User talk:Indici

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Indici! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Guido Poppe - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright issue - Guido Poppe

Hi. I have been adding references to some biographical pages to help with the Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons project and came across your article on Guido Poppe. In looking for references I noticed that much of the original article appears to be identical to the content on http://www.poppe-images.com/?t=5. The article's talk page does not contain any reference to permission to use that content, so it would appear to be an infringement of the site's Terms and Conditions. Wikipedia:Copyright violations states that, having detected this, I should remove the offending content etc etc but before I start down that route I wonder if you have a connection with the originating site, seeing as you claim that the image of Guido Poppe is your own work? If you are able then it would be better to seek permission for use of the text and, assuming permission is granted, indicate that on the Talk page to prevent the page from being deleted. Please advise. Thanks! KenBailey (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Conchology, Inc.

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Conchology, Inc., requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Zachlipton (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Conchology, Inc.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Conchology, Inc.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Conchology, Inc.. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Guido Poppe

The article Guido Poppe has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources, despite being tagged since October 2009. Searches have failed to find substantiation for claims of significance made in the article.

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Conchology,_Inc.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Conchology,_Inc.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problems with File:Guido Poppe.jpg

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Guido Poppe.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.poppe-images.com/?t=5. As a copyright violation, File:Guido Poppe.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Guido Poppe.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at File talk:Guido Poppe.jpg and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at File talk:Guido Poppe.jpg with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on File talk:Guido Poppe.jpg.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. Snek01 (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, that text above is just formal information. I do believe that you are the copyright holder of the image, but it is necessary to prove the evidence that its is so. One of the possibilities is to send an email with permission to the email address as mentioned above. Thank your for your cooperation and have a nice day. --Snek01 (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm the owner the image.

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Cantrainea alfi) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Cantrainea alfi, Indici!

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

Please add the East China Sea type locality from the Worms database. Can you explain why you uploaded a clearly copyrighted photograph?

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

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I own that image. I'll add the type locality as well. --Indici (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that's ok then if you're either Guido Poppe or Ph. Poppe. I suspect that could explain a lot about your editing here. And I shall address that later. But either way, if you own that image, I'm afraid you will have to prove it to our OTRS Team, as it as clearly labelled as copyright 'G & P H Poppe 2016'. I see you've now uploaded a this cropped version with no copyright claim visible on it. Now, it's great if you're part of the publication team for this new taxon and are making images available. It will be really helpful But I'm afraid you will need to demonstrate this - not to me but to the folks at Wikimedia Commons who care about protecting the rights of individual photographers - maybe even yours. It's a simple - if slow - process to follow, and you have received that guidance in earlier posts to your talk page regarding deleted images, I see. It would be a shame if an editor gets blocked from uploading images, especially if they are the legitimate copyright holders. They just need to show that's the case, and I'm rapidly coming to appreciate that you can and should. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Homalopoma

You don't link Homalopoma.Xx236 (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Homalopoma lini) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Homalopoma lini, Indici!

Wikipedia editor Bennv3771 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please add the Template:Gastropod-stub at the very end of your stubs on snail species, as well as the WP:WikiProject Animals template to the talk pages.

To reply, leave a comment on Bennv3771's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Bennv3771 (talk) 10:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

stud added --Indici (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Homalopoma lunellum) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Homalopoma lunellum, Indici!

Wikipedia editor Bennv3771 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please also be careful not to leave all these random blank spaces inside wikilinks in your stubs on snail species.

To reply, leave a comment on Bennv3771's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Bennv3771 (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

fixed the space issue. --Indici (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Homalopoma mactanense) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Homalopoma mactanense, Indici!

Wikipedia editor Bennv3771 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

One last issue with your snail stubs, please stop using WP:SORTKEYs when categorizing them in the sea snail category. They are not the main articles for this subject. Only the article on Sea snails should be sortkeyed.

To reply, leave a comment on Bennv3771's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Bennv3771 (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding my above message, please see this edit on how to remove the inappropriate sortkeys in all your snail stubs. The Category:Sea snails currently has over 100 stubs that have been misidentified as the main topic of the category due to the sortkeys that will need to be removed from those stubs. Bennv3771 (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

thank you for the info. --Indici (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Homalopoma himuquitanense) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Homalopoma himuquitanense, Indici!

Wikipedia editor Bennv3771 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for creating all these stubs. I understand you want to help expand Wikipedia's content, but I would suggest you slow down a little and make sure the stubs are of good quality. In this particular stub for example, you copy-pasted the contents from Homalopoma concors without changing anything, not even the species name.

To reply, leave a comment on Bennv3771's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Bennv3771 (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out. A work in progress. --Indici (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Homalopoma parvum) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Homalopoma parvum, Indici!

Wikipedia editor Bennv3771 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good job with your new stubs! Most of the previous issues have been fixed, but it would be helpful if you tag them as stubs by adding {{Template:Gastropod-stub}} at the end of the articles.

To reply, leave a comment on Bennv3771's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Bennv3771 (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Added to most stubs the corresponding tag ({{Template:Gastropod-stub}}). Robertgombos (talk) 04:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Robertgombos: Noted. Thank you. Bennv3771 (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm working on all the pages. Trying to take in the suggestions given. --Indici (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Copyrighted images

All the images in your stubs have a copyright claim right on the image itself. Please do not upload copyrighted works on commons and claim it is free use. If you are the copyright holder, you must inform Commons:OTRS that you intend to change it to a free license. Merely taking a screenshot of someone else's image does not make you the copyright holder of the image. Bennv3771 (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I highly recommend you do not add anymore images until the deletion discussion over the images you've uploaded to commons is resolved. Bennv3771 (talk) 05:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Some of the images have a clear watermark, others have no watermark but are uploaded as 'own work' as well. This needs to be explained ASAP. Indici please respond. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 01:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I've ownership of all the images uploaded. It seems that some individuals are not happy with the copyright notice from the images. I'll remove this and re-upload the images without the notice. --Indici (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

NO!!! This is not the way to go about dealing with images that you say you own. You know you own them; and the authors of the scientific articles know they own them. But none of us know conclusively whether they are one and the same. So, you need to demonstrate this relationship to those you upload the images to, and you can do that privately via . The advice that @Bennv3771 and Insertcleverphrasehere: have given is to respond at Wikimedia Commons and prove, very simply to them, who you are and that you own them. You can do this by emailing them from your professional email address, and linking to the conchology website that you and I know it is published on. Once that's done there should be very few further issues - apart from your need to address the very important matter of WP:COI declaration, plus and halting the creation of stubs for subspecies and forms that I have explained in detail in my two posts to you below. Please understand that we want to be supportive of editors with expertise who don't quite understand how things are done here. Failing to follow the guidance given by other experienced editors tends to lead to the unfortunate consequence of editors losing their rights to add or upload content. And in your case I do think that would be a real shame as you clearly have a lot to contribute to Wikipedia in the field of malacology. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Please respond and/or address the problems

Please address the issues I have repeatedly raised over your stubs or at least respond here on your talk page. It is taking a strain to have to repeatedly correct these issues given the large number of stubs you are creating. I was glad to see some of the issues I raised previously addressed, but they've returned in your latest batch of stubs. To be fair, the issues are minor (random blank spaces in the wikilinks, not adding stub template), but the WP:SORTKEY issue needs to be fixed. Please stop adding sortkeys to the categories. If you are not sure how to remove them, just follow this edit. Bennv3771 (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

okay, will try to be more careful when inputting the information. Mostly they are typos when working on the many pages. --Indici (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Calocochlia chocolatina) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Calocochlia chocolatina, Indici!

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

Please work on this in draftspace, then move back.

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

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

extra information will be added to this landsnail. --Indici (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Cyclonidea notabilis

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Indici, thanks for creating Cyclonidea notabilis!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thanks for all your hard work!

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

Boleyn (talk) 05:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

thank you - I'll improve the page. --Indici (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Subcancilla ruberorbis) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Subcancilla ruberorbis, Indici!

Wikipedia editor Bennv3771 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please stop adding inappropriate WP:SORTKEYs.

To reply, leave a comment on Bennv3771's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Bennv3771 (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

removed the red link on the page. --Indici (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Subcancilla bellulavaria

Hello! Subcancilla bellulavaria begins "Imbricaria bellulavaria is a species of...". Is this a typo, or some quirk of snail naming I'm not aware of? Thanks and happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

the shell has originally been described with genus Subcancilla, overtime the genus assigning has been changed to Imbricaria. As shown in Worms. --Indici (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Subcancilla zetema) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Subcancilla zetema, Indici!

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

This article seems to have the same quirk/confusion where the title doesn't match the first sentence or taxobox...

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

Learn more about page curation.

Ajpolino (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This is correct, the genus has changed. updated the info. --Indici (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Inquisitor harrymonti) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Inquisitor harrymonti, Indici!

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

Something seems to be wrong with the picture here? It isn't showing up on my screen. That said, it looks fine on Commons, and the Commons page says it's used on this page. Is it showing up for you? Maybe it's a problem with my browser for some reason...

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

Learn more about page curation.

Ajpolino (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Corrected the issue with the image. --Indici (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Cypraea leucodon forma escotoi) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Cypraea leucodon forma escotoi, Indici!

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

The WoRMS page indicates this scientific name is invalid, a synonym of Cypraea leucodon leocodon. And, it's probably a good idea to merge this topic and all subspecies to Cypraea leucodon, rather than create a plethora of stubs. We already have online databases, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.

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

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

it is normal that Worms does not accept a form name of a species. But this has been described a form name to represent a localized form of the shell and the name is in active use today. --Indici (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Animalparty is absolutely correct to advise you to merge this content into the page for Cypraea leucodon. Yes, it's a valid form name, but that doesn't mean it merits a separate page. Think of it from the point of a user who wants information on a taxon - keeping it all together in one place helps them considerably. Just have a redirect from the form name to the species page (with a section on the form(s) in that page) is the appropriate way to go here - at least until such time as there's so much information that a fork to the form is warranted. And we're far from that right now. In a similar vein, please also note my comment lower down, asking you to take care not to use synonyms for new articles. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dl2000 (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

(To be specific, this is not WP:3RR but mass unexplained reverts of justified edits`) Dl2000 (talk) 01:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

apologizes. Only trying to input the correct information. --Indici (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Indici, please stop reverting everyone's edits on your stubs. We (CambridgeBayWeather, Plantdrew, Bennv3771) are trying to help. More information (like img src) may be easily added by further edits. As Dl2000 already highlighted, please stop edit warring. Thanks! Robertgombos (talk) 07:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for responding and for going through your old articles to fix the issues. It's greatly appreciated. Bennv3771 (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Fusivoluta lemaitrei) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Fusivoluta lemaitrei, Indici!

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

Please be careful in future not to use a synonym as the main title of an article. I've moved this for you now.Please see the additional ref in the Worms database which will enable you to add to this article that its a gastropod found of the east coast of S Africa.

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

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

thank you. --Indici (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Please take more care, and don't create pages for sub-species without good reason

Hello there. Whilst it's really great to see you hard at work, creating new articles on invertebrate species (and I really don't want to discourage that), I do have to ask you to stop creating articles - especially about forms and subspecies - based upon invalid taxonomic names. Some of these duplicate existing article content, and are doubly unnecessary.

If you don't understand synonymy and whether or not a taxon name is accepted or regarded as invalid by the scientific community, I invite you to take some time to familiarise yourself with the topic before continuing. I also ask you put content about subspecies, forms and varieties into the page for the relevant species so it's all together and so that users here can find it. You should read Wikipedia:Notability (natural sciences), which instructs that: Individual versions of a particular species shall be written about within the article about the species unless there is plenty of sourced information about that version (example: poodle is a separate article from dog). This include versions of a particular microbe, including various strains. You should consider this as applies to all subspecies, forms, varieties, cultivars, etc.

By way of an example, looking through the list of mollusc-related articles you have been rapidly creating recently, I found you made Conus nobilis abbai on 21st August. But if you had properly read and understood this reference that you actually based it upon, you would have appreciated that the status of this taxon is listed as unaccepted by the scientific community. A couple of lines down, you'd have seen that Conus nobilis victor is the accepted taxonomic name for this subspecies. But, even then, you should not be creating pages for subspecies, even when valid. In this instance I would have expected a competent editor to have checked and found that the page on Conus nobilis already contains an entry for many of its known subspecies, and that Conus nobilis victor is listed there. That is where your reference should have gone. I would not normally expect a redirect to be created from any subspecies to the parent species as this just bloats up search results without delivering anything worthwhile.

As an extra observation, why you included the identical Worms citation in both 'References' and 'External links' is beyond me. It only needs to go in once. Nor should your inclusion of the original monograph have gone into a section entitled 'Original description', and the Poppe G.T. & Tagaro (2011) reference could either have been used as a reference, assuming you had access to it, or be listed in 'Further reading'. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest - please declare

Further to my post left above, asking you not to create these new articles on forms and subspecies of molluscs, I have gradually come to appreciate that you are promoting many articles where the taxonomic name is authored by Poppe, G. Your answer to this earlier review comment of mine suggests there may be a very close relationship between the two.

We have a behavioural policy on Wikipedia which you should read at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, noting that you are expected to declare your interests and involvement in any articles you edit. You may do this on your talk page, or in each edit summary at pages you edit.

In my post immediately above, I thought I was addressing a person with little taxonomic understanding; I am now concerned that you are creating articles which promote mollusc subspecies and forms which you or someone close to you may have authored, but which are not accepted by the scientific community. This would be of far greater concern, as Wikipedia is not here to either promote an individual (such as Guido Poppe or their work; I have just flagged that article for a potential WP:COI). Do please read WP:NOTPROMOTION. Wikipedia certainly not should be use as a means of trying to gain legitimacy for either a nomenclatural system which the scientific community does not accept, or for overly promoting the achievements of one person, especially if it is the editor themselves. So, please declare your involvement in new pages on taxa you do create (which is otherwise fantastic and very welcome, by the way!), but please don't create any more pages on invalid taxa about subspecies which you or a colleague have named - these should all go in the species page. And by invalid/unaccepted, I mean where the name is not accepted by scientific consensus, whatever you might personally believe or have helped publish. If there isn't a page for a species, please create that first before adding in subspecies etc. If you do have a Conflict of Interest to declare, I advise you not to edit the page on Guido Poppe any more, but instead to place a Wikipedia:Edit requests on its Talk page, asking for the necessary edits to be made for you.

Finally, creating a user page for yourself, and declaring any malacological expertise and interests you may have, would have the added benefit of helping editors like me who initially assume naievity on the part of an amateur editor. I am genuinely interested in supporting scientist and experts add data to Wikipedia - providing it's done in the appropriate way. A little bit of support in the right place can go a long way to improve this encyclopaedia for everyone. So shout if you need any further guidance. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

okay then - we stop. bye. --Indici (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

To be clear: I wouldn't want you to stop your contributions to Wikipedia, nor of sharing your obvious malacalogical expertise with the wider world. You have clearly made a significant contribution in your field, and through your many publications. I only urge you to follow the guidelines we have here, that apply to every editor (including the professional Antarctic geologist who I am currently supporting and mentoring). If I can assist you, or offer support, feel free to email me directly if you prefer, and I'll help if I can. But maybe that one article referred to above should not be edited by you directly without making clearer the connection between Wikipedian and professional biologist. I'm aware that when we write things here, their tone may not always come across as was intended, which was both to guide and to support. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Cypraea jandeprezi

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Indici, thanks for creating Cypraea jandeprezi!

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

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

Boleyn (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

added a reference to an information page. --Indici (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Cypraea lefaiti

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Indici, thanks for creating Cypraea lefaiti!

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

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

Boleyn (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

added a reference --Indici (talk) 06:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Diancta crookshanksi

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Indici, thanks for creating Diancta crookshanksi!

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

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

Boleyn (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

added a reference to researchgate. --Indici (talk) 06:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Diplommatina lourinae

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Indici, thanks for creating Diplommatina lourinae!

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

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

Boleyn (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

added a reference to researchgate. --Indici (talk) 06:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Lyria boucheti (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lyria

Lyria brianoi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lyria

Lyria exorata (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lyria

Lyria pauljohnsoni (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lyria

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

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

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

Conflict of Interest - 2 years on - response now required

Two years ago (see above), I invited you to make a very simple declaration as to any potential Conflict of Interest you may have in adding huge amounts of detail to the article about Guido Poppe. Rather than respond to that formal request, you chose simply to cease editing. As you have recently resumed adding more detailed content again, I now need to repeat my question to you and ask again whether you have an undisclosed connection to Guido Poppe?

See WP:COI to follow our guidelines on declaring any connection on your user talk page. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)