Hello, Geekgecko, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! SwisterTwister talk 00:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Felt obliged to personally thank you for cleaning up the mess of oversuperlinking (especially that Australian Lungfish article), creating articles and generally enriching the wider content on the subject. I am no big fish in wiki but your work makes my efforts and editing attempts much easier. --Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Galeocerdo contortus without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 20:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Galeocerdo aduncus without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 20:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pristiorajea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rays. 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) 10:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating Scutarx, Geekgecko!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Per the Verifiability policy, please cite at least one reference for each article you create that verifies the content in the article.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paleontology in North Carolina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Coast. 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) 09:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Alienochelys requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Smjg (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cow shark, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extant. 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) 10:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you changed Template:Taxonomy/Incertae sedis, you messed up all the articles which used this node in the classification hierarchy; all kinds of organisms ended up appearing to be cartilaginous fish, or had messed up taxoboxes.

It's best to manage uncertain placements like this via manual taxoboxes. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

• On the Pseudocorax page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stegosauria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian. 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) 09:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Geekgecko. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Geekgecko. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, please add your sources to Rote myzomela. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Coelosaurus antiquus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please add your sources to all new pages you create (e.g. Vallarta mud turtle.) It's not very helpful seeing article on new taxa devoid of any references, and I can only assume you had access to them when you wrote it. I see others have also raised this issue with you. You might like to try this one for starters. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for this article! Is there any more coverage of this species proving that it's a generally accepted identification? I notice that it doesn't have an Encyclopedia of Life page. Blythwood (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Unfortunately no, it's a very recently described species.--Geekgecko (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Geekgecko. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Geekgecko, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Meatsgains(talk) 20:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

Thanks for creating Cloud forest salamander from Cofre de Perote.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

note that Research Gate is not the source, it is merely a website hosting a copy of the journal article: García-Castillo MG, Soto-Pozos ÁF, Aguilar-López JL, Pineda E, Parra-Olea G. 2018. Two new species of Chiropterotriton (Caudata: Plethodontidae) from central Veracruz, Mexico. Amphibian & Reptile Conservation 12(2) [Special Section]: 37–54 (e167). We generally cite the source, not the repository, i.e. the book, not the bookstore we bought it from.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Animalparty)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

--Animalparty! (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating Northern pig-footed bandicoot.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Great article!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Stevey7788)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

— Stevey7788 (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cavefish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Snakehead (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tympanocryptis pinguicolla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bathurst (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating Whistling long-tailed cuckoo.

User:Girth Summit while reviewing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

My only slight qualm about this is the unattributed quotes - you've cited Collar and Boesman as a reference, and put the descriptions of the birds' songs in quote marks, but I feel these out to be attributed in the text, along the lines of '...described by Collar and Boesman as a "song of three rising notes"...' - hope that makes sense, cheers

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Girth Summit)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

GirthSummit _(blether) 17:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Girth Summit: Solved! Geekgecko (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating Western yellow-spotted barbet.

User:Willsome429 while reviewing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Thank you for creating the page. A couple of additional sources would be nice but the page is a solid start already

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Willsome429)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article List of bird species described in the 2020s. has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

It is too early to be making this article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Interstellarity (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hola - just checking, did you want to make new article for the species? If no, I'll be happy to create a shortie later today, but I'm not going to step on your toes :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Nope, feel free! Geekgecko (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheers. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed in a manner similar to that of Natalia Poklonskaya in 2014 from your edit to Kim Yo-jong. The source you cited has no mention of Poklonskava. Schazjmd (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Sclerorhynchiformes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Pristiorajea requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:PSTS favours secondary sources. So we don't as a rule include new species like Aloe trinervis until they have been appeared in a secondary source that explicitly accepts species, such as the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families or Plants of the World Online. If it is mentioned at this stage, it should be via something like "... has been described by ... in 2020, but as of ... the species is not accepted by the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families or Plants of the World Online". Peter coxhead (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, just a note to say that ranks should be lower case Latin in all taxonomy templates, e.g. "subordo", "familia" rather than "Suborder", "family". The system may appear to work otherwise, but not all checks may be performed correctly. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Geekgecko, than you for editing Fish articles. Fish taxonomy is ever changing and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes has agreed to follow the taxonomy in the 5th Edition of Fishes of the World for taxa above the level of genus. This means that taxonomy templates for fish should align with the that set out in that book. For example you edited the Template:Taxonomy/Tinca to show the parent as Tincidae. This is not aligned with FotW which has Tinca within the Leuciscinae. If you want to change the taxonomy used you should make a proposal on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes. Quetzal1964 (talk) 09:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[[Reply[reply]

• • Oh no! I did make some pretty significant changes yesterday to Leuciscidae, much greater than with Tinca; how'll I be able to reverse them? I noticed Leuciscidae, Tincidae, and several other families as red links on the main Cypriniformes page, and so I assumed that Wikipedia had accepted the 2018 study but hadn't got around to changing the pages according to it yet. What do I do? --Geekgecko (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries, I have changed those that were on my Watchlist. You had the right idea, articles should be updated to show new research but always in the context that there is an accepted basic taxonomy. If you look at the discussion on the WikiProject Fishes page from a year or two ago you will see that there were some moves to use deepfin (Betancur et al). I have amended Xenocyprinae and retained your changes but tried to put them into the context that Fishes of the World is Wikipedia's base source for Fish taxonomy.Quetzal1964 (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think you should be going around to every work Page has worked on to change the name to Elliot. At the time of the works she was Ellen. You should have taken it to a discussion board. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Geekgecko, just a note to say that when updating IUCN status please be sure to update the reference also, as I've done at e.g. Shorea rugosa and Tectona philippinensis . Also note that distribution may have changed between assessments, as at Shorea rugosa (from Borneo endemic to Borneo and Sumatra). Thanks Declangi (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, thanks for updating Dire wolf. Would you mind moving the taxonomic proposals out of the lede and into the article body under Taxonomy, please? Your average reader here wants to read simply about the dire wolf in the lede, and not about some taxonomic issue which may - or may not - be accepted. (It is best that you do it before somebody else does.) Additionally, there is no need to bold Aenocyon, under MOS:BOLD. William Harris (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• OK

Geekgecko (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's a standard way of showing questionable assignments of parent taxa in the automated taxobox system, which is described briefly at Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/advanced taxonomy#Questionable assignments. I've set up Template:Taxonomy/Lamniformes/? in this way. It's one of the more obscure features of the system! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Taxonomy/Lamniformes (?) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Estopedist1 (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Galápagos tortoise, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extant.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hawaiian honeycreeper, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palmeria.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm getting ready to expand the stripe-crowned sparrow article. The IOC name is moss-backed. I see that you moved the page from moss-backed to stripe-crowned right after you created it. Since IOC is the Wikipedia standard for bird species articles, can you restore the title to moss-backed? I don't want to mess it up. Thank you. Craigthebirder (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Did it, thanks! Geekgecko (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of destroyed heritage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indigenous people of South Africa.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and thanks for your contributions. Below are a few editing suggestions to make it easier for you and others to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Please preview, consolidate, and summarize your edits:

• Try to consolidate your edits, at least at the section level, to avoid cluttering the page's edit history; this makes it easier for your fellow editors to understand your intentions, and makes it easier for those monitoring activity on the article.
  • The show preview button (beside the "publish changes" button) is helpful for this; use it to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits.
• Please remember to explain each edit with an edit summary (box above the "publish changes" button).

Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric ^talk 17:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I apologize for my non-consolidation of edits; even I know it's a problem of mine. Sometimes I just find a fact worth adding right after I click "publish", so I go back to add it in. In addition, while there's a way to switch from visual to code editor, there doesn't seem to be a way to switch back from code to visual, forcing me to publish to page so that I can go back to visual.Geekgecko (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh yes, we're all guilty of having afterthoughts! Never knew that about the visual interface; I have yet to try it. Eric ^talk 19:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Western deer mouse. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • Thanks! I was just transferring some relevant content from the Peromyscus maniculatus article due to a recent species split, and it's possible there was some plagiarized content on that article that I happened to transfer.Geekgecko (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Geekgecko

Thank you for creating Caucasian badger.

User:MPGuy2824, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

add a header to the subspecies table

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|MPGuy2824)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• ((Re|MPGuy2824)) Will do, thanks!Geekgecko (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the update [1]. However, the German wikipedia already had (English) references about its rediscovery in 2020. The article still mentions its extinct status in the categories. Also in [[2]]. Shouldn't they be updated as well? --VanBuren (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating this page. I made an edit summary (Special:Diff/1032870638) to note that some content was split from Eastern deer mouse, to provide proper attribution. More info at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Happy editing! DanCherek (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Geekgecko

Thank you for creating American ermine.

User:MPGuy2824, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

This is named after somebody called Richardson. If you can find a source and add a line for that, it would be great

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|MPGuy2824)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MPGuy2824: If I would have to guess, it was probably named after the naturalist John Richardson, but I unfortunately can't find any sources about this. Doesn't help that until it was just recently upgraded as the name for all non-Arctic ermines in North America (due to it being the earliest-described of all the American subspecies), it was a relatively obscure subspecies. Geekgecko (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Geekgecko,

For some reason, you tagged this empty category as being part of a CFD deletion discussion but you didn't post any category nomination on the linked page, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 14. It appears that you emptied this category of six articles which is not the approved way to delete a category. Did you still want to nominate this category by a formal deletion discussion or should I replace the articles back into this category? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hi Liz, I emptied the category in accordance to recent taxonomic changes by the IOC (Wikipedia's main authority for bird taxonomy). Given that there shouldn't be any objection to such changes, I just wanted the category to have a speedy deletion, but it looks that by accident I gave the tag for a formal deletion. I don't think there needs to be a formal deletion, a speedy deletion should be enough.Geekgecko (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I'll remove the CFD tag and place a CSD C1 tag on it instead. Thank you for the explanation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there @Geekgecko:. At the Hare article and at the classification section there is a red link at that section. If you won't mind when i ask you this; but could you in anyway create Tamaulipas jackrabbit article like how you created the Haida ermine, American ermine, Caucasian badger and the Pacific marten articles? I would really love that article to exist and learn more about this species of jackrabbit called the Tamaulipas jackrabbit. When i went to a website called mammaldiversity.org and went there at this link [3], i learned a few things from it. One that the Tamaulipas jackrabbit is native to Mexico and mostly endemic there, Second that it was first described by E.W. Nelson in 1907, and third i also learned that it was formerly conspecific or a subspecies of Black-tailed jackrabbit, but later on the Tamaulipas jackrabbit was then classified as a separate species and that it had split off from the black-tailed jackrabbit, though i am not sure when did that occur. So once again, can you kindly create the Tamaulipas jackrabbit at any time? Best regards. -- 47.53.87.28 (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • Awesome! I'm pretty sure that MammalDiversity would now be considered Wikipedia's main authority for mammal taxonomy as it succeeds Mammal Species of the World, which was explicitly stated to be Wikipedia's main mammalian taxonomy authority on a few talk pages. So I'd say go for it!

EDIT: Whoops, I misread; looks like you're asking for me to create it. I'll do it soon!Geekgecko (talk) 05:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • • Did it!Geekgecko (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited European shag, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Grouse does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! --Renat 17:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • Thank you! I've been making a lot of fast-paced edits recently and forgot. All my edits to phasianid taxonomy are based on recent changes to the IOC World Bird List (Wikipedia's primary authority for bird taxonomy), with the list citing [this study] by Kimball et al 2021. While I unfortunately can't access the original paper, [this online taxonomy] also uses the original paper as a source and specifically notes when it deviates from the paper's phylogeny (allowing me to tell when it's following the paper and when it isn't), so I'm basing it off that.Geekgecko (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Kinglet into Regulus (bird). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • Thanks, but I would assume that counts as a page split? After the family Regulidae was split into two genera, I moved the info from Kinglet that specifically refers to Regulus into the newly-created page for that genus.Geekgecko (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Sorry for not replying. I did not know you had left me a message. Any time you copy or move content from one Wikipedia article to another, you need to provide attribution as described above. This applies to article splits, copying between articles, and moving content from one page to another (like you did here). Another point: When moving content, please be sure to copy over the supporting books for the citations, so that the Harvard citations are properly supported. (I have fixed the broken citations on Gray Whale.) There's more on Harvard citations at Help:Shortened footnotes.— Diannaa (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I understand, thanks!Geekgecko (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Hey Geekgecko, I just fixed this again at Narrow-ridged finless porpoise which had content moved over from Finless porpoise — be sure to provide the required attribution every time. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 07:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Yeah I forgot to do it a few times; sorry! Was my practice for South Asian river dolphin correct though?Geekgecko (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Yes, I think so. Thanks again. DanCherek (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not pre-empt page moves or create article duplicates, as you did at Axis (genus). It creates extra work when we have to do history merges. DrKay (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I understand, thanks!Geekgecko (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Geekgecko, I noticed you created Category:Tetraonini and emptied Category:Tetraoninae. This would be considered out of process, but I have merged the page histories to resolve the issue. For future reference, categories are usually nominated for renaming at WP:CFD. This keeps the page's history intact. Thank you. ✗plicit 01:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • Didn't know about that, thanks! Will do from now on. Geekgecko (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Javan bulbul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nicolas Huet.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Recent research has shown that the genus Arctocephalus is monophyletic[4]. The ASM Mammal Diversity Database has already recognized the genus Arctophoca as synonymous with Arctocephalus. Could you please bring all the Arctophoca species back to the genus Arctocephalus?

In addition, I found some more changes from ASM MDD that you might be interested in working on:

• Xerus erythropus → Euxerus erythropus
• Xerus inauris → Geosciurus inauris
• Xerus princeps → Geosciurus princeps
• Spermophilus ralli (now a synonym of S. relictus) → Spermophilus nilkaensis
• Nyctereutes procyonoides viverrinus → Nyctereutes viverrinus
• Canis lupus rufus → Canis rufus
• Canis lupus lycaon → Canis lycaon
• Ailurus fulgens → Ailurus fulgens + Ailurus styani
• Equus ferus caballus → Equus caballus
• Equus africanus asinus → Equus asinus
• Sus scrofa domesticus → Sus domesticus
• Capra aegagrus hircus → Capra hircus
• Bos taurus indicus → Bos indicus
• Pecari tajacu → Dicotyles tajacu
• Platanista gangetica → Platanista gangetica + Platanista minor
• Eschrichtius robustus included in Balaenopteridae
• Hutias included in Echimyidae

— HFoxii (talk) 08:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Will do, thanks! Geekgecko (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here are a few more changes. I am currently working on mammal taxonomy on Russian Wikipedia, and if you don’t mind, I’ll just add taxonomic changes to this list from time to time. Also, could you format the references like this^[1]? HFoxii (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Perodicticus potto → Perodicticus potto + Perodicticus edwardsi + Perodicticus ibeanus
• Hylobates muelleri → Hylobates muelleri + Hylobates abbotti + Hylobates funereus
• Aotus nancymaae → Aotus nancymai
• Coendou rothschildi → Coendou quichua (synonymization)
• Mico manicorensis → Mico marcai (synonymization)
• Leontocebus → Saguinus (synonymization of genera and renaming species)
• Sapajus macrocephalus → Sapajus apella macrocephalus
• Mysateles garridoi → Capromys garridoi
• Mesocapromys nanus → Mesocapromys nana
• Mysateles melanurus → Mesocapromys melanurus
• Hylopetes phayrei → Hylopetes phayrei + Hylopetes electilis
• Hylopetes lepidus → Hylopetes sagitta (synonymization)
• Zapodinae → Zapodidae
• Sicistinae → Sminthidae
• Zenkerellinae → Zenkerellidae (monotypic family for Zenkerella)
• Octodon bridgesii → Octodon bridgesii + Octodon ricardojeda
• Scaptonyx fusicaudus → Scaptonyx fusicauda
• Euroscaptor micrura → Euroscaptor micrurus
• Alpiscaptulus medogensis (new species and genus)
• Talpa caucasica → Talpa caucasica + Talpa ognevi
• Talpa levantis → Talpa levantis + Talpa talyschensis
• Mogera insularis → Mogera insularis + Mogera latouchei
• Scapanus latimanus → Scapanus latimanus + Scapanus occultus

Besides, you could update the rodent taxonomy with the latest revisions[5][6][7]. HFoxii (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • Thanks! I'll definitely work on these in the future. Keep up the good work on Russian Wikipedia!Geekgecko (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Sciurini indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Geekgecko,

You changed this redirect so that it pointed to a blank page. Please do not do this. I've reverted your edit. Do not change the target of a redirect until a different article has been created. Pages with broken redirects are frequently just deleted so do not create red link redirects. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks! I was doing it in preparation for creating the new page later on, but in hindsight I should have made the page first.Geekgecko (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I was thinking we could coordinate our efforts to make a page for the Axis genus, seeing as the ASM currently considers 4 species in it and not just the chital. Let me know if you're interested. 74.68.117.176 (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure! Will try to get to it later. Geekgecko (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did it! Revived the old Axis page from 2011 and slightly revised it for the modern day.Geekgecko (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great job! The page looks good. J0ngM0ng (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there @Geekgecko:. I would like to ask you this, can you in any time or when you have the time make a page called Cyclopes (genus) by removing that redirect. That king of genus unfortunately here applies to silky anteaters. Though when I was at the ASM MammalDiversity website and searched "Cyclopes", I eventually discovered that there are actually other species that belong to the Cyclopes genus, meaning it is not just the Silky anteater but also other species as well. It would very be nice to have numerous pages about other species that belong to this genus. So once again, can you do it at any of time? Best regards. —- 185.94.134.116 (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's actually something I was planning for in the future! I'll get to it some time.Geekgecko (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey! At the moment, I'm primarily focusing on mammal taxa that have an IUCN entry to their name and are accepted by the ASM, but do not yet have Wikipedia pages, as those ones seem to be the most generally-accepted pages I make. I'll get to the anteaters sometime after I work on these.Geekgecko (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I have noticed the page Pedalion - which redirects to the article of a 19th-century monk - is used in articles about dinosaurs, e.g. List of the prehistoric life of California. I think one way to fix this problem whould be to create a page for the Pedalion dinosaur and turn Pedalion into a DAB. What do you think? Veverve (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems like Pedalion is the name for a species of fossil oyster, but sources online seem to be divided about its validity. I'll see what I can do later.Geekgecko (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, do you have any idea on how we could sort this out? Veverve (talk) 05:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to the World Register of Marine Species, Pedalion is a synonym of Isognomon, which seems to be the most clear-cut explanation I can find online, so I would suggest replacing the former with the latter. I'll try to get to it in the future. Geekgecko (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think "Pedalion" should be a DAB for both the canon law collection and the Isognomon. What do you say? Also, please ping me when you answer me. Veverve (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Veverve That would definitely work! Geekgecko (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. You might want to read (and possibly respond) to my comment on Talk:Bali cattle; there is a serious problem that is quite separate from the dispute over whether it is a species or subspecies. Dyanega (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dyanega Thanks, see response on talk page.Geekgecko (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is found S of 60 degrees S. Please don't use the Aussie defintion of it. Thanks. BulbousCow (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per the consensus at WP:PRIMATE in this discussion, the the ASM MammalDiversity Database is not the primary source for primate taxonomy. Rlendog (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rlendog: Thanks. However, that consensus seems to have been made back when the database was being updated; it is now in a significantly more complete state as far as I'm aware, so it would be worth revisiting that decision. In addition, my reverting of Leontocebus members to Saguinus was based on [this 2018 study], that downgraded Leontocebus to being a subgenus of Saguinus; the results were recognized by MDD but not by ITIS. So I wasn't just simply going to an outdated taxonomy. Still, I will keep this in mind. Geekgecko (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I read the study and it looks like the authors proposed moving Leontocebus back to a subgenus based on morphology (while acknowledging the genetic evidence for a distant split between Leontocebus and Saguinus). But I am not seeing that this proposal has much acceptance. I am not sure if the MammalDiversity Database was updated based on this study or whether it was still using the older taxonomy. But I checked ITIS and IUCN and both seem to be retaining Leontocebus as a genus (admittedly, Rylands is the primary expert for ITIS on this and he was among those who split out Leontocebus as a genus, so he may be biased, but he is also a highly respected primatologist). Even if Leontocebus is a subgenus, the Leontocebus page and category are still valid articles since a subgenus is a valid taxon for an article. Rlendog (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ASM did classify them based on the study: all entries for former Leontocebus members have the note "moved from Saguinus to Leontocebus recently, but later was moved back to Saguinus; recent publications have suggested retaining Leontocebus as a subgenus rather than separate from Saguinus, which is followed here"; the Leontocebus pages even cite a past version of ASM as proof of classification into Leontocebus. When assuming that Leontocebus was a subgenus of Saguinus, I didn't see enough specific info for it to warrant its own article so I merged it back. But you're right in that the IUCN and ITIS have not made this change (despite it being proposed 3 years ago) while still largely following other primate taxonomy changes over that time, implying they disagree with it, although I'm not sure how much of this can just be chalked up to Rylands's influence.Geekgecko (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm in agreement with Rlendog, you should get consensus before large changes to taxonomy. Especially considering lots of your edits made the changes but didn't reference any sources. When you did reference the Mammal Diversity Database in tamarin, the link isn't for an entry for tamarins, but what seems like a database, do I have to download the whole thing to verify the reference? Cheers, Jack (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jackhynes: Yeah, there isn't a specific entry on the database for the genus itself, only the species, so to cite the changes I just cited the database as a whole (the official site recommends citing the Zenodo page for these changes. But it looks like in contrast to most of my changes, I didn't cite any sources for each tamarin species whose taxonomy I changed since I assumed the citation on the main genus page would be sufficient; my mistake!Geekgecko (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it possible to determine which species the pottos belong to in the photographs available at Wikimedia Commons? On Commons they are all labeled as Perodicticus potto, but since this species has been split into three, something needs to be done about this confusion. Why did you add this photo to the article about Perodicticus edwardsi, and this one to the article about the Perodictitus potto? Were you guided by any diagnostic traits? I also moved this low-quality photo from iNaturalist to Commons. According to iNaturalist, on the photo depicted Perodicticus potto potto. HFoxii (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure about the physical differences between populations; I'll have to look further into that. I was debating over whether or not to keep the image on Perodicticus potto since I wasn't sure where the populations came from, but I decided to keep it. As for Perodicticus edwardsi, the pictured specimen likely originated somewhere in the Belgian Congo due to the museum it was displayed in, so I used that image for edwardsi, although it seems that ibeanus also inhabits the Congo.Geekgecko (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since you have an interest in mammal taxonomy, you may be interested in a discussion on my talk page on the appropriate genus name for Pacific white-sided dolphins. The discussion is here if you want to provide input. Rlendog (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have opened a discussion on this topic on talk:Lagenorhynchus. The ASM Mammal Diversity Database should not be used as the authority when it comes to marine mammals. Here the Society for Marine Mammalogy Taxonomic Committee is considered the de facto authority. SMM does not yet recognize the split of Lagenorhynchus. There are unresolved issues regarding both phylogeny and nomenclature. This means that Sagmatias and Leucopleurus are not recognised names. JakobT (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also please note that there is not general consensus to override MSW3 taxonomy with Mammal Diversity Database taxonomy on Wikipedia. For mammals in general, MSW3 is still the accepted basis for the taxonomic framework used on Wikipedia, although this can be overridden by local consensus after discussion. Please see the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals#Guidelines for more information. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hm, the page says that MSW3 taxonomy can be overridden for taxa accepted by both the IUCN and MDD. But by taxonomy, do you mean species-level or higher order (genus-level and above)? I don't think higher-order taxonomy is too much of a priority for the IUCN, and the ITIS has many taxa that haven't been updated for over a decade, so the MDD is really only the only major source that's being regularly updated for higher-order taxa (but for certain taxa, such as most bats, the ITIS is quite up-to-date). I've still been holding off on making further major changes for this reason. As for species-level, presently I'm only creating articles for species that are accepted by both the MDD and IUCN. However, there are many post-MSW3 species that have been accepted by the ITIS (at least for those groups that are regularly reviewed on there) and MDD, but have not yet been given a status by the IUCN (more likely due to time constraints than anything else). What would be the proper practice for these? Geekgecko (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for creating Spotted dusky salamander. - Hatchens (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Sagmatias indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkltalk 17:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Get Stickbugged LOL and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 29#Get Stickbugged LOL until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

for returning the sussy pig image to its rightful place

Zach Varmitech (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem ;). Don't know why that image was ever removed; given how much domestication has changed their appearance, domestic pigs are not accurate representatives of the genus Sus in general. Geekgecko (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Geekgecko

Thank you for creating Siderolamprus.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|SunDawn)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Polyplectronini indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. HFoxii (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I note that you have created the article Leuciscidae and cited a 2018 paper on Cyprinid taxonomy, this is fine but the WP:Fishes has a consensus that for taxa above the level genus Wikipedia follows the taxonomy set out in 5th edition of Fishes of the World. There is already an article for the Leuciscinae which does follow this and places that family within the Cyprinidae. Cyprinidae does seem to be a "waste-basket" taxon (not that I know enough about these things to say that!). I will redirect the family level article to the subfamily article and that the wording on the 2018 study should be added to it. Quetzal1964 (talk) 11:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Quetzal, yes you're correct. That was a couple of years ago, but I did many taxonomic edits to reflect the study's findings (which have been recognized by Eschmeyer's Catalogue of Fishes), until I learned that the taxonomy must only follow Fishes of the World. I stopped making the changes but I didn't go back to reverse my previous ones as I had made too many already. Personally, given how slow Fishes of the World is to update, even compared to the other taxonomic authorities Wikipedia uses, we should shift to mostly using Eschmeyer, but that's something for another day. Geekgecko (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I think it will be interesting for you to update the articles in accordance with the recently released ASM MDD v. 1.10. You can find the full changelog here. In particular, since you have already updated the mustelid taxonomy per ASM, I think you will be interested that Aonyx and Lutrogale have been synonymized with Lutra (per this paper). HFoxii (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! I'm already aware of the change; there are some very exciting ones. I think that before I make any major changes, I'll discuss with other users, as some of my previous changes have been reverted if only ASM recognizes them, and other changes have been reversed or flagged by the ASM themselves. Thanks for notifying me though! Geekgecko (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Moluccan scops owl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ambon.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Caspiomyzon, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chestnut-belted gnateater, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazonas.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Golden-haired tube-nosed bat and other bat articles are excellent. Really well done! BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aw, thank you! Geekgecko (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Geekgecko, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede66 22:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Geekgecko (talk) 05:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Hello, new friend! Nerdnewt (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Buccanodon indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been updating this and several other species lists as each IOC version comes out. You beat me to it, thanks. But you also need to update the citation. Craigthebirder (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, it was tough work! I've been citing the official species lists on the website for each change I make, but for some reason the site hasn't updated yet, so I've had to base my edits on just the excel file but still citing the now-outdated species list on the site. Geekgecko (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited American flamingo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Isabela Island.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Geekgecko, I noticed you are active editor in the paleontology field and edited Neochoristodera recently. I took some photos from Honghe Prefectural Museum in July, there are 3 fossils with the tag name "Liaoxi Dinosaur Fossil", and the Chinese name is same as Liaoxisaurus, a genus of Neochoristodera. However, I have zero knowledge of dinosaur or paleontology, I don't think these fossils look like Neochoristodera. Would you mind help me identify the images? Thank you very much!

The images are in commons:Category:Liaoxisaurus. Xiliuheshui · chat 14:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • Hello! Those appear to be Psittacosaurus, of which many fossils have been found in Liaoning. Might want to move them out of that category and into Psittacosaurus. Thank you for asking! If you have more pictures from the museum, it would b really cool for you to post them! Geekgecko (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Many thanks for your help! I have move them to commons:Category:Psittacosaurus fossils. Xiliuheshui · chat 20:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Life on Our Planet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Citronella.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your slapdash editng is really starting to get on my nerves. It's obvious that you do not conduct proper literature reviews when you make taxonomic changes. The paper naming the order "Palaeocarchariiformes" came out in 2018, a year before the histology study came out finding Palaeocarcharias to be a lamniform. No other study other than the 2018 one has used the order "Palaeocarchariiformes" for this taxon, so why use it? Rather than Lamniformes/?, which I have just changed it to. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all, this is a ridiculous issue to be so rude and gatekeepy about. There are better ways you can phrase this if you disagree. I'm among the few people on this part of the wiki trying to keep taxonomy up to date, and it's incredibly damaging for this part of the wiki to act like this to someone just trying to make a difference. As for my edits, I'm basing them on the Shark-References database (which I literally cited in my edits); almost every other taxonomic group on Wikipedia uses a pre-existing database as a reference and fossil shark taxonomy is extremely difficult to write about without a standardized system, so the only other options are contradictory or extremely vague taxonomy. Without a standardized source, I actually do literature reviews before taxonomic edits, contrary to what you insinuate But I understand if it's not best to hew so closely to it. What I don't understand is why you want to treat me like some kind of vandal for it. Geekgecko (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's making unnecessary work for othr editors. Why do you keep doing it? Tony (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I won't do it again but what are you referring to? The country names I list for species distributions? No one ever told me that not linking them was the accepted practice. Geekgecko (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, as I continue on my project, I would really like some advice as to what exactly you're referring to so I can avoid it. Geekgecko (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He's referring to the country names in the species distributions. Not linking countries is an example given at MOS:OVERLINK. Plantdrew (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, makes sense. But what about for smaller countries? For example, a lot of the fossil fish taxa that I need to revamp are from Lebanon; do I not link the country name in those? It does say only to avoid major examples but I'm not sure where the line is. Geekgecko (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. Taxonomy templates ask for rank names in latin e.g. familia, not family (errors show here). Also it would be helpful if you could add a reference for the parent in the 'ref' field. Thanks. YorkshireExpat (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I've been trying to do it more often (at least for higher-order taxa, just way too many genera to add a reference for each) but still some slip through the cracks. Geekgecko (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]