User talk:Stemonitis/Archive41

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between September 27, 2012 and December 6, 2012.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarising the section you are replying to if necessary.

DYK for Cancrocaeca

Yngvadottir (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Too many Diptera stubs

Hello Stemonitis Is it time to call a halt on Diptera stubs which will probably never be expanded and that include very little and that sometimes under the junior name? I added a list of pages with significant biological content to Biology of Diptera and there were surprisingly few species to include. Best regards Robert aka Notafly (talk) 07:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC) PS. I too prefer the short taxobox format Family and Genus is quite enough.

Well, I would certainly agree that the multitude of mass-produced substubs is not particularly helpful. I don't think, however, that there is any means of enforcing anyone "calling a halt" to it. They do not contravene any policy as far as I am aware, since the topic is inherently notable, and they are generally cited to at least one reliable source. There does seem to be a small minority of editors who like to produce large numbers of low-quality articles above all else, but are they actually doing anything wrong? Issues of synonymy are rather different, of course. Failing to make redirects from synonymous titles or, worse, making articles under both titles, are clearly issues that need to be dealt with immediately. I don't think, however, that we can force any individual to do that work. If you can produce a list of affected articles, it should be possible to have a 'bot fix them all. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Paroba

Hi there. Can you help me make sense of this subject name? I was actually trying to find supposed amazon fruit called peroba, but it seems not to exist. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Dinodon rufozonatum

The DYK project (nominate) 00:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

User:81.144.199.2

You gave a warning to this user in June. Looks like this use was at it again in September. 203.35.82.165 (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Or a different person using the same IP. Still, a lot of water has passed under the bridge since then. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

True, true. 203.35.82.165 (talk) 03:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited McDonald–Kreitman test, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Homology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Category: Species identified in 2012

I vaguely remember you removing a category like that, but not that year. Are we not supposed to have those cats? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you remember what article it what on? Because the date categories such as Category:Animals described in 2012 are ultimately subcategories of Category:Species by year of formal description, it doesn't make any sense to add them to articles at genus titles. In the case of a monotypic genus, such as Amphionides, I make sure the date category is on the binomial redirect Amphionides reynaudii, and not on the genus-titled article. You may be thinking of an example like that; I can't think of any other reason off hand. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, right, it was probably a genus article. That would make sense. I'll be sure not to add such a cat in the future. Thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tripsacum dactyloides, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Internode (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hypericum mysorense, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

fungi

hello there! just saw you're a participant in the fungi project. i created a few stubs recently, and was wondering if the project needed some assistance in that regard. i hope you can let me know. cheers! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really very active on the fungi articles any more. You should probably ask at the project's talk page instead. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

it seems rather inactive. Thank you! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Crocidura panayensis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Inguinal

Daphnia sinevi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Allotype

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Stemonitis. You have new messages at FoCuSandLeArN's talk page.
Message added 13:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I know; I'm watching. (See the notice at the head of the page.) --Stemonitis (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Always display parameter in taxobox

I notice you are removing all instances of always_display i the auto taxobox templates for dinosaur taxa. We in WP:Dino use this parameter in order to force important and widely-used low-level taxa to display on the main genus pages. The auto taxobox does not automatically show tribes and subfamilies, which are often widely used among dinosaur taxonomists, and this impedes navigation between taxoboxes. Using the always_display parameter is a simpler method than fording display parents on every one of the often numerous included genera pages. Has the always_display parameter been officially deprecated? If not, what is it there for if not this use? MMartyniuk (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed it was also removed from tribe and subfamily templates for several extinct insect taxa that I created. I too would like to know why you are removing them.--Kevmin § 12:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The always_display parameter is for use when (very) important taxa fall at subsidiary ranks but should nonetheless be included in the taxoboxes of all daughter taxa. In general, subfamilies should be displayed in the taxobox of a genus, but should not be included in the taxobox of a species or subspecies, for instance. In such cases, the use of always_display is therefore inappropriate. It should not be used just to allow editors to cut corners in other taxoboxes, because it will have wider effects. Even minor taxa will already display in an automatic taxobox if they are close enough to the focal taxon; a genus article, for instance, will generally show the subfamily, without our having to specify either display_parents in its taxobox, or use always_display in the subfamily template. So, no, it isn't deprecated, but it was always intended to be used in only a very limited set of circumstances, and that hasn't changed. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

When Was that precedent decided and by whom?--Kevmin § 12:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It was decided right at the beginning of the automatic taxobox's use. It is mentioned here and here (and possibly elsewhere). It is also, as far as I can see, the only sensible way it could be used. The principle of the taxobox has always been to include only the bare bones of the hierarchy leading to the focal taxon (WP:TX), and only to include the most important taxa – major ranks, adjacent minor ranks, and very occasional and exceptional minor ranks elsewhere. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yet you are not assessing. You are arbitrarily removing the parameter without apparent assessment of where the taxon your removing it from is or is not important. The only page that makes the assertion that |display_parent is preferable shows it seems to have been an arbitrary decision by User:Smith609. At least in the case of the Dinosaur taxons it was decided by the WP:Dino members that the taxa where it was used were important and should have the always_display used.--Kevmin § 20:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I have copied this discussion to the Template talk:Automatic taxobox page to consolidate and make discussion easier.--Kevmin § 20:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK?

• ... that your article on the crab Ocypode cursor has been nominated for DYK? Thanks for writing up the article. Cheers! --PFHLai (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant. I considered doing the nomination, but I couldn't find the enthusiasm for it, so many thanks! --Stemonitis (talk) 05:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Apogon maculatus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dwarf angelfish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Heads up on moving taxons

Hey there, just wanted to give a heads-up for when you move a taxon, like when you renamed Neothunnus (subgenus) → Neothunnus... Sticking with that example for a moment, if that taxon has a taxonomy template, like {{Taxonomy/Thunnus_(Neothunnus)}}, then you must also change the |link= parameter, from:

|link=Neothunnus (subgenus)|Neothunnus

to:

|link=Neothunnus

I think this is due to the youth of the {{Automatic taxobox}} and/or {{Speciesbox}} templates... Whereas a normal page move will properly handle the creation of redirect pages, the above |link= parameter must point directly at the actual page – it's not (yet?) coded to follow redirection to the final destination. Thanks, Grollτech (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's another advantage of using manual taxoboxes. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Emerita rathbunae

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hermit crab

Either I or you have caching issues: search for "32 years" in the compiled Hermit crab article. I see "32 years.Linda Lombardi (July 22, 2008). "Hermit crabs don’t have to fade away; with proper care they can have long life". Amherst Daily News (The Associated Press). Retrieved July 2009.</ref>", which is why I reverted you. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Aha. Neither version was correct. Both comment and ref tags were unbalanced. I was searching for "-->", and it was cropping up in the reflist. Now fixed. Thanks for pointing out the problem; I couldn't work out why you'd reverted until you explained. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Third Reading Wiki Meetup

You are invited to the third Reading Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Hope Tap, 99-105 Friar Street, Reading RG1 1EP on Sunday 20 January 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Berkshire related topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ocypode cursor

Hello! Your submission of Ocypode cursor at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Chris857 (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Replied there. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Two points

Firstly, I have taken up the GA review of Dyspanopeus sayi and you may like to respond to the points I have raised on the review page.

Yes. I hope to be able to deal with your comments in the next day or two. My apologies for getting on to it sooner. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It turns out I have less time on my hands than I thought. It will be Monday before I can look at this properly, I'm afraid, but I will get round to it. Sorry for the delay. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Secondly, when I created the page Rhinesomus at the beginning of the year, I did so because I understood from you that the policy in monotypic genera was to name the page for the genus rather than the species. Another editor has now altered the page and proposed on the talk page that it be renamed and moved. Would you like to investigate? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) The guideline at WP:FAUNA#Monotypic taxa is pretty clear about this: "All other fauna, including all other fossil fauna, should always be represented at the lowest-ranked taxon which the article inclusively covers. Examples: Confuciusornithidae, not Confuciusornithiformes; Bullockia maldonadoi, not Bullockia." For whatever reason, this is unfortunately opposite to the recommendation of WP:FLORA: "A genus with a single species is treated at the article for the genus." Sasata (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
• Its also contrary to the guidelines and general practice of WP:Paleontology which has articles at the genus page for monotypic taxa.--Kevmin § 06:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:FAUNA seems to be out of step with all other guidelines and with common practice. I suggest it be reworded to recognise the true consensus, which is (and always has been) that monotypic taxa are placed, where possible, at the genus title, not the binomen. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Update. This problem seems to stem from a July 2012 edit to WP:FAUNA which left it out of step with other guidelines and with de facto standards. I have undone that edit, and I think that solves the problem. There may, however, be repercussions. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Question

Can you explain to me why you removed this reference from Porcellio spinicornis, and call it unsourced???--Mishae (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. You wrote that "[a]dults are black coloured with yellow dots on their top", based only on images at the URL you provided. You would need to find a prose description. Maybe the pictured individuals were dark with yellow spots, but others might have a paler background, or lack the yellow spots (this is especially likely; it also occurs in some Armadillidium species, for instance). You cannot use your interpretation of images as a source, and the statement was therefore effectively unsourced (or original research). --Stemonitis (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops, never knew that I will go for original research, sorry! Another question, so I added some sources to the article (distribution), I am now confused which is sourced and which is not (I used it though to describe distribution, not species), can you check? Porcellio spinicornis--Mishae (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that information is probably also inadmissible. Self-published sources, which include postings on forums such as BugGuide, are not considered reliable. It is important that we describe the full distribution, including any non-native areas, but it cannot be done on the basis of individual occurrence records. Rather, we need to find a source that describes the overall distribution (either globally or in a given region). E. Hornung, for instance, describes the distribution of P. spinicornis as "northern and central Europe; introduced to North America". This source lists the U.S. states and Canadian provinces where it occurs, but even that should be distilled into prose, rather than merely listed (although I have to admit it's not clear how to describe that disparate group). --Stemonitis (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the source that you gave me is huge, I don't know if I will be able to find the alien distribution that way! I use Bug Guide all the time, nobody was concerned about it!--Mishae (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It's only 24 pages (145 kB), and Ctrl-F works just fine on it. Other people failing to spot an error doesn't make it any less an error. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

O.K, I added the source that you gave me. Unfortunately we had an edit conflict and I returned everything back, the other reason is can you explain to me why Bug guide is not considered to be a reliable source?--Mishae (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry; it was easy for me to remove it again. I have already explained that self-published sources are not admissible. See WP:SPS for the reasoning. That aside, listing a few reports of a species' occurrence is not the same thing as describing the species' distribution. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Mmm, whats the difference between distibution and occurence? Also, I read and reread the WP:SPS, and it says that it may be used, so its not forbidden. Is it because of points 1, 3, 4, and 5?--Mishae (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I can only assume that you're talking about points 1–5 of WP:ABOUTSELF, which refers to publications by a person about himself/herself, or an organisation about itself. That certainly doesn't apply in this case. Rather, WP:SPS states "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources", and the caveat "largely" is only there to allow blogs written by acknowledged experts to be included, sparingly (again, not the case here). --18:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hold on, but users can cite books or journals! So, if its not the case here, what is? I'm confused now.--Mishae (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean the users of BugGuide? If they cite books and journals, then find those books and journals, read them yourself, and then cite them directly. Don't assume that the contributors to BugGuide are reporting their contents accurately. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I ment the users on Wikipedia. Also can you check this article for me?: Porcellio dilatatus, I don't know if this species is included in the source that you provided, but it did mentioned on Bug Guide that it occured in San Francisco, therefore it was introduced there...--Mishae (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

If I can't use a Bug Guide, then how do I find out its size and colour? I think our readers need to know about it, don't you think???--Mishae (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

You use a reliable source. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

In this case?.. Can you give me an example please?--Mishae (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

[1] [2] etc. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

O.K, got it! Like this? Porcellio dilatatus--Mishae (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Recilia vetus or Deltocephalus vetus?

Another question that is completely out of place, but kind of related to the topic above: Can you please check which of the above names are accurate for the species? You see, the book on google books says that its Deltocephalus (Recilia) vetus, but Global Species Database posts it as Recilia vetus. Which one should I trust? Also can you check the same article for copyvio without accusing me of copyvio (I honestly don't mean to do it)?! Sorry for my worries...--Mishae (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't particularly trust the globalspecies.org page. It contains no data, and has evidently just scraped the name from somewhere. The New Zealand Journal of Zoology article is more authoritative, but it also quite old; it dates from 1975, and a lot can change in taxonomy in 37 years. It is quite likely that the subgenus Recilia has been elevated to the rank of full genus in the interim, but I think a better source than either of those will be needed to establish current usage. It's not really a group I know that well, so I'm no better placed than you to go looking through the literature. I do note however, that this Australian page was updated to 2000. The species doesn't appear to have been studied much! --Stemonitis (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Well but we have a page on Wikipedia about that website, which means its popular! I use it only for extended distribution purposes, such as the case here: Porcellio granuliferus--Mishae (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Image

If its not hard, can you ask Flickr, to donate this image to Wikipedia?--Mishae (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you could. I don't have the time. The exposure on that photo is far from perfect, but almost any image is better than none. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

How do I ask for permission? I found e-mail of a photographer on Biolib.cz and asked him for permission to use his photo of a Trachelipus ratzeburgii. My letter looks like this:

Greetings my Czech comrade! I'm working on a project insects in Wikipedia, and I would like to ask you a permission to use your image:

http://www.biolib.cz/en/taxonimage/id95775/?taxonid=32837

within a project. If its O.K, can you donate this image to this site right here:

http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/CC-BY-SA

Many thanks!

A Wikipedia editor

Your thoughts?--Mishae (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Your post on my talkpage

I'm confused now. So what you are saying is that Global Species Database is not the same as Globalspecies.org? It sounds the same though... As far as distribution goes, yes, on Globalspecies.org it says that "Europe, Northern Asia (excluding China", whats wrong here? I checked the sources they use, and I don't know from where they get them!.. I grab the European distribution from Fauna Europaea, while the rest I take from the site I listed above... Another thing to mention, are you implying that Fauna Europaea is a bad site too, that it spreads "missinformation"? Sorry, but I don't understand which sites I can use and which don't! For instance I don't use Biolib.cz a whole lot, except for synonyms. By the way, I checked for confermation on some of the Recilia species and it turns out that Globalspecies.org aren't lying, some of them can be found in Congo, which this site and Google books mentions as well.--Mishae (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

O.K. As time went by, I checked lots of books on google, but I didn't found any distribution reference other then Fauna Europaea and Globalspecies.org. Sure there is this WoRMS site, but it doesn't have distribution listed for some species such as those. So far I found only 2 species there that had any distribution. Maybe I just overlooked others? I don't know... Either way, if its possible, can you give me a site where I can find distribution for woodlice outside of Europe? That way I might substitude Globalspecies.org with any site you will give me. Otherwise, Globalspecies.org in my opinion is quite trusted, and easily accessible than most others...--Mishae (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Globalspecies.org is merely scraping data from elsewhere (it calls itself "a mashup of species data from around the web"), and is not a very reliable source, because you can't know how comprehensive it is; I certainly wouldn't trust it on its own (and if I had another source, I wouldn't also use globalspecies.org). This might be a start for North Asian taxa: doi:10.3897/zookeys.176.2372. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I never said that I will use it with another source, instead of it, yes. Now to the doi that you gave me, if doesn't lead me to the species that I wrote about. For example, I put in a search box [Trachelipus camerani this species name] and it comes out with whole bunch of books that don't contain its name! O' I did read them all to see if I can find the specific species, I even looked by region: Browse by Region; Asia; Seach name, nothing! Now what shell I do, or maybe I didn't understood well?--Mishae (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you explain to me why you put {{Italic title}} in every article about isopod I created? The title is wikified from a start, as far as my eyes can see, don't see a reason for it! Another concern, you put "name" in taxobox, but the species already does have a name in latin. Whats the point?--Mishae (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Using {{italic title}} and name= is a personal preference, but there are circumstances where it is beneficial, and I think it is as well to be consistent (fossil taxa, monotypic genera, etc.). This is only a minor issue, however. The much bigger task, and the reason for making the edits, is the large amount of false information you have added. Globalspecies.org has proven to be an enormously unreliable source. Not one of the species you wrote about is present in "Northern Asia except China". The DOI I provided was to an article describing the species in northern Asia; the reason you didn't find any of the species you were writing about in it is because they don't occur in northern Asia! Other parts of your writing were also careless. Even apart from the Asian error, some of your distributions were wrong, some of the dates of authorship, and you consistently misspelled a family name. This is exactly the sort of problem that always arises when articles are hurriedly mass-produced. Finding and recognising reliable sources is a key part of writing for Wikipedia – possibly the most important aspect – and I haven't got the time to explain it in detail here. In general, it is much better to concentrate on writing one article well than writing dozens of articles badly; every attempt to mass-produce articles that I have seen in my considerable time here has been error-prone, requiring manual edits to many articles just to clear up avoidable errors, and that seems like an imposition to me. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Another comment. If you find an experienced editor doing something you don't understand, don't simply undo it. Rather, ask first, in order to prevent more needless edits. I am now having to go through your recent edits and undo a large number of edits which should not have been made. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If its a preference, then maybe you shoudn't anger me with it, or if I am a part of anthropods project I need to obey by your rules since I am new here, and you are like my main "boss"?--Mishae (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That one little thing is a preference, but removing claims that a series of European endemic species occur all across Asia is not. Similarly, spelling family names correctly is not a preference. Those were the reasons for the edits. Let's keep sight of the target here. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

More importantly, your recent edits to remove {{italic title}} are entirely pointless. They add nothing to the articles. Likewise, removing quote marks from reference names, or removing whitespace from template calls is entirely without value. It merely burdens the database with extra edits, without providing any benefit for the user. Please do not make any more such edits. (I make such changes only as part of a larger, substantive edit.) You have been around a while, but it seems you still have much to learn. Perhaps rather than wasting your time on these ineffectual tweaks, you could check your other articles for misinformation; that would be a much better use of your time. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Question, you added wikispecies and Encyclopedia of Life to some of mine isopod articles: Is it required or its "preference"? If it is required, how many external links I can have in every article so that it wont violate "Wikipedia is not a collection of links" rule? And one more, if the article requires some how do I do the other templates such as for Biolib? Last but not least, yes, just like everyone else "I do need much to learn", but your comments about my experience and calling all what I do as "pointless", doesn't help a whole lot. Not to mention, that angers me even more. As far as my mass production of articles goes, all I want is to help a project, and you know that! P.S. I was in a library when I edited my articles, so I needed to do it quickly, sorry for inconvenience.--Mishae (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Porcellio albinus

Is this an O.K. edit in your opinion? Plus, can you explain me the reason behind the revert on the same page? Some species have wikispecies as an external link, whats bad about it? No info there? Eventually it will be! Hey, I got an idea... If you will have time, maybe you will create a page for Wikispecies about my species??? How about that?!--Mishae (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The question to bear in mind is whether the sites you are linking to are useful to a reader. If, as in the case of Wikispecies, no such page exists, then it is obviously not useful. Do not include links to pages which do not exist, even if they might in the future. In the case of EOL and ITIS here, I can't see much benefit from having them. All they do is reiterate the name and authority, and give links to the rest of the phylogenetic tree, but we already provide all of that. I can't see any reason for it (and nor can I see any reason for your crusade to remove {{italic title}}). --Stemonitis (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Well you put EOL in one of my titles, was it a mistake then? If, so, I will remove it with Italic title and name= too. I don't think it should be a problem...--Mishae (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Did I? Which? --Stemonitis (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you already removed it somewhere. But I am here for another reason, what was the reason behind removing of Fauna Europaea source from this article: Trachelipus razzautii? I will put it back as an external link if you don't mind?--Mishae (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I replaced it with a better source, that's all. I see you have already added it as an external link. I'm not sure that it adds anything for the reader that they haven't already gleaned from the article (see WP:EL), but I won't remove it. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Well, lets say it will be a double check for a reader, isn't that what external links are for? You see, another user told me that Fauna Europaea is a trusted site, unlike Globalspecies.org, its much more official. Question: is this O.K.? Porcellionides buddelundi, I mean, can I use GBIF as a reference for distrubution?--Mishae (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

In short, no. For some taxa, GBIF can be trusted – generally for very well known and well recorded taxa. In this case it appears to be straightforwardly wrong. I can see no evidence of P. buddelundi in Uruguay, and such a distribution would be very unlikely a priori. I would be fairly confident that it results from a misidentification. If it it weren't such an obvious error, I wouldn't trust GBIF for an invertebrate. In order to translate records of individual collections into meaningful distributions, you need to know about the amount of effort put into investigating various areas, when collections were made, by whom, how reliable the identifications are, and so on. You absolutely cannot extrapolate from one dubious collection to give a distribution of a species. You need to find reliable sources where the distribution is described (or, as a worst-case scenario, illustrated), rather than collections listed. Schmalfuss lists "Portugal and Spain" for the distribution of P. buddelundi, and I see no reason to doubt that. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't doubt it, I only doubt mine actions, which is the reason why came to your talkpage. Otherwise, if I would have known better, I would

A. Wont do it and

B. Would be stuborn

Both of which you don't see here. So let me get it streight: What you are saying is that for marine species user should use WoRMS or books, and for other stuff like insects Fauna Europaea and the same thing as above. For butterflies I already know that people use Afro Moths and Moths Photography Group sites. By the way, I removed the GBIF reference, and I thank you there in the edit summary as well (I don't know if its O.K. to do it or not though)... Another thing, thanks for removing cosmopolitan, I kind off read it, but didn't knew what to do about it, and thanks for not adding those templates!--Mishae (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Stemonitis. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Chris857 (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ocypode cursor

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Bennelongia

Hi, I realized you replied to bennelogia on their talkpage regarding their username. While I agree I shouldn't have mentioned being blocked in my summary (Despite the fact that the link leads to WP:TROUT, I still don't think I overreacted in the least. What were your thoughts about my actions, again? Buggie111 (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I still think it was a bit of an overreaction, but nothing serious. I might have approached it differently, but I'm not complaining about your actions. The important thing is to make sure that any productive new editor feels welcomed and supported, and I think that is the case, so no harm done. I tried to write my notice at CHU neutrally; my apologies if it sounded like an accusation at all. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trachelipus gagriensis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Trachelipus

if you want to delete this template, then send it to WP:TFD, but don't simply blank it. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. It was an effective interim measure, and far better for the reader than the obtrusive "this template is being considered for deletion" message. There is an existing consensus that such templates are undesirable, at least when they cover selected species only. I simply forgot to return and delete it once the articles that had transcluded it had been edited, for which I apologise. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Coconut Crab

So do you own the Coconut Crab page? I see that you won't allow anyone to make any edit of any sort. Perhaps you should reflect on WP:OWN as you work to undo every edit of the page.

I realize that my post is full of sarcasm, but come on.....--Revmqo (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

What was the additional image supposed to bring to the article? There were already images of coconut crabs, and living ones at that. The image that was added was technically good (high-resolution, well focused, well exposed), but very artificial, being of a dry museum specimen. It also caused text to be sandwiched between the taxobox on the right and an over-large image on the left. All of that is contary to the image use policy. I undo every detrimental edit; that's all. It's just that the article is in pretty good shape, so most edits tend to be detrimental. This is maintenance, not ownership. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Not questioning that particular delete, but rather a pattern. Not trying to pick a fight, I just think my question is valid, and maybe you are too protective of the article.--Revmqo (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm more than happy for anyone to edit that article or any other (not that anyone needs my permission, of course). If an article is made worse by an edit, however, I will tend to undo it, and I don't see anything wrong in that. WP:ARTH has an unusually small amount of outstanding cleanup, largely because I work to prevent it from accruing. Most projects have maybe 10%–15% of articles marked as needing cleanup, and some have aound 30% (including the Good articles and Featured articles projects, ironically); I'm sure I've even seen one project with more than 50% of articles marked as needing cleanup (can't remember which). WP:ARTH has 0.5%, of which the majority are marked as they contain "potentially dated statements" (i.e. not actually a problem now). Based on that kind of analysis, perhaps most other projects are not protective enough of their articles. --Stemonitis (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Austin B. Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Superfamily

Fornos (Freixo de Espada à Cinta) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Saint Eulalia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)