User talk:Phn229/Archive 1

Parakysis notialis
Hi, I noticed that you created Parakysis notialis, but listed no sources for the information contained in the article. According to Wikipedia's content policies, all information must be verifiable from reliable sources. Therefore, it's necessary to cite your sources so other editors can check that the information included in the article is correct and matches the sources used. Information not previously published in such sources is prohibited as original research, since other editors can't verify it. Unsourced information may be challenged and removed at any time, and articles that can't be verified are likely to be deleted. Guidance on how to cite your sources is available, and if you need any further help, feel free to leave a message on my talk page.--Unscented (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information. However I only created that article using the information from the page Parakysis, and not any exterior source. Previously, the article Parakysis stuffed 5 species into one article, which I found not very convenient, so I decided to go ahead and make a separate article for each of those species. Much of the contents on Parakysis (including some sources) actually concerns specific species under this genus and not the genus as a whole. Such materials had better be transferred to the species articles that I created. Unfortunately I am too lazy for that kind of work so I will leave it to somebody else...Phn229 (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Entomocorus radiosus
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Entomocorus radiosus, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced. Only one line. I'm not sure if this is a hoax or not.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Cssiitcic (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear Cssiitcic, the article Entomocorus radiosus is not a hoax. To see this, it suffices to go on the genus page Entomocorus to see this species listed among the members of the genus. While the article Entomocorus radiosus itself is unsourced, it only re-uses materials from the genus article (Entomocorus). All exterior sources concerning this species can be found on that page. The purpose of my creating Entomocorus radiosus is that the genus article stuffed many species into one article, and misused the taxobox template to this effect. I simply straightened this out by making a separate article for each species.Phn229 (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Trachelyichthys exilis
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Trachelyichthys exilis, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.scotcat.com/factsheets/t_exilis.htm. 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.

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) 17:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe this is an error. The article Trachelyichthys exilis in its current form only has one sentence, and that single sentence was written by me, without consultation of the website http://www.scotcat.com/factsheets/t_exilis.htm. In fact, the sentence is so plain that it could be written by just about anybody. Hopefully the copyright notice will be removed soon.Phn229 (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Heteropneustes fossilis
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Heteropneustes fossilis, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.scotcat.com/factsheets/h_fossilis.htm. 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.

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) 22:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Another error, of course.Phn229 (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Erethistes hara
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Erethistes hara, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.scotcat.com/factsheets/hara_hara.htm. 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.

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) 04:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet another malfunctioning of this bot.User:Coren is invited to fix this issue as soon as possible.Phn229 (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Leporacanthicus triactis
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Leporacanthicus triactis, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.scotcat.com/factsheets/leporacanthicus_triactis.htm. 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.

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) 16:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Again ?Phn229 (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Your new Loricariidae articles
Hi Phn, on the newpage patrol I saw that you're creating sets of new articles for the fish family Loricariidae. :) It looks like all of the articles have a space between "Loricariidae" and the ending period of the lead sentence, though, a little typo that bugs me. Maybe you could alter your prototype article (I don't know how many more pages you'll be creating) so that it doesn't contain this little typo? Just a thought, cheers! Jamie ☆S93  22:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for notifying. I will fix that as soon as possible.Phn229 (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio notices
It's not usually worth it to respond to a copyvio notice here on your talk page. Leave the message on the talk page of the person who gave you the notice in the first place. DS (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Catfish species articles
I haven't updated Wikipedia in a while and to my surprise all my genus articles now have species names. Prior to my contributions on Wikipedia, catfish articles were incredibly sparse. Thus, I devoted a fair bit of time to the wholesale building of an article for each genus of catfish, though I never did finish. The structure of Wikipedia's catfish articles mostly is based on the work I've done, and few meaningful contributions have followed on most of these articles. I chose to restrict my work to the genus level for various reasons. One of the most obvious ones is the pure number of species of catfishes that exist (over 3000), while genera "only" numbered almost 500, and again I still have to do a fair number of them. Also, I did not think an incredibly small blurb on a small species page would be much more valuable than having these small blurbs combined on a single page. Unfortunately, the amount of information for most of the thousands of species of catfishes are incredibly sparse, and some aren't mentioned more than a couple times in the scientific literature, much less on the internet. Although some people have the opinion that every species deserves an article, in my opinion there is simply not enough information on certain species to validate this. There are certainly many species that will never progress past stubs as individual articles, not even with decades more of scientific work. Thus, I took the mergist approach and combined species into a genus. On the other hand, I do not necessarily have a problem with what you're doing. I'd like to hear your opinion, though. MiltonT (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Bifrenaria atropurpurea
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bifrenaria atropurpurea, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Bifrenaria. 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.

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) 20:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

 * Thanks a lot.Phn229 (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's my pleasure. Wikipedia need more users such as yourself. You are an example of someone who really tries to make a difference at Wikipedia. LouriePieterse (talk) 18:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to also mention that I too appreciate all the articles you are creating (my personal opinion is that all species that are categorized and classified by reliable external sources deserve a Wikipedia article). Keep up the great work!Calaka (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

New Pages
Hi, its great to see all the new pages that you are creating but many of them lack any sort of verification. Can you consider adding sources to your new pages, in accordance with WP:V. Thanks,  Them From  Space  23:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. Regarding the orchid species articles I am currently creating, I am simply copying material available on Commons to Wikipedia. If you have doubt about the existence or classification of a species, I would recommend to simply check out the article about the genus of that species, which hopefully is correctly sourced. Also, synonyms of any species can be verified on Commons. I know it is best to include sources per Wikipedia policies, but they can always be added later as the articles have more content. At this stage, most of them are just 1-sentence stubs...Phn229 (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Eeekster (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello. I am aware that current policies require citations. However I am extremely reluctant to cite anything in the articles I created, for the reason that there is almost nothing worthy of a citation in there. My creations are almost always 1-sentence stubs that serve to establish a species or a genus's scientific classification. References can always be added as the articles become more fleshy later on. Should there be any doubt about the truthfulness of my creations, I invite you to double-check the classification I present with that found on Commons. The two versions should be identical - in other words, I am simply copying information available on Commons to Wikipedia. I believe my creations as a whole constitute an improvement to Wikipedia, so per Ignore all rules I think it is OK in this case not to provide references. Thanks for your comprehension.Phn229 (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks, I appreciate it.Phn229 (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Bulbophyllum pectenveneris
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bulbophyllum pectenveneris, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Sunipia. 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 moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

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) 02:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Cattleya
Tank you for your attention to the article about the genus Cattleya of the Orchidaceae. I agree with you that the category Epidendroideae is rather large, and that a smaller category might be more appropriate. I have, however, reverted your change of category to Cattleya because including this page in this category is redundant: all of the listed species in the category are (or should be) already linked on the Cattleya page. It might make sense to add this page to the categories Epidendreae (the tribe) or Laeliinae (the subtribe), but these categories do not yet exist. (Would you care to make them?) A Cattleya Alliance category may be a good idea, but there seems to be varied opinions over exactly what that would mean:  the RHS has apparently tried to promulgate an "alliance" idea as distinct from a breeding group, which was the original meaning of the term. — Jay L09 (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thanks for notifying me.Phn229 (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed you were still creating plant articles, so...
 * Hi. Thanks for the invitation. However I am a very irregular contributor. I often switch subject unpredictably once in a while... In particular I often jump back and forth between plant and animal articles. Thus I prefer not to commit myself to any particular project. Thanks though.Phn229 (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Cymbidium erythraeum
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Cymbidium erythraeum, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Cymbidium. 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 moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

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) 02:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

orchid stubs
Hi there! Thanks for creating all those orchid stubs. It's great to get all these stubs rolling in to the project. I just had a few requests for future article creation. See this edit of mine that standardized the article to the WP:PLANTS template. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again! --Rkitko (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) In most plant articles, we mention the species first, then the common names in the lead sentence.
 * 2) Plant authorities in the "binomial_authority" and "synonyms" taxobox parameters do not have dates associated with them. That's the zoological code, not the botanical, e.g. it's just Lindl., not Lindl. (1830).
 * 3) When categorizing species, if the species is categorized in a genus category, you can use the species name as a sort key, e.g., making sure to use a lowercase sort key.
 * Hi. Thanks for the information. I will comply to these standardizations in my future articles. Phn229 (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

One-liners
I disagree with your philosophy. Rather than making unreferenced stubs and then maybe going back to them, please have a reference when you create it. Better yet, if all you're going to write is "Gymnadenia widderi is a species of orchid." then don't make the article at all. Please keep the information merged into the genus article until there's actually enough information to warrant a separate article. That is abolutely useless unless you can have a reference and more information. Although the species may be notable, that does not mean it needs a separate article when the genus article has more information. How about redirecting to Gymnadenia? That has more information and would actually be useful to readers. Thanks, Reywas92 Talk  19:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello. Despite the fact that my species articles are one-sentenced, they do contain information not appropriate to be included on the genus page. For instance, almost all my articles on orchid species contain a picture of the species of interest. Admittedly I could also make a gallery of all those pictures on the genus article, but I find that inelegant. Moreover, most articles contain a list of synonyms of the taxon of interest, which at times can be long. Including all such synonyms on the genus page is not appropriate. Thus, my articles are not completely trivial.
 * Regarding the issue of references, all the information that can be found on my articles can be found again on Wiki-Commons. Of course, nobody cites Commons on Wikipedia. However I will make a concession: instead of including references, I will include a link to the corresponding page on Commons, where all information can be verified.Phn229 (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you list all the synonomous names, then you've got enough info for a separate article, but Gymnadenia widderiGymnadenia odoratissima, Gymnadenia odoratissima, Gymnadenia corneliana, Guarianthe skinneri, Guarianthe bowringiana, Guarianthe aurantiaca, Grammatophyllum scriptum don't. Although I agree a gallery is not elegant, it is much more elegant than readers having to go to the species article and find nothing that wasn't in the genus article already. Cheers, Reywas92 Talk  19:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I have decided to include in my species articles some information on the species's distribution range, and an external link/reference to substantiate that info. From now on my articles will look like this: Habenaria dentata. Any comment is welcome.Phn229 (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That looks great, thanks. Reywas92 Talk  02:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Good work on orchids articles; keep it up. Pzrmd (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Importing from Citizendium
Greetings. I noticed you imported Scuticaria (orchid) from Citizendium. I tried to find wikipedia policy on CZ imports, but was unable to find any. So I asked the question here. Could you provide that discussion with some info about the policy? Thanks!--Marcus      13:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Please see here: WikiProject Citizendium Porting. In short, Citizendium has come up with a license that allows us to copy-paste its contents to Wikipedia, provided we cite the corresponding Citizendium article.Phn229 (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Country links
Hi, just a small thing: in lists of habitat countries for your zoology articles, can you please make it a habit to not link to disambiguate "Macedonia", but " Macedonia (country) "? Macedonia itself is a dab page. Cheers, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will do that. Thanks.Phn229 (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Botanist abbreviations
Hi - I noticed that in a lot of the botanical articles you've created, the botanist abbreviations need to be disambiguated - for example Ames just leads to a disambig page - the link really should be to Ames. Thanks. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Hi, I will correctly link those abbreviations from now on. Thank you.Phn229 (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See also WP:Naming conventions (flora). Regards cygnis insignis 16:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources and external links
The website, culturesheet.org, is not a Reliable Source since it is a self-published open wiki. RS is very specific about that, so it should not be used as a reference. Also, it should not be added as an external link. You can read WP:ELNO to learn more. Thanks, First Light (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Last geometric statement of Jacobi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caustic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Synodontis euptera


The article Synodontis euptera 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.


 * Hi. I just wanted to let you know that I was trying to expand the article you created about Synodontis euptera, and I discovered that this fish has another, much more expansive article under its common name, Featherfin squeaker. Since your article contains little or no information besides the taxobox, there isn't really anything to merge so I have proposed it for deletion. CarrieVS (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)