User talk:JoJan/Archive 11

Beste,

Mijn naam is Hanne Verstraete en volgens mij ben ik de auteur van de thesis die u gebruikte om het artikel over Joseph Stevens the schrijven. Ik had graag geweten van wie u daar de toestemming heeft voor gekregen. Aangezien het over een licentieproefschrif uit 2007 gaat, zou ik het mij enigszins verwonderen dat dit al wordt vrijgegeven. Ik had hier graag meer info over. Kan mij een antwoord bezorgen op [email protected]

Dank bij voorbaat

Hanne Verstraete

For your outstanding work in fixing up my stubs, I present to you:
THE NUDIBRANCH OF NICENESS

--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is an unexpected attention. JoJan (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoJan, I wanted to let you know that the presentation went really well today, and that Jimbo seemed to really enjoy hearing all about WikiProject Gastropods! And of course so much of the credit goes to you, as the founder and shaper of the project. Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		A piece of Jimbo's star
		For all the hard work you put into starting WikiProject Gastropods and making it as great as it is, I award you a nice-sized chunk of the barnstar that Jimbo gave us on July 25 2009. This piece has a diamond in it! Invertzoo (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, Susan, I think all the participants of this project, owe you a big thanks, not just for your personal dedication to this project, but also for the effort you put in this presentation and making our project known to the wiki community at large and especially to Jimbo. JoJan (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you JoJan. The presentation was actually not at all hard to do, and plus I had some help working out how to get the (little bit of) info together that I needed. I would recommend that anyone try to do something similar for any project, if they have the chance to attend an event like that. I was also very fortunate that the Panel I was on worked out so well. I presented last with two excellent presentations before me that gave all the context anyone could possible want in order to understand mine better. Those presentations were given by User:GreenReaper and User:ClockworkSoul, as follows:

• GreenReaper - When, why and how to start a WikiProject (or a separate wiki); finding and supporting project members; the importance of focus. (slides)
• ClockworkSoul, The Stages of a WikiProject's Life (or How To Keep Your Project Alive). Every project passes through a number of developmental phases as it matures, each with its own management needs.

Again, many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoJan, If possible, fairly soon I would like to try to improve Love dart, as we currently have no Good Articles in Project Gastropods, only a number of B class articles. I wanted to ask if you have suggestions as to what need fixing first. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susan, this looks good and is a strong possible good article. In my opinion it is intelligible to the layman or common reader. Every piece of jargon has been explained. The content is as good as complete, unless you want to include the history of the love dart, starting with the ancient Greeks. (a hint : look to [1]). Under the header "The mating dance", you can perhaps add a few words on the formation of a new love dart (See : [2]). The only change I have performed is removing an annoying bit of blank space in such a way that the text runs smoother on the screen. JoJan (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Can I ask you JoJan, I don't understand something about our quality rating scale. [3] How is it that an article can get an "A" rating without first getting a "good article rating"? Should all of our B articles go through GA before reaching A or not? I am confused by this. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to be confused about. A tops GA. A B-article has to go through GA before becoming an A-article. I don't know if we have an A-article in this project. But if we do, its rating dates probably from before the present quality assessments. In the past, these quality assessments had lower standards and it was easier for an article to become an A-article. JoJan (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JoJan, but on this page: [4], it specifically says (my emphasis) that:

"Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class"

which seems to imply that an article can go straight from B to A without going through GA. Invertzoo (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read a discussion about this some time ago (a year or more ?). If I remember well, in the end it was decided to keep the present quality assessment scale. Personally, I don't see very much the need for GA. If you put the "Love dart" article in the review, you may find someone who is able to improve the article, but probably only on the subject of style or to make it better understandable. But I doubt if there are many experts on this field in the wiki community able to add new facts. The subject is just too specialized. JoJan (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did submit it for review, which ends Tuesday. It's going well so far. See the talk page. Invertzoo (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susan, congratulations are in order. You did it. As I thought, the main objections were regarding the style and understandability, but not on the matter of content. You had a good reviewer with a keen eye for difficult words. The GA-class is only one step away from A-class. I don't know what kind of improvements could be made to merit the A-class, but I think it's now worth while trying. JoJan (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JoJan, and thanks for encouraging us to go for Good Article status. I am proud that Project Gastropods now has the first of these, many more to come I hope! Best, Invertzoo (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JoJan. I was looking around for a Wikipedian in Belgium who was currently active, and you were fortunately selected! We have an article, Franky van Der Elst, and a football editor wants it to be moved to Franky van der Elst. Does this make sense to you? In Belgium, it seems he is known as nl:Franky Van der Elst, and we certainly can't tell the Belgians how to spell things, but this capitalization looks strange to a native English speaker. What do you think? What is the best spelling to use in English? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A name starting with "van der" can be written in different ways, depending on how it was originally noted down in Napoleonic times (about 1800), when people were obliged to have an official name. Most clerks noting down these names were French talking and had no idea how to spell Flemish names. That is how the confusion started; in this case it resulted in spellings like : "van der", "Van der" or "Van Der". I've searched through some Flemish newspapers and the nl.wikipedia and they all write : "Franky Van der Elst". As an aside, this name means "(coming) from a ( place with many) alders. There are many Flemish names with the same meaning : "(van (der)) Elst, Van (der) Elst, Ter Elst, Van der Elst, Van (der) Helst, Van der Aalst, Van der Aelst, Ver(r)elst, Verelest, Verhelst, Verest, Voorhelst". Cheers. JoJan (talk) 05:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! EdJohnston (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoJan, I think it would be a good idea to change this category to "Endemic gastropods of the Philippines", which is what it currently contains. What do you think? I have no problem with geographical, country-based, categories of mollusks if they contain only endemic species. But country-based categories which end up including hundreds, or thousands, of species, many of which are common to the whole Indo-Pacific zone seem a bit pointless. If we had had a chance to plan it better when Graham Bould started, I think that Gastropods of New Zealand and Gastropods of Australia would have been better made into proper list articles rather than categories.

If people continue to create this kind of category based on country, a common species which occurs throughout the Indo-Pacific zone could end up having hundreds of country-based categories listed at the end of the article, which would be kind of idiotic. I think Snek raised this same issue some time ago. Anyway, what do you think about all this? Best, Invertzoo (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much in favor of such geographical or country-based categories, endemic or not. There are not too many gastropods that are endemic to a certain place. Even if they are accepted as endemic, then suddenly they are sighted on a different place. This makes it very difficult to maintain such categories. There are more pressing problems to direct our energies than maintaining such categories. JoJan (talk) 05:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you 100% percent. Thanks. Should I empty that category? It would be easy to do as there are so few of them, (about 6 or 7 as I recall.) Invertzoo (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should start a list List of marine molluscs of the Philippines. Even short lists are good, they can be easily expanded, example of a short one: List of non-marine molluscs of Italy. There is also a short one (maybe overlooked) for non-marine from New Zealand List of non-marine molluscs of New Zealand. --Snek01 (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoJan, just now I noticed we have a talk page for the family Dotoidae. That family has an article as Dotidae. The correct spelling does appear to be Dotidae according to Bill Rudman at his site here [6].

I suppose that in the past, Dotoidae was not moved correctly to Dotidae, and thus the talk page got left behind. Dotidae has its own talk page. I removed the project tag from the Dotoidae talk page, but now it needs to be deleted. Do you think you could do that? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note to Dotidae with respect to this name change. Dotoidae should be retained as a redirect. I've deleted Talk:Dotoidae. JoJan (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Today I see we have a talk page for Fissurellidae here [7] but the article is currently called Keyhole limpet and has its own talk page here: [8]. Of course like you I would rather it was called Fissurellidae. But in either case, what should we do with this one? Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved "Keyhole limpet" and its talk page to "Fissurellidae". JoJan (talk) 08:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Much better. Invertzoo (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoJan, me again. I just wanted to say that all of these (not counting Aliculastrum and Atys) are circular links that you created back when you were new on Wikipedia in 2004. Do you want to fix them yourself, or do you want me to do it?

• Cylichnium
• Diniatys
• Haloa
• Haminoea
• Hamineobulla
• Liloa - is not circular, but links to a Hawaiian King
• Limulatys
• Micratys
• Mimatys
• Nipponatys
• Sericohaminoea
• Sphaeratys
• Ventomnestia
• Weinkauffia

All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these were made when I was still a newbie and had much to learn. I've deleted all these links, except Lilioa, that has become a disambiguation page, leading to the red link Liloa. JoJan (talk) 08:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for fixing them. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and today I see there are also some similar ones on the Cavolinioidea page. I deleted the redirects but not the article pages:

• Cavoliniidae
• Clioidae
• Creseidae
• Cuvierinidae
• Praecuvierinidae

Invertzoo (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

/ Done. JoJan (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, me again. I don't know quite how this happened, but Cavoliniidae is reduced to a circular link within Cavolinioidea. I think it was a proper article before? Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it now seems that Cavoliniidae was never a proper article, I was mistaken. I got rid of the circular link to it on the Cavolinioidea page, but we were left with the empty page at Cavoliniidae. So I have gone ahead and tried to make a stub article, using the superfamily info as a basis. Perhaps you can look it over to see if it is OK or not. Thanks and all the best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This barnstar, (fanfare), the first I have ever awarded, (louder fanfare), which also spins round and round, (deafening fanfare), is for giving super, substantial, sensible and solid strength to simple, slender stubs. Slime on! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a fine one to my collection. JoJan (talk) 08:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not exactly sure why Conus mcgintyi (version 2) was created in in the first place, but it became a redirect. I removed the redirect, but please could you get rid of what is left? Thanks so much, Invertzoo (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've also added some data to the article Conus mcgintyi. JoJan (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JoJan, Best, Invertzoo (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

uh, why did you delete Philip Murphy? A7 does not seem to apply, or is the US Ambassador to Germany not notable enough? I'm confused... Musschrott (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a somewhat very belated question. I deleted this article on 25 October 2005. The article contained the following text :

---

- Born in 1982 in Washington, DC

- Attended the Mclean School of Maryland

- Attended the Field School

- Currently attending Union College

Enjoys sailing, fishing, reading, computers, and the Internet. Has particular interest in expanding his mind, and exposing himself to new ideas. Particularly the really tough thorny ideas. Perhaps this young man will plumit into obscurity, but then again, he's got a wiki entry. So at least thats one feather in his cap.

His interests include reading Ludwig Wittgenstein, James Baldwin, Isaac Asimov, and Immanuel Kant

And loves Adri

Currently writing his thesis on Information Ethics from the perspective of Information Theory or so he thinks.

---

It was tagged as an A7 concerning someone "attending a College and writing to get a wiki entry and one feather in his cap. Perhaps this young man will plumit (sic) into obscurity". He certainly did and got deleted twice (the second deletion three years later as an A3). There was no mention of him being the US Ambassador to Germany. Are you sure this is the same person ? If so, then you can perhaps write a new article with the necessary references that will withstand deletion. JoJan (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a left-over talk page for Talk:Neritopsina, but Neritopsina the article redirects to Neritimorpha. I suppose the left-over page needs deleting? Thanks JoJan. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JoJan (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JoJan. Invertzoo (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's here at [9]. The previous article now redirects to Helicarionoidea. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JoJan (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here: [10] Best, Invertzoo (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JoJan (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was already indef blocking Samstonewanka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as vandalism only when you placed the warning, so I have replaced your edit with an indef block template. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit drastic, but OK to me. JoJan (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: [11]

Thanks for deleting all of these as I find them. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JoJan (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[12] Best, Invertzoo (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JoJan (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abalone-farm1web.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Abalone-farm1web.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Abalone-farm1web.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adiantumhispidulum1web.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Adiantumhispidulum1web.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adiantumraddianum1web.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Adiantumraddianum1web.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shopping Mall.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Shopping Mall SF.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cymbidium-floribundum.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Cymbidium-floribundum.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cymbidium-cultivar1.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Cymbidium-cultivar1.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cymbidium-cultivar.web.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Cymbidium-cultivar.web.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexander Wilson.gif is now available as Commons:File:Alexander Wilson.gif. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bulbophyllum-falcatum.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Bulbophyllum-falcatum.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bulbophyllum-lepidum.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Bulbophyllum-lepidum.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again JoJan. I don't know what to do with the strange little article, Onycha. I don't know whether it should even be a Project Gastropods article, and how to assess it if we do keep in in the project. I guess it does have some relevance as Biblical information and it is about a snail product. What do you think? Should it be taken out of the project, and just linked to in our article about Operculum (gastropod)? Or what? Best, Invertzoo (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a fragrance, derived from a shell part. This doesn't belong, in my opinion, in our project. A link to operculum is fine. As an aside, Conchylium is the Latin word from which the French words coquille and "coquillage" have been derived . It is still used in French in the words conchyliculture and conchyliology. JoJan (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very interesting derivation. I did not know that. Should we put that in somewhere, like maybe the conchology article? Invertzoo (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's necessary. That's more in line with wikidictionary. And in case you wondered, the word "conch" is derived from the Latin word "concha" ( = mussel, cockle) and not from Conchylium. The conch was typically the shell blown by Triton instead of a trumpet. JoJan (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent info! Invertzoo (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created this one myself in error. Thanks in advance for deleting it JoJan. Invertzoo (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you meant Talk:Rapana thomasiana (deleted) ?

Thanks yes, that is what I meant. Invertzoo (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can we delete Lodderena nana pooki as I have now mentioned that subspecies within the species article. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Maoricolpus roseus manukauensis for the same reason? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They should be redirected for archiving reasons. --Snek01 (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both have been redirected. JoJan (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a left-over talk page and associated messages for Talk:Suture (gastropod). I assume this should be deleted and the messages maybe transferred to the Suture (anatomical) talk page. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there's a leftover talk page for Talk:Trichotropidae. Invertzoo (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both have been deleted . JoJan (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Invertzoo (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you one thing? During the process of gastropod article assessment and updating, I was just now working on the stubs that Graham Bould had created for various species and subspecies of the keyhole limpet genus Monodilepas. Actually he had not made a genus article for them, so I quickly created that, and then I listed the species he had created articles for. As you will see if you take a look, he had 3 species articles and then also 2 subspecies articles for M. monolifera subspecies, but no species article for that M. monolifera. What is your opinion as to the best way of handling this and similar situations of which there are many? These marine species articles from Graham Bould currently have very little information in them as they were part of the big copyright clean-up. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In such cases it is better to put the very short descriptions of the species and subspecies within the genus article. However, in this particular case of species and subspecies in Monodilepas, it would be preferred if the deleted information could be brought back in the article as text free from copyvio. Stating that a species (or subspecies) is endemic to a certain area is a fact and not a copyvio. The same can be done to the description of the species (or subspecies). It shouldn't be too hard to describe a species in one's own words, using the deleted text as a base. Of course it would still be better if one could also rely on data from other sources. Google Scholar offers a few possibilities (See: [13]). And now, while I'm checking, I just found out that Monodilepas Finlay, 1926 is actually a synonym of Diodora Gray, 1821 (See : OBIS). This, of course, changes the picture again. But my general opinion about such a situation, as described above, stands. JoJan (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JoJan. I should explain that I came across those articles as part of going quickly through all of the 940 gastropod project articles that were "unassessed" as of July of this year: I (and Daniel too) have been assessing them as routine cleanup. As I have been doing this, I have also been very quickly updating the taxonomy and adding italic title etc, as I go along. A majority of them were articles that had sections deleted during the CopyVio clean-up. Since there are nearly a thousand of those that need sections re-written and put back in, that is not something that I am tackling right now. It will have to wait until I, or hopefully someone else, gets inspired to do that. Unfortunately not too many people enjoy doing clean up tasks, so they tend to get neglected. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoJan, Do you think you could delete the old bot-generated stub article Helicarion porrectus? Once that is done, I will then change the title of the new article Mysticarion porrectus back to the old name Helicarion porrectus until the publication comes out that proposes the genus name change. Is that he best way to do this? Thanks! Invertzoo (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoJan, the name seems to be OK from my brief overview. The 2007 article Molecular phylogeny of Australian Helicarionidae, Euconulidae and related groups (Gastropoda: Pulmonata: Stylommatophora) based on mitochondrial DNA uses the name Mysticarion porrectus. If there are no taxonomic difficulties, then simple redirect would be fine. --Snek01 (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this seems OK to everyone, I turned the old article into a redirect to the new article. Invertzoo (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the talk page of the redirect page. JoJan (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JoJan. Here is what certainly seems to be a hoax article from a new user. I think it might possibly qualify as a blatant hoax, but I am not sure, so I am consulting you about it.

• The article claims to be about a genus of grass. The Latin name he gives could conceivably be a species, if the species name was rendered with a small letter instead of a capital.
• The user spells the Latin name one way in the title and text, and another way in the taxobox.
• The illustration shows the flower of a chive plant (!) which is in the onion family, not a grass as claimed.
• The user calls the snail on the plant a "doopahe" snail. This also does not appear to be a genuine word in any language as far as I can tell.
• I cannot find a genus of any organism called Cristoferus or even Cristopherus or Christophorus using google.
• I cannot find a species name for any organism called "malinia" or "malinoa".

So what do you think we should do with this? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly a hoax. According to Kew Garden's GrassBase [14] this genus doesn't exist. I've nominated it for deletion as a hoax Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristoferus Malinia. If you want, you can add your vote on that page. As an aside, translating the Latin words, this would mean "Christoffel van Mechelen" (Mechelen is a major town in Belgium). JoJan (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JoJan, thanks for reverting the nonsense added to the Matthew Arnold article while you were at it. I did not want to get into a revert war, so I asked for validation before I reverted again. But little doubt it is vandalism. Mddietz (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I looked and today the article had its warning tags removed. On the code page it says: For administrator use only: oldafdfull|page=Cristoferus Malinia|date=17 September 2009|result=keep. Is this actually what happened, or is this more hoaxing? Invertzoo (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristoferus Malinia is still running. Whatever else happens, it won't influence the end result of the nomination for deletion. JoJan (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoJan, I wanted to ask you about this. I just now left a note for Snek who helped write the article: I was looking at this article today and I was noticing that here on Wikipedia we appear to have chosen to leave the quote marks off of the name. However, if Bouchet and Rocroi used them, shouldn't we also use them, in order to be consistent with their choices? I mean we are using the term in the same way that B&R used it, so shouldn't we use the same typography? Or not? I am not at all trying to be argumentative here, I just want to understand the rationale behind this choice. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk)

In my opinion, these quotation marks just mean a sort of apology for not having a scientific name for this clade. On the other hand, the same quotation marks could mean to the general public that the "limacoid clade" is actually not a real clade at all (in the sense "xxx" = a so-called "xxx"). B & R wouldn't have called this a clade unless there was monophyly. Otherwise it would have been called : informal group. Therefore we're safe if we omit the quotation marks and just call it : limacoid clade until a scientific name has been assigned to this clade. JoJan (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your opinion on that. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article which was previously called Wainuia sp. I just now changed to ''Wainuia'' (species unknown), because otherwise I could not work out how to use italic title on it. Is this OK as the title of the article do you think, at least for the time being? Or should it be called ''Wainuia'' (species not yet described)? For all I know this species may already be named now because the Powell book came out decades ago. Thanks JoJan, Invertzoo (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, a non-described species should not have its own article. It may however be mentioned in the genus article that there are a number of species without an assigned name. In second place, the website "New Zealand Mollusca" states that Wainuia is a subgenus of Rhytida ([15]). This puts the articles about the genus and the species in Wainuia into question. Furthermore, the name Wainiuia was introduced by Powell in 1930 in the journal Rec. Auckland Inst. Mus., 1 (1), 51 and seems to be accepted by the Nomenclator Zoologicus [16]. All this makes it very confusing but should be mentioned in the articles. JoJan (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much JoJan. I suppose I will have to get rid of it, but first of all I will need to work out what Powell said about it that GB quoted and then copy some info into the genus article. Then I will ask you to delete it. Invertzoo (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the unassessed articles page here [17] and also do a search for Powelliphanta and scroll though the list of names that it pulls up. As you can see, when GB created all the Powelliphanta species articles he included a number of unnamed ones that were referred to by location words instead of species names. It's a mess really. And then he also created a huge number of subspecies articles for that genus. What do you think we should do with this mess? Invertzoo (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to answer this now, thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in principle against articles about species that haven't received a binomial (or trinomial) name yet. Once they're named, they could as well be a new species or a new subspecies or a synonym of another species. By now, some of them may be already properly described. But I lack the books or the literature to check this. JoJan (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a new article about a phrase that appears to have been simply invented by the writer and his friends. Thus, not notable. No sources mentioned of course. I assume it should be deleted. I stuck the notability tag on it, and am asking you what should be done next. Thanks JoJan, best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a recently coined word, covered with a semi-scientific explanation. I've put in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Digestive Hour. We'll let the community decide. JoJan (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoJan, Here is a new article: List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America. I have not checked it but off the top of my head it appears not to be bogus I suppose, but has no refs, and might be very difficult to find refs for. I was not sure how to tag it. I suppose a list article like this but for all the Latin American countries might be worthwhile if it could be backed up with real sources. What do you think? Is it worthwhile? Invertzoo (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There might be some value in such a list. However, my knowledge of Spanish is limited to about the same words in French or Latin. So I can't check it either. In my opinion, it doesn't fall under any CSD or AFD. But to be on the safe side, I've added the template "unreferenced" on top of the page. JoJan (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Can you let me know why you deleted my article Daniel Eyre? The article wasn't even finished, I accepted by accident and when I went back it was deleted!

A simple email would have Sufficed to ask the nature and to be honest the surname should have given way the relevance anyway

You can have power over people as long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything, he's no longer in your power. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medinland (talk • contribs) 13:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may add this same article again, if it meets the requirements of wikipedia, especially Wikipedia:Notability (people). I advise you to create this article in a word processor (or make a subpage of your user page) and then copy and paste it into wikipedia. And don't forget to add the relevant references to a reliable source. An to make it easier for you, I just restored the article and moved it to User:Medinland /Daniel Eyre. This way, you may work at it at your pace. But I'll be watching your progress. JoJan (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the restored article as this user seemingly is no longer interested in this article and has left wikipedia. JoJan (talk) 08:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JoJan. There are several reasons why I removed the list:

• 1. Content on Wikipedia needs to be referenced. WP:V establishes this clearly. The criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability.
• 2. I believe the Ostend list included some living people. W:BLP states that content about living people needs to be well-referenced. False information about living people can be a liability to them, so there is a stronger urgency to remove uncited information as opposed to tagging it with a refimprove
• 3. Each entry needs a reference stating that the person is from Ostend.

I feel that my removal is justified; you are welcome to begin referencing each entry. If the list does not have references, they will be removed again. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you are in Ostend at the moment, would you mind photographing the headquarters of Jetairfly? I know they are in Ostend. Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with the need for references. However, a list is composed of links to articles. Each article needs to be referenced, and not the link to an article. But to stay conform to the requirements of wikipedia, I'll remove the entry for Kamagurka. He was born in Nieuwpoort (close to Ostend) but I have no idea in which town he lives now or if he ever lived in Ostend, even if his ties with Ostend are close (esp. with "Herr Seele", another well-known comic and author from Ostend). As to your request for a photo of the headquarters of Jetairfly, I'll see what I can do in a couple of days. Their headquarters isn't too far away from my home. JoJan (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that a list has a link to articles, but by relying on the linked articles to carry references that X person lived in/was born in the city, it becomes a more tedious task to check whether the references are true as one has to hop to each article to check and search its text. By having each entry referenced it becomes easy to check each entry. In many cases the main biographical article often doesn't have any referenced in regards to the hometown.

As for Jetairfly, I thank you in advance for the photo :)

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much :) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's one thing though - Your image may have to be moved to the English Wikipedia. Belgium does not have the Freedom of panorama, so an image of a modern building can inherit the copyright of the architect of the building's architect. I will start a discussion on the Commons to see if the image has to be moved to the English Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoJan, I think the first of these two is the incorrect spelling, and the second is the correct one, at least as far as I can tell. If you agree, maybe you can delete the Caseolus commixtus article? Thanks! Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is strange. The noun Caseolus is male, so the adjective should also be male, i.e. commixtus. But it all depends how it was originally described in Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (2) 9, 115 by Lowe in 1842. Anyway, Fauna Europaea lists the name as Caseolus commixtus. [18] Do you have any reliable references stating that "commixta" should be the right epithet ? JoJan (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure: here it is listed as conmixta: [19] And a google search gives 4,490 results as opposed to 497 for conmixtus. Of course neither of those are any guarantee that that is actually the correct spelling. Invertzoo (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what should we do ? I'm inclined to Caseolus commixtus, as this follows the Latin grammar. But the only deciding factor is the original description and not Google. Scientists in the 19th century had years of instruction in Latin in their secundary education. I would be much surprised if R.T. Lowe made such a big mistake in naming the species Caseolus commixta, a mistake even a student in his first year Latin wouldn't make. JoJan (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the original description, but you are probably right JoJan. Maybe we can name the article Caseolus commixtus and mention that the name is often spelled Caesolus commixta. In any case we need one of the two articles deleting. I see that we have another problem in that genus Caseolus: a species is listed as Caseolus sphaerula as opposed to Caseolus sphaerulus. In this case we have an article for the feminine ending and not for the masculine ending. I am assuming that species should be spelled Caeseolus sphaerulus. That's easy to move anyway and the intro can also have a note explaining that it is often spelled the other way.

Thanks for your help with all these bits and pieces. I (along with Daniel Cavallari) am going through all of the more than two thousand stubs in Project Gastropods, and I am finding all sorts of interesting errors and omissions. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the hard work both of you are performing. Just give me sign whenever Caseolus commixta is to be deleted. On the other hand, I'm not so sure if Caseolus sphaerula is a misnomer. It is mentioned as such in the Convention of Berne and the Habitat Directive. However, there are also reliable references, mentioning it as Caseolus sphaerulus.JoJan (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready for Caseolus commixta to be deleted. I put a note about the spelling on the page of the article that is being kept. Invertzoo (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also moved Caseolus sphaerula to Caseolus sphaerulus, because both of the references cited spell it the masculine way. However I have added a note saying it is often spelled the other way. Hope this is OK for now at any rate. Invertzoo (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a redirect at Caseolus commixta, as this name will show up in many queries on the internet. JoJan (talk) 08:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Piazza di Spagna.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can delete it. This was one of my earliest contributions to wikipedia and I have no idea where this image came from. This subject is already fully covered in the Commons. JoJan (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About my reverted comment on the talk page of the moray eels article, I could swear that when I posted that comment the article text at some point used the word "huge" to describe the moray eels, if that has never been the case I apologize. --TiagoTiago (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You've just deleted a couple of the many, many recently created articles by user:Jaspreethunjan1989 which I nominated per CSD A7. Shall I keep on nominating them, which I'm happy to do, or do you have the patience to wade through the list yourself? andy (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user has received an indef block. I delete articles on an individual basis based on my judgement. I'll see what I can do at a later time today. JoJan (talk) 08:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again JoJan, I am still working my way through the stubs that start with the letter "C". As you will see we have stubs for both of these apparent genera. There is some evidence however that Cingulochalax is simply a misspelling of Cingulocharax, and if so then the "l" spelling should be deleted and the content merged with the "r" spelling. Do you want to try to give me your opinion? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Nomenclator Zoologicus, Cipangocharax is the only correct spelling : Cipangocharax (Hirase) Shintaro 1934 Coll. Jap. Shells, pl. 78, f.6; Kuroda 1943, Venus 13, 11 I've deleted Cipangochalax, after transfering the data to Cipangocharax. I've made a redirect of Cipangochalax placeonovitas, as this name occurs erroneously in the IUCN Red List (I can't send them a feedback as their feedback form doesn't function) and will show up in Google searches.JoJan (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much JoJan! Invertzoo (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have both. The first one seems to be a synonym of the second? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 13:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both names are mentioned in the Nomenclator Zoologicus :

• Clionina Pruvot-Fol 1924 Arch. Zool. exp. gén. Paris, 62 (6), 364.
• Paraclione Tesch 1903 Tijdschr. Ned. dierk. Ver., (2) 8, 117.

However Clionina longicaudata Souleyet, 1851 is recognized as a synonym of the accepted name Paraclione longicaudata (Souleyet, 1851) (see : ITIS [20]). The same goes for Clionina aurantiaca and Clionina flavescens (both synonyms of the accepted name Paraclione flavescens). Therefore, it is safe to assume that Clionina is a synonym of Paraclione. I've deleted the content (after saving it in Paraclione) and made a redirect to Paraclione. JoJan (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JoJan, I need move Schizoglossa novoseelandica article under name Schizoglossa novoseelandica. And I need Paua slug to be a redirect to Schizoglossa. Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JoJan (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't work out which of these is really the correct spelling. We have Cymatona tomlini and Cymatona kampyla and I wish to make the genus article, but I would like to be sure of the correct spelling first. My instinct is that it would be Cymatoma but there are listings out there for both. Thanks for any help you can give. Invertzoo (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Nomenclator Zoologicus, the exact name is Cymatona Iredale 1929, published in : Rec. Australian Mus., 17, 177. JoJan (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, great! Invertzoo (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again JoJan, could you delete this left-over talk page [21]. Cysticus redirects to Cystiscus. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JoJan (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me again. These are two Cyclophoridae names. It seems that the first was a genus name and the second was a subgenus name, which may now have been elevated to a genus. Can you possibly look these up and find out if Ditropis is still good, or has it been replaced by Ditropopsis EA Smith, 1897? Or are they both legitimate generic names now? And what is the authority and date for Ditropis? Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Nomenclator Zoologicus, both names are recognized :

• Ditropis Blanford 1869 J. Asiat. Soc. Bengal, 38, 126.
• Ditropopsis Smith 1897 Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (6) 20, 416. (see: Discover Life)

Based on the root "Ditropis", there is also :

• Afroditropis Bequaert & Clench 1936 Rev. Zool. Bot. afr., 29, 102. (The genus Afroditropis is reviewed on the basis of type material of all the species, of which there are only three, viz two in the Central/West African forest belt and one on Sao Tome.)
• Ditropisena Iredale 1933 Rec. Australian Mus., 19, 57. (family: Assimineidae) (Online Zoological Collections of Australian Museums)

I hope this helps a bit. JoJan (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Invertzoo (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This slug species is in the Agriolimacidae, could you check that the first spelling is in fact correct? I moved it from the second spelling, I hope I did right but I am not sure. You may find it listed as Agriolimax tarracense Altena, 1969, as it is here: [22]. But on the Red list it is D. tarraceuse, here [23] Very confusing!

Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As this species is endemic to the Spanish province of Tarragona, it is normal that its name is derived from this the name of the province. Hence, the Latin genitive ending -ensis (meaning "from"). Tarragona --> Tarragonensis. This ending has here been corrupted to -ense. So, you made the right move. And all major websites name it rightly as Deroceras tarracense.

As an aside, there are many photos of Deroceras [24] available on Flickr with a suitable license for the Commons. I suspect that these are all Deroceras reticulatum. If you can confirm this, I'm willing to upload them to the Commons. JoJan (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming my spelling of D. tarracense. Invertzoo (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Deroceras pics on Flickr, I am not convinced that they are D. reticulatum, because the flesh looks fairly translucent, whereas in typical D. reticulatum in Britain at least, the flesh is quite opaque. To me these Flickr pics look more like Deroceras laeve or something similar. I will ask Snek if he agrees with me. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snek said, ":You are more right but it can be anything. Unfortunately we need to be 100% sure to provide some info for the public, so we need to try to wait for more proper identification of slugs from the same locality... --Snek01 (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

I will ask two more specialists, who are in the US, and see what they think. Invertzoo (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got some feedback via two American malacologists, Aydin Orstan and also Megan Paustian, and it seems to me very likely indeed that the species in question in those Flickr pics is Deroceras panormitanum reported from the Northeastern USA in 2006 in this paper [25]. We do need an image of that species, so it might be worth uploading some of the images, especially ones that show the profile of the body at the tail dropping off vertically for a short section, this is diagnostic, see that plate in that paper. Best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I've uploaded them to the Commons Commons:Category:Deroceras panormitanum and put one image into the article. I'll use some information from their paper and put it in the article. JoJan (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the source of the Deroceras images in question on Flickr, I've looked through the Reise et al. Veliger paper, and I'm not convinced that the set you are determining as D. panormitanum shows their diagnostic character of a vertical profile of the tail. That Flickr set includes several images of the same individual, and the images that most clearly show the posterior profile of the tail show it as sloping forward, rather than rising vertically. Chicoreus (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had some doubts myself, but there was a confirmation from two American malacologists. I admit, there is some discrepancy between this set of photos and the photo shown in the Veliger. Can you perhaps give me a confirmation of the exact name for this species ? JoJan (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving them tagged as Deroceras sp. on Flickr for now, with notes that they might be D. panormitanum. Will try to collect some specimens to get some definitive identifications. Chicoreus (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great Chicoreus, thank you so much. Apparently it is hard to tell D. panormitanum and D. laeve apart, and to do it from photos only is even harder. Aydin passed the question over to Megan and I did not get definite ID from Megan, it was a suggestion, and I thought it was a good one from my limited understanding of the two species. I was familiar with D. laeve from Britain in the 1960s and 1970s, and the images did not look like the D. laeve I used to see there, but of course there are different forms. Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you ascertain the authority and date for this genus? Thanks so much, Invertzoo (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discula Lowe 1852 Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (2) 9, 116. JoJan (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And I will try to sort out the problem with Heterodorididae. Thanks you for pointing that out. It is very good that we are catching all these errors and ambiguities of various kinds! Invertzoo (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look the authority of this genus up too JoJan? It is in the Euconulidae. Many thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dupontia Godwin-Austen 1908 Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (8) 2, 428. JoJan (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Invertzoo (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snek merged what was appropriate of the content with Arminidae and made a redirect. Thanks for noticing this. Invertzoo (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look up the authority and date for this genus of tropical land snails? Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dyakia Godwin-Austen 1891 Proc. zool. Soc. London, 1891, 29. JoJan (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once again! Invertzoo (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoJan, by any chance do you have access to this piece of literature:

• Baker H. B. (1941) "Zonitid snails from Pacific islands. Part 3 and 4". Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 166: 203–370.

I am asking because we could really use an image of this snail (or its shell), as it may become a DYK soon. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have this book at my disposal. However, it can be bought for 84 dollars at the Bishop Museum in Honolulu. Another possibility: there is a nice photo at FlickR [26] but is license states that is only for non-commercial use. Perhaps, you can convince the uploader to release it under a suitable license for wikipedia, such as Creative Commons 3.0 - Attribution instead of Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic. JoJan (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this today. Should it be entitled "List of words ending in -ology"? And is it an OK subject for Wikipedia or not? If you think it is, I would like to add to the intro and make as many of the words into blue links as possible. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problems with such a list. I made a note to the creator User:South Bay if he would agree with the new title. JoJan (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You left a message saying my edits to the article Aloe was not constructive and was reverted (when I edited without logging in; you posted the message to the ip's talk page). I'd appreciate if you'd check the edits before branding me as a vandal. Bockbockchicken (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit by IP 65.51.4.2, which I reverted on November 20, was : "Hi, Mike". I wouldn' t call this a constructive edit in a botanical article. Or perhaps, you used a dynamic IP (this IP is linked to West Islip Public Schools, a school with a very long list of warnings). Then this edit could have been from anybody. JoJan (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoJan, I looked through this article and fixed it up a little bit, but basically the English was very good and needed no real correction. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very grateful if you could look up this genus, and tell me the authority and date. Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eua Pilsbry & Cooke, 1934 Occ. Pap. Bishop Mus., no. 10 (14), 4. JoJan (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Invertzoo (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This supposed genus and its descendent species seem like they might possible be an error. I can't find any google info other than Wikipedia-derived stuff. Could you look it up for me and see if it is genuine? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The genus name should be Falkneria Nordsieck, 1989 Heldia 1 (5-6): 166, belonging to the family Helicodontidae. It contains one species : Falkneria camerani (Lessona, 1880) . The wrong name as Falkneri camerani occurred through a orthographic error by Giusti & Manganelli in 1990. Falkneria camerani is one of the most endangered mollusk species in Italy. It occurs only in the Valley Sessera in Valle d'Aosta. JoJan (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, terrific. I figured it couldn't be right spelled as it was. Thanks again. Invertzoo (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again JoJan. Thanks to Polbot in 2007, we have two different articles for this species. I am assuming that the first spelling is correct, and that the second one was due to a typo in the Red List that has since been corrected? Would you check and see if you agree? And if you do would you delete the incorrect one? Many thanks! Invertzoo (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. This wouldn't be the first mistake in the Red List. JoJan (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you did a lot of good work developing the Belém Tower article a few years ago, including adding a reference. I've spent some time working on it recently including adding inline sources. Do you know of any info from the sources that can be used to further improve the article? Cheers, Strafpeloton2 (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JoJan, could you move pages, please?

• Thais (genus) -> Thais (gastropod)
• Diastole (genus) -> Diastole (gastropod)

Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JoJan (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A land snail genus in the Streptaxidae. Would you please look up the authority for us? Thanks so much. Invertzoo (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbus Montfort 1810 Conch., 2, 302. JoJan (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. I shan't need to bother you anymore with looking up these genus authority things as Snek has given me a link to the Nomenclator Zoologicus site here:[27]. Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the very best wishes to you JoJan, I hope that 2010 goes well for you. Invertzoo (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		Merry Christmas and a happy New Year
		I wish you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year 2010. May your cooperation to the gastropods project be as fruitful as it was in the past. Having said that, I'll uncork a bottle of champagne and let it flow freely. I hope you'll do as well. Happy Holidays!! JoJan (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoJan, I just wondered if this card was actually intended for me and ended up here by mistake? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oops, my mistake JoJan (talk) 08:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, great, thanks! Nice card. Invertzoo (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoJan. What happened to the egg I gave you?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		Merry Christmas
		Your gift this year: A Fabergé Egg! Originally a Christmas present from King George V to his wife Queen Mary of Teck, then pinched by me from a museum in 1982, and used to hold the window open in my kitchen ever since. May your Christmas be white and merry. May your table have cheeses and lox. May the gravy be hot and double. May your presents be other than socks. Happy Holidays!! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've put it back in a hurry. It must have been the champagne... JoJan (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On December 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Forest migration, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoJan. While reviewing all the Glossodoris articles I came across this page: Glossodoris amoena. This nudibranch is actually Ceratosoma amoenum for which we already have a page. Normally in the case of a synonym I would re-direct the Glossodoris amoena page to Ceratosoma amoenum but I can't find a record anywhere of it ever having been named this. It would seem it is not a synonym and whoever created the original page did so in error. Deletion of the page would seem in order. If you agree can you do this? You can find a record of Invertzoo and my communications on this matter here: Conversation. Thanks <font colo , r="#009966">Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the following synonyms for Ceratosoma amoenum : Chromodoris amoena Cheeseman, 1886 , Chromodoris atopa Bergh, 1905 , Chromodoris figurata Bergh, 1905 , Chromodris loringi ( Angas,1864), Glossodoris amoena (Cheeseman,1886) Glossodoris figurata (Bergh, 1908) and finally Ceratosoma amoena (Cheeseman, 1886) . This is one of those nudibranches that has been described several times by different authors. You can check this at [28]. Therefore, in my opinion, a redirect is in order. JoJan (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JoJan. I agree with your decision. I couldn't find a record of that synonym having been used, but since you have managed to find one redirection is the best course. Merry Christmas. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I coped this in here from Snek's talk page, as I thought you would like to see it too:

"Hi, I've checked Murphydoris to see if it is suitable for DYK using DYKcheck, it is currently 38 characters too short and also needs inline citations. Remember that content after bullet points isn't included in the count. Do you think you can fix it up? Cheers Smartse (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"::I filled out the prose a little where that was needed. Invertzoo (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

Great ! JoJan (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IUCN Red List has this land snail species spelled the first way, but several other reputable sites have it spelled the second way. Can you find out for us which is correct? Thanks so much JoJan, Invertzoo (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere between the publication of the species name by Férussac in 1821 and now, an orthographic error must have occurred that was duplicated many times. But which one is it ? Unless one can consult the original publication, there is no way to be sure. The Greek word "gonio" means "angle" (as in goniometry). The spelling in the Red List is not a reliable reference, as we have remarked many times. I would more go along with the spelling as practiced by universities, as in this website of a German university [29]. Therefore, without being 100 % sure, I'm more inclined to the spelling Gonyostomus goniostomus. If you agree, I can easily perform a move to the proposed name. JoJan (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I also prefer that spelling. The sources for it seem more reputable. Thanks, go ahead and move it. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JoJan (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific! That looks much better! Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On December 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Onchidoris bilamellata, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On December 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Murphydoris, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoJan. We have an article for a supposed ovulid genus Hiatovula and one for the species Hiatovula brunneiterma. I am concerned that perhaps the name we are using is one kind of error or another. It seems that Phenacovolva might be the right name for this taxon. I don't know if "Hiatovula" is a mistaken spelling for "Hiatovolva" or what... If you get a chance can you look this up for me and see what you can find out? Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nomenclator zoologicus recognizes Phenacovolva Iredale 1930 Mem. Queensland Mus., 10, 85. There are no entries for Hiatovula or Hiatovolva. I've found this photo of Hiatovula brunneiterma [30] But Google scholar doesn't give any reference for Hiatovula, neither does it for Hiatovolva. All Google hits for these two names, that I've checked, are actually copies of the wikipedia article Therefore I would go for Phenacovolva and for the species Phenacovolva brunneiterma (Cate, 1969) if I hadn't found this interesting .pdf on the internet about the Ovulidae : Contributions to the knowledge of the Ovulidae. This study recognizes Hiatovolva, but puts it in a different subfamily Aclyvolvinae. This study states that Hiatovolva has previously been synonymized with Phenacovolva but is actually not much related with it. JoJan (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! We now have Hiatavolva which is the correct spelling, Pellasimnia, and Pellasimnia brunneiterma. I may also make a stub for Phenacovolva if I can find the time. Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoJan, we currently have two bot-created articles based on a (supposed) land snail genus which is supposedly placed within the Euconulidae: "Hacrochlamys" and one on the species "Hacrochlamys lineolatus". This genus is not in the Nomenclator Zoologicus. The genus Macrochlamys Benson, 1832 does exist, within the Ariophantidae, but Macrochlamys lineolatus does not seem to be a species. So I don't know what to do with the Hacrochlamys articles... Any ideas? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hacrochlamys lineolatus Pilsbry & Hirase can be found as an endangered species on the IUCN Red List [31], repeated by the UNEP [32]. Perhaps another orthographic error, as we have seen a few times ? Anyway, Google Scholar doesn't give any result. However, the species name gets any credibility if one looks at following sites. This species is listed on ARKive's most wanted species list [33]. The occurrence in Japan is given in this table [34]. This species is also given by the ZipCodeZoo [35]. There is also a Japanese site listing this name [36], which improves the credibility. In my opinion Hacrochlamys lineolatus is an existing species, that has been little studied. JoJan (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the research. I will leave them as they are then. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]