There are also 60 left-over talk pages listed under "Low". The selection I am listing here have no extra notes, only the template, so maybe you can delete them?
Please can I have rollback rights as I know they will help me revert vandalism easily. I know exactly how to use it and I am familiar with Wikipedia. I think it will make Wikipedia a better place. Thanks --Ratinator·Talk14:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've given you rollback rights on account of your recent edits. I advise you to read carefully the policy stipulated in Wikipedia:Rollback feature and use your new rights carefully. Abuse of these rights may result in revoking your rollback rights. Cheers. JoJan (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JoJan, respectfully, this user is not ready of rollback, as there is significant evidence of recent problematic editing by this user within the last month and even within the last couple of days. I suggest that you take a closer look at the history log of User talk:Ratinator. There are a number of recent warnings/threads about problematic editing, that have been erased from the talk page and can only be looked up in the history log. I suggest taking a look, in particular, at [1][2]. Just today I left Ratinator a detailed message[3] about a highly inappropriate vandalism warning that he made at User talk:Yadamavu yesterday. Ratinator erased my message but did not remove the vandalism warning from User talk:Yadamavu. Given how recently this happened, I do not believe that Ratinator has a sufficiently good understanding at this point of what constitutes vandalism or how to respond to it. I think that granting him rollback rights at this point is not warranted. He needs to gain more experience first. Nsk92 (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out. I hadn't noticed that he had erased warnings about problematic editing on his talk page. I've revoked the rollback rights right away. JoJan (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings!
Hello JoJan, Wilhelmina Will has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I want to upload a replacement and want to be sure there are no copyright problems this time. I looked and could not see any myself. Thanks for your time. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All images by David Cappaert (University of Michigan) [8] are distributed under a CC- non-commercial license and cannot therefore be used in wikipedia. There are lots of images on many subjects available on Forestry images but you must check each time for each photographer under which license they give their photo. Only CC-3.0-attribution can be used. The photos or sites you mentioned above are not applicable since they are either non-commercial or simply don't mention the license. In this case you would have to email them. If I were you I would stick to the site of Forestry Images and try to find the photo you want with the CC-3.0-attribution license. JoJan (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JoJan. Thank you again for forestryimages.org, invasive.org, and insectimages.org. I just love them! Do you know any others like that for bugs, fish, etc, but especially microscopic stuff? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
also do not use fixed size of thumb images per Wikipedia:Images. Thanks.
When adding a species (or something) it is better to write it like this "+Nerita spengleriana" instead of like this "- Nerita spengleriana" in the edit summary. Maybe you have used your own way, but it is misleading and seems very strange. --Snek01 (talk) 01:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring
Hi! This user was blocked for "Edit warring". I believe the block is correct and thanks for doing it, but I'm not agreed with the reason. He/She was removing content with no reason and a few advices were left on his/her talk page. It seems to be real vandalism for me and not just edit warring (I'm from pt.wiki and that would be the reason there). Maybe it's different here... is it? Thanks.--TeleS(talk / pt-wiki talk)07:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the revision history of Real Deal Pro Wrestling, I could have blocked for removal of content, vandalism, 3RR or edit warring with several users. Choice enough. As you say, the block is correct. It was only a short block to cool down, as this is the first block of this user who calls himself an official from Real Deal Pro Wrestling. But otherwise, I'lm not involved in the dispute. JoJan (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On August 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Macklintockia scabra, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hey I know that the GA review was conducted by a banned user now but can you still restore the GA review so others can see the review process and confirm that the article is still GA worthy? This is to keep the article from going through a GAR. Thanks,--White ShadowsNobody said it was easy19:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure the above title is correct ? I can"t find it in the deletion log. And according to WP:GA in 1938 the following types of U-boats existed : U-37, U-38, U-39 and U-40. In 1936 there was a German submarine U-26 (1936), but this article has not been deleted, neither has its talk page. JoJan (talk) 08:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the "references", none of them directly mention her by name, and a search on Google for "Donna Nguyen" did not turn up any reliable information about her. DHN (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you're superior inspelling words in English. You won that competition, and I surrender in admission of my mistake that this was an encyclopedia, not a nah-nah-na-nah-nah playground point game. I think your continued egging about my spelling errors is a good indicator of how a discussion about the WoRMS problems would go, so consider this also my revocation of my offer to point out family errors in WoRMS to Wikipedia family experts. Yeah, that's my nah-nah-na-nah-nah.
By the way, adaptive technology is notorious for certain types of spelling errors. Hope you feel all fluffy for being a better speller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaRoad (talk • contribs) 04:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More left-over talk pages for deletion
Hi JoJan, here are a few more left-over gastropod talk pages that have recently appeared, and that have no messages or notices on them:
Thanks! Ha! I was unaware of the Clavus hewittae honor until you brought it to my attention. How nice of you! The bruised ribs were from a freak accident in my local outdoor swimming pool, a sort of person to person hit and run. The ribs are very nearly better. The weather is very nice here now, but the ocean water temp is only 58ºF (14.4º Celsius) today so I have not been in yet! Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JoJan, since you are a native Dutch speaker I wondered if you are familiar with the work of this malacologist, who is at the Amsterdam museum? Invertzoo (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can contact him, if you want, at his email address, given here : [17]. end also at [18]. I found this book : Bosch, Donald & S. Peter Dance, Robert Moolenbeek, P. Graham Oliver, Sea Shells of Eastern Arabia, Motivate Publishers, 1995. Other publications, here : [19]. I hope this helps a bit. JoJan (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JoJan. Actually he contacted me a few days ago, but not specifically about Wikipedia, although I will mention that to him. I will look at his list of publications. Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 01:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello JoJan, that was not useful from you. When I will write "Smeagolidae -> Smeagol", then this does not mean to move to somewhere. It means exactly move it to Smeagol. Will you move it or do I have to write formal request using {{subst:move|Smeagol}} at article talkpage? --Snek01 (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Snek means that the name of the fictional character is actually "Sméagol" not "Smeagol". Therefore I assume that the redirect page for Smeagol should become the article page for the gastropod genus rather than a redirect to the article Gollum. Either that or we need to make a disambiguation page to help out with this confusion. Let me know if I can help. Invertzoo (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The genus was named after the Tolkien character. So, the word "Smeagol" is correctly redirecting to Gollum. I have created a disambiguation page for this, Smeagol (disambiguation). The Gollum page has the header, "Smeagol redirects here. For other uses, see Smeagol (disambiguation)". — Ganeshk (talk)03:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello JoJan, I have added some taxonomical details into Calliotropidae (and corrected one mistake) and clarified taxonomy in Seguenzioidea. Fell free to let me to know, when you will create some new articles about families in the future. / I also hope, that you will find inspiration in the universal style of all families at wikipedia, to have this always changing taxonomy clearly understandable.
I would like to know, why have you added genera into the taxonomy section in the article Trochidae and have let genera in the genera section uncategorized? I must say, that if you will add something without reference, then is is not only useful, but it is even harmful! It is not useful add genera in the taxonomy section, because then it is not an overview. Organize genera in the genera section only and you can add taxonomic details about previous taxonomic opinions in the articles about certain genera, if you like. Solution was easy: deleted [20]. --Snek01 (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The section "Genera" of the article "Trochidae" needs a lot of work. As it is, it is not complete (WoRMS can give more information). I cannot find the time to go into it, since I'm working overtime on the list of "unaccepted" species of the Ganeshkbot. I want to have this list finished before I go on holiday. JoJan (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific ? All species I add to an existing list of species fall under the general reference I add to the top of the list (with an accession date). When I declare a species a synonym of another species, that new species has a hyperlink to the article where the reference can be found. What more can be done be done without becoming overly specific ? JoJan (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. One example of Trochidae is enough. And you have answered that you have no time! That is absolutely unsatisfactory answer!
By the way, when you are talking about general references. Instead of them is is better to use inline references. When you use one source only, well, maybe then it can be OK (at least for me), but when you are using multiple references, then you should use inline reference for all species rather.
Hi, JoJan. Some time ago, I had moved this file of yours from en.wikipedia to Commons. Someone noticed it didn't mention a specific permission and would like an OTRS e-mail for that permission. I note it's not the best-quality image; do you think it's worth saving from deletion? Cheers, Rkitko(talk)02:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That image was uploaded in 2004 when the rules were not so stringent. I asked permission by email to the copyright holder and he answered me this :
"Hi ,
Here is the link with the pictures, you can use for wikipedia (or anywhere you wish to use them). It contains all pictures you have used so far. So there is no problem. Deleting my Email with permission to all my pictures from my Homepage would be great.
(In the mean time that url has become a 404). Shortly thereafter he sent me this follow-up :
Hi ,
Is it also O.K. if i give my permission to use the pictures only for the Genlisea pictures? This would be great. I usually do not have anything against using *my pictures. as long as I know where they are used. I will upload a section on my Homepage with pictures, that can be used everywhere without asking *for permission soon. This will also include these Genlisea pictures. I will let you know the link soon to update the page.
regards,
Christian
His permission was good enough for wikipedia at the time. However, I don't want to go the trouble of another request to OTRS. I have such a request going at the moment, and it takes such a long time before getting an answer. As the quality of the photo is not the best and as there are now other alternatives (but not so specific) , I won't mind if you delete this photo. Greetings. JoJan (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Archive.org to the rescue on those images: [21]. Though I note he stated "none commercial" on the webpage; you're right that the requirements were different in 2004. Even if we sent that e-mail to OTRS, I'm not sure they'd accept it since it wasn't very specific and the website mention a non-commercial restriction, which we of course no longer accept. Thanks again for your time! Cheers, Rkitko(talk)13:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there JoJan! I'd like to invite you to participate in the E. gigas article peer review. It's still happening, and many improvements have been made so far. This may become our first featured article in the near future! Best, Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I made a stub in my sandbox and moved it to the mainspace. Trouble is, it brought the entire history with it, including old Conus stuff. Is there something I can do to remove the history from the article? What is the normal way users prevent this? Do they speedy the sandbox each time and make a new one? Thanks. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anna, next time make a new sandbox before starting a new article, because, even if you delete the text from the article, the history of that article still exists. Old sand boxes can be speedy deleted at your request : just add {{db-author}} to the page of the sandbox and an admin will speedy it. So I removed the old history from the new article, but I had to look up this procedure since I never had done such an rare operation before. In the end it was rather simple (but risky if I had performed one false move). Next time better. Cheers. JoJan (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are an angel. It is very rare for me to move pages from one of my sandboxes. I usually cut and paste to mainspace. (That's allowed, right?) Next time I will make a fresh sandbox for such actions. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Partula rosea move to separate article Partula rosea : this is already a separate article. No move necessary.
Partula aurantia move to separate article Partula aurantia : this is already a separate article. No move necessary.
"Polynesian Tree Snail" is common name for nearly all Partula species as well as "Moorean Viviparous Tree Snail" and both should redirect to Partula (gastropod)
"Polynesian Tree Snail" and "Moorean Viviparous Tree Snail" : redirected to Partula (gastropod). I don't quite understand what you mean by "moving P. aurantia and P. rosea". They are already separate articles. JoJan (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if you could let me know if the Living biography detailed below would be approved. If not, what changes would need to be made so that it would be approved?
Thank you.
The article below stands a good chance of being accepted. Robillard seems notable enough (more than 48,000 google hits) but, of course, as always, it's up to the community to decide. If I were you I would try to add more facts to this biography and try to obtain a photo (without copyright). And next time, sign your message with four tildes ~~~~ . Cheers. JoJan (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[copy of article removed]
Credibility of WoRMS
Hi JoJan. Ganeshbot5's most vocal critic is JaRoad. We have addressed almost all of his objections. What remains is for us to provide some facts to show that WoRMS is a good source. Can we do that? (subtract about a day) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again JoJan. I have been suspicious of the identity of this shell image for three years on and off. Just today for the first time I took a really good look at it at full size and realized that it cannot be a shell of any liotid (Liotiidae). I am certain it is a shell of a Modulus species. I am virtually certain that it is Modulus tectum as shown here [23]. I changed the description but I am not sure how to change the title of the image or what else should be done. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right. I didn't check the name as the author on FlickR is usually right with the identification of the shells. I've asked on the Commons to move the image to the proper name (and the same for the category). JoJan (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. I am glad you agree with my ID. These small shells can be tricky sometimes, but I am familiar with both families from my work in the Caribbean and in California. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JoJan, please update the Aphia ID when you are moving a species to it's accepted name. Here is an example. This will stop the bot from listing them on the unaccepted page going forward. — Ganeshk (talk)23:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add content or templates to pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Lagos, Portugal, without giving a valid reason for the additon in the edit summary. Your content addition does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. TigreTiger (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New genus stubs
Hi JoJan, I see you already noticed I am making a series of new genus stubs. I am currently doing this only for those genera that already have species stub(s), so that the species stubs are linked into the whole taxonomy tree, rather than being left as orphans. Under the list of species in each genus stub, I am including only those species for which we already have articles. I am making the genus stubs as quickly as I can, and I am not researching the genera in any way except to locate the correct authority and date, so it's possible (for example) that some of these genera are no longer considered valid for those species. However that kind of fine tuning I am leaving for someone else to do later. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I just wanted to explain what I was doing. I will copy this to the Project talk page so others can know what is going on. Invertzoo (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Belgium for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A glitch
Hi JoJan I was trying to add another article to the ones on the Portal (which I have not done before). It should be Article 7: the dog conch, Strombus canarium, and yet when I look on the page Portal:Gastropods/Selected article, I see duplicated text and illustration for the Eustrombus gigas article, same as the previous one... although if you click the link at the top you get the right page, the dog conch page. I am a bit tired this evening and I can't work out what I did wrong. Maybe you can work it out and fix it? Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I just noticed that the "article number" parameter was set to 6 instead of 7 in the code line. I just changed it to 7, and done! > ((Portal:Gastropods/Selected article/7|Article 7: the dog conch Strombus canarium))Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing is, the new additions to the biography section and to the article section of the Portal are not yet "in rotation" on the page, in other words they do not show up as part of the random selection process of what is showing on the page every time you come to it. I don't know what piece of code controls that or where to find it. I have just now left a message for Ganesh, asking him about that. Hopefully he will know how that works and be able to explain to me how to fix that. Invertzoo (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know I amended the block to indefinite as a vandalism only account - in 2 months and 2 instances of logging in, the account did not produce an edit that wasn't vandalism. WilliamH (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do think that new article would make a good curiosity for a DYK and can have an image too, but it will need references and an inline citation to back up whatever fact you want to use as a hook. Invertzoo (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wentletrap image
Hi JoJan, I am a bit confused. Is this one in 3D? We already have a 2D version of that image (which is a Featured picture). The 2D version with a different title [24] is already on the Portal as the first selected picture of the series of pictues. I have read the guidelines on 3D illustrations and if you have a version of this which is in 3D and loaded onto Commons, I guess we can now include a link to the 3D version on Commons, as per the suggestion here on "Linked 2D/3D images" under implementation [25]. Invertzoo (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this must be the same picture. I've uploaded this today from FlickR and the FlickR2Commons bot didn't mention that this was already uploaded. Well, it was a nice try for a picture in the portal. JoJan (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted under CSD G6 : Housekeeping, a non-controversial cleanup. It was a redirect to itself in Eriophyidae. Therefore a cleanup had been requested. The name itself is a valid name and the article can be recreated if you like. JoJan (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi :) Would you mind telling me why this user was blocked for 48 hours rather then indef? As I think an indef block would be more preventative and not punitive. Thanks! --Addihockey10e-mail17:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I usually do not resort to an indef block for a first-time user. They usually get the message with a shorter block. If not, an indef block can always be applied. JoJan (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File permission problem with File:Pinguiculalaueana1web.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Pinguiculalaueana1web.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kellyhi!20:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
![[24]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Epitonium_scalare_shell.jpg){kind=link}
