Jump to content

User talk:Kevmin/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Question: You allowed producers for Nat Geo TV to have a Wiki page, and there is nothing included on their site that could be considered information. The site is nothing more than a commercial solicitation for their programs on Nat Geo TV. I simply added a link to a non-profit educational institution on the sturgeon, gar, paddlefish, crayfish, and piping plover sites because Earthwave Society pioneered the initial video DOCUMENTATION of those species for the express purpose of teaching conservation, and providing teachers, students, and researchers with a viable resource. You keep deleting the link. Now your telling me I can't add a link, and have to include all that information on the page??!! There is no way I can possibly include hours of video documentation on those pages which is why I added an EXTERNAL link. Isn't that the purpose of external links on Wiki - to provide access to EXTERNAL INFORMATION? Why else would Wiki bother having EXTERNAL LINKS?? I have had my links deleted by 3 different editors in the past hour for three different reasons. I wonder how many of the volunteers fully understand the purpose of external links, and how valuable it is to have important information at your fingertips when you're researching, and trying to gain knowledge about a subject. It appears some of the volunteers have lost site of the forest for the trees. Just because Earthwave Society asks for DONATIONS to recover out-of-pocket expenses for duplications, shipping and handling does not make us a retail, for profit entity. We are a NON-PROFIT EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION made up of VOLUNTEERS, just like you, and we don't have the kind of financial resources Nat Geo has, yet you allow their producers to have a complete page while you deny us a simple EXTERNAL LINK??? I have submitted an email to your superiors regarding this situation. I feel you've been totally unfair.

Betty Wills Earthwave Society www.earthwave.org

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Kevmin/Archive 3! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

DYK for Jurahylobittacus

--Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Mongolbittacus

--Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ypresiomyrma

Hello! Your submission of Ypresiomyrma 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! BabelStone (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ypresiomyrma

--Materialscientist (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Itilochelys

-- Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Avitomyrmex

--Materialscientist (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Macabeemyrma

--Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Denaeaspis

-- Orlady (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

New ZooKeys issue with lots of Paleo articles

There is a new ZooKeys issue with a whole bunch of Paleo articles. All texts and images from ZooKeys are free to use (CC-BY-3.0). You might be intested? I also notified User:Obsidian Soul. See: [1] Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Very nice, I will start picking a few to work on.--Kevmin § 17:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Eosacantha

-- Orlady (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Agulla protomaculata

-- Materialscientist (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Agulla mineralensis

-- Materialscientist (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Halictus? savenyei

-- Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Emiliana alexandri

-- The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Plumalexius

Hello! Your submission of Plumalexius 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! —David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Re:ZooKeys images

Manually I am afraid. So you will probably have to use PrintScreen in the pdf and cut and paste an image out of it. Ruigeroeland (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Good to know!--Kevmin § 17:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Could you have a look at the common vs. scientific names discussion at the wikiproject page? I have a feeling that nearly every biology editor is in favour of moving to scientific names, but nobody is chipping in, since this page is not watched by most. See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lepidoptera. I understand if you don't want to get involved though. :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
No cut & paste necessary - the articles are available in formats other than PDF, including HTML and in many cases wiki (overview). -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Nice! Thanks! Cant we get a bot that can upload all missing ones automatically? Ruigeroeland (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
It would be excellent to have them imported to commons for use in articles!--Kevmin § 22:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Probably possible (since they are uploaded automatically to Species ID), but I am not too familiar with the procedure of setting up a bot here or on Commons. Any pointers? Will ask around a bit too. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I have no clue at all. But it should be possible I guess. Sorry I cant be of help with it.. :( Ruigeroeland (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
It seems that Jarekt can help, as long as we can provide him with some metadata for the images to be uploaded (e.g. file location, author, description, date, link to source page, commons categories to be used). See further explanations here. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a related question regarding this issue of ZooKeys. Do we have any place to keep track of what articles have been written and what ones need to be covered still? --Kevmin § 20:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The best place for that at the moment is probably commons:Category:Images from ZooKeys but that's not ideal. Another option would be to always link the journal name, so that articles can be tracked via Special:WhatLinksHere. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Baltimartyria

-- Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Dryinus grimaldii

-- The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Dryinus rasnitsyni

--The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Plumalexius

-- Orlady (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories on redirects

I don't know what your intention was in removing categories from the redirects at Neanaperiallus masneri, Brevivulva electroma, Tainosia quisqueyae and Baltocteniza kulickae, but I would be thankful if you could stop doing so. The categories were put there as part of an effort to standardise the categorisation of taxa by date into a logical form. Categories such as Category:Animals described in 2000 are explicitly part of a hierarchy for species only, not for higher taxa. Genera should therefore not appear in those categories. It is perfectly acceptable, and indeed desirable, for redirects to appear in categories, and that system is now in place across all the zoological date categories. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Uintascorpio

-- The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

why you keep deleting the fact that horse was first domesticated 9000 years ago in Arabia why?

why you keep deleting the fact that horse was first domesticated 9000 years ago in Arabia why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.181.79.192 (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not Kevmin, but I also work on that article and basically, the evidence for Saudi Arabian domestication over 4000 years before any other evidence of domestication is not convincing. It is evidence that people knew horses existed, and possibly there, but nothing more. The horse appeared in cave art 10,000 years ago in France, but no one seriously considers that evidence of domestication either. In time, perhaps additional evidence will be found, but what there is to date is unconvincing and certainly not in the realm of "fact." You certainly can discuss this further on the article's talk page, and I see you have done this. Montanabw(talk) 21:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Acer stonebergae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
was linked to Palm, Washington State, Samara
Acer toradense (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
was linked to Palm, Washington State, Samara
Acer washingtonense (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
was linked to Palm, Washington State, Samara

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination issues

Please comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Acer stonebergae, Acer toradense, Acer washingtonense regarding my concerns.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

An extinct species of pie for you!

pie!

DYK for Ordralfabetix

-- PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Acer stonebergae

-- PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Acer toradense

-- PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Acer washingtonense

-- PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Diochus electrus

-- PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Myrmeciites

--Orlady (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 08:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Starboard Bowfin and other stuff

I un-redirected Amiiformes as a stub and transferred the "Timeline of Genera" from Amiidae to there.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I will see what I can dig up on the various families to make a general taxa list on PbDb.--Kevmin § 19:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Metasequoia foxii

--PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Acer hillsi/stewarti

Hi Kevmin, I am currently reviewing the above two articles for DYK. Could I ask you a couple of quick questions? First, I found a site that has the first source available for download; it's [2]. The download takes rather a long time, but it does work. Do you mind if I replace the URL accordingly? The URL presently given requires login access. Secondly, there seems to be a sentence fragment/word missing in both articles, in the following passage: "... are not distinct signals.[2] were known only from the Republic and Princeton fossil localities when first described." Could you have a look what happened? Otherwise it looks good so far, though I don't have access to the second source (I wasn't able to find a copy online). Thanks, --JN466 00:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

A couple more things:

  1. Is it correct to describe the fruit of A. hillsi as "ovoid", if one side is convex and the other concave? Perhaps just asymmetrical?
  2. The description of A. stewarti contains a rather sudden reference to A. washingtonense and A. spicatum; is this (and the following sentence referring to A. spicatum) possibly something left over from a draft for the A. washingtonense article?
  3. Should we describe the two species as "related", rather than "possibly related"? Given that they are the only representatives of the section, it would stand to reason that they are in fact related.

Please also check through the copyedits I made. Thanks, --JN466 00:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jayen466, yes feel free to add the new link! I have fixed the sentence fragment, in both articles. The reference to oviod is for the outline of the morphology, the asymmetry is for the relative thickness of the nutlet as I understand it. I reworded to sentence on teeth to make the A. washingtonese/A. spicatum comparisons make sense. I choose possibly related as the section description for Stewarta seems to leave the relationship status for the two species as a little ambiguous.--Kevmin § 07:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, good to go now. :) --JN466 08:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Acer hillsi

--Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Acer stewarti

--Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Joumocetus

--Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Acer rousei

--Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Acer nipponicum

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Acer nipponicum, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.buchholznursery.com/plant_page.html?id=d23c4.

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) 21:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the bot picked up a group of five words in the into that are the same. not a dup though.-Kevmin § 21:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In Acer smileyi, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Samara and Sulcus (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) 10:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Acer browni

--Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Acer republicense

--Orlady (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Acer smileyi

--Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Acer nipponicum

-- Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

From Dr Blofeld

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

Acer ashwilli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Sulcus
Acer clarnoense (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Samara

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Acer ashwilli

-- Gatoclass (talk) 16:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Acer clarnoense

-- Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Acer castorrivularis

--Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Acer dettermani

--The DYK project (nominate) 13:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Acer latahense, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington (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) 10:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome

A Barnstar!
Welcome!
A big Welcome to WikiProject Bivalves for you, Kevmin, a new member! We are delighted that you decided to join the Project; we can really benefit from having a paleontologist around to keep things balanced. Thank you and welcome, Invertzoo (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Acer latahense

--The DYK project (nominate) 23:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well done on Ramonalinidae

Convinced me with that new ref, Kevmin! A new article I missed. Thanks. Wilson44691 (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

WP Palaeontology in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Palaeontology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Tuarangia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maori (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) 11:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cassianellidae

--The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Bakevelliidae

--Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Fordillidae

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Fordilla

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Pojetaia

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Praenuculidae

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Tuarangia

-HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Concavodonta

Hello! Your submission of Concavodonta 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! Yazan (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Camya

Orlady (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Fordilloidea

Orlady (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited 1900 in paleontology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oxfordian (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) 12:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Concavodonta

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Emiliodonta

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Calocedrus huashanensis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lacustrine (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) 10:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


DYK hook

I have reviewed your articles Concavodontinae and Hemiconcavodonta for DYK and have suggested an alternative hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Equisetum thermale

Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Hemiconcavodonta

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Concavodontinae

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Style

Is there a guideline on how scientific names should be presented? I included non-breaking spaces because I thought it'd be weird to have the Genus initial at the end of one line and the species name at the start of the next. Not objecting in any way, just asking for clarification, as this is the first animal article I've created. Thanks, CMD (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There aren't any guidelines that I am aware of specifically regarding the use of nonbreaking spaces, but its not something I have seen done in any of the articles I edited before. The possibility is generally small enough not to worry I guess. The major things are capitalization of genus names, non caps on species epithets and italicization.--Kevmin § 18:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, and thanks for the copyedit. I did hope I wasn't too close to the sources...sigh. CMD (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
No problem, I wouldn't have considered it as too close, but given the nitpicking of some editors watching the DYK project I decided to be safe rather then have you tagged for paraphrase issues.--Kevmin § 18:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Praenuculinae

The DYK project (nominate) 16:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Trigonoconcha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vertex (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) 10:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Calocedrus huashanensis

The DYK project (nominate) 08:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Daggers

Hi Kevmin. Thanks so much for your helpful note. If that is the accepted standard at Project Paleontology, then I will certainly be glad to follow it. I apologize for making work for you or someone else who will have to remove the extra daggers. To be honest, I can't remember if and when Project Gastropods discussed the dagger thing, but somehow I got it into my head that this was the "right" way to do it, and so I have been doing it that way for quite a while. I find that most of our paleo gastropod stubs have no daggers at all. However, mostly we deal with extant gastropods, as you know, so usually it does not come up that often. In any case it's really nice to have a paleontologist around, we've needed one for a long time. So thanks for telling me about this! Perhaps you would be kind enough to put a note somewhere on the gastropod project page explaining the relevant Project Paleontology guidelines (or linking to them elsewhere), and also somewhere on the bivalve project page likewise. Good wishes to you and thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem! It happens everyone at some point so dont worry. I will try to whip up something for both when I get a moment.--Kevmin § 23:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
OK! Thanks! When you leave the notes on the project pages, maybe you can also mention what the standards are about not linking the species names? Let me ask you, do you link genera names in a paleontology family article even if they are red links, or not? Invertzoo (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I also just now left a note on a thread a few messages ago asking you if the Paleontology Project is already implementing the automatic taxoboxes on all of their articles?
Six months ago when I looked at the documentation for the autoboxes I found it completely impenetrable (!)... but maybe it is a bit better now. User:Ganeshk asked me how it could be improved, but it was hard for me to tell him specifically what needed fixing, as I thought the whole thing was really badly written, more like notes for insiders rather than a take-you-by-the-hand explanation. I don't know if this strikes you as good, and it may be out of date, but this Project Plant page is more the kind of writing I would need in order to understand how to use the automatic taxoboxes. I much prefer continuous prose for a general introduction rather than a concise bullet point list that uses way too much insider jargon. Invertzoo (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at my comments draft here and tell me what you think.--Kevmin § 20:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi again Kevmin. I think what you wrote all seems good to me, although to be honest I am at home sick, trying to recover from viral pneumonia, and by the evening I am so tired I can't really think straight, so perhaps I should look at it again in the morning.
One thing that I did want to say is that gastropod taxonomy (at least for the taxonomists who deal with living taxa) is very much still in flux, more so than it ever was (!) although historically it has never been stable for more than a few decades at a time. You may know that in 2005, everything between the levels of class and superfamily got switched over to clades (and "informal groups") based of course on insights from molecular work. Things are changing very rapidly, some changes are small, but some very large. For example, in 2010, Jörger et al did a large-scale re-organization of the Heterobranchia (a vast group of snails and slugs, marine terrestrial and freshwater), and created two very large new clades Euopisthobranchia and Panpulmonata.
The gastropods are a much larger group than the bivalves, and they managed to diversify out onto the land several times in their evolutionary past, as well as moving into, and out and back into freshwater, and back into the sea again from the land more than once, so they may turn out to have more radical and unexpected divergences in their evolutionary lineages, but once a lot of molecular work is carried out on the Bivalvia, it's just possible that similar sweeping changes could start happening to bivalve taxonomy. Invertzoo (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I looked again at what you wrote and thanks, it all seems good to me, apart from that one point I made about the taxonomy not being stable at the higher levels yet, at least not the taxonomy that the malacologist use who study extant taxa, especially of the gastropods. Invertzoo (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Insular dwarfism

I added {{clarify}} to an addition you made to the Insular dwarfism article a little over three years ago. You added that insular dwarfism is a form of phyletic dwarfism, but you gave no indication what phyletic dwarfism is or any means (like a link) for the reader to discover what it is except by consulting the arcane book you gave as reference. This detracts rather than adds to the reader's ability to learn from the article.

Since phyletic dwarfism is so obscure as not to have a WP article, it should not be used in the first sentence of an article to define the subject of that article. A brief, layman-intelligible definition of phyletic dwarfism – or the creation of an article on phyletic dwarfism which can be linked in the insular dwarfism article (or linking to some existing article that defines phyletic dwarfism [but a quick search didn't find one]) – would solve the problem. Otherwise, I think you should remove the reference to phyletic dwarfism, or at least relocate it to some place later in the article where the confusion it introduces will be less problematic.

I hope this doesn't sound like a personal attack, because I do not mean it to be either personal or confrontational. I just identify very strongly with the typical, relatively unsophisticated and inexpert WP reader, and I get a little upset when I come across something that might inhibit his or her ability to gain from the WP experience. To be more candid, I would now like to know what phyletic dwarfism is, since you have told me that insular dwarfism is a form of it, and I'm stymied in that desire.

If I have expressed myself too strongly, please forgive me and try to look past my gaucheness. Thanks.--Jim10701 (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I added another reference for the phyletic part, basically its the reduction in size, for a species of animals, over a number of generations.--Kevmin § 18:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Villicumia

--The DYK project (nominate) 06:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Similodonta

Hello! Your submission of Similodonta 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! Rosiestep (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Trigonoconcha

Hello! Your submission of Trigonoconcha 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! Yoninah (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see new note on DYK talk page. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Please see second new note. If you don't like it, please suggest something else. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cuyopsis

--The DYK project (nominate) 15:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Similodonta, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Spring Valley and Swedish (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) 10:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Trigonoconcha

-- The DYK project (nominate) 00:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Similodonta

-- The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Bryozoans, really?

Hello, this is just to let you know I will undo your change to the Bromide Formation page. Science is difficult enough for laymen, and there is a lot of unavoidable jargon. Lets stick to easy language where it is possible. Moss animals is not a fabrication by me, but real and official English, I quote: "Bryozoa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Bryozoa, also known as Ectoprocta or commonly as moss animals, are a phylum of aquatic invertebrate animals. Typically about 0.5 millimetres (0.020 in) ..." Kind regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC) (Ronald)

A search with google books shows that "moss animals" returns 5,280 hits while "bryozoans" brings back 104,000 hits, making it the more commonly used english language term for the phylum. Thus the much less commonly used "moss animals" should not be used per WP:commonname.--Kevmin § 20:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I am not yet convinced. What is the point in having a common name that hardly deviates from the scientific one. I think that people probably know neither of the two words, but "Bryozoans" means as little as "Bryozoa", while "moss animals" immediately paints a picture a someone's mind. Kind Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ginkgo dissecta

Nice little updated article. It really does need a picture, but googling the name for images doesn't come up with much. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Add the image to your DYK nomination. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I already did!--Kevmin § 15:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Ginkgo dissecta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Type locality (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) 10:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ginkgo dissecta

-- The DYK project (nominate) 01:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Bivalves and paleontology

Hi Kevmin, I Just wanted to say please feel free (now you are a member of WikiProject Bivalves) to explain to the rest of us to what extent Project Paleontology has different guidelines than Project Bivalves. Basically as a default setting I tend to follow the guidelines for WikiProject Gastropods, but in some cases that may not be appropriate in the case of fossil bivalves. All good wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Invertzoo. Generally the only two major differences I can think of between WP:Paleo and WP:Bivalves is the use of automatic taxoboxes which is recommended by WP:Paleo and the guideline against creation of species level articles in extinct genera. Other then those the two projects are generally the same.--Kevmin § 22:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful reply. At some point all of us will have to move over to automatic taxoboxes. They are really a great idea. However they are currently almost impossible for newbies to use, and will remain so until the documentation gets a great deal more user-friendly than it currently is. I will perhaps make a note on the project page about the genus versus species guideline for fossil genera. Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I meant also to congratulate you on all of your fossil bivalve DYKs! Invertzoo (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
One of the major things that can be done to help with the transparency of the Automatic taxoboxes is having more people making suggestions on where the documentation needs work. I know the basics of how to set up the taxon strings and create strings when I create new articles. Thanks on the dyk's--Kevmin § 01:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Is Project Paleontology currently using the automatic taxobox universally? Invertzoo (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm at peace with how things were handled since our discussion about the Dacryomya lacryma page. However, I want to make a point of principle: lets tell the truth. Concerning any "guideline against creation of species level articles in extinct genera", I utterly fail to track it down. What the page on the WikiProject Palaeontology, I have copied its content verbatum here:
"Users sometimes wonder whether it is necessary to create a separate article for every species in a genus.
In the case of monospecific genera, the usual guideline is to create a single article at the genus page. For example, an article exists at Wiwaxia and a redirect at Wiwaxia corrugata.
In the case of genera that contain multiple species, a degree of common sense is necessary. Wikipedia:MERGE lists three reasons that it may be appropriate to combine the species into a single page:
There may be a substantial overlap in the content of the articles (for instance, if the species are found in the same locality and are morphologically and biologically very similar);
There may be very little text that can be written about individual species (if a species is very similar to others in its genus, a page may simply read "Orthoconus grandi is a species of Orthoconus whose shell is greater than 2 mm in height").
It may be necessary to have context from a broader article in order for readers to understand the species' context. For instance, the phylogenetic context of Halkieria requires lengthy explanation, so in this instance it is appropriate to have multiple genera in a single article.
If it is not appropriate to create a separate page for each species, species pages can be redirected to a genus page. If there is enough text to make it suitable, each species may have a separate section on the genus page; see Halkieria for an example. If a single species eventually generates enough content to warrant its own page, then this page can be created; but other species should only be split from the main article when their existence can be substantiated."
Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess a nice example of where a species level article should be merged with the genus level is Emuella polymera. Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 10:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Species extinct in the recent past

Hello Kevmin, I just wanted to ask you whether with articles there is a way of easily discriminating between articles about those species that became extinct during the geologic past and those species that have become extinct over the last century or two? I mean, is there an easy way for readers to tell the difference? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Usually the use of the "status" and "extinct" parameters vrs the "fossil range" parameter should work. If a species of Conus was hunted to extinction in 1876 then the "Status" parameter can be added with |status=ex and the "extinct" parameter can be added with the notation |extinct=1876. This will create a taxobox header like the one seen at Passenger Pigeon. In contrast an extinct genus known only from fossils, such as Avitomyrmex will only have "|fossil_range= [[Ypresian]], {{Fossil range|51}}" showing the age of the fossils as Ypresian.--Kevmin § 16:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Trade?

Would you be interested in acquiring some pdfs about fossil shells, and Gebrayelichthys in exchange for some papers on placoderms?--Mr Fink (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

On Lingulella

Hi, thanks for the work on the outtagged species list. It was a gruesome job to copy it into there, but I thought it was sort of ridiculous having an article listing two species from the Burgess Shales only. I thought the list would best flag something is amiss. Lingulella is by no means the only genus with hundreds of species. How do you deal with that in wiki articles? Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Modest Barnstar
In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.0.115 (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ginkgo cranei

--Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Fothergilla malloryi

-- Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cornus piggae

--Orlady (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Corylopsis readae

--Orlady (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Ancyloceratoidea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ICZN (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) 10:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Right whale fossil record

Hi there, I'm doing a re-write of the Right Whale page in an effort to keep it from being de-listed as a featured article. I saw the great info you posted on the talk page about the fossil record, and I'm just wondering if you have a reference or a link you can direct me to so I can include that info on the page? Thanks!! Groll†ech (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, on Cephalopod fix

Somehow in trying to tix the fossil range (should be Late Cambrian - recent) the format got all jumbled up. Still needs revision. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Necroraphidia

--Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Amarantoraphidia

--Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC) 08:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Alavaraphidia

I began the review of Alavaraphidia and have come across a couple issues. Chris857 (talk) 03:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Alavaraphidia

--Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cantabroraphidia

--Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: editing by J.H.McDonnell

Kevmin, I understand your frustration. I, too, find some of the edits decidedly counterproductive (removal of convert templates and nicely formatted references spring to mind!). Having said this, I think a level-headed discussion would be the best way forward. There are many relevant policies and guidelines that can be referenced, particularly Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout, Template:Taxobox/doc, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and (perhaps most importantly) Wikipedia:Consensus. mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK comment

Hello! Your submission of Mesoraphidiidae 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! --SGCM (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've the nomination. Good work.--SGCM (talk) 04:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! It was a long overdue article.--Kevmin § 08:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Mesoraphidiidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chang (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) 04:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Mesoraphidiidae

--Yngvadottir (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Fossilized Barnstar
For your contributions to our articles on paleontology! -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for the cool Barnstar.--Kevmin § 23:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK review

Hello! Your submission at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact me.--SGCM (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kevmin. You have new messages at Theopolisme's talk page.
Message added 22:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Cheers, Riley Huntley talk 22:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lebanoraphidia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antennae (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) 11:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lebanoraphidia

-- Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Iberoraphidia

--Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Excessive concerns

Kevmin, you seem rather concerned over any deviation from the prescribed standard. While you have composed some rather good articles (at least on first glance they appear to be) it's a wonder you have any time to seeing the time spent on finding other people's work to correct. My user page has my take on the relative importance of precise adherence to standardized formatting vs content. By the way feel free to add meaningful content to any page I may have started. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

My thing is, the adjustments you make to the taxobox are not within guidelines. The "name=" parameter is depreciated and no longer used unless the taxon has a unique common name that differs from the taxons name. Its much easier to include the upper taxonomy levels in the box then purposely jury-rig the box with a manual color. I will also not that wiki standard is now for inline citations using the citation templates, as this provides a much clearer picture of what information was obtained from what source. The removal of the templates is something you have been warned about a number of times now, and is considered vandalism.--Kevmin § 11:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Deinodryinus? aptianus

--Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Psychopsidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oxfordian (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) 11:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Deinodryinus areolatus

-- Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Deinodryinus velteni

--Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Undulopsychopsis

--Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that the term 'pubescent' is used in the article Psychopsidae. Unfortunately pubescence currently links to puberty which will very likely confuse most people. There is a "For the botanical term, see Leaf#Surface" at top there, by way of alternative, but that is very unlikely to be chosen by the confused person. Can you think of another way for 'pubescent' in Psychopsidae to end up at the right definition
pubescent: covered with erect hairs (especially soft and short ones)

Hmm, maybe Pubescent_(botany)#Hairiness as used in Pachypodium ambongense? Helophorus mentions the term but doesn't link it or explain it. Similar link misdirection in Arista (insect anatomy). I can't find an example good linking outside of plants and teens.  :-( Shenme (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I would say the botany link is probably the best bet at this juncture.--Kevmin § 05:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Eucommia eocenica

Hello! Your submission of Eucommia eocenica 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! The Bushranger One ping only 23:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Pygidicranidae

--The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eucommia eocenica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stipe (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) 10:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Eucommia eocenica

--PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Tytthodiplatys

--PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Astreptolabis

--The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eucommia jeffersonensis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Type locality (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) 09:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kevmin/Archive_3&oldid=1160909595"