User talk:Kevmin/Archive 6

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Maile66 in topic DYK for Prosisyrina
Archive 1 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Recognized content

Just a reminder, this is still very awesome :) jonkerztalk 20:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jonkerz:That is a pretty impressive list indeed! And a lot of DYK work, with three more in the process as we speak.--Kevmin § 02:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  The Fossilized Ant DYK Barnstar x 50
For writing 50* DYKs on fossil ants, uploading tons of images and for getting stuff done! jonkerztalk 03:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*actually 56 official DYKs

I initially counted your official DYKs to 57, plus the three not-yet-official ones, making it an even 60, but then I realized that it was 56+3.. so yeah it's more like 60 actually, but let's keep it at even numbers :) jonkerztalk 03:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, I didnt realize Id passed 50 on just ants! Still have more in the works as I go lol. @Jonkerz:--Kevmin § 14:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
and +1 with Pachycondyla lutzi live and nominated.--Kevmin § 04:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jonkerz: Pachycondyla parvula live now also and nominated--Kevmin § 20:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a feeling Pachycondyla petiolosa and Pachycondyla petrosa are up next :) By the way, do you have any plans to nominate Yantaromyrmex for GA? At 9k characters of readable prose it is on par with our current GAs on fossil ants. The lead would have to be expanded to summarize the article, but other than that it is a good candidate. jonkerztalk 17:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jonkerz:They are indeed, in the next two weeks or so in fact hopefully. I havent done a GA before to be honest, but go for it if you think it could be.--Kevmin § 20:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was hoping you would go for it, because I'm not much of a GA writer myself.. ;) jonkerztalk 14:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jonkerz: I'll ping the resident GA1 ant writer then, :D @Burklemore1:--Kevmin § 16:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very suitable candidate, I'll focus on the article once I have finished with one of my side projects (beefing up the Termite article). I doubt there is any info in regards to its ecology, so I won't be very vigorous when it comes to finding new content (since the article looks complete anyway). Btw Kevmin, A new extinct Dolichoderinae genus was described this year, Ktunaxia. Not sure if you have started writing on it, but it's a suggestion if you want to create a new ant article. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jonkerz:@Burklemore1: Cool! Let me know if you have any questions on Yantaromyrmex at any point. Ive been watching the shifts with termite, glad to see its happening. The taxonomy has changed a bunch since the last major update. LOL So many dead ants so little time, I'll look into it when I finish Dlussky & Wedmann 2012. Take a look at 2015 in arthropod paleontology for an idea of how behind I am in all reality, I keep plugging away though. o.o --Kevmin § 01:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm curious as to why there is no available author(s) given in the taxobox, I believe it was Dlussky & Dubovikoff who described the genus in 2013. I have been working on the termite article in one of my sandboxes, so this will justify my assumed lack of editing on the actual article itself. It's a lot easier editing there since it will be the last spot you'll see vandals and potential edit conflicts. As for all those dead bugs, I wish you good luck, it looks like a tiring task. At least they're in fossils and not in your house. ;) Burklemore1 (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

pause

I fixed the authority for the article, the parameter just needed a tweak in the taxobox. Yah, I have been concentrating on Pacific Northwest Eocene taxa and ants just too keep a steady flow at this point on the articles. I wouldn't mind all those fossils in my house, haha, it would be so much easier to get images for the articles.--Kevmin § 15:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would explain it, haha. I'm in Australia so sadly I cannot make any contribution to images of the extinct ants up in your area. I really want to take a picture of Brownimecia, I have only seen it through copyrighted restorations and low quality non-free images. I think that one is in the north-east though. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done and dusted with Termite, and I have now requested a copyedit so I can GA nominate. With that done, I can now focus on Yantaromyrmex. Burklemore1 (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Burklemore1: Photos of the Brownimecia clavata holotype are available on AntWeb under cc-by-4.0! They may have been recently uploaded, or perhaps I didn't find them back in 2013. I emailed Brian L. Fisher of AntWeb regarding a second batch upload of AntWeb photos just minutes ago (that would make everything sooo much easier), but feel free to manually upload any photos in the meantime. jonkerztalk 16:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great to know! I've been occasionally checking the fossil taxa on there to see which ones I can upload I'll get to them as soon as I get home in a few minutes-Kevmin § 17:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jonkerz: Feel free to incorporate the photos into my sandbox, I really need to get that list done and dusted. Burklemore1 (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jonkerz:@Burklemore1: Ive uploaded the Brownimecia clavata images and I'm adding them to the appropriate articles. Im going to expand the Brownimecia article now that I have Pachycondyla petiolosa and I can pause. :D --Kevmin § 18:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is the link to the original source that describes the ant. I see it as a potential GA nominee if there is enough information! Burklemore1 (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Burklemore1: I have the article downloaded and saved from working on some of the Sphecomyrminae articles, which I will probably finish out now, since I have the article up again. Thanks though!--Kevmin § 18:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries, I look forward to the expansion! Meanwhile I'll focus my attention on Yantaromyrmex and scoop up anymore available information. Burklemore1 (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did a few minor edits + expansion to the lead to Yantaromyrmex. Other than that, the article seems complete, and so I have nominated it for GA. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Burklemore1:@Jonkerz: Awesome, looks good! The Brownimecia expansion is down to the physical description section, and then I will move it to live.--Kevmin § 22:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Updating that to the expansion is now moved to live article space and nominated for dyk.--Kevmin § 00:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Article looks good! I found a book somewhere that says the Brownimecia and another genus may have had "high level of feeding specalisation" owing to the morphology of the mandibles. If I'm correct, this is the opposite of a generalist feeder and so the ant may have had a limited diet. It also goes on to say that Late Cretaceous ants probably faced a low predation rate, due to the absence of highly social species and diverse families. This could be useful for a new section if you see find it necessary. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very awesome work by the both of you! Being the only member of its subfamily, Brownimecia certainly deserved better than the stub we used to have. jonkerztalk 11:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Burklemore1:Whats the name of the book and I'll see about adding it. Its a long enough article now it may be proddable into a GA?--Kevmin § 12:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jonkerz: At least we can now see the article is a fine source of information for anyone who would like to learn more. The link to the page is here, featured in the book History of Insects. I definitely view it as a GA, so once you either add that in, I'll expand the lead and nominate it for GA. If Macabeemyrma managed to achieve GA status, Brownimecia will have no problem too (infact Brownimecia has roughly 1,000 words while Macabeemyrma has 700-750). Burklemore1 (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, Ill take a look at it when I get home and add in the information that Grimaldi and Engel give there.--Kevmin § 13:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good, I'll expand the lead when you have finished editing. Also, can articles nominated for dyk be allowed to be nominated for GA at the same time? I have always wondered if you can in case the two nominations may interrupt. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They may indeed, as GA's are totally nominatable for dyk now, and the 5x expansion of the article is within the dyk rules time-frame.--Kevmin § 13:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see. I think Brownimecia is a good starting point for GA nomination among the ant subfamilies; perhaps I could propose on forming a good topic with the subfamilies (that is what I'm doing with Myrmeciinae and its articles, which can form as a subtopic). Burklemore1 (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ant subfamily GA projecting could be a good project for sure. I think Brownimeciinae, Sphecomyrminae and Armaniidae (still seems to be placed outside Formicidae) are all GA close at this point.--Kevmin § 16:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All of the subfamilies seem to be studied well, especially their history and such. I'll focus on the extinct ones first; I think we would need to add Armaniidae to the GA list either way. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pause

@Burklemore1:@Jonkerz: Myanmyrma is now live and nominated! --Kevmin § 23:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article looks good, I like it! I can also confirm Banded sugar ant has been promoted to FA. :) Burklemore1 (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Awesome, we're making a lot of strides with Formicidae articles all around :D --Kevmin § 16:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely, from 1 GA in 2014 to 7 so far in 2015, and the Banded sugar ant was promoted seven years after Ant first became an FA. Not only that, we almost have a dozen waiting to be GA reviewed and many more are soon to be nominated. 2015 has been a good year. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Burklemore1:@Jonkerz: 2014 seems to have been my best year for ant DYKs, lol I'll have to work hard to beat it. I did just add this section Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects/ant task force/Recognized content#Main page images to the Rec. content page. Feel free to add any others that you know of--Kevmin § 18:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good, I like it. Speaking of images, we should also add a "Featured images" section. I recall around five ant images that are featured. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that featured images should be added to the page, and maybe images be selected to be put in for PotD candidacy--Kevmin § 01:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)?Reply[reply]
Definitely, that sounds pretty good. Btw, when did you want Brownimecia to be nominated? I have my hands tight with some nominees right now, but I'll nominate when you are happy with it. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Brownimecia is in a good spot, and when you have the time is perfect, no rush for me.--Kevmin § 23:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent, I have four GA nominees being reviewed right now so I'll nominate it when the four have been concluded. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have chimed in on the Avitomyrmex GA nomination and just let me know if you have anything you need from me on the noms.--Kevmin § 15:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries, I thought it would be necessary to tag you in so you can explain it better than myself. Will do, I'll be nominating Brownimecia very soon! Also, what does orthotaxonomy and parataxonomy even mean? Burklemore1 (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm now going to be nominating Brownimecia for GA, but I'll add the content I found on its ecology first. I'll let you know if I need any assistance. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Pachycondyla parvula

--Thanks for helping with the DYK project Victuallers (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Brownimecia

--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Myanmyrma

--Gatoclass (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pachycondyla petrosa

 

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Pachycondyla petrosa, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.gpedia.info/p/en/gpedia/Pachycondyla_parvula.

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) 22:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another false positive, ugh.--Kevmin § 22:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Attopsis

I have noticed you added this genus (over a year ago, I'm slow) to Formicinae, but sources such as AntCat and AntWeb say it's in Myrmicinae. I removed it, but I am hesitant because your summary mentioned a source of Dlussky and such. If I have made an accidental error, please revert my edit, but do you have the source which moves Attopsis to Formicinae? Burklemore1 (talk) 06:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Burklemore1:Dlussky & Putyatina is not listed in the genus page for Attopsis at antwiki or antcat, But they notably use Formicinae and not Myrmicinae for the genus and single species they left placed in it. That I can find it is the most recent full redescription of the genus, so that is what I went with.--Kevmin § 09:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, okay, that's odd. Thanks for the revert, I guess this was my mistake and should have discussed it with you first before doing it. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries, D & P did not give any specific reasoning for the subfamily placement, tough the removal of several species may have had something to do with it? --Kevmin § 13:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is possible, but the huge morphological differences between Formicinae and Myrmicinae ants may have been a factor too. Prominent features include single segmented waists vs double segmented waists and formic acid vs venom used for defence and foraging. I could email Putyatina and see if I get a response in regards to this change (Dlussky unfortunately passed last year). Burklemore1 (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Btw, the GA nomination for Brownimecia is being reviewed, but I may need your input with some of the concerns raised. Burklemore1 (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Pachycondyla petiolosa

-- Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elephantomyia pulchella

 

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Elephantomyia pulchella, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.wiki.polskibreivik.pl/page_Elephantomyia_brevipalpa.html.

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) 14:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coren bot has problems with identifying cut/paste wiki mirrors, false alarm.--Kevmin § 14:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Elephantomyia irinae

-- Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Cananeuretus

-- Materialscientist (talk) 01:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright issue

Hi Kevmin: You seem to spend a lot of time worried over things, things you may have legitimate concerns over, as just another contributor and nothing more. The copyright policy is a good one, considering our over litigious society. However as I indicated in the Quasicravenoceras talk page, analysis of what constitutes a copyright violation can be a matter of interpretation. Obviously anyone who things it does, as for any other intended improvement, is free to delete it. Simple deletion may solve the presumed copyright issue, but it only detracts from article. If you (meaning anyone) can take time to delete content that may violate policy you certainly have time to rewrite the content to make it acceptable. With that in mind, having the concern brought to my attention, I will try in the future not to offend.

If you'd like to discuss or debate real science, that might be fun. But please stop imagining you have any directive authority. Of course, as with everyone else, you are free to make whatever changes and/or additions you feel necessary. But do so without complaint. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@J.H.McDonnell: I seriously suggest you spend some time carfully reading thorough WP:copyvio, as these are hard rules that Wikipedia has in place due to the strict nature of US copyright laws in conjunction with the use of Creative commons licencing of wikimedia materials/articles/content. YOU are the one that has so far bucked that policy. I personally do not have authority, but I do have the obligation to report the obvious problems that you have introduced, and the Wiki community/admins do have the authority to take action. Also, please do not spread the discussion over multiple talk pages, keep it all on one area (Talk:Quasicravenoceras) to allow all parties (@Justlettersandnumbers:) to fully address the problem.--Kevmin § 22:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Protopone

-- Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

  7&6=thirteen () has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen () 18:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Why thank you! To what do I deserve this delicious torte?--Kevmin § 01:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Pachycondyla petrosa

-- Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incomplete DYK nomination

  Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Elephantomyia irinae at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 04:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Elephantomyia longirostris

-- Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of foraminiferal genera

You seem stymied, as usual, over change, whether that be a real improvement or not. The changes in title I made may be trivial after all included recent genera may go back into prehistoric time, ie have fossil representatives. However the title you insist on is somewhat misleading. So what about recent genera. should they be removed and another list created? How about it. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The list was created and intended to be only on fully extinct genera, following the other "list of prehistoric XXXX" articles. There are almost always associated lists for the extant taxa, so if one doesnt exist for forams, it should be created. Also please stop using the very outdated Linnaean taxonomy for foram articles, us the phylogenies that are present in the other articles.--Kevmin § 16:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Elephantomyia pulchella

-- Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eulithomyrmex photos

The left-most image is that of the "Lithomyrmex" striatus holotype (it's not mentioned in the description but it's from plate 6 in Carpenter 1930). It should be possible to upload this to Commons (I say should because licensing and copyright is hard), based on other images from the same journal uploaded by the same organization, which are tagged like this: "This image was taken from Flickr's The Commons. The uploading organization may have various reasons for determining that no known copyright restrictions exist" (example). It's not the best image ever, but I've not managed to find any better image, free or non-free. jonkerztalk 22:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jonkerz: Unfortunately if I recall correctly 1930 is still in copyright, so unless Carpenter 1930 has been specifically released then I dont think its available :-( --Kevmin § 07:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Works published before 1923 are in the public domain, but if a work was published before a certain year without a copyright notice and/or if the copyright was not renewed, it may be PD despite being published in 1930.[1] I've asked the people on Commons here, let's see if they know. jonkerztalk 18:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If Carpenter is PD that would be awesome, I have good pdfs of his 1930 and 1933 papers that I can mine for images of a lot of the obscure fossil species he published! Let me know what the verdict is @Jonkerz:. --Kevmin § 18:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Burklemore1 and Jonkerz: FYI I have completed articles for all of Dlussky & Wedmann 2012, Messelepone being the last genus to go live!--Kevmin § 20:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)giveReply[reply]
1) Carpenter 1930 is   Good to Go! I can look into the Carpenter 1933 paper if want to. What's the title?
2) Very cool! Quite a few of these have great GA potential. A minor thing, would you mind if I added headers for the external links? I know you usually do not include headers for the Commons and Wikispecies links, and I do not want to force a particular style on all articles, but it looks better. jonkerztalk 21:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great news, I will start going through it and adding images to commons. Did you get information on what to tag the images under in the licencing section?
Go ahead with the External links heading lol, I keep forgetting it in my article construction sandbox and never mind I was thinking the 1935 renaming of Lithomyrmex to Eulithomyrmex.--Kevmin § 21:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clindberg (one of Commons's copyright veterans), said "The 1930 volume on the other hand appears to be {{PD-US-no notice}}, so I would use that tag in addition to the Flickr one." This is the Flicker one; full reply here. jonkerztalk 21:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Awesome, Im grabbing images directly from my Carpenter 1930 pdf right now, so no need for the flicker licence at all.--Kevmin § 22:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's great, I had no idea how many taxons were described by Dlussky & Wedmann 2012, but it seems like a lot. If you upload all the images from Carpenter 1930, feel free to add any that are missing in my sandbox. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Tityus apozonalli

-- Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Cephalopone

-- Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Cyrtopone

-- Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK nomination of Maatidesmus

  Hello! Your submission of Maatidesmus 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! — AJDS talk 22:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK

  Hello! Your submission of Euglossopteryx 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! North America1000 13:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anbarrhacus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labrum. 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) 09:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Messelepone

--Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Parastemmiulus

-- Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coccophagus

It's essentially a list. The policy is that lists are not normally stubs, isn't it?Rathfelder (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But Nomada has a separate article which is a list. The list is not a stub. Protoceratops is an entirely different sort of article. The Coccophagus article, considered objectively, is a list. Your efforts over the last 6 years have added to the list, but not to the summary. I'm not a biologist, but looking at the other articles about wasp genus (what's the plural of genus?) most of them don't have much in the summary. What can you say about a genus of wasps?Rathfelder (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rathfelder: Both are genus level taxon articles, and its possible that once Coccophagus is actually fleshed out the species list may get moved to List of Coccophagus species. The plural is genera. There is a ton that can be said about a genus, as is shown in both Nomada or Protoceratops (why do you consider it entirely different?). The general life cycle of the species, the evolutionary history and relationships to other genera, The range extent covered by the different species, any subdivisions of the genus, former taxonomic placements of the genus. All are things covered in expanded genus level articles.--Kevmin § 23:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Protoceratops has a load of interesting historical material which I don't imagine is available for most genera (thank you for reminding me - its not a word I use very often). If you wish to keep it marked as a stub I won't fight about it, but you might like to know it's probably among the 100 biggest stubs in the encyclopedia. Stub is primarily a mark of quantity, not quantity.Rathfelder (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rathfelder:It fully falls into the WP:Insects classification of a stub. Character count is only one aspect of the taxonomic criteria for stub classification.--Kevmin § 00:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Protohabropoda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Apis. 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) 10:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Anbarrhacus

-- Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Euglossopteryx

--Allen3 talk 12:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Maatidesmus

-- Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see new note. Yoninah (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andrena antoinei, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Apis. 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) 09:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Bombus cerdanyensis

--The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Electropodagrion

-- Materialscientist (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Protohabropoda

--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gyaclavator, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bug and Rostrum. 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) 09:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK nomination of Andrena antoinei

  Hello! Your submission of Andrena antoinei 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! Yoninah (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Andrena antoinei

--Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Makarkinia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eye spot. 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) 10:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Gyaclavator

--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But and however

I quote A Dictionary of Modern English Usage in its 1996 edition, editor Robert Burchfield, p. 367:

Avoid at all costs the illiteracy of using however as a simple substitute for but, or of allowing a sentence to run on when However should have had a capital H at the start of a new sentence.

Two examples of "wrong use" are given, matching the pattern you are reverting to. Please fix. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

English is a living language, and the usage that is present in the article is used frequently in American English. --Kevmin § 21:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have a reliable source saying it is unacceptable, in quite definite terms. This is what you said you wanted. You are now shifting your ground.

So what exactly is the Wikipedian approach to a situation where A says there is an unacceptable version, and B says the two versions are equally acceptable?

"An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version."

This is verbatim from Wikipedia:Ownership of content#Examples of ownership behaviour. But you'd know that, having been here a decade. Dragging divisive language issues over the issue is not helpful. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you feel that a British English change is necessary, then I will not revert again. I will note again that the use of however is common in American English, I have an article I am writing at the moment and avoid battle ground behavior, as unneeded, also something that should be evident by my article creation history and lack of any blocks in 10 years here.--Kevmin § 22:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given that "This guideline should not be used to claim national ownership of any article" is explicit on MOS:TIES, I'm certainly not going to go anywhere near that reasoning. I would prefer that you dropped the divisive language issue.

Look, I'm not often reverted, and when I am, I make a point of finding out why, with the chance that I would learn something new. At present, that is not happening. "Content creators", and I'm one, often revert without adequate justification; which is disappointing, and potentially off-putting to newcomers. I'm hardly a newbie; I ignore minor edits when they are just that, partly because other are. I recommend it.

Now I'm going to put "but" back in, given that we have discussed it. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Makarkinia

--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dinoponera

Given that 66.87.121.89 left a detailed ES, it would be courteous to leave a note explaining why "gamergate" is a valid term. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC) @Jim1138: Given that Dinoponera species have gamergates (fertile female workers) and drones are (fertile males), the change made the sentence and article inaccurate.--Kevmin § 20:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK nomination of Burmaleon

  Hello! Your submission of Burmaleon 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! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Araripenymphes

--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A favor

Do you mind looking over my DYK nom? It's been six days and no one has looked at it, and it's right above yours on the page. Thanks for any help! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Kalligrammatidae

--Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Klondike Mountain Formation as site

Geologic formations are by definition geographically extensive enough to be mappable. The Klondike Formation article says "The formation is located in northern Ferry County, Washington, with the majority of the sedimentation in the Republic and Curlew Basins on the east and in the Toroda Creek area to the north west. The town of Republic, Washington is situated at the southern end of the formation, with outcrops within the city itself." To me, that means that there are many sites where the Klondike Mountain Formation is found rather than the formation itself being a site. If you meant Klondike Mountain itself, then that could be reasonably categorized as a fossil site since a mountain is a place. Abyssal (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Abyssal: No, I didnt mean Klondike Mountain, as that is mostly igneous eruptives and not lacustrian. The article also covers the fossil sites that are present in the formation (eg boot hill and the corner lot sites), and simply emptying the category structure paleontological sites of xxxx removes the most logical place that MOST people will look to find formations. Go ahead and add the Chronogeographic categories too, but leave the paleontological ones in place.--Kevmin § 15:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think in that case the most appropriate thing to do would be create redirects from Boot Hill and Corner Lot Site to the article on the formation and then categorize the redirects as paleontological sites while the stratigraphic unit itself is still categorized in terms of Chronostratigraphy. Abyssal (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree, and most articles incorporate data on both single fossil sites and on the overall formations. This should be taken to WP:Geology and WP:Palaeontology for discussion before the recategorization continues.--Kevmin § 16:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. Abyssal (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Rafaelnymphes

--Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Burmaleon

--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sphecomyrma and G. occidentalis holotype

Hello, would you mind providing me the source that says G. occidentalis was collected earlier so I could add it as a note in Sphecomyrma? I have been trying to find it but nothing seems to be coming up. I'm trying to get Sphecomyrma as complete as possible and I think this convenience would take the cake. Cheers, Burklemore1 (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Burklemore1:Hey there, it took a little digging but I found the passage in question. I slightly mis-remembered where I saw the ant mention. it was not the type paper for G. occidentalis that contained the passage, though I was working on that species when I found it. It is in the introduction to the Chapter on Charentese amber in Biodiversity of fossils in amber [2] The paragraph states one known, undescribed, ant fossil collected from Charentese amber no later then 1870 is in the Natural History Museum, Paris. The fossil is not of a Sphecomyrmecine, but a crown-group ant listed by Grimaldi and Engel 2005 as "Dolichoformica helferi". My apologies for the slight misinformation about G. occidentalis.--Kevmin § 02:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cheers for the source and the slight clarification, I wouldn't have guessed that name at all. Thanks to you for the fix up and deliverance, I can now finally add the note in. Thanks again! Burklemore1 (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Btw, even though you said it was a crown-group ant, this source (assuming this is the unpublished paper Penney is referring to) says it is a stem-group.
@Burklemore1: Specifically its stem group, but stem group in relation to the subfamilies Formicinae and Dolichoderinae, that still makes it a crown group taxon. Which is noted by the more recent Biodiversity of fossils in amber reference.--Kevmin § 03:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, that makes a lot more sense now. I think I didn't read it 100% properly because I did not see it, but thanks for clarifying. I have corrected the article. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Burklemore1:Oh, and when you get a chance, take a look over Gerontoformica in my sandbox, i'm about to move it to live in the next day or so. After that i'll whip up Camelomecia janovitzi to round out the 2016 ants named so far.--Kevmin § 03:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a final note "Dolichoformica helferi" is not a valid name, but considered nomen nudum, since Engel & Grimaldi provided no formal description of the ant. The note in Sphecomyrma should have "Dolichoformica helferi" in quotes to reflect this.--Kevmin § 03:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I did another edit to the article and added in the quotation marks. I've been thinking of submitting the article it for DYK after GA, but I'm not sure how the process works. I actually viewed the article earlier and updated the genera list in my sandbox, but I'm guessing they realised the ants in Sphecomyrmodes can no longer be confidently identified as Sphecomyrmines if Gerontoformica itself hasn't been placed there? Overall it looks really good, I see a lot of good content about the behaviour and ecology. Infact, I am slightly "weirded out" as to how much is discussed! ;) Definitely GA material if you ever intend on doing that. I know you mainly do DYK's but it would be an excellent addition.
Looks like Camelomecia is our first genus of 2016, so I have gone along and updated the list. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gerontoformica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coxae. 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) 10:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK

  Hello! Your submission of Gerontoformica 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! North America1000 08:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ithonidae clade fix (attempted)

I'm dropping you a note because you were a major contributor to Ithonidae. The clade diagram had a syntax error in it, and I tried to fix it based on the text in the article and my reading of the source abstracts. I may have gotten it wrong. Please check it, and drop me a line if it's wrong and you are unable to fix it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Camelomecia

--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Gerontoformica

--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Could you check this change and review the difference between the two words? Also, while checking for 'then'/'than' I came across something that I think is just a typo. At Gerontoformica#G._cretacica there is a "... was determined to be shorter than though, ...". Was that maybe supposed to be "... was determined to be shorter though, ..."? Shenme (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Shenme:, thanks for catching that, I missed the "t" at the end of thought. Its fixed now. (I know i suck at then/than)--Kevmin § 17:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zoraptera page

Thank you for your catch on the zoraptera page. I meant to reference provisioning services ( i.e. consumer goods) instead of cultural significance. Cfitch5 (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Paraneuretus

--Gatoclass (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Dolichoderus pinguis

--Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Emplastus

I would like to say thank you for your excellent contributions towards this article. My only question is how on earth you found the images so easily while it was impossible for myself (looked all over AntWeb). Burklemore1 (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Burklemore1: Thanks! I've noticed that you have to dig a little on antweb. I always go into list view and see if images are listed there, as fossil images often are not included in the general image collage view. --Kevmin § 05:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Burklemore1: Also try this on Google: site:antweb.org Emplastus "Specimens Imaged" -"0 Specimens Imaged" (I had to press "repeat the search with the omitted results included" to get all three results). jonkerztalk 06:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kevmin:, @Jonkerz: I see, thanks again! Looks like I may need to do a bit of hunting with other fossil ants now that you say that, there is bound to be a few around. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Burklemore1: if you ever need images found just let me know, Im very familiar with the ins and outs of Antweb at this point lol--Kevmin § 15:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kevmin: I'll keep that in mind thank you. I'm also familiar with AntWeb as a whole if you don't include the images part. I'm not very good at looking for things. ;) Burklemore1 (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Burklemore1: Haha, no worries, the fossil images on Antweb are amazing, but the linkage and display function is atrocious! The vast majority of specimens imaged, do not show up in the regular searches. Take a look at the Sphecomyrmoides entries, they are noted as synonyms for their current Gerontoformica combinations, but the images only show in the Sphecomymoides pages :,( --Kevmin § 14:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kevmin: yeah, it's quite a mess at this point. Funny, I did a google image search for Emplastus and they only showed up in the Encyclopedia of Life with an incorrect license. I might as well volunteer to fix up the images; as far as I can tell, the images for Brownimecia still don't show up, nor do many others. :/ Burklemore1 (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK

  Hello! Your submission of Emplastus 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! North America1000 09:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kevmin. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Toxotes lorentzi.
Message added 14:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Intelligentsium 14:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK nomination of Prosisyrina

  Hello! Your submission of Prosisyrina 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. Just lacks an inline citation for the fact it's extinct, seems obvious buts needs to be there and I can't access the sources to do it myself Basement12 (T.C) 21:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Prosisyrina

<--— Maile (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]