User talk:Stemonitis/Archive31

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between January 28, 2011 and April 27, 2011.

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

DYK for Johngarthia lagostoma

Thank you for your contribution to the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Propaganda

Thanks for the note; I'd not thought of that. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Exotic Zoology (book)

Hey Stemonitis, I barely know where to begin with this. This, and the associated Google News search do not holler "notability" at me. Editing the article would have to begin with deleting the entire summary of it, and half the lead (I removed one particularly unencyclopedic and unsourced statement from it). Is AfD the next step? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If the prod has been declined, then yes, AfD is the way to go. Will you begin it or should I? --Stemonitis (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the main editor has already accused me of vandalizing Tahash, so I'm probably a good scapegoat for further critiques. I'll go ahead and list it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You know what, I should have looked at Google Books well. I just found lots of mentions of the book: see these results. I am going to edit the article. I am probably going to invoke the wrath of the main editor, but so be it--I have the feeling we're dealing with ownership issues and a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia articles are supposed to be like. If you agree that with those GBook hits something can be made of the article, I would really appreciate your help in fleshing out an encyclopedic article (rather than a verbose summary). If you don't agree, let me know if/when you take it to AfD, OK? Either way, thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If you think you can salvage a decent article out of it, then go for it. It does seem like there might be enough, although even with those various mentions, it seems only borderline notable. The article in its current state is clearly unacceptable, but I don't see why a re-write shouldn't be acceptable. I only came across the article in the first place because after I re-wrote Tachypleus gigas, I checked what linked there, and found Exotic Zoology linking to a long-abandoned synonym. That was the first of my concerns, and there were plenty more. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You know, T. gigas could grow as big as 150 feet and take down entire ships. Really. And, swimming at the surface of the ocean, it has been confirmed by some that it was reported that it was noted to lure unsuspecting sailors into the terrible depths of the pitch-black ocean and "probe" them, you know. You should add a section on that; I'm sure the evidence is somewhere. I'm totally into cryptozoology now.

I did a little bit of work on the article; see what you think. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That looks a million times better. My only remaining concern would be that maybe too many of the cited references are themselves from the cryptozoological community (cf. WP:FRINGE & WP:RS). I will admit, though, that I haven't read any of them, and I may be wrong. Anyway, a job well done; I'm very happy with the outcome. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's actually not as bad as it looks--the Ellis books, for instance, are about cryptozoology, not in it, so to speak. The Preece book is legit--in fact, I think I'm going to order me a copy, since I've taught Mandeville. This is never going to be a GA, no doubt about that--but at least it's not a catalog of fringe anymore.

Hey, I just noticed--you're a slime mold with an interest in crabs? Isn't that miscegenation? You science people--Ucucha with his rats, you and the crabs--you all should get out more. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Caryobruchus gleditsiae

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Friedrich Brüggemann

Greetings Stemonitis I made a spelling error in the taxonbox here [1] One n not two.I changed this but of course it no longer leads to the page Friedrich Brüggemann [2] written under the wrong spelling Would you be very kind and fix this Robert Notafly (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have moved the article, and there is a redirect in place in case any other articles use the wrong spelling. Any autoconfirmed user should be able to make simple page moves like this. This should include you. If that isn't the case, I think I can give you that right. Try moving an article in your userspace, or something similarly uncontroversial, and let me know if you want me to increase your access level. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Very many thanks.Talk to you soon.Notafly (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Acromis spinifex

rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC) 18:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Review of External morphology of Lepidoptera

Thanks for beginning the process. Due to commitments I was a bit absorbed and did not notice that you had begun the review. I have addressed most of the points and progress/comments given against each. Please feel free to resume the review at your convenience. AshLin (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the review page is on my watchlist, so I have been watching your progress. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing this article. Its great to have another GA for WikiProject Lepidoptera. AshLin (talk) 13:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

List of decapod crustaceans of Dominica

Thanks for your work on this. It's not an area I have experience in and I only had the one source to go by, which omitted mention of any non-decapods. But I do question this; the list now has no connection to Category:Crustaceans by geography, of which it is an example. postdlf (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite right – my mistake. I have now added Category:Crustaceans by geography to the article directly (creating a separate category for a single list seems unnecessary). Oh, and thanks for your copy editing of Decapoda; I had been aware for some time that it needed it, but couldn't bring myself to work on it. --Stemonitis (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Nemertea

Sorry for reverting when I hit an ec (£$%^&!). I'll finish the lead, add some diagrams (already done on my PC), then remove the {{inuse}} I should have used in the first instance. At that time I'd love you to come in, as I know you're very good, although it might be good to Talk first about anything major. I'll sent it for GA review are soon I've finished the lead, as the queues at WP:GAN are obscene. --Philcha (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. As long as the text beyond the lead doesn't change, it shouldn't be too hard to bring my changes back in. I think they were all fairly uncontroversial. I was tempted to combine all the different references to the "Nemertea" chapter in Ruppert, Fox & Barnes into a single reference, but I thought that might be controversial. (I still think it's desirable, but I recognise that opinions may differ.) When you're ready for WP:GAN, I'll gladly do the reviewing if you'd like me to. I wrote the core of the previous version back in 2007, so I have been watching with interest as you worked on the new version. (Your edits appeared in the list of recent changes to articles that link to crustacean, in case you're wondering.) It looks like an excellent piece of work. My only concern would be the lack of images, but since you're already working on a solution to that, it's all looking good. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy for you to do the GA review, but I don't want to jump the queue (too much :-D). I don't know what's happened to WP:GAN, the queues are obscene, and were as bad at the end of Dec 2010. Now I'll upload my pics. --Philcha (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I've uploaded and placed the pics, and removed the {{inuse}}. Enjoy!

PS The best photo if a live nemertean on Commons is used as the lead pic, and Google Images knows a few more, IMO the best are at UCMP. --Philcha (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Edward Hubbard

Materialscientist (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hyperparasite

Helloooo. I'm looking for some images, but can't find any. Can you recommend one or two emblematic species? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not really my field, I'm afraid. I also suspect that most hyperparasites are as far from emblematic as can be imagined. There are a few articles that link to hyperparasite that may be useful (perhaps a picture of the Diplolepis rosae gall, even if the hyperparasite isn't included?), and there's a table of examples in this book. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Inachus phalangium

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Pleuroncodes planipes

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Stuff

If you can, do you think tell me some of the things that Lepidoptera may need improvement on or expanding. Oh, and I know there there where a few tools that showed you link that had redirects, and dead links, but I'm forget them, maybe you can tell me what they where? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 20:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to find time to look it over, but it's a big article, so it will take some time. I've already got the GA review of External morphology of Lepidoptera under way (indeed, nearly finished, I think), and my own projects to be getting on with, but I will try. I think the tools you mention must be the ones at {{Good article tools}} (transcluded here for Lepidoptera). I always have to go a current GA review to find them. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Myotis vivesi

Thanks for this contribution to Wikipedia SmartSE (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It was a pleasant surprise to see this pop up, nice work! Just in case you're looking for another DYK candidate, I started a stub on the squirrel Sciurus ingrami the other day and found a reference saying that they gang up against margays! I can't access the full papers, but if you can feel free to expand it.

Well, you say it's good work. I am only too aware of what's missing – reproduction, predation (including the invasive species which largely explain the current distribution), diseases, etc. I only started on it after writing Pleuroncodes planipes and seeing how bad the Polbot stub was (something of a bugbear of mine). To be honest, I got bored of writing it after a while; it's only a mammal after all ;-) So I decided just to publish it as it was, in the hope that someone else might fill in the gaps. Similarly, I doubt I will find the time to expand Sciurus ingrami, but do let me know if you want copies of any papers (email me) – I can get hold of most journals online through my work. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well it's certainly an improvement! In my experience the missing parts may well not be known at all, so there's not much we can do about it. I think we've all encountered that feeling with Polbot's stubs but I guess that the fact it makes us improve them is the silver-lining. Thanks for offering the papers, but as with you, I don't find mammals particularly interesting - I only started it because it eats this and the redlinks were annoying me! Cacoxenus indagator [3] is a bit more interesting for a DYK as well to be honest. SmartSE (talk) 11:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Stemonitis, you assess your contributions with excessive modesty. I would assess your work as huge and sustained and of real substance. But you surely, by now, know that Wikipedia has moved on, and no longer has a place for dumb shit like this. You talk about writing articles that are somewhat definitive – a big task, but not something of the slightest value to where it matters on Wikipedia. Jimbo has made it clear that content editors are replaceable throwaways. You are an administrator now, so you need to update yourself on what this is about. You have full licence to savage pathetic and lowly content editors like Snek01 and myself, who, of course, simply don't matter, and need to be shown the exit. As an administrator, you are there for life, basically untouchable. So why carry on on as though contributing content matters? Your job is to block and discourage content editors. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Epipelagic, I can't tell what you're trying to say here. Is this sarcasm? Is this about some particular event? I am at a loss to make sense of it. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Parapinnixa affinis

Hello! Your submission of Parapinnixa affinis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Pgallert (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

All fine with this article but I have suggested a different hook. Your Opinion? --Pgallert (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Fusarium subglutinans

I seem to have got myself into a bit of a mess. First I expanded the stub article Fusarium subglutinans. Then I found that the causative agent of Pine pitch canker was in fact classified as Fusarium circinatum so I reverted Fusarium subglutinans back to its original form and created the article Fusarium circinatum. On further investigation it seems that this is also wrong and that the organism concerned is actually Fusarium subglutinans f. sp. pini. What do you suggest I ought to do about it? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fungi. The good people there are used to dealing with the oddities of fungal nomenclature (I never got my head round teleomorph, anamorph and holomorph), and may well have come across a similar situation before. --Stemonitis (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do as you suggest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Calliactis parasitica

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Polistes annularis

NW (Talk) 10:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review of External morphology of Lepidoptera

I have addressed all the GAN issues at present. Waiting for any additional comments by reviewer. AshLin (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

May kindly see and respond. AshLin (talk) 05:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

All pending points including third pass addressed. Would you be doing another pass? AshLin (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Fourth pass addressed. Anything else? AshLin (talk) 08:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it. I'll go over the changes at the weekend, and I expect to promote it then. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Zosimus aeneus

Gatoclass (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Parapinnixa affinis

Orlady (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Scientific names

Whats is the current consensus, if any, on the use of proper nomenclature. Where can one go to form a consensus, including procedure of adding and editing the aforementioned. I normally come to you for such issues as such this, as I respect you as an experienced and knowledgeable editor, not to forget your apparent know-how on biology-related subjects. :D Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 21:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If I have understood your question correctly (where to go to debate taxonomic alternatives and the like), then I would recommend the most specialised WikiProject available. If you are working with high-level taxa, or taxa not covered by a specialist project, then try WP Tree of Life; for Lepidoptera, try WP Lepidoptera; and so on. Some projects are inactive, so in that case, it may make sense to go to the "parent" project (e.g. WP Mantodea is defunct, so try it's [active] parent WP Insects). There's nothing wrong with seeking advice from individuals, but for wider input, I would always try the projects. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

One could call me the "leader" of WP:insect, as I lead most of the projects collaborations, and I know there hasn't been any consensus made in that wikiproject. How would I create a consensus, I noticed on talk pages where they have people vote. I saw that wikiproject for plants uses the scientific over the common name, I'll look to the Tree of life wikiprject and other projects to bounce ideas. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 22:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus was tried for in WikiProject Lepidoptera but failed. Better keep doing what you want, I always make article stubs using scientific names only. Let someone else try moving these to common names where we could oppose individual cases if the grounds were not reasonable. AshLin (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if this is about using common versus scientific names, then I suspect any attempt to form a wide consensus will be very hard to achieve. I am amazed that WP Plants managed it, and I'm not sure they made the right decision. I know a lot of people interpret WP:UCN to mean that we must always use a non-scientific name, but I don't accept that. Many of our organisms are known chiefly by a scientific name, even if at least one vernacular name (I deliberately don't use the word "common" here) occurs. In particular some agencies insist on inventing a vernacular name for every species, which I generally ignore. It strikes me that the existing guidelines give sufficient leeway for editors to name articles in any reasonable way. What were you hoping to find consensus for? --Stemonitis (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sense my main focus on Wikipedia is to raise the status of the articles for the orders of insects, and when I started I was disappointing to find half use the vernacular names, and the other half use the scientific. But maybe I can reach I wiki-wide consensus, I'm just going to have to be bold. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 11:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to disappoint or discourage you, but it is very unlikely that the mammalogists and ornithologists (for example) will agree to using scientific names across the board, even for orders and above. Similarly, applying common names for everything, including relatively unfamiliar invertebrate groups, is likely to be strongly opposed by other editors. I suggest that you learn to accept that there will always be some articles titled according to the scientific name, and some by common name. I don't think it's a big problem, and I think that trying to push for one or the other will just be a way to spend a lot of time and effort getting nowhere. I can think of better avenues for your enthusiasm. This isn't a new question, having been discussed many times before. Bold actions, ignoring previous debates, may not be welcomed under such circumstances. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Normally I things like these don't hinder me, but through looking at previous conversations, I see what your saying and I'll just try within Wikiproject Insects

I'm not quite clear to what side you are taking. Does your comment mean you are neutral or do you support/oppose? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 12:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

My comment was a request for information, nothing more. I may yet express an opinion (i.e. vote), but I have not yet done so. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

How does one know when a consnensus is reached? And if one has, could you do the honors of moving th articles, as you are a administrator, right? Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 14:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If I were asked to call it, I would not consider the current state a strong enough consensus for the scale of action needed. Remember that it isn't a vote. There is some opposition in there, based on reasonable arguments. In fact, this is just a request for comment we're talking about, which doesn't carry a very strong mandate at the best of times. It hasn't been stagnant for very long, either, and this is a pretty big decision. I would suggest you leave it a week or two. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Dociostaurus maroccanus

An unnamed but numbered editor has made certain criticisms of my editing style on my talk page. In particular he/she has heavily edited the article I wrote on Dociostaurus maroccanus. That article was written in what I would call my usual style and if that style is wrong, then I should change it, but I would be glad of a second opinion before doing so. I find there are often quite limited online sources for information about obscure insects and if one is to avoid plagiarism and close paraphrasing, one has to rephrase things which means one may end up with "excess verbiage". I would be glad to know what you think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the ideal style lies somewhere between how you had it and how the IP left it. He/she is right that sentences like "Despite its name, the Moroccan locust is widely distributed." may not be necessary, as you will go on to show in the succeeding text that it is widely distributed, and you can leave it to the reader to contrast that with the name. However, I also dislike some of the new shortenings; "This locust is a historical, serious agricultural threat." is a very awkward sentence; splitting off "The hind legs are powerful." as a separate sentence makes it sound rather juvenile, in my opinion; "The locust range ..." is just plain ungrammatical (but probably a simple typo); the opening "Dociostaurus maroccanus (Moroccan locust), is a grasshopper ..." is horrible (and the comma is simply wrong, but again probably just carelessness); and so on. Don't take it personally – you must be prepared for anything you write on Wikipedia to be hacked about mercilessly by anyone and everyone, some of whom will know better than you, and some of whom won't. I have had to adapt my style to that preferred by the community, here, and I think my writing has probably improved as a result. Feel free to undo any aspects of the IP's changes that you believe don't improve the article (and you might correct the typo "foothils" while you're there). Your concern about plagiarism is admirable. However, if you have paraphrased a source, and a copy editor has reduced it to something similar to the source text, but without knowledge of the source text, then that's perfectly admissible; sometimes there is only one elegant way to convey certain information. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I will take notice of the criticism and try to cut out unnecessary words or flowery phrases but will largely stick to the way I have been doing things. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Cryptocneminae deletion

Hi Stemonitis,

thanks for completing Leucosiidae -- I had started working on the subfamilies as separate articles and when I got back to the main family I saw the work you had done. Brilliant, Now, though I don't know how to delete my extraneous article. Can you help?

regards Seascapeza (talk) 11:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Which article do you mean? I can certainly help, but I can't see any subfamily articles in your recent edit history. Also, do note that just because I set up a redirect, that doesn't mean that a subfamily article couldn't be split off, provided there was enough to say about it. Some subfamilies are very distinctive and entirely worthy of a separate article. If you wish to write an article about a subfamily, just overwrite the redirect. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was most interesting! Perhaps I forgot to save the article? Because I can see that I filled in the 'talk' section on it and distinctly remember writing it... never mind. I don't think it's worth an article anyway, so I think we're sorted.

regards Seascapeza (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I have deleted the talk page under WP:CSD#G7 (which is sort of true). If you ever need help with other page deletions, moves, etc., just let me know. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A bug infested barnstar

		An infested Barnstar	|}
		I, Bugboy52.4, award you the honorary insect barnstar for your tremendous contribution to all thing insect-related topics on Wikipedia. Especially for your work in bringing External morphology of Lepidoptera to a good article. Congratulations! Keep up the good work Stemonitis! 15:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)________________________________________________________________

-Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 15:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Rosa fedtschenkoana

Hello Stemonitis. Thanks for keeping an eye on Rosa fedtschenkoana, and apologies for my mistake in thinking that the de-italicisation of Rosaceae and the re-linking of the non-existent Olga Fedtschenko link were software-created glitches - it's because those changes weren't highlighted in red when I compared edits under "View history". (In fact, I even wondered initially if you'd edited an old version of the page, as I couldn't understand where those changes came from). Hence my blaming of the software.... Anyway, now I know that it was a deliberate change, and that plant families aren't usually italicised. As to whether to re-re-insert the non-existent Olga Fedtschenko link, I kind of sit on the fence on that one - I understand that it encourages contributors to create articles, but I dislike the prominent red text in the page..... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Coconut crab revert

You reverted my March 12 edit of Coconut crab with the comment "Rv.: the lead is *meant* to summarise information later in the article." Summarising doesn't mean word-for-word replication. For anyone with an attention span longer than that of a fruit fly, seeing the same sentence repeated a few paragraphs later produces an unsettling feeling of déjà vu. While it may be common for technical papers to do so in the article abstract, perhaps owing to laziness of editors of such papers, Wikipedia isn't a technical journal. Paraphrasing the information would work better and be less offensive to the reader. —Quicksilver^{T @} 19:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The sentence "The coconut crab, Birgus latro, is the largest land-living arthropod in the world, and is probably at the upper size limit of terrestrial animals with exoskeletons in today's atmosphere." is a summary of the later paragraph:

Birgus latro is the largest land-living arthropod in the world, and is probably at the upper size limit of terrestrial animals with exoskeletons in today's atmosphere. Reports about the size of Birgus latro vary, but most references give a body length of up to 40 cm (16 in), a weight of up to 4.1 kg (9.0 lb), and a leg span of more than 0.91 m (3.0 ft), with males generally being larger than females. There have been reports in the literature of specimens measuring 6 feet (1.8 m) across the thorax and weighing 30 pounds (14 kg). They can live more than 30 years.

I can see no justification for removing the information in that first sentence from the main article [i.e. after the lead], and indeed, if it were removed from the main text, it should not appear in the lead. I can see a case for re-wording it in the lead, if the feeling of déjà vu is considered sufficiently problematic, but not for its removal from the main text. As a rule of thumb, if a reference needs to appear in the lead (apart from special cases like direct quotations), then the article has been badly summarised, in my opinion. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Platykotta

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Platykotta, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl?action=basicTaxonInfo&taxon_no=172003.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a particularly bad example of a false positive, CorenSearchBot! --Stemonitis (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Your lovely behavior in Chiasognathus granti

FWIW:

• Reasoning for move to common name: species is most famous for having been encountered by Darwin, the previous lead you moved down to the body of the article mentioned that. Species has also been featured in a documentary narrated by David Attenborough showing mating rituals and it was called 'Darwin's beetle'. Or did this suddenly not exist: Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects#Names_and_titles

• If you still don't like it under that common name because it's "not so common" then at least correct the spelling: Chiasognathus grantii not granti

• Revision of the genus Chiasognathus Stephens of southern South America with the description of a new species (Coleoptera, Lucanidae, Lucaninae, Chiasognathini) by M.J. Paulsen1 and Andrew B.T. Smith < This actually deals with nomenclature and is listed in ICZN's ZooBank
• Checklist of the Scarabaeoidea of southern South America by Andrew B. T. Smith
• Charles Darwin's The Descent of Man
• Listed as an incorrect synonym in BioLib
• Our very own Wikispecies (reffed, though I don't have access to those books) even explicitly says that Chiasognathus granti is a misspelling: species:Chiasognathus grantii

Congrats on draining every little motivation I had on doing a planned expansion of the article. Not touching that article again. Obsidi♠n^Soul 13:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

		The don't touch my articles! Barnstar
		For making my contributions feel absolutely worthless. Obsidi♠nSoul 13:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No need to take it so personally, ObsidianSoul. There are a lot of things about your edits to that article that I think are valuable, and which I have restored. There were also a few things that I thought were less valuable, and I reverted those. I did not undo your edits wholesale (as you later did), but only those bits that I thought detrimental. If the correct name is indeed C. grantii, rather than C. granti, then it is easy to move the article to that title. I restored the previous title, imagining it would be part of a BRD cycle. There is certainly scope for a debate over titling. Your move was bold, and I see nothing wrong with undoing it pending a fuller discussion. WP:COMMONNAME doesn't necessarily mean that every species must be at a vernacular name rather than a scientific name; the best sources (printed books and journals) seem to prefer "Chiasognathus granti[i]" to "Darwin's beetle". While we have differing opinions over aspects of the article, that doesn't make your efforts worthless, and it is no reason not to assume good faith. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

So I'm the one guilty of not assuming good faith now, eh? It's like trying building a house and having someone continuously take away a brick here, pry some planks there, demolish a window I just built there. You act like I'm some sort of interloper into your territory, so of course I'm taking it personally. Why can't you just post in a talk page or something so we can go over it like normal editors instead of undoing almost everything I did as soon as I did it and communicating solely through edit summaries.

Yes my move was bold. I was planning to bring it to full article status. You could have undone anything you want to your heart's content later, have it on DYK, GA, whatever, I don't give a crap about those. Instead you hover over everything I do as I do it, like some sort of disapproving teacher ready to pounce on every little mistake. Differing opinions is one thing, deliberately being frustrating is another.

This wasn't the first time this happened either, so forgive me if I'm not exactly WP:AGFing and cheering from the sidelines. --Obsidi♠n^Soul 22:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Your accusations are false. I was not "deliberately being frustrating". (Indeed, why would I?) I did not undo "almost everything [you] did". Here, you made several chnges:

1. You changed the taxobox to an automatic taxobox (with a couple of changes to its content).
2. You added the vernacular name "Chilean stag beetle".
3. You added vernacular names in local languages.
4. You added information on classification.
5. You added information on synonyms.

In my edit that followed, I reverted your first action, but did not undo any of the others. I re-ordered the text, made some adjustments to the formatting, and took away the stub tag, but all your new material I left in place, because it's good material. The only other major thing I undid was the page move, which I don't think was a good idea. So you see, most of what you did was not undone. If anything, by reverting the move quickly, I saved you from wasted effort, updating redirects and so on. From this edit, I did not undo the better referencing format, but I did undo the removal of italics from a binomial name. As I said before, the beneficial changes were kept, and the detrimental ones undone. I also added a few changes of my own along the way, like marking the non-English text and standardising the reference formatting. The overall effect from the combination of all our edits was a great improvement to the article, performed in a collaboration, just the way Wikipedia normally works. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you know how many edit conflicts that caused? Did you ever just for a moment, think that maybe it would actually be better to start a section in the talkpage and then point me there for my input? Or even better, wait until I'm done with most of my edits, before correcting/discussing what needs to be corrected. Because I would have gladly listened and indeed probably agree to anything you would have recommended. Instead all I get is you saying 'NO not this', 'NO not that', without even trying to argue my reasoning first for validity, as if it didn't matter what I thought anyway. I've always respected you as a very good editor to look up to, but not as authority. My intent to expand was pretty clear from the first edit. I was concentrating on writing first, I didn't want to have to stop in the middle of it just to contest one of the reverts you did. I forced myself to accept your reversion to manual taxoboxes simply so I can continue without any drama happening, and then minutes later you undo another thing and virtually take over.

You get what I'm saying? It's extremely frustrating.

I had already downloaded a lot of material for a planned expansion of that article, and I was only just starting. Only to see you immediately undo two of my major edits. So what was I supposed to think? We've been there before in Polydesmida, among others. While I was wrong in adding the gallery then, you still acted like you had a great deal more right to undo anything you feel like without having to explain yourself (terse edit summaries don't exactly come off as friendly). I do accept when I'm wrong. I just don't like being assumed as wrong by default.

Anyway, as I said. I lost interest. If that's your idea of collaboration, then I can't work that way. Deliberate or not, it does a very good job of discouraging anyone working on articles you've started. Expand it because it's a very interesting species. It's all yours. But I think I'll stay off arthropods for a good long while. Obsidi♠n^Soul 10:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tumidotheres maculatus

The DYK project (nominate) 00:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Labia minor

The DYK project (nominate) 08:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Blue River Crab Revert

Why did you make the Article Blue River Crab a redirect to Potamonautes it isn't a subtopic it is an Article on an Animal. That happens to be in that species. In my opinion you don't redirect a Blue River Crab Article when it is on an animal. But if I was about the same thing as Potamonautes then okay. But since it is an distinct animal that is part of that species group it can get included on the list on there But not when it is not about the same subject. So can you explain why you did that. Because on the IUCN site it is listed as Potamonautes lividus and that the conservation status is Vulnerable. If you understand what I mean. Can I ask you to revert your edit on the Blue River Crab Article please. Also why have all of those articles on the Potamonautes redirect to the same page? They are supposed to be separate from that page. So that way people can learn about that specific animal. Not about the genus of the animal so. If you will can you please revert those edits you did on those articles. As they shouldn't be redirected to that page.--Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

If there hadn't been an article on the genus, I would have deleted your contribution outright. It was an unambiguous copyright violation of text owned by the IUCN (taken from here). Such material is not acceptable on Wikipedia. If you wish to write an article on the species, you must do so in your own words. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyrighted media

I recently found a pretty good some of useful images, so I e-mailed the creator as directed on the website about the copyright status, such as the use, distribution, and editing, and he responded that they only need to be attributed and used for non-commercial use. Are these images good to be uploaded to Wikipedia, and how would I uploaded them as I am not technically the creator of these images. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 04:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not something I've had many dealings with, but I think you might need to use the OTRS system to have it confirmed that the images are available under an appropriate licence. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Cyclida

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

A. echo - thank you!

Hi Stemonitis! Thanks for correcting my mistake in Achaea echo. As a non-scientist with an keen interest (though not quite matched with knowledge) in entomology, I kind of identify with Walker. Luckily for this project, my clangers (unlike his) are rather more easily fixed. Thanks again. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha. Not a problem. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Addressing the Lepidoptera issue...

Awhile back, you suggested we pile on a couple additional tasks with the taxobox cleanup run. See WT:LEPID#RfC, where we're considering doing just that per your suggestion. If I've misrepresented the proposal, let me know. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I think you've captured it well. --Stemonitis (talk)

question

Thanks for editing back the page daphnia lumholtzi, my research group and i are working on the page to finish it by Friday and appreciate any editing and formatting comments. The only problem i'm facing right now is uploading pictures from websites out side wikipedia. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimayazdanpanah (talk • contribs) 02:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

From my point of view, the most pressing task is to replace the manually numbered references with full citations. The formatting of the references isn't such a big problem, but it needs to be clear which statements are supported by what publication. Help with images can be found at Help:Files. Any images you want to upload should ideally be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, so that other projects can reuse them. They will need to be released under an appropriate licence. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

For vetting

A nice new lobster stub - Dinochelus ausubeli! AshLin (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I had just spotted its appearance when you wrote here! I will look it over this evening if not before. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

How does that detection happen? AshLin (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing clever, just fortuitous timing in this instance. I clicked on the link labelled Crustacean on my user page, as I occasionally do, and I saw it among the recent changes there. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've expanded your article somewhat; I hope you don't mind. It would now be ready for a DYK nomination, which I will gladly take care of if you don't want to. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Never done one before, I'd like to try, can you guide me? AshLin (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed - "that Dinochelus ausubeli a deep sea lobster having a toothed claw much longer than the other, was named in honour of Jesse H. Ausubel, sponsor of the Census of Marine Life expedition during which it was discovered." AshLin (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think something like that would be good (I've put the scientific name in italic and bold). The reviewers will also help you to make the hook pithy, and it may be edited before appearing on the main page. The process of nominating an article has changed recently. They now require that someone who proposes a hook must first (or soon afterwards) review one of the other proposed hooks. Fortunately for you, that requirement is dropped for people who have not previously proposed many. All the action takes place at Template talk:Did you know (WP:TDYK). The rules are at Wikipedia:Did you know (WP:DYK), with some additional rules at Wikipedia:Did you know/Additional rules (WP:DYKAR). Don't worry about all the rules too much; the article fulfils all the most important criteria (it's new, it's long enough, and it's well referenced). If there are any other problems, you will be notified, and you can always come to me. (Incidentally, if you could expand Jesse H. Ausubel to 1500 characters or more, then you might be able to propose a double hook. The process is just about the same, but you gain extra kudos.) --Stemonitis (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed guidelines. Working on hook & Jesse H. Ausubel. AshLin (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Are these okay? Or would mention of discovery off the coast of Luzon replace the bit about the claws? AshLin (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

(Unformatted - 192 chars (less ellipsis) Less than 200 char upper limit)...that Dinochelus ausubeli, a deepwater lobster with distinctly different sized claws, discovered during the Census of Marine Life expedition was named in honour of its sponsor Jesse H. Ausubel?

(Formatted)...that Dinochelus ausubeli, a deepwater lobster with distinctly different sized claws discovered during the Census of Marine Life expedition, was named in honour of its sponsor Jesse H. Ausubel?

I think I would prefer the Luzon angle, because the unusual claw shape is not specific to the new genus, and it is unlikely to surprise people who know the claw dimorphism in Homarus, which is probably most of the readership. (You and I both know that claw dimorphism in Dinochelus is much more striking than in Homarus, but it's hard to convey that in 200 characters!) You may not even need to add the geography; it might suffice to say:

... that Dinochelus ausubeli, a deepwater lobster discovered during the Census of Marine Life expedition, was named in honour of the project's sponsor, Jesse H. Ausubel?

I tend to favour brevity over detail. Give it a whirl and see what the reviewers think. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Would it not be correct to add you as author2 in the field considering your work on Dinochelus? Any objections. Would you need to vet a DYK for that? AshLin (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It probably would, yes (but not for Jesse Ausubel – that was all your work; I am unsure how the DYK attribution system works, to be honest, because I normally only deal with single-author articles). Only the nominator is required to review another nomination, and I am not nominating in this case, so there's no obligation. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The good ship DinoAusubelDYK has been launched! AshLin (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)