User talk:OhanaUnited

Archives
Archive 1 (December 21, 2007 - June 30, 2008)
Archive 2 (July 1, 2008 - December 31, 2008)
Archive 3 (January 1, 2009 - June 30, 2009)
Archive 4 (July 1, 2009 - December 31, 2009)
Archive 5 (January 1, 2010 - December 31, 2010)
Archive 6 (January 1, 2011 - December 31, 2012)

Andrew, creating incertae sedis pages is actually a bad idea ... it creates "pseudo taxa" whose child taxa may be entirely unrelated. It is better just to list the child taxa in the overview of the parent taxon ... Stho002 (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have done it. The basic idea is to list the genera under the next highest taxon possible, but without creating artificial "incertae sedis" taxon pages ... Stho002 (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure that you are correct to put in the VNs for Benthocodon and its species. These are descriptive names for the wider group, not names for those taxa in particular ... Stho002 (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's all a mess anyway ... the genus Benthocodon was incorrectly proposed without a type species ... Stho002 (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC) PS: Which means that the genus name doesn't really exist, even though published sources assume that it does exist ... Stho002 (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Someone replied on Wikidata:Project chat, and you might be interested in the discussion on d:Wikidata talk:Infoboxes task force/terms. Regards, PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Replied again. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Again. PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi OhanaUnited. I know this is my first edit here, but I need to ask for your help. Myself and another Wikipedia editor, BobTheWikipedian, are formulating a proposal to close Wikispecies and merge content into Wikipedia. Bob left a message to this effect at Talk:Main Page and was greeted by some rather terse old-english from another administrator here, User:Stho002. I am unfamiliar with your rules, policies or procedures here, but I would imagine you have a civility policy of some description, and it seems to me that the comment left is far from civil in any respect, considering the politeness Bob showed in at least letting the community here know about it. Would you please be able to advise on how this issue may be handled? Thank you :) Regards, BarkingFish (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your comments. Based on that response, and your links to other areas, I, like Bob, won't be pursuing this closure request any further. I notice that you didn't address Stho002's comment to Bob though, and would still appreciate your input on it. Thank you :) BarkingFish (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the welcome to wikispecies and the accompanying offer of help. I've been editing wikipedia for some time, but am floored here by the need to request a page move. Could you please point me in the right direction? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the response on my talk page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I suggest to add in Projects: two links to Wikivoyage and Wikidata. Regards. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 09:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

TOCs have started appearing on some taxon pages. Is there any way to globally suppress them for taxon pages? ... Stho002 (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi please change protection level on Main Page (Simple English) please change the level to registered users can edit it because no one seem to be editing it Paladox2014 (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi OhanaUnited! Do you think you could fix this template. It cut the names with bars and the presentation look bad or is hard to make sense of. Please take a look at Crocanthemum arenicola for an example. Uleli (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for trying... Uleli (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

My understanding of Creative Commons licensing is that the appropriate credit should be given whenever the image is used. Hence the formatting of the text under photos included here. If this is not the case, then there are a lot of similar changes to be made, if you want to seek them out. Where should we look to find a definitive ruling on this? Accassidy (talk) 09:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks. Then I am content to stop adding credits to images on Species pages. I will correct old ones as the pages get reviewed. Accassidy (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just wondering if you could edit Template:Sisterprojects and change Wikivoyage-logo.svg to Wikivoyage-Logo-v3-icon.svg Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Good evening, I have been creating Reference Templates for reasons of standardisation, as have other users. There is an issue with "Category:Reference templates" however, as the page has become extremely unweildy as more and more templates are listed. We need to have on this page just an alphabetical list of initial letters, A-Z, that link to reference templates with authors' names beginning with the appropriate letter. Do you know how to do this? Alan Accassidy (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I just saw your old intervention at the Wikidata Project chat (last February), and I'd like to talk to you about an idea I have in my mind. I'd like to make some proposal about integration of Wikispecies in Wikidata.

First of all: I am not talking about closing the former in favour of the latter, I'm saying that we could share links and datas. And secondly, this is my idea, there is nothing "official" going on.

What I mean is that not always Wikispecies is linked from, say, Italian Wikipedia (I make this example since I'm an admin there). Just see Canis lupus beothucus: I personally added a link to Wikispecies now, because we didn't have it. You too have links to only five Wikipedia versions, but Wikidata lists nine at the moment. And who knows how many other examples are there like this - maybe not related to species, but to taxon authors.

So, if we could set up a "phase 1" for Wikispecies, i.e. setting a link between Wikispecies pages and Wikidata items, you could get rid of the interlinks management system you have right now, and Wikipedias (and the other projects in the future) could benefit from automatic links to this project.

As you can see, I'm still not talking about "phase 2", since I recognise there are some problems about taxons I don't know of, but that you Wikispecians do know. This is the other reason I am contacting you: to know which are those problems, and to try to solve them.

If you're interested, please contact me on my talk page (here, on Wikidata or on it.wp). Hope to read you soon. --Sannita (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if you're referring to this email, but I assume you do. About the search engine (point #1), I can say it was made better - it is still not the best one in the world, but it's better now. And if you do a research with a wrong name (point #2), well... you can't ask for a correct answer, can you? :)

About the lack of a taxonomy navigation (point #3): you're right, but this is not the goal of Wikidata. Wikidata's goal is to store data for every single item, in order to let other projects gather and display those data more easily. So taxonomy navigation is something that Wikispecies (or Commons) should show, not Wikidata. This is actually one of the reasons why I think that Wikispecies should stay up as a separated project, the main one being the fact that the project has gathered a community on its own which is doing a great job and it'd be absolutely counter-productive to disband it.

About handling different scientific species etc. (point #4): that's another reason why we should start to integrate your data into Wikidata. Since you have knowledge of these things, we will need your help too in order to correct the mistakes and make the data better.

Finally, about sources and missing taxonomies: this is yet another part of Wikidata in which you can help us a lot. We finally set up the URI datatype, which in combination with the other datatypes, should be ok for finally setting up sources in a good way. We are also discussing about how to store publications and articles as sources (I can't find the right link at the moment, but I'll find it).

Broadly speaking, if you think there are properties or items that are missing, please tell us which they are and we'll listen to your advices. For example, if there are missing taxa, just let me know which are missing and I'll create the corresponding item (our guidelines allow the creation of items without links to Wikipedia or Wikivoyage if they're needed for cases like this one).

Things evolved since last February: two projects (Wikipedia and Wikivoyage) are already fully integrated with Wikidata, another (Commons) is on its way for phase 1 (only interlinks), and hopefully other will come. But still, retreiving data from Wikidata is not mandatory: if your community says "we're ok with the interlinks (phase 1), but we still have doubts about data (phase 2)", is absolutely fine if you choose to take only the links.

I hope I clarified your doubts. If there are more, just keep asking, you'll never bother. :) (I also checked the option for being advised by mail if someone writes to me in my talk, so you don't need to come to WD)

Cheers. --Sannita (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for bringing this up again, but there's been a lot of general discussion about integrating Wikidata and Wikispecies lately. My proposal to ward off future requests to close Wikispecies like those enacted by Bob the Wikimedia is to have the Sitenotice point them to Meta-Wiki's Wikispecies FAQ page, so anyone visiting the website, particularly if they've been around Wikimedia often and are aware of the MediaWiki:Sitenotice might be more aware. Could potentially reduce the volume of such requests. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please, your comment is needed on issues concerning the user Stho002. See here: Wikispecies:Village Pump Mariusm (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Counting the number of well-documented pages of species and genera in Wikispecies with type-locality information, hyperlinks and so on and comparing this with the huge number of already described taxa still to be included, Wikispecies is a little child at present. We are, therefore, in great need of getting a by far larger number of contributors, preferable scientists, so that Wikispecies could reach an adult state and become a reliable, well documented database system which is able to support new research.

During the last 18 months I tried to raise the enthusiasm of young researchers on international conferences to make use of and contribute to Wikispecies. But, even the classic way of producing pages is felt as complicated, especially the templates for the taxonavigation. Recently expressed new ideas of formatting pages are even more complicating the system.

In my opinion it is really necessary to keep the Wikispecies system as simple as possible to let it successfully grow. There is no need of templates for species or references and no need for taxoboxes, and so on. We should not allow that the Wikispecies system unnecessarily is complicated by nerds. Kempf EK (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree that relatively simple is better, but there is merit in quite a lot of the Template system that makes possible future changes much easier to implement. Reference Templates are a good example. More and more old literature is becoming available on web sites, like Biodiversity Heritage Library. But mostly these are only up to 1922 because of copyright issues. Each year more references will become available for web browsing. If a Template is used, then this new hyperlink will be put in one place only and then picked up by every page that refers to the Template. Otherwise, every page using that reference would have to be updated singly, which could be a long process. My other suggestion is that potential new editors should do what they can to add new pages, even if they are only very simple in content. As long as the taxa and references are sound. Other editors can add more info or formatting as an iterative process. In fact, the really useful thing about WS is that it is iterative and easily edited. I hope more users will be encouraged, not put off. Thanks, Accassidy (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks for your contribution and suggestion. In theory, your support of reference templates sounds well. In practice, I think, that problems will be encountered in the future. There are more than 13,000 reference templates existing already at present. In the future it might become a problem to find the right reference template again in a short span of time. Until now I preferred to hyperlink to the author page as well as to a web site, like Biodiversity Heritage Library.

See, for instance:

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Semicytherura_challengerae https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Thaumatocypris_echinata

Perhaps we should have both ways existing, instead of relying on reference templates alone. In my opinion the author page is quite useful within the whole system.

Kempf EK (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for your welcome! Have a nice day. --Canyq (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

If I add species etc after original bulletins I begin the page with [This species is complete and correct] Some entomologist authors have ask me to add their species. (Nässig, Rzazowski and others). Every time I add species Stohner changed them and qualificated them as doubtful. He is making my contribution to species.wiki very difficult. I think that he thinks he is the boss from species.wiki. So every body can now see that the species I add are real and reliable. Stohner is making a mist from species.wiki and now only people can add species who are a programmer. I'm not a programmer and I add species after template such as You and Marius learned me. The question is: Is species.wiki only for Sthoner or also for people like me with a lot of connection in the entomologist world. I have connection with Razowski, Nässig, Oberpeiler, Dubatolov, Brown, Hacker, Korb and others and in Naturalis Leiden where I'm a member. So can I add more species or have I stop with additing such Sthoner like. See Cydia.

Happy New Year.

You didn't answer my questions or remarks.

I believe that Sthoner is not a scientist (entomologist). He makes to many mistakes for an entomologist.

Their are no real entomologists working in wikispecies, because it is to difficult to add species. So you can see by Cydia if the species are correct (with original bulletins or doubtful. So you agree that Stohner is the owner from species.wikipedia and he can do what he want, even workout people. Thanks for your clear answer.

Regards,

PeterR (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2013‎ (UTC)Reply

Am I "Stohner"?? Stho002 (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi OhanaUnited,

In the Hystrix article in the wikispecies you have added Hystrix hodgsoni. From where have you taken this Hystrix sp.? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks! But in Mammal Species of the World (2005) Hystrix (Acanthion) brachyura hodgsoni Gray, 1847 is a subsp. After 2005 this subsp. was rised to sp. level? DenesFeri (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, Thanks anyway! cheers. DenesFeri (talk) 09:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=a&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&ei=3Lz5Ut-zL8fqkAW25IHQAw#q=%22I+am+also+a+bureaucrat+on+Species-ID%22&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

Your call, but User:Allixpeeke has made no other contributions to WS, so I'm not sure that he should be allowed to have a potentially misleading user page, but as I said, your call ... Stho002 (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

This User:AntoineDunk is another example of a user page which doesnt really look like a user page? It least with both of those, I put a user page template. Dan Koehl (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

As I wrote during my nomination to bureaucrat, out of present 25 admins, 6 admins has not been active during the last 5 years. As Wikispecies develops there is a need of more sysops (active users). I also like to draw your attention to Wikispecies:Village_Pump#IMPORTANT:_Admin_activity_review, where stewards informs about their intenion to remove admin rights for 10 Wikispecies users, who had no activity the last years.

I have nominated another 2 users as admins, one has already accepted nomination, please see Since I nominated the users, I think its good if someone else inform the community about the nomination, like you did last time, with my nomination. Maye you can be so kind and give the start shot for the poll, as well as inform the community on the Wikispecies:Village_Pump?

If they get granted admin rights though, Id be happy to perform the actual promotion, I feel a little rusty and its good for me to train... :)

Dan Koehl (talk) 05:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I saw a link to Wikispecies:Wantedpages on your user page. I checked there, and some of the top entries are New Guinea, Philippines, Java, India, etc. My guess is those articles are not actually wanted here, but that they are listed automatically because Wikispecies articles link to them. So my question is, what would be wanted here? Those articles created, the links removed, the links changed to go to Wikipedia, or what? Thanks for your help. Alden Loveshade (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your response that said you did not know what should be done with them. Would it be worth posting this question in a public forum on this site? If so, where? Alden Loveshade (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your suggestion. I posted it here. Alden Loveshade (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I don't understand your answer here exactly. Please, inform me! Might I misunderstand anything? I've meant, that there was a problem with the title of article and periodical. Regards, --Sphenodon (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your answer! :) Not me, but User:Neferkheperre put the question „Can anybody deal with Hungarian?”, so I have tried to help him about this, because my native language is Hungarian. As I wrote there, I had some problem with those article, but eventually I could correct the Hungarian words in Template:Kolosvary, 1941e. Do you think it is worth translating the Hungarian title into English and putting this English text into brackets after Hungarian in spite of that there is no English translation in original artilce? Regards, --Sphenodon (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think it is worthwhile to provide English translation in brackets for Hungarian. My translation engine at best can provide just a few scattered words in English. Translation engine also has same problems with other languages, but mainly because these online engines are not geared for technical/scientific terms. The only Hungarian biologist I deal with so far is Kolosvary, who was versatile in Hungarian, German, and less so in English. I can easily deal with German, French, and Russian, but Hungarian is complete mystery. Chinese is worse. I have learned much while trying to build reference templates, but not enough. I can help with some technical loan words. What I have been doing with Russian references is to use English translations in the visible template, and in the no-include part, original Cyrillic title, along with nomenclatural acts. See Kolbasov, 1991 for example. Neferkheperre (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Look, I don't have the character of a troublemaker. Far from it. I was editing here quietly many years before Stho002 came and took possession of this site. I was defeated when trying to take away some of his power, and I accept it. But recently the editing here became a nightmare for me. As soon as I post something, no matter what, Stho002 is immediately - within seconds - deleting, editing and manipulating my edits for no good reason. As a friend of Stho002, could you please have a word with him to stop this practice? Thank you for your patience. Mariusm (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I didn't mean to say I object to the immediacy of changes being made to my edits. I do object to being targeted dis-proportionally only for raising my voice against the tyranny of one user over all the rest. One user who sets the rules single-handedly and then enforces them, well, that is indeed in opposition to the wikipedia's spirit. Mariusm (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've been contributing since 2009, but thank you for your kind welcome template.[1] --Wsiegmund (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello, you have blocked user:FuzzyDice due to a case in en.wiki, while he doesn't have any edit on this wiki, we don't carry cases from wiki to wiki unless it is a crosswiki issue, which is unlikely in this case. Please unblock this account. Matanya (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Matyana, Ohana blocked this user because we have also had issues with them faking credentials on Outreach and it was a bit of a mess to clean up after we discovered that they had been faking their language knowledge and then completely changed it after an account rename. I normally would side with caution and not preemptively block them on any site, but in light of the situation, I just wanted to provide some explanation as to why this block is warranted in this case as a cross-wiki issue. Ktr101 (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would have to agree, this block is a bit harsh, and in that case we could just go and block him on every other wiki, or even globally lock him (which stewards have not done). If he disrupts here, then sure, block away, but now... I don't think it's a good idea (this isn't like Poetlister or anything). --Rschen7754 03:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's funny how we still roll out the AGF carpet to an account that was proven to be a deceptive sockpuppet and takes advantage of AGF. Since FuzzyDice and Xermano's accounts are SUL linked, then they are owned by the same person. At any rate, FuzzyDice is the sockpuppet of Xermano so the proper account to request for an unblock is through the principal account, Xermano. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Andrew, this collaboration may (or may not) be back on again soon, but Pensoft have annoyed me greatly over something, and if I don't keep up with ZooKeys and PhytoKeys, nobody else here will ... Stho002 (talk) 05:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I’m Marius, an admin here at WS. I would like to ask you to contribute to an important ongoing vote which will practically decide the future of WS. As you probably know, the user Stho002, an admin, is forcefully endorsing his concept of the content and format of WS. His “system” includes a complex mesh of templates and links which is nowhere specified or written down, is not considered as a consensus, and is not easy or trivial to use, especially by newcomers. As my experience goes, when I save an edited page, Stho002 will delete or change it sooner or later, sometimes in a matter of seconds. This is no way of maintaining a healthy community. It is a lamentable fact that the aggressiveness by which Stho enforces his way deters many users and causes many newcomers leave this site.

The original WS help pages ([2], [3], [4]) contain a much simpler system, where the resulting taxa information is no less clear nor less detailed then Stho’s format, and which is being used successfully for years by experienced users as well as by novices.

If we decide that our current page format is outdated in need of improvement, we surely must make the change through collaboration and discussion. It is unacceptable that a single user will dictate his concept, however better-suited for our purposes he thinks it is.

We therefore have three options: (a) to make Stho002 system the official WS format; (b) to endorse the system specified in the help pages; (c) to devise a new system by mutual cooperation. After we reach an agreement, we’ll modify the help pages accordingly, resulting in a consistent way of doing things, without having to fight among ourselves, without having to resort to deleting and modifying each other’s work.

Therefore please read the discussion here and take a moment of your time and make your choice here. I think it is your obligation as an admin to participate in the vote. Thanks, Mariusm (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

As I am no longer either willing or able to commit time or effort to this wiki in a way that I consider acceptable according to my concept of what an admin here should be, I respectfully request removal of my tools. Thanks very much, it was good while it lasted. Koumz (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

User:Koumz: you need to file a request on m:SRP as local crats cannot do this. --Rschen7754 03:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I am a voluntary contributor of the French-speaking wikimedia, of passage here I noted that the home page no more updated since an end of time.Then I made some modifications concerning the èspèce of the week so that the page but I am to bring up to date misses authorizations to carry out one updated complete but two section are to protect in writing . I wants to know if I can obtain the rights for y made the modifications in real time. Cordially --Startupevo1 (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Just note that this user is unblocked in enwiki. You may unblock him or change the block to a definite time.--GZWDer (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Why have you blocked this user? PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think you should at least restore the access to e-mail and talkpage, because there're no unblock maillist for Wikispecies (or maybe you can create one). The way to appeal is what I concern honestly (I even thinks we should create a global UTRS^P.S.)... Also, this user have reported a deletion request here.

P.S. In my opinion the use of purposed global UTRS would be:

1. Appeals of blocks when both talk page and email access were revoked.
2. Appeals of blocks in a wiki with few active admins.
3. Appeals of global locks.
4. Replace current multiple UTRS and unblock maillist if they want to, and create a place to discussion xwiki stuffs about blocks and appeals.

--GZWDer (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry to report that Stho002 has been removing useful content from the pages that I have been edited and creating for no apparent reason the references are clear . See the logs for Roupaleae, as just one example. I am not prepared to get into an edit war. I thought I was was able to get on with this valued contributor, but it seems that this is not to be the case. I think that I will have to reduce my contributions to WS, if this admin follows me to my next project. Andyboorman (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Actually, the pot is calling the kettle black! I guess nobody has been monitoring the contributions of Andyboorman for a long time, and he has fallen into some bad habits. As was the case with Mariusm, Andyboorman also appears to be "impervious to reason", and just wants to be left alone to do things his way, which is not a very Wiki-compatable attitude. We all need to exert some quality control over each other's contributions, and that is what I am trying to do, but my good advice is falling on deaf ears. Andyboorman actually invited me to revert any edits of his relating to Proteaceae that I didn't like! See this diff Stho002 (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

PS: Andrew, just so you understand what Andyboorman is on about: he objects to my removal of incertae sedis. My rationale (I don't think he has a rationale) is that incertae sedis isn't a taxon (it just means "unplaced"), and therefore should not be given a taxon page. The genera which are incertae sedis within Roupaleae can be easily seen to be so on their genus pages, by not having a subtribe listed in the Taxonavigation section. Stho002 (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Pots and kettles indeed. Bad habits indeed and it is not just me or Mariusm who feels bullied, as you are aware, Andrew. Forcing contributors into bad habits, indifferent structure, redundant and outdated terms or losing information is not very helpful. For myself, I am happy to have corrections, advice and follow suggestions. I am more than happy to have a more uniform structure on WS, but Stho002's form of structure has not been agreed, has had minimal discussion, often been rejected or indeed is sometimes wrong and lacking information for contemporary botanic taxonomy. This is a shame, as there are so many red links to deal with and pages with minimal content, I have done my best for now I feel. Andyboorman (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Rhetoric and drivel Stho002 (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please, both of you, I have a matter that is more urgent and that both of you should reasonably agree it is. At this moment, Steven's formatting and content changes are small potatoes comparing to an editor who created multiple persona to deceive people. I don't think Steven's edits have reached the level of breaching morals and ethics, which this individual has proven to have done. I will come back and resolve your issues once that matter is finished. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up and insights I got via the pump. Regards Andyboorman (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

This is how to get rid of a noted plant scientist from a respected university. See Ouratea and User talk:Franz Xaver Andyboorman (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

The problem with Franz Xaver was that he was not willing to listen to reason, or to cooperate. Again, he just wanted to be left alone to do things his way. His aggressive and arrogant attitudes are obvious from his comments. I am finding the constant lobbying against me by Andyboorman to be increasingly tiresome. He is also uncooperative and seemingly impervious to reason Stho002 (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Jez, you guys can't even wait for a day, can you? Disappointment will be an understatement for my current feelings right now. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

At any rate, Franz Xaver is back and we are cooperating to some significant extent. So, the comment above by Andyboorman was both premature and incorrect. Stho002 (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

No, I am not back, I only have given you an online tutorial here and there on this example. I still have to think about continuing here. Probably I'd better use my time for creating content on de.wiki, as I did before. --Franz Xaver (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Given me a tutorial!! Funny, I thought we were working things out together ... silly me! Stho002 (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Also @Dan Koehl:. I have decided that my best course of action is to back away from all contributions to WS for now. This decision has not been taken lightly, but I have my reasons. Please see yesterday's edit history on Campanulaceae, and what happened only three minutes after I finished. I do not believe in coincidence! As you know, this is just one recent instance, so clearly, I am not freely able to contribute to edits on taxon pages nor am I able to deal with red links. This is my main reason for contributing to WS. In addition, too many recent new sections on the Pump have focused on myself and perhaps in retrospect I should not have made any responses. However, that is now "water under the bridge", but perhaps for the immediate future I had best just observe there. My request in respect of Template:Nadi can be now seen as provocative. This was not my intent, but this "powder keg" has just given me another reason for stepping back. Finally Dan's kind invitation for me to become an Admin has opened up another dispute. It may be best if this invitation was taken down or put into abeyance for now and I will understand and support you if either of these happen. Kind regards for now Andyboorman (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Apologies made two taxon page edits! I came across a 2014 paper applicable to both Brandisia and Paulowniaceae and could not help myself. Better go. Andyboorman (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

OhanaUnited, I suggest that we officially declare that we are not in conflict, and furthermore cooperate as bureaucrats, which is our responsibility to do. And when a contributor abuses the project again, as described above, and breaking the policy rules again, this demands our attention and reaction. I have already written a warning on the users page, asking him to accept and follow the policy rules for Wikispecies. I have also informed him, that in case he doesnt follow the community rules, he may get blocked. I now ask you for the cooperation as bureaucrat, to do the same, so that we act together, and show the community, that we as bureaucrats dont accept anyone repeatedly breaking the policy rules. Dan Koehl (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Dan Koehl: "we as bureaucrats dont accept anyone repeatedly breaking the policy rules" Hmm, seems to me that I haven't repeatedly broken policy rules, so you want to change the policy rules! I just don't see the connection here! Looks decidedly dodgy, don't you see? Stho002 (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Dan Koehl: What exactly was wrong with my edits to Campanulaceae?? In retrospect, it was probably set as a trap for me, but it falls on it's face because my edits were to correct a bad edit by Boorman, where he removed a disambiguation which was actually needed! I also added another needed disambiguation to the same page. There is nothing in policy which obliges me to wait any particular length of time before correcting a bad edit by another contributor. Please correct me if I am mistaken about this, as I really want to know. Otherwise, pls stop setting traps and making mountains out of mole hills. Stho002 (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have just written some advice on the User Page of Stho002. I ask also that you contribute to a period of quiet reflection, while everyone calms down a bit. Thanks. Accassidy (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I understand it is difficult to remain quiet, especially when Stho002 will not remain quiet. If you have any influence in his direction, then please do what you can to defuse the situation. He is clearly not listening to my advice. Accassidy (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Look, I wish that my associating you with Stho's behavior won't be taken as an attack on you personally. I'm well aware that your intentions are good and that you consider above all the benefits for WS. I know you think that Stho is an important asset for WS, asset which is worth preserving and nourishing. But should it be done at all costs? Should it be done when you can see the dire consequences on the community? Please reflect for a moment and weight the prosperity of one contributor, however beneficial he may be against the entire community. What about simple human feelings? Can you consider a person being hurt less important than a few more species on the WS resume list? Many people were hurt, abused and humiliated here, and I expect you to rather protect those individuals than to promote the quantity of pages we show off at the year's end. All in all this is supposed to be a quiet site for well-behaved geeks, yet we ended fighting and abusing each other like a suburbs youth gang. Can't you really realize what the source for all this was? Mariusm (talk) 12:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your sterling work over all the years and of course putting up with me when I have been somewhat over responsive. All the best Andyboorman (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry that I haven't been much help the past 2 years. I wish you the best of luck. Open2universe | Talk 17:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please see the Wikispecies:Village_pump Do you see anything improper about my behavior here? If so, please let me know. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Andrew It looks like your comment on the above has allowed Stephen to become deliberately provocative. May be and hopefully I am wrong. Can you think or a way of defusing the situation? Lets face it is is not really over a doi or format, but the feeling that the editing is aggressive. Sorry to bother you. Andyboorman (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: You are merely being passive-aggressive now! You seem to fail to understand the important difference between aggression and self defence. I am unfortunately being backed into a corner and thereby forced to come out swinging in order to defend myself. Stho002 (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: You said [quote]Lets face it is is not really over a doi or format, but the feeling that the editing is aggressive[unquote]. I consider this to be an important admission, by you, that the substance of the arguments used against me (e.g. various trivial content and/or format issues) has merely been an excuse for what is in fact no more than, in your own words, a "feeling" Stho002 (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Andyboorman: And what part of this edit isn't deliberately provocative?? You just broke a link to an existing category page. That was helpful! Stho002 (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Stho002: deliberately provocative is a feeling surely? And these are friendly? [5] [6] To highlight but two. We really must stop running to recent changes and doing edit wars in the present climate, please. I have batted in your corner, but trust is freely given, but once lost is difficult to regain. Andyboorman (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

What is this anonymous guy's problem with Holger Braun? He just appeared yesterday and questioned author taxa section. I explained how that part of our software operates, then today he tried to eliminate entire page. Disgruntled student, possibly? Neferkheperre (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ohana - just spotted this one (from a year ago!!); you'd changed a pic from a Sitta europaea europaea to a Sitta europaea caesia without changing the caption to match. One to watch for, please!! Personally, I think it's also generally best to use a photo of the nominate subspecies, as it proofs against potential future splits (so I've put back the S. e. europaea pic). Thanks! - MPF (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

The poll is closed--we had two full weeks and no one else should be voting. If you need to investigate the poll, go for it. Add comments below but don't re-open it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Somewhat late and a wee bit off topic, but nonetheless I want to thank OhanaUnited for the good work regarding the stealth canvass voting issues in the Checkuser RfCs. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 09:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC).Reply

Please see Talk:Main Page#Broken link to ZooKeys. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Dear OhanaUnited,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikispecies project for ten years or more.

Best regards,

Dan Koehl (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Andrew. Since you're one of the bureaucrats who didn't partake in the voting, could you please oversee and finalize this interface adminship request? Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 19:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC).Reply

And perhaps once again? :-) The voting regarding the two current requests has been going on for quite a bit longer than the stipulated seven days. Kind regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 05:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC).Reply

Hi,

Please look at this [7]. Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello OhanaUnited. Since you didn't participate in the discussions/voting and the voting has been going on for more than seven days, could you please finalize the proposal regarding DannyS712’s administratorship? Thanks beforehand!

The reason I don’t finalize the request myself is that I was the one who nominated DannyS712 in the first place. Please note that I've sent this same message to all of the other uninvolved bureaucrats as well. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC).Reply

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello OhanaUnited. Since you didn't participate in the discussions/voting and the voting has been going on for more than seven days, could you please finalize the proposal regarding Kaganer’s administratorship, and add the standard "Poll closed as promoted" note to officially close it? It's about a week overdue. I know you know the procedure, but otherwise use the poll for 1234qwer1234qwer4's adminship just above it as an example. Thanks beforehand!

The reason I don’t finalize the request myself is that I was the one who nominated Kaganer in the first place – that's also why I didn't vote in the poll. Please note that I've sent this same message to all of the other uninvolved bureaucrats as well, so when you read this some one may already have ended the poll.
Happy New Year! Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC).Reply