User talk:Mark.scherz

Mark is taking a wikibreak and will be checking Wikipedia only sporadically.

I didn't realize previously you were a coauthor on the Plethodontohyla alluaudi paper. I hope my (basically bureaucratic) previous objection to the move hasn't discouraged you in any way from contributing to Wikipedia. More editors with taxonomic expertise are sorely needed here. I do think that if you have any further taxonomic changes in the pipeline, you should wait until Amphibian Species of the World picks them up before making changes on Wikipedia. Plantdrew (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh don't worry about it, this is a fine policy. I would note however that I personally have strong objections to Amphibian Species of the World being the standard reference, at least for these frogs, due to conflicts between our working groups that have led to them (Frost personally being involved in the studies) rejecting our taxonomic conclusions on cophyline microhylid taxonomy without justification, preferring their own (unsupported) opinions on taxonomic arrangements (e.g. see Stumpffia#Debate on synonymy with Rhombophryne). The result is that all databases that draw on this resource for taxonomic framework is not following the taxonomy that herpetologists working on these groups and doing biodiversity surveys are using. AmphibiaWeb seems less biased in this regard, and is typically the standard I prefer to refer to (they are also faster at assimilating changes). Anyway, this is an exceptional problem that we have, and in general I guess the Frost database is adequate for most amphibians, just not for Madagascar's microhylids. Mark D. Scherz 20:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I should have said "wait until some secondary source" picks up the changes; it doesn't necessarily have to be ASW, AmphibiaWeb is fine too. ASW happens to be is the first place I look if I'm checking on something about an amphibian, but I'm a botanist, not a herpetologist. When I know that ASW and AmphibiaWeb disagree (e.g. Lithobates as a genus), I stay well away. I'll leave that to somebody else to sort out. Plantdrew (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mark.scherz. 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]

An article you recently created, Martin Korte, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 17:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mark.scherz. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Miguel Vences, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 19:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake Brockman:: Thank you Jake Brockman for your notification. I have disclosed my conflict of interest related to my colleagues Miguel Vences and Frank Glaw on their talk pages. I will restrict future editing on these and other pages of colleagues to suggested edits. I appreciate why Wikipedia imposes these restrictions. My edits have been largely focussed on updating the above-mentioned pages to keep them factually accurate (and translate the one from German to English), but of course an unconscious bias is always possible and hard to avoid. How is it best to proceed with those pages to which I have already contributed substantially? Should I flag the pages for peer review?

I would just like to note that biographies of living persons who have scientific profiles but no personal profiles (no autobiographies, no detailed personal websites, and no media features explaining their background), but who qualify for being of sufficient significance to have their own pages, are best written by their colleagues. I would also note that I consider it doubtful that my edits would have been considered potential conflicts of interest if I were writing under a pseudonymous username; this policy seems to encourage the use of pseudonyms and dishonest editing, and actively discourage the use of clear names as usernames. Mark D. Scherz 16:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mark.scherz and Miguel.Vences: For efficiency I have copied both as my response to both messages will be similar. First of all thank you so much for your help improving Wikipedia. The work of subject matter experts is highly appreciated - I cannot stress this enough - and especially contributions from academic editors are of particular value. Wikipedia can be a confusing and contradictory place. I totally agree with you that rules such as COI are easily undermined if people use pseudonyms. Names are, of course, not the only thing that can be looked at. Reviewers try to control what is feasible to control. It is a bit like the job of a customs officer. They pick the odd box of cigarettes out of tourist's suitcases at airports, while there are truckloads being smuggled across informal border crossings. And unfortunately, there is a considerable amount of "conflicted" or dare I say "promotional" editing going on. Editors try their best to keep the place "clean" while navigating the contradictions that are Wikipedia's rules. My suggestion would be to not create or majorly edit articles for people you work closely with, e.g. that are in the same or an affiliated research group, people that frequently publish together or are in a hierarchical relationship (mentor/mentee). Bias can sometimes be subconscious. The best way to solve such potential conflicts is to use the articles for creation process in which all new articles are reviewed before being published.

Wikipedia's rules such as notability and definitions for COI are a product of years of debate and in many cases are a consensus product. As such they are not perfect. In fact, one of the accepted rules is "ignore all rules - if this makes Wikipedia better".

I agree that articles for scientists are often more difficult to compile than for an actor because scientists are less in the public limelight. This has been addressed with a specific notability category for scientists, the "professor test" (see WP:PROF). At the same time, details about qualifications, awards or other honours for scientists requires the same guidelines for verifiability and will in most cases require independent sources. After writing this, I will do through the articles and either remove or highlight phrases that will require sources. I leave it to you to identify sources or remove that particular content.

I'd also like to point out that guidelines differ, sometimes substantially, between different language versions of Wikipedia. An article in German Wikipedia may not automatically make something "article-worthy" in English Wikipedia. Articles may require a different structure, they may require additional sources or references. Articles very often require to be transcribed rather than just being translated. There may be copyright considerations as well, therefore attribution of the source should be given using Template:Translated page.

Please give me a shout any time and I am happy to help! I think we all have the same goal, ultimately. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 19:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, what you were trying to do is as Gephyromantis blanci is now. Unfortunately, all of the Gephyromantis pages in Category:Speciesboxes with incorrect parameters specifying the taxon need to be fixed in this way. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Peter coxhead: I was following the steps for where the parent taxon is not the genus; is this information incorrect? -- Dr Mark D. Scherz 14:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now; actually, your taxoboxes are quite correct (because you created Template:Taxonomy/Gephyromantis (Gephyromantis) – it seems to be more usual to avoid this as I did when I originally revised Gephyromantis blanci). What's wrong is the code that adds the pages to the error-tracking category; it doesn't seem to have been invoked before so the problem wasn't noticed. So there's nothing for you to do. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was right the first time. If you look at the example at parent taxon is not the genus, you'll see that it has

      | parent = Mus (Mus)       | taxon = Mus musculus

|taxon=GENUS SPECIES is equivalent to |genus=GENUS + |species=SPECIES. If the genus isn't explicitly specified in the taxobox, by either of these two methods, then it's picked up as the first word of the page title. This usually works but is unreliable, since the page may be moved, e.g. to an English name. So for reliability, the genus should be explicitly specified. (Could it be picked up from the first word of the subgenus? No, because although "GENUS (SUBGENUS)" is recommended for zoological names, the convention isn't always followed and there are many taxoboxes using just "SUBGENUS".)

I'll fix the articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Peter coxhead (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks a lot for explaining and fixing it, Peter. I will be sure to follow this convention for when I deal with Mantidactylus and others as well. --Dr Mark D. Scherz 10:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On a separate point, if there isn't an article for the subgenus, and isn't likely to be, then rather than leaving a red link, it's common to put a link to the genus article in the taxonomy template. E.g. at Template:Taxonomy/Gephyromantis (Gephyromantis), there could be |link=Gephyromantis#Species|Gephyromantis (Gephyromantis) (although I'd probably write a short "Taxonomy" section at the genus article explaining the basis of the subgenera, if there are sources, and link to that section). Of course, you may be planning to write articles for the subgenera, in which case the redlinks are fine for now. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point. I am indeed planning on writing articles for the subgenera, but it is on my long long to-do list here, so it might be some time. Still, it's a good idea. By the by @Peter coxhead: if you are feeling keen and have some time to spare, we are currently working to convert all taxoboxes to automatic taxoboxes in Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, guided by this PetScan list of taxoboxes within the project. There are still >1700 pages to go, so the more help we can get reducing these the better. Currently I am leaving troublesome and fossil taxa untouched, but the vast majority could be updated by non-herpetologists. --Dr Mark D. Scherz 11:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My to-do list is also very long, and I monitor the error-tracking categories for taxobox errors most days, which takes up too much time. Plants and spiders – yes; amphibians and reptiles I leave to others! Peter coxhead (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[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) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Martin Korte, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mark.scherz. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Martin Korte".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Jonah Ratsimbazafy. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Ratsimbazafy, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Spicy (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi Rowley, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

MurielMary (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Stewart (herpetologist), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

MapleSoy (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanneney Rabearivony, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 09:14, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[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) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mark.scherz. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Olga Ramilijaona".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mark.scherz. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Jean-Baptiste Ramanamanjato".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[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) 00:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mr. Scherz, I recently rewrote the article Mini mum, about a species of frog you described, and was wondering if you could give a quick read through and check for any factual errors that might have crept in? AryKun (talk) 09:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AryKun. The article is good, but it looks like large sections are copied verbatim from the paper. I think that may require a disclaimer, à la WP:FREECOPY, but I am not sure; it is generally appropriately referenced, though the references to the original text are a little more sparse than I would usually use them myself.

Two more points:

(1) The Dubois paper is widely considered to be highly problematic (based on a phylogeny that is known to be incorrect, using a non-standard taxonomic approach, etc.), and I would strongly discourage including that information on Wikipedia. In general WP:AAR follows the Amphibian Species of the World database for its taxonomy, and that database lists the Dubois classification as little more than a brief footnote.

(2) A minor quibble: I use my middle initial, 'D.', in all publications, and it would be great if you could add it to my name where it is mentioned in the taxonomy and systematics section.

Cheers, Dr Mark D. Scherz 19:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]