User talk:HNdlROdU

HNdlROdU, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi HNdlROdU! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Please review Wikipedia's guidelines on "fixing" redirects. -Thibbs (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Burgo de Osma-Ciudad de Osma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ozma. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Diplopeltidae

Hi, I'm Boleyn. HNdlROdU, thanks for creating Diplopeltidae!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add your sources as soon as possible.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Anisoporus) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Anisoporus, HNdlROdU!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please note that Template:Taxobox should generally only have major ranks, or ranks crucial to understanding the focal article. Superfamily, suborder, etc. often merely adds clutter, and is less relevant to a genus article.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since you appear to have copied the format of the WoRMS page entirely, you can simply cite that rather than the primary literature, e.g. "Cribb, T.; Gibson, D. (2017). Anisoporus Ozaki, 1928. Accessed through: World Register of Marine Species at http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=725434 on 2017-11-08" Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database: let's try to put some flesh on these bones. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Dimerosaccus) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Dimerosaccus, HNdlROdU!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please see WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA: when a genus has only one species, the species genus should be described in the same article (and the binomial a redirect to the genus). It is also rather unnecessary to include the author and year after every species name; as Wikipedia is a general use encyclopedia, not a scientific journal. Excessive author citations can hinder readability.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Helicometrinae) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Helicometrinae, HNdlROdU!

Wikipedia editor RileyBugz just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Just to note: unless the family consists of one subfamily (extant or otherwise), then the subfamily should be redirected to it.

To reply, leave a comment on RileyBugz's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 13:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Anomalotrema shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magic links will be removed from the MediaWiki code at some point (see This MediaWiki RfC). This March 2017 (English Wikipedia) RfC determined that these magic links should be replaced by the {{ISBN}}, {{PMID}}, and {{IETF RFC}} templates. This is why User:Magic links bot keeps removing the magic links. Your putting them back is really unhelpful, so I have reverted you at Anomalotrema-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have twice reverted at Leonid Bykov, each time using an edit summary asking anyone who disagrees to begin a discussion on the article's talk page. But you did not bother with the article's talk page! Why not? It is not fair to ask of others what you are not willing to do yourself.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove all the spaces from the infobox template as you did at Leonid Bykov; the spaces make them easier to edit.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Maksym Kryvonis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Leonid Bykov shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Danylo Apostol shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Trichobranchidae) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Trichobranchidae, HNdlROdU!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please add relevant Project banners to the Talk pages of your creations: e.g. {{WikiProject Animals|class=stub|importance=low}} and {{WikiProject Marine life}}. Also, this article appears to contradict the classification in Terebellides.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Echinostomatidae) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Echinostomatidae, HNdlROdU!

Wikipedia editor Babymissfortune just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for taking the time creating this page. It is appreciated.

To reply, leave a comment on Babymissfortune's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haploporidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Haploporus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Idiosepiidae articles

Thanks for fixing the new classification of some Idiosepius species. If you're redirecting a page that has content please merge the content to the relevant article if it can be kept instead of just deleting it. I merged Idiosepius notoides to Xipholeptos. Rhinopias (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the case with the two species being synonymized with Idiosepius minimus is less clear-cut, but Idiosepius notoides actually should have just been moved to the page Xipholeptos instead of creating and redirecting, to conserve the article history (see HELP:MOVE). Rhinopias (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference names

Hallo, I see that you prefer to use Roman numbers (I, II etc) as reference "names" and that you described my change to author names in Pacificreadium as "reference errors", and reverted it.

Please note that WP:CITE says The text of the name can be almost anything‍—‌apart from being completely numeric. and WP:REFBEGIN says Names MUST NOT be purely numeric; they should have semantic value so that they can be more easily distinguished from each other by human editors. Using Roman numbers does not make the names non-numeric.

Another problem with using any numerical sort of system for reference names is that a later editor may well add another reference before or between yours, so that the numerical system will be broken.

Please start using more appropriate reference names. Please also stop reverting other editors' changes which move towards the recognised standards. PamD 16:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only change to the order of the refs which I made was to ensure that the reference numbers appearing together were "2,1" rather than "1,2". This is commonly done. PamD 16:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I now see that you had cited the refs in the text - that's not necessary, it's what the refs are for. I've removed the refs from the text. PamD 16:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Calliobothrium) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Calliobothrium, HNdlROdU!

Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I thought this really needed to have some references, so have popped a couple in for you.

To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

I notice that you mark most of your edits as "minor edits". Please read WP:MINOR. I don't think that changes such as these, where you change various parts of the infobox and remove a piece of text (present since the article's cration in 2013) from the lead without explanation, are "minor". Please take care not to label non-minor edits as minor. Thanks. PamD 16:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply at User_talk:PamD#Minor_edits. I see that you are continuing to mark as "minor" such edits as turning an article into a redirect page. Please stop this: some editors have their watch lists set to ignore minor edits, trusting other editors only to mark as minor the kind of edits described in WP:MINOR. Your reclassificatory edits appear to be substantial edits, certainly far beyond the definition of "minor", and interested editors might well want to see them on their watch lists. Continuing to mark substantial edits as "minor" is disruptive editing and might eventually lead you to WP:ANI. Rather than split this discussion between two pages, please make any further replies here. Thanks. PamD 20:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Bivitellobilharzia nairi, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". This is the standard templated version of my message. PamD 20:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference names again

Please stop using Roman numbers as "names" for your references - see WP:CITE and WP:REFBEGIN. I see that in your newly-created Drepanotrema you ignored this guideline again. I have renamed the references: consider that the "expert attention" you ask for, and please don't revert calling my work "reference errors" as you have done before. WP:AGF: perhaps you had done the work on this article in your sandbox before I made you aware of the guideline against the use of numerical reference names. PamD 20:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note here when you created an article on 26 Feb that you are still ignoring my advice about "numbering" your references. I consider this disruptive editing and will take it to WP:ANI if you continue to format your references in contravention of the guideline. PamD 08:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Please do not mark this kind of edit to the article on Leonid Bykov as a "minor edit". Help:Minor edit says: "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions. Examples include typographical corrections, formatting and presentational changes, and rearrangements of text without modification of its content."-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Craig Harnath

Hello HNdlROdU, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Craig Harnath, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bulinidae

The two genera with articles at Bulinidae state the family is Planorbidae, subfamily Bulininae. Please make sure your taxonomy is current and consistent with other articles. The most recent source you cite is from 1939: things may have changed since then. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Echinochasmus) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Echinochasmus, HNdlROdU!

Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Judging from the Worms database, it looks like you've only listed marine species. I've added another taxon that exists, and found a few more tax listed here: http://wildpro.twycrosszoo.org/S/0zAPlat_Trematod/echi_echi_echinochasmus/echinochasmus.htm

To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Tetracerasta) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Tetracerasta, HNdlROdU!

Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

It'd be great if you could link to an online publication in these stubs. Try: http://www.publish.csiro.au/zo/ZO9840177 Thanks.

To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Pudeoniscidae) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Pudeoniscidae, HNdlROdU!

Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Do please try and include urls to online references - this minimises the task for future readers, especially if you already know these links exist. e.g. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00222933.2018.1437229 Many thanks, Nick

To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please add urls to your references

Hi there. I really appreciate all the articles you've been creating on interesting and esoteric taxa, so you might not have bothered to read the comments I have left previously when I reviewed them under New Page Patrol. So I just wanted to drop by and say 'keep up the good work' but also to plead with you to insert urls into the references you cite in your new articles. I'm sure you must be accessing some of these references online when you create the pages, so is it too much to ask for you to include them in the references? I really think including them helps prove verifiabilty, and it certainly assists other users who might want to find out about some of these esoteric taxa, even if all they have access to is the abstracts. I'm sure you care about creating great pages, so I'd really like to ask you to remember to add them in future if you can. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Neocentrophyidae) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Neocentrophyidae, HNdlROdU!

Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

YOU'RE STILL BEING LAZY! ADD SOME URLS TO YOUR ONLINE REFERENCES PLEASE. DON'T LEAVE IT TO OTHERS!
https://repository.si.edu/handle/10088/1135

http://biostor.org/reference/74060

To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Hello HNdlROdU, thank you for your interest in creating and adding to many animal species articles. Perhaps you might wish to consider adding the Tree of Life Wikiproject to your watchlist if you haven't already done so. Also, please take note of the helpful advice offered in the messages above to ensure that your future edits are not considered as disruptive.

Specific points to keep in mind are:

Taxonomic authority citations need not be placed in the taxobox, but can be added to the automatic template itself if you wish. Where possible, these references should be from a secondary source and not the original describing author's first publication (primary source). This will also obviate the need to change an automatic taxobox back to a manual taxobox.
Intermediate taxonomic ranks (such as suborder and superfamily) should not be placed in the taxobox unless described further somewhere else.
Changes to the taxobox, such as reverting back to a manual taxobox, are not considered as "minor". Please refrain from tagging such edits as minor.
References should not be given Roman numerals as names, you are continuing this practice despite being warned previously.
The reflist template is usually capitalized when it is the first word on the line and does not need to be changed.
Removing the 'n' from the taxonbar template only causes the template call to be redirected from a typo page and is not needed.

Regards, Loopy30 (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference names again

HNdlROdU, please stop using numerical reference names as you did at Baeriidae. You have already been asked several times to follow the guidelines and use another form of descriptor when naming references. Ignoring these warnings and continuing to do so in the future will be considered as disruptive editing and could lead to ANI. Loopy30 (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Fellow editor, please note that if you keep ignoring all attempts to communicate with you and continue your practice of using Roman numerals to name your reference citations as you did at Heterokrohnia, it may result in you being blocked from editing without further warning for disruptive editing. Please read WP:REFNAME and use any name other than a number instead when adding reference citations. Loopy30 (talk) 04:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, HNdlROdU. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]