User talk:GrahamBould

.

Welcome!

Hello, GrahamBould, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Siva1979Talk to me 14:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More on some of the Powelliphanta articles

HI Graham. I tried to Move Powelliphanta rossiana "Fox" to Powelliphanta rossiana, subspecies "Fox". but now there seem to be both of them now rather than just one... Do you know how to fix that? Thanks if you could. And by the way, [[Powelliphanta sp. "vitattus" might also be clearer as -- Powelliphanta species, "vitattus" --. Sorry about that. And by the way, someone came and changed the Nudibranch article once again. This person seems to think that because a dictionary defines nudibranch as sea slug, that it is not worth saying that not all sea slugs are nudibranchs. I put that section back in again because I feel it definitely needs saying. Invertzoo (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate Powelliphanta

Hi, For the duplicate articles you could do one of two things - ask an Administrator to delete one article, or, Move one article to the name of a new article you are writing. The first option is probably more correct but is a bit of a fuss and might take a while, the second is easy and immediate but will leave a strange history for the new article (but you can explain that in the comment). Cheers GrahamBould (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, all I did was change the name of the original article by using "Move", which I have done before in other cases successfully. This time for some reason I ended up with two articles rather than just the new one. Any idea how to fix this ourselves? Or where do I ask an Admin for help? Or will you do it? Invertzoo (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK! Now I need to ask you, where do I go to ask an Admin to delete the second of the two articles? Thanks Invertzoo (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ranella olearium and Ranella olearia articles both are in fact about Ranella olearius

Hi Graham, OK... progressing into the "R" section, I see you (unknowingly of course) have created two articles about the same species, each one spelled slightly differently. The correct spelling is in fact neither of those two, but Ranella olearius, going by the best authority I can find. The true gender is of Ranella as a Latin word is masculine, not feminine or neutral as various people assumed. Invertzoo (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roya kermadecensis

Hi again Graham and thanks for your corrections. OK, according to the Australian Faunal Directory, the names Roya kermadecensis and Capulus nutatus are both synonyms for Williamia radiata nutata (Hedley, 1908), which is a subspecies of Williamia radiata (Pease, 1861). This is a small marine pulmonate limpet in the family Siphonariidae. So that's... Superorder: Heterobranchia, Order: Basommatophora, Superfamily Siphonarioidea. Two good references are: http://www.mollusca.co.nz/speciesdetail.php?speciesid=1704&species=Williamia%20radiata%20nutata http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/online-resources/fauna/afd/PULMONATA/tree.html Invertzoo (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thais (genus) ...and... Thais (gastropod)

Hi again Graham, I am up to the "T"s now, and I see that we actually have two articles about the sea snail genus Thais. I can't imagine we need to have two. Do you think you could merge them into one? I don't know how to. Invertzoo (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graham for combining the two Thais articles. You saved me a lot of time. Appreciated. Invertzoo (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trochoidea (genus) and Trochoidea (superfamily)

Hi Graham. Today, as you will see, I had to add to the name of one article and create one more, both with almost the same name, because it turns out (quite legitimately) that there is a land snail genus and a sea snail superfamily that both have the same name. I suppose now I need to do a Disambiguation page, but I don't know to, do you know? Invertzoo (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Graham, that's good. I will take another look at that superfamily entry. The whole thing with the taxomony constantly changing so much is a big nuisance in some ways. Invertzoo (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spatula

Hi again Graham. Well I personally had never heard of that area of the inside of a limpet shell being called a "spatula" until I read your pieces, although after a bit I caught on to what it must mean. If you do a google search for... spatula limpet ...you will see that the word is used in that way on more than one Australian website and a few others that are not Australian. It strikes me as actually being a really good idea to have a name for that part of a limpet shell, and that part is very often shaped sort of like the end of a spatula, so it is not a bad name for it. The word is in a glossary (maybe for kids?) at: http://www.mesa.edu.au/friends/seashores/glossary.html Invertzoo 22:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I will do, Graham, is ask an older friend of mine in Florida who knows the mollusk literature well, and see if he can come up with a better reference for the term spatula, assuming he is familiar with it. I might also try to ask a professional malacologist about it. As for the two images, yes the first one is clearer. The limpet shell is shown upside down in that image, with the head end at the bottom. You will see that the spatula is a sort of owl-shaped dark area with a ring of very light-colored muscle attachment scars (maybe these are mantle attachment scars?) around it. I think that image is maybe of a Lottiid. I am not convinced it's a Cellana as the photographer seems to think. The other image is of a Patella limpet, and on those limpets you can't really see that area so well at all. Invertzoo 15:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Graham, I heard back from the guy who know the mollusk literature pretty well and he said:

"I agree that the "spatula" is a convenient term. Although I did not find it in Arnold (1965), I see that Powell (1973) used it in his monograph."

So the word "spatula" is not listed in: Arnold, W. H., 1965. A glossary of a thousand-and-one terms used in conchology. The Veliger 7 Supplement: 1-50 +i-iii. March 15.

But as you already know, Powell was fond of it, and he used it in: Powell, A. W. B., 1973 The patellid limpets of the world (Patellidae) Indo-Pacific Mollusca 3(15): 75-206. Nov. 27.

Invertzoo (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposed: Pterygiophore → Fish anatomy

It has been proposed to merge the content of Pterygiophore into Fish anatomy. Since you have previously edited one of these articles, I thought you might be interested. You're welcome to participate in the discussion if you like. --B. Wolterding 14:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bivalvular cats - thanks

So, I fire up the wiki, turn to my watchlist and... wow! You've improved the categories on all those shellfish families I created. Thanks for doing the boring, unheralded donkeywork that helps make Wikipedia better. It has not gone unappreciated! Totnesmartin (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pillbox Row

Congratulations on your article Pillbox Row. Very well written in my humble opinion. Just a couple of things though:

  • Please consider whether the title should be "Pillbox row", that is a small 'r' to be consistent wikipedia article naming policy. Indeed, could the title be changed to avoid the homophone "row" altogether?
  • There are a couple of places where I got a little confused by some pronouns, exactly who is it who is being referred to in "He accordingly summoned...". I think I worked it out, but my concentration was broken.
  • In line citations are really the wikipedia ideal. If you feel the need, I will be happy to help with footnotes. Also, see Wikipedia:Footnotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaius Cornelius (talk • contribs) 13:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to User talk:Gaius Cornelius#Pillbox Row:
I will put in some changes and suggest that you either accept or reject (revert) them as you see fit. I shall change the name to "Pillbox affair" and replace some of the pronouns. Also, as inline citations are something of a Wikipedia goldstandard; so, if it is OK with you, I will put some in and let you fill in things like page numbers. Finally, Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now had a chance to look up your citations from this article. I have to say that I am struck by the similarity between the words of John Colville and your own. To an uncharitable mind, this might be interpreted as a copyright violation. May I suggest that you rectify this situation at your earliest convenience. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Essex class aircraft carrier. Thank you. -MBK004 14:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Islands

Hi,

I noticed that in creating Homalopoma micans and Homalopoma umbilicata you linked to Southern Islands in the distribution section. The Southern Islands article is about part of Singapore, which I am absolutely certain is not what you intended. I would fix this myself, but I don't know whether you used the term as meaning New Zealand's subantarctic islands or whether you were including Stewart Island and/or the South Island.

While I have your attention, when you are creating articles for New Zealand molluscs, could you please also start the talk page with {{WPNZ|class=start|importance=low}} - it will save others a job. If you consider the particular article to be a stub, please use class=stub instead of start. There might also be a wikiproject for molluscs whose template you could add. Thanks for all your contributions, dramatic (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Years of service for field marshals

Your edit to Gort's article has promped a question from me over at the WP:MILHIST British task force. Your input would be appreciated. Leithp 15:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

River limpets and their breathing mechanisms

Just wanted to let you know that I found out more today about how the river limpets manage. Apparently they have both a mantle lung and a gill created out of mantle tissue a "pseudobranch" or false gill. When they can't get up to the surface they use the false gill to respire. Invertzoo (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the Oyster category

Just wonderin' why you did that. :) Abyssal leviathin (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguating taxa

You seem to be the right person to talk to about this. How would you feel about disambiguating taxa by higher taxa rather than rank? I feel that Trivia (mollusc) is much more informative and therefore a better disambiguating title than Trivia (genus). Also, the latter doesn't work where we have multiple genera of the same name, e.g. Microtis (onion orchid) and Microtis (mollusc). I have already fixed an occurrence of this problem at Malea (genus), which was about the plant, thus leaving no room for an article on the mollusc genus of the same name. The plant article is now at Malea (heath), and the mollusc article would have to be at Malea (mollusc) or perhaps Malea (gastropod). Hesperian 12:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I will fix them if I notice them, but I won't go searching for them, and I wouldn't dream of exhorting anyone else to such a tedious task.
On a related note, I've been working on a list of molluscs of the Houtman Abrolhos, and virtually every blue link (not that there are many) has your fingerprints all over it. It is amazing how much you've done on the Mollusca. Thankyou and congrats.
Hesperian 12:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Athoracophoridae

Hi Graham, good question. Maybe you can help me here. Athoracophoridae as a family is described as being "South Pacific" in distribution. I don't know what exact area South Pacific is supposed to include. The following is a quote from the abstract of an article entitled "Biodiversity and biogeography of non-marine Mollusca on the islands of the Southern Ocean" the abstract is fouhd at [1], "The malacofaunas of the cool-temperate and sub-Antarctic islands of the Southern Ocean are extremely depauperate, comprising a mere 68 site-records of 51 species from 27 genera in 13 families. The South Atlantic records are confined to the Falkland Islands, which harbour nine species (one bivalve, five pond snails and three terrestrial aliens), and South Georgia, where there is one Notodiscus sp. (Charopidae). The fauna of the South Indian Ocean islands of Prince Edward, Crozet, Kerguelen and Heard, comprises two alien slugs and endemic Notodiscus hookeri (Charopidae). The majority of species occur on the South Pacific Ocean Islands of Macquarie, Campbell, Auckland, Snares, Antipodes, Bounty and Chatham to the south and east of New Zealand. The Chatham fauna is dissimilar to that on the other South Pacific Islands, though both represent vicariant remnants of common South Pacific Is." I suppose I could maybe get ahold of that journal at the AMNH and try to see what it says about Athoracophoridae. Is every one of these islands (Macquarie, Campbell, Auckland, Snares, Antipodes, Bounty and Chatham) part of the country of New Zealand? I also don't know if any species from the family are present elsewhere as introduced species. Also can I ask, are there any island groups or island which are sort of in the vicinity of New Zealand and Australia but which belong to other countries? Invertzoo (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we can't work this out by ourselves, we can also ask Kaarel, who was the person who claimed that not all the family is endemic to New Zealand. Invertzoo (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me as if we should maybe say "New Zealand and the subantarctic islands"..... Take a look at [2]. Invertzoo (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latia and others

Hi Graham, Sorry. I think I may have somehow completely overlooked your final question about the river limpets. I don't know for sure at what level of taxonomy the pseudobranch appears, maybe the families Ancylidae and Acroloxidae? You would need to research that to be sure though. (I guess I was indeed too busy and I did not realize how busy I was. Sorry about that, I don't know how I managed to ignore your post completely unless perhaps I got two new posts on my talk page at the same time, one from someone else on another topic, and perhaps I assumed there was only one new one? Happy New Year if I don't talk to you before. Invertzoo (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

excerpt from my talk page: I notice there is a discussion (Onchidiids) about not needing to repeat info from higher levels down to lower levels. Personally, I don't agree with this. If that was strictly enforced you wouldn't even mention that a mollusc was a mollusc, because it had already been mentioned at a higher level. Users (not contributors) wouldn't know to look elsewhere, they want a self-contained article. Again, thanks for your time and help. GrahamBould (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Graham, Happy New Year. Yes I agree with you that it is OK or even necessary to mention some of the same info from higher level to lower levels. I do agree that articles should basically be self-contained. I guess not all the very detailed stuff though, the thing I had written about onchidiids was perhaps too much to have repeated at every level. Invertzoo (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bolma recens

The article states that this gastropod is endemic to the Kiwi Seamount north of New Zealand. This is a confusing term, as the most common use of "Kiwi Seamount" seems to refer to an area in the North Atlantic. Is there an alternative name for this area, or could the location be given more precisely, as a distance from some given point for example.-gadfium 07:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy, according to Bouchet & Rocroi

I moved this new taxonomy to its own page Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005) and mentioned it in the section "taxonomy" of the Gastropoda article. Whenever you make a change to a gastropod article, it will be handy if you want to check the latest taxonomy. JoJan (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using, the undo option

Hello Graham! It is not wise to use the "undo" option for minor grammer correction. Kindly, use the "edit" option for correcting grammer in the future. The "undo" option is mainly used for reverting vandalism.

LeGenD (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triphoridae

Thanks for all your good mollusk work Graham, I very much appreciate it. I just wanted to say that in your Triphoridae article the blue link is a false link, i.e. it links to an article about a trilobite with the same name Inella. I guess we need to do a disambiguation page, but I still don't know how to do that, do you? Invertzoo (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham. Thanks so much for explaining one version of the dab to me. And really it is very nice to see all your mollusk additions, I very much like to learn about the fauna of the southern seas, and it is great to see Project Gastropod filling out nicely: we we are starting to get articles for species in so many of the families now, even in many of those micromollusk families. My sister just sent me some shells and a book on mollusks all from Argentina, so if I run out of things to do there is another few hundred WP articles waiting to be born. We have no snow at all right now and haven't had more than a few flurries for quite a while, but we had a fair bit of snow already earlier on in the winter. Cheers to you too. Invertzoo (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mollusca

Hi Graham. Oh gee, this is a hard question. I would not just assume that ITIS is using the most "well-regarded" molluscan taxonomy right now; in fact they may be quite a bit behind the times. I would address this question to JoJan, who would give you a better opinion than I can. He is at: [3] ....best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Hi Graham I copied this reply to you from JoJan's user talk page. Invertzoo (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the taxonomy of the Mollusca is in a flux. The taxonomy of the Gastropoda is using unranked monophyletic clades for taxa above the rank of superfamily (see : Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005). I guess we may expect the same for the other classes in the near future.
As to the Caudofoveata, I found this website [4] with a taxonomy and this book : Jones, A.M.; Baxter, J.M. (1987). Molluscs: Caudofoveata, Solenogastres, Polyplacophora and Scaphopoda: keys and notes for the identification of the species. Synopses of the British fauna (new series), 37. E.J. Brill; W. Backhuys: London, UK. ISBN 90-04-08197-6. vi, 154 pp.
While older publication used Caudofoveata as the accepted name, newer publications (2006), seem to prefer Chaetodermomorpha (Falcidens halanychi, a new species of Chaetodermomorpha (=Caudofoveata) (Mollusca) from the northwest Atlantic Ocean 1 ; Marine Biology Research, Volume 2, Issue 5 October 2006 , pages 303 - 315).
I found also this text (dating from 2004) :
"Another special case that arises from an invalid synonym being assigned the parental hierarchy of its valid counterpart is when the adopted parent is at the same taxonomic level as the invalid name. For example, class Solenogastres is invalid. Its valid synonym is subclass Chaetodermomorpha. The parent taxon for both these names is class Aplacophora. Since a class can not have a taxonomic parent which is also a class, .... "
As you can see, the most recent information is found on the internet (Google scholar) and not in ITIS. JoJan (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Sinezona brevis

A tag has been placed on Sinezona brevis, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Asenine (talk)(contribs) 20:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SD on recent article

See talk page. Asenine (talk)(contribs) 20:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lodge a complaint? Hardly. If you are threatening me with something, please be outright. I am entitled to my opinion. See the link I have given, which gets one singular hit. You are free to do what you may with regard to whatever you mean by 'lodge a complaint' in the meantime, but I should tell you that Wikipedia has no system like that. I will not take threats either, and I will not retract the template until you can prove it is relevant to an encyclopedia. Asenine (talk)(contribs) 20:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed template, the problem was that I searched for your misspelt name within the article itself. But seriously, don't threaten editors. Asenine (talk)(contribs) 20:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 21:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you didn't mean "Vase, +vat"?

I must be having a slow brain day: Even though I was looking straight at the diff[5], I spent two full baffled minutes before I figured out what "Vase" was referring to. :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little (attempted) humour at the expense of your typo (in the edit summary of [6] — "Vase, +cat" for "Case, +cat") and my slowness in deciphering it. Sorry I wasn't more clear the first time. — the Sidhekin (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orbitestellidae et al

Hi Graham. Yes, I am assuming that the code for the template of the taxobox would have to be rewritten to allow this. You or I can ask JoJan about what we can and can't do, since I guess since he would probably know what it would entail. JoJan mentioned this problem to me when he realized that this new taxonomic scheme needs "clade" and "group". The thing is, I don't know if the taxobox template, wherever it is found, belongs simply to our Project Gastropods, or whether it is a major template for all the WP zoology or even biology articles...? Invertzoo (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aplacophoran systematics

Hi Graham,

I noticed a question about the "higher" systematics of aplacophorans. Ponder and Lindberg have just published an edited book on molluscan phylogenetics (PHYLOGENY and EVOLUTION of the MOLLUSCA - university of California Press 2008). There is a chapter there about the phylogeny of the classes Caudofoveata, Solenogastres and Polyplacophora (Chapter 2 Todt et al.) that is surely the most updated information on the systematics of these groups. Quite interesting and useful chapters on all other molluscan classes as well, highly recommended. You are definitely right that something has to be done about the "aplacophoran" pages. Turbonilla (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dotidae and Dotoidae

Hi Graham, Hope you are OK. I see we have articles on both of these, which were created two days apart. This is in fact one family of small nudibranchs, and the correct spelling is Dotidae. For an explanation of why that spelling is correct, see: [7] Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graham. It looks good now! I am going to write a stub on a Doto species soon coz there is a photo available of a tiny one. Invertzoo (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eubot taxobox bug

Hi Graham,

Thanks for the bug report; I fixed it. It looks like a very rare bug, which only occurs when the taxobox is faulty in that precise way. I don't expect it to have happened on another page, but I'll be proposing something that will prevent this and other colour-related problems from happening again. Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was a proposal at WT:Taxobox usage to change the color of the animal taxoboxes; that was one of the main reasons for my bot run. I changed the colour yesterday. If you don't like the new colour, join the discussion at WT:Taxobox usage. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doto pita and others

Hi Graham, I was looking at this new page just now, and I noticed that the text on Distribution is copied verbatim from the Sea Slug Forum site. I have often wondered how much you actually rewrite the rather detailed text in your numerous articles, although I have never asked you that, because I did not want to appear rude, and I could not think of a polite way of asking. Now I am wondering if in fact much of the text in many of the articles is copied verbatim from Powell and other sources? (I have not had a chance to look at a Powell so I don't know how closely your text corresponds with his.) You do know about the copywright violation problem, right? Maybe not? No sources in modern times can be copied verbatim into Wikipedia unless you have explicit permission from the author to do so, and then you have to submit that permission to Wikipedia so they know it is legit. Any content that you have copied verbatim will have to be rewritten or reworded ASAP. Here is a quote from one section of Wikipedia:Copyrights:

"All works are copyrighted unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed. If you use part of a copyrighted work under "fair use", or if you obtain special permission to use a copyrighted work from the copyright holder under the terms of our license, you must make a note of that fact (along with names and dates). It is our goal to be able to freely redistribute as much of Wikipedia's material as possible, so original images and sound files licensed under the GFDL or in the public domain are greatly preferred to copyrighted media files used under fair use. See Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission for a form letter asking a copyright holder to grant us a license to use their work under terms of the GFDL.

"Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt the project. If in doubt, write it yourself. Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference. See plagiarism and fair use for discussions of how much reformulation is necessary in a general context."

Good wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind, just in case, a fuller explanation is at: [8]. Invertzoo (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self assessment

Hi Graham, I just patrolled Supermarine Air Yacht, and noticed you had tagged it (which is fine) and assessed it yourself. I expect you did this because you were being bold but you should really leave assessment of articles you've created to other editors. I know it can be frustrating when it takes a long time for assessment to be done, but the only way to tackle that is by doing some assessment yourself, so that your articles work their way to the top of the list of unassessed articles. I've been guilty of self-assessment in the past, so please accept this as a friendly word rather than a telling off, which isn't my intention in this post. Happy editing, Michael. Mjroots (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, these things happen! :-/ Mjroots (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you should assess your own articles may be WikiProject specific. I have been assessing my own New Zealand-related articles, since someone requested that I do so. Initially, if I thought the article was better than start class, I didn't rate it but added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Assessment#Requesting an assessment. The ones I added in late January are still there, so I started rating my B-class articles too. gadfium—Preceding comment was added at 19:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dot it myself a lot too. It's not even controversial really, and the are very few people who actually seem to do assessments. If it's a question of GA, A or FA though, you'll want to get someone else to do that (it's obviously mandatory for the GA/FA, though I wouldn't recommend it for A either). Richard001 (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With some projects I don't think you can afford not to assess yourself. I work with the fishing project and regularly assess my own articles, with due modestly of course (ahum... clearing throat). I also assess other fishing articles all over the place - though never beyond B-grade. Noone else seems to bother. I think I'll also start self assessing a swag of earlier New Zealand articles I wrote as well, since I don't think any have been properly assessed. --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patiriella regularis

Hi Graham. I've changed the family of this species here, as the family you gave originally is inconsistent with the genus article Patiriella as well as the two family articles. Richard001 (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you're adding banners be sure to include photo requests as well, e.g. on Diloma aethiops. You can use |needs-photo=yes with WPNZ and the gastropod articles, which have both recently had the parameter added. Richard001 (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serpulorbis zelandicus and Stephopoma

Hi,

My list of molluscs of the Houtman Abrolhos, which is based on a 1997 source, lists S. sipho, but you've listed this name as synonymous with S. zelandicus, and then gone on to claim that the latter is endemic to New Zealand. Something is wrong here - either my source, or your synonymy or your distribution. If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say that S. sipho is a valid species, but one that has been misapplied to New Zealand specimens, which are in fact S. zelandicus. Any ideas?

And while we're on the topic, my list puts Stephopoma under Siliquariidae, which is also supported by your first reference. I was wondering why you have put it in Vermetidae. Hesperian 02:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hesperian. I have checked my reference (Powell, 1978) and what I wrote matches that. You obviously have a more up-to-date source, so please just correct anything you see as out-of-date. Thanks for taking the time to discuss it with me. Cheers GrahamBould (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Hesperian 10:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that does help. It means that S. sipho was named by Lamarck in 1818, and S. zelandicus by Quoy and Gaimard in 1834. Then in 1913 Suter collected a specimen of S. zelandicus, which he wrongly thought was a novel species, so named it S. sipho, not realising that that name has already been applied to another species - a double screw-up! So the real S. sipho, i.e. S. sipho Lamarck (1818), is not a synonym of S. zelandicus, but the invalid later homonym S. sipho Suter (1913), is.
Hesperian 02:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So should any changes be made? eg, S. sipho removed as a synonym in Serpulorbis zelandicus? GrahamBould (talk) 06:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've converted Serpulorbis sipho into a crappy stub. That will suffice for now I think. Hesperian 10:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philobrya meleagrina

Would you mind formatting this article and adding an infobox, etc? Thanks.-gadfium 05:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Enjoy your trip.-gadfium 08:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Law Montgomery

Hi!! I updated "Monty"'s page b/c I love reading British military history. I notice you were a prior editor so if you could help a newbie, I'd appreciate your review of my edits. I am surprised that you allowed the unsourced conjecture that Monty was some kind of paedophile to stand as it was.

Yours, Penne Alfredo in clam sauce (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional binomial naming

See Talk:Powelliphanta "Augustus" for some comments on provisional binomial naming. Have also updated Powelliphanta and associated articles. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 21:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concholepas concholepas

You seem to have made a lot of collaborations about invertebrate species in New Zealand. I would like if you could take a look at Concholepas concholepas article help me to improve it. This species is considered the most studied invertebrate species in Chile so there is lot of scientific information in internet. Dentren | Talk 07:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dentren, Only too happy to help in any way I can, but it will not be for a few weeks as I am on Holiday in France (internet cafes). GrahamBould (talk) 09:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found time in a McDonalds! to make some small improvements, but article good already. You might want to look at the genus page as I've raised a couple of questions. GrahamBould (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molluscs

Hi GrahamBould. Thanks for your positive comments over at the mollusc talkpage. I've now added the table to the main article. However, seeing that I'm out of date on the topic, I thought I'd get a bit dusty in our library and read up on molluscan taxonomy from two of the more recent undergrad texts. I've put the results of my trawl on the talkpage, but before I add it to the main article, I thought I'd solicit another opinion. The two sources I tracked down agree on a lot, but generally disagree on species numbers (especially for the smaller classes) and disagree on the number of extant classes (they both ignore the extinct ones more or less). Do you have any feel for what the view of the field is? I did my undergrad project on polyplacophorans, so I've always had a soft spot for molluscs, but I realise I'm way out of my depth. Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worek Plan

Hi Graham,

I started the german version of this articel and made a better map, which you can find in Wikimedia Commons. You criticized in 2006 correctly the false map in the discussion of this articel. I have answered there today. As You can see is my English bloody simple and incorrect. That's why I only change interwikis in en.wikipedia. I think the englisch version has to be corrected, but I'm not able to do this well. Perhaps could You help? Greetings Masturbius (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I copied Your Answer to Talk:Worek Plan. You can find my Replay there. Greetings Masturbius (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mytilus (mollusc)

I just bet you weren't aware there was already an article at Mytilis. I have suggested merging into the other article since your contribution has good content but we shouldn't have duplicate articles on the same topic.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amphibola crenata

Hi Graham, how are you? I hope you are doing well. Just today looked at the article on this snail, and I have to tell you that despite a superficial resemblance, the snail shell that you photographed is unfortunately not an Amphibola. The shell you found clearly has nacre on the inside, and it is therefore in the family Trochidae or Turbinidae. I believe it is in fact a turbinid. If you look carefully at the images at: [9], you will see that Amphibola does not really look so much like this. Amphibola has very little sculpture on the underside of the shell, no nacre on this inside, and it is not a green shell, all these are characteristic of a turbinid. Amphibola is a primitive land snail that took to the sea, and really the shell of Amphibola looks in many ways like a very thick and odd land snail. Forgive me if I remove your images and change the descriptions of them. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome Graham. Yes, those new pics are definitely A. crenata. Good work! I can also have a go at getting the other shell ID'ed for you. Invertzoo (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah 15 mm, then this may be difficult, because it is most likely a juvenile (turbinid or trochid) of a much larger species. A lot of turbinids or trochids that are very large as adults have very different sculpture and even a different shell shape when they are small juveniles. Invertzoo (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have any luck getting an ID on the shell? Invertzoo (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good, I am glad you got an ID for it. When you do eventually get a picture of an adult Turbo smaragdus, I would also definitely keep the juvenile pics somewhere in the article, because it is very useful for people to know how radically a shell can change in shape and sculpture between small juvenile size and a full adult size.I am glad that I was right about it being a turbinid. Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles containing video clips

The category is hidden (accomplished by adding Category:Hidden categories to the category page.) This means that it won't show up in the articles themselves. It's typically used for meta-categories and others not meant for public consumption :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 23:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suter

Hi GB - I noticed you created a lot of mollusc-related articles that link to Suter, which is a disambiguation page. Does this link really mean Henry Suter? Colonies Chris (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veneridae

Hi Graham, How are you? Hope all is well with you. I see you put the row of images from Veneridae into a Gallery. I did however have them in alphabetical order, and, at least as I was viewing them on my computer, each one was opposite the appropriate genus in that list of venerid genera. Did they display differently on your machine? Did it look messy? Best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scissurellidae

Hello, are you familiar with Scissurellidae? I can guess that some genera from that article maybe can be in Anatomidae. I would like to ask you for help with that. Thank you for cooperation. --Snek01 (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

minor edits

Hi, there is no need edits like this [10] I use obviously this order for captions Description, (Anatomy - above or below Shell description), Distribution, Ecology (including Habitat, Feeding habits, Life cycle). Some of my example are at User_talk:Snek01#DYK - there may be outstandings in some of them. Maybe you did it for any aesthetic reason - if so, I think it is not very useful because we excpect all sections will be expanded in the future. Maybe you disagree with "my" order of sections. If so, please tell me your reasons and we will do the same things in the future. Thank you for your cooperation. --Snek01 (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC) corrected --Snek01 (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mantle pea crab

Your redirect was missing the "#" character that must precede the word REDIRECT. It has been added. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coloration/colouration

Hi Graham, Please feel free to switch the spelling back again. I changed it without thinking too much in an attempt to be consistently "British" with the spelling within that article, but if coloration seems fine to you it's certainly good enough as it was. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 14:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

easy captions

Hello, please look at the edit [11]. Such captions are as easy as possible and there is possible to add a reference for species after the text sentence. I suppose, that there is also a recommendation, that there should not be italic texts in captions in wikipedia. Short and easy captions named "Species" and "Genera" will be fine. Thanks for cooperation. --Snek01 (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also corrected the type species. --Snek01 (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

Hello, feel free to share your opinion about the theme at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_11#Molluscofcountry. Thank you for your attention. --Snek01 (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

small tag

Hello, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia there should be no tags "small" like in this edit. Thanks for your attention. --Snek01 (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then in that way your edit is all right because there is no known solution yet. So I started discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Check Wikipedia#Small style element. I am sorry for distrurbing and thank you for your question. --Snek01 (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graham if you are using small please use a </small> to close it otherwise other text will display as small! The Bald One White cat 19:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snek

Whats the problem with this guy? If he continues with his patronising attitude towards single categorisation errors he is likely to frighten a number of editors away from contributing to your wikiproject. Jus tlooking at your user page it looks like the guy is a know-it-all who relishes in other peoples mistakes. The Bald One White cat 19:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy happy joy joy for Graham

Invertzoo (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate the Winter Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec08}} to your friends' talk pages.

Slendertail lanternshark

Thanks for fixing that Whitley link for me – I have no idea how I managed to miss his article! Hqb (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Dear Graham,

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.
All the very best from Invertzoo (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

image attribution

Hi Graham, I notice the you've added images with the caption "Photo by Ian Skipworth". Unless there is a rationale for doing so, relevance to the topic, I think that the attribution in the 30 odd articles should be removed. What do you reckon? cygnis insignis 05:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was generous, the images I saw are great. Would you mind fixing it sometime? cygnis insignis 06:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for dealing with my somewhat petty concern. Happy editing. cygnis insignis 00:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, GrahamBould. You have new messages at Vague's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks Graham!

For doing some much needed category work on the gastropod articles! Invertzoo (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi again, can I make a request? It would be very helpful indeed (saves a lot of time for other users) if you could put a brief little edit summary on each edit you do. It takes a while to get used to the habit, but then it becomes automatic after a while. Thanks again and best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S. table

What's wrong with the table in Scyliorhinus? Abyssal (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Williams

Hi Graham,

thank you for cleaning up Henry Williams (missionary). As you may have found out, I'm not a native English speaker (and writer), so it's quite helpful for me to see your changes. I have one question: I left the infobox "person" out, because I thought that it is not really a standard box on wikipedia. Apart from that I liked the other box (with the missionaries) more, just for the "lay out" of the page. Did you have a special reason for placing the infobox person back? Thanks in advance for your reply. Dick Bos (talk) 06:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking authority

Hello Graham, thank you for your improvements. I think that links to authorities in lists of molluscs ... is overlinking, see Wikipedia:MOSLINK#Overlinking_and_underlinking. Links in taxoboxes in articles about certain species is fine and recommended. Have a nice day. --Snek01 (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Winston Ponder

A tag has been placed on Winston Ponder requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Huadpe (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Winston Ponder

A tag has been placed on Winston Ponder requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Woland (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parens in Bathyraja

Howdy, thanks for catching my mistake on the Bathyraja article. I am still unclear on what the parens means, but I would be interested to know. Many thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, found it. Thanks again, --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it is remarkable how far I got studying biology without having known that. Best, --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stamps and stuff

I note you have uploaded NZ stamps to commons, and would like to add a couple of recent issue ones as well. But before I do so, is there anything I should read about what I can and can not do regarding copyright of kiwi stamps? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt response. However, the 100 years bit is a little ambiguous. Does that prevent me from uploading a stamp issued this year? Seems a silly question, but as I said, it is ambiguous. Cheers Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Operation Caravan"

Hi Graham, I'm a bit stuck on "Operation Caravan", 1)Because I'm snowed under in non-Wikipedia land; 2)Am I putting too much information into this section? ie is it encylopaedic or getting too detailed? 3)Does "Operation Caravan" have enough scope in it to create a separate article, with a much smaller section in the LRDG article? Any thoughts would be appreciated. TIA, from an Aussie New Zealander, Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input; "Operation Caravan" deserves a seperate article and a new page will be has been created. To mind the LRDG was one of the best units of its type operating during WW 2. Your input would be much appreciated, regards Minorhistorian (talk) 03:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, I have lists of all of the LRDG C/Os via Brendan O'Carroll. The format of the C/O's list you created for 486 Squadron would be the way to go.In the meantime I've changed the categories for Opn. Caravan and will continue with the action, when I have some spare time. I'm hoping other editors will weigh in and help out! Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 20:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A serious and widespread problem of CopyVio, see [12]

Hi Graham, Yesterday I finally got to look at a copy of the big Powell book, something I have wanted to do for more than 2 years now. I looked up some Powell entries, including two of the buccinids, and I see that your articles (especially the shell descriptions) are copied verbatim or virtually verbatim from Powell's text. I know you are not an academic, so perhaps this was done in good faith. Perhaps you may not understand the significance of this. However in an earlier message from me on your talk page, I did try to explain this kind of problem to you, on February 26th of last year. Perhaps you never understood that Wikipedia has an extremely strict policy against this kind of copying, which is a Copyright Violation. See: [13]. I have to first ask you to stop creating articles in this way. Secondly I must ask you to reply to this message. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham, I wish to you offer our support and help (Invertzoo and Snek01) in this rewriting, so please call on us any time for assistance. Some points:

  • I would ask you please to tackle the clean-up in a clear and precise order and sequence, for example, to start by working alphabetically one by one through the articles that are listed in the category Gastropods of New Zealand.
  • Please will you keep us updated on where you are in the sequence, (perhaps you can leave messages on the gastropod project talk page weekly, so that we can check the articles as you progress gradually through the list.
  • I understand that you are going to rewrite the "Shell description" sections of the articles. In addition, some of the other info will also need rewriting in those places where it is copied verbatim or almost verbatim. You will want to have the Powell book open as you work in order to keep track of the wording he used, so that it can be rewritten into a form that is original to you.
  • 4. If you have trouble with the technical parts of the shell descriptions, please do ask us for help with that.

Thanks and best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to add that this rewriting needs to be accorded a very urgent priority. CopyVio on Wikipedia is one of the most major of all possible issues. It is, after all, a serious legal matter. All examples of CopyVio violate the integrity of the encyclopedia and leave Wikipedia open to lawsuits. I would strongly recommend that you start working on this rewriting right away, especially since there is such a tremendous backlog of articles that need your attention. Snek and I can help you to some extent, in certain ways, but you are the one who has a copy of the book in your possession, so the brunt of this work will inevitably fall on you. Please let us know what your plan is. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update on CopyVio problem

One thing would be very helpful - how can I produce an alphabetically-sorted complete list of Wiki articles started by me (not amendments)? GrahamBould (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's [14], but it's sorted by date, not alphabetically.-gadfium 06:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what JoJan said about this: Invertzoo (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This requires a Javascript. Graham should put his question at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Requests. Maybe such a script already exists, maybe not. But I'm sure someone will give a helping hand.. JoJan (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another update on the CopyVio problem

I see you worked on 30 of your articles so far today. However I am sorry to say that there is still a CopyVio problem with them. The way this works is that you need to completely rewrite the prose, not just tweak it a bit more here and there. It is still obvious that it was copied from Powell, and just modified a bit. It has to sound as if you wrote it yourself.

Snek01 pointed out that:

":There are various public domain books that can be of help to you with this:

I do believe that Suter's book can help. Graham can copy Suter's description (because it is in the public domain) and add only some additional facts (not sentences or phrases) from Powell. Everything needs inline citations.
Otherwise it will be necessary to delete all the sentences that are copyright violations immediately in all of the articles! --Snek01 (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)c[reply]

Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham, I wanted to say that the full text of the Hutton Book and the Suter book are totally available to you online right now. For either one of them you just click on the blue links mention by Snek right above here, and that will take you to a page where you can choose how exactly you want to look at the book. These books are available freely for anyone to use, precisely because the books are old enough that their copyright has expired, and they are now in the public domain. You can click on the full text version to get a version that is clear and easy to read, but which is formated differently from the original. You can also flip through the book if you like.

Yes, as you have probably realized, your Powell articles are presumably all within the category Molluscs of New Zealand within subcategories such as Gastropods of New Zealand, etc.

Best, Invertzoo (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A very large and widespread CopyVio problem

I have left messages for all Project Gastropods staff alerting them to the fact that we currently have a very major CopyVio problem which compromises the integrity of the encyclopedia, and opens the door for legal action against Wikipedia. This problem is spread across a huge number of gastropod articles (approximately 800 to 1,000) and it also spills over into the other molluscan groups. I am asking ask everyone who is available to help out with this in whatever way they can, but please do so in an organized and unified fashion, so that we all know what is going on. It seems that all of the articles in the Category: Molluscs of New Zealand [15] contain a great deal of text that is copied verbatim or almost verbatim from the 1979 book by Powell, New Zealand Mollusca. I have had no experience in dealing with a crisis of this magnitude. Any help that any of you can offer or suggest is more than welcome. Invertzoo (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message relating to the same topic

Hello, GrahamBould. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hello Graham, I would like to ask you, if there are also books Photographic Guide to Seashells of New Zealand and New Zealand Shells and Shellfish and Reef and Beach Life of New Zealand affected with the same copyvio problem as Powell's book. Are there other books related to molluscs affected by this? I am asking because it can help to easily identify copyvios. (And if there are other non-mollusca sources, feel free to announce it.) Thank you for helping us to solving this. --Snek01 (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another update on CopyVio problem

To WPGastropods members and other interested parties:

If you have not already done so, please look at the thread of messages at: A very large and widespread CopyVio problem

And read the message on the Gastropod talk page conversation. from an admin who is an expert on fixing CopyVio problems, Moonriddengirl (talk).


Also please look at/read through the two new subpages created from the WikiProject Gastropods talk page, and listed at the top of [16].


I am sorry but I have to be careful not to type too much, because I hurt my hand and fingers early this week, so rather than attempting to explain the progress so far in detail, I am leaving it up to you to read the messages and work out what is going on.

Thanks so much, Invertzoo (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I was coming over here to ask you to explain the serious allegations of copyright violations that have been raised against you, but considering you were warned a year ago for this behavior, to my mind there's no room for leniency. You are blocked indefinitely. Blueboy96 02:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I forgot about the time difference--it's only 8:00 in your neck of the woods. Please be sure to respond at ANI--there are some very serious charges being lodged against you. Blueboy96 06:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Subpage for organizing CopyVio Cleanup, and the focus is on how to most effectively clean up the mess. Your contributions there would be most helpful.
Rather than being blocked, as you suggested at User talk:Snek01, I would hope that once this is sorted out you can continue to contribute to Wikipedia, but with a much more cautious approach to copyright.-gadfium 04:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Graham. I have been thinking and posting on this issue while you have been away. I also engaged in the sometimes hazardous practice of posting on AN/I and admins talk pages regarding this issue. BTW, you are not currently blocked, that was undone. We have had only one interaction that I can recall, I pointed something that was 'not done' and you happily undid it; that is a rare quality in our community. For these reasons, and because my efforts were partly in your defense, I am also going to suggest demand that you continue to contribute :)
I hope you will bounce back from this, cygnis insignis 06:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised :-) I'm not convinced that the response was not an overreaction, if you will forgive the double negative. And that is in the section above. Regards, cygnis insignis 07:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, GrahamBould. You have new messages at Hiatella arctica's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Administrator's noticeboard

As it appears now that this problem is of larger scope than originally reported, since it seems that you have also copied from fishbase.org and I have found reason to believe you may have copied from other sources as well, I have reopened this conversation at the Administrator's Noticeboard. Please provide any input you can offer at that thread. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. I have responded at my talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Graham, I would strongly suggest that you at least make an attempt to go and say something in your defence at the Admins' noticeboard (link above). The admins have twice asked you to do that. I would also strongly suggest that you try to help with the clean-up by telling the clean-up crew what you did and where, what sources you used etc. An implicit refusal to do these things makes it look like your actions were all intentional; it does not help your case. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content copied from Fishbase

Hello Graham, is there any chance you could provide us with a list of articles which you have copied content from Fishbase into? We need to remove all of that content ASAP, as we are currently in violation of their copyrights (as are all sites that reuse Wikipedia content). It's a bit difficult to explain, but Fishbase's license is not compatible with Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or even better, if you could go back to those articles and begin removing the content yourself, that would be extremely helpful. Otherwise we will have to comb through all of your contributions one by one and revert them, which will be a very tedious process. Kaldari (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Pursuant to the administrator's noticeboard discussion here I have restored your block. I'm sorry that you did not respond there as requested. I believe that your cooperation in addressing this matter could have been helpful. In light of your note at my talk page, however, this may be what you prefer.

If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. You may also request an unblock if you would like to propose a potential restoration of your editing privileges. Such a restoration would likely require mentoring or supervision of some sort from a contributor familiar with the fields in which you work to help make sure that you do not place more copyrighted material on Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Powelliphanta

Hi Graham. I haven't used wikipedia in a long long time. I'm afraid that snail shell is at my parents' house - and I'm not really sure where. We don't have any idea about the species either. Feel free to remove the pic if you have more specific ones. I did it a while ago before there were separate articles.

So I won't be able to help for quite a while. If I remember then next time I'm back home I'll do a front and back view.

Keep up the good work, Tristanb (talk)

Plebidonax deltoides

In your wikipedia entry for Plebidonax deltoides you state that "It was previously known as Donax deltoides." Do you have any reliable source for that? So far as I can tell it is still known as Donax deltoides, and the web page should be moved to that name. (Mollwollfumble (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Nomination of Diverticula (mollusc) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Diverticula (mollusc) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diverticula (mollusc) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KDS4444Talk 13:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dinichthys telleri listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dinichthys telleri. Since you had some involvement with the Dinichthys telleri redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Janthinidae

A tag has been placed on Category:Janthinidae 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! 01:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Strophidon

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Strophidon 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 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. 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. 5a5ha seven (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Zenionidae

A tag has been placed on Category:Zenionidae 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! 15:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Oxytomidae

A tag has been placed on Category:Oxytomidae 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! 18:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Setarchidae

A tag has been placed on Category:Setarchidae 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 18:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Tetrarogidae

A tag has been placed on Category:Tetrarogidae 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! 04:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wainuia (species unknown)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Wainuia (species unknown) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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 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. 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. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race (talk・contribs) 12:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Wainuia (species unknown) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wainuia (species unknown) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wainuia (species unknown) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race (talk・contribs) 01:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Bathylutichthyidae

A tag has been placed on Category:Bathylutichthyidae 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! 01:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Ereuniidae

A tag has been placed on Category:Ereuniidae 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! 01:40, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Hemitripteridae

A tag has been placed on Category:Hemitripteridae 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! 01:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]