User talk:Almed2

Welcome to Wikipedia
JoJan (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Gastropods
I am glad to see that you have mastered uploading your beautiful images of cone shells and posting them on articles. Please consider joining WikiProject Gastropods. We have a small but enthusiastic group of shell lovers like yourself who are working to improve coverage of the myriad kinds of gastropods, including cones.Shellnut (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Alexander, great work with the cone image uploads!!! Click on this link WikiProject Gastropods/Participants and follow the steps to add your Username to become an official member of WikiProject Gastropods. Shellnut (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

User Page
Alexander, I took the liberty of creating a basic User Page for you. Click on the blue link to the top left of this Talk Page. Feel free to edit the page or to add images to your User Image Gallery. Look at my User Page (or other members' pages) for a comparison.Shellnut (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Beautiful Cone Shell Images
Hi Alexander!!! I noticed that you have added images of 41 species of cones snails in the last two days, most in the genus Africonus. They look great. Thank you, and please keep up the good work! I have put image captions on the ones below the taxobox, and moved them up to immediately below the taxobox rather than in the reference section. I had to save a few secondary images from four species from deletion by an overzealous outside editor (meaning not a member of the WikiProject Gastropods group). I sent this editor a polite message on his talk page requesting that he not just delete these images outright and to please "let us police our own." Since you are new you do not know about BOTs (robot editing programs) or roaming editors who look for duplications or errors to delete. One way to avoid an accidental deletion is to make sure that each image has a caption explaining what it is and why it is necessary to keep it (like a second, third or fourth image of the same species).Shells are not like postage stamps, right? I used the phrase "showing variation in the species" as the reason why multiple images are important. Some of the variation in your images is astonishing and beautiful. Shellnut (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Gastropods!!!
Shellnut (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar
I've been following your work and your photos are of excellent quality. But one good advice : you seem to have a problem with categorization in the Commons. When you add a new image, you must also add the category of this species, e.g. . If this category shows up below the page with a red link when you save the upload, then this means that there does not exist a category for it yet in the genus category Conus. This is easily solved by clicking on the red link and adding. The piped link | forces the species to show up in alphabetical order within the genus category Conus. Furthermore, it is not necessary to add the when uploading the image of the species. This category is only used for non-identified species or for collages etc.. I hope this helps. JoJan (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear JoJan, Many thanks for the help! I will continue!

I the bad pupil.
Dear JoJan, I have tried. It is impossible to me. I the bad pupil. Look, what I have made incorrectly? Conus ammiralis,Conus andamanensis,Conus anemone Almed2 (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have rights to create new Categories? Almed2 (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You are doing fine Alexander! And, yes you should have the right to create new categories.  Just answer the question with a YES when it asks.  You are NOT a "bad pupil".  All of us are constantly learning new things about Wikipedia.  JoJan has been involved for years now.  It just takes time and practice.  Your contributions are very appreciated and are extremely helpful. Shellnut (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not a question of rights. Everyone can make categories. I'll explain it again. Every photo must be categorized so that anyone can find it easily. First you put the photo into the category of the species, e.g. File:Conus anemone 1.jpg goes into the category (in the upload wizard you only have to fill in : Conus anemone). Then you save the file. Then you look at the bottom end of the article where you see the different categories of the file. If Category: Conus anemone has a blue link, then it means that it is already included in the Category: Conus. If it has a red link, then it means that you have to make a new category in the Category: Conus. To do so, you have to click on the red link. Then you put into the new page :  . This is a piped link with the symbol | . Such a link puts the species into alphabetical order within the Category Conus.


 * If you want to check your actions, open again File:File:Conus anemone 1.jpg, You'll see that it has a blue link in the Category: Conus anemone. Clicking on that blue link, you'll see that Category: Conus anemone has a blue link to Category: Conus. Clicking on the blue link of Category: Conus, you'll see all the cone species already included in this category.


 * P.S.: When uploading several photos of the same species, you only have to create once the category (with the piped link) for the genus. JoJan (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

On this page I see only dark blue references :-(
On this page I see only dark blue references http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Conus Almed2 (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If you click on one of them you will see your images. I just did so on one species that I knew you had uploaded Conus antoniomonteiroi‎ and you had three uploaded images shown there. Shellnut (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I have made. The reference became dark blue/But here the category hasn't appeared
I have made. The reference became dark blue http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Conus_ardisiaceus_1.jpg But here the category hasn't appeared http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Conus Almed2 (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

YES!!! I have understood all!!!
YES!!! I have understood all!!! Almed2 (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Congratulations Alexander! You are now fully enabled to upload, categorize, and place cone shell images into articles at will.  Boring, empty, image-less articles beware - Almed2 is onto you and you do not stand a chance at remaining image-less broing stub articles for much longer. Shellnut (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I will try
I will try Almed2 (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I finished to download the pictures to the section «A» of Cones
I finished to download the pictures to the section «A» of Cones To my mind there is two species of Cones missed
 * Conus acutimarginatus
 * Conus archetypus aka Purpuriconus archetypus

These species I dont have in my collection: For those I put the links to the  Gastropods.com site
 * Conus alabaster Reeve, 1849
 * Conus alainallaryi Bozzetti & Monnier, 2009
 * Conus albellus Röckel & Korn, 1990
 * Conus alconnelli da Motta, 1986
 * Conus anaglypticus Crosse, 1865
 * Conus arangoi Sarasúa, 1977
 * Conus armiger Crosse, 1858
 * Conus athenae Filmer, 2011
 * Conus auratinus da Motta, 1982

For these species I need to specify the taxons
 * Conus adami Wils, 1988
 * Conus advertex (Garrard, 1961)
 * Conus aristophanes G. B. Sowerby II

Question: this file contains a mistake? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AConus_australis.shell001.jpg It is a Conus aureus Hwass in Bruguière, J.G., 1792 Who has a right to change the name of the file and move it to another category? The author or the editor? Good luck to everybody! Alex Almed2 (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Great work Alexander!!! I will repost this on the WikiProject Gastropods page.  I do not have the ability to change file names, but JoJan does and he is also into cone shells and will likely help out on that.  I will check my collection to see if I have specimens of any of the missing species, photograph and upload them.  It looks great!!!  Keep up the good work, our team is definitely making progress. Shellnut (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I cancel a question on species of Cones acutimarginatus and archetypus
I cancel a question on species of Cones acutimarginatus and archetypus They aren't present in WoRMS Almed2 (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Alexander! I posted your progress on the WikiProject Gastropods page, made the species names into links, then checked them on WoRMS.  Here's what I found:
 * Conus acutimarginatus (Note: WoRMS has this species listed as "unaccepted", and shows it accepted as Conus jaspideus Gmelin, 1791.)
 * Conus archetypus aka Purpuriconus archetypus (Note: WoRMS has this species listed as "unaccepted", and shows it accepted as Conus ziczac Mühlfeld, 1816.)
 * Apparently these species are synonyms. Shellnut (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am a collector. :-) For me authority is Filmer. http://www.theconecollector.com/filmer/index.html Now for Wiki I check on  WoRMS (Taxon search) Almed2 (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Alexander!! I also use Filmer (2011) on The Cone Collector, as well as WoRMS, and Gastropods.com, and any other site that can give me data and hopefully references to the actual literature.  Ultimately, the3 scientific literature is what I rely upon.  Wikipedia is heavily dependent upon WoRMS as its main taxonomy source so we always start with reference to it as the source.  Other references can be added as well to give more information and depth to an article. Shellnut (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I finished to download the pictures to the section «B» of Cones
I finished to download the pictures to the section «B» of Cones

These species I dont have in my collection:

Conus baeri Röckel & Korn, 1992

Conus bajanensis Nowell-Usticke, 1968

Conus bellocqae van Rossum, 1996

Conus bellulus Rolán, 1990

Conus bessei Petuch, 1992

Conus biancae Bozzetti, 2010

Conus biraghii (G. Raybaudi, 1992

Conus bondarevi Röckel & G. Raybaudi Massilia, 1992

Conus borneensis A. Adams & Reeve, 1848

Conus boschorum Moolenbeek & Coomans, 1993

Conus boucheti Richard, 1983

Conus broderipii Reeve, 1844

For those I put the links to the  Gastropods.com site

Conus buxeus (Röding, 1798) remains a mystery ???

Good luck to everybody! Alex Almed2 (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Manuel Jimenez Tenorio has found the description Conus buxeus

http://internethawaiishellnews.org/HSN/1984/8405.pdf Almed2 (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The image on Wikipedia looks like Conus figulinus. Are they related? Shellnut (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes connected. Look closely at the article Almed2 (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Help to correct errors
Dear JoJan, Help to correct errors

This file is transferred to category  Conus coronatus

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Conus_cancellatus_001.jpg

Here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Conus

Conus evorai made list «C»

Almed2 (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Conus conspersus Reeve, 1844 Unaccepted
Conus conspersus Reeve, 1844 Unaccepted

Conus compressus G. B. Sowerby II, 1866 Accepted

This species is not listed

Almed2 (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Does Conus compressus need a species article? Shellnut (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. This is a common species. Almed2 (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Conus compressus is available. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 05:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much!

Who can put Cones compressus, coromandelicus, denizi,

in this list? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Conus_species Almed2 (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Alexander! I have about 40 species to add to that list.  Will do soon.  Ganeshk has just added what appears to be the balance of the missing species articles using the BOT, but they are mere stubs right now, missing info od description and distribution sections, etc. Shellnut (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi David!

Perfectly well :-)

Thank you very much!

I added 450 photos and is just the beginning of :-) Almed2 (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a mistake. Should be removed
Dear David,

This is a mistake. Should be removed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conus_delanoyi

http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p

Almed2 (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 23:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Almed2 (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Great idea with the gallery!
Dear JoJan,

Thank you very much!

Great idea with the gallery!

I repeated :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conus_eburneus

Almed2 (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Conus gloriakiiensis ?
Dear friends,

in my opinion on page  Conus gloriakiiensis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conus_gloriakiiensis Error

This image Conus roseorapum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Conus_gloriakiiensis_002.jpg

Look

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conus_roseorapum Almed2 (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Alexander, I agree it is similar. WoRMS has recognized it as a valid species, and it was once considered a synonym or subspecies of Conus reculzianus (See Schooner website), as Conus recluzianus gloriakiiensis Kuroda & Ito, 1961.  Almost all of the images I could find of this species on the internet were of the same specimen by JoJan, but there are a few others out there. Shellnut (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Conus
Two things you should know about image galleries:


 * 1) They should be placed as a section in the article body somewhere before the "references" section, not after the "external links",
 * 2) You need to close the gallery properly, by typing (not just ) at the end of it; if you don't close it properly, then the entire rest of the article, including any categories and stub notices, disappears behind the gallery tag and the article becomes stranded as "uncategorized".

Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 06:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much!

So right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conus_imperialis

Almed2 (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Your fabulous cone photos!
Thank you very much! I will continue! Almed2 (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

BOT run making new species articles
Hi Almed2! Ganeshk did a BOT run for cone snail species articles against WoRMS and the species list. In running the BOT Ganeshk found species missing from the list and he created a number of new species articles as stubs.


 * Conus amplus
 * Conus branhamae
 * Conus cingulatus
 * Conus compressus
 * Conus coriolisi
 * Conus daphne
 * Conus gratacapii
 * Conus ichinoseanus
 * Conus judaeus
 * Conus longilineus
 * Conus morrisoni
 * Conus mulderi
 * Conus novaehollandiae
 * Conus paraguana
 * Conus pauperculus
 * Conus pica
 * Conus queenslandis
 * Conus reductaspiralis
 * Conus roberti
 * Conus sauros
 * Conus thevenardensis
 * Conus vautieri
 * Conus xanthocinctus
 * Dauciconus fenzani
 * Dendroconus royaikeni
 * Endemoconus bonfigliolii
 * Gradiconus maya
 * Gradiconus ostrinus
 * Gradiconus tortuganus
 * Jaspidiconus fluviamaris
 * Jaspidiconus pealii
 * Jaspidiconus roatanensis
 * Jaspidiconus vanhyningi
 * Kenyonia pulcherrima
 * Kohniconus janowskyae
 * Pseudoconorbis traceyi
 * Purpuriconus belizeanus
 * Textilia lucasi
 * Virgiconus tethys

Again, these articles are mere stubs and do not have any substantive content or sections beyond the taxobox, name, and link to WoRMS. Please review these new articles at your leisure, and add images which you might have. Thanks. Shellnut (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad that a lot of new Conus appeared.

And than you prepared descriptions for them.

To some of them I've already added my photos:

Conus branhamae

Conus compressus

Conus paraguana

Conus pauperculus

Gradiconus ostrinus

Jaspidiconus fluviamaris

Jaspidiconus pealii

Part of the new species i already have but I need to change the photos. Seems like WoRMS could not be the absolute truth.

Conus anabathrum antoni W.P.Cargile 2011 and Gradiconus tortuganus Petuch & Sargent, 2011 is the same species.

Could you do me a favor please. Remove from the list the category Conus princeps lineolatus‎ (empty)

The file from it I added to category Conus princeps‎ (8 F)

Delete my files from category Conus jaspideus‎ (6 F)

Later I will add them to category Jaspidiconus pfluegeri Petuch, 2003

I added more than 1000 pictures.

Now I'm takeing a break to put in order my website and make a photosession of the new shells.

Thanks.

Almed2 (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Almed2! You have done an incredible job uploading such beautiful images of cone snails, and in a relatively short time.  Amazing and well received.  Thank you. Shellnut (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Shellnut

Explain to me why I can't find in this list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Conus_species

Conus novaehollandiae

Conus queenslandis

Conus reductaspiralis

Conus thevenardensis

Conus vautieri

Conus xanthocinctus

Thanks. Almed2 (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Cone Shells - The Knights of the Sea
Many thanks for an appreciation!

I will place this beautiful award on the my page Almed2 (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I finished downloading the fotos of conus from my collection
I finished downloading the fotos of conus from my collection according to this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Conus_species

For today there are 1251 fotos.

Will be waiting for the new version of the List of «Conus species» and to supplement existing with new species Cones.

Thanks to everybody for your support, collaboration and helps.

Best regards, Almed2 (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your effort and your beautiful photos. JoJan (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.

Explain to me why I can't find in this list

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Conus_species

Conus novaehollandiae

Conus queenslandis

Conus reductaspiralis

Conus thevenardensis

Conus vautieri

Conus xanthocinctus

Almed2 (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Almed, you have done an outstanding job and a great service to the project!!! Thank you from all of us at Wikiproject Gastropods, and especially from myself and the Cone shell sub-project. Shellnut (talk) 04:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like GaneshBot found those missing species and created stub articles. I just made your list into links Almed. Shellnut (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)