User talk:Stemonitis/Archive23

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between February 17 2009 and December 17 2009.

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

Thanks for Nudivirus

Thanks for fixing ref formats on the new article Nudivirus. Mccready (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hooray for pill-bugs

		The Bio-star
		This Bio-Star recognizes Stemonitis's excellent work creating the much-needed article on Armadillidium vulgare, the Common Pill-Bug.--ragesoss (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you — I was only expecting a DYK, so this is a very pleasant surprise! --Stemonitis (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Headings - your opinion?

Hi there. I saw your exchange with User:Rotational a while ago on the Platypleura divisa article. Thanks for adding the taxobox, by the way. I've recently had another run-in with him at Gethyllis and a while ago had a mediated discussion at User talk:SilkTork/Rkitko - Rotational Discussion (if you care for a read). Anyway, I was wondering if you could briefly explain the user style sheet comment you made in the edit history of Platypleura divisa. I believe the MOS is clear on this point, but Rotational has repeatedly said he abhors the aesthetics of Wikipedia. I'm all for ignoring the rules when it improves the encyclopedia, but I don't think this is an improvement and is rather bordering on (or is) disruptive and pointy. Most recently, Rotational has accused me (again) of harassment and said that I am the only one who cares about this. I was wondering, as someone who has recently encountered this user and reverted his odd heading styles, if you could provide me with your opinion on this? If there's any other dispute resolution route (though it hardly seems to be effective, as he tends to keep doing what he's been doing), etc.? Any help is appreciated. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 22:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll gladly explain what I meant, although you'll understand that I don't want to get dragged into another spat; in the end, I just left Platypleura divisa looking, to my eyes, wrong, rather than making a big thing of it (but no, you're not alone — a lot of people insist of standardisation, which is how things like WP:MOSHEAD came into being in the first place). My understanding of the reasons behind WP:MOSHEAD are as follows:

Regardless of what size one individually thinks looks best, all the headings should be similar across different Wikipedia articles. That way, if a given user prefers to have headings smaller than 24 px boldface with underlining (or whatever), all they have to do is set up their own style sheet which overrides the site style sheet (as is the nature of cascading style sheets), and all the headings across the site will become more aesthetically pleasing to that user. This whole system falls down if particular articles have different sorts of headings (e.g. ===Second level=== rather than ==First-level==), because they will then be smaller than the others. I, for instance, see the headings in a different typeface to the standard one (see my style sheet), and I would suggest that User:Rotational create his/her own style sheet if it's purely a question of aesthetics, because only then can everyone be happy. Insisting that a particular article has different heading types to all the others is to enforce one user's style decision over and above other users' style sheets. I'm almost tempted to create User:Rotational/monobook.css and make first-level headings look like second-level and so on to that user alone, but that might be seen as rather provocative! It's probably worth suggesting, though, if, as you say, Rotational dislikes the site-wide aesthetic, since he/she is never going to be able to change all the articles he/she sees manually. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Your reply is much appreciated and I of course understand not wanting to get drawn into another edit war. I've never been able to articulate the style sheet comment before, though it has been tangentially mentioned to Rotational before. He has rejected such a notion before. With your permission, may I copy and paste your explanation as it's much clearer than anything I could come up with. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 13:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, quote me by all means (or just copy it; I'm sure this text must be available under a free license… ). I don't know why I didn't look for it before, but Help:User style explains how to set your own user style, and what it will achieve. It doesn't, however, explain why this entails sticking to standard formatting. I'm sure I must have read that somewhere, but I can't find it at the moment. If I come across it, I'll let you know. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the links and explanation. As expected, though: [1]. Sigh. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 13:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Armadillidium vulgare

On February 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Armadillidium vulgare, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Trichoniscus pusillus

On February 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trichoniscus pusillus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Meadow saffron

Hi Chris,
Just a quick note to let you know that I have used your meadow saffron image on my video for Schumann's Nänie:
Nänie
Many thanks David
Dwsolo (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The Oddball Barnstar

		The Oddball Barnstar
		Stemonitis, I noticed your article "List of woodlice of the British Isles" on the DYK nomination page and every time I see the title I grin. It is to me, "The Ultimate Wikipedia Article" because it might makes some ask “why the hell would someone waste their time making such a strange and esoteric article?” but those with open minds will discover it to be well done, very encyclopedic, and yes – interesting! Please accept this Oddball Barnstar for fostering in me a new appreciation of Oniscidea and their pilly, pilly ways. Boston (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks — glad to have piqued your interest! To be honest, it doesn't seem all that strange a topic to me — it's about the first list I've considered making that was about the right size (and enough content) for a useful list article. Thirty-odd species is a good sort of number, particularly compared to the magnitudes normally reached with invertebrate taxa. I don't think it will make it to a DYK, because the non-list prose is too short, but at least the nomination is getting it noticed! --Stemonitis (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Pollicipes pollicipes

On February 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pollicipes pollicipes, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, thanks for always fixing my typos, when I check who edited the articles, your name always comes up, so thanks agian! Buɡboy52.4 (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, that should read "thanks again" ! No need to thank me — just trying to make myself useful… --Stemonitis (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Hello, agian, I want to nominate the article I created, Trombiculidae but I do not know how, or if it completely meets the criteria for GA status(it is currently of B status). Buɡboy52.4 (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Reply on my talk page so I know when you reply, thanks in advance, agian.

Replied at User talk:Bugboy52.40. --Stemonitis (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help so far, I looked through the list, and I did #1, I didn't understand what you mant by #2, but I did #3, I also didn't understand what you meant in #4, or what an in-line citation is, and I was hoping you can help me out with number #5. Buɡboy52.4 (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC

So have you been able to look it over? Buɡboy52.4 (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice you'd replied before - it can happen if someone else writes on this page at a similar time, and I don't check the history. The hardest problem to solve, I think, is that the article had the former content of the article chigger merged into it last October, but it wasn't merged in very well[2]. The start of the "chigger" section reads like the start of an article, because that's exactly what it used to be[3]. The introduction should include mention of chiggers, and then all the life cycle information should be in one place. This will need some fairly radical alteration to the article, so you will have to be bold. Once the general form of the article is fixed, then we can start really sorting out the references and the formatting, and so on. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphan re-tagging

Hi, I saw your comment on Addbot's page. The re-tagging was due to this problem, which was my fault for not adding error-checking that would account for this scenario. I've since fixed the problem, so it won't get re-tagged again. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. --JaGa^talk 23:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for List of woodlice of the British Isles

On March 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of woodlice of the British Isles, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

unranked APG-II versus ranked Cronquist

Hi,

I am wondering why you did this. Names like "Liliopsida" are very old hat now. From the Liliopsida:

"this name is very strongly linked to the Cronquist system, and the allied Takhtajan system.... Modern systems, such as the APG and APG II systems refer to this group by the name monocots...."

All angiosperm systematists now use the APG-II system (tweaked to reflect the latest findings). The fact that our taxoboxes still use an archaic taxonomy is an embarrassment, and I have been working to update them to APG-II. The people at WP:PLANTS are aware of what I am doing and happy with it.

Hesperian 23:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It just seems odd to me that, although to all practical intents and purposes (and certainly to the lay person), Magnoliophyta = Angiospermae = angiosperms, and Liliopsida = Monocotyledonae = monocots, we choose to use relatively informal, unranked names in taxoboxes. Even if the latest findings haven't formally ranked their groups, the taxonomy would normally include ranked groups. I too would follow APG2 for information on relationships, and I might even refer to their groups like "rosids II" when writing a paper, but if I had to give a taxonomy (even in the same paper), you can be sure I'd return to normally formally ranked taxon names. Yes, many of those taxa are probably paraphyletic, but it's far from universally held in the world of botanists that paraphyly is such a bad thing, and everyone understands that it takes a little time for the latest molecular findings to filter down to the taxonomies. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Allothereua maculata

Greetings! I happened to stumble across the Allothereua article when I was doing some research re: Scutigera coleoptrata, the variety that we call the house centipede here in Mexico; they're fairly common-I run into them indoors and out. A friend from some years ago, from Brisbane, told me about the variety of house centipede he had back home and it sounded strangely familiar. I'm a historian, not a botanist, and its now some decades since my university biology classes. To make a long story short, when I googled Allothereua, the only understandable site that I found was the following: http://www.tmorganics.com/farming_art,conmap,336 . It fit the information that I remembered and seemed beneficial, consistent with the category. Please take a look and give me a buzz back on my talk page or e-mail me. Wishing you the best of the day.--Lyricmac (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, Biologist, not Botanist.--Lyricmac (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Lagodon Page

Hi, I'm confused as to why you renamed Lagodon rhomboides to just the generic name and redirected it. I recognize it is the only species in its genus, but I don't understand the utility of your change. Not criticizing as much as just trying to understand. Thanks. Mmyers1976 (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the general situation advocated by WP:TOL, whereby any monotypic genera are located at the name of the genus, not the name of the (only) species. Amphionides is a frequently-quoted example. --Stemonitis (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Coelophora inaequalis

Hi, Stemonitis.
Thank you indeed for the "heads up" about Wikipedia:ARTH! If you have the time, could you possibly check out my previous ento edits for mistakes? Pretty sure I've many.
Thanks again.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Tanna japonensis

Hi, thanks for looking in on Tanna japonensis,

I was puzzled by this edit?

I know very little about the technicalities of species articles etc, so I'd be grateful if you could help me learn,

Also, I think the hierarchy is a bit wrong, because Cicada lists Tanna japonensis as a genus, and it's a species...so should there be a stub called 'Tanna'?

I'm trying to get things correct, but I'm not a biologist; I just got some books from the library to help me write the article.

Thanks! --  Chzz  ►  23:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Donum Vitae

Can you please restore the article Donum Vitae, which you deleted out of impression that it was not notable ? I can assure you that it is notable since it forms the current backbone of Roman Catholic doctrine on bioethics. It also attracted a considerable amount of media attention when it was first released in 1987. ADM (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Nomination (Continued)

Well, it has been a while, well actually a complete month, but I did my best (almost best) to User:Bugboy52.40/sandbox and if you want to look through it to see if it needs any more, I'm open to suggestions(I had a hard time finding info on the adult and nymph stages). And when you you think it is ready I will copy+paste it to Trombiculidae, and I ask that it be nominated. Buɡboy52.4 (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Cockpit (aviation)

I have nominated Cockpit (aviation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Thinboy00 @918, i.e. 21:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I should have come to you...

You were very helpful when I was making Panicle rice mite. I just posted [4]. It wasn't directed at you. I had forgotten how helpful you were. I should have asked you directly instead of posting on the Wikiproject page. What's with those folks? Are they all on holiday?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello from Grünstadt

Hello Stemonitis - perhaps this posting [5]on my paysage blog [6] could be a interesting reading for a wikipedia admin ! best wishes from Grünstadt ! yours Christophe Neff (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:KinderScoutPlateau.jpg

File:KinderScoutPlateau.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:KinderScoutPlateau.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:KinderScoutPlateau.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Cambarus tartarus

Hi, I see that you did some clean up on the article Cambarus tartarus. I am planning to expand this article, but have not worked on articles on invertebrates before. Most of my work on here has been on Medieval art. can you point me to some relative well developed mid sized crayfish articles, I might use as models. (If you are wondering why I am jumping into biology articles with an article on an obscure crayfish, it is because the sole habitat for this crayfish is a cave on my late grandparent's property, and my brother challenged me to expand the stub.)

Geia sas Stemonitis

Please see www.mer-nature.org (Programme) and after, tell us if you are OK to give your permission for using your beautiful picture "Anurida maritima.jpg" in our exibition about "The inventions of the evolutions".

Our mail is mernature@wanadoo.fr

Thank you ! Ion Argyriadis & --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Your view sought

As a member of WP Arthropods, you might have a view on this discussion. Thanks in advance. Heds (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Picture Fucus vesiculosus

Dear Stemonitis,

I work for the french Museum of natural history. We are updating the multimedia devices in the Grande Galerie de l'Evolution and one of this device treats about eukaryotes (most of living organisms). I'm looking for pictures and found your picture of fucus vesiculmosus on Wikimedia :

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fucus_vesiculosus_Wales.jpg

There is a representation of the groups of eukaryotes in the Gallery, and for every group we would like to show a picture of the organism. This is a non-commercial use.

Do you agree if we use your picture in this device ? Of course your name will appear in the device.

Please contact me here : verleye @ mnhn.fr (whithout spaces).

We would be very pleased to invite you at the Grande galerie if you go to Paris once a time.

Thank you,

Best regards,

Ingrid Verleye —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingridv (talk • contribs) 15:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What?

What happened? Your where gone for a couple of months. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 00:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in particular; I just found other things to do with my time. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thaumastochelidae

Please see the talk page for this article. Thanks! Cmiych (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Sorry I undid the good stuff. Abyssal (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Dosima

On December 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dosima, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Fuck.

I have nominated Fuck. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 08:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Facetotecta

On December 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Facetotecta, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 03:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Potamon fluviatile

On December 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Potamon fluviatile, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)