User talk:Kevmin/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

DYK for Eucommia constans

--Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Eucommia jeffersonensis

--The DYK project (nominate) 00:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Eucommia rolandii

-- The DYK project (nominate) 00:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arostropsis, 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) 12:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Eucommia montana

-- Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Arostropsis

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

DYK for Protostephanus

--Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Stephanidae

--Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Prostylotermes

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Zophotermes

--Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

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

Nanotermes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Termes

Zophotermes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Termes

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Nanotermes

--The DYK project (nominate) 08:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2007 in paleontology, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Oxfordian and Michael J. Ryan (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) 11:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Pseudogarypus synchrotron

--Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Hyptia deansi

--Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Schwenckfeldina archoica

--Yngvadottir (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Mastotermes electromexicus

I have approved your article Mastotermes electromexicus for DYK. The third sentence in the Description section needs attention as it does not make sense at the moment.

Thank you for reviewing various articles written by me over the last few months. With the WikiCup drawing to a conclusion shortly I will no longer feel it necessary to submit so many articles for DYK in the future. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the approval, and for the heads-up on the sentence, I've tried to reword it so it makes a little more sense. Your welcome too, it was good to have articles in my area of comfort to review.--Kevmin § 05:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Parastylotermes

--Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Cute, but inaccurate

Great, you managed to obtain cuteness on the main page. It would have been much cuter if it had been accurate, rather than falling into the bulk of recent DYKs with inaccuracy paramount.

To say it was "calico," is incorrect. It is "P. calico," and, no, you don't get to make up new meanings for binomial nomenclature. Saying it "was calico," implies it had some calico description, but does not mean that its specific epithet was "calico," and if it was, what is its specific epithet now?

Bravo. Cute. -Fjozk (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

So your comment would have been delivered much better without the condescension. I am well aware of how binomial nomenclature works, and you will not that in all of the taxon articles I have written (along with the taxon work I do in real life) I have correctly used the ICZN and ICBM rules. I did not make up a new meaning for the binomial. It has an etymology that is based on the type locaity on the Calico Mountains of California.--Kevmin § 05:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You opted to be cute, by indicating the specific epithet was the species' name, and my reply is condescending? Not really. It's more like ticked off at the lameness of the cuteness. The specific epithet alone is not the name of the species. You used binomial nomenclature incorrectly by implying that it was--hence, you did not correctly use the ICZN or ICBN rules. You also said, "was," past tense, and that is incorrect, it appears to be the current valid name for the fossil species. DYK is full of plagiarisms lately, that's the company you keep. -Fjozk (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

If you have problems with the DYK process you could always step in an review nominations, rather then ranting after they have been reviewed in good faith by other editors. We have several dedicated editors who specifically patrol the nominations for problems. Attacking people is not the way to solve perceived problems. I did NOT say the species name was calico in the hook as I had it worded, as you are well aware. If you have problems with the project, participate in the project.--Kevmin § 19:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you know exactly how welcome participation from outsiders who say, "No, your taxonomy is wrong, your usage is wrong, your evolutionary biology is wrong," would be. I would spend hours of editing trying to explain evolutionary biology to one editor about one article, and he would then post the same problem in the next article. And, while he would not have to prove that his words are correct, I would have to prove they are wrong, when they amount to almost pure nonsense, and there is no existing proof that nonsense is nonsense when explaining to editors without backgrounds in evolutionary biology and taxonomy. I have tried it a few times with the worst offender, and I have watched others attempt to deal with him, with nothing but renewed energy and continuance of nonsense and badly done plagiarism on his part. I intend to, whenever I find the time, post as often as possible about bad science on the main page, particularly by this one editor, and post where the posts will be watched, until eventually someone says, "Shit, this dude has as few degrees as Essjay, but is more prolific." What you said about "calico" had no meaning within the context intended, and if you had thought of it for a minute, since you say you do taxon work in real life, you know that. -Fjozk (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I am also curious what other usernames you have edited under, as your current account is new, but you clam long term participation in WP.--Kevmin § 19:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I am mostly an IP editor. Maybe you can start a sock puppet investigation and get rid of me. -Fjozk (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I also do not appreciate the insinuation that I plagiarized the Parastylotermes article that you made on the Main Page errors talk. It is rude and not accurate in any way.--Kevmin § 05:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Mastotermes electromexicus

--Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Termitaradus protera

--The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AutomaticStrikeout 16:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Again?

		The 200 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Oh, it seems like its only 150 articles ago since I gave you your award for 50. There used to be an advert on UK TV where the aunt says "ooo! you've got an 'ology". That reminded me of your talk page. :-) Its always the pictures that inspire me with your numerous articles on extinct insects and stuff. Well done. Victuallers (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Lol, thanks! Its nice that there are a couple Creative commons licensed journals now, so I have a fair amount of articles to choose from, the more obscure the better on the taxon! 500 is going to be a little ways down the road, bit Im slowly plugging away.--Kevmin § 00:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Termitaradus avitinquilinus

--Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Termitaradus dominicanus

--Yngvadottir (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Syndesus ambericus

--Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Paleorrota

Please do not undo the changes I'm doing in the pages I created.Sergio Kaminski (talk)

The edits I undid are, for the most part, either nonsensical, or already discussed in the page you added them too. Please read what is already in the page before adding things that I'm not totally sure you understand.--Kevmin § 07:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The pages that you changed was that I edited. There are still some problems of classification of these plants. I'm still trying to solve these problems because the text of the original authors are contradictory. Sergio Kaminski (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The information you added was, for the most part, already covered in the articles though. Given you additions to the Samara (fruit) page that i reverted, I have reservations about the accuracy of ht information you are translating.--Kevmin § 11:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Anthophorula persephone

-- The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Bivalvia

J.H.McDonnell is once again "simplifying references" in Bivalvia. I notice that you have advised him in the past not to do this. Cheers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Gymnogyps varonai

-- Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Phasmagyps

-- Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Acer palaeorufinerve

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Acer ivanofense

Hello! Your submission of Acer ivanofense at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! GregorB (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Acer traini

Hello! Your submission of Acer traini at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rosiestep (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Acer traini

-- Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Acer ivanofense

--Gatoclass 00:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Bivalve Barnstar
		This spiny Spondylus Barnstar is awarded to you Kevmin, in recognition of all your 2012 work on the subject of bivalve mollusks as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Bivalves, including many articles on fossil bivalves. All of your efforts are much appreciated! Invertzoo (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Orontium wolfei

Hello! Your submission of Orontium wolfei at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rosiestep (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Orontium mackii

--KTC (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Carmenelectra

Hi! You've recently reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Carmenelectra shechisme. I've slightly changed the hook you approved. Do you object? Surtsicna (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Orontium wolfei

--Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hymenaea mexicana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lamina (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) 00:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Hymenaea mexicana

--Nyttend (talk · contribs) 00:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Notification of discussion

A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Typo?

Hi, I wonder if you made a typo at Talk:Greasewood, saying "not ambiguous" rather than "ambiguous". Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Hymenaea allendis

-- Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Stonebergia

--Chamal ^T•C 17:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Please look at my talkpage and/or that of Wiki Commons Category:Trilobita

Hi Kevmin, I tried to clean up the taxonomy on top of the Wiki Commons Category:Trilobita. Liné1 however, prefers to stick to the taxonomy as provided by PBDB, and to add my correction as an alternative. I find the result quite messy, but I do not want to make a fuss if other users think it is fine like it is right now. Could you please have a look? Thanks in advance -- Dwergenpaartje (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Why did you call me a vandal?

The Cephalopod article before my edit said phylum, which is incorrect, so i changed it to class, which is correct. And besides, if it was a reversion of a vandalism, why is the new contents different from what it was before my edit? --TiagoTiago (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, the edit summary wasn't meant to refer to you! I looked through the history and did a longer revert to the last edit before several IPs changed things.-Kevmin § 20:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Hm, I see, ok. Please be a bit more careful next time, aight? --TiagoTiago (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Pinus driftwoodensis

-- Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Dinosaur Barnstar
		For all your meticulous taxonomic work here and on Commons! FunkMonk (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Banner Mountain, Wolf Creek (Nevada County, California)

Kevmin, I was wondering whether you were planning to continue with this DYK review—someone has posted that another source has been added, as you requested—or if we should find a new reviewer at this point. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, yes I do hope to get back to the nomination asap, the first week of spring quarter has absorbed a large portion of my attention.--Kevmin § 03:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Great! Hope things get less crazy for you soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I reviewed Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Taxus_masonii, just one small thing before I can pass it. Thanks for your work in this area.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothomyrmecia

Moved to the Nothomyrmecia talk page here --Kevmin § 18:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Taxus masonii

--The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Torreya clarnensis

Hello! Your submission of Torreya clarnensis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Prioryman (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Torreya clarnensis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fusiform (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) 19:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Links, links, Redirect

Hi Kevmin, You seem to get rather concerned over what I wouldn't give second thought to. As for redirects, they are rather simple and innocuous, i.e. no biggy. So please stop making issue over such trivia. Also the Kingdom is Animalia as in [[Animalia]], not animal which can refer to any taxonomic rank, as in [[Animal|ia]]. The same goes for mollusc vs Mollusca and cephalopod vs Cephalopoda. I can't help it if the relevant pages are miss-titled. After all it is a taxobox, which implies taxa.

As for extra links in the text in Lytoceratinae, seems to me they are rather superfluous, since the included genera are already listed. None essential links makes reading more difficult. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 14:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Its rude to force people to go through redirects when they dont have to, Wikipedia policy is to avoid redirects when possible. There is no reason what so ever to force the redirects. I will not stop making an issue of it since it is a pointless edit on your part that adds a step to anyone wanting to view where the link goes, and since only someone editing the taxobox sees the link structuring. The links in Lytoceratinae are needed as the taxobox is not to stand in for links in the prose section of an article.--Kevmin § 17:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Spiders

I didn't delete the article for copyright reasons, or for being invalid. As the deletion rationale stated: "created by sock of blocked user" (in this case, 'Torin O. Nice').

Once someone has been blocked from Wikipedia, they're not allowed to create new articles. It may be the best-written totally original article about the most notable topic, but they've lost the right to be the one who tells us about it. Their content is not allowed to be on Wikipedia; if we don't delete content that's submitted by socks of blocked users, what's the point of their having been blocked?

You're perfectly welcome to re-create the article from scratch. Here are the sources that were cited:

• {{cite journal | author1=Nanayakkara, RP | author2 = Kirk, PJ | author3 = Dayananda, SK | author4 = Ganehiarachchi, GASM | author4 = Vishvanath, N | author5 = Kusuminda, TGT | title = A new species of tiger spider, genus ''Poecilotheria'', from northern Sri Lanka | journal = British Tarantula Society Journal | volume = 28 | issue = 1 | pages = 6–15 | year = 2012}}
• {{cite web|url=http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/04/new-giant-tarantula/?cid=co6823174|title=New Giant Tarantula Discovered in Sri Lanka|publisher=Wired.com|accessdate=2013-04-04}}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite web |url=http://metro.co.uk/2013/04/03/spiders-as-big-as-your-face-discovered-in-sri-lanka-3581017/|title=Spiders as big as your face discovered in Sri Lanka|publisher=Metro.co.uk|accessdate=2013-04-04}}</ref>

I hope this is enough? DS (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a thrilling amount to work with, but it will have to do wont it. the prose had been modified several times since the article was first posted, and I am more then happy to work with it in my sandbox, as I suggested in my original post. Also I would suggest notification of the affected wikiprojects that oversee articles, when a deletion of valid content occurs so it can be recreated as soon as possible.--Kevmin § 17:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

re: DS, it is not about who has the right to create the article, it is about whether the article should exist. This article was edited by multiple editors since its creation, and as such db-g5 does not apply to it.Martin451 (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lytoceratinae, 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) 17:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Torreya clarnensis

--Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Diploporus

--The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Majestic...

Don't revert...just let the image sit (even if you wiki rule cruft disagree). This was a triumph of God or Nature or some majestic force.

TCO (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Let it live...

Take it to the Dry Falls talk page please.--Kevmin § 23:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Sphecomyrminae

--Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: why was this removed?

If you are talking about italic title, then I removed it simply because for me, it doesn't italicize anything.--Mishae (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I was, and yes it actually does, look at the article title a the very top of the page. Apparent lack of functionality on your end is most likely not wiki related but your computer. It should not have been removed. --Kevmin § 21:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Pacific

Hi. I'm planning to write articles on Geology of the Pacific Ocean and Topography of the Pacific Ocean with my WP:RBN group. You probably have other things to do but is it possible you could help us write them? I've started the geology one, needs writing into prose from the lists with a decent overview. We need some real experts to assist with these as they're very important topics. After doing we'll write condensed summaries in the main article.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK

Hi, would you mind me nominating Rhus rooseae for DYK? Thanks, Matty.007 19:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey there, I was just in the process of setting up a nomination for it actually. :-) --Kevmin § 19:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for interrupting, and good luck with it. Thanks, Matty.007 19:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for the offer.--Kevmin § 19:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Actinidia oregonensis

--The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Coryloides

Hello! Your submission of Coryloides at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! NinaGreen (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I noted two other minor points on the DYK page. Once those are fixed (if that's what they need), then I'll give the article a tick. NinaGreen (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

School shark

With regard to your issue with the article's name, I entirely agree that it is the scientific name that should be used, and in this species that would be the genus name. This is not only sensible as regards a species with several differing vernacular names, but also a good general policy. However within "WikiProject Fishes" it is not the custom as far as I can see. If you have a look at this page you will see mention of a number of monotypic shark genera and clicking through to the individual species you will see they are all listed under common names. If you want to change the fish article naming policy you are welcome to try, but meanwhile, could you please give the DYK nomination of School shark a tick, otherwise it is likely to linger indefinitely on the nominations page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and tick it, though I still think its counter to the WikiProject zoology policies on multiple common names and WP:naming guidelines on unambiguous names.--Kevmin § 18:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Rhus rooseae

--Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Paleopanax

--Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Rhus malloryi

--Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Kardiasperma

--The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Coryloides

--The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Cornus clarnensis

--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

New ant task force

Hello Kevmin! I see you have edited a lot of ant-related articles. You may be interested in the recently created ant task force. Check out the task force's subpage and see if you're able to help out with any of the open tasks (or add new tasks). This list of ant-related open access may prove useful for expanding stubs and DYKs. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any articles about fossil taxa but I can {{ping}} you if I find any in the future. Cheers, jonkerz ♠talk 21:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I found an article about the recently described fossil genus Zigrasimecia (subfamily Sphecomyrminae). Link: A New Genus of Highly Specialized Ants in Cretaceous Burmese Amber (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). jonkerz ♠talk 13:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh now thats a fun looking species!--Kevmin § 00:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Taxonomy/Sphecomyrminae

Hi again! I've left a reply on my talk page. Another thing -- I tried to get the subfamily parameter to show in the infoboxes on the Sphecomyrma and Zigrasimecia pages, but couldn't get it to work. It works on Sphecomyrminae, but not in the genera articles. The Automatic taxobox manual wasn't of much help (you probably need another manual of two just to understand the first manual). Can you take a look at it? jonkerz ♠talk 20:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh :) I type too slow, it seems. jonkerz ♠talk 20:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

yah I was poking at the template a couple times today, and finally found that "true" works.--Kevmin § 20:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The Ant Barnstar

		The Ant Barnstar
		For your solid contributions to fossil ants – especially ants related to the subfamily Sphecomyrminae of which half of the articles are now start-class or higher – you are hereby awarded the first Ant Barnstar ever. Keep up the good work! P.S. You may recognize the pictured ant ;) jonkerz ♠talk 01:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Awesome! its a very handsome image! --Kevmin § 21:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Article assessments

Re. Haidoterminus: start-class Y low priority Y BUT, it's almost C-class and the priority can be increased to mid if we add an ant task force parameter to WP:INSECT's banner. Just some thoughts :) jonkerz ♠talk 01:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

No problems, Im never totally sure of my self assesments to be honest. What would be needed to move that articles to C class?--Kevmin § 21:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not do much article assessments, but with [almost] 3000 bytes readable prose, it's almost there length-wise (some GAs are only like 5-6000 BRP), but I would like to see more different sources. Even though the article used as a source actually contains many more sources, it would be nice to have more of them in the WP article. jonkerz ♠talk 00:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The technical description could be expanded a little I guess, but there aren't going to be many more sources to use given the extreme newness of the type description lol. --Kevmin § 02:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, you're correct, there's probably not going to be too many sources around for a while. In single-sources articles, I tend to add additional references for things like the number of genera in the tribe, type species, etc to make the ref section look better, lol :) But that comes with additional maintenance, and every single word in the article is referenced anyway. If expanded, it will qualify for C-class even without other references.

I haven't had much time to edit the last week, but I will add a bunch of articles that have been laying on my HD for a while now; many of them stubs, but quite a few start-class articles as well which will bring us closer to the goal of 50 new expansions. jonkerz ♠talk 08:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Haidoterminus

Hello! Your submission of Haidoterminus at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! NinaGreen (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Burmomyrma

Hello! Your submission of Burmomyrma at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Soman (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Haidoterminus

--The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Haidomyrmex

--The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Zigrasimecia

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Haidomyrmodes

--The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Pristomyrmex rasnitsyni

--The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Burmomyrma

--The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Acanthostichus hispaniolicus

--The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Please advise me on dealing with Trilobites (genus)

Hi, I have the following content, but I am unsure how to name it, whether it should be regarded a disambiguation page (probably not), whether to label it as a stub (also probably not), and given that Trilobites redirects to Trilobite perhaps Trilobites (genus) could be the right thing to do. I don't mind if you would upload such a page.

Trilobites is a synonym for a several trilobites, now assigned to other genera.

• T. hoffi = Ellipsocephalus hoffi
• T. sulzeri = Conocoryphe sulzeri
• T. alatus = Sphaerophthalmus alatus
• T. serratus = Apatokephalus serratus
• T. limbatus = Megistaspis limbatus
• T. zippei = Placoparia zippei
• T. orphana = Orphanaspis orphana
• T. mutilus = Carmon mutilus
• T. emarginata = Isoctomesa emarginata
• T. mimulus = Tomoligus mimulus

Category:Trilobites

Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I would most likely create a short article at "Trilobite (genus)" which covers the history of the genus and that its not not a valid genus at this point, with the species list as its presented above to guide viewers to the current binomials. --Kevmin § 01:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree, but your reasonable proposal is rather difficult in its execution. The Treatise does not give discussions on nomenclature. The Global Names Index contains Trilobites Link, 1807. The web mentions one publication, which could be the source of the name: Link, D. H. F., 1807, Beschreibung der Naturalien-Sammlung der Universität zu Rostock. I can see if our friends from Resource Exchange can provide it, but it would not give me the grounds why the name was rejected. It is post-Linnean. I guess we may assume their was no proper description to go with the name, as seems to have been the case with Trinucleus that is said to have been described in that work, a name is now protected. One more question: what should be done disambiguation wise on the Trilobite-page? -Dwergenpaartje (talk) 08:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Start with the information that you have, and then work on finding the redescription for the individual species, they may have relevant information on the Trilobites genus. I think the redirect is fine as it stands, most people will be looking for "Trilobite" and not the defunct genus.--Kevmin § 14:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealityCzecher (talk • contribs) 03:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Acropyga glaesaria

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Agroecomyrmex

Please check the DYK nomination. It's not a review, and only thirty seconds of editing will be needed — if any is needed at all. Nyttend (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK

Hi Kevmin, I'm sorry to see that the slave-making/trophobiosis DYK was rejected due to problems with my article. Apologies for that, I hope you can still use the article you wrote in another DYK. jonkerz ♠talk 14:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Acanthognathus poinari

Nikkimaria (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Trophobiosis

--The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Eulithomyrmex

--The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Anochetus ambiguus

--The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Anochetus brevidentatus

--The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Anochetus corayi

--Materialscientist (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Anochetus conisquamis

--
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Anochetus lucidus

--Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Agroecomyrmex

--Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Anochetus exstinctus

--Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Anochetus intermedius

--Harrias ^talk 01:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Anonychomyrma constricta

Hello! Your submission of Anonychomyrma constricta at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cloudchased (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Anonychomyrma constricta

--Harrias ^talk 12:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Anochetus dubius

--Harrias ^talk 12:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Paleontology Barnstar
		I hereby award you, Kevmin, the paleontology barnstar for an exceptional series of DYK submissions on extinct ants and other insects.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!--Kevmin § 17:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 27 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 1992 in paleontology page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Anonychomyrma samlandica

--The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Anonychomyrma geinitzi

--The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Afromyrma

--The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You might well be one of the most prolific paleoentomological writers out there. Abyssal (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Afromyrma

Please vet my edits and links in your interesting new aricle on this fossil formicid, lest I inadvertently introduce errors. Thanks.--Wetman (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK non self noms

Hi, I believe that the discussion here isn't really working. What I think we should do is post a summary of what we want to do in a new thread, so that we get the page watchers' attention, then initiate a RFC regarding the doing, or not doing, of QPQs for non self noms. What do you think? Best, Matty.007 18:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Fossil Leps

Hello Kevmin, would you be interested in creating articles using the article: 'New Fossil Lepidoptera (Insecta: Amphiesmenoptera) from the Middle Jurassic Jiulongshan Formation of Northeastern China' [1]. It seems the whole article, including pictures is licenced under CC-BY. Since you seem to be interested in creating Fossil Insect articles, I was hoping you might want to pick this up. I have a lot on my to-do list so I wont be able to work on these for some time.. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your sustained work on fossil taxon, a fascinating area that you write so much on. Keep it up! :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 14:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Afropone

-- The DYK project (nominate) 17:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thylacosmilus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Catamarca, La Pampa and Entre Ríos (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) 08:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

What goes in a taxobox

Actually the guidance for what classifications are appropriate for a taxobox are not at [[:WP:TOL}}, where they are just referenced, but are at Template:Taxobox/doc#Classification, where it says: Taxoboxes should include all major ranks above the taxon described in the article, plus minor ranks that are important to understanding the classification of the taxon described in the article, or which are discussed in the article. Other minor ranks should be omitted. For the Hemiptera, the suborder is important in classification for two reasons, the first is the breakup of Homoptera (which reason alone should suffice for its inclusion), and the second reason is that the suborder is the current basis for the stub analysis in the English Wikipedia. Unless you seriously object, I will add the suborder back in at Triatoma dominicana, on the basis of the guideline. Replying here is fine. --Bejnar (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction on the guidelines location. At the species level, such as with this article I dont think the Subfamily is adding anything to be honest. Its not referenced at all in the prose, and the major features of the larger clade would be found at the family level. Generally minor ranks have in practice been interpreted to mean a tribal placement or subfamily placement in a genus or species level article.--Kevmin § 05:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

As a side note, the article is not actually a stub, but a start or c level article depending on if you follow WP:insect or WP:Palaeontology grading.--Kevmin § 05:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You're correct it is not a stub. And I agree that tribal and subfamily status for many hemiptera are often either unsettled or non-dispositive, although sometimes that is also true of family, and the reverse is true, some tribal and even subtribal clading out has received acceptance. However, at the species level, I don't think that it is necessary to add to the prose of every applicable article something like: "earlier sources did, and non-taxonomic sources may still list this species in the Homoptera", before it is advisable to state the suborder. (I've noticed quite recent articles still using Homoptera, for example that deal with insecticides. See also, e.g.: Shcherbakov, D. (2006). "The earliest find of Tropiduchidae (Homoptera: Auchenorrhyncha), representing a new tribe, from the Eocene of Green River, USA, with notes on the fossil record of higher Fulgoroidea" (PDF). Russian Entomological Journal. 15 (3): 315–322.</ref>) Prior to molecular analysis one could state with some certainty what was major and what was minor without regard to the classification of a given species, however, that is becoming much more difficult as sister groupings key out at levels not traditionally called "major". --Bejnar (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

For the Heteroptera, the prose would read something like: "originally placed in the order Heteroptera, which has since been downgarded to a suborder (or further)". Or we could let the entry in the taxobox, do that for us. --Bejnar (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

At the species level I think covering the change in status of homoptera on every single species, genus, etc page is a bit overkill. Coverage of the topic would seem to be best placed in family and superfamily articles, in addition to Hemiptera and Homoptera.--Kevmin § 09:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Like to hear your opinion

Hi Kevmin, you know I create trilobite articles. Currently I have a little issue with User:Apokryltaros. He changes my entries by removing the link (type) and adding a terms "|type_species=" and "|type_species_authority=". The guidance on taxoboxes says: "When the type species of a genus (or larger grouping) is known, [these terms] can be used." "can" is a rather unsatisfactory verb. He also links the original but no longer valid genus name with the type species. According to Apokryltaros the type species term must be used because it exists. To me however, this construction creates an unnecessary repetition of the exact same information, that I was giving in a different but much more compact way. I also feel that it is unhelpful and even confusing to link to the genus article that this type species is no longer assigned to. As you think the approach of Apokryltaros is to be preferred, I will follow that in future (peevishly, as it means I need to revisit a few thousand articles). I think in that case the guidance needs to be changed to "should". If not, perhaps we may somehow dissuade Apokryltaros. Curious to hear your view. Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I already gave a justification of why I did such edits, i.e., that that is what I have already seen done with articles, but Dwergenparrtje disregards everything I've said on account that I've apparently hurt his feelings.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, no matter how many useful edits you make, it is a sad fact of Wiki-life that other editors will come in and make non-vandalism edits that may conflict with or contradict or otherwise neutralize your edits. Having said that, I am not saying "I do not appreciate your edits and efforts, User:Dwergenpaartje," I am saying that you can not coerce other editors into editing as you specifically say by asserting article ownership. I mean, it is extremely frustrating to make edits only to have you leave a whiny rant on my talk page about how those same edits hurt your feelings to your soul to the point where you don't give a damn about bothering to consider my justification about how the taxobox template has settings that you don't care for.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

After taking a look at the Yunnanocephalus changes that were made, I agree with the move from |type_species= and |type_species_authority= to |bionomial= and |bionomial_authority=. This is the structuring that is most widely used in the monotypic taxon articles I have seen, and is what i use in the articles I create. On the other hand, I do not agree with the linking of Ptychoparia, as I feel it creates confusion among lay readers and would be much better addressed in the article prose. See Agroecomyrmex for an example of how I would have handled the situation.--Kevmin § 05:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Unlinked.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Pseudarmadillo tuberculatus

 Orlady (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Authority of Pentacrinites

Hi Kevmin, I'm in a nomenclatoric confusion. Pentacrinites gives as generic authority Goldfuss, 1831, and (Blumenbach, 1804) as the author of the type species P. fossilis. So far so good, but in my search for the original combination, I come across this publication. This provides both the combination Pentacrinites fossilis! and a description. However, it is in German and not in Latin. As far as I remember, before a certain date, publication in other languages than Latin renders the description invalid, and this may have been the reason for Goldfuss to publish the name again. In this case, the authority should actually read: "Blumenbach, 1804 ex. Goldfuss, 1831". I am unaware of any guideline for Wikipedia for such a situation. Perhaps you could have a look at this issue. Thank you in advance and kind regards, -Dwergenpaartje (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Form what I can tell, it should be Pentacrinites Blumenbach, 1804. There hasn't been a point where the genus was renamed or synonymized. The World register of marine species list is as Blumenbach, 1804, and the article here doesnt have a reference for the Goldfuss, 1831, so I would remove it entirely. Hope this helps a little!.--Kevmin § 17:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Aphaenogaster amphioceanica

• Thank you for your article Victuallers (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Pseudarmadillo cristatus

• Thank you for your article Victuallers (talk) 07:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Aphaenogaster praerelicta

• Thank you Victuallers (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Aphaenogaster avita

Hello! Your submission of Aphaenogaster avita at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Rod ^talk 16:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Aphaenogaster avita

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)