User talk:Nono64/Archive 2010

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Nono64! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created  are tagged as  Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current     article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!-- DASHBot ( talk ) 21:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Michael Chinery -
 * 2) Frank Carillo -

Article move
Thank you for trying to clean up Wikipedia by creating disambiguation pages. However, I am concerned about you approach with moving the articles T1000 and T2000. There are several possibilities for naming vehicles on Wikipedia, none that include the format 'Foo train'. 'Train' is obviously not part of the name (if it was, it would be capitalized), and therefore should have been in parenthesis, had they only had a class name. However, the standard for naming multiple units and locomotives is [railway company acronym] [class], in this case OS T1000 and OS T2000. Both articles are GA and it would be both polite and more constructive if you would discuss the matter on the talk page before just moving high-standard articles at the blink of the eye. Now I have to redo all you dabbing, including books and good topic entries. The articles have been where they are for years, and there is no problem that they wait another week while the move goes through the proper process. Thank you for your understanding,  Arsenikk   (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Stockholm Metro lines
Hello Nono64, I noticed your recent additions of the seven articles Line 10 (Stockholm Metro) to Line 19 (Stockholm Metro). I must say that I'm quite skeptical if all these different lines motivate separate stub articles of the type you have created, especially since the Stockholm Metro article is so well written and illustrated. I would think that it would be better to either:
 * 1) Add some information to the Stockholm Metro article, or
 * 2) Create a List of Stockholm Metro lines article, or
 * 3) Create three articles on the green/red/blue lines (corresponding to the articles in Swedish Wikipedia),

and to merge the information on the numbered lines there. Your thoughts? For the moment I have not added any merge template or anything similar to the articles. Greetings, Tomas e ( talk ) 18:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't really have any intention to create those articles at first. I was only disambiguating the "T1O" to "T19" articles. I first created redirects (as "T10 line" to "T19 line") to the Stockholm metro article, but reflected further and decided to try to make the information about the metro stations appear somewhere, as "Stockholm metro" is perahps to general. The three options you propose are good, though the last one has the advantage that you find 6 interwikis to go with. You should now copy and paste this discussion on the right forum to find some help to do the job. Cheers -- Nono64 ( talk ) 20:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I just worked a little more on the articles, ordering the stations and adding basic facts in the intro. -- Nono64 ( talk ) 22:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My initial though when I saw the lines was that they should be merged into the [yet uncreated] articles Blue Line (Stockholm), Green Line (Stockholm) and Red Line (Stockholm) . The problem is that for instance T17, T18 and T19 run along the same track from Hässelby strand to Gullmarsplan, similarly T10 and T11, although T13 and T14 might warrant each their own article. The Stockholm Metro article has large lacks and it is generally experienced on Wikipedia that there is ample to write about each individual line; for instance the history of red, green and blue are largely independent of each other, as they were built at different times. Such articles would also warrant a route description and service information. For instance, the three-station Ring Line (Oslo) expansion of the Oslo Metro had no problem becoming a good article (and even a good topic). Then again, there has been no problem making lengthy articles out of M1 (Copenhagen) and M2 (Copenhagen) , even though they share about half their length with each other.  Arsenikk   (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks! -- Nono64 ( talk ) 21:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Torniera africana
A tag has been placed on Torniera africana by an automated utility, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it seems to be a blank article providing no content to the reader. It also seems that you blanked the article as well, possibly as an attempt to delete the page. Usually, speedy deletion tags should only be removed by administrators. However, since you are the only contributor to the page, and since the page was tagged under the assumption that you wanted it deleted, you may remove it yourself if you plan to expand or recreate the article. '''This is a notice from User:MichaelkourlasBot, an automated utility (bot). If you think it is a false positive, report it here .''' Thanks, MichaelkourlasBot ( talk ) 21:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Thanks! -- Nono64 ( talk ) 07:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor edits
Please don't mark non-minor edits, such as this one, as minor. See WP:MINOR. Cheers! -- JHunterJ ( talk ) 11:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a different title by copying its content and pasting it into. This is known as a " cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. -- JHunterJ ( talk ) 13:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". -- JHunterJ ( talk ) 13:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguations
Hi. I noticed that you recently moved Problematic (album) to Problematic (All album), presumably to disambiguate it from Problematic (Chhet Sovan Panha album). However, no article about the Panha album exists, so unless you plan to create it very soon this move was unnecessary. I have marked the article to be moved back to Problematic (album), until such time as another article about an album titled Problematic by another artist is created. Please don't perform these kinds of moves unless the other article in question actually exists. I also noticed that you moved Problematic to Problematic (single) ; just an FYI, the prober disambiguation phrase for songs is "song", even if it was released as a single. I've moved it to Problematic (song). Since there are only 2 existing articles about topics titled "Problematic", the disambiguation page you created is also unnecessary: a hatnote dab would suffice. For more information, see WP:DAB. -- IllaZilla ( talk ) 15:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok! very well. -- Nono64 ( talk ) 16:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Thanks! -- Nono64 ( talk ) 07:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You beat me here, I was just about to do this. Thanks for your work! shoy ( reactions ) 00:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Rollback
Also, I have added rollback to your user permissions. You may find it useful at times for removing vandalism. -- Ed ( Edgar181 ) 20:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! -- Nono64 ( talk ) 07:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of numerical analysis software
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of numerical analysis software, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  Jwesley 78  21:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Retusin
A tag has been placed on Retusin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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  the talk page  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Srikant Kedia 10:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikantkedia ( talk • contribs )

Retusin (isoflavone)
just wanted to say thanks for submitting a good article with proper formatting, citation, categories and infoboxes :-)  Z S  10:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Free Radical Biology and Medicine
Hi, I've added some info to this article, but I was wondering about the appropriateness of the section on an "example of an article". Isn't that WP:UNDUE ? Unless this article was chosen for some particular reason (like having been the most cited article published in this journal, or having been the subject of a controversy)? -- Crusio ( talk ) 14:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi! Actually, I added this section to give a little more weight to the page. I was a little short on what to write about this journal. Since you added some stuff to it, it may be less necessary to leave the section. My opinion regarding that particular article is that it gives a different point of view regarding flavonoids as antioxidant molecules. In fact, I created the page following a red link in the 'flavonoid' article. But, you 're probably right regarding undue weight to the section. Do you have any suggestion on what to do with it next or do I have to make a choice myself ? -- Nono64 ( talk ) 14:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not that familiar with biochemistry articles, but perhaps you could merge this section in the (or a) article on flavonoids? Deleting the section here would leave a stub that is not worse than 95% of all of our scientific journal articles. -- Crusio ( talk ) 15:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your interest for the discussion. I am no biochemist either. The section already exists in the 'flavonoid' article. I only mirrored it in the journal stub (to give it some length as I said before). I dont't know if there is an open controversy on the antioxidant properties of flavonoids and I don't want personnaly to engage in one. What I commonly read is that polyphenols, in general, and flavonoids, in particular, are good for health and should be eaten as free radical scavengers. The article in the section seems to state the exact contrary. Should the assertion be re-evaluated or has it been sufficiently proven? The title of the journal makes me feel the researchers publishing in it should be taken seriously! Now! I think it cannot be a waste of time to try to work on the section to improve it a bit. -- Nono64 ( talk ) 15:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if it already exists in the flavonoid article, then I think we can safely remove it from the journal article. Of course articles published in this journal should be taken seriously, it's a serious, peer-reviewed scientific journal. However, that does not mean that articles published there are the Absolute Truth, given the way science works. There may be other articles with different or even opposite findings. But as I said, I don't know much about biochemistry and I have enough to do with articles on academic journals, so I don't think that I could contribute much to that discussion. Meanwhile, I'll remove that section from the journal article. -- Crusio ( talk ) 15:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your participation! -- Nono64 ( talk ) 15:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie
Why are you changing links to the above title? It redirects anyway to Dutch East India Company. -- Merbabu ( talk ) 07:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am currently disambiguating the 'VOC' disambiguation page. Cheers. -- Nono64 ( talk ) 07:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So why not disambig to Dutch East India Company ? -- Merbabu ( talk ) 07:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think 'Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie' is more comprehensible when disambiguating 'VOC'. Cheers. -- Nono64 ( talk ) 07:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if one is Dutch. Otherwise, keep in mind that this is the English wikipedia where most readers aren't Dutch. The VOC is an accepted English term as is Dutch East India Company. As long as readers don't actually see "Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie". But, redirects should be avoided so please direct to the English. -- Merbabu ( talk ) 07:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm now nearly finished. Nevertheless don't you want to take over the job? I think it would be better handled by a participant of any 'history' wikiprojects. Cheers. -- Nono64 ( talk ) 07:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I can certainly change all the links to "Vereenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie" to "Dutch East India COmpany". -- Merbabu ( talk ) 07:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm now nearly finished. You would need to go in my user contributions page to do that! I hope you 'll have fun. Cheers. -- Nono64 ( talk ) 07:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah - this is more comprehensive. Shame about the double work. -- Merbabu ( talk ) 08:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, that's right! Cheers. -- Nono64 ( talk ) 08:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Haydée (given name)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Haydée (given name), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.wysiwicked.com/encyclopedia/?title=Haydee_(disambiguation). For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk ) 15:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

T. australis
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of T. australis, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&amp;pid=S0716-078X2001000200013&amp;lng=en&amp;nrm=iso&amp;tlng=en. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk ) 18:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion nomination of Template:Polyphenols spectrometry Project
Hi Nono64, this is a message from an automated bot, regarding Template:Polyphenols spectrometry Project. You blanked the page and, since you are its sole author, FrescoBot has interpreted it as a request for deletion of the page and asked administrators to satisfy the requests per speedy deletion criterion G7. Next time you want a page that you've created deleted, you can explicitly request the deletion by inserting the text. If you didn't want the page deleted, please remove the tag from the page and undo your blanking or put some content in the page. Admins are able to recover deleted pages. Please do not contact the bot operator for issues not related with bot's behaviour. To opt out of these bot messages, add somewhere on your talk page. -- FrescoBot  ( msg ) 00:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Decker (surname)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Decker (surname), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.storesomething.com/decker. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk ) 07:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Regis (given name)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Regis (given name), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.mbitsoldier.com/regis.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk ) 08:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Categorizing of gastropods
Hello, I very appreciate your active effort in categorizing gastropod articles. However it seems, that is is much useful for (at least for some) gastropods to have more simple and easier categorization scheme. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods. -- Snek01 ( talk ) 12:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Also read: Article titles. And when the disambig is needed, - it was not needed in Turbinella - then there is used universal disambiguation word (gastropod) WikiProject Gastropods/Guidelines. -- Snek01 ( talk ) 09:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Turbinella (disambiguation)
Hello Nono64, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created, Turbinella (disambiguation), has been marked for speedy deletion by User:Snek01. This has been done because the page provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent (see CSD ). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add " " to the page text, and edit the to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Snek01. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II ( talk ) on behalf of 00:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, to be honest, even though what you wrote was not nonsensical, still, I think it is not really a good idea to make a disambiguation page for, or list on a disambiguation page, individual species epithets such as turbinella. In biology, people virtually never refer to a species only by its specific epithet, because that is very incorrect and confusing usage. You might refer to the snail Engina turbinella as E. turbinella if you had previously used the whole name in a piece of writing, but you never, ever, refer to it as just "turbinella", which would be a meaningless usage. It's rather like referring to New York City, as just "New", or San Francisco" as just "San".


 * It looks as if you enjoy making disambig pages, and I am sure you have made many useful ones over time, but perhaps it is not really useful to generate a page (or possibly in the future many pages) that list things that are never used as legitimate words by themselves. This is a hard point to explain if you are not a biologist, so if I have not made it clear what I am trying to say, please feel free to ask me.


 * Best wishes, Invertzoo ( talk ) 20:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects
FYI, you really shouldn't have done this. It made it very confusing when trying to contact the user. OrangeDog ( τ • ε ) 14:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well Ok! You're right, but have a look on the history of the page "User:MBGC_liason" and you 'll see this user has himself redirect his user page to this article! -- Nono64 ( talk ) 17:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah true. OrangeDog ( τ • ε ) 11:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Volleyball players
I have seen that you edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza , Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 22:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process ). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles ( talk ) 23:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Dermatology
Any interest in dermatology? If so, we are always looking for more help at the Dermatology task force, particularly with the ongoing Bolognia push. I can e-mail you the login information if you like? There is still a lot of potential for many new articles and redirects. --- kilbad ( talk ) 18:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Quebracho (tree)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Quebracho (tree), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Quebracho (disambiguation). 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.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk ) 20:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

A1 People listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect A1 People. Since you had some involvement with the A1 People redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Herostratus ( talk ) 07:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Moving pages
Please cease moving road pages without generating adequate consensus. I have undone your move of A83 road, I'm sure you are familiar with the process of starting a requested move. You have been warned about this previously. Jeni  ( talk  ) 09:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Orosius
You should not have changed "Orosius" to a disambiguation page. The scholar Orosisus is most commonly known by the single name, and many pages linked to him. Now "Orosius" takes the reader to a disambiguation page for which there's only one active link: the scholar. That serves no purpose. Please don't make these kind of sweeping changes without knowing what you're doing, or without seeking some kind of consensus from relevant project or article pages. Cynwolfe ( talk ) 18:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've brought this up at the G&R Project; you may view my comment here . My feeling is that you should undo your changes, at which point I'd be happy to believe that you just hadn't fully thought it through. Cynwolfe ( talk ) 19:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Italics and taxonomy
Two points: I could discuss appropriate sizes for categories here, too, but I will leave that for another day. -- Stemonitis ( talk ) 20:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) The style in use at Wikipedia (and most of the rest of the world) is that genera and species are italicised, while families and higher ranks are not. I have changed this to this. I trust you will follow this example.
 * 2) WP:TX makes it clear that minor ranks are not to be included in taxoboxes unless they are directly relevant to the article. This is way, way too much. The major ranks will suffice (like this ). Again, I trust you will follow this advice in any articles you edit in the future.
 * Thanks for those explanations. I will take the time to read those articles in a near future, I hope. -- Nono64 ( talk ) 20:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

More issues
I notice that you have also failed to heed my advice about italics, e.g. at Circulifer (remember, italics are only for genera and below, never for families and above). -- Stemonitis ( talk ) 10:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) You may not be aware that the presence or absence of parentheses (brackets) in the authority of a scientific name carries meaning. The author is given without brackets if the species has not been moved since its original description, but where it has been moved to a different genus, brackets are used. Adding brackets where none belong, or removing them where they do belong both constitute misinformation. The source you used at Circulifer (genus) used a mixture of the two (presumably, correctly), yet you chose to add brackets. Please do not do so. It would also be useful if you could go over articles you have created in the past, and check the parentheses in those.
 * 2) For many of your articles, you add the same three references, namely ITIS, nomen.at and GBIF. That would be fine if you actually used those sources, but you clearly don't. Wikipedia articles rely on the sources being transparent in order to be verifiable and therefore reliable (I have doubts about the reliability of all three sources, as it happens, but they are at least verifiable). At  Onthophagus , you present a list of species, citing ITIS, nomen.at and GBIF, but your species list cannot have come from them. ITIS lists only nine species, while the other two list far more than you have included. To pick on details, all three "cited sources" include O. binodis, but your list does not. The internal formatting of the list, and its contents strongly suggest that your list has been culled from Wikispecies. That might be OK, but you should cite the sources cited there (provided it's properly cited), rather than pretending that you have used ITIS, nomen.at and GBIF. This is a serious problem.


 * Actually, even more disturbing is the abuse of disambiguation pages. The two species at Circulifer are partial title matches and have no place on disambiguation pages like that. No one is going to search just the species name when looking for either of those. Unless there's something else in this world commonly referred to as Circulifer, the dab page should be deleted and the genus article moved back. Rkitko ( talk ) 12:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Figaro (character)
Please see my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera. 4meter4 ( talk ) 20:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Olaf Davis ( talk ) 09:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for warning me about it. -- Nono64 ( talk ) 17:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Olaf Davis ( talk ) 10:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

C. spinosum
Hi again Nono64. I wanted to point out that I removed "See also Spinosum " from the disambiguation page you made, as there is no such thing as a "Spinosum". You may or may not know that the word "spinosum" or "spinosa" is an adjective that means "spiny", and so it only makes sense when combined with another word. A lot of species names are adjectives like that. Best wishes, Invertzoo ( talk ) 21:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Aude River
Salut Nono, Pourquoi ce move ? alors qu' il y en a déja eu un dans l'autre sens pour mettre le titre en conformité avec RIVERS. ++ Alvar ☮ 's  saloon. 08:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm sorry. I didn't checked that the French rivers were not named on the same format as other (say American) rivers. I sincerely regret my move but cannot revert the deed. You may ask an administrator to move it back. -- Nono64 ( talk ) 09:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, no problemo ; effectivement, qd on n'est pas au courant, c'est pas super clair, tout ça ;D j'vais demander à un admin de détricoter le bouzin. ++ Alvar ☮ 13:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I was able to move it back avec mes petits bras musclés, j'ai pas eu de Requested move à faire. ++ Alvar ☮ 13:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!!! -- Nono64 ( talk ) 16:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Disambig pages
Hi. When you work on disambiguation pages, please use {{subst:refer}} instead of refer, as this makes it easier for other editors to understand the wiki-text. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 11:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Valérie Bonnier


The article Valérie Bonnier has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all  biographies of living persons  created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. The-Pope ( talk ) 16:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A gastropod stub, Caloria elegans
Hi Nono64, Thanks very much for the new gastropod stub you made. I just now fixed it up a bit. Do you have a particular interest in snails and slugs? If so I will invite you to join the Project. Best wishes to you, Invertzoo ( talk ) 16:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing another link to a species name
Hi Nono, Once again I have removed the "See also" link on a disambiguation page you created, the one for  P. plicata . Remember that disambiguation pages are not supposed to contain red links anyway... but also, as I have commented before, many species names (including this one) are adjectival forms of a word (or possessive forms) that are usually Latinized. In this case, "plicata" is a Latin word meaning "pleated" or "folded". Not only do we not have an article on this word in the English Wikipedia, in reality we will never have an article on this word, so it is very inappropriate to include it as a see also. Something similar is true for the great majority of species names. The only place this kind of species name would belong, would be in a Latin dictionary. Also remember that 99% of species names are never used by themselves as a word, so I would basically never even try to include a species name as a stand-alone word on a disambiguation page, unless you know for a fact that it is used as a word in its own right and can support that with good evidence.

Thanks, Invertzoo ( talk ) 16:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Redirects that aren't broken
High Nono64,

Just a heads-up that some of your recent edits aren't really necessary... Please see WP:NOTBROKEN.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter ( talk • contribs ) 09:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Taxonomy disambiguation
Template:Taxonomy disambiguation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis ( talk ) 15:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cachou (musician)


The article Cachou (musician) has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all  biographies of living persons  created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one.  Ϣere    Spiel  Chequers  16:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

New disambig templates
Hello. If you find it necessary to create new disambiguation templates, as you recently did with Chemistry disambiguation and Taxonomy disambiguation, please leave a message on Mediawiki talk:Disambiguationspage so that these templates can be added to the list on the corresponding page. This is important for the proper functioning of bots and the user interface. Thank you. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 23:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I will try to remember. Thanks -- Nono64 ( talk ) 19:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Palaua (snail)
I see that you have moved Palaua to Palaua (snail). May I remind you that it is customary in such a case to use a title such as Palaua (gastropod). This way all articles are titled the same way. Cheers. JoJan ( talk ) 15:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Since two weeks have gone by and and Nono64 has not corrected this yet, today I have moved the title myself. Invertzoo ( talk ) 14:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Croatian roads
Why, why have you undertaken so many moves without consulting anyone? Ever thought of seeing e.g. Talk:Highways in Croatia ? I'm going to revert all of it as bad-faith. -- Joy &#91;shallot&#93; ( talk ) 12:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Rollback abuse
This is unacceptable use of rollback. Rollback is to be used only to revert bad faith edits. Don't do that again. Hesperian 09:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

A1 motorway (Croatia)
Please see Talk:A1_(Croatia). Lothar Klaic ( talk ) 02:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Benzenediol containing molecules?
What is the difference between Category:Benzenediol containing molecules and Category:Benzenediols ? Nirmos ( talk ) 11:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Quercitannic acid


The article Quercitannic acid has been proposed for deletion &#32; because of the following concern:
 * '''I think the references are too old - analysis in 1880 was limited. Tannins tend to be big - multiple trihydroxybenzoic acid groups.  A Reaxys search for "Quercitannic acid" shows... Structure/Compound Data

Reaxys Registry Number: 8186396 	Molecular Formula: C76H52O46 CAS Registry Number: 72401-53-7, 1401-55-4 	Linear Structure Formula: C76H52O46 Chemical Name: gallotannic acid, Tannic acid, tannin, quercitannic acid, tannic acid, tannin acid, gallotannin 	Molecular Weight: 1701.22 Type of Substance: heterocyclic 	InChi Key: LRBQNJMCXXYXIU-PPKXGCFTSA-N'''

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion process es exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Ron h jones  (Talk) 00:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Letter-NumberCombDisambig
Template:Letter-NumberCombDisambig has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  04:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Family disambiguation
Template:Family disambiguation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  05:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

abbreviation
I see that you have created a series of disambiguation pages for the abbreviated version of species, such as those stemming from Aurea. The abbreviated name of the genus is only meaningful in context, when it follows the full name, the specific epithet is used to distinguish the species from others in the genus already mentioned in an article.

It appears others have raised this point with, yet I suspect you have not comprehended the problem. I think you need to find agreement that it is wise to leave these things in place, or arrange to have them deleted. Are you willing to see to that? cygnis insignis 08:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|Proposed deletion of Agata, Siberia


The article Agata, Siberia has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
 * Hi there! I've noticed that you added to the article since it had been prodded, but left the prod tag in place. Just wanted to check that you didn't mean to de-prod and forgot, but left the tag there for a reason. As for me, I still think the place is non-notable, but I'd hate to see the article gone if you are not yet done expanding it. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 28, 2010; 18:16 (UTC)