User talk:JoJan/Archive 12

Dear JoJan,

Our vision for Wikipedia is one of beauty, natural symmetry and light.

I wish you a Happy New Year, everything good for your family, your loved ones and yourself, peace and joy for all the people of the world. I also wish a joyful and peaceful expansion for Wikipedia, may it bring helpful, generous, and peaceful information to everyone in the world.
All the very best from Invertzoo (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dear Sir...I have request to you plz don't delete my article rather than give me good suggestions, it will help me to improve my writhing .
I am very sad to see my article is deleted, this is my more than 2 hour hardship behind it.give me good guidance to wright good article.
Thanks,
Dr.Soft —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Soft (talk • contribs) 11:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Moves:

• Volutoconus (genus) -> Volutoconus
• Amoria (genus) -> Amoria
• Cymbiolacca (genus) -> Cymbiolacca

--Snek01 (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this message and I moved Volutoconus and Cymbiolacca just now. Invertzoo (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Amoria" currently directs to the name of a town in an online game called MapleStory. So I have moved our Amoria to Amoria (gastropod). Invertzoo (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move request repeat:

• article about gastropod Amoria -> Amoria (per normal naming conventions: Recognizable, Easy to find, Precise, Concise, Consistent)

--Snek01 (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note and for the good work on those families. And congratulations on the two recent Did You Knows! As for my museum access, I have not been into the museum for the last 3 weeks because I have been ill all that time with sinusitis and tonsilitis. Before that, I was there once a week for two weeks, but before that my boss was out for more than 3 months (!) and I had to be out also. In general I have been attempting to get back to working in the mollusk section, now we finally have a new curator to cover those collections, but so far no luck. For the last more than 3 years I have had to be working in invertebrate paleontology (mostly with fossil mollusks) and I have not had any access to the very nice malacology library on our floor. I do have access to the main museum library, but I am not allowed in the stacks and I cannot borrow books. So my ability to access the book you are mentioning is very limited indeed. I will ask my friend in the NY Shell Club if he has that book, but I doubt it. Access to the relevant literature is always a huge limiting factor in what one can do in terms of research unfortunately. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that you have been ill. Judging from your contributions to wikipedia during that time, I wouldn't have thought so. You must be indestructible or have a real stamina. I can only wish you a speedy recovery. As to your access to the library of MNH of New York, this shows again how difficult it us for us to gather useful information. And on the internet, we're banging our heads against a paywall (unless you have a deep pocket). But people still expect, and rightly so, wikipedia articles that are up-to-date and without any mistakes. In the end, we can only do our best. JoJan (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. While I was ill I couldn't go outside 99% of the time because the weather here in NYC was mostly pretty brutal, snow, temps in the 20s, high winds and so on. I didn't have the energy needed for doing cooking or housework, so basically the only useful thing I could do was to work on Wikipedia. It is always satisfying to me because it gives me a sense of worthwhile achievement. It also took my mind off of how miserable I was feeling. I didn't have a high fever and I could not stay in bed all the time, so I sat here at my computer near the radiator and the window, with my cat nearby, and typed away at my keyboard. I am sure I got a lot more done than I usually do here because usually I am quite busy IRL with all kinds of things a good part of the time. Yes it is indeed frustrating not being able to access the right sources of information, especially when you know exactly what you need to look at but you just can't get your hands on it. So many museums now give the cold shoulder to serious amateurs like myself. Most museums have become very corporate and are no longer the

Ivory Tower that they used to be unfortunately. When I first started getting serious about mollusks in the late 60s and early 70s all the museums I came across were very welcoming. It was great. Oh well. Times change. Invertzoo (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

This is supposedly a land snail genus and a species within the Zonitidae. I wonder if it is spelled wrongly or something? I can't find it in the Nomenclator Zoologicus, and a Google search seems to come up with what are probably only copies of wikipedia.... Red list does not have it any more. Could you have a go and tell me what you find out? Thanks so much, Invertzoo (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an orthographic error, also written sometimes as Hoglua. It should be : Hogolua Baker 1941 Bull. Bishop Mus., 116, 273. [1] I've made the necessarily moves to Hogolua. But I've found a report that it belongs to the family Trochomorphidae, just as the much related Kondoa Baker, 1941 . (Vagvolvyi, J. (1976), Body size, aerial dispersal and origin of the Pacific land snail fauna, Syst. Zool, 24, pp. 465-488). Other reports, place it in the Zonitidae. Perhaps, you can find out something more. For the moment, I've left it in the Zonitidae.JoJan (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific, thanks so much! Invertzoo (talk) 20:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Jo Jan, could you delete this left-over talk page please [2]. The real article is at Melibe leonina. Thanks! Invertzoo (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JoJan (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Invertzoo (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoJan. Just now I was archiving my talk page and by mistake I created this page Archive 23. Would you delete it for me? Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it's already been deleted thanks to a speedy delete tag I put on it, so never mind! Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we sort this out?

Right now under Distribution it says: "Gastropods have a worldwide distribution, in the seas and oceans (about 30,000 species), in brackish water, in freshwater (about 5,000 species) and on land (about 30,000 species) , from the near Arctic and Antarctic zones to the tropics."

But under Habitat it says: "Some of the more familiar and better-known gastropods are terrestrial (the land snails and slugs), but more than two thirds of all named species live in a marine environment."

It would be great if perhaps you can find a good reliable source for this kind of info. Thanks and best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is [3]. the article is now called Spiny river snail. Thanks JoJan. Invertzoo (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done JoJan (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Invertzoo (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was looking for information on Roger Eagle who is referenced in at least 4 Wiki articles. I see that you deleted the page for him. Am not sure if it is for notability reasons or lack of credible references but I can tell you that he is featured in at least one widely distributed DVD "The Strange World Of Northern Soul". Aside from his involvement in the creation of the Northern Soul music genre, he was also responsible for the venue that first featured many popular music acts of the 80's. I would like more info on him and feel an article is justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlemartin66 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article was deleted on 29 August 2007. This was all the information it contained : "Roger Eagle (born [x] died 4th May 1999) was a Manchester born DJ and nightclub promoter. He was most famous for the Erics club in Liverpool". Very logical that this was deleted under the provision : "A 7 : No indication of importance". If you think he deserves an article in wikipedia, you can always write it yourself if you follow the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Citing sources. If this results in a substantial article, then it will stand a good chance being retained. Cheers. JoJan (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jojan, We have genus and species stubs for the first spelling as above and none for the second. The Red List has entries for the first spelling but it does not get many non-Wikipedia hits via Google. The first spelling is not in Nomenclator Zoologicus however, whereas Amphicyclotus is in there, and has many mentions on the web. Do we have a mistaken spelling going on do you think? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Nomenclator Zoologicus gives the genus written as Amphicyclophorus Martens 1901 Biol. Centr. Amer., Zool., Moll., xiii as an error for Amphicyclotus Crosse & Fischer 1879 . J. Conchyliol., 27, 46. However, Google Scholar provides several links for Amphicyclotus and none for Amphicyclophorus. And, to confuse things even more, the Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 262 :1-170. 2001 mentions Amphicyclotulus [4]. This means that I can't be sure which is the right name for this genus. But I would stick with Amphicyclotus JoJan (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoJan do you know how we can go about requesting that this image be deleted from Commons? It is supposed to represent the distribution of

See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests JoJan (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JoJan, Invertzoo (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi can you help me with this JoJan? This list of of 5 articles [5], well, each article here seems to have two talk pages, one that lists it as NA-class and one normal talk page as well, which you will find if you go to discussion page from the article page. I have no idea how this happened or why, but perhaps you could delete the weird NA talk pages for all 5 of these? Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. These were assessment templates on the talk page of a redirect. JoJan (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how they came to be originally assessed as NA though, but who cares now since everything is straightened out by you, many thanks! Invertzoo (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hi JoJan. How are you? Could you please take a look at this and tell me why there are so many names when the genus only has 500 or so species? Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your list contains a large number of synonyms, e.g. Conus bertarollae is a synonym of the accepted name Conus abrolhosensis. I advise you to consult the following databases : [6] and [7]. These lists may not be complete, but they will give you a good indication which names are accepted names and which are synonyms. If you send me an email (look on the left in the toolbox), I'll send you an alphabetical list of the lists of both databases combined, except the last 40 from the Database of Western Atlantic Marine Mollusca, which I'm not able to access globally - but you can query the individual names of the species. This has to be done by email because of copyrights. JoJan (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find your email. Mine is [email protected]. Thanks for the good advice. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will work on it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed duplicates and formatted the list. Is it okay? Should I add the ones from Conus? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the late reply, but I hadn't noticed your post. I've gave your list a quick glance and it looks OK to me. I can't vouch that every species is an accepted name but this list is probably as close as you can get to a list of all accepted names. JoJan (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you just deleted this redirect as an attack page, but I thought I would let you know that this nickname is widely used in the news media (see this CNN search, for example). It is a very plausible search term and I think the redirect should exist. Gnome de plume (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect to

Slobodan Milosevic was marked as an attack page and had been blanked already. I concur with User:Tadija who blanked this page and nominated it for CSD. The term "Butcher of the Balkans" is non-specific and may be attributed to several protagonists in this ugly war. Furthermore, Milosevic was charged by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia but not indicted, due to his premature death. So, let's keep some civility in wikipedia. If you want to give this attribute to Milosevic, do this in his article and provide the necessary references (which wouldn't be too hard). But there is no need for a separate redirect. JoJan (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I know that it was original setup as an attack page, and in fact I've blocked that editor indefinitely, but I do think it's still a relevant term that is used fairly widely in the widestream media. However, I also note that Bill Clinton was called this when he visited Greece [8], and from looking at a few sources (mostly pro-Milosevic) they are saying that

talk 01:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

It's a slippery slope when you want to start creating dab-pages with insulting names. One knows where one starts, but you wouldn't want to know where it may be leading to. Your ex-president George W. Bush has also been given insulting epithets by the press in different countries. I suppose you don't want to see these insults as a redirect or a dab to him. Adding the ugly epithet to the main article can be done if properly referenced and with wikipedia keeping a neutral position. The ultimate goal of wikipedia is being an encyclopedia. I think you'll agree with me to keep it civilized. Best wishes. JoJan (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am an Australian, but I understand the point you are making re. George W. Bush. Milosevic is actually well known as the "Butcher of the Balkans". I agree that the article should discuss this, and I will find some appropriate references, however I think that the redirect is not unprecedented as there is a redirect of

talk 04:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

And I suppose one can find more redirects like Chemical Ali. However such an epithet is not as derogatory as "butcher". One who doesn't know the story behind "Chemical Ali" (and there will be many people in this case) might think he is a chemical engineer or something related. And that is where the slippery slope begins. The creator of such redirect is responsible for it. But I'm not a pusher of my ideas. I just act as I see fit and hope I'm doing right. Best wishes. JoJan (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I will see about creating a dab page as there have been a few "Butcher of the Balkans". -

talk 12:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Just wanted to quickly say thanks for your very quick response to my AIV request. It's appreciated! You admins are great Enti342 (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It feels good to be appreciated once in a while. JoJan (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me also say thank you (albeit from a fellow admin). -

talk 01:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Jentry71 (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are copyright issues. The bio on http://www.kwikalaw.com/sholley doesn't specify that the whole text falls under the license of

Creative Commons-Attribution. All text and images in wikipedia are freely available to anyone for any purpose, as long as one stays within the rules of the above said licenses. On the other hand, you may rewrite in your own words the article from scratch. Be sure, that you follow the rules of Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Then you stand a good chance of having your article retained in wikipedia. Good luck. JoJan (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

hello: thanks for the response. i will give it a try. Jentry71 (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any particular reason why you gave a level 2 uw-delete2 warning to 138.163.160.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? That was the eight incident of vandalism in nine days and a final warning had been given. --RexxS (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a dynamic IP, multiple users can be involved. The last level-4 warning was given two days before. This isn't a recent warning and isn't near enough to give a block (unless there were a series of vandalisms going on right on the moment I checked). Therefore, starting again with a level-2 warning seemed appropriate. See also : Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses. JoJan (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a static IP: gate12-foster.nmci.usmc.mil, registered to United States Marines. The level-4 warning was placed at 14:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC); your warning at 21:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC). I won't try to convince you that's recent enough, so thank you for taking the time to reply. Happy editing. --RexxS (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. A little while ago you left a note with Sunnybcrazy (talk · contribs) saying they were temporarily blocked, but it doesn't seem to have had the desired effect, as they have just published their bit of fringe theory for the third time plus left a note in one of your talk archive. Favonian (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've taken the necessary steps. He won't come back soon. JoJan (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any source for the natural history. I added what I could document otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at the moment trying to improve this article, saved from CSD. JoJan (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am looking for encyclopedic information about the south-african music group "Die antwoord". I noticed you deleted the article for referencing a famous south-african blog and copyright infringement. Is it possible to salvage the article? On the official music group website www.dieantwoord.com they release the entire album. Could that website be referenced for the music instead? The band clearly does not care about infringement, if it is to be called that. I'm sure Wikipedia does care, but if you link to the source of the copy there should not be a problem? The article is certainly notable and I predict it will be a popular search item soon. I would offer to write a quality non-infringing article about the group, but I am certainly not experienced enough to start a new article. Is the original article solvable by deleting the infringing material or links, instead of deleting the entire article? My neighbors IP: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.80.10 (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't question the possible notability of this South African music group. The article was a copyvio and had to be deleted even if the band doesn't care about infringement. You can start a new article about this group, writing it in your own words and applying the rules of Wikipedia:Notability (music), Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You can link to the website of the band but not as a primary source. You have to find other reliable sources, such as magazines, newspapers etc. and mention them as references. Read those wikipedia rules carefully and then you stand a good chance of having your article retained in wikipedia. Good luck. JoJan (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your encouragement! I saw luckily some other more experienced editor rewrote the article and put it back up. Though the quality, notability and sourcing are still disputed, I hope we all can clean up the article and let it ride out its media buzz. I will try to enhance the article with valid notable references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.80.10 (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoJan, This was another Red List spelling mistake. The genus is in fact Lavigeria. I have gone through correcting all the articles, but we still have a Category:Lavigera which is now useless. I guess it can't be moved, so I suppose we will have to ask to get it deleted? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JoJan (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Best, Invertzoo (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i disagree with deleting this post:

Energy existed before the big bang

Wasnt complete but i was going to complete it in the future. How about marke a post as draft or something? So it can be completed later?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Wucko (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is original research and "No original research" is one of three core content policies of Wikipedia. If you can back up your claims by a trusted scientific journal such as Science or Nature, then you can try again. Good luck. JoJan (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why you deleted this AfD as "A3: Article has no meaningful, substantive content"? It obviously did have meaningful content; was there any reason it couldn't simply be closed like any other AfD?  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted because this was an empty article and contained only 12 bytes. Therefore it was an A3. It had been emptied by its creator User:Advisors. But if you want to continue the discussion with him/her, I'm willing to restore the article. JoJan (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, interesting. This had originally been a badly-thought-out AfD nomination. While I was in the process of typing out my speedy keep response the nominator tagged it db-author, removed the entry from the daily log, and removed the AfD tag from the article. After I hit Save I saw the speedy notice, and removed it, leaving a further comment that there was now other significant content and db-author did not apply, but that it should be closed as a withdrawn nomination. I also put it back on the daily log. I guess he then blanked it and tagged it again.

I'm tempted to ask you to put it back and close it normally. I don't like someone blanking to remove content and then claiming a page has no content, and an AfD nom could be relevant to a subsequent deletion nomination, or even to someone's later RfA. If a person makes a bad nomination, he should say sorry, withdrawn, he shouldn't have it disappeared down the memory hole. I've had a couple of AfD nominations I wish I could make vanish. Well, I'll leave it up to you whether to restore it; am I just wikilawyering here?  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the Afd. While I was restoring it another admin deleted it again before I could give a rationale. So I restored it again. I won't close the debate, so that you are able to discuss the matter further. Whatever the outcome, good luck. JoJan (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help JoJan—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jojan, could you check the article

He seems mainly to have been known by the name Gaspard Michaud. While I was at it, I've expanded the article and added a biography and his publications. JoJan (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. OK, moved to Gaspard Michaud. --Snek01 (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Worker Communism Unity Party of Iran. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. PanchoS (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the page, so that you can judge on its merits. JoJan (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoJan, could you look at the link for operculum near the top of this page [10] and tell me why it stays red despite being correctly written as operculum on the edit page? I am missing something, or is this a glitch in the software? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You missed a round bracket. JoJan (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was weird, because at first I left it out but then I definitely put it in and checked it twice to be sure. I don't know why somehow those edits did not register. Oh well, thanks for fixing it. Invertzoo (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is here: [11]. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JoJan (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you fell victim to a banned user causing chaos. This was a valid redirect to Raymundus Jordanus, nicknamed "Idiota". Banned user User:Wikinger was messing around with it through anon IPs, as usual. If you don't mind, I'll restore the valid redirect. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I've restored the redirect and redirected it Raymundus Jordanus JoJan (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Note: any IPs that might appear to argue about it will also be him (including IPs revert-warring against each other...) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered,

• It can be deleted as it has been replaced by a better version. JoJan (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoJan, would you take a look at this new article. It appears to have questionable notability and copyright issues. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright issues seem to have been solved, I suppose now we just have to decide if this person is notable enough. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article satisfies the requirements of wikipedia. JoJan (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again JoJan, I just put this article into article space from off of one of my subpages. It is about an award-winning Danish designer who lives and works in NYC. Of course it is a BLP, so I am trying my best to make it good even though I am not very experienced with those. I think the refs aren't formatted very well, but I am not very good at that. There may be other hopefully small things wrong with it I suppose. I am going to try to submit it for a DYK, so I want to make it look OK now. If you know anyone else I might ask to look it over, could you let me know? Thanks Invertzoo (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At first sight, this article looks good. As for adding references, there is an easy tool : go to "my preferences", tick "refTools" in Editing Gadgets. While you're at it, you might also tick "Twinkle", an easy tool for proposing articles to CSD or Afd. JoJan (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your hard work. Please let me know if I can help sorting out the list. Thanks!! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the article "Cone snail" seems to be about the family Conidae, which now contains some genera that used to be in the Turridae. I think the article "Cone snail" should be made to be clearly about the family, maybe changing the title. And a lot of that info that is currently there should go into the article on Conus. That's my opinion for what it's worth. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you move Cone snail to Conidae, which currently redirects to Cone snail? Thanks JoJan. Then maybe I will try to fix it up a bit. Invertzoo (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JoJan (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Invertzoo (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This morning I moved most of the relevant information from Conidae to Conus and tried to clean it up as best as I could. I may need to go over both of the articles again. As for adding a list of genera in the family Conidae, I used ZipCodeZoo info, but that may not be the best source for a list like that. Anyway, it's a step in the right direction. Invertzoo (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you doing it as you went along. I'll take a closer look after I'm done checking the species list. Another source for the genera is WoRMS [12] JoJan (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move request in consistency with other monotypic taxa: Hexabranchidae -> Hexabranchus. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JoJan (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JoJan, Conus differences checked. See project discussion page. --Snek01 (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JoJan,

I have written an explanation on the discussion page for Talk:Wayne Sanders which explains why I feel this article should not be deleted.
I apologise for any confusion, but I understand why this page was flagged for deletion, and I was in the process of editing the content to reflect information from several more sources (including from Wayne Sanders himself) so that it might be more original.
Kind Regards
Niskin

That article was a plain copyright violation of the website [copyvio of http://www.yourmusiczone.co]. It had to be deleted at once according to the strict rules of Wikipedia. This has no connection whatsoever with the notability of this person. So, there is no question about restoring this article. I advise you to start all over again and to write this article in your word processor before transferring it to Wikipedia (as I do). Information from Wayne Sanders himself cannot be allowed, as all information must come from a third party that is verifiable and reliable: see Wikipedia:No original research. Make sure that you read first (in case you haven't done so) our guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability (music), Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Good luck. JoJan (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone over the list a few times and these are the only two remaining issues I can spot. Google didn't help resolve them:

• Conus nocturnus sensu Lightfoot, 1786. What is sensu? Should I take it out?
• Is it da Motta or Da Motta?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made them all Da Motta. I removed sensu. If this is not okay, just tell me and I will change them. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to explain that sensu means "in the sense of", in other words Conus nocturnus as it was defined by Lightfoot, in 1786. You should not remove sensu because the actual authority for this species appears to be Hwass in Bruguière, 1792, so therefore "in the sense that Lightfoot used it" because an important distinction. Invertzoo (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that "da Motta" as part of a name is more correct than "Da Motta". Invertzoo (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm 0 for 2 on that one. Live and learn. I switch them back. Thanks for the info. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JoJan, could you please move

Done. JoJan (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you may already have noticed, I went through it and fixed it up a bit, my pleasure. I feel for the poor man, it is awful not to have access to a lab and a teaching position. Invertzoo (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went through this and fixed it up as best as I could. It's a nice article and one that we needed. The mention of Thomas Gray linked to the poet, who I assume was not also a malacologist, so I disambig'ed the link it to Thomas Gray (malacologist) but is that correct? The Thomas Gray listed here [13] seems to have mainly been an illustrator? Invertzoo (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've corrected the mistake toJohn Edward Gray. JoJan (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoJan, I see you are moving genera out of Dorididae and into Discodorididae. What is the reference? WoRMS, I see, has Rostanga for example, in the Dorididae.

Thank you

Seascapeza (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WoRMS classifies Rostanga under Rostangidae (and not Dorididae) [14]. On the other hand, Rostangidae has been recognized as a synonym of Discodoridae (see taxobox of Discodorididae). Confusingly, the Sea Slug Forum seems to classify several genera under Dorididae (but most of these articles go back several years and have become maybe somewhat dated), while other databases (such as WoRMS and CLEMAM) prefer Discodorididae. For the sake of consistency I'm sticking to WoRMS, which is maintained by professional taxonomic experts [15]. However, whenever this confusion between taxonomic families occurs, I mention it in the article. JoJan (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying

Seascapeza (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I do not believe this article should have been speedied as she does seem notable not just for the fact that she was the first woman to marry on live TV in India after "winning" on a reality TV show but also because there's close to 1m ghits containing many

I've restored the article so that you can work further on it. As far as I can see, there not much encyclopedic about this person, but that is not a measure for CSD Anyway, make sure that you read first (in case you haven't done so) our guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I'll put this article on my watchlist and if it doesn't work out I'll send it to Afd Give it your best shot and maybe it will work out for the best. Cheers. JoJan (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. From what I've read, this person will become even more notable with pending writs for her taking part in, what is essentially, the Indian version of The Bachelor.

Please restore. You deleted it as having no context, but the context is obvious -- it's a baseball field in Annapolis/ It may or may not be notable, but that's another question. Certainly prod if you like. I know I could just restore and fix it myself, but I like to ask first. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article had only this content : "Annapolis Navy Yard in Annapolis, MD was used as a basbell venue by the Bowie Baysox (EL) during the season of 1994. Reference: Digital Baseball Parks')" including wrong spelling : basbell (sic). I agreed with the nominator that such a contribution didn't belong in wikipedia. Consequently,SABRMnLgs, the original creator of a sequence of such articles has been blocked indefinitely by Blueboy96 on 2010-03-08. However, if you can fix the article and bring it up to standards, you're welcome to give it a try. Therefore I'll restore the article but I'll put it on my watchlist. JoJan (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoJan , could you delete this left-over talk page, which is for a misspelling? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ~~

There is no reliable reference for such a thing the Illyrians appear at 1000 BC as in their article and their first mention is in the 4th century BC. Hyllus is mythological. Megistias (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check the talk page, and dont be fooled, the mythological character is this fella Hyllus, that a small article is a just a nationalist fairy tale circulating for sometime now. There is no Hyllus the Illyrian 1225 bc.Megistias (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right, but I just cannot check your statement as I cannot find references that Hyllus, as an Illyrian king, did not exist, while, on the other hand, many websites, although not referenced scientific articles, state that he did exist. But I deleted the article anyway as a copyvio of [17]. I retained the talk page as it contains discussions about this subject. JoJan (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted and article on the Electric Six CD Flashy. It should have indeed been named 'Flashy (Electric Six album)' rather than 'Flashy' but the article should have been moved under this name rather than deleted. Could you please restore it to the appropriate page if possible? Thanks, --Freakydude91 (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, Page has been reinstated and moved to

Flashy (Electric Six album). Mr.Blonde (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Jojan, Cryptobranchia are synonymous with Doridoidea. I think, we should merge it. --Snek01 (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. Cryptobranchia is no longer accepted as a valid taxon, but the term "cryptobranch dorid nudibranchs" is still being used in scientific literature. In older taxonomies, the order Doridoidea contained the suborder Eudoridacea. This in turn contained two tribes : Cryptobranchia and Phanerobranchia. In older days, the terms Cryptobranchiata Macdonald, 1880 and Cryptobranchiata P. Fischer, 1883 have also been used, but they are now rejected as a family-group name, since they are not based on a genus. The spelling of the last one was emended by Odhner in 1934 to Cryptobranchia as a division of Doridacea. Franc, in 1968, raised it to the rank of suborder (in synonymy with Eudoridacea) containing the families Chromodorididae, Dorididae and Halgerdidae. Pruvot-Fol included in 1956 the Porostomata. JoJan (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Cryptobranchia is a synonym of Doridoidea in Bouchet & Rocroi 2005. Eudoridacea is also synonym of Doridoidea.
• You are right that Cryptobranchia is not a valid taxon. But despite that, its is listed as a synonym of Doridoidea, probably because of all its today's members are in Doridoidea. Even if I know that invalid names should not be synonyms, I am sure that also other people would expect (in most cases) redirect from invalid name to the most proper today valid name. Taxonomy of nearly all name is difficult and can be evaluated from various points from history, but the most important point for every name is 1) how it was defined, and 2) how it was understand in the most recent times.
• All "cryptobranch dorid nudibranchs" belongs to Doridoidea and should redirect to Doridoidea. It is exactly written in the article that they "... are nudibranch sea slugs within the clade Doridacea."!
• I think, that we have here Category:Available gastropod names for those names, that we are not able to synonymize with other valid names. --Snek01 (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It is also a genus in Lepetidae. I have started Cryptobranchia as a genus article. --Snek01 (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/To_do -> Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/to_do For some technical to template could work properly. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JoJan (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoJan, I wanted to ask your opinion on something. The moon snail genus Natica has a subgenus Naticarius which is elevated to the genus level by a number of respected malacologists. As a result of this somewhat confusing situation, we now have an article on

Paleobiology Database lists Naticarius as a subgenus claiming to be based on the 2008 reference [18]. I am not sure if this my link can help. --Snek01 (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit confusing. Naticarius Duméril, 1806 is recognized as a genus by Nomenclator zoologicus [19] and OBIS [20]. But as most recent sites also recognize Naticarius as a genus, e.g. [21] and [22], we probably also should do so. The sites and scientific papers that recognize Naticarius as a subgenus mainly date from before 1980.

Natica hebraea is recognized by WoRMS and several other sites. The site CLEMAM even specifies Naticarius hebraeus as a chresonym of Natica hebraea. In this case i would go for Natica hebraea. JoJan (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I fixed up

Natica hebraea with the extra photo. And I made Naticarius hebraeus into a redirect page. Thanks for your help. Invertzoo (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright

infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conus Magus

I want to make a page for Conus Magus, the sea snail with painkiller venom. Why did you delete the last one? Djadvance (talk) 06:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conus magus was a circular redirect. It was deleted in August 2009 under the provision of CSD G6. JoJan (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

• Amphicyclotus guadeloupensis -> Amphicyclotulus guadeloupensis
• Amphicyclotus liratus -> Amphicyclotulus liratus
• Amphicyclotus perplexus -> Amphicyclotulus perplexus

and delete incorrect name then. Thank you. Do you think, that I have a chance to get adminship to be able make such moves? --Snek01 (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've performed a move on the first two names. I'm not sure about the third one. InvertZoo made the reverse move in January 2010 : "moved Amphicyclotulus perplexus to Amphicyclotus perplexus: Genus name spelled incorrectly". I found the species of both genera in Discover Life : Amphicyclotus and Amphicyclotulus]. Amphicyclotulus perplexus de la Torre, Bartsch & Morrison, 1942 is mentioned in neither of them, and neither does GBIF [23], but I found it in a cache of the website of the Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris [24]. It is also mentioned and depicted (fig. 7, 8, 9 on plate 11) in an old book of the United States National Museum [25] and [26]. All this makes it difficult to decide which is which and therefore I haven't made the move. You also better look closely at the article Amphicyclotulus where several species are mentioned with the name Amphicyclotus.

As to a request for adminship, I advise you to read first : Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship. An adminship requires much more than just performing moves or deletions. It's really time consuming (for me it takes one to two hours every day). Personally I would be happy to nominate you, as you fit all requirements. But an RfA can be very harsh and you may have one point against you : your command of the English language isn't perfect. And you must be able to enter heated discussions with disgruntled users whose contributions you just deleted or who have been blocked by you. Therefore think it over twice, because there is always a possibility of a refusal. This could produce a negative impact on you and that's something we both don't want to happen, do we ? If you still feel strongly about it, then let me know and we can craft together a RfA nomination statement. JoJan (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amphicyclotulus perplexus is is fine with all references you mentioned and no reference is against it. Proceed with move please, thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JoJan (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move request 2

Talk:William Healy Dall#Requested move. --Snek01 (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Done. JoJan (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Astraea (genus) -> Astraea (gastropod). --Snek01 (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Astraea (genus) has to be merged into it. Mind well, neither article fits with WoRMS. JoJan (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Solved, I have overlooked there were both. --Snek01 (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Gastropods in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Gastropods for a Signpost article to be published in early May. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move request 3

Turbinella (genus) -> Turbinella per move request at Talk:Turbinella (genus). --Snek01 (talk) 09:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Turbinella is a disambiguation page. Perhaps perform a move to Turbinella (gastropod) ? JoJan (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grrrr. This is work for an admin, because there is need to delete newly created Turbinella stupid disambig and move there the normal Turbinella article back where it was over a year. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've resolved it as follows : Turbinella -- >

Turbinella (genus) --- > Turbinella. JoJan (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Recently deleted article

Hi, I think I made a mistake at placing the {{db-move}} tag in

Indians in Hong Kong

. Is there any ways to pull back the information from the deleted article? Since we only have a redirect to a deleted page now. These were the intended actions:

Move

Indians in Hong Kong

Then delete Indians in Hong Kong and Their Employment Situation

Thanks, Tvtr (tlk–cntrbtn) 12:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JoJan (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page for Andrew Stephenson

Hello,
The page Andrew Stephenson has been deleted. If this is the page for Andrew Stephenson who ran in the parliamentary election for Pendle (UK Parliament constituency) then could it be reinstated as he has now been elected and is a member of Parliament.
Thanks. --HowardGees (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not about the new member of Parliament but about a "high school soccer stud ". JoJan (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sexyshaun22

By chance, I have indef blocked Sexyshaun22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) over your 31-hour block. Would you like me to keep indef block or change it back to 31 hours? Materialscientist (talk) 08:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I usually start with short blocks when dealing with a newbie, especially when it concerns an IP. In this case it was a registered user with flagrant misconduct. An indef block may be a bit harsh for a first-timer, but you can keep it the way it is. He's gone and good riddance. JoJan (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bathynerita naticoidea and cold seep

Hello JoJan, I would like to ask you for DYK hook/articles review or help at Template talk:Did you know#Bathynerita naticoidea. If both articles are OK (and I believe so), then there is no need for restrain. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some modifications in the text and added a few words in the description (based on the photo in [27]). I hope this helps. JoJan (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Minor Barnstar
		Yes, thank you JoJan, your help was very useful and it helped much. --Snek01 (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JoJan (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Left-over talk pages needing deletion

One is here: [28]

Done. JoJan (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More to come.

Invertzoo (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page, City of Phoenix v. Goldwater Institute

Good afternoon. This page was deleted last week. But it's not clear to me how the page violated Wikipedia's policy about attacks on living persons, as no person is mentioned on the page. Could you provide some insight so a new draft could be handled appropriately?

Thanks for your consideration. Mr. Conservative (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the article again and again. The person who brought this article to the "Category:Candidates for speedy deletion" called it a G10 (in other words : an attack page). This may have been a bit hasty. But some questions remain. Your second reference refers to the Goldwater Institute, in other words to a concerned party and not to a third party (see : Wikipedia:Citing sources). As the Communications Director of the Goldwater Institute you may have a conflict of interest in this matter (see: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest), even as you are "careful to adhere to NPOV doctrine" (in your own words) and, I must admit, it has been written skillfully in a neutral tone. Then there is the question of notability (see : Wikipedia:Notability). As I'm not an American, it is difficult for me to judge the impact of this case. But I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot more cases like this going on in America. This raises the question if this case is notable enough to merit an article in an encyclopedia (e.g. because it is a landmark case or because it stands out against other similar cases...). Will it still merit some attention in the future ? I hope this answers some of your concerns. JoJan (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have strived to follow the Wikipedia policy on neutral point-of-view writing. If the page were to be restored, I would address your concern about the citing of Goldwater Institute as a third party, and I could link to additional media reports to highlight the notability of the issue. Mr. Conservative (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the original text Goldwater vs. City of Phoenix on a trial basis. Notability is essential. I'll be watching your progress. Good luck. JoJan (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move request 4

• Calliostoma pellucidum pellucidum -> Calliostoma pellucidum
• Calliostoma tigris tigris -> Calliostoma tigris

--Snek01 (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done + clean-up JoJan (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hermann Künneth

Hi JoJan

Thank you for executing my deletion request for Otto Hermann Künneth. I noticed, however, that you accidentally deleted Talk:Hermann Künneth instead of Talk:Otto Hermann Künneth. Could you fix this? Thanks, Momotaro (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JoJan (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Momotaro (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good one

That was a good call. Let's hope we can keep it this way. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to be accurate and to retain a neutral point of view. JoJan (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mollusca

Most of your edits today have no citations. Please remedy this very quickly. --Philcha (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the references where necessary. JoJan (talk) 05

47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Please help with a wrong cut and paste instead of a Move!

Hi JoJan, This morning I was helping a fairly new user (User:Enviromet) with a new article that he had prepared on a user subpage. The article is now in article space, it is Copper alloys in aquaculture. Enviromet cut and pasted it from your subpage to what he thought was the article page, but it turned out to be the talk page! He then asked me what to do, and I told him we should cut and paste it into the article page, whereas I guess I should have told him to "Move" it from the talk page to the article page. Anyway, it got tagged with a speedy delete tag which he is contesting with a "hangon". Could you please sort this out for us??? And tell me what I should have told him to do? Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That was fast! Thanks so much from both of us! Invertzoo (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the CSD G6 and the hangon templates. Next time use the move button. A cut and paste messes up with the history. JoJan (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JoJan. I figure that you mean I should have told him to "Move" the article from the Talk page to the article page? I am assuming that it's OK to cut and paste an article from a user subpage (where it is being prepared) to an article page if you then want to submit it for a DYK, because you don't want to include the days it took you to prep it. Am I correct? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never worked to prepare a DYK. but whatever you do, the applied license in wikipedia requires attribution to the author. Therefore a text cannot be submitted elsewhere without its history. That's how I see it. JoJan (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Palinurus elephas

Hi JoJan,

Thanks for your additions for Palinurus elephas. Could I ask you to go back and clarify which of the references support the various statements you added? When only one new reference is added, it is usually safe to assume that it supports all the material added at the same time, but with two or more, it becomes harder. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, refs. given. JoJan (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Stemonitis (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting talkpage content

Hi JoJan. I see that the template which listed the failed FA attempt on

Kerry Slug was deleted from the talk page, and I wanted to ask if that is considered OK or not? Invertzoo (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

It was not deleted; click the show link on the article milestones, that should display the article history. — Ganeshk (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, you are right, I overlooked that. Thank you. Invertzoo (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About updating taxonomy

Hi to you JoJan, I noticed in the "Signpost" interview that you said that the taxonomy is now updated in all of our gastropod articles. In fact this is not yet completed. I am still working on going through all of the stub articles that have titles starting with an "O" and many of those that start with a "P". At the time of the interview there were well over 300 articles that were stubs that had hardly been touched at all, (or in many cases not at all) since they were created in 2007 as minimal bot stubs! They almost all needed not only the taxonomy updating, but a great deal of other clean up and routine expansion (including looking up the authority and date for all the genus articles). I am gradually going through them, but it is a lot of work and it is slow. I mentioned this because some other editors (not including you) underestimate how much work these kinds of improvements are, and how important they are to the quality of the project as a whole. It is grunt work and mostly invisible. Most contributors are not prepared to devote a lot of time to this kind of work. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susan, You had mentioned it is very difficult to wade through the categories for the older articles (now that we have a whole lot of Ganeshbot created articles). I wanted to suggest that you can use Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Gastropods articles by quality for this purpose. That contains the project status and list of articles as of January 2010. — Ganeshk (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks Ganesh for your idea. Actually currently for several days I have been progressing through the list of articles that are shown as having no importance rating on the Version 1.0 Editorial Team display. Those articles are also the ones that need the most fixing-up on the article pages, but there may be quite a lot of others too that also need a fair bit of basic fix up. When I am done with that group of over 200, I may ask you about the best way to find any others that need the very basic improvements. Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the updating of the taxonomy is most important to the quality of the project, as is the clean-up and the expansion of articles. All work on this project is appreciated, and certainly the grunt work you've been doing. And still, we can't complain. I've been uploading a number of photos I recently made to the Commons. At the same I checked if there were any articles available already, but in the

Blue Striped Grunt, Ophiotrichidae, Mollusca, Cidaridae, Common sunstar, Asterina, Henricia. This uploading just finished. And I can turn again to our project. I've just been working on Turritella communis, turning it from a stub into a proper article. JoJan (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks to you JoJan, for your new images and newly expanded article. I know you appreciate the work I do, even the less conspicuous but systemic improvements. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another left-over gastropod article talk page

...needs deleting at [29]. Thanks! Invertzoo (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it just needed redirecting. — Ganeshk (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes! A good fix! Thanks Ganesh. Invertzoo (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A question about this

JoJan, do you know: are these left-over talk pages better off being deleted, or simply redirected? I don't think any casual reader would ever come across them, so I would think deleting is better, but of course redirects I can do myself without bothering you. I am asking about this because I see on our gastropod article statistics chart that there are actually 63 of these that need either deleting or changing to a redirect. Either way it is a fair bit of work. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the talk page of a redirect just contains a redirect to another talk page or useless templates, then they can be deleted under CSD G6 (housecleaning). If they contain useful text (such as a debate or a notice about a copyright infringement...) they should be left as they are, but the templates can be removed, since they serve no purpose anymore. JoJan (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, when I have finished going through the remaining 78 totally unimproved old stubs, fixing them up, then I will look at the 63 extra talk pages. The ones that have no messages or copyright notices, well, I will ask you to delete them. Any of the 63 that have useful text I will... what? Turn them into redirects? Or what? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I don't quite understand what to do with the ones that do have a copyright warning. Maybe I am being dimwitted, but could you explain? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy, just leave them alone. The assessment templates can be removed, of course, as there is nothing to assess. JoJan (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good, that is what I have been doing with those that had a copyright warning on them. Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help/compliment

Hi JoJan. I thank you for helping to fix the problem with Copper Alloys in Aquaculture article, along with my new friend Invertzoo, when it was just posted. I love this medium, but there's a lot to learn regarding the inner workings of the code. Thank you again for your help with this. Enviromet (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]