User talk:Shellnut/Archive 6

Checking other people's contributions
Just wanted to let you know that you can easily see if someone has currently been active on Wikipedia, and what they have been working on. When you are on their user page, go to the list of blue links on the lefthand side of the page under the Wikipedia logo. Under "Toolbox" there is a link called "User contributions". Click on this and you will be able to see up to 500 of the user's recent contributions listed day by day. Invertzoo (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Unionoida
Hello! Your submission of Unionoida at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Froggerlaura (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Shellnut, this is an excellent expansion. As you know, there is still some simple rewriting which is called for to meet the DYK criteria, but the nomination is waiting for approval once that is done. Moonraker (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I got busy with work this week ... sigh!  I will get to it either today or tomorrow as time permits. Shellnut (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have taken a stab at rewriting the sections on pearls and buttons to remove language which may, inadvertently, have used larger blocks of words in order from the source references. To the extent that lists of colors, states, and species are given these are factual and have been alphabetized to avoid copyright issues. I believe what remains is my own words used to paraphrase historical facts of great interest and importance. Freshwater pearls are considered a rare and natural gem, and are highly sought after for jewelry to this day. Pearl buttons are considered quaint today, but are beautiful and are collectibles. I believe that this article, as rewritten is of significant interest and IF publicized as a DYK article could draw many readers' attention. Let me know how my rewrite looks, and what more I can do to improve this article. P.S. - I am still looking for images of the buttons to upload. Shellnut (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well done, Shellnut, I have approved it. You might have time to look at my new article on the Malacological Society of London, in case you are able to add anything to it? Moonraker (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Moonraker! I will check out your article.  Is there any relation to the Linnaean Society? Shellnut (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So far as I know, only in some members being active in both. Moonraker (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Moonraker! I looked over your article, the Society's website, and did some internet research.  You did a really good job and there is not much to add, except maybe it might be interesting to have a short section discussing some of the more famous members, with links to articles about them (if applicable).  Foe example, G.B. Sowerby III was a prolific author of articles in the Society's published journal, and he is most certainly a famous malocologist from a family of famous malacologists.  I just thought of him based upon the era and did a Google search and noticed a lot of articles in the Journal.  There may be others as well; a scan of the indexes of the Journal could help here.  Other than that and maybe an image of their logo - I've got nothing else to add. Shellnut (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Shellnut. I found this image at Flickr of "oyster shell" buttons. Do they resemble buttons made from Unionoida shells? Froggerlaura (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have dozens of rather tired buttons like that in my button box, but I have never seen any of the larger "pearl" buttons in use. Some of them are quite big... I suppose they were used on light coloured clothes of some kind - nightgowns, maybe? Moonraker (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Very nice Froggerlaura! Freshwater mussels have been called "oysters" at times because people have found pearls in them (i.e. pearl oysters).  True oyster shells tend to be white to grayish, and some of these buttons are salmon to pinkish, leading me to believe that they are freshwater mussels.  I have been looking for such an image and will use this one!!!  Nice find. Shellnut (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I have made great efforts to reword / rewrite the section on freshwater pearls to AVOID closely paraphrasing the reference. The problem I am seeing is one of factual content versus exact wording. I reasonably believe that I have reworded what can be reworded, and when factual information is listed I have reorganized it into an alpabetical list rather than the manner in which the source article listed it. If there is a specific problem of paraphrasing would someone please enlighten me so I can reword it. I really DO want to fix up this article properly, but maybe I am just too close to it to see the error(s), if any. Please advise. Shellnut (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Unionoida
Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you to the DYK team ... this is my first! Shellnut (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you Dr. Blofeld! Shellnut (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications
Hi David. I've put my name on the list of applications for HighBeam/Applications. I advise you to do the same and I'll give the same advise to InvertZoo. With the three of us, we are more likely to obtain at least one free, full-access, 1-year HighBeam Research account. Imagine, being able to read all those scientific articles that are now hidden beyond a paywall! JoJan (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I also put my name on the list for this free service. I think it's a good idea for you to do so too. Good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Your DYK
I am sorry I have not been in touch much recently; I have been very busy writing several shell papers for Festivus. I regret that I have not taken the time yet to congratulate you on your first DYK, so here goes: Well done Shellnut!

We will be off to Nevis for 2 weeks in about a month's time. Hope you are doing well IRL (in real life), Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Nuculanoida etc?
Hello Shellnut. I put this note up on the project talk page but I am also posting it here in case you want to tackle it. I was fixing up this article a bit, because I am routinely looking at some stubs. I am not really familiar with the current and previous taxonomies, so can someone explain to me why we have articles on the order Nuculanoida as well as the order Nuculoida? Is the first one an error, or does it represent an older taxonomic term, or a taxonomic term that paleontologists use? We also have a stub article which purports to be on the "superfamily" Nuculoidea although WoRMS has this taxon listed as a genus! The articles on families Nuculidae and Nuculanidae are probably OK as they are, but this whole group of articles needs some careful checking and revision by someone who understands these groups and who can make the lists of taxa within the articles clearer and more self-evident so that one can easily understand the sequence of taxa in the hierarchy. Invertzoo (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Invertzoo! I would be happy to tackle it.  BTW, they are different families.  When I first saw their names I too thought it was a mistake and that they were the same family.  Alas, no.  They are quite different.  I have some shells of one of them in my collection, and could photograph them - assuming that I can get my camera away from my daughter long enough!  Yeah, that genus name and link has to be an error. Shellnut (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with the difference between Nuculidae and Nuculanidae, but I don't know about the higher taxonomy, and I can't work out what to do about all these various article stubs we have. Invertzoo (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have fixed some of it now, but would be grateful if you would like to quickly look over the articles in the sequence they appear in the taxonomy and see if it all makes sense to you. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Will do, soon. I have been "out of pocket" with work lately. Shellnut (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 21:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

You OK?
I know you said you were snowed under at work but I was just checking to see if you were OK? I will be back in NYC tomorrow and therefore pretty soon I will be more active on here. I also wanted to ask you a couple questions about the Huber Bivalves book. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Invertzoo! Yeah, just swamped.  We are also moving my in-laws down from Los Alamitos into a condo close to us, so weekends have been crammed too.  Shells and Wikipedia took a back seat for a while; my swimming too has been "off" so I am getting out of shape as well.  Hope to be back soon. Shellnut (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, good luck with it all. Let me know when you are back to normal. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hope you are OK Shellnut. Invertzoo (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Invertzoo! Yeah, I am OK.  Just a lot of work, family stuff, kids graduating, etc.  I will get back in the game soon. Shellnut (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have the Huber book?
Hello Shellnut. I believe I am correct in thinking that you have a copy of the Huber Bivalves book? If so, could you do us all a favor and look and see on what page he says that:


 * The total number of living bivalve species is about 9,200, combined in 106 families.

The statement will not be (should not be) in exactly those words. The Wikipedia article "Bivalvia" is currently under review for Featured Article status, and we need the page number for that info for the references. If you are able to track it down that would be great! All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Resolved! Bivalvia now has FA status! Yippee! Invertzoo (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah!!! Awesome.  Bivalves are now on the map so to speak. Shellnut (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Shell macrophotography
Hi. I began with large shells using a simple Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ1 two years ago. All settings were made automatically. Then I changed to a Canon 500 D with Zoom objective and additional macro-lenses. At the moment I use the Canon 500 D with a Tamron 60mm Macro objective. With the Tamron I make the photos usually with F9 (sometimes up to F14), ISO 100, with variable exposure times (from 1/6 to 10 sec.). I use natural light, no artificial lightning. All photos with the Canon are made by photo stacking (Combine ZP), using 4 - 12 photos of each view, depending on the depth. Final work (colour correction, combination of the five views) is done with Adobe Photoshop and Photoshop Elements. I get the black background by putting the shells on black velvet, for black velvet produces not reflections (whereas e.g. black paper does; see for example ) --Llez (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Bivalve Taxonomy
I've tracked you down as the one who added the 2010 taxonomy to the page on Bivalvia (since moved to its own page)--a very important contribution for which I created some redirects. True?? If so, a question: The family sphaeriidae or pisidiidae (the little freshwater "fingernail" and "pill" clams) is not included in the listing. They are classified with the Corbiculacea in some older classifications, and I was hoping to see where they stood under the new order. Were they left out of the original Proposed Taxonomy reference?Martino3 (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Martino, it must have been oversight on my part - or it may be that they just were not included in the reference I looked at. I will look in Huber's Compendium of Bivalves and see if they can be properly placed from that reference. BTW, nice work! Shellnut (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Martino, I checked in Huber's book and neither the family Sphaeriidae or Pisidiidae can be found in the index. Sphaeriidae is discussed in an internet publication [] which also has a hard copy book out of the University of Illinois.  In that article the Sphaeriidae comes before the Corbiculidae.  I checked with WoRMS and found that both families are properly placed in the Sphaeriidae and revised the 2010 proposed taxonomy of the Bivalvia page accordingly.  I also noted that the Dreissenidae (or Zebra clams) was also left out and corrected that as well. Shellnut (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the work you are doing on Wikipedia, making the claims of some of its critics false. I do not have immediate plans to post images, but never know what I might do when I retire eventually.  I did make a website a few years back with pictures when I was getting into freshwater malacology, at mkohl1.net/FWshells.html, but things on Wikipedia potentially get a lot more traffic.  Can you be sure that their classification is then same as Bouchet et al, 2010?  That's a reference that would require interlibrary loan for me, and I don't know how many libraries have it yet.  Take care,  Martino3 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 04:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the Huber book covers only marine bivalves doesn't it, I mean freshwater bivalves are not included? Invertzoo (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC) And also the Huber book does not cover the tellins I believe? Invertzoo (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hinge teeth
Thanks for a really fabulous article Shellnut! I went through it this morning, and in order to create the standard Wikipedia structure for an article, I separated some of the info out into an introduction or "lede". (The lede is supposed to give the context and to summarize the article.) I added a couple of sentences to give the intro more context, and added a photo at the top, another Wikipedia convention. (The image I put in is perhaps not ideal, but it is better than no image, and it at least gives the context at a glance.) I put in two first level headings. I also changed those family names that had accidentally been put in italics to plain text. If you take a look you will see what I did. Many thanks for your great work. Invertzoo (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio in Ligament (bivalve)?
Hello Shellnut. Wikipedia has very strict rules about copyright, which is a legal issue. You have to be very careful never to copy phrases or sentences from other sources. I could be wrong, but it appears to be the case that: "Interestingly, scallops, which swim by repeatedly clapping their valves together, recover a greater fraction of the work done on their abductin than do clams and other more sedentary forms." is copied verbatim from Steven Vogel 2003, Comparative Biomechanics: Life's Physical World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, (or perhaps it was copied from a site, book or whatever that had already copied it from that source). Whatever source you use for researching a topic, not only must you not copy anything verbatim, but close paraphrasing is also not allowed, as that counts as plagiarism. What you need to do is to read the source carefully until you understand it perfectly, and then put it on one side and write your own prose yourself from scratch. if a topic is too dense to do that, it is OK to make just a short stub and let someone else expand it later. Invertzoo (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The exceptions to this are small quotes directly from sources -- they have to be clearly marked as quotes, and also of course works that are completely in the public domain. The latter can be copied, but they have to be acknowledged as such at the top of the reference section. Invertzoo (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought that I had completely reworded things, but I guess like song lyrics sometimes things stick in our heads. I will be much more careful with things like that in the future. Have you reworded the clause, or should I? Shellnut (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No I did not re-word the phrase. Do you need me to do it? If so let me know. Invertzoo (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I took a stab at re-wording that section this morning as I saw that you had not done so. It gets the same facts across but the rewrite is more than a paraphrase. Shellnut (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello again
Nice to see you back. Hope you are doing well. Invertzoo (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Invertzoo! Thanks for the "howdy" and "hello".  I've been preoccupied with getting my teenage daughter off to college in Santa Barbara.  She is going to Brooks Institute to pursue a Bachelors in Fine Arts in photography.  So, between work (yuck) and my kiddo it's been crazy at home.  I hope to be able to find time to update a few articles, or at least photograph and upload some nice shell pictures.  Yes, I FINALLY got my camera back from my daughter.  Hope all is well with you.  How's the rehab on your knee doing by now?  TTFN! Shellnut (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry I did not see your reply until now Shellnut. It's really nice to hear from you and to have you back making lots of contributions and uploading a lot of new images. Welcome back! Thanks for asking about my knee: the basic rehab ended in early September, the 1 year mark, but recently I started doing more intensive water exercise classes and some relatively long-distance city walking, and that combination has caused tendonitis in the main tendon at the back of that same knee, I believe it's because that knee now hyperextends more than the other one. I haven't seen a doctor yet because the pain started less than a week ago, but it's pretty bad, so no exercise for me for a while. Ed and I are off to Sanibel in December for 2 weeks, so I hope it's feeling OK by then. Invertzoo (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Enjoy Sanibel! I found with my knee injury that merely wearing an elastic knee band (a whimpy one) reminded me of my knee's angle and position so I did not accidentally hyperextend it.  Just a thought.  I am slightly jealous of your ability to go vacationing, but know that some day ... I too will have a chance.  Posting images of some less commonly collected families now that I have my camera back.  Do you have any requests? Shellnut (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Shellnut! I will be seeing a very good orthopedic doc next Friday so I will see what he says. I think the injury was from too much fast walking and way too much hard kicking in the water exercise class I go to 4 days a week. As for Sanibel, this may be our last visit there; we will have to see how our budget goes now Ed is retired. I would rather pinch pennies like crazy on an everyday basis and still hopefully be able to afford a couple of trips a year. We will see. I love the photos you are adding now! As for which less commonly collected families I would request you add images to... how about Calyptraeidae, Hipponicidae, and any families of false limpets including Trimusculidae, any of the smaller genera in the Siphonariidae, maybe Tylodinidae, Phenacolepadidae, that kind of thing? Best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Invertzoo! I think I can accommodate most of those families, just not Tylodinidae or Phenacolepadidae - those are not in my personal shell collection.  I only have one species of Trimusculidae, Trimusculus reticulatus from So. California, but a good number of the others.  Maybe this weekend! Shellnut (talk)
 * Whatever you can do will be good Shellnut because many of those families are very poorly represented in terms of images, and you know, a picture really is worth a thousand words! Invertzoo (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

✅ Images added to Trimusculidae and Siphonariidae as well as six new species articles. Shellnut (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Permission question
Hello Shellnut, I left a reply for you on my talk page and I wanted also (for your convenience) to put Moonriddengirl's answer onto your talk page as well as copying it onto my talk page. When Moonriddengirl says "he" she doesn't mean you, she means the author of the images. If you have more questions or comments you can ask her directly. Invertzoo (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "Hi, Invertzoo. :) WP:Declaration of consent is the form that's needed. He can use the same form for as many images as he wants, but the more specific his language is the better. If he is willing to license all content published as of this date, for instance, he should say so. If he is willing to release all content on certain subpages, etc. This protects him and us! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)"

Bivalves et al.
Hey, thanks for the barnstar and invitation. As far as molluscs go, most of my contributions are on cephalopods, but I do venture into bivalve and gastropod articles every now and again. Cheers, mgiganteus1 (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Gutturnium muricinum
Hello Shellnut. What I have done with the duplicate article Cymatium muricinum is that I took the little bit of extra info (and the extra reference) and added those to the Gutturnium muricinum article, and then I made the older article into a redirect page. If you don't know quite how to do that, let me know and I will explain it to you. It is useful to know. Best wishes and Happy Thankskgiving, Invertzoo (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Invertzoo, thank you and Happy Thanksgiving!! Shellnut (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

About the images
The shell that is shown in the taxobox at the top looks quite atypical for this species because it shows a less-than adult individual that was in a growth stage between varices when it died. The shell shows evidence that there was a thin body wall that had already formed and which had already reached part of the way towards another resting point, another varix-to-be, but the animal died before that could be achieved, and the existing thin shell material was accidentally broken off, back to the previous varix, very soon after.

The varix that is now showing at the aperture of the shell was not the final adult varix, so it was not very thick and is more or less completely without the adult callus.

In this species, when the final adult varix forms, the shell stops growing and the callus around the aperture gradually gets thicker and thicker, and whiter and whiter, until you get the appearance that is shown in your other photo, of form antillarum.

Best Invertzoo (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Checking new bot stubs
Hello Shellnut. I just wanted to say that when Ganesh said "Please review" about the Trochidae stubs (in that message on the gastropod project talk page), he was asking if you would quickly look over the new stubs to see if they are OK. Usually a bot run of new stubs goes off without any hitches at all, and usually every new stub is just perfect, but we do need to look and check to see if the whole run is OK or not. This time there were in fact a few minor odd little glitches here and there, as you can see in the notes that JoJan and I left for Ganesh on his talk page here. I myself did not go through all 250 of the new stubs. In any case I wanted to explain that we do need people to do that kind of checking as if we keep our new stubs immaculate, then we are more likely to keep getting our stub runs OKed in the future, which is very important to us. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Invertzoo! I guess I misunderstood what Ganesh was looking for.  I looked at a few of them and the minimal content and format seemed fine.  I saw a few genera and species that I have specimens for and looked at those ones as well - I definitely need to take some more pictures, i.e. Bathybembix. Shellnut (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK Shellnut. It would sure be nice to have an image of a Bathybembix. Invertzoo (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Link
Hello Shellnut, Hope you are doing OK. I sent you a regular email about LinkedIn. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Shellnut
It was nice to talk to you yesterday; glad you are doing well. Invertzoo (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2014
Dear Shellnut,

Our vision for Wikipedia is one of beauty, natural symmetry and light.

I wish you a Happy New Year, everything good for your family, your loved ones and yourself, peace and joy for all the people of the world. I also wish a joyful and peaceful expansion for Wikipedia; may our encyclopedia make information and education available, without charge, to everyone in the world. All the very best from Invertzoo (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

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

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)