User talk:JoJan/Archive 9

Prunus serrulata
Hi, can you determine if the fruits of Prunus serrulata are edible by humans? Thank you, Badagnani (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Evora Manuscript, Again
Hello Again,

In the Antiphoner article there are 2 photos from you, one of a manuscript displaying the title page with a printer's name and date, the other is of a manuscript opened to a musical selection. I'm interested in the music manuscript. My question is this: these are two separate manuscripts, right? I don't think they are one and the same, unless perhaps you had permission to open the display and open the manuscript?

Many thanks!

Troporum (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * These are definitely two separate books. JoJan (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you happen to have any other photos of that manuscript? Thank you again. Your input has been invaluable.

Troporum (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. I happened to make these photos just before entering the Chapel of the Bones. JoJan (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Saint Dominic
A tag has been placed on Saint Dominic, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

the first three sections are word for word copied from Alfred Wesley Wishart: A Short History of Monks and Monasteries. 1900. Project Gutenberg etext

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. AbioticEquation (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * this is using the exact text from the ebook itself and thus is a copyright violation. AbioticEquation (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * the speedy tag has been removed by another user. Rightly so. JoJan (talk) 05:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wargasm
Apparently the former page on this computer game was deleted. May I ask why? I'm hoping to re-create it. A Prodigy (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It was deleted by me more than two years ago, i.e. on 4 February 2006. At that time, it was proposed as a non-notable band and by another user as "nonsense". You can always recreate this article. But then you must take into account the following policies : Notability and especially Notability (music), also Reliable sources. If you then write a serious article (and not just a stub) under these conditions, your article will probably be accepted by the Wikipedia community. Good luck. JoJan (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK cheers, I'll look into it :). A Prodigy (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A question regarding your deletion of EmiloZ
You deleted it as "patent nonsense." However, it didn't appear to be simple nonsense (i.e. "diainaon 13899nd djandko3irjo"), but rather a candidate. I don't disagree at all with the deletion, but was just curious as to your thinking on the matter. S. Dean Jameson 05:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The content was : "EmiloZ is an epix MMOwned memeber which only need 11 Repz for elitez :O He's an old emu expert and he's donater&contrib EmiloZ is a 14 old boy from Denmark ". This content is as good as unintelligible to me, a kind of gibberish. User:12.8.15.226 marked it as nonsense and I couldn't agree more. The template db-person would do as well. There was every reason for a speedy deletion. Cheers. JoJan (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I completely agree that it needed speedied straightaway. Yet, it's not clear-cut nonsense (at least not in my reading of the nonsense proviso), but more like a nonsensical article about a person. But as they say, you say po-tay-toe, I say po-tah-toe. Either way, it's properly gone now. I'm just always trying to learn more about the whys and hows of WP. S. Dean Jameson 16:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Amphibola crenata
Hi JoJan. Today I noticed that GrahamBould talk had put two images into this article, images he had created. He had mistakenly identified the shell as being of this Amphibola species, whereas in fact it is a shell of a turbinid. I left a message for him about an hour ago, and I went ahead and took out the images from the article. I also changed the descriptions in the image files, but the images are still both named "Amphibola crenata", so they show up in a google search. Should I ask him to change the name of the images? Or what is the best way to handle this? Thanks again as always, Invertzoo (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Me again. Graham has replaced the article images with pics of the correct species, however the old images are still labelled as they were before. He hopes to have the correct ID by next Tuesday. Invertzoo (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Access to a good molluscan library?
Hi JoJan, I just wondered if you still have access to a good mollusk library, one that you can take your laptop into? If so, I wonder if they have: Powell A W B, New Zealand Mollusca, William Collins Publishers Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand 1979 ISBN 0-00-216906-1. I think it would be good to check a number of relevant WP entries against the original text of that book, a book which I have not yet seen. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can't help you. I only have my own books (about European and American molluscs), the taxonomy of Bouchet and Rocroi ,and lots of links on the internet. The public library of my home town has also a few books about this subject, but they're totally out of date. JoJan (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks anyway JoJan, I will see what I can do. Invertzoo (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Replied on my talk page Raul654 (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've created Phalaenopsis kaleidoscope. It has some red links (and it's currently an orphan). I'd like to fill in the red links by creating articles for Artificial orchid hybrid (or possibly as List of artificial orchid hybrids) and grex (currently a disambig page lacking a relevant botanical definition). Once that's done, hopefully the article won't be an orphan. Raul654 (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, the lead to the Phalaenopsis should make the distinction between the 60-odd natural species and the thousands of artificial ones clear. Raul654 (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've moved the article to Phalaenopsis 'Kaleidoscope' (exact spelling) and replaced the taxobox by an infobox for cultivars in accordance with WikiProject Tree of Life/Cultivar infobox. I've also added a line to the intro of Phalaenopsis, stressing the importance of artificial hybrids of this genus. JoJan (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

About Seashell, Mollusc shell etc.
Hi JoJan, I have a question. We used to have an article called Seashell. It wasn't very good, but it was perhaps arguably, a useful thing to have. I had not got around to properly working on it to make it a lot better. Anyway, I just found out that on 16th July, Martin Smith merged it with the Mollusc shell article. A problem (as I see it) is that in the wide definition of the word seashell, not all seashells are mollusk shells (seashells can also include crab shells, sea urchin tests, barnacles, brachiopods). And as for the other article, Mollusc shell,well, by no means all mollusk shells come from the sea, as you know. (I just added a sentence to that effect). Maybe it was a good idea to have a seashell article for curious people who are complete amateurs, even though the article needed a lot of work. It was at least a place that people could go to pick up some basic info, and it could point them on to the other articles including Exoskeleton and Conchology, etc, etc. It also seems (?) as though Martin perhaps did not save posts from the Seashell talk page, assuming there were some. So tell me, what do you think about this situation? Should we think about re-instating Seashell? Thanks for your time. Invertzoo (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur with your reasoning. The version of "Seashell" of 19 June 2008 is covers more ground than Mollusc shell. I'm a proponent of reinstating this article, but only with a short paragraph for describing the shell of molluscs (and referring to the main article). The seashell article should be expanded though. JoJan (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK good. I don't know how to reinstate it though. Maybe I can ask you do do that? I will do any clean-up that needs doing, just let me know. Also I wanted to say we have a new template about shells/seashells which is a little weird, and that's . I guess it is supposed to help amateurs find their way to our seashell articles, but I find it odd and a bit confusing as it currently stands. What do you think? Invertzoo (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for reinstating Seashell JoJan. I did clean it up a fair bit already, but will have a go at improving more and maybe expanding it more, over the next few weeks. I did add that template I mentioned in my previous note, but there are still various things about the template that I am uneasy about. Do you have an opinion on the template as it currently stands? Invertzoo (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Just added the word "template" to my message, to make it clear what I was talking about. Invertzoo (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (I couldn't add this before because the wikiservers have been down for a long a time) I've reinstated Seashell (version of 19 June 2008) and I've redirected Sea shell and Sea shells back to Seashell. I can't work on the article, as I'm in the middle of large alterations in my garden (60 trees to be uprooted and a new fence to be installed, and that's just the beginning !). I'll be busy for the next month ot so or even longer. As to the template, you' re right. it looks a bit odd and may be even superfluous. But it doesn't harm. So, you can leave it here or maybe improve it. JoJan (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted redirect
Why? The correct (but less common) spelling is the one on the deleted redirect at whereas the article uses the common spelling.LeadSongDog (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The spelling "Alöis Alzheimer" (with the umlaut on the o) is a redirect with an implausible typo.
 * The correct spelling is Alöis, but it is commonly rendered without in English, hence the article name uses the common spelling.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's always possible that you're correct but even the German wikipedia renders the name as "Alois Alzheimer". And I cannot find any Google hits under "Alöis Alzheimer"; they are all rendered as "Alois Alzheimer". Anyway, I know German rather well, and I've never seen the spelling "Alöis". This would then be pronounced as "Aloeis", which makes this rather implausible. In my opinion, you can only be correct if the name was misspelled on the birth certificate. I'm closing this discussion, as for me it's bedtime (European time). JoJan (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The same topic continued at talk:Alzheimer's disease. It may in fact represent a spelling of Aloysius, but I'm happy to accede to Alois given the prevalence of that usage in the literature.LeadSongDog (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Love dart
Hi JoJan, I imagine you are very busy with your garden, and I hope that project is going well for you. I just wanted to say that during the last week, Snek, Geronimo, and I have been working on a new article on love darts in gastropods. Today it is the first listing in the "Did you know?" section of the main page for English Wikipedia. The article is coming along really well I think, although it needs a great deal more work. Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well-written. I've promoted this article to a B-assessment and I think you should push through to the GA-level. I had noticed this article already and I've started to use links to it in the description of the specific characteristics of the families in the Helicoidea (e.g. see: Humboldtianidae). JoJan (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks JoJan, I am really glad you liked it. Yes we really do want to work it up to the level of GA, and I think we can do that if we can sustain the momentum we already have. The three of us make a good team it seems. Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks. Certainly in the beginning it was hard work since I was the only one. An appeal for cooperation in the Dutch malacological journal Spirula turned up a few prospects. But when they heard all their contributions would be under GFDL they all refused further cooperation. They I continued alone, writing the main article Gastropoda and a lot of articles, mainly about Opisthobranchia. During these four years, I saw, to my pleasure, the number of participants slowly growing and the number of articles increase. All this makes me hope for the best. But there is still so much to do. JoJan (talk) 13:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome JoJan. It is a pleasure to work within the framework you set up. By the way, I am gradually making my way through all of the species, genera, families, and superfamilies mentioned in Love dart, making new articles wherever necessary in order to get rid of all of the red links there. Of course the new articles are only stubs, but they are better than nothing. Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomy
Hello, can we (or admins, because there is a redirect allredy) change Limapontiidae as an article and Stiligeridae as a redirect?

The same problem is: Placobranchidae and Elysiidae. --Snek01 (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Bulimulidae - not in new system? --Snek01 (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've fixed Limapontiidae and Placobranchidae. Bulimulidae has been downgraded to the rank of subfamily Bulimulinae Tryon, 1867 within the family Orthalicidae Albers, 1860, which belongs to the superfamily Orthalicoidea Albers, 1860 . JoJan (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have moved Bulimulidae to Bulimulinae.

Category:Pomatiasidae - not in new system? --Snek01 (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The taxon Pomatiasidae does not exist and is not included in the nomenclator of Bouchet & Rocroi. Instead the type genus Pomatias Studer, 1789 belongs to the subfamily Pomatiinae Gray, 1853, within  the family Pomatiidae Newton, 1891 (1828) , included in the superfamily Littorinoidea of the clade Littorinimorpha. JoJan (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, spelling error appehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JoJan&action=edit&section=15ared: Pomatiidae vs Pomatiiidae. --Snek01 (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've corrected this annoying typo. JoJan (talk) 08:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Poteriidae - not in new system? --Snek01 (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Poteriidae Tielecke, 1940 and Poteriinae Thiele, 1929 have been renamed as the subfamily Neocyclotinae Kobelt & Möllendorff, 1897, family Neocyclotidae Kobelt & Möllendorff, 1897 , superfamily Cyclophoroidea Gray, 1847 , Informal Group Architaeniglossa. JoJan (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Like this? Neocyclotidae. Only one subfamily is in Neocyclotidae? --Snek01 (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've expanded Neocyclotidae and its genera. I've deleted Poteriidae and its category. JoJan (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oreohelicidae - not valid family? See Category:Oreohelicidae and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Oreohelicidae. --Snek01 (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I already bought the book(!) and added missing Oreohelicidae into article Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005). --Snek01 (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the belated reply to your question. Indeed the Oreohelicidae belong to the superfamily Punctoidea and thanks for adding it to the article of the taxonomy. I must have overlooked it somehow. Originally in 1939 Pilsbry  had retained the family name of Camaenidae Von Mollendorff 1898, but had suggested 2 subfamilies, Ammonitellinae and Oreohelicinae.  Eventually, the family Oreohelicidae, was adopted by C. B. Wurtz in 1955. JoJan (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is Aegopinella written in both families Zonitidae and Oxychilidae in wikipedia. --Snek01 (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The taxonomy of B & R elevated the Oxychilidae to the rank of family. Before this Schileyko (2003) and Fechter and Falkner (1990) considerded it as a subfamily of the Zonitidae. In older books and websites, the Oxychilidae were considered as a synonym of Zonitidae; that is how this confusion arose. Aegopinella is included in the subfamily Godwiniinae of the family Oxychilidae (See (in French) : MalaCo nr.2, Mai 2006, Le Bulletin de la Malacologie Continentale Française - this .pdf can be downloaded at : http://www.journal-malaco.fr/page-5.html ). JoJan (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Auto-generated gastropod articles
Hi JoJan, I am copying the following posts from Snek onto your talk page from the Project Gastropods talk page becasue I wanted to get your input on this Invertzoo (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"I think that there could be possible to auto-generate gastropod articles from Sepkoski's Online Genus Database (3994 genera of gastropods and many others). See also List of marine gastropod genera in the fossil record. I have tried to made an an article according that source only what could robot do: Akera according to the source. Actual article: Akera. I found no a list of abbreviations so I hope I have used correct ones. There is no complete scientific classification for that genera and there is an order only from traditional classification. The classification can be combined with other taxonomical source if available. It is necessary to classify according to Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005) and if no possible then it is better to not classify at all.

"We can decide if we want to start such articles. Then it is possible to make a request at Bot requests. There is possible to discuss at WikiProject Palaeontology if it could be good for more articles than for gastropods. --Snek01 (talk) 09:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

":I made a mistake. There should be no Category:Extinct gastropods for those genera that are still in recent. --Snek01 (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)"

Thanks JoJan, Invertzoo (talk) 13:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've looked into this database and saw that the taxonomy is not recent. If we use a bot to generate new articles, we can end up with the same mess as with the "Mesogastropod stubs". It would take a huge effort to clean it up. Therefore, better think twice or perhaps come up with a better idea. JoJan (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

List of biologists
Why did you remove the addition of a red link to this list? Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This list refers to an existing biography of a biologist and therefore should only contain blue links. This doesn't mean that Lynn J. Rothschild doesn't deserve to be entered into this list. But first you have to establish the notability (Notability) from independent, reliable sources. This can only be done if you write first a biography of the person in question. I hope this answers your question. JoJan (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. This list refers to at least 19 red links, and there is no list of notable people on Wikipedia that should only include blue links.  I don't know where you are getting this from.  And just to point you in the right direction, the correct guideline is WP:PROF which contradicts your assertions above.  Dr. Rothschild meets criterion 1, 2, 3, and possibly others. Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Second answer : you refer to red link. If you read this guideline you will see the following text : "However when considering adding red links to lists, disambiguation pages or templates, editors are encouraged to write the article first (the bolding is by me). This is a normal consideration. Otherwise, lists would become dumping places full of red links and would become unmanageable. JoJan (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that recommendation was added unilaterally by User:UnitedStatesian on March 14, 2008. without any discussion. Furthermore, if you read the rest of the article, you'll see that adding red links to lists is perfectly acceptable. I think it should be removed from the guideline as there was no consensus for its inclusion and it contradicts the very idea of adding red links in the first place. Viriditas (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I created this list originally and I try to keep it manageable. But if you want to insist on keeping this red link, it's fine to me. But keep in mind what the guidelines of RED LINK say about this : "Do create red links to articles you intend to create " (bolding by me) and "Keep in mind there are various notability guidelines (WP:NOTABILITY), which exist for a number of subjects, including people (WP:BIO). ". A red link to a name does not establish the notability. Therefore, you have to create now a biography about this biologist, establishing the notability, even if this biography is just a stub. But you're an experienced editor and you can do better than that. I hope this ends the discussion. JoJan (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me ask you a simple question: did you add the 18 red links in the article before I added the 19th? Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No. But as far as I'm concerned, they have to go too. They have been there too long without a biography being created. JoJan (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, then if that is your position, I request that you take your proposal to the Biology WikiProject, as I am completely against it. For what it is worth, I do intend to create the article on Dr. Rothschild. Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion, as requested, to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology. And, by the way, I appreciate that you intend to create the article. But the normal procedure would be the reverse : first the article, then the inclusion into the list. Anyway, we'll see what the participants in the WikiProject: Biology have to say about this. JoJan (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that is not the normal procedure nor is there any rule that says that is the procedure. Red links are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(A new and longer discussion about the same topic continues below at the end of the page - in january 2009)

List of molluscs...
Hi again JoJan, I am currently preparing (on a subpage) an article, a list of the non-marine mollusks of Britain. I have some questions for you if you don't mind:
 * I notice that currently all of the regional lists are called "List of molluscs..." However the one I am working on will be ONLY the land and freshwater mollusks, the non-marine mollusks. I feel that for countries which have a coastline, there should really be two mollusk lists, one for the marine mollusks and one for the non-marine mollusks of that country. What do you think? The marine mollusks are so very numerous and also they require a different kind of expertise and attract different people. I feel they should be separate. Some of the existing lists are in fact non-marine only, (sometimes because the country has no coastline) but nothing in the title indicates that the list is only non-marine species.
 * I am thinking perhaps I should make one list for the island of Great Britain, and another one for the island of Ireland, because the faunas are a bit different. Any comments? (That is rather than trying to make one list for the British Isles, British Isles being a controversial word that no-one can agree about.)
 * As for the actual title of the list, some people call their list "List of the molluscs of Xcountry" Others call it, "List of the molluscs recorded for Xcountry". The titles should be standardized I think. Which do you think is better?
 * I am confused about the available categories. There is a a category "Molluscs by country", and there is a category "Regional invertebrate lists". Fair enough. There is also a category "Molluscs of Europe" which seems to be primarily just a large number of non-marine individual species articles listed, but which also contains 7 regional lists. I feel that the lists should either go into a subcategory, or in some way be separated from the rest of that category. The majority of those 7 lists are not listed in the category "Molluscs by country". How should we proceed?

Thanks for your input, Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not much in favour anymore of the creation of "List of....". These lists tend to get very long and become unmanageable, e.g. List of biologists. (see the discussion above). Also lists can be full of red links. In this particular case and with only a few collaborators working on it, it would take many years to replace the red links by blue links. In my opinion, the use of categories is more suited to our needs, e.g. a "Category : Land and freshwater molluscs of Britain" and "Category : Land and freshwater molluscs of Ireland". A mollusc could even belong to both categories. These categories should then be an undercategory of "Category : Land and freshwater molluscs of Europe" while this would be again an undercategory of "Category : Molluscs of Europe". In such a way, only an ever growing number of blue links would be included, while such a category would have the same function as a "List of ..." JoJan (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * JoJan, you are not right. This matter of lists of species can not be solved by categories. Some species live in many countries. There can not so be many categories in articles about species. There are really many possibilities how a species can exist in one country, for example it can be native there, it can be nonindigenous there, it can be extinct there, it can be for example living in greenhouses only there and really many possibilities. Such information can and should be in lists in wikipedia. This matter was surely discussed many times. - Does no matter if a list contains red links. - There can not be categories that you mentioned. Even category Molluscs of Europe is useless, because such information that a species live in Europe will be surely written in the article. There is no need categories with thousands of aticles inside and there is no need articles with tens of categories. - Lists can be complete. But a reader can never be sure that a category is complete. It is not easy to make complete lists but it is possible and it is the only right way. - I hope that my words have conviced you. Thank you for cooperation.


 * List of biologists is another problem. If a list contain only alphabetically sorted subjects it is not much useful. List can have more information in sortable table. But that list of ALL biologists is/will be really long. If there will be no possible to make complete list of biologists, so it can be displaced with categories because such categories for people already exist as casual/native/real categories. Writing of lists is up to their authors. --Snek01 (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi JoJan, Thanks for your helpful input. I do understand what you are saying. However, if you look at List of non-marine molluscs of Great Britain as it currently stands you will see that even now only about half of the 200-item list is red links, and each month the number of red links will be decreasing, because new short articles on the non-marine mollusks of Europe are currently being created at a good rate of speed. To be fair I also believe that most readers of Wikipedia do not really know about categories or what they are or how to consult or navigate through them. I feel that categories are a feature that is most useful to editors of Wikipedia. I also believe that regional faunal lists are a very helpful resource. They are very important to biogeographical studies and comparisons. It is also possible to flesh lists out with a lot more more context so that they become articles in their own right rather than just a big pile of links. The European non-marine mollusks particularly lend themselves to the list treatment because the numbers involved are not vast. And both Great Britain and Ireland are islands, which make them isolated and therefore even more interesting in terms of a faunal list. If you look at the regional faunal lists at  you will see quite a few different subcategories and quite a few different types of listing. Very best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Changed "and" to "are". Invertzoo (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit to rose
Hi there JoJan. I see you have recently reverted one of my edits, namely to the article Rose, as vandalism. I appreciate the speed of your edit: great job. However, the edit was not unconstructive. If you look carefully at my edit, you will see that in it I had identified the variety of rose illustrated by one of the images in the botany section. Unfortunately, my browser occasionally malfunctions while I am editing this wiki, and as a result, randomly inserts javascript into the page. It appears to be taking code from my monobook.js, and pasting it onto pages I edit. I have thankfully fixed the problem, which I believe was associated with the automated peer reviewer I use. I have removed the code from my monobook, as it does not appear to be compatible with Google Chrome. Thank you for your concern: I have now re-edited article Rose, without any problems. If you have anymore concerns, please notify me. Also recall our policies on newcomers, namely WP:BITE and WP:AGF. As you are an admin, I am sure you are familiar with them. Good day, Elucidate (parlez à moi) Ici pour humor 16:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No harm intended. I couldn't figure out what this javascript was doing in this article. That's why I added "irrelevant javascript" at my message. This was a boilerplate template from Twinkle, which does not handle such a strange situation (therefore the mentioning of 'vandalism'). As to the image: Roses 'Lowell Thomas' are yellow and not pink. So I reverted it as well. And now I see now that you have replaced it with a featured picture candidate. Good job ! JoJan (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed vandalism on your page
From 2 days ago here. It might be a good idea to watch that page or check it often for vandalism. Or you can ask for semi protection to keep those kind of people away. Cheers  Monster Under Your Bed  (talk) 11:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Gladiolus
Hello. I had left a comment regarding the new section that you moved and edited. Your changes improve matters but I wonder if it wouldn't be even better just to have a disambig line at the top of the article pointing to Body of sternum. Perhaps some of the new wording could be incorporated in that article, but it seems like way too much detail for a totally different subject than that of this article. If you agree, I'll put it on my ever-growing to-do list. Rivertorch (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. JoJan (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! I'll get to it eventually. Rivertorch (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Columella
Hello, could you rename Columella (mollusk) to Columella (mollusc) to have the name similar to other articles in Category:Mollusc anatomy, please? Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. JoJan (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Prosthechea & Euchile
I've been looking over the Prosthechea (Orchidaceae) page and found a citation of Withner (in the text) for separating Euchile from Prosthechea. However, the complete citation is not to be found in the references. I believe that this text is a part of your prolific contributions to Wikipedia. Can you please provide the complete reference? - Jay L09 (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I had to dig deep because I wrote this two and a half years ago. Euchile (Dressler & G.E.Pollard) Withner published in "Cattleyas & Relatives 5: 137 (1998)" is a synonym of the accepted name Prosthechea Knowles & Westc. published in  Fl. Cab. 2: 111 (1838).  You can read a confirmation of this in Flora of North America : Prosthechea. You can also find the publications of mr. Wesley E. Higgins in his curriculum vitae . An abstract from his publication "A reconsideration of the genus Prosthechea (Orchidaceae). Phytologia 82: 370--383" can be found on . However the taxa Euchile citrina (Lex.) Withner and Euchile mariae (Ames) Withner seem to be no longer accepted names by the World Checklist of Monocotyledons (Kew Botanical Gardens)  and are replaced by their accepted names Prosthechea citrina (Lex.) W.E.Higgins  and  Prosthechea mariae (Ames) W.E.Higgins . As you can see, taxonomies change in the course of time and can change again with every new publication. With several thousands of articles on my watchlists in wikipedias in diverse languages, its has become difficult to follow everything from close-up.   JoJan (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Commons uploading
Hello. I presume you upload to Commons now, but it would help us moving-images-to-the-commons people if you could move some of your old (freely licensed) images there as well every now and then, if you can. Thanks. Richard001 (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Overleg gebruiker:JoJan
Hoi Johan, Misschien kun je even kijken op je overlegpagina op de Nederlandse Wikipedia (nl:Overleg gebruiker:JoJan). Bessel Dekker en ik hebben beide een opmerking geplaatst die je (waarschijnlijk) nog niet hebt gezien. See you there. Vriendelijke groeten, Davin (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Red Slug
Hi JoJan, I think the title of this article needs to be moved at any rate to Red slug, but I was not able to do that. Do you think you could do that? Of course I would actually rather the title was Arion rufus, but I don't know... what you think about that idea? Thanks and all good wishes to you. Invertzoo (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've moved the article to Red slug. Normally I would have moved it to the scientific name, but the name Red slug is very common in day to day usage, while the scientific name is unknown to most people. Furthermore, another common slug Arion ater has also its article under the title Black slug. JoJan (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much JoJan, I see what you mean. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Help with image
Hello, could you please delete image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trivia_monacha.jpg from English wikipedia? I have moved it to commons under other name File:Trivia_monacha 2.jpg (and then edited.) Thank you for your help. --Snek01 (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the file. It has then been automatically replaced by another file with an identical name from the Commons. Before moving the original file to the Commons, you should have checked if that name didn't already exist on the Commons. If so (and in this case it did) you should have renamed the original file in the en.wikipedia to a filename that was still available on the Commons. And only then you should have made the move. Anyway, after my deletion, the file from the Commons with  an identical name File:Trivia monacha.jpg (but with a different image) has now replaced in the en.wikipedia the original file that you put in the Commons. All is well that ends well. JoJan (talk) 09:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your information and for your help. --Snek01 (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Categories
Feel free to share your opinion about the theme at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_11. --Snek01 (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy happy joy joy for JoJan


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 to your friends' talk pages.

About a brand new article that appears to be 100% bogus
Hi again JoJan, Would you do me a favor and check out Comic x? It appears to be completely bogus. A google search finds no such thing as "Roast Beef Publishing Ltd" or any of the other key words. If the article is a piece of vandalism, it needs to be deleted. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, this doesn't fall into a CSD category. It has to go through AfD. I voted for deletion and it won't take long before this article will be deleted. BTW thanks for your nice Christmas card  JoJan (talk) 09:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Stanhopea-wardii1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Stanhopea-wardii1.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media 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 GFDL 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 [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.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 did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

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 uploaded by following this link. Images 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. --Sherool (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Stanhopea-wardii1.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Stanhopea-wardii1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


... and successful new year 2009! --Snek01 (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving request
Hello, could you please move Trichia hispida to Trochulus hispidus? Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. JoJan (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Images from larsen-twins
Hi JoJan. Would you consider updating the tags on some images you uploaded a few years ago from larsen-twins ? I can't find the given credits "Please help yourself". And, perhaps you could get a better clarification from site's authors. Maybe a template?

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Originally, the expression "Please help yourself to the photos on our pages, they are freely available" was found on this page : under the heading : "About photos". At the time that I uploaded all these photos, such an authorization was enough. Rules were not so stringent then. In 2005 a Spanish wikipedia contributor asked for a more explicit authorization : "granting permission for all others (not just Wikipedia) to use, copy, and share your materials freely -- and even potentially use them commercially -- so long as they do not try to claim the copyright themselves, nor prevent others from using or copying them freely." Take a look at this authorization at  the Commons : Commons:Commons:Authorization to use material from http://www.larsen-twins.dk. I think their authorization satisfies the license demands of Creative Commons-SA-3.0 and also satisfies the demands on the Commons. As to a template, I'm not good at making templates. I leave this to others who know what they're doing. And I think a bot should insert such a template into the license of each photo. You can also check : Commons:Category:LarsenCopyright and Commons:Category:Copyrighted usable (This category contains images and documents that are copyrighted, but the use of these images and documents is allowed and acceptable with the licensing on the commons). JoJan (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks for the repsonse. I'll at least try to make a corresponding template from English, and then perhaps try to mark it for movement to commons (the dumb bot didn't authorize me, and Magus didn't respond to messages). Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of File:Dendrobium-lindleyi.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Dendrobium-lindleyi.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  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  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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)