User talk:Stemonitis/Archive29

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between September 22, 2010 and November 14, 2010.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarising the section you are replying to if necessary.

Dutch Mispel

Hi, I saw your deletion of the interwiki link from Mespilus to Mispel in Dutch on the grounds that Mispel is one species, not the whole genus. That's reasonable, but the problem is really that they have a circular link. On the Mispel page if you click "Mespilus" in the taxobox, you get back to the same page. Perhaps a link between the two languages should remain. Nadiatalent (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In that case, there is no article on the Dutch Wikipedia (yet) about Mespilus. When there is, it should be provided with all the interwiki links it deserves. I can't think of any precedent of adding interwikis to or for redirects. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thyreophora cynophila

Hi Stemonitis, have you nominated this for DYK yet? I couldn't see it anywhere but wanted to check. If you haven't can I suggest we nominate it for halloween DYK? This in New Scientist calls it the bone skipper, so something along the lines of ... that the bone skipper has come back from the dead? would make a good hook. Smartse (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I was thinking about nominating it for In the News, but I never got around to it. It's been five days since the article was created now, which may be too long, but by all means give it a go. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK check gives articles ten days and I assume there is some leniency given for halloween as well, so it should be fine. I've nominated it here. (Just noticed I need to add that it feeds on bone marrow to the article.) Smartse (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas Roscoe Rede Stebbing

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Chirocephalus diaphanus

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing for taxonomy

Hello, you were mentioned to me in a discussion of the sourcing for the taxonomy of the Northern Rocky Mountains Wolf. Perhaps I am a WikIdealist but I think if Wikipedia is to be the research tool it should be someone should be able to see the actual citation to the publication where the nomenclature originated. And, gee, that seems to be explicitly required by our verifiability policy. To the point: can you direct me to the Goldman source in question, or a plan to find it, so that I may source the information more precisely? Dlabtot (talk) 02:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that the reference in question has been found now. I have given my opinion on the matter, however. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Taxobox fixes

Let's see what we can do to fix the problem that was created. I recommend that we both keep notes here to fix the problem once and for good. Let's leave Yobot uninterpreted to finish its current task.

• I started this task at 15:06, 27 September 2010 till 15:48, 27 September 2010. Total time: 22 minutes.
• I resumed the task at 20:24, 27 September 2010 till 23:46, 27 September 2010. Total time: 3 hours, 22 minutes.
• At that point I started skipping pages with "Taxobox" at 06:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC).
• The pages that were affected start with letter A - Fis. In total there were 2,500 pages edited (not all with Taxobox). Hopefully, a small proportion of these pages have to be fixed.

I am a bit busy in real life at the moment so I can start fixing later this evening.

What you could do to help: Instead of just reverting Yobot, it would be better to replace the self-link with wikibold. I got the list from WP:CHECKWIKI so not only Yobot will try to fix this stuff. After I finish my session run, I 'll remove mark everything from the toolserver list of CHECKWIKI. This will force the server to regenerate a list after some time and this will ensure us that nobody else will try to "fix" the templates.

I'm sorry for the problem but we could have saved the big run I've I knew I had to avoid the whole Infobox and not only the parameter. don't worry because we can fix everything soon. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sea Cucumber

Deepak Chopra may not an authoritative figure in the field of marine biology, but he is a best-selling author, and any quotes he has made has made definitely belong in in the literature section whether you are offended or not. Why did you not remove the quote from Erik Satie as well? He's not an authoritative figure in the field of marine biology. I put the quote back. If you want it gone then stop being a vandal and get a consensus on the talk page before removing it. scooteristi (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Deepak Chopra's decription of a sea cucumber is irrelevant to the article. It doesn't matter how many books he sells, his opinions are of no consequence in the article on sea cucumbers. WP:IPC sums it up, stating "passing mentions in books [...] should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources", which has not been (and I suspect cannot be) done in this case. I quite agree that the entire section on "In art and literature" is suspect, but that doesn't mean that adding more material of low encyclopaedic value is acceptable. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Tetragnatha extensa

Hi Stemonitis, could you take a look at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Tetragnatha extensa? Your article has been nominated but I've got a query regarding the hook which you might be able to address. (Is this another one you forgot about?) Smartse (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Haha, no, this is one where I couldn't find a decent hook. The most interesting bit is its linear posture, I think, but I can't think of a good wording. I'll see if I can find something. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

citations for name authorities

Hello, please see my reply at Talk:Northern Rocky Mountains Wolf#Bozeman Chronicle and Tampa Tribune sources. I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Note

I mentioned you at WT:MOS#Punctuation and inline citations. Ucucha 03:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I changed after the last acrimonious debacle, and I feel no desire to get bogged down in it again. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for missing that; I noticed you already corrected my post. Ucucha 12:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tetragnatha extensa

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

separation

I agree the info should separated, though I think it should now appear in the 'scientific' article. Lumping was no bad thing, before any are properly expanded, especially if separation of the species is tentative (as someone maintained, if I recall correctly). cygnis insignis 19:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming (on the basis of nothing more than common sense) that the species which is eaten is (exclusively) C. cainii. If that is true (i.e. verifiable), then the culinary information could comfortably be added to an article on Cherax cainii. I just couldn't allow an article to say that an animal was (a) tasty, and (b) a whisper away from extinction. My solution may not have been the best, and I'd be happy for someone to improve on it. I've got too many things on the go at the moment to seriously consider starting an article on C. cainii, but I'll gladly help in any way I can if someone else is thinking about taking it on. I don't really know either the taxa or the situation at all, so a little local knowledge might be helpful. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I was studiously ignoring the situation, I couldn't find anything on the second species the last time I looked. Unfortunately, the region is noted on restaurant's blackboards - they are reputed to be the sweetest of all. General concern would be pretty low, the region is rather callous with regard to fare for the table. Prohibition on consumption on shark elsewhere, for example, coincided with it actually appearing on menus without a euphemism here. cygnis insignis 19:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

J. P. Fabricius

Hi Stemonitis. I added J. P. Fabricius as a suggestion at J. C. Fabricius mainly because of name similarity. I agree that they're not likely to be confused with each other given their domains. However, I feel that some message like "if you came looking for x, please visit..." can be added for the benefit of those that land in the wrong article coming from a search engine. I leave it to you. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Branchinecta brushi

Hello! Your submission of Branchinecta brushi at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 8:55pm • 09:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Scyllarus pygmaeus

-- Cirt (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

What's the problem?

I wrote of Pascal's 'Pensées'. Pensée is a 'pansy' in English, and glossed it with a photo, momentarily, for humour. What rule did I break? Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The template is intended for use on articles about taxa. If it's not properly filled in, it winds up in cleanup categories. By all means add a picture of a pansy, but use the usual image markup, rather than complex templates with built-in error-checking functions. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I have absolutely no idea how to do that, and will have to ask around for infor about the 'usual image markup'. I'm old, and somewhat stupid, and don't even have or no how cellphones work! Regards, and sorry for the bother and any disturbance my appropriation of the image may have caused for the janitorial system.Nishidani (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Molecular ecology and Molecular Ecology

Hi, you just moved Molecular Ecology (journal) to Molecular Ecology. Given that we also have an article Molecular ecology, perhaps a disambiguator is not a bad idea after all? --Crusio (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I did. I had doubts about it soon afterwards, but I think it's OK. I added hatlinks from each to the other, which makes the situation much clearer than it was before. I also checked all the incoming links, and everything linking to "Molecular Ecology" did indeed mean the journal, and not the field of inquiry. Since "Molecular Ecology (journal)" was already redirecting to "Molecular Ecology", this is actually no functional change at all. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

When I look at the history of ME (journal), that says that you redirected it yesterday over a redirect, so the main article was there up till yesterday, unless I'm missing something. There was an (admittedly limited) discussion at WP Journals about this situation, where the conclusion was that it was best to keep the disambiguator. I don't care too much myself, as long as articles can be reached without too much problem by users, but thought you should know. --Crusio (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I meant the other way round – "Molecular Ecology" was redirecting to "Molecular Ecology (journal)", rather than pointing to molecular ecology. It would be possible to enforce the system proposed by the two editors in the discussion you linked to. However, I don't think it's worth it, and that's hardly overwhelming backing for the system, anyway. I think that provided there are hatlinks, calling each by its real name is probably more straightforward. Thanks for letting me know about the prior discussions, though.

As I see it, there are two sensible systems, each with advantages and disadvantages.

1. Molecular Ecology (journal) for the journal ; Molecular Ecology → redirects to → molecular ecology
2. Molecular Ecology (journal) → redirects to → Molecular Ecology ; the field is at molecular ecology

When I found it, Mol. Ecol. was in an in-betweeny mess of a state:

• Molecular Ecology (journal) ← redirected from ← Molecular Ecology ; the field at molecular ecology

We don't generally have plain titles redirecting to disambiguated titles so something was wrong. I fixed it one way; there are others. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Abantiades latipennis

A GA pass! Thank you again for finding that document and for writing the Taxonomy. :) Maedin\^talk 18:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Why?

Did you also (twice) remove my images from Crab? This is starting to feel like you are just being vindictive because you don't like these images for some reason. Why are the images I created more "distracting" than the others? That is just nonsense. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

For the reasons I gave. Please read our policy on image use if that was unclear. There is no hidden agenda, and no vindictiveness. You're doing great work at Chionoecetes bairdi, an article which has long been in need of an overhaul, and I wouldn't want to discourage you from further contributions, so I hope you can take my word for it that my actions were only in the best interests of the encyclopaedia. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hyalella azteca

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Branchinecta brushi

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Taxonomy help

Hi Stemonitis, could you check out the situation with Cepheidae which currently redirects to Brachypylina (a suborder of oribatid mites) but is listed as a family of jellyfish in Marivagia according to a paper published this year? I don't have a clue where to start with things like this. Thanks Smartse (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is a little tricky. There are two families that have been called Cepheidae:

• Cepheidae Berlese, 1896 (Acari: Oribatida), based on Cepheus C. L. Koch, 1835
• Cepheidae L. Agassiz, 1862 (Cnidaria: Scyphozoa), based on Cephea Péron & Lesueur, 1810

It is clear therefore that the mite family is a junior homonym of the jellyfish family. It does not look, however, as if this homonymy has been noted in the literature; I can't find an alternative name for the mite family, and it appears to continue to be used. I also noted that the reference cited on the page Brachypylina contains no mention of a Cepheidae, so I don't know where it got its list from. On Wikispecies, Cepheidae Berlese redirects to Compactozetidae. Given all that, I have knocked together a very short stub at Cepheidae which covers the jellyfish family. What should happen with the mites remains to be seen. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I guess that revising the taxonomy of mites isn't exactly a priority. Smartse (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

And some more...

Do you think you could write User:Smartse/Euprenolepis_procera#Taxonomy using page 13 of the ref in that section at some point? There's no particular hurry, because I'm going to save it in my userspace to nom for DYK along with User:Smartse/fungivory which still needs a lot of work. Thanks a lot. SmartSE (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

And if you know of any good general sources for the second article, feel free to fire away. SmartSE (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hemigrapsus estellinensis

Hello! Your submission of Hemigrapsus estellinensis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

DYK nomination of Mary J. Rathbun

Hello! Your submission of Mary J. Rathbun at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Branchinecta gaini

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Page title linked in text

Linking the page title in text is ususlly undesiderable. Is this case different? Should I skip links like them? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 13:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Taxobox is exceedingly complex. It relies on the contents of the regnum= field to correctly format the infobox (chiefly, the colour). Without the links, the taxobox breaks down. There are two solutions to this. One is to add to the template formatting code so that '''Rhizaria''' produces the same formatting as [[Rhizaria]]; the other is simply not to try and "fix" the problem. The former may be better, and would prevent its re-occurring, but the latter is considerably simpler for immediate application. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Thyreophora cynophila

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hemigrapsus estellinensis

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

question

Why did you revert my edit here? I thought the idea is instead of just removing the wikilink to replace it with wikibold. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

See my answer three sections up. If the parameter doesn't appear exactly the way the template code expects to find it, the taxobox colour breaks down (you will see white boxes with red outlines, rather than the appropriate colour per WP:TX), and the page gets listed in the cleanup category "Taxoboxes with an invalid color". --Stemonitis (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Any chance that we simplify/modify the code? We want to WP:KISS. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Since this is only an issue for articles about biological kingdoms, I have checked what the other few do. The (as far as I know undocumented) solution is to override the automated colour, using the same subtemplate that would normally do it automatically. That's what I've done for Amoebozoa. I trust that the bots won't interpret it as a self-link if it's wrapped up inside a template. (Although this suggests otherwise, I suspect its owner is now aware.) --Stemonitis (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This could be a solution. Can you put everything inside a template please? Or modify the template code. :) Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mary J. Rathbun

Orlady (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Revert a Bad Revert

I undid your revert of my edit here.
1. The reason why I listed the Beaches in Puerto Rico link is that this Crab is Endemic to Puerto Rico and can only be found on its beaches.
2. Just Because Crustaceans is a daughter of Biology is not an adequate reason not to include the Biology Portal. Including multiple portals is clearly a logical way to involve more projects to improve upon these articles.
3. Lastly, I Invite you to read Wikipedia:Portal. I will summarize: Portal Boxes should be placed in the See Also Section.

In the Future, please Assume good faith and leave articles in a better state than which you left them. IMHO, that was not the case here. QuAzGaA 19:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

{{{inline}}}

I disagree with each of your assertions here. Yes, the crab is found only on beaches of Puerto Rico, but that does not mean that a list of such beaches is a useful link to include. It may be that you prefer to tolerate parent-daughter pairs of portals, but there will always have to be a limit to how many we include. The article could equally point to many other portals (see example on right). We need to present a limited selection, and I think including three on such a small article is excessive. Likewise, if the article were long enough that the "See also" section appeared at the end, I would happily include the portals there. However, your method forced very large amounts of whitespace to appear (at least in my browser), which I consider to be a far worse problem. WP:IAR applies here. Finally, at no point did I fail to assume good faith. I am sure you were trying to improve the encyclopaedia; I just don't think you succeeded. Had I thought it was vandalism (which it clearly wasn't), I'd have left a warning on a user talk page. In my opinion, I left the article in a much better state than I found it. You are free to disagree on that point, but it seems to me that by invoking WP:AGF, you may be failing to abide by it. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Another unnecessary reversion.

Why was it necessary to revert Pugettia? Your own link to ITIS had the same information that you said wasn't referenced. I added an inline reference to be sure. DGERobertson 01:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Common names need to be referenced just as much as any other assertion that we include. I removed ITIS as a reference because for most crustacean taxa it's woefully incomplete, and there are much better alternatives. It can be useful for citing authorities, but little else. It also tends to assert "common names" where none really exist; there is a large differnce between a vernacular name listed by an organisation and a common name used by normal people in their everyday discourse. Please also note that by long-standing convention, common names (or, indeed, invented vernacular names) of arthropods are formatted in sentence case on Wikipedia, with a few exceptions. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Kiwa hirsuta

I'm not going to bother defending it on the actual page again so just fyi, the "irrelevant cartoon mention" of Sherman's Lagoon is how I found out about this creature in the first place. The cartoonist is effectively bringing some small additional attention to the wonders of marine biology from the uninitiated general population -- something that esoteric academic publications will never achieve; think about this for a moment. If this is indeed irrelevant, then you may as well remove the webcomic reference as well.

White Rust page

Hi, I recently posted a page on White Rust on October 22,2010 with the user name Chicagriculture. The page was immediately taken down, and I am wondering if you could provide me with some specifics as to why. I would like to be able to make any corrections you deem necessary for the page to be posted.

Thank you. Fruitplantpath (talk) 13:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem was that you were adding the text to a disambiguation page, where it does not belong. It is not clear to me exactly where it does belong, with both Albugo candida and Albugo being possibilities. Since both of these articles contain some text already, it would be best to fit your additions to the existing articles. The following links may be useful to you, in understanding how Wikipedia works:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Manual of Style

I hope this helps. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on Lobatus gigas

I very much appreciate your helping us out with that article. I'm sorry I was confused about how and where to list the Eustrombus gigas synonym, thanks for sorting that out. Daniel felt we should finally move the species to the genus Lobatus, but we are anxious not to mess up our GA rating in the process. Invertzoo (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Is there anything we should do to help protect its status? Invertzoo (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I hardly did anything, but you're very welcome. I've had a more detailed look at the article now, and it seems in pretty good shape. There's a lot of material, and I suspect you could take it to FA with a little work, let alone GA. I have tweaked a few things, mostly very minor indeed, but a few issues remain:

• The paragraph starting "In the first half of the 20th century, the type material..." has no references until four appear together. If it's appropriate, it might be good to spread them out a little more, so that all the statements are referenced.
• "The overall shell morphology of L. gigas is not solely determined by the animal's genes; environmental conditions such as geographic location, food supply, temperature and depth, and biological interactions such as exposure to predation, can greatly affect it." I would suspect that the geographical variation is due to genetic variation. If so, it may be best to re-word this sentence. If I'm wrong, and the shell morphology is affected directly by latitude, for instance, then perhaps state that directly.
• The first paragraph of "Historic illustrations" is unreferenced, and contains some value judgements ("a striking feature", "presumably ... for artistic reasons") that must be referenced or removed.
• I would be tempted to use {{Multiple image}} for the table of historical illustrations; I think it looks neater. If it was up to me, I'd probably reduce their size, too.
• There is some repetition in the last two paragraphs of "Threats and conservation measures". Perhaps all the CITES material should be in one paragraph.

I also agree with your statement in the peer review that "the prose itself could use more refining, to make it more engaging", but it's very difficult to make suggestions about how that could be done. That's all I came up with; I don't think the article's GA status is in any danger! --Stemonitis (talk) 08:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Neo Californiensis

Im not clear on your deletion based on conflict of interest. I agree of course this is my own work, however I only intend to distribute the primary source data and interpretation. The results have been requested by others and represent a significant finding. If you like publish it without any credit to myself —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbuncic (talk • contribs) 20:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, my main reason for reverting your edits was the large amount of well-referenced material which was deleted without any reason being given. There are also problems with inserting an entire paragraph of quotation without working it into context, although they can probably be worked round. Wikipedia, for good or ill, prefers secondary sources to primary sources where possible, although I find this is often difficult for relatively obscure organisms. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I apologize. I now see the issue. I had not realized material was deleted. That was accidental and would certainly not be welcomed. I will rework the material an insert it properly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbuncic (talk • contribs) 00:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Much better! Thank you. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed this, as it is a masters thesis, it isn't peer reviewed AFAIK and being added by the author makes it original research. (By the way, did you notice my note last week? Think you had other new messages at the time, so may not have noticed). SmartSE (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No, that passed me by. Sorry about that. I'll have a look and see what I can do, although it might take me a couple of days. It's lucky you reminded me. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem, it's easily done. Still no major hurry, it's taking a while to do the main article. SmartSE (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings/For machines

Greetings. I see you recently added an entry to this list. I am wondering if anything or anyone still uses this list. I used to update the list, but it seems to be inactive, as few changes are made to it, and putting the User:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool in my monobook.js page now does not display the live spellcheck option. User:Lupin hasn't made any contributions in over a year. I suspect that all the Lupin tools have been bypassed in the last year. If you know what's going on, please fill me in. If you don't, then at least be advised that updating the machine list might be a waste of effort. Other than that, happy editing! Chris the speller (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I finally figured out that the code for the Lupin tools needs to be moved from /monobook.js to /vector.js after they overhauled the preferences about a year ago. This probably stopped a lot of editors who used to do live spellcheck, as evidenced by the 71 articles that contain 'scrutinity' even though it is in the machine list of misspellings. Thanks anyway, it was nice talkin' to ya. Good luck! Chris the speller (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh great

Oh, I didn't notice that. Now I have to go back and correct everything. I hate these complexities.

So much for Côte d'Ivoire geo stubs. Thanks. --Kleopatra (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I don't have to redo so many. I changed regnum from Bacterium|Bacteria to Bacteria. It's only the ones where I deleted the color and didn't change the kingdom that don't show a color. I started at the end of the list, did you fix them all, already? Can I head back to Africa? --Kleopatra (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I fixed a few, although I had to change the taxonomy in a few cases (should "Bacteria" actually be a domain?), but at least the taxobox displays correctly. I'm more worried about the copyright problems, but if you're not a regular contributor in that area, you may not be the person to ask (I only looked at the last page or so of your contributions). I'll leave a note with a project somewhere. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it appears to be a rampant copyvio, the whole genus, except for the big human and animal pathogens. I was planning to stubify them, leaving only the taxoboxes. I didn't catch it until towards the end. But I thought I would ignore the issue and have a good cry first. --Kleopatra (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

So, back to West Africa for me. --Kleopatra (talk) 08:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've left a note at WP Micribiology; I don't know how active that project is. If I don't hear anything, I'll chase it up somewhere else. We could easily delete them all, provided we knew which articles were at fault, but I think we're probably both out of our depth, so let's hope someone else will pick up the baton. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not out of my depth for identifying the copyvios for the Mycobacterium articles, I'm just slow at the computer, and I'm in a frustrated-at-the-bureaucracy-that-be-at-wikis-mood. However, I won't object if someone else deals with them. I would like to leave the taxoboxes and a stub. I think I am, unfortunately, one of the very few Mycobacterium editors ont wikipedia, but I've seldom ventured near anything but the familiar pathogens. --Kleopatra (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Anomocaridae

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Anomocaridae, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.trilobites.info/ordasaphida.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)