User talk:JoJan

user

talk

watchlist

sandbox

user links

desktop

more links

. .Well, that’s me

Picture of the day

Pomacanthus maculosus, commonly known as the yellowbar angelfish, is a species in the marine angelfish family, Pomacanthidae, found in the western Indian Ocean and, more recently, in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. It has a deep and compressed body with a small mouth that is equipped with small bristle-like teeth. The background colour of adults is brownish blue with each scale having a blue margin creating the impression that it is predominantly blue. There is an uneven, yellow bar close to the centre of the flanks with dark blue, vertically elongated spots towards the head. The species is occasionally collected for the aquarium trade and has also been recorded on sale as food in fish markets. This P. maculosus fish was photographed in Ras Muhammad National Park in the Red Sea off the coast of the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt.Photograph credit: Diego Delso

Hello JoJan, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to join the community. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log so we can meet you and help you get started. If you need editing help, visit Wikipedia:How to edit a page. For format questions, visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Newcomers' Village pump. And of course, feel free to talk with me or ask questions on my talk page. Enjoy! --Αλεξ Σ 15:14, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Archives
Archive l : April 2004 - December 2004 Archive 2 : January - June 2005 Archive 3 : July - December 2005 Archive 4 : January - June 2006 Archive 5 : July - December 2006 Archive 6 : January - June 2007

Waverly High School

If you gave me like five more minutes i would have had a refrences page, external links, and more than just a sentence. Thanks for waiting. You abused your recently given admin position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dflav1138 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

One good advice. Before starting a new article in Wikipedia, write this article in a word editor. This way you can copy and paste the article into Wikipedia. Then you add the template {{inuse}} or {{under construction}} on top of the article. This way, you can wikify and give the finishing touch to the article at your ease without someone breathing in your neck. I'll give you another chance and recreate the article. And don't forget the article must comply to the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and WP:CITE, or otherwise it might be deleted again. Good luck (newt time : put the message at the end of the talk page and sign with four ~~~~ JoJan (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for giving me more time to create the article. I have added quite a few more things, and I am sure that other people that go to this school will soon add more stuff to what i have started. Everything I added to the article has been referenced and i feel the importance of this article is pretty good, considering that our rivals Okemos High School has an article. Dflav1138 (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

I have promoted you to be an admin. Congratulations. →Raul654 01:07, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations on your promotion. Guettarda 02:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Viana do Castelo

Hi there, you suggested the merge of Viana Do Castelo to Viana do Castelo. I absolutely agree. This last one is the correct name in both portuguese and english way to capitalize middle words of place names. "Viana Do Castelo" should be a simple redirect to the correct name. What should be done now, since one of the pages has much more text (history of the city, etc.) than the other? There's also the case of page Viana do castello, a nonsense since no word or place in Portugal has to LL's. Bye, Zdtrlik 13:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've speedy deleted Viano Do Castelo as it was a copyvio of [1]. JoJan 15:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:S. F. cable car.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case[2][3]. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. J Milburn 12:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ghost Orchid

I figured out the template for documentation on Ghost Orchid photo; so hopefully it will past muster. There are four others that could be uploaded and added to the small thumbnail gallery at the bottom. They all look rather similiar thou. No big deal either way. Thanks for cleaning up the format. Had no idea how to insert a picture; looks good above the classification box.--Random Replicator 13:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Utriculariapraelonga1web.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Utriculariapraelonga1web.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rkitko ^(talk) 18:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

deletion of Technopreneur

Hi, On 16:36, 6 January 2007 you have deleted the page called "Technopreneur" and you mentioned that the reason is, it is Nonsense and possible self-promotion. I found this when I wanted to create a page with the title. I was wondering why you said it is nonsense and self promotion? Because the term exists. In malaysia, the govt has launched 80 Million dollar project to create more Technopreneurs. reference : MDeC launches pre-seed fund, The star TechCentral, December 26, 2006.

In my university, where I graduated from we have one division called technopreneur division. In singapore my friends got few grants on this too. Although I am not sure how different they are from dot com companies, but I guess there are difference. When it was dot com time, I dint even know how to use a computer, so I am unable to comment on it.

By the way. you can also find this in the Webster online dictionary here: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/technopreneur

So, I would like to request you to restore the article / not to delete it if it is created. Would be glad to hear your point of view. Avijit Paul 12:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has been deleted twice, the first time by another admin on 5 December 2006 and the next time by me on 6 January 2007. The text of the article was : "Technology based Entrepreneur" and nothing more. This clearly is not enough to warrant an article in wikipedia and was therefore correctly deleted. If you want to recreate this article, make sure that it is worthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia and create a rather in-depth article (and not just a couple of words) with references and credible sources. Good luck. JoJan 13:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks a lot =) I will take your word. I will only upload it when I have enough materials. Avijit Paul 15:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Charles de Visscher

Hi JoJan, it's me again. I plan to write an article for the German Wikipedia about Charles de Visscher, a renown international jurist from Belgium. I have three publications with detailed information about his education and his legal career, but all of them lack one important piece of information: his exact dates of birth and death. Also, an extensive Google search does only provide the years (born 1884 in Ghent, died 1973 in Brussels) but not the exact dates. Do you have access to any sources which might reveal this important biographical information? I'm unsure about writing a biography which does not contain the dates of birth and death, especially considering the fact that he did not live in some distant time but in the last century, which is more or less recently. Any help is greatly appreciated! Sincerely Yours, --Uwe 12:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Good to hear from you again. Searching in genealogy sites, I found these data [4] provided by Jean-Marie Pire, a member of the family.

Born 2 March 1884 ; died : 2 January 1979 (this date differs from the one you gave me). Woluwe Saint Lambert or (in Dutch) Sint-Lambrechts-Woluwe is part of Brussels Agglomeration. He married Hélène MERTENS (1886-1958) on 10 May 1910 in Kruibeke (near Antwerp). I suggest you contact Jean-Marie Pire to obtain more information (btw, he understands English). Good luck. JoJan 14:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! I just sent an e-mail to Jean-Marie Pire. To me, 1979 seems to be rather unlikely as his year of death as there was an obituary published in 1975 in a Spanish journal. However, I will wait and see whether Jean-Marie Pire can shed some light on this issue. --Uwe 15:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed, and, moreover, all other sources claim 1973, including the UCL (=L'Université Catholique de Louvain). Extremely sexy 14:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi JoJan, I got a reply from Jean-Marie Pire. Unfortunately, he is not completely sure whether he got the correct dates. In the meanwhile, I also contacted Prof. Carlier at the Department of International Law "Charles de Visscher" at the UCL. He wrote back with the following dates: born August 2, 1884 in Ghent, died January 2, 1973 in Woluwe-Saint-Pierre. I included these dates in my German article which you can find here. Thank you again very much! --Uwe 15:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You should urge him to change the "1979" into "1973", please. Extremely sexy 18:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Article Called "Palm Village"

Dear Mr JoJan, On 18th of August u deleted an article called "Palm Village". Sir, I would like to know the reason for the same. All I could make out from the log is the word Spam. But, if that's the reason of tht article not being there I would like to take the opportunity to say that it's one of the most popular places of interest in and around Kolkata, India and attract 1000's of tourists round the year. And if this is a spam or self promotion, then sir i would like to draw your attention towards articles like "Haldiram". I think these articles should not also find a space here. Looking forward to see a favourable response from you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mohit tantiya (talk • contribs) 20:05:02, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

I've looked at it again and it still reads like an advertisement. It certainly doesn't meet the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). It is possible that it attracts many visitors. But the article isn't written in an encyclopedic way, with verifiable references from neutral and reliable sources. It's own website is not considered neutral. I've recreated the article to give you the opportunity to prove that "Palm Village" is worthy of an encyclopedic article. Otherwise it will be deleted again, if not by me, then by another admin. If disputes continue, it can also be brought to WP:AFD and then let the community decide. Good luck. JoJan 08:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, this article has been deleted again by another admin. JoJan 05:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Gideon Rachman

Hello JoJan. Did you read the discussion in Rachman's blog? Is that what prompted you to edit his entry? I think you deserve credit on his blog for demonstrating the power of Wikipedia to the sceptical. Would you mind if I added in that discussion a reference to your user page? RCSB 17:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It was indeed his blog that prompted me into looking into this article. It didn't take much research to find out that he is among the top reporters in Britain. I've read and appreciated his Charlemagne columns in The Economist not knowing that Gideon Rachman was writing them (since articles in The Economist are not signed). Therefore, it was my opinion that he deserved a bit more than just a few lines in Wikipedia. I didn't want to draw attention in his blog to my contribution, but if you want to do this, go ahead. I've been reading lately so much criticism about Wikipedia that a few good lines demonstrating the power of Wikipedia could cheer us all up. JoJan 17:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Concerned.

Hey JoJan,

I haven't previously had any dealings with you, so I'm not 100% on your previous history. Clearly, you're an Administrator though and have been for a while. Just noted however a 24 hour block placed on a user for blanking your User Talk page. This appears to be the users only edit, and whilst I understand that they've immediately blanked an Administrator's user talk page, I'm concerned about the rationale behind the block without any prior warning.

I'm sure there's a reason behind this, but in the interests of transparency I'm still going to query this decision and look forward to your response. I basically assume good faith with all users; regardless of whether or not they're an Administrator :)

I also understand you may have identified this user as a sock puppet. If this is the case, my apologies. Pursey 05:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't his first edit. Today, at 7.26 UTC I deleted his article Robert garbowicz, not because it was marked as an A7, but because it was a G12, a copyvio of [5]. Nothing special, I delete G12s almost every day. But at 7.32 UTC the author User :Salespro269 blanked my talk page. Such blanking has happened a lot before and I don't even get upset about it. I decided to give this aggressive user a stiff warning by blocking him, but only for 24 hours as a first measure. Now it gets worse. If you consult the special page :View and restore deleted pages, you'll see that shortly afterwards the same article has been re-uploaded 6 times and has been deleted by other admins equally 6 times between 8.02 and 9.42 UTC. The reasons for their deletions were A7 or G11. Obviously, none of these admins had even noted the copyvio. The new uploader User:Trythatagain ( sock puppet of Salespro269 ?) has since been blocked indefinitely by admin User:Trusilver for persistent vandalism. And don't forget how Jimbo Wales thinks about copyright violators : "They should be blocked at first sight" (pronouncements in 2005 and 2006). Anyway, after the block on Salespro269 expires, he will have to be watched very closely. He may have other surprises. Cheers. JoJan 12:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks JoJan, I note the article creation and its subsequent deletion. I hadn't noted that the article be recreated and that the uploader was likely a sock puppet - but this happened after my comments anyhow. I'm aware of the pronouncements made by Jimbo, though I don't necessarily agree with them. I'm likely a touch more lenient at first sight with things like this. I suppose whilst I may have give a single warning for the blanking before deletion if I was in your shoes, I completely understand how you reacted now. :) I'll be keeping an eye on contribs from the user in question after the block expires as well. Thanks for responding :) Sorry if I came across like I was having a go at you, I was simply querying why you did things that way, at the very least, for my own knowledge building as I work towards an probable RfA in six months time. Thanks for your time JoJan! Pursey 12:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. And let me know whenever you'll give a try at RfA. JoJan 12:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

JoJan, also, any chance you could give me a few specific tips or pointers on my path towards RfA? Cheers! Pursey 15:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In your case, I would read the comments in the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. They're very useful to make up your mind. Emphasis is given on creation of new articles, editing of existing articles (together thousand or more would give a good impression), new page patrol, vandalism patrol and your handling of eventual discussions with other users. You must also have a good knowledge of the many rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. And keep in mind, adminship is not only a privilege but also a burden. It can keep you occupied for several hours a day, distracting you from writing new articles. Since I also write in wikipedias in different languages, I have refused to apply for adminship in other wikipedias since this would take away too much of my spare available time. Checking your contributions to wikipedia with a total of 607 contributions ([6]), you would be counted among the starters and not given much chance on adminship now. I even see you had a previous application Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pursey. But you're on the right way. You're thinking about a probably RfA in six months. The way you're doing this now, gives you a reasonable chance six months from now. Good luck. JoJan 15:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. I'll take this on board :) Pursey 16:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Slanderous statements in the article about Paul Rusesabagina

Hi JoJan, could you please, as an administrator, keep a watchlist eye on the article about Paul Rusesabagina? An anonymous user tries to insert blatantly slanderous statements there without providing any credible source, see this and this edit. I've already reverted him twice so it's not unreasonable to expect that he might try it again. Keep in mind the Wikipedia policy about living individuals. I know that the English Wikipedia is MUCH more bureaucratic and intricate than the German Wikipedia in dealing with cases like this, and I'm unfamiliar with the actions which should be taken here to stop a vandal like this. Therefore, I kindly ask you to keep an eye on the article and do whatever is necessary. Best Regards, --Uwe 18:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've given a stiff warning. Hopefully, the message is taken. JoJan 08:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As a measure of precaution, I've semi-protected the article for 1 month. JoJan 08:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Hey you wouldn't happen to have any pictures of the Kaymaklı Underground City? Would you. LoveMonkey 04:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I've visited once the Derinkuyu underground city, but that was 15 years ago. And in those times, digital cameras didn't exist. Perhaps someone else will provide the pictures. JoJan 07:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not blocked, please revert my sandbox.

I am not blocked, and that was simply an edit test, so I would be gratefull if you could revert it. Meateater 10:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Your sandbox has been restored. You obviously have been the victim of User:SLSB, a sockpuppet of Bugman94, who has since been indef blocked. JoJan 13:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Meateater 10:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Topkapi

hello there JoJan, thank you for pointing that out. I am still in the process of adding further information and then proof-reading the article, some mistakes might happen until I go through it completely again. sincerely Gryffindor 20:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the assessment from "start" to "B". JoJan 05:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my typo

JoJan, It blows my mind that a non-native English speaker can correct my english mistakes at Satank. Keep up the good work. I met my first wife while living in Holland. Thanks Pommerenke 20:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Pulpits and Hercules

Hello. You were right, there is a naked Hercules in the pulpit of Nicola Pisano, although little. I had in mind the bigger naked Hercules in the Giovanni's pulpit. User:Lonewolf76 12:46, 18 September 2007 (CEST)

Indeed and this must have been a shocking event for the worshippers in a church or baptistry. Something no one had dared before. The depiction of gods or heroes from antiquity gave the start for the Italian Renaissance and Nicola Pisano was one of the major instigators of this new artistic style. His son Giovanni Pisano continued in the way of his father (pulpit in the Cathedral of Pisa). JoJan 12:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Aa

Hello JoJan, you have written the article Aa (plant), and as I wanted to create an article about that genus in german, I searched for information sources. I didn't find much and asked myself where you got facts like the look and smell of the flowers from. Do you still remember what book / article you used? That would be a great help to me. Thanks, 80.131.135.24 13:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC) de:Benutzer:Dietzel

I wrote that article three years ago (almost in prehistoric times). In those times, inline references were unheard of. I've tried to find as much sources as possible : [7], [8] and for the origin of the name [9] and [10] . As to the smell, it took me some time but I finally could find the source of this information : [11].

There is also an overview in :

Dodson, C. H. and Luer, C. A. 2005. Flora of Ecuador no 76. 225(2). Orchidaceae genera Aa - Cyrtidiorchis. Botanical Institute, Goteborg University, Goteborg.

I hope this will help you along. JoJan 15:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much! What a good memory for something written in prehistoric times :-) 89.50.150.226 16:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Tidal Energy Pty Ltd

There has been quite some confusion about the name and number of companies using tidal stream technology/s. In order to distinguish between them, their names and technologies etc I have added a new page that you deleted some time ago.

I used a copy of the article page about the tidal stream company called Verdant as guide as to what to say.

I hope this does not meet with your dis-approval as I seriously believe that it is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.237.1 (talk • contribs)

I've deleted this article on 21 January 2007 because it was a copyright violation of the url [12]. Such violations have to be deleted on sight, before Google can pick them up and distribute them under the wikipedia free license of GFDL (GNU Free document license). Therefore, there was no dispute about the content of the article. You're free to write a new article about this subject, as long as it doesn't constitute spam or an advert for the company. It must equally conform to the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:Citing sources. JoJan 14:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Block all vandalism-only accounts indefinitely. They're vandalism-only – 86.137.47.214 18:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not if it concerns shared IPs. JoJan 05:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hot Soup Records / Productions

I had submitted this request earlier today and it was delclined. I was wondering if you can help me I am brand new to Wikipedia. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showtyme (talk • contribs) 19:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

All new contributions about companies must follow the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:Notability. There are also useful instructions in Wikipedia:Your first article. I hope this helps you along the way. JoJan 08:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ephesus

1. To the Roman Republic..............................133-88
2. To Pontus...........................................88-86
3. To the Roman Republic...............................86-27
4. To the Roman Empire.............................27 BCE-395 CE
5. To the Byzantine Empire............................395-1071
6. To the Seljuqs....................................1071-c. 1100
7. To the Byzantine Empire........................c. 1100-1204
8. To Nicaea.........................................1204-1261
9. To the Byzantine Empire...........................1261-1308
10. To Aydin..........................................1308-1426
11. To the Ottoman Empire.............................1426-1922
12. To Turkey.........................................1922-

Image:Swan_Cove.bewerkt.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Swan_Cove.bewerkt.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

User page protection

Hi JoJan, could you do me a favor and permanently protect my user page as well as my user talk page? I'm downright frustrated with the English Wikipedia and would like to cut my ties as far as possible, except maybe for occasional minor edits. So I will rarely come here, and I would like to route anybody who wants to contact to my German user page or user talk page, respectively. Thanks, --Uwe 20:47, 12 October 2007

I've semi-protected your user page, but not your user talk page, according to the Wikipedia:Protection policy. But I've put it on my watch list. I'm sorry that you feel frustrated about that edit to the United Nations article. You certainly had a point : you tube and blogs are generally not accepted as references. However, in this case, I might have allowed it. A polite discussion with the other party could have solved the problem. Anyway, I hope to see back in the en.wikipedia. And if you need me, you know where to find me. Cheers. JoJan 08:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, the problem in the UN article was only the last straw in a long line of frustrating experiences but that's another and longer story. I see the English Wikipedia heading into the wrong direction (from my point of view, that is) on a number of different issues. Contributing here gives me about the same feeling as somebody who tries to extinguish a full-blown house fire with only a beverage can for water transportation. --Uwe 22:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You're not alone with these thoughts. On the other hand, I consider wikipedia a house with many rooms. Some rooms are filled with fancruft, others with trivia, others with a vast number of stubs. These are of no interest to me and I don't enter those rooms (except to clean up vandalism). I'm interested in quality over quantity. Keeping this quality intact requires a lot of time of any admin. Speedy deletions, reverting vandalism and blocking blatant vandals is a daily task, growing larger each day. But I don't give up. Luckily, semi-protection of articles takes away some of the burden of admins and other bona fide users. Anyway, it's sometimes good to keep oneself at a distance for some time and come back when one feels like it. JoJan 08:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You deleted Boobsdonna

Why? Wikipedia has a ton of entries on porn stars. What harm could my article do?

don't say you don't like it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interruption at Intervals (talk • contribs) 18:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The article Boobsdonna with the text "Boobsdonna (born 1983) is a Czech nude model and porn star with E cup natural breasts. She is known for ...." was marked for speedy deletion by Toddstreat1 giving as reason : spam. I agreed and deleted the article because there was also another reason for speedy deletion : there was absolutely no indication of any notability as explained in the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (people). Being a porn star doesn't one make automatically notable. If you want, you can recreate the article if it follows the guidelines of notability and if you give references (Wikipedia:Citing sources) of reliable and independent sources. The website of the actress is not an independent reference source. JoJan 08:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

ME/CVS Vereniging

Hi JoJan. The ME/CVS Vereniging article is at DRV and may benefit input by those who can read the references. There also is ME/CVS Vereniging on the Nederlandstalige Wikipedia (which I believe you also contribute to). Would you take a look at the ME/CVS Vereniging DRV. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 22:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Jan van Wavere

Hi, I finally created the wikipedia page on Jan Van wavere after getting more information from the Gemeente Geel.

Any input will be appreciated. Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 15:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done. I've added a few items. JoJan 15:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I improved it a bit by adding reference to Swedish references and a book published in 2007. Tried to contact the author but her email at the VUB is not working anymore. Cheers Alberto Fernandez Fernandez 15:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Malacologia journal

Consider it on the list. If you have anything else you need, let me know! Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 15:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This exchange lit a lightbulb above my head. I was wondering if you had any thoughts about whether creating a WikiProject dedicated to a sort of interlibrary loan among Wikipedians would be a good idea or not. I proposed the idea here. Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 15:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a fine project that could benefit many. Academics and all those who have a library card of a university library could help fellow wikipedians along. Unfortunately, I'm not an academic and I have to plod along with the information from my own (large)library, from a well-provided city library and from the internet. JoJan 16:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this system already exists, but I didn't know about it. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

semi protection for Tomato?

hello JoJan - Tomato is getting a lot of IP vandalism from a variety of domain ranges. I'd report it to WP:RFP - but I've never reported anything there successfully - apparently my interpretation of the Semi protection policy doesn't match the consensus among admins. So ... could you take a look at the page history, and if you think it makes sense, semi protect the article? and if not, I'd really appreciate your reasoning about when semi-protection is reasonable. Thanks! de Bivort 21:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection during 1 month. Those repeated vandalisms make every bona fide contributor waist a lot of time. JoJan 08:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Italianization vandalizing

Hello!

On this article Users GiovanniGiove and Ghepeu are vandalizing the article

[13] [14] [15]

They simply delete the entire paragraph . I remind that Giovanni_Giove has a limit afor editing per week and I believe he broke it with this. [16] [17]

Regards! --Anto 22:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a complex matter. I concur, without meddling in the content, that the section "Italianization today" does not belong in the article Fascist Italianization. Deleting this section without discussing this or proposing writing a new article Italianization today however is not done. The next change, using historical names from the fascist period in an article about fascism, however seems legitimate to me. Therefore this all seems to me more like a borderline case. Another administrator may have blocked right away, supported by the arbcom decision - Lex, dura lex - , but, as this is more like a content dispute and not blatant vandalism, I rather wait and see what happens. If this would get out of hand again, just give me a sign. JoJan 14:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Donny Cousino

You have recently deleted my article about Donny Cousino. Why did you do this? I was not attacking him, it was an informational page. He may not be famous but there was no other Donny Cousino, so why can't I make this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianVogel09 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You better read first the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (people), WP:Cite and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Then you'll understand our policies better. Please sign your message with four tildes ~~~~ JoJan (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

w00t!

I love it when collaboration works just the way it's supposed to (re: Spiraea thunbergii). Thanks for teaching me something new! --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Gillian gibbons

Article deleted immediately after a {{hangon}} tag was added. Did you want to give Buckethed (talk · contribs) / 166.83.21.221 (talk · contribs) a chance to explain here, or is it really not worth it? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The article didn't comply with the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (people), even if one reference was given. People are getting arrested all over the world all the time. Wikipedia is not "an indiscriminate collection of information". However, if the author requests a recreation of the article, I will comply (as I usually do) to give him/her the opportunity to write a real article. However, chances that it will survive look slim. JoJan (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ponderosa pine in the Salt Cabin Park Exclosure area

The first version of this article was straight Original Research - "A study was conducted - Methods - Results - Discussion" and I gave it a PROD as such. The PROD being contested (or at least the tag removed) I waited to see whether it would be altered before listing it on AfD. It now looks less like a research report and more like an essay, but still OR-y, what with the author's by-line; and I doubt if the references cited are really the source of the material. However, seeing that a more experienced editor is taking an interest, I guess you think it can be saved, and I leave it to you. Regards, JohnCD 22:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It was also my first idea that this was an essay, but not original research since the necessary references were given. However, no references can be found on the internet to back up the written references. And that's a pity. As this article was written like an essay, I've tried to give it a bit more an encyclopedic look but I admit, I'm not an expert in forest ecology. The original author should look at it again. As to the PROD, it wasn't removed by me. To list this article as an Afd would be a drastic step. The content doesn't hurt wikipedia, it is just not in line with the MoS and the general look of wikipedia. Furthermore it is notable, referenced and NPOV. I'll put a note on the talk page of the original author. JoJan 08:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikibooks Garden Book (you're a contributor!)

Hi JoJan. While setting up a contributor's page for the Wikibooks gardening manual, your name came up as a top contributor due to the magic of Special:Import (the book is largely based on imported Wikipedia articles). This list (or updated versions of it) will be included in print versions for attribution purposes (since there are of course no "history pages" in print versions).

I'm sending this note to see if (a) you would like your real name used rather than your username, and (b) to make sure you have an account on Wikibooks. If your username is "taken" there and there are no contributions (or if perhaps you just lost your password), please feel free to leave me a note so I can help you fix the problem (I am a b'crat).

We're working on ways to make this attribution work better in the future, so also let me know if you want to be kept up to date on that. Thanks for contributing to the plant, insect, and other articles that have been so helpful in the creation of the garden book!--SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Pierre-Georges Jeanniot

Thank you for adding to the new article... I have been looking for art to make the Franco-Prussian War article come to life- black and white images just weren't enough. I was rather surprised to see that he had no Wikipedia article here, and so I added him so he would not be neglected any further. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 19:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As I have written a lot of biographies, I decided to take on also this one, as it was still in early stage. One note : according to the Bénézit, his first name is written as Pierre-Georges (with hyphen). JoJan (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The hyphen is added and all links have been corrected. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs}

20:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Useless Category: Mesogastropoda stubs

Thanks for your help. Yes, I totally agree with you JoJan about the "Mesogastropod stub" being a useless category now, and redundant to Sorbeoconcha stubs, but how exactly do we go about getting rid of it? I tried to look that up, but I could not really understand the instructions. Thanks again. Invertzoo (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

These stubs and this category was auto-generated by PolBot. Several mistakes were made. First : the bot used the outdated taxonomy in the databases that were dumpied into wikipedia. Secondly, several common names are misspelled and proper names begin with a small letter. I've changed all this for the family Hydrobiidae, but there are still more than 800 stubs left. A new bot may do more harm than good. I think it will all have to be done manually. JoJan (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks so much for the reply. I will at some point start in on changing it by hand bit by bit. Invertzoo (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Plant articles (well, Solanum actually!)

I will soon be working on the Solanum dulcamara article, and I see from your userpage you're a member of WikiProject Plants. Would you be willing to get this to WP:GA or WP:FA status with me?? Thanks, --Solumeiras ^talk 18:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to decline. I'm at the moment totally occupied with the new taxonomy of the gastropods. JoJan (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Venus fasciata

JoJan, can I ask you something? I know this article is about a bivalve, not a gastropod, but I was examining it closely and I see that the two images have actually been stolen from the only reference given, the external link [18] and then "modified" by putting in a new background, which if you look closely, does not match in terms of focus and resolution. This is clearly not kosher. I do not know how to proceed with this because I am a newbie and have never come across this kind of problem before. Maybe with all your experience you know what to do? Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've marked the image for speedy deletion as a copyright infringement (CSD I9). I could have deleted it myself, but I don't want to be the judge and the executioner at the same time. I've warned the uploader on his/her talk page, but it won't matter very much, since this person has left wikipedia last February. BTW did you check my entry "New taxonomy of Bouchet & Rocroi (2005)" in Talk:Gastropoda ? JoJan (talk) 19:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Orchids wiki

Hello JoJan I would like to invite you to join Orchids Wiki on wikia dedicated on documenting orchid genres, species and hybrids. If you have any questions please contact me --Cs california (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Pearl of Lao Tzu

Hi again JoJan, here I am again, bothering you about another bivalve, sorry about that, but I was reading this article and attempting to put in a little biological perspective, when I noticed that a lot of the text in "Chinese legend of the pearl" is copied verbatim from one of the sources given: [19]. Thanks for all your help. Invertzoo (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed several parts of the text, especially the history section, are at first sight a copyvio. However, I'm not so sure of this, as the photos were uploaded by user:Pearlowner, who claims to posses the pearl (R.L. Horn). Then the text on the website, could also be written by the same person as stated on the bottom line (Website Developed & Maintained by R. L. Horn II ©2007 ). It also states a date 2007, while the wikipedia article, as its history indicates, is older. So who wrote the text first ? Or who copied whom ? The best solution is to rewrite most of the article so as to avoid a possible copyvio. I could do it, but, as a non-native speaker, this is for me a hell of a task ( my native language is Dutch). Perhaps you could give it a try. Anyway, it will be much easier for you than for me. JoJan (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

OK Let me see what I can do, given a bit of time, hopefully I may get inspired to do it. The article does need a bit more NPOV, and a rewrite could provide that, as well as keeping it clean in terms of copyright. I do however find it quite hard to write about something I know nothing about, even when it is only a rewrite. Ah well, that's life.... Invertzoo (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue periwinkle

Hi again JoJan. This morning I have been looking for already-existing articles to add to Project Gastropod. I found this one on Blue periwinkle, but not only did it have a circular link, but as you can tell by the childish-seeming original text, it was copied practically verbatim from a children's page at the Australian Museum website: [20]. I already started re-doing it, but perhaps you could drop a line to the editor who first put it up there to let him know this kind of thing is not acceptable? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The original contributor was a newbie and I don't want to bite him for a beginner's mistake. He has since grown into a valuable contributor who has earned a collection of barnstars. JoJan (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, well then, that's good! As I say to animals and small children "No biting, no fighting!" I am glad I referred it to you and that you researched him, thank you JoJan. At any rate the good thing in the end is that I found the article and fixed it up quite a bit, so now it looks respectable. Invertzoo (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Knights' Square (Pisa)

Hello. Thanks for the corrections on the page, but was not a machine translation, but was I that translated and modified the source text :-( I know my english is not good, or good enough to seem machine-generated? (User:Lonewolf1976) 18:13, 8 January 2008 (CEST)

Thanks

Thank you so much for that Barnstar JoJan! Actually, I know you have also done a great job on several Portugal-related articles, like Architecture of Portugal, Monastery of Jesus of Setúbal, Beja, Portugal, Estremoz and Igreja de São Julião (Setúbal). Cheers! Fsouza (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

New Taxonomy

Thanks JoJan, it's nice to see it up. I will do my best with using it. Invertzoo (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

List of prehistoric gastropods

Hi JoJan, I just started working on cleaning up this article. First I had to remove 7 identical images of a fish:

Zoarces viviparus is a modern species of the genus Zoarces

. That struck me as an odd sort of mistake or vandalism... ?? Then I was looking at the list itself and I see that there are many genera that are still extant, and yet are marked with a dagger. I will go through and take off all the daggers which are next to extant genera, or at any rate, genera that I myself happen to know are extant. But does the inclusion of extant genera mean that this is no longer a "list of prehistoric gastropods"? I mean does the title of the list need changing? Or do these genera need to be excluded? What do you think?

P.S. I also see I need to remove extraneous images of this same fish from another 3 articles: the lists of prehistoric annelids, echinoderms and foraminifera. Invertzoo (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at this very long list and checking the first entry Aaleniella in the Paleobiology Database [21], I found out that this genus does not belong to the Gastropoda, but actually is an extinct crustacean genus from the Podocopida. Probably there are more of these. The extant genera you've found probably are also known from prehistoric fossils. In this case, the title could be changed into "Gastropod genera known from prehistoric fossils". I advise you to take up contact with the original contributor User:Abyssal leviathin and explain the problem to him. I guess this list will need a lot of work. JoJan (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks JoJan for this; it is much appreciated. I have "talked" some with Abyssal leviathin already, since I first asked you about all this and I get the general impression he is not interested in doing any of the cleanup himself. Also I wanted to ask you one more thing that I personally have a problem with the use of the word "prehistoric" in the title of this and a few other similar lists that this editor created. "Prehistory" is simply the time span before written history, so it is often applied to times of just a few thousand years ago. I would much rather use the word "fossil" which I think is more specific and more accurate. It's more scientific than the word "prehistoric" which to me sounds amateurish in this context. I am tempted to move the article to a new title, "List of fossil gastropod genera". Do you have an opinion on this? Thanks a lot JoJan for always being prepared to try to help me with these problems. Invertzoo (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. "Prehistoric" does sound amateurish.On the other hand, the name you're proposing suggests that these genera are all extinct, which is not the case, as you have shown. Therefore I suggest the following title : "List of gastropod genera with fossil records" and a mention in the lead paragraph that some of these genera, or at least some species in those genera, are still extant. I think this may be closer to the intention of the article. JoJan (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again JoJan, Last night I found out that the list is currently only of MARINE genera. Although he does not give any references on the article itself, Abbyssal Leviathin says on his talk page that these lists he is doing are copied from "Jack Sepkoski's 2002 compendium of marine fossil genera". I am assuming that the list is copied verbatim. Is copyright is an issue for us on something like a list?? I do hope AL has not copied the rest of the text verbatim as well... I will try to see if I can find something similar on the web, and maybe this coming Friday I can see if I can find out at the museum, as I am currently volunteering in Invertebrate Paleontology. So anyway, if we end up letting the article stand, I suppose we would have to call it, "List of marine gastropod genera with fossil records" or "List of marine gastropod genera in the fossil record"...

Also the introductory paragraphs say that the list includes every genera that was originally thought to be a gastropod, but which has since been identified as another kind of organism, so maybe that was the case with Aaleniella? It sure would be helpful if that was indicated in some way, perhaps with an asterisk. Maybe it was indicated on the original Sepkoski list.

Oh, and by the way, I discovered yesterday evening that a very large percentage of the listed genera that are "blue links", are in fact only linked to articles on Greek Heroes and that kind of thing, including in one case a popular music group. Very few of the blue links are linked to actual gastropod articles. To clean up this article properly represents a huge amount of work. I think first we should find out if the whole thing is a copyright violation before I do too much more work on it. Invertzoo (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this list constitutes a copyvio. Checking at Sepkoski's Online Genus Database, it says "You are welcome to use these data with proper citation of Sepkoski's work. It would also be appropriate to acknowledge this online database". I've added both to the references section of the list. But cleaning up this list will be a tough nut to crack. This morning (European time) I've cleaned up all the false links in the A section and it took me more than one hour (using pop-ups to work fast). Then I didn't even check yet in the Paleobiology Database if all these genera actually are gastropods. For example the crustacean genus Aaleniella is marked in Sepkoski's database as an Archaegastropoda. Checking further in de GBIF database, Aaleniella is confirmed as belonging to the Podocopida [22] . If we have to do this for every genus, I wonder if we'll reach the end of it before the year ends. Furthermore, I have great doubts about the benefit of using "nomen nudum", "nomen oblitum" and "nomen dubium" in a list (I didn't use the Latin plural : nomina nudi etc. in an English text). If you want to clean up this list, fine with me. But I have better things to do. A comprise could be : cleaning up all the false links and perhaps the daggers before still extant genera. Your opinion ? JoJan (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks JoJan. Yes, I just now myself found the same website with the info from Sepkoski. To clean up the list properly would be a really daunting amount of work. I do not have much interest in trying to plough through the entire thing properly, although I don't mind trying to remove the daggers on all the genera that I happen to recognize as extant. I have done part of that already. I do think we should change the name of the article though. Did you read my previous two paragraphs in my question to you? Here they are edited down: "Last night I found out that the list is currently only of MARINE genera. I suppose we would have to call it, "List of marine gastropod genera with fossil records" or "List of marine gastropod genera in the fossil record"... "The introductory paragraphs do say (I have clarified this) that the list includes every genus that was originally thought to be a gastropod, even those which have since been identified as another kind of organism, so I guess that was the case with Aaleniella." Still it is quite unhelpful to include those as far as I am concerned. But I am not a paleontologist. Invertzoo (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As to the title, I have a slight preference for "List of marine gastropod genera in the fossil record". And as to the cleaning up : if you do the daggers, I'll do the false links. I was in the middle of uploading a lot of photos to the Commons, but this will have to wait a bit. JoJan (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, good, I like that title better too, so I will go ahead and move it now if that is OK with you. Please don't interrupt what you are doing for this, it can wait. Right now I am only going through and taking the daggers off of the extant gastropod genera which I actually recognize, and that I notice the names of, I am sure I am missing many that I don't notice, or am not familiar with the names of. Invertzoo (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

More on List of marine gastropod genera in the fossil record

Hi JoJan. I am still working on taking out the daggers where needed. However I wanted to say that the list is 95 kilobytes long, and has been tagged with a "Wikipedia article size" tag. It is rather slow to load. Do we need to split this into two or even three articles? Also, can you tell me what code do you use to make the entries go into multiple columns? Currently the list has that in some sections and not in others. Thanks for all your help. Invertzoo (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The move is OK. Never mind the 95 kilobytes. I've also made a few very long lists, such as the orchid list List of Dendrobium species, which is 51 kb long. The length of a list is determined by the number of accepted species and there's nothing we can do about it. As to coding columns, I advise you to look a the codes used at the end of the list, under the headers X, Y, or Z. More help on : Template:Column. Actually, it comes down to counting the total number of species for each letter A, B, C, etc. and then divide by the number of columns of the list (in this case : 5, the 5th column being empty). Then you'll know where to put the necessary code, such as {{col-4-of-5}} . The code is easy, applying it however may be a bit tedious. JoJan (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks JoJan. Thanks so much for getting rid of false links in the "A"s, it certainly is much better like that! I have started dividing some of the alphabet sections into columns: it is a bit hard to do all the counting on the long ones isn't it. I see mine did not come out perfectly level on the fourth column, but either I or someone else can tweak it later, or leave it because I assume more genera will perhaps be added to this list gradually over time so I guess it is good to show that there is room for expansion. Invertzoo (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Mollusca

Hello JoJan. As you will see from the below, I've been referred to you as someone who could advise about the Mollusca question. Do you have any thoughts? Cheers GrahamBould (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi InvertZoo. Would like your opinion on changes I'm thinking of doing to the high level Mollusc pages, but am a bit nervous precisely because it is at such a high level. 1. Rename Caudofoveata to Chaetodermomorpha (with Caudofoveata as a synonym), 2. Make Chaetodermomorpha a subclass of Aplacophora (and remove duplicate families from one of them), 3. Remove Caudofoveata from the class list in Mollusca. Any thoughts? There are inconsistencies at present. Ideas based on ITIS Cheers GrahamBould (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Graham. Oh gee, this is a hard question. I would not just assume that ITIS is using the most "well-regarded" molluscan taxonomy right now; in fact they may be quite a bit behind the times. I would address this question to JoJan, who would give you a better opinion than I can. He is at: [23] ....best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, the taxonomy of the Mollusca is in a flux. The taxonomy of the Gastropoda is using unranked monophyletic clades for taxa above the rank of superfamily (see : Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005). I guess we may expect the same for the other classes in the near future.

As to the Caudofoveata, I found this website [24] with a taxonomy and this book : Jones, A.M.; Baxter, J.M. (1987). Molluscs: Caudofoveata, Solenogastres, Polyplacophora and Scaphopoda: keys and notes for the identification of the species. Synopses of the British fauna (new series), 37. E.J. Brill; W. Backhuys: London, UK. ISBN 90-04-08197-6. vi, 154 pp.

While older publication used Caudofoveata as the accepted name, newer publications (2006), seem to prefer Chaetodermomorpha (Falcidens halanychi, a new species of Chaetodermomorpha (=Caudofoveata) (Mollusca) from the northwest Atlantic Ocean 1 ; Marine Biology Research, Volume 2, Issue 5 October 2006 , pages 303 - 315).

I found also this text (dating from 2004) :

"Another special case that arises from an invalid synonym being assigned the parental hierarchy of its valid counterpart is when the adopted parent is at the same taxonomic

level as the invalid name. For example, class Solenogastres is invalid. Its valid synonym is subclass Chaetodermomorpha. The parent taxon for both these names is class Aplacophora. Since a class can not have a taxonomic parent which is also a class, .... "

As you can see, the most recent information is found on the internet (Google scholar) and not in ITIS. JoJan (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi JoJan. Thanks for taking the time to reply. As a mere amateur I don't think I will be making any changes - it's obviously a case for experts to sort out. Cheers GrahamBould (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Bindurathore

Just to let you know, I reverted you on this one. A registered user is not prohibited from blanking their talk page. What they had been trying to do was use it for advertising, which is why I reverted to the warnings in the first place. But if they want to blank the page, they are allowed to. Pairadox (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. But since there was a blocking request going on, I wanted to see the warnings. I could have done this via the History, but blocking without visible warnings is asking for trouble. But I decided not to block after all. JoJan (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Alyxia-buxifolia.web.jpg

Hi,

If you can remember, would you mind giving a bit more information about this photo e.g. where you took it? Hesperian 12:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help you. The photo came originally from the Polish wikipedia. JoJan (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I misunderstood. Sorry and thanks. Hesperian 03:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Those Mesogastropoda stubs

Hi JoJan, Did you by any chance read this note from Alai on the "stubs types for deletion" page? "[Insert usual Polbot-related rant here.] If someone can give me a list of which articles are to be reclassified on a taxon-by-taxon basis, I should be able to start depopulating this, and indeed fixing the taxobox at the same time. If that's not possible, then as Intertzoo says, this will for practical purposes have to be postponed until the population is reworked by other means... Alai (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)" Should we accept Alai's offer and explain what needs doing with those Mesogastropoda stubs and the fixing of the related taxoboxes? What do you think? It shouldn't be too hard to do if the taxobox contents can now go straight from class to family. What do you think? Invertzoo (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Most stubs could be categorized as Caenogastropoda-stubs. However, when looking a bit more closely, I found equally families categorized under Archaegastropoda, that should be under Caenogastropoda; The family Choristidae had to be renamed as Choristeidae (because of homonymy with a family of scorpionflies). Another family had to be downgraded to subfamily Cochlostomatinae. Most described families are mere stubs without almost any information. Surely, there is still a lot of work to be done on those families. Concerning the taxoboxes, since the new taxonomy only includes UNRANKED clades above the rank of superfamily, I'm thinking about proposing the creation of templates Clade1, Clade2 etc.. for the taxobox, such as in the Dutch wikipedia [25]. This way, we would avoid renaming clades as superorder, order, suborder or infraorder, which they aren't since they're unranked. What is your opinion about this proposal ? JoJan (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think its a good idea. Can we include group and informal group maybe? Invertzoo (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Reposting deleted articles

I noticed that you had Filo & Peri deleted back in August 2007, but now that they just scored their first number one single on the Billboard Hot Dance Airplay Chart with "Anthem," is there a way to have the article about this duo reinstated but this time have it rewritten? Thanks. Robert Moore 18:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have complied with your demand if the article hadn't been a copyvio of [26]). There are strict rules on copyright in wikipedia. I advise you to start from scratch and write a completely new article. Make sure to all that they have become notable (Wikipedia:Notability (music)) and give independent references (Wikipedia:Verifiability). Then you stand a good chance that your article will be accepted by the community. Good luck. JoJan (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

semi protection for Tomato

Hi JoJan - Haven't chatted with you in a while. Hope all is well, Happy New Years etc! Would you take a moment to check out the edit history of Tomato - it's getting a lot of IP vandalism, and seems like a strong candidate for semi protection. Cheers! de Bivort 22:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Semi-protection during 1 month. JoJan (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! de Bivort 15:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

List of fossil gastropods

Hi JoJan, I am glad to say that thanks to your work and my work that exasperating list is now in pretty good shape. There are no more false links, many of the incorrect daggers have been removed (still plenty left though I am sure) and the list is in columns. Phew! Invertzoo (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The credit is mostly yours. You have tamed a monster. JoJan (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Monoplacophoran illustration

Thanks, JoJan, on providing that picture of Neopilina. I've been on the lookout for some time to fill that gap in the taxobox, with no luck. It looks much better, now. Tim Ross·^talk 17:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I found it in the Macedonian wikipedia and uploaded it to the Commons. But I couldn't identify the Neopilina species. JoJan (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow up to block

163.153.134.19 was blocked for recent defacements. The school district has reported that they have identified the student involved and has taken appropriate action. --NERIC-Security (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine. JoJan (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Bufo

Once I have finished creating all the appropriate genus articles for the Bunfonids, then I will clean up the Bufo and Bufonidae articles, including a description of Frost et. al.'s work. The Bufo article is in a bad way, so I need to remove all the species one by one before I am comfortable with only including the true Bufo. Otherwise, it makes it harder because of the way I make all the changes. Since I'm still actively working on all the otad articles at the moment, I should hopefully notice anyone adding incorrect taxa. Thanks --liquidGhoul (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine. JoJan (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your warning about taxobox colours

Hi JoJan,

Thanks for the warning, but that will not be a problem at this moment. Eubot will only remove the colour parameter if the kingdom exactly matches the format in {{Taxobox colour}}; in the case of Plants, this means "[[archaeplastida]]" or "[[plant]]"ae or "[[plantae]]", nothing more (except for changes from uppercase to lowercase). So if the kingdom is "''[[plantae]]''",, it will not remove the colour. This means that there will be some leftover parameters which have to be cleaned up, but I prefer that over broken taxoboxes. Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

deletion of Roflism

it's been recreated already. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And deleted again JoJan (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wenceslas Cobergher

Thanks for the help on that one - can't believe I forgot categories.

I'm also going to be translating the French article on Les Moëres, since apparently there's nothing on the English Wikipedia on the subject (the current page is simply a redirect). Would you perhaps be able to help me get some information out of the Dutch Wikipedia article, once I'm done with the French? My Dutch is...well, nonexistent, to say the least. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 20:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, is there any particular reason you removed the birth and death cats from the article? I haven't heard any word on the subject; are they no longer supposed to be used? --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 20:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm planning to do additional work on this article of Wenceslas Cobergher. It drew my attention while doing new article patrol, because some years ago I visited the "Les Moères" or ("De Moeren" in Dutch). I saw immediately that the French article, on which you based your translation, was lacking much information. I haven't started yet doing much research, because lack of time. As to the birth and death cats, I didn't remove them. But there was an edit conflict. Perhaps they were removed inadvertently while trying to restore my version. As to the article "Les Moëres", there is already an excellent ref. (in French) you could use in the article on Wenceslas Coberger. JoJan (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I did some work on Les Moëres, but it could use a lot of work. Not tonight, as I need to go to bed. But perhaps tomorrow I'll look at the other link. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 05:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, it should be done - have a look. And thanks for all your help on this; it's become much better than I ever could have made it. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 01:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Ali mcmc

Not that I think User talk:Ali mcmc is doing worthwhile edits but in order to be fair, he has not vandalized since I gave him a last warning earlier today. -- Alexf⁴² 18:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We're dealing with a logged-in user whose contributions have only consisted of vandalism. Such a person should not be dealt with with soft gloves. Nevertheless I've given only a short block of 24 hours. Has this been a dynamic IP I would have reconsidered. JoJan (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Tks. Just asking to see if you had noticed. I have him watchlisted. -- Alexf⁴² 18:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for saving my userpage

For the record, I have NO IDEA why he picked me out to vandalise... But thanks for taking care of him... Probably some pissed person I blocked a while ago... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. It only happens with the best of us. JoJan (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A problem maybe you can help me with?

Hi JoJan, I have been working a bit on some of the articles about Hitchcock movies. There is a weird thing in the Strangers on a Train (film) article. If you look at the article and then at the edit this page version you will see that there are about 5 sections whcih are in the edit page that are not on the article page. I am thinking this is because of something incorrect that the person wrote in the code that has to do with references? I would very much appreciate any help you can give me with this. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there was one slash missing in a ref. code JoJan (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help with this JoJan! Invertzoo (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Belated Thanks

Hey, thanks for reverting that vandalism on my userpage. I hadn't even noticed it until now. So yeah, umm... thanks. Regards. Thingg^⊕⊗ 15:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion?

Hello. I did not create the entry "Philip Defranco" simply because he is a "real person" as you put it. I created his page because 85,000 people subscribe to his page on YouTube. That means that 85,000 people watch him whenever he posts a video, and many more who haven't subscribed yet. That means he is easily important enough to have a wikipedia page. (I am not Philip DeFranco. I am putting him here because he is worthy of the site. If he is not, who is more so? Lan Cao? Hm. Please don't delete it; I promise, others will contribute to his page once it's created, you'll see his desert of a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicopac (talk • contribs) 07:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The entry "Philip_defranco" (notice the difference in spelling) has been speedily deleted twice : once by me (10 March 19.33) and by Jmlk17 (14 March 18.42). I'm willing to restore this article again, but this time in your userspace. But before you bring this article into the main space, make sure that the article conforms to the pillars of wikipedia in order to survive other attempts at deletion by other admins : Wikipedia:Notability (web), Wikipedia:Verifiability (in reliable, independent sources), WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:No original research (in other words, your own opinions don't count; you can only rely on opinions published by others). These are a lot of rules, but if you comply to them, you can safely move your article back into the main space. Otherwise, you know what to expect. Cheers. JoJan (talk) 08:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Article recreated in User:Chicopac/Philip DeFranco. JoJan (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Date of "Acquisition of sovereignty" of Belgium?

Thank you for your common sense edit to the List of countries by formation date article. Please contribute to the discussion: here:

• Talk:List_of_countries_by_formation_dates#Belgium

--Mais oui! (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Dendrobium species - accepted by whom?

Hi JoJan: I suspect that your list of accepted Dendrobium species may have come from the Kew World Checklist of Monocotyledons. May I add a link or a reference to that effect? Interestingly, there are about 2720-1190 = 1530 synonyms in Kew's list now. I guess it's inevitable that, in such a large genus, botanists would frequently overlook published species, thinking they have discovered a new one. I have been studying the new H.P. Wood book, The Dendrobiums; it may inspire additions to the Dendrobium article to describe popular sections of that genus. Drbillellis (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this list is based on the Kew World Checklist of Monocotyledons (December 2004), as I always do with orchids. I hope you can contribute to the article Dendrobium as there must be much more that can be said about this genus. JoJan (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Evora Manuscript

Hello! I found your wonderful photo of an antiphoner from Portugal on the Antiphoner page. I am very interested in this manuscript and hope you might be able to lead me to more information about the source. I will gladly explain further in private communication. Thank you!Troporum (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Troporum

I made this photo while visiting the Church of St. Francis, Évora, Portugal in September 2006. It was exhibited close to the entrance of the underground Chapel of the Bones. It shows a Roman antiphonary according to the Tridentine Council. It was printed in Venice in 1748 in the Balleoni workshop. More photos of my visit to this church on the Commons : Igreja de São Francisco (Évora). I'm afraid there is nothing more I can say about this antiphonary. Greetings. JoJan (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting "Unjust"

I was trying to add content to the Unjust page and it was deleted for copyright violations. I am actually a member of the group and was wondering how you decided this was a copyright violation? How to post this information? Please reply. -Thom