User talk:JoJan/Archive 16

MSU Interview
Dear JoJan,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: About the automatic taxoboxes documentation
Hi JoJan, More improvements have been made to the automatic taxobox since the time you had trouble with it. Please give it a check and let me know if you have any questions. Please review this page and let me know your thoughts. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 23:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ganeshk. If I understand well, each time I create a new article about a genus or a species, I also have to create a new corresponding.template. However, questions remain, especially when moving an article. Can you explain in detail what has to be done in the following cases :


 * a move of a species to a red link in the same genus
 * a move a species to a red link in another genus
 * a move from a genus to a red link in another family
 * In all these cases, does it entail making a new template ? What happens to the old template ? Can you give examples ?


 * deleting an article (in most cases because of a misspelling; this also involves the creation of a new article with the accepted name), must the template be deleted too ?
 * I guess, to make it easier for all of us, that new articles should be made by your bot (perhaps we should discuss an accelerated tempo). This should eliminate for all (and especially for newbies) the detailed knowledge of the creation of automatic templates and how to work with them. JoJan (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, when you create a new article about a genus, you will need to create the corresponding taxonomy template. This is not needed on a species article as long as a taxonomy template for its genus exists.
 * Can you find me some examples for your scenarios? I trolled on WP:GASTINV, but could not find any for moving species to a red link of the same genus.
 * Having the bot create new articles using the automatic taxobox would be a good idea. Just need to get an okay from all project members.
 * Accelerated tempo...yes, please. :) May be you should check 10 articles in random from my list of 100 and give me the okay to proceed. Will that work? — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 04:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I give some examples :
 * a move of a species to a red link in the same genus:  Nassarius plicatellus to Nassarius niveus (A. Adams, 1852) (an existing red link)
 * a move a species to a red link in another genus : Fusinus faurei to Granulifusus faurei (Barnard, 1959) (a species not mentioned yet in Wikipedia)
 * a move of a genus to a red link in the same family : Austrogemmula has to be moved to Epidirella Iredale, 1913, a genus not yet mentioned in Wikipedia (not even a red link). I couldn't find at first sight an example of a move of a genus to a red link in another family. But you can give a hypothetical example of a move with a genus B in family C to genus D in family E.
 * A new problem : "nomen dubium", e.g. Fusus cygneus. How to proceed here ? The same for "nomen inquerendum".
 * As to the accelerated tempo : I agree that this has to be done. This has precedence and I would stop describing the species of the newly created stubs. But this would make it much more difficult for me to find any inconsistencies in WoRMS. And then what about the existing taxoboxes ? Can a bot turn them over in automatic taxoboxes ? JoJan (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I worked on your examples:
 * Nassarius plicatellus move was straightforward. I just had change the taxon parameter after the move (diff).
 * Fusinus faurei required creation of taxonomy template for the genus (diff). Here is how it looked after the move. Here is the screenshot for creating the taxonomy template. See Template:Taxonomy/Granulifusus.
 * Austrogemmula required the following steps:
 * converting to speciesbox
 * Template:Taxonomy/Austrogemmula
 * Template:Taxonomy/Turridae
 * after the move
 * updates
 * after the updates
 * Template:Taxonomy/Epidirella
 * Epidirella
 * Fusus cygneus (nomen dubium) must be deleted. It should be added into the species section on the genus page. I would do the same with nomen inquerendum. Species should not have a page until their status is "accepted" on WoRMS.
 * As to the accelerated tempo : I would treat reviewing and describing the stubs as two separate tasks. Please continue to describe the stubs at a slower pace. If you could check 10 random articles and let me know if they are good, I can proceed with bot run. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 00:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is possible for a bot to convert existing taxoboxes over to the automatic taxobox. But let us wait on that until we gain some experience with using automatic taxoboxes in general. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 03:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ganeshk. These are examples we can work with. They show how to proceed step by step and this explains more than a lot of text. I think these examples with all their links should be incorporated in the instructions for the automatic taxobox. I still have one question: the type species, should it be incorporated in the template of the genus or should it be added to the taxobox of the article (the same for the type genus and the family template) ? As to the accelerated tempo, you can go ahead. I will follow, albeit a bit slower because I have to check and eventually update the list of species in the genus article (unless this can be done by bot as well, saving me precious time). JoJan (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The type genus/species will need to be added to the taxobox. I just updated Epidirella. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 00:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Papillifera bidens or Papillifera papillaris
Can I ask you to look at the Nomenclature section of this article? Some changes were made by User:D Kadolsky in December. He seems to feel that the name of this species is now accepted officially as being P. papillaris. Is he correct? If so, we need to move the title back to that. Thanks JoJan. Invertzoo (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done JoJan (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks JoJan. Invertzoo (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Supposed subspecies of Placostylus species
Hello JoJan, Back when Graham Bould was editing, he created 14 subspecies articles for Placostylus ambagiosus, and two for P. bollonsi. You can see them all listed here. Apparently, as is now mentioned in the main species articles of both species, Buckley et al. (2011) found based on both molecular phylogeny and shell morphology research, that there are in fact no subspecies of Placostylus ambagiosus. I usually prefer that subspecies info is included within the species article anyway. This new research is a especially relevant in this case because of the conservation implications. Do you have an opinion about what should we do in this situation? It seems to me we should at the very least combine the subspecies articles into one article. What would you say is the best easy to proceed under the circumstances? Invertzoo (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the article Placostylus ambagiosus. To bring it in conformity with the article of Buckley et al. (2011), we could retain the so-called subspecies for historical reasons, but mention clearly that the differences are due to environmental plasticity. If I understand well, Buckley et al. were talking of the three New Zealand species. The other Placostylus articles deal with species from Australia or New Caledonia and should be retained. Can you do the necessary changes ? I'm drowning in the recently bot-generated articles of Turbonilla, a real headache just like Conus used to be. JoJan (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I will do the changes, but first can I ask: do you think we will end up deleting all the subspecies articles for P. ambagiosus? If so, then I will work on combining all 14 of them into the main article for the species as well as explaining that they are now thought to be invalid. Invertzoo (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The articles I found on the subspecies of P. ambagiosus are all redirects to P. ambagiosus. I could delete them if you think it necessary. JoJan (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Subgenus
Hi JoJan, The bot is currently skipping subgenus and its species. For example: How do you suggest we handle these? — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 05:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Kleinella (Euparthenia) bulinea - http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=140960
 * 2) Kleinella (Euparthenia) humboldti - http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=140961
 * Looking at these two examples, I found different results :


 * Kleinella (Euparthenia) bulinea : WoRMS puts in in Pyramidellidae, while Gastropods.com puts it in Amathinidae (. WoRMS is waiting for a major overhaul of the Pyramidellidae, therefore Gastropods.com could have it right.
 * to make things more complicated : sealifebase.com only mentions Kleinella bulinea (without subgenus)(, belonging to the Pyramidellidae.
 * A scientific paper from 2007 only mentions Kleinella humboldti (without subgenus).
 * Yesterday, I handled the changes in Athleta where most species in the subgenera have become alternate representations and were reassigned to the species itself. I've seen this happen more and more: WoRMS regards more and more names in the subspecies as alternate representations of the same name in the genus.
 * Conclusions ? Let the bot skip the subgenus in the taxobox, but let it be mentioned in the intro as e.g. Kleinella (Euparthenia) bulinea is a sea snail belonging to ..... The subgenera that are stil recognized can be mentioned in the article about the genus. Those that are viewed upon as alternate representations can be mentioned in the list of synonyms of that genus. This way, changes are easier to perform afterwards. And let's not forget, many subspecies in the past have now become genera in their own right. JoJan (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Tribes
Hi JoJan, one more question. Should the bot create tribes? For example, Turbonillini - http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=411883. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 05:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WoRMS mentions tribes but does not assign any species to a particular tribe. I think there is a good reason for that. Different databases can assign the same genus to a different tribe. This makes assignation to a tribe a bit artificial. Therefore, tribes can be mentioned in the taxobox of the subfamily, but this should not go any further. JoJan (talk) 09:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Fusus (gastropod)
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Fusus (gastropod), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Fusus. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

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. MadmanBot (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The bot is confused. JoJan (talk) 08:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * JoJan, it was me. I had moved content over and merged the histories of the two articles. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 08:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Neomphalina
Hi JoJan, we will need a plan of action for this new clade, Neomphalina. The super family, Neomphaloidea was previously connected to clade Vetigastropoda. See. P. Bouchet had made this change in August 2011. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 03:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've created the clade Neomphalina and its category. Can you make automatic taxoboxes that change all taxa included and can you change as well the automatic taxobox of Gastropoda to include Neomphalina ? This is one of the major changes in the taxonomy of the Gastropoda. This is a case where an automatic taxobox can be useful : changes from the top down to the level of species.
 * I'm afraid that isn't all. I've seen reports that there may be other families (e.g. Skeneidae) included in Neomphalina, but this hasn't been accepted by WoRMS . We'll see what happens in the future. This is a never-ending story. JoJan (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added Neomphalina to the Gastropoda page. I will work on the updating the taxobox of all the included taxa. I will need to submit bot approval request. Thanks. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 12:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam
Thanks so much for the heads up on that! I have added my name and info to the list! Invertzoo (talk)

Re: Your help would be appreciated
Hi JoJan, a quick response. Try Google Chrome and let me know how it goes. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 22:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The village pump has good suggestions. Please clear up monobook.css, monobook.js, vector.css and vector.js to see if it helps. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 11:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "clear up" ? Do I have to delete those subpages ? Do I need them anymore ? Anyway, the problem still persists, as you can see in my reply in Village pump (technical)/Archive 136. But strangely, after the blanking of the text in the edit mode of Turbonilla ignacia, I can still make this conversation with you on my talk page without all text being blanked. This problem apparently only occurs when going into the edit mode of the same article for the second time. I just made the test in the edit mode of my reply I just made in the Village Pump (technical) and the text appeared and then almost immedately blanked. Does this have any connection with the Java plug-ins in Firefox I mentioned in the Village Pump (Technical) ? JoJan (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have commented one line here. I am not sure about Java plugins. Did you try Google Chrome yet? Did you turn on any gadgets (under My Preferences)? — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 11:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Finally I tried Google Chrome. And it worked - so far, so good. I can edit again in a normal manner. But another problem has arisen. I check WoRMS almost on a daily basis for new additions and changes. When I click in the left column on "Statistics" and then in the upper right corner on "Latest taxa additions" I get a page in html instead of the normal layout. When I click on "Latest taxa checked", I get this message: "This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below.". Very strange. I don't know if you get the same result. I don't know what has caused the problems in Firefox and Internet Explorer, but at least I can edit again. And that is the most important. JoJan (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I see the same behavior when clicking "latest taxa checked". Google Chrome does not seem to have a built-in RSS reader. You will need to use Google Reader (http://www.google.com/reader) for that. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 01:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ganesh. I've added Google Reader and everything works fine. JoJan (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

New fern initiative
I have laid down plans for a project to improve fern coverage at WikiProject Pteridophytes/Northeastern America Initiative. I know that's not exactly your geographical region, but since you've contributed some material to Dryopteris filix-mas, I thought you might be interested in helping describe some of the more cosmopolitan fern species. Choess (talk) 06:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Please delete accidentally-created pages
These are currently redirect pages, but they need to be deleted as they were created accidentally by me when I was too tired to know what I was doing! Could you oblige by deleting them JoJan? Thanks! Invertzoo (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:Saba Conservation Foundation (redirect page) (links)
 * User:Saba Conservation Foundation (redirect page) ‎ (links)


 * ✅ — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 11:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much Ganesh! Invertzoo (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You're mentioned
Hi! You are mentioned in a post that will run on the Wikimedia Foundation blog this week describing some of the editors who signed up for HighBeam accounts and their motivations for doing so. I just wanted to let you know. If you'd rather not be mentioned, please respond below or on my talk page. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 18:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Ganeshbot
Hi JoJan, just a reminder. The latest bot stubs are waiting for review since March 31. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 00:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I know, but I have been busy in real life (spring is here and my large garden needs me). Besides, lately WoRMS is awash with so many new additions and changes (sometimes more than 100 a day) that I hardly can keep up. I have to do this first, otherwise these changes will vanish from my radar. And in 10 days I'll be travelling abroad for a week. So, a little bit patience. JoJan (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, understood. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 11:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

In case your ears are burning and you can't work out why...
... it's because someone's complaining at WP:AN about you in this thread. Regards, and keep up the good work, BencherliteTalk 21:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I never had posted any complaint JoJan, why will i do that ? As you can see i am a trusted user contributing on Wikipedia for many months now. This thread that i posted was just because of usually all the vandal and troll only accounts are blocked indefinitely and User:Yeah1234? was one of them. I really apologize if you or anyone has been hurt with that, it never was and never will be, i never want to hurt any of my fellow Wikipedians, i really respect and work with all of them now also including you too. Hope everything will be sorted out peacefully :). Regards. TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Yeah1234? needs to be blocked indefinitely (Vandalism only account)
Hello JoJan, i have posted a query on Administrators' noticeboard about this thread. I have suggested that this user account be block indefinitely as this is a vandalism only account. It did not come to my mind that i had to first ask you about this as it is for only those people who are involved in a problem or dispute but i apologize if this was wrong. I hope everything will be resolved peacefully and soon. Thanks. TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I usually don't block a newbie indefinitely, unless it is really necessary. I try to apply WP:BITE. The vandalism involved was childish, not really hurtful. Maybe this person will come back and I want to give him/her at least the chance to give a positive contribution. If not, then more severe measures can be taken. If another admin disagrees with this policy, then this admin can block for a longer time or even indefinetely. JoJan (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Aporodoris
Hello JoJan, taxonomy is a very complex thing (probably too complex to be handled well on WP). Aporodoris most certainly is an invalid synonym of Taringa, and so belongs to Discodorididae, not Dorididae. I have tried my best to explain why on the Aporodoris page. I hope you can accept this, cheers ... Malacologist2 (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed taxonomy can be very complex, but not too complex to be handled on Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't take sides, we only report what others have written in sources we can trust (such as a malacological journal). This is one of those cases. Let the ICZN decide. Dayrat (2010) writes on page 209 : "The next question is: Which name should we use for that clade, Taringa or Aporodoris?" and explains his point of view. Dr. Bouchet (a leading taxonomist) gives in WoRMS his opinion. We cannot beg the question, we only report. We don't have to take sides. We must stay neutral (one of the five pillars of Wikipedia). JoJan (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say that a clear rule in the ICZN Code, which clearly contradicts Dayrat, trumps all else ... wouldn't you? We can't stay completely neutral on this one, because the result would be chaos. I think I have handled it adequately, appealing only to published sources (i.e. no OR)... Malacologist2 (talk) 08:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Dayrat and Bouchet rely on rule 23.9.1.1 "the senior synonym must not have been used as a valid name after 1899". The names Aporodoris rubra Bergh, 1905, Aporodoris risbeci Marcus and Marcus, 1967 and  Aporodoris merria Burn, 1973 were all used after 1899. Then, can you tell me wich clear rule in the ICZN code has to be applied that contradicts this statement ? JoJan (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure can, though I already put it on the Aporodoris page, but here it is again, i.e. Art. 23.10:

23.10. Erroneous reversal of precedence. If action taken under Article 23.9.2 is found later to have been taken in error in that conditions 23.9.1.1 and 23.9.1.2 were not met, the case is to be referred to the Commission. Prevailing usage must be maintained [Art. 82] until the Commission has made a ruling (i.e. an author discovering that such an erroneous action has occurred must not automatically use the older synonym or homonym).

This means that Taringa must continue to be used as the valid name until the Commission has made a ruling (which it has not done, and has not been requested to do) Cheers, Malacologist2 (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a problem I cannot solve. Therefore I've sent an email to Dr. Bouchet, member of the ICZN, with a request to give a solution or propose the matter to the ICZN. JoJan (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Good idea ... though I was talking to Philippe briefly yesterday, by email, on another matter, and he is very busy at the moment having just returned from a big trip. Realistically, we cannot hope to get all problems like this solved at the source, so we need a way to cope with problems on WP, by tagging tem appropriately, and explaining the problem on the relevant talk pages ... Malacologist2 (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said above, it is good in such cases to represent all sides and explain them properly, while staying neutral. JoJan (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello JoJan, I have checked it out. It is interesting case that has very surprising results (at least for me). I think, that both of you agree that those two genera are synonymous and that they belong to the same family (family Discodorididae). I will let the question "what generic name should we use on wikipedia" open for meantime. So I will expand articles and I will try to "explain them properly". Let me some time to do so. I hope that then both will agree where to move article(s). OK? --Snek01 (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Go ahead. In the mean time, I'm awaiting the reply of Dr. Bouchet. JoJan (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I did my best and I have expanded articles "Aporodoris millegrana" and "Taringa (gastropod)". Apparently the generic name Taringa is in prevailing usage because there were described more species in that genus. I think, that luckily only two moves are needed:
 * article "Aporodoris millegrana" should be moved to "Taringa millegrana".
 * article "Aporodoris" should be redirected to "Taringa (gastropod)". --Snek01 (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. I moved Aporodoris millegrana to Taringa millegrana. But I think the article Aporodoris should remain. A redirect to Taringa would remove the data in the article. I think the explanation should remain until the final allocation of the name is settled. JoJan (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This the (belated) anser I received from Dr. Bouchet about this matter:
 * "Thank you for pointing out the contradiction between the two nomenclatural notes between Taringa (note by Serge Gofas) and Aporodoris (note by myself). I have amended the former, so that there is now no contradiction between the two. It still leaves unsettled the valid generic combination for the species currently classified in Taringa. But this is for a taxonomical paper to handle, not for WoRMS. Best regards, Philippe." JoJan (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Jolly good, though he has done somewhat of a "half-arsed" job at fixing WoRMS, where Aporodoris is still cited as a valid genus! Malacologist2 (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Move request
Stomatellidae -> Stomatellinae. --Snek01 (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. JoJan (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks.

Bulimulinae -> Bulimulidae. --Snek01 (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You better give me a good reason for the move, because this is somewhat outside my field of expertise. See "Taxonomy" in Orthalicidae. Furthermore, Bulimus seems to be a temporary name according to WoRMS Bulimus. JoJan (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Texts of the most related articles are updated now. --Snek01 (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. JoJan (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
I agree whole-heartedly! Invertzoo (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Leftover talk page
Hi JoJan, Could you delete this leftover talk page? Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. JoJan (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Invertzoo (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)