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 our encyclopedia make information and education available, without charge, to everyone in the world. All the very best from Invertzoo (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The text was "Zubair Amin, is a Pakistani writer of Children's literature, designer and web analyst. He is considered to be one of the most modern web designer and web analyst of Pakistan. He was born in Multan, in the Punjab, on 28 October, 1988. In the early ages, he become found of books reading, Urdu Magazines and Children's literature.". This is simply not enough for an encyclopedia. It doesn't fit the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (people). It has no references to independent reliable sources. JoJan (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Oath of Brutus
Hi, you added the painting by the Belgian painter Navez "The Oath of Brutus" to the article of Marcus Junius Brutus the Younger. Are you certain that this picture pertains to Caesar's assassins? Methinks it's rather about the assassin's great ancestor Lucius Junius Brutus who founded the Republic. According to Livius in Ab urbe condita, Brutus' first act after the expulsion of Lucius Tarquinius Superbus was to bring the people to swear an oath never to allow any man again to be king in Rome. -- fdewaele, 15 January 2014, 15:55.
It has already been restored as I write this. But still it needs a lot of attention to become an encyclopedic article. JoJan (talk) 07:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JSTOR Survey (and an update)
Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!
It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:
Hello JoJan, in case you didn't see my message on the project talk page, I wanted to ask you: I see that a new ultra-stub has been created for a subgenus of Mitra. Currently it has very little content. Should we try to expand it into a proper article or not? WoRMS does not seem to completely recognize this subgenus, seeing it as an "alternate representation", so maybe we should turn the page into a redirect? Please let me know what you think. Invertzoo (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no harm in the existence of this article. However, I made some things clearer by explaining the use of the term "Nebularia". Feel free to add some more. JoJan (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much JoJan for your excellent work on that tiny stub. Look now and you will see that I added a taxobox and a shell image, and I disambiguated a couple of links, as well as dividing the content into sections. I have asked the Graphics Lab if they can do anything that would improve the image quality, as it has strong flash reflections and too much contrast as well as an "off" color balance, although it might be not possible to fix it very much. Best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder JoJan, did you by any chance check the existing list against the WoRMS list for this subgenus? If not, then I should do that, because the person who created the list created the list simply from those of our articles which had the subgenus Nebularia in them as a red link. He decided to make an article because he found "Nebularia" listed as a suggestion on Wikipedia:Most wanted articles. Invertzoo (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I started to check this out but I stopped after I saw that Thorsson and Salisbury did not recognize some of these species as belonging to the group "Nebularia". It would have taken too much of my precious time to sort this out, especially for a name that is no longer recognized as a taxonomic name but just as a "group". For the same reason, Nebularia should not have a taxobox, as this recognizes the status of subgenus for Nebularia, thus giving a wrong impression to a non-informed reader. I cannot spend more time on the genus Mitra and its so-called subfamilies, as I'm working on the Trochidae (also a difficult nut to crack) and will then moving on to Turbinidae (again more than 500 species). This means, this will keep me busy for the rest of the year. JoJan (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed
Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.
It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the concerns that you expressed here, about how to keep bot-generated articles up to date, you are quite correct in that this is an issue. There have been major changes in the taxonomy of many groups just during the two years I have been running my bot. But one advantage of bot-generated articles in this respect is that it is possible to update by bot as well. Human-written articles probably need to be updated manually, as the way the taxonomy is described in the text of the articles isn't standardized.
Bot code to go through the ISIS database every now and then and update bot-created articles as needed is on my to-do list. Taxonomic moves (a species reassigned to another genus, a family reassigned to another order, etc) is straightforward to update. Merging and splitting of species is trickier, but should be doable.
A more thorny problem is how to handle taxonomic disagreements, when experts differ on the proper taxonomy. This requires human judgment, and the best a bot can do is to note disagreement when encountered. Lsj (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the immense work you're doing and hope that a bot can take away my objections. As to taxonomic disagreements, I have some experience with this. As I said before, I work mainly on Gastropoda and the authoritative database for this is WoRMS ([1]). Now and then I find a mistake in the database (once there was one that had been around for 150 years - and no one had noticed !) or have some problem with the taxonomy, and then I send an email to WoRMS. In the next few days I then receive an answer on the matter from the top expert in the world. This is one of the things a bot cannot do. The human touch is indispensable. Nevertheless, your bot creates articles and someone willing to fill in the necessary data doens't have to bother anymore with layout. One more thing, have you ever considered using an automatic taxobox (such as in the genus Clanculus). Whenever the taxonomy changes, by changing the template (e.g. when a genus is allocated to another family), all underlying templates are changed automatically as well. Best regards. JoJan (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have considered the automatic taxobox, and it's a really neat idea that I think should be pursued. But I am afraid also that it will lead to articles where the main text and the taxobox are inconsistent, if the taxobox automatically changes bu the text isn't updated. Better idea in the long run probably to base it on wikidata, and get both text taxonomy and taxobox from wikidata calls. Lsj (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please fill out your JSTOR email
As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File source problem with File:Dactylorhiza-majalis-web.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Dactylorhiza-majalis-web.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
(I had asked User Multichill, an experienced Dutch speaking commons admin, to see if he could get more information on this file from Dutch wiki, but did not get an answer - I presume that means that there is none to be had.) Deadstar (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I transferred this image ten years ago from the Dutch wikipedia to the Commons. I presume the GFDL license was correct at that time. The problem is the original file has disappeared from the Dutch wikipedia, which is quite normal after a transfer to the Commons (leading to a dispute such as this). I then tried TinEye, but only found the file on the Commons and in Wikibooks. In my opinion the file was correctly tagged in the Dutch wikipedia. Anyway, it doesn't matter much, there are now enough images in the Commons describing this species. Deletion won't matter very much. JoJan (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that - I too believe that the license is likely correct, but as there is no information on the creator of the file, it's likely to be deleted. But as you say, there are plenty of replacements now, so no big worry. Kind regards, and thanks again for your note - Deadstar (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A move fix request
Hello JoJan, a user made copy-and-paste move of Acroloxus lacustris. Could you fix that, please? Lake limpet is correct English name, I would prefer Acroloxus lacustris, but keep a name you wish. Thanks! --Snek01 (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. In this project we prefer the scientific name as title of the article. The common name(s) can redirect to the scientific name. This way it's easier for Wikidata to make the connection between the same species in different languages. JoJan (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you placed a lead sentence into the list. Thank you. I take it that by this, you feel comfortable with this compromise. Thank you for allowing a non malacologist or conchologist or even shell collector to influence your corner of the world. I will be adding more ref's and some more info of some sources that I have. speednat (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've done a tremendous job. And I appreciate that. Nevertheless, in our project we order lists of synonyms alphabetically, for the simple reason that species from genus A can become synonyms of a species in the same genus A, but others in genus B (and even sometimes in another family or in its proper, newly created family. A simple example is the genus Guildfordia, I'm working on presently, This is however (and luckily) not the matter in Haliotis, as this is the only genus in the family Haliotidae. But whenever I try to identify a photo of a species, most of the times the caption mentions a synonym and not the present and accepted name. An alphabetical list of synonyms then comes in very handy. But I like you to continue in our project and even become a member of WikiProject Gastropods. You would be a valued contributor. JoJan (talk) 08:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JoJan! Ah, thank you =)! It's actually my fourth species. I've already described 4 new taxa, 2 marine snails (P. phorcysi and Nassarius levis), and two land snails (Oxychona maculata and Leiostracus fetidus). I have also co-authored the redescription of Solatisonax cabrali, and revision of the genus Teralatirus, among many other things. There are many more papers to come in the near future! Do you think I should list my publications on my User page? --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're at the start of a promising career. And I think you should list your publications on your user page (or opening a special page, connected to your user page). Perhaps a suggestion. Why not describe (in your own words) these marine snails in wikipedia, showing them to the world. This way, these species won't disappear in obscurity, only seen and read by specialists. JoJan (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the compliment! Yes, I look forward to improving or creating articles for every taxon I have described or revised! And I think every specialist should. I don't have much time lately, but I have never stopped editing. I don't have plans to =)! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello JoJan, I hope you are doing OK. The article Cerata is about a set of external structures in nudibranch gastropods. These structures are not often referred to in the singular, but the singular form of the word is Ceras. If we follow the general WP guideline, the article title should be in the singular. If you think the title of this article should indeed be in the singular, maybe as an admin you could move it? I am not able to.
I think the title "Cerata" should remain. No one will ever search for the term "ceras". Furthermore, there exists also the genus "Ceras" (a red link as Ceras (gastropod).
I just recently moved the title of Diverticula (mollusc) to Diverticulum (mollusc) because another editor complained about it being in the plural. By the way... is that title OK or should it be Diverticulum (gastropod)? The article was also put up for AfD, which I thought was quite unnecessary; the 7-day time period expires today if you want to comment or close it or whatever.
I looked a bit more closely to the range of the meaning of the term "diverticulum" and found that it also applies to land slugs such as Limax marginatus, with a caecal diverticulum [2] and in the stomach of Bivalvia [3]. Therefore the title "Diverticulum (mollusc)" is apt. JoJan (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives
Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
