User talk:Loopy30
|
|
Analysis of Hoser species
[edit]I was interested in your check on Hoser's species at the RFC. The three species accepted by the Reptile Database were described in 1998 (x2), and 2000, which is well he established the Australasian Journal of Herpetology (although his work was being criticized as far back as 1999). If it would fairly simple for you to produce, I'm curious to see a breakdown of the number of Hoser's species description by year. Plantdrew (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- He has a total number of over 2400 registered taxa (all ranks) published in 319 papers (from ZooBank), all self-published from 2009 onwards:
- 1998 (2)
- 2000 (2)
- 2001 (1)
- 2002 (2)
- 2003 (5)
- 2004 (1)
- 2005 (1)
- 2009 (6)
- 2012 (45)
- 2013 (34)
- 2014 (15)
- 2015 (18)
- 2016 (26)
- 2017 (8)
- 2018 (24)
- 2019 (16)
- 2020 (35)
- 2021 (2)
- 2022 (34)
- 2023 (26)
- 2024 (16)
- The 1338 individual species also published by year:
- 1998 (7)
- 2000 (10)
- 2001 (3)
- 2002 (6)
- 2003 (10)
- 2004 (6)
- 2005 (1)
- 2009 (13)
- 2012 (28)
- 2013 (54)
- 2014 (36)
- 2015 (46)
- 2016 (82)
- 2017 (49)
- 2018 (90)
- 2019 (107)
- 2020 (256)
- 2021 (75)
- 2022 (157)
- 2023 (148)
- 2024 (154)
- Loopy30 (talk) 03:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. As I suspected, the species accepted by The Reptile Database are from the earliest years of Hoser's publications, and he was not especially prolific in naming species in those years. The paucity of publications between 2006 and 2011 also speaks to Hoser's turning from doing poor work in sources that weren't self-published to outright self-publication. Plantdrew (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, and even those few early (accepted) names are tainted with the suspicions/accusations that he was aware of another researcher's works and rushed to publish first in order to "scoop" the name.
- He is not respected in academic herpetology circles (see here for example). Sigh. Loopy30 (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. As I suspected, the species accepted by The Reptile Database are from the earliest years of Hoser's publications, and he was not especially prolific in naming species in those years. The paucity of publications between 2006 and 2011 also speaks to Hoser's turning from doing poor work in sources that weren't self-published to outright self-publication. Plantdrew (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
White Canadians vs European Canadians
[edit]I know you've discussed this before Talk:European_Canadians#"European Canadians" is not limited to those who specifically identify European ethnic origins in the census. See the edit that assumes all white people are European and that all Europeans are white diff. Moxy🍁 01:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Moxy, It has been difficult to keep the article changes sourced and coherent when no-one (in academia, government policy, newspapers or other publications) actually uses the term. As a dog whistle though, it does appear to attract some rabid POV-pushing editors to the page. I have commented further at the discussion page for the proposed move. Loopy30 (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Drosera albonotata
[edit]Hi Loopy30, thanks for the work you do finding and adding suitable images to articles. I wondered if you have some sort of slick tooling setup for bringing images across to Commons or whether you do it manually? If the former, could I ask you to work your magic on this image please for the above article? It does a really good job of illustrating the main distinguishing characteristics of this species. If it's a manual job for you too, please don't go to any trouble; let me know and I'll do it myself :) Thank you! YFB ¿ 20:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi YFB, while automated processes to upload files from Flickr do exist (eg. see Commons:Flickr2Commons), I choose to manually upload images from iNaturalist so that I can search for the authors name in my "Files uploaded". This helps me when I send them a thank you note after I use one of their images on Wikipedia. The problem with this particular image set is that it is hosted with an older license (CC-BY-2.0) that is not compatible with the Commons Upload Wizard. The file I used on the article was cropped from an existing Commons file that had already passed the licence review in 2022. Loopy30 (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Aahh, OK - that's a helpful explanation. Thank you. YFB ¿ 20:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Taxonomic vandals
[edit]Related to this comment, would you please write an essay with some advice about how Wikipedia should respond to Wikipedia:Taxonomic vandalism (or perhaps User:Loopy30/Taxonomic vandalism if you prefer the Wikipedia:User essay model)? I think it would be helpful for future editors if we had some more information on this subject.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Frankly, it is a non-issue for Wikipedia. Our editors will continue to treat those taxa described by "taxonomic vandals" just as they would for any other taxon. To be correct, it is all about the reliability of the secondary or tertiary source that recognizes or accepts the taxon, not the primary source that merely first describes it that matters most to us. After all, even Ray Hoser has described a few (three) species that are recognised as accepted by a reliable source. Even the definition of a "validly published name" is a red herring with no real bearing on whether a species is accepted, or if Wikipedia chooses to have an article on the subject.
- Editors have no need to make any assessment on whether an author is a "vandal" or not. Even if they are writing a BLP on the author, it is what the reliable source says about the author that matters. What is needed by taxon editors (as with all other editors) is the ability to gauge the validity and accuracy of the secondary source and its degree of authority within that taxonomic field. This comes with actually reading up on what the relevant WikiProjects have already discussed and decided upon in regards to preferred (or deprecated) sources. Although it is not hard to do, it may take some time to be adequately prepared and a minimal level of competency is still required. Loopy30 (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. I'm mostly interested in writing down some of this stuff, in the hope that it will be convenient and easily findable for future editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
This Month in GLAM: November 2024
[edit]
| ||||||
Editor experience invitation
[edit]Hi Loopy30. I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Done. Hope that works. Nice meeting you at WikiConference North America last year. 'Cheers Loopy30 (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)