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry! The editor 2345 (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

ICZN 36.1

Hello, [1] ("A name established for a taxon at any rank in the family group is deemed to have been simultaneously established for nominal taxa at all other ranks in the family group ... The name has the same authorship and date at every rank") (Principle of coordination) Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, Maculosae tegmine lyncis, however in regards to what subject are you adding this note? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 17:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC).

Image template, titles

You are using the wrong edition for images, please use this template: {{Image|file name.jpg|''taxon name''}}
For titles, use the internationalized titles, example =={{int:Name}}== not ===Name=== Hector Bottai (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

No problem! The editor 2345 (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Wrong again, pls see my correction on Callaeidae. Hector Bottai (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay got it! The editor 2345 (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Chelidae

I have reverted, overwritten some of your edits to this family. The overview of genera etc was there for a reason. Its a complicated family with a complicated history, it is better to all be available on the Family page for readers. Also living and fossil taxa can be in alphabetical order, there is no less importance to either group of taxa. You need to be careful in what is removed from a page and apart from changes, corrections etc you should open discussion on major deletions of information. I see also you have been cautioned about this before. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 23:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Shoot. I apologize. I’ll be more aware of that next time. The editor 2345 (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

also the nolink=y in the author template prevents the author name becoming a link, while still formatting it the same way as names usually are. This prevents issues with doubly links to same page from a single page. Each author only needs their name to be a link once on a page, if there names are used more often it is not needed to be linked. As the templates used for publications usually have the links the page can forego them Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 23:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I am aware of that, I have been removing duplicated links on a lot of pages. The editor 2345 (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Eurypygiformes

Hi. I saw that you recently edited Eurypygiformes. The additional reference there by Hackett et al. (not related to your edit) seems to have the wrong doi. Do you happen to know the correct one? –Tommy Kronkvist (talk). 03:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC).

Sorry, I don’t really know. The editor 2345 (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks anyway. I'll try to track it down. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC).

Archaeobatrachia/Mesobatrachia

Separating the Anura into the Archaeo-, Meso- and Neobatrachia is somewhat controversial, paraphyletic and outdated. Please follow "Amphibian Species of the World" classification. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, no problem! The editor 2345 (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

ASW recognized Brachycephaloidea, Dendrobatoidea and Myobatrachoidea, so please don't change that classifications! Burmeister (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Alrighty, sorry again! The editor 2345 (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Conspectus generum

There are no consensus or any discussion to use it over overview of genera. So, please to not change as standard format. If you want, start a discussion in VillagePump to formalize its use. Regards, Burmeister (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Synonym pages

Please see this discussion on the Village Pump regarding existing pages, now synonyms:

"Recommended practice for synonym taxa page"

Cheers Hector Bottai (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

New family Eurocephalidae

Hello. I asked you once not to intervene when I am editing certain group of taxa. It is creating confusion. I was not planning to remove Eurocephalus from Laniidae since this was not yet adopted by IOC, which, you may know, we follow. Removing would create a missalignment with other wikis. We have to be patient and wait the right opportunity for changes. Please revert your editions. Hector Bottai (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

New infraordos, new superfamilia

Hello, could you please inform which references are you using for such a great change on Passeriformes higher taxa? Just as an example, for creating Corvides I had to research and create two reference templates which based the change, now you added some monotypic superfamiliae that are not mentioned on those two papers. Do you know those references? For example, these pages Climacterides and others, no author, no references. If existing, I would like to create. Thanks Hector Bottai (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry! I just bad to take a break for a few minutes from editing. But I will absolutely find some sources for these new taxa. The editor 2345 (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Giraffa and MDD

Hello, The editor 2345. Please see this ongoing discussion at the village Pump, concerning your recent edit of Giraffa.
–Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC).

Pristimantis

Conflict of edition, please stop to stalk me! Burmeister (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay! My bad! The editor 2345 (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Again! Burmeister (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Last warning about conflict of edition!!! Burmeister (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Editing Issues

I have received several reports regarding issues around your editing on Wikispecies.

Recently I granted you Autopatrol Rights on Wikispecies, this is a privilege that allows us to permit you to edit with less oversight and is granted to people who demonstrate that they can do large numbers of edits that are beneficial to Wikispecies. This privilege can also be taken away.

First up you deleted a large section of text from this page see the history: here The bigger problem with this is that after deleting it while logged in you then re-deleted while logged out after your deletion was reverted.

Second is the following page again look at the history: here Once again you deleted content which was reverted then you deleted it again whilst logged out.

In both these instances this is a form of sockpuppetry. As you no doubt seem aware Edit Wars are not permitted on Wikimedia Projects. Logging out does not hide who you are.

The next issue is that you do seem to have a habit of deleting large amounts of data. Remember that Wikispecies is not Wikipedia, our pages are data driven and are not written solely for the general public. They are a scientific database of detailed information about species names. It is not only used by Wikidata and then on to the various Wikipedia's but by active scientists who are after much more information than a general Encyclopedia. The deletion of large amounts of data is not permitted on Wikispecies pages without explanation. You can raise the need to do this in three ways. 1. start a conversation on the Village Pump explaining what you wish to do, then wait for consensus to do it. 2. Start a conversation on the relevant talk page pinging the relevant editors. or 3. leave a message for the recent editors (on their talk page) of the page whose work you would be deleting. In all three cases you must wait for a response and consensus to move forwards.

Next I noticed that on some pages you are doing large numbers of small edits, for example here. Doing this many edits on a single page requires you to explain what you are doing. Therefore I insist that in future you use edit summaries for these edits. Changing the membership of genera, albeit large genera, by so much requires you cite the sources for the information. If you're adding many species please add the sources, also definitely create the species pages again citing all sources.

Lastly, be aware of what we are not, please do not throw up out of date or poor quality checklists as an excuse for major changes to the taxonomy of a group. We are operating on the cutting edge of science often looking at material that has been published long after the last updates to these checklists. For example I called you out on the Giraffe. You tried to revert my edits citing MDD, a very poor quality checklist that does not take into consideration the most recent publications. Wikispecies is a Checklist, one of two Global Checklists of Species. It has to be citing the latest scientific papers, and you must read those papers and summarise them for our work here.

Our editors have all been patient and left remarks on your talk page when they disagree with your actions. An apology then moving to another group is not what is being asked of you. When you receive this pushback, correct the situation, fix the edits, cite the relevant papers. I do not wish to see you move off groups when people pushback, I want to see you produce the evidence for what you did in the first place.

This is an official warning for the various behaviours listed above. I am not blocking you, nor am I removing your autopatrol privelage at this time. But continued editing that causes community wide issues can lead to further actions.

Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I’m terribly sorry and will absolutely take everything you said seriously. The editor 2345 (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

You have been warned about doing large numbers of small edits, and you repeated this behavior in Dipsadinae (+50 edits). Could you explain why? Burmeister (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Because I’m not always aware that you are editing the same page as me. Again, all I can do is apologize. The editor 2345 (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Also I do small edits to not lose track of my progress. The editor 2345 (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I asked you to also use edit summaries in instances like this, I have assumed you are aware how to do this? Please be aware of other editors we have a highly specialised community. You have also added significant information but no references, I also asked you to add these when you add large amounts of data. We need to know where you obtained these lists of names you are adding.Lastly please warn people ahead of time before tying up pages for so long. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 17:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you’re right. I keep forgetting to add edit summaries. I have been researching the sources for this new information and have been adding to them. I’m really trying my best here. I’m not trying to frustrate y’all on purpose. I’ve only been here since October after all. The editor 2345 (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I believe you are trying to act in good faith. If I did not I would have blocked you. I did not and have no intention of doing so. This is not like editing wikipedia the individual pages sure have less information, but we have a much higher standard of evidence. We consult the Primary Literature not foccussed on the seconday lit. It changes things. Our editors are a mix of professionals and very highly skilled people with a vested interest in Biodiversity. It means a lot of time and effort is put in by many of our editors. I welcome you to be a part of that, but like all of us who have been here a while consideration for the skills and work of others is a requirement. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 18:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I’m editing here because besides typos, there is a lot of information here that is either missing or outdated and I’m doing what I think is necessary to make this website even better than it is. But like you said, I need to start adding more sources to the new pages I create here if I want to make such website greater. I promise that I will keep improving my skills and cite, cite, cite! The editor 2345 (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

┌─────────────────┘​Good. As @Scott pointed out unreferenced information is ill-seen here at Wikispecies – regardless whether it's correct or not! Adding citations is simply a must, in order to retain scientific stringency and good academic standards. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk)‚ 14:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC).

I have also told you before genera can be in alphabetical order irrespective of status. Your edits on Chelinae are not necessary. Fix things that need to be fixed. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 14:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Pipistrellus

Again you are stalking my edits!, stop or you will be blocked. Burmeister (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Chiasmocleis lacrimae. You are crossing the acceptable limits of coexistence. You have been repeatedly warned about this type of behavior, there will be no further warning. Burmeister (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Myersinia

Not yet accept by ReptileDB, wait for next update. Burmeister (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay The editor 2345 (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Additional edition needed when removing species

Hello. When correctly removing a species from a genus due to "downgrading" to subspecies or just invalid, the edition work does not finish just by a simple removing: a. the action has to be referenced, when existing; b. the removed taxon page has to be updated accordingly, otherwise it becomes an orphan; c. the species page now receiving the ssp have to be edited accordingly and referenced. Nothing of these follow editions have been done on your recent edits at Heteromirafra sidamoensis (invalid now), Caprimulgus ruwenzorii (now ssp) and Telophorus quadricolor (now ssp). I have already done all the edition work for these three cases, pages that I follow. But I am afraid you could have made other uncomplete editions like these. Please review what you did and edit more carefully and detailing. Hector Bottai (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. The editor 2345 (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Your recent and many changes on disambiguation pages

Excuse sir but all those changes you have done are absolutely unnecessary. When a certain genus has some synonyms which are no longer valid, we use to give preference to the existing genus name, and call the disambiguation page "Genus (disambiguation)". Now you have dismantled a number of them. Just as an example Mimus is a highly popular and spread bird genus and you changed to Mimus (Mimidae), now there are 25 wikis called Mimus and Wikispecies calling Mimus (Mimidae)!!! Another useless edition, you changed Pachyglossa Blyth, Lepidothrix Bonaparte a type of disambiguation preferred by many editors to Pachyglossa (Dicaeidae), Lepidothrix (Pipridae)..why??! Even worst, all the genus synonyms of Mimus listed in the page are now redirected to the disambiguation page because your edition (once again) is uncomplete, same with Chaetocercus, with Lodiggesia and probably others, redirects are all wrong now. I will not fix your editions any longer, you are supposed to be mature enough at this time. Hector Bottai (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I very much agree with @Hector Bottai in this matter – your recent page moves are very counterproductive, and does not meet the Wikispecies standards or praxis at all. For example, one of the key points of the Wikispecies naming scheme for taxon pages, is that the name of each page should match the actual taxon name. Your page move of Mimus to Mimus (Mimidae) doesn't at all comply with this rule of ours, since there has never been any taxon named "Mimus (Mimidae)". As Hector Bottai points out, the only time we construct page names like that is when there are two or more homonyms that are not in themselves considered synonyms. In his own words, per above: When a certain genus has some synonyms which are no longer valid, we use to give preference to the existing genus name, and call the disambiguation page "Genus (disambiguation)". Hence the page name "Mimus" should be preserved for the valid bird genus Mimus Boie, 1826, as the insect genus Mimus Fåhraeus, 1871 is considered a synonym of Marvaldiella Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal, 1999. As a consequence, we should list both Mimus Boie, 1826 and Mimus Fåhraeus, 1871 on the page Mimus (disambiguation) i.e. as Hector Bottai explains above.

On to the second point at hand: your move of Pachyglossa Blyth to Pachyglossa (Dicaeidae) (and your other, similar page moves). We don't have an explicit rule about this, but as noted above the use of "Taxon name (author)" is often preferred over "Taxon name (parent taxon)". There is a simple reason for this: one of them may change several times in the future, while the other will never change. The taxonomy of more or less all taxa is constantly being reviewed and revised, and sometime in the future the bird genus Pachyglossa may very well be moved to another family than Dicaeidae. However, Edward Blyth will always be the author of the protonym Pachyglossa. That will never change, even if the taxonomy surrounding the taxon itself may be altered.

Final note:

You are welcome to continue editing at Wikispecies, but I urge you to immediately stop making any page moves – at least without first discussing each page move at the Village Pump. Failing to do so may eventually lead to your user account being blocked, especially since several users have already questioned your earlier page moves several times here on your user talk page (namely in January 29, followed by February 2, 5, 8 and 18), without you showing any real intention to comply with our community rules and praxis.

–Best regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 02:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC).

I deeply apologize and won’t move any page like that again without discussion. The editor 2345 (talk) 03:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Everyone makes mistakes and it's important to do what you can to get past them. Thanks for evidently taking this feedback constructively and we hope you'll stick around. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Are you working to revert all the disambiguation editions? Should you need any help, let me know. Hector Bottai (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Don't make copy&paste changes, the pages need to be moved to preserve the historic. Burmeister (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay well how do I do it correctly? The editor 2345 (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

You can't, other users must to clean your mess! Burmeister (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Shoot, okay then. I’m terribly sorry! The editor 2345 (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Autopatroller rights

Please note that I've revoked your autopatroller user rights, as administrator Faendalimas warned you about in April 20. They may be reinstated if the ongoing discussions regarding page moves etc. reaches a satisfactory conclusion. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 03:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC).

Journal citation template

You can now use {{Cite journal}} to format citations; as I did here.

It's not required, but you may find it easier, and it has serval advantages for reusability.

The template page has more details. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Anolidae

I restored the references that you deleted! Be more careful! Burmeister (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Oops, my bad! The editor 2345 (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)