User talk:JoJan/Archive 20

Cirex

Regards Jojan; I was looking for an active administrators who can help me with this draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cirex Has been several weeks backlogged, I took my chances if it get not approved. Same article is on other 5 wikipedias... Please, hope you can help! :) Thanks in advance Bnotepr (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the article has improved a lot since its submission was declined. It is now ready to be moved to the main space. JoJan (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

What do you think JoJan?

About that new stub Lumaca romana, Roman snails in a historical context. The text was almost unintelligible until I fixed the prose, and this stub has no references. Should this be merged, deleted or what? Invertzoo (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with this article. I looked into "De Re rustica" and could find no more references to snails. It looks like this Fulvius Lupinus was quite famous in his time for his farming of boars, badgers, weasels and other wild animals. All this says something about the way the Old Romans lived, but nothing about a scientific description of snails. Perhaps it can be incorporated into escargot or, even better, into heliculture JoJan (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I merged the info into Heliciculture, although I must say I forgot to try to include the article history into the article history of Heliciculture, and in fact I can't remember how I am supposed to do that... Please JoJan would you fix that as needed if possible, and also delete the article page and the talk page? Thanks so much. Invertzoo (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to. The redirect solved this all. The history stays with the redirect. JoJan (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! Invertzoo (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

long time no see!

Dank je voor het verwijderen van mijn gebruikerspagina, te vervangen door de globale. Goed te zien dat je hier sysop bent. Ellywa (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ja, Elly, het is al ongeveer 10 jaar geleden op een vergadering in Utrecht. Maar ik heb nog steeds een goede herinnering aan jou. Beste groetjes. JoJan (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Forking a cone article

Dear JoJan, I hope you are doing well.

I see that User:Shellnut has created a fork of Conasprella edpetuchi, the new article being Dalliconus edpetuchi. Shellnut has not been active during the last 12 months on Wikipedia, and before that he was still a fairly new editor. It seems he does not understand that creating a duplicate article under a different name is not an acceptable way to change things on Wikipedia.

Shellnut was one of the junior authors of this taxon, and he thinks that because it was published as Dalliconus edpetuchi and supposedly no paper has been published since then to change that genus assignment, that it must stay in its original genus. However the taxonomists at WoRMS feel that this species should be classified under Conasprella.

I hope that you can explain this situation to him, as you are an admin, and I think he would take it better coming from you rather than from me. Invertzoo (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I have advised him to take up contact with dr. Puillandre or dr. Bouchet and discuss this matter. Until this is resolved, I won't change anything. JoJan (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Hurdy gurdy.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hurdy gurdy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

A new reference tool

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Intertranswiki

Hi JoJan. I have noticed your interest in translation, not only as a result of all your contributions to flora and fauna but also in connection with your excellent biographies and articles about churches. You might like to become a member of WP:Intertranswiki and, as a native Dutch speaker, its Dutch component (perhaps also the French component?). We have recently been trying to revive the project and are looking for ideas on new articles, particularly those from other wikis which are red-linked in English. We also frequently need help in translation (and copy editing) from Dutch.--Ipigott (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

The Wikipedia Library

Call for Volunteers

The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:

• Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
• Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
• Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
• Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.

Sign up to help here :)

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Elysia grandifolia

Gatoclass (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Verlenging etalagenominatie?

Beste JoJan, zou je hier willen reageren? Alvast bedankt! heinnlein'' 06:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Conus article, change to cone snails?

Hello JoJan,

As you probably remember, Conus used to be a massive genus, with over 600 species, but in recent years it has been suggested to split it up into several genera. A 2014 paper attempted to finally stabilize that much-argued over classification, and I believe WoRMS has accepted the suggestions that were in that new paper.

Here is the abstract of the 2014 paper that gives the new, currently definitive, classification:

http://mollus.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/09/04/mollus.eyu055

So... I thought I should change our Conus article so that it would become a general article on Cone snails in the popular sense of the word. Conus does still exists as a genus, but smaller than it used to be. Today I fixed the Conus article so it could be a general article on Cone snails in the common use of the term, but I can't change the name of the article without help from an administrator. Perhaps I do not have the right idea and instead I should turn Conus into a small article about the new smaller genus Conus, and then copy the old article in its cleaned-up form into a new article called Cone snails??? How do you think I should handle this first step?

Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have it wrong. It's just the reverse. The 115 genera in the Conidae have been reduced by this paper into four genera: Conus, Conasprella, Profundiconus and Californiconus (with Conus alone encompassing about 85% of known species), with a large number of subgenera. I've been working on the Conidae and especially Conus for almost a year to bring wikipedia up-to-date, relying on this very paper you mention (of which I have the full text). Therefore Conus cannot be a general article on cone snails. If you agree with this I'll revert the change. JoJan (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Yes. Cone snails started out as all being in one genus until quite recently, then went to 115, then went to 6 living genera according to WoRMS as of today. The difficulty is not about that, but is about knowing what to do with the Conus article. It is not a bad article about Cone snails in general in the popular sense of the word, but it is no good at all as an article on what is now the genus Conus sensu stricto. So... what should we do with it? Invertzoo (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

We need an article about the genus Conus in the new strict sense, but this article is not that at all! So what should we do? If we turn Conus into an article about the genus Conus in the up-to-date sense, the article would be 100% different from what it is now. So what should we do with the content that is in the current article? My idea is to keep it as a general article about cone snails in the common sense of the word. If you don't like that idea, what should we do -- simply delete all that content? Invertzoo (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a slight misunderstanding. There should be an article about cone snails in general and a different one about the genus Conus (and all its subgenera). JoJan (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am still not making myself clear. I suppose that is my fault for not expressing myself more clearly. I totally agree with you about the fact that there should be two articles: one on the genus Conus and one on "Cone snails". Because you are an administrator I need you to help me with this. For example, I can't "move" the current article to the title "Cone snails" without the help of an administrator. I also obviously don't want to copy and paste the content into a new article called "Cone snails". So what should I do? That is what I have been trying to ask all along. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Now I see the problem. I've moved "Cone snail" to "Cone snail (disambiguation)", then I deleted "Cone snail". Then I moved "Conus" to "Cone snail" and deleted "Conus". Now the article "Conus " can be recreated for the genus Conus. This should do it. JoJan (talk) 14:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic!!! That is just what was needed. Thank you so much JoJan! Invertzoo (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Should I start a Conus genus article, or would you rather I let you do that? Invertzoo (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Please do. As you know I'm working on articles about the species. And at the same time I want to upload almost 200 photos I've made in Split, Croatia. And first, each photo (after having been edited) has to be described accurately (not an easy task) and then I have to work and add to the articles about the described items, such as Diocletian's Palace which lacks a lot in the description of the interior of the cathedral. Work aplenty. JoJan (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I made a very tiny stub of an article on Conus. It needs an automatic taxobox, and a lot more other work, but at least it is better than nothing at all. In June I was part of a Dutch Marine Biodiversity Expedition to the island of Sint Eustatius for 3 weeks, and I am still working on creating the publications necessary from the results of that expedition. I will not be finished with that for another 6 months. Invertzoo (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Another question

And what should we do about the article List of Conus species? Invertzoo (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

This article should stay as it is. Conus species are species within the genus Conus. This list is not in relation with cone snails in general. For the last year I've been adding new species, bringing names into synonymy and moving species from formerly accepted genera to their new names within Conus. I haven't added the finishing touch to this article yet - I've reached Conus nux. It will take another couple of months before I reach the end. JoJan (talk) 09:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

OK good. Thanks for all your excellent work. Invertzoo (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Cone snail

This currently leads to a disambiguation page, so if we create an article with the name Cone snail, that disambiguation page will also need changing in some way. Invertzoo (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind doing these things but I was asking for help both in deciding what to do, and in carrying those decisions out, but only if an administrator's help is necessary. Invertzoo (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Conidae

Hello again JoJan, Thank you very much for the major improvements on the article Conus! I worked today on improving the prose and the organization in the article about the family Conidae. I am just wondering if the two different lists in that article (which are both rather long) should stay where they are, or perhaps should be split off into separate articles? What do you think? Invertzoo (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It's perhaps better to keep everything together, so that anyone interested may have a historical overview of the taxonomy within Conidae. JoJan (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. Invertzoo (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Turridae

Hello again JoJan. As we did with Cone snail and Conidae, do you think we need to do something similar with Turridae?

In other words, do we need to separate the info into an article on turrids which is about the old very large, polyphyletic group, (it seems that the common name is still loosely applied to all the new families of "turrids") and then also an article Turridae, which is about the new family and discusses the history of the taxonomy of the group?

Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I see no problem if you want to do that. JoJan (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I made a start at there being the two articles. Invertzoo (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Turridae must only contain the genera presently included in the family (See: WoRMS). The article "Turrid" can contain the history of Turridae as it does at this moment. JoJan (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes you are right of course. I got side-tracked by the other work I am doing. Invertzoo (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Just now I tried to clean it up. Invertzoo (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete request

Hi JoJan, thank you for deleting {{Roro001}} and {{Roro001/doc}} two days ago. May be I didn't express it understandable and you couldn't see it swift enough: there exist 51 more templates {{Roro002}} to {{Roro901}}, all of them transcluding {{Roro001/doc}} and as well unused and redundant; I requested the deletion of all these templates by explaining it in the DR of the /doc.

I am not knowing a tool to set a DR into many items, as it can be done e.g. at commons with a VFC task. If it will help I can temporarely recreate the /doc causing the categorization of the remaining 51 templates, are something like that, to give you access to this series of templates. But sure you have more possibilities to perform a mass deletion? Hopefully we can get rid of the templates. -- sarang♥사랑 18:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

All templates have now been deleted. JoJan (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Doto onusta

Hi Jojan, I moved Doto onusta back into current species from synonyms. I know we use WoRMS as the main reference but in this case WoRMS is likely to be wrong, which is why I made the Doto onusta page. I did reference it carefully and I'm currently talking to Serge Gofas (WoRMS editor for Mollusca) about removing it from synonymy. WoRMS tends to slavishly follow fashion, so in some cases it is better to make Wikipedia the honest arbitrator I think. Most synonymies are open to question and the latest work on nudibranchs is showing that many are wrong. BernardP (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Bernard for your intervention. As you know, I've sent an email to WoRMS about Doto aurita and I sent to you a copy to draw your attention, as you are working at this moment on nudibranchs. But it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to be the arbitrator, even a honest arbitrator (stringent rule: no personal research). And this makes it difficult for us if we want to try to give a scientific report of a genus or species. The only thing we can do is to rapport this to WoRMS or to an expert (such as you doing now with dr. Gofas). I've done this numerous times in the last eleven years and each time an expert malacologist performed the necessary changes in WoRMS. JoJan (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Zerby Denby

Text showing putative birth name of Kim Darby

Can you please restore this redirect. Not sure who nominated it, but they should probaly have known better. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC).

Restored. JoJan (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Signpost exit poll

Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?

  If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.

  All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian

The questionnaire

Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.

quick and easy exit poll , estimated time required: 4 minutes

Q#0. Will you be responding to the questions in this exit poll? Why or why not? Your Answer: yes Your Comments: Q#1. Arbs must have at least 0k / 2k / 4k / 8k / 16k / 32k+ edits to Wikipedia. Your Numeric Answer: 4k Your Comments: Q#2. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years editing Wikipedia. Your Numeric Answer: 2 Your Comments: Q#3. Arbs... A: should not be an admin B: should preferably not be an admin C: can be but need not be an admin D: should preferably be an admin E: must be or have been an admin F: must currently be an admin Your Single-Letter Answer: D Your Comments: Q#4. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years of experience as an admin. Your Numeric Answer: 1 Your Comments: Q#5. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional: which candidates did you support this year, and why? Your List-Of-Usernames You Supported: Rich Farmbrough, Casliber Your Comments: The Quick&Easy End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion. Your Wikipedia Username: JoJan JoJan (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC) General Comments:

the extended exit poll, estimated time required: depends

Q#6. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional: which candidates did you oppose this year, and why? Your List-Of-Usernames You Opposed: Your Comments: Q#7. Are there any Wikipedians you would like to see run for ArbCom, in the December 2016 election, twelve months from now? Who? Your List-Of-Usernames As Potential Future Candidates: Your Comments: Q#8. Why did you vote in the 2015 ArbCom elections? In particular, how did you learn about the election, and what motivated you to participate this year? Your Answer: Your Comments: Q#9. For potential arbs, good indicators of the right kind of contributions outside noticeboard activity, would be: A: discussions on the talkpages of articles which ARE subject to ArbCom sanctions B: discussions on the talkpages of articles NOT subject to ArbCom restrictions C: sending talkpage notifications e.g. with Twinkle, sticking to formal language D: sending talkpage notifications manually, and explaining with informal English E: working on policies/guidelines F: working on essays/helpdocs G: working on GA/FA/DYK/similar content H: working on copyedits/infoboxes/pictures/similar content I: working on categorization e.g. with HotCat J: working on autofixes e.g. with AWB or REFILL K: working with other Wikipedians via wikiprojects e.g. with MILHIST L: working with other Wikipedians via IRC e.g. with #wikipedia-en-help connect or informally M: working with other Wikipedians via email e.g. with UTRS or informally N: working with other Wikipedians in person e.g. at edit-a-thons / Wikipedian-in-residence / Wikimania / etc O: other types of contribution, please specify in your comments Please specify a comma-separated list of the types of contributions you see as positive indicators for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: Your Comments: Q#10. Arbs who make many well-informed comments at these noticeboards (please specify which!) have the right kind of background, or experience, for ArbCom. Options: A: AE, B: arbCases, C: LTA, D: OTRS, E: AN, continued: F: OS/REVDEL, G: CU/SPI, H: AN/I, I: pageprot, J: NAC, continued: K: RfC, L: RM, M: DRN, N: EA, O: 3o, continued: P: NPOVN, Q: BLPN, R: RSN, S: NORN, T: FTN, continued: U: teahouse, V: helpdesk, W: AfC, X: NPP, Y: AfD, continued: 1: UAA, 2: COIN, 3: antiSpam, 4: AIV, 5: 3RR, continued: 6: CCI, 7: NFCC, 8: abusefilter, 9: BAG, 0: VPT, continued: Z: Other_noticeboard_not_listed_here_please_wikilink_your_answer Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as important background-experience for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: Your Comments: Q#11. Arbs who make many comments at these noticeboards (please specify!) have the wrong kind of temperament, or personality, for ArbCom. Options: (same as previous question -- please see above) Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as worrisome personality-indicators for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: Your Comments: Q#12. Anything else we ought to know? Your Custom-Designed Question(s): Your Custom-Designed Answer(s): The Extended-Answers End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion. Your Wikipedia Username: General Comments:

Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy).

how to submit your answers , estimated time required: 2 minutes

If you wish to answer via usertalk, go ahead and fill in the blanks by editing this subsection. Once you have completed the usertalk-based exit poll answers, , leave a short usertalk note, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published. If you wish to answer via email, create a new email to the Signpost column-editor by clicking Special:EmailUser/GamerPro64, and then paste the *plaintext* of the questions therein. Once you have completed the email-based exit poll answers, , leave a short usertalk note specifying the *time* you sent the email, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published (not stuck in the spam-folder). Processing of responses will be performed in batches of ten, prior to publication in the Signpost. GamerPro64 will be processing the email-based answers, and will strive to maintain the privacy of your answers (as well as your email address and the associated IP address typically found in the email-headers), though of course as a volunteer effort, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will have a system free from computer virii, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will resist hypothetical bribes offered by the KGB/NSA/MI6 to reveal your secrets, and we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will make no mistakes. If you choose to answer on-wiki, your answers will be visible to other Wikipedians. If you choose to answer via email, your answers will be sent unencrypted over the internet, and we will do our best to protect your privacy, but unencrypted email is inherently an improper mechanism for doing so. Sorry!  :-)

We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor GamerPro64, copy-editor 75.108.94.227, or copy-editor Ryk72. Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia. Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 14

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 14, October-November 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - Gale, Brill, plus Finnish and Farsi resources
• Open Access Week recap, and DOIs, Wikipedia, and scholarly citations
• Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref - a citation drive for librarians

Read the full newsletter

The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote articles using axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.    – Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)