|
Hi, I noticed that you created Parakysis notialis, but listed no sources for the information contained in the article. According to Wikipedia's content policies, all information must be verifiable from reliable sources. Therefore, it's necessary to cite your sources so other editors can check that the information included in the article is correct and matches the sources used. Information not previously published in such sources is prohibited as original research, since other editors can't verify it. Unsourced information may be challenged and removed at any time, and articles that can't be verified are likely to be deleted. Guidance on how to cite your sources is available, and if you need any further help, feel free to leave a message on my talk page.-- Unscented ( talk) 19:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Entomocorus radiosus, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Cssiitcic ( talk) 17:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Trachelyichthys exilis, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.scotcat.com/factsheets/t_exilis.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 17:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Heteropneustes fossilis, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.scotcat.com/factsheets/h_fossilis.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 22:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Erethistes hara, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.scotcat.com/factsheets/hara_hara.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 04:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Leporacanthicus triactis, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.scotcat.com/factsheets/leporacanthicus_triactis.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 16:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Phn, on the newpage patrol I saw that you're creating sets of new articles for the fish family Loricariidae. :) It looks like all of the articles have a space between "Loricariidae" and the ending period of the lead sentence, though, a little typo that bugs me. Maybe you could alter your prototype article (I don't know how many more pages you'll be creating) so that it doesn't contain this little typo? Just a thought, cheers! Jamie ☆ S93 22:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not usually worth it to respond to a copyvio notice here on your talk page. Leave the message on the talk page of the person who gave you the notice in the first place. DS ( talk) 00:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I haven't updated Wikipedia in a while and to my surprise all my genus articles now have species names. Prior to my contributions on Wikipedia, catfish articles were incredibly sparse. Thus, I devoted a fair bit of time to the wholesale building of an article for each genus of catfish, though I never did finish. The structure of Wikipedia's catfish articles mostly is based on the work I've done, and few meaningful contributions have followed on most of these articles. I chose to restrict my work to the genus level for various reasons. One of the most obvious ones is the pure number of species of catfishes that exist (over 3000), while genera "only" numbered almost 500, and again I still have to do a fair number of them. Also, I did not think an incredibly small blurb on a small species page would be much more valuable than having these small blurbs combined on a single page. Unfortunately, the amount of information for most of the thousands of species of catfishes are incredibly sparse, and some aren't mentioned more than a couple times in the scientific literature, much less on the internet. Although some people have the opinion that every species deserves an article, in my opinion there is simply not enough information on certain species to validate this. There are certainly many species that will never progress past stubs as individual articles, not even with decades more of scientific work. Thus, I took the mergist approach and combined species into a genus. On the other hand, I do not necessarily have a problem with what you're doing. I'd like to hear your opinion, though. MiltonT ( talk) 02:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bifrenaria atropurpurea, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Bifrenaria. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 20:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Hi Phn. I've looked at your contributions, and I thought; WOW! Thank you for your amazing efforts in improving Wikipedia. There are people like me who really appreciate your hard word. Kind regards, LouriePieterse ( talk) 18:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Fauna Barnstar | |
I thought you also deserve this one for your contributions to the fauna section of Wikipedia. Thanks for creating all those articles! LouriePieterse ( talk) 18:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC) |
Hi, its great to see all the new pages that you are creating but many of them lack any sort of verification. Can you consider adding sources to your new pages, in accordance with WP:V. Thanks, Them From Space 23:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without
citing a
reliable source, as you did to
Epidendrum pseudepidendrum, is not consistent with our policy of
verifiability. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with
Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Eeekster (
talk)
04:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Fauna Barnstar | |
For making articles about plants instead of about your teachers bosom. I dream of horses ( talk) 15:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC) |
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bulbophyllum pectenveneris, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Sunipia. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.
This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 02:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Tank you for your attention to the article about the genus Cattleya of the Orchidaceae. I agree with you that the category Epidendroideae is rather large, and that a smaller category might be more appropriate. I have, however, reverted your change of category to Cattleya because including this page in this category is redundant: all of the listed species in the category are (or should be) already linked on the Cattleya page. It might make sense to add this page to the categories Epidendreae (the tribe) or Laeliinae (the subtribe), but these categories do not yet exist. (Would you care to make them?) A Cattleya Alliance category may be a good idea, but there seems to be varied opinions over exactly what that would mean: the RHS has apparently tried to promulgate an "alliance" idea as distinct from a breeding group, which was the original meaning of the term. — Jay L09 ( talk) 20:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, Phn229/Archive 1 and thank you for your contributions on
plant- or
botany-related articles. I'd like to invite you to become a part of
WikiProject Plants, a
WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of plant-related articles on Wikipedia.
If you would like to help out and participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! ~~~~ |
Just noticed you were still creating plant articles, so...
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Cymbidium erythraeum, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Cymbidium. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.
This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 02:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! Thanks for creating all those orchid stubs. It's great to get all these stubs rolling in to the project. I just had a few requests for future article creation. See this of mine that standardized the article to the WP:PLANTS template.
Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again! -- Rkitko ( talk) 00:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with your philosophy. Rather than making unreferenced stubs and then maybe going back to them, please have a reference when you create it. Better yet, if all you're going to write is " Gymnadenia widderi is a species of orchid." then don't make the article at all. Please keep the information merged into the genus article until there's actually enough information to warrant a separate article. That is abolutely useless unless you can have a reference and more information. Although the species may be notable, that does not mean it needs a separate article when the genus article has more information. How about redirecting to Gymnadenia? That has more information and would actually be useful to readers. Thanks, Reywas92 Talk 19:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Good work on orchids articles; keep it up. Pzrmd ( talk) 08:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Greetings. I noticed you imported Scuticaria (orchid) from Citizendium. I tried to find wikipedia policy on CZ imports, but was unable to find any. So I asked the question here. Could you provide that discussion with some info about the policy? Thanks!-- Marcus 13:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just a small thing: in lists of habitat countries for your zoology articles, can you please make it a habit to not link to disambiguate "Macedonia", but "[[Macedonia (country)|]]"? Macedonia itself is a dab page. Cheers, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Ukraine Barnstar | |
I give you this Ukraine Barnstar for writing tons of new articles about Ukrainian Beetles the past months! Keep it up! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 17:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC) |
BorgQueen ( talk) 11:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I noticed that in a lot of the botanical articles you've created, the botanist abbreviations need to be disambiguated - for example Ames just leads to a disambig page - the link really should be to [[Oakes Ames (botanist)|Ames]]. Thanks. Colonies Chris ( talk) 12:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Hi, I will correctly link those abbreviations from now on. Thank you. Phn229 ( talk) 20:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The website, culturesheet.org, is not a Reliable Source since it is a self-published open wiki. Wikipedia:RS#Self-published and questionable sources is very specific about that, so it should not be used as a reference. Also, it should not be added as an external link. You can read WP:ELNO to learn more. Thanks, First Light ( talk) 02:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Last geometric statement of Jacobi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caustic ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The article Synodontis euptera has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
|
Hi, I noticed that you created Parakysis notialis, but listed no sources for the information contained in the article. According to Wikipedia's content policies, all information must be verifiable from reliable sources. Therefore, it's necessary to cite your sources so other editors can check that the information included in the article is correct and matches the sources used. Information not previously published in such sources is prohibited as original research, since other editors can't verify it. Unsourced information may be challenged and removed at any time, and articles that can't be verified are likely to be deleted. Guidance on how to cite your sources is available, and if you need any further help, feel free to leave a message on my talk page.-- Unscented ( talk) 19:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Entomocorus radiosus, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Cssiitcic ( talk) 17:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Trachelyichthys exilis, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.scotcat.com/factsheets/t_exilis.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 17:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Heteropneustes fossilis, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.scotcat.com/factsheets/h_fossilis.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 22:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Erethistes hara, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.scotcat.com/factsheets/hara_hara.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 04:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Leporacanthicus triactis, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.scotcat.com/factsheets/leporacanthicus_triactis.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 16:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Phn, on the newpage patrol I saw that you're creating sets of new articles for the fish family Loricariidae. :) It looks like all of the articles have a space between "Loricariidae" and the ending period of the lead sentence, though, a little typo that bugs me. Maybe you could alter your prototype article (I don't know how many more pages you'll be creating) so that it doesn't contain this little typo? Just a thought, cheers! Jamie ☆ S93 22:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not usually worth it to respond to a copyvio notice here on your talk page. Leave the message on the talk page of the person who gave you the notice in the first place. DS ( talk) 00:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I haven't updated Wikipedia in a while and to my surprise all my genus articles now have species names. Prior to my contributions on Wikipedia, catfish articles were incredibly sparse. Thus, I devoted a fair bit of time to the wholesale building of an article for each genus of catfish, though I never did finish. The structure of Wikipedia's catfish articles mostly is based on the work I've done, and few meaningful contributions have followed on most of these articles. I chose to restrict my work to the genus level for various reasons. One of the most obvious ones is the pure number of species of catfishes that exist (over 3000), while genera "only" numbered almost 500, and again I still have to do a fair number of them. Also, I did not think an incredibly small blurb on a small species page would be much more valuable than having these small blurbs combined on a single page. Unfortunately, the amount of information for most of the thousands of species of catfishes are incredibly sparse, and some aren't mentioned more than a couple times in the scientific literature, much less on the internet. Although some people have the opinion that every species deserves an article, in my opinion there is simply not enough information on certain species to validate this. There are certainly many species that will never progress past stubs as individual articles, not even with decades more of scientific work. Thus, I took the mergist approach and combined species into a genus. On the other hand, I do not necessarily have a problem with what you're doing. I'd like to hear your opinion, though. MiltonT ( talk) 02:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bifrenaria atropurpurea, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Bifrenaria. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.
This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 20:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Hi Phn. I've looked at your contributions, and I thought; WOW! Thank you for your amazing efforts in improving Wikipedia. There are people like me who really appreciate your hard word. Kind regards, LouriePieterse ( talk) 18:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Fauna Barnstar | |
I thought you also deserve this one for your contributions to the fauna section of Wikipedia. Thanks for creating all those articles! LouriePieterse ( talk) 18:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC) |
Hi, its great to see all the new pages that you are creating but many of them lack any sort of verification. Can you consider adding sources to your new pages, in accordance with WP:V. Thanks, Them From Space 23:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without
citing a
reliable source, as you did to
Epidendrum pseudepidendrum, is not consistent with our policy of
verifiability. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with
Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Eeekster (
talk)
04:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Fauna Barnstar | |
For making articles about plants instead of about your teachers bosom. I dream of horses ( talk) 15:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC) |
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bulbophyllum pectenveneris, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Sunipia. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.
This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 02:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Tank you for your attention to the article about the genus Cattleya of the Orchidaceae. I agree with you that the category Epidendroideae is rather large, and that a smaller category might be more appropriate. I have, however, reverted your change of category to Cattleya because including this page in this category is redundant: all of the listed species in the category are (or should be) already linked on the Cattleya page. It might make sense to add this page to the categories Epidendreae (the tribe) or Laeliinae (the subtribe), but these categories do not yet exist. (Would you care to make them?) A Cattleya Alliance category may be a good idea, but there seems to be varied opinions over exactly what that would mean: the RHS has apparently tried to promulgate an "alliance" idea as distinct from a breeding group, which was the original meaning of the term. — Jay L09 ( talk) 20:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, Phn229/Archive 1 and thank you for your contributions on
plant- or
botany-related articles. I'd like to invite you to become a part of
WikiProject Plants, a
WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of plant-related articles on Wikipedia.
If you would like to help out and participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! ~~~~ |
Just noticed you were still creating plant articles, so...
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Cymbidium erythraeum, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Cymbidium. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.
This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 02:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi there! Thanks for creating all those orchid stubs. It's great to get all these stubs rolling in to the project. I just had a few requests for future article creation. See this of mine that standardized the article to the WP:PLANTS template.
Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again! -- Rkitko ( talk) 00:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with your philosophy. Rather than making unreferenced stubs and then maybe going back to them, please have a reference when you create it. Better yet, if all you're going to write is " Gymnadenia widderi is a species of orchid." then don't make the article at all. Please keep the information merged into the genus article until there's actually enough information to warrant a separate article. That is abolutely useless unless you can have a reference and more information. Although the species may be notable, that does not mean it needs a separate article when the genus article has more information. How about redirecting to Gymnadenia? That has more information and would actually be useful to readers. Thanks, Reywas92 Talk 19:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Good work on orchids articles; keep it up. Pzrmd ( talk) 08:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Greetings. I noticed you imported Scuticaria (orchid) from Citizendium. I tried to find wikipedia policy on CZ imports, but was unable to find any. So I asked the question here. Could you provide that discussion with some info about the policy? Thanks!-- Marcus 13:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, just a small thing: in lists of habitat countries for your zoology articles, can you please make it a habit to not link to disambiguate "Macedonia", but "[[Macedonia (country)|]]"? Macedonia itself is a dab page. Cheers, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
Ukraine Barnstar | |
I give you this Ukraine Barnstar for writing tons of new articles about Ukrainian Beetles the past months! Keep it up! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 17:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC) |
BorgQueen ( talk) 11:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi - I noticed that in a lot of the botanical articles you've created, the botanist abbreviations need to be disambiguated - for example Ames just leads to a disambig page - the link really should be to [[Oakes Ames (botanist)|Ames]]. Thanks. Colonies Chris ( talk) 12:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC) Hi, I will correctly link those abbreviations from now on. Thank you. Phn229 ( talk) 20:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The website, culturesheet.org, is not a Reliable Source since it is a self-published open wiki. Wikipedia:RS#Self-published and questionable sources is very specific about that, so it should not be used as a reference. Also, it should not be added as an external link. You can read WP:ELNO to learn more. Thanks, First Light ( talk) 02:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Last geometric statement of Jacobi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caustic ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The article Synodontis euptera has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.