User talk:Kevmin

Please note that if you post something for me here, put this page on your watch list -- I'll respond to it here.

If I posted on your talk page, you can reply on your talk page and I'll be watching your page. This makes it easier for both of us to keep everything in context. Thanks.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

DYK for Anticlea elegans

On 31 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Anticlea elegans, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some Idaho mountain deathcamas are pollinated by carrion and flesh flies rather than bees? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anticlea elegans. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Anticlea elegans), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Progradungula barringtonensis

On 31 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Progradungula barringtonensis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Australian spider Progradungula barringtonensis has been called a "ghost of Gondwana"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Progradungula barringtonensis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Progradungula barringtonensis), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trick or treat!

		The Barnstar o'Lantern
		Thanks so much for writing Anticlea elegans and Progradungula barringtonensis and for helping out with this year's Halloween DYK set! Di (they-them) (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paleobiota of the Green River Formation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scottia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Paleobiota of the Green River Formation

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Paleobiota of the Green River Formation, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gamergate (ant)

Hi, thank you for your contributions. I note your recent revert at this article.

WP:NAMB asks us not to use a hatnote when the topic is unambiguous. While "Gamergate" is ambiguous, "Gamergate (ant)" is not. There's no realistic way somebody seeking, say, Gamergate (harassment campaign) would unexpectedly end up at this article instead.

Why do you believe the guideline should not be followed? 162 etc. (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The gamergate articles have a complex history on wiki, and having cross linking to the disambiguation page is of value. NAMB is not the end all and be all of how to go about disambig use on pages.--Kev min § 22:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is it of value? 162 etc. (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and it seems that two other editors recently have removed the hatnote as well [1] [2], which you've reverted. Clearly, others are also in favour of following the guideline. 162 etc. (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been on my watchlist for close to 10 years and most of that time it was in the primary topic placement with hatnote to Gamergate (harassment campaign). After the move to disambiguated pages, BOTH have had corresponding hatnotes to the disambiguation page, which also lists two other instances of the term in current usage that people may be looking for. WP:IAR is validly being used in this instance, and as WP:NAMB is a guideline its valid to deviate from its outline in instances where benefit is gained.--Kev min § 23:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question remains: How is this hatnote useful? Why do the readers of Gamergate (ant) need a link to the disambiguation page, when it is essentially certain that they are exactly where they wanted to be? 162 etc. (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Question about clades used in year in paleoentomology pages

Hi, I'm not sure if you're the right person to ask, but since your interests do at least lie in this area, do you know why Perlidea and Paoliidea in particular are used and referred to as clades in the "year in paleoentomology" series of pages? (e.g. 2024, 2015, 2014 in paleoentomology, etc.) As far as I know, these are supraordinal names used only by Russian palaeoentomologists, but I could be wrong. In particular Perlidea (= Dermapterans, Embiopterans, Phasmatodeans and Plecopterans (?)) doesn't seem to be a valid clade based on current phylogenies of Polyneoptera, and order Paoliida is considered by some to be stem-Dictyoptera rather than its own group Paoliidea.

(I'm also not sure if Reculida counts as a clade either, but unfortunately this seems to be part of the Grylloblattodea/Grylloblattida can of worms from what I've read up.) Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Monster Iestyn: I started using them as they are still used in much of the literature, and while Paoliida and Perlidea are Russian in origin the major questions on them really seem to be composition and less on validity. In part I originally found the grouping of orders that are being placed in Perlidea here with plecoptera and Embioptera frequently grouped together.--Kev min § 17:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right, I saw a while back that you had used that source for Perlidea on the Polyneoptera page, I assumed it was because Polyneoptera Species Files was using it to house Cnemidolestida. Unfortunately that site appears to be internally inconsistent (and now abandoned too I think): as the home page I think implies but doesn't properly clarify, it does not use any supraordinal ranks for most of the extant orders, yet for some reason it still uses them for some fossil groups?? (see Dermapterida for Protelytroptera, which should also include Dermaptera, also one of the orders of Perlidea according to Russian paleoentomologists) In addition, Cnemidolestida or Cnemidolestodea itself is placed as Archaeorthoptera/stem-group Orthoptera when using sources other than Aristov (and I think Rasnitsyn?). Monster Iestyn (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Species files pages migrated last year to a new structure whose homepage is here, keep in mind that the species files are all independent projects from each other maintained by different specialists, which is why they are occasionally inconsistent with each other. They also don't actually curate the highest order/clade/grouping levels so that was constantly out of date. The Cnemidolestida placement is recent and many ancillary article which mention but don't focus on the group likely need updating.--Kev min § 19:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah whoops, I didn't make myself clear, I meant that specifically Polyneoptera Species File was internally inconsistent only with respect to itself, in particular the use of supraordinal taxa. And yes, I'd heard that Species Files migrated recently, but the Polyneoptera one is one of those that was not migrated. Monster Iestyn (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

indeed, which is why I did not use it.--Kev min § 20:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double checking literature since 2000 (at least via Google Scholar), while I already know Paoliida in particular has become generally accepted, I am not seeing the same for "Perlidea" or "Paoliidea". "Perlidea" appears to be mostly only used by Storozhenko, Rasnitsyn and Aristov from what I see. Some publications by Olivier Béthoux and others sometimes talk about Perlidea (e.g. [3], [4]) but I take it they do not use it themselves as a name for a clade or superorder. Meanwhile, "Paoliidea" I think is used only by Rasnitsyn & Aristov (2016), who reject the placement of Paoliida as stem-group Dictyoptera (which I think is otherwise generally accepted now?), and instead prefer to put it in its own superorder.

Also, I dont think anyone in the literature actually includes Phasmatodea/Phasmatida in Perlidea, since we're here? In History of Insects from 2002, it is included instead in a superorder Gryllidea alongside Orthoptera. Since Aristov (2015) does not list a Phasmatida under ~~Gryllones (= Polyneoptera)~~ Perlidea, it is possible he too considered Phasmatida to be placed in Gryllidea.

The basic issue in the end is that there seems to be multiple very different classifications for Polyneoptera and their extinct relatives, and Perlidea and Paoliidea I believe is only used by one of them? Apologies if I've been very confusing here, I dug into Polyneoptera classification some months back and found myself confused by it, and unable to figure how best to handle fossil Polyneoptera on Wikipedia or Wikispecies as a result. I'm not even sure if I was right to set up Paoliida as I did. Perhaps I'm overthinking this and it doesn't really matter for the purposes of the year of paleoentomology lists. Monster Iestyn (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say its important to consider that there is very little in the way of western hemisphere work happening on Pre-Cretaceous insects and hasn't been since the early 1950's with Mazon Creek being explored initially. There are few W.H. outcrops that are older and fewer workers to work on them. The vast majority of the work is happening by Russian workers and a few European workers, so we do have a bit of a split. BUT thats a split of maybe 5 workers to 3 workers. It feels very diproportionate to say that over half the Paleozoic insect taxonomists are "not accepted" when there are less western Paleozoic worked with Nel and Béthoux being the two that do the vast majority. Very Very few workers do anything with the higher "names" due to the spotty record. While we don't have a large group of literature to go on we should follow the current placements of lower groups, so the Phasmatodea and Cnemidolestida groups should be adjusted on the "XXXX in paleoentomology lists"--Kev min § 22:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]