User talk:JoJan/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Pearl of Lao Tzu

Hi again JoJan, here I am again, bothering you about another bivalve, sorry about that, but I was reading this article and attempting to put in a little biological perspective, when I noticed that a lot of the text in "Chinese legend of the pearl" is copied verbatim from one of the sources given: [1]. Thanks for all your help. Invertzoo (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed several parts of the text, especially the history section, are at first sight a copyvio. However, I'm not so sure of this, as the photos were uploaded by user:Pearlowner, who claims to posses the pearl (R.L. Horn). Then the text on the website, could also be written by the same person as stated on the bottom line (Website Developed & Maintained by R. L. Horn II ©2007 ). It also states a date 2007, while the wikipedia article, as its history indicates, is older. So who wrote the text first ? Or who copied whom ? The best solution is to rewrite most of the article so as to avoid a possible copyvio. I could do it, but, as a non-native speaker, this is for me a hell of a task ( my native language is Dutch). Perhaps you could give it a try. Anyway, it will be much easier for you than for me. JoJan (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

OK Let me see what I can do, given a bit of time, hopefully I may get inspired to do it. The article does need a bit more NPOV, and a rewrite could provide that, as well as keeping it clean in terms of copyright. I do however find it quite hard to write about something I know nothing about, even when it is only a rewrite. Ah well, that's life.... Invertzoo (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue periwinkle

Hi again JoJan. This morning I have been looking for already-existing articles to add to Project Gastropod. I found this one on Blue periwinkle, but not only did it have a circular link, but as you can tell by the childish-seeming original text, it was copied practically verbatim from a children's page at the Australian Museum website: [2]. I already started re-doing it, but perhaps you could drop a line to the editor who first put it up there to let him know this kind of thing is not acceptable? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The original contributor was a newbie and I don't want to bite him for a beginner's mistake. He has since grown into a valuable contributor who has earned a collection of barnstars. JoJan (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, well then, that's good! As I say to animals and small children "No biting, no fighting!" I am glad I referred it to you and that you researched him, thank you JoJan. At any rate the good thing in the end is that I found the article and fixed it up quite a bit, so now it looks respectable. Invertzoo (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Knights' Square (Pisa)

Hello. Thanks for the corrections on the page, but was not a machine translation, but was I that translated and modified the source text :-( I know my english is not good, or good enough to seem machine-generated? (User:Lonewolf1976) 18:13, 8 January 2008 (CEST)

Thanks

Thank you so much for that Barnstar JoJan! Actually, I know you have also done a great job on several Portugal-related articles, like Architecture of Portugal, Monastery of Jesus of Setúbal, Beja, Portugal, Estremoz and Igreja de São Julião (Setúbal). Cheers! Fsouza (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

New Taxonomy

Thanks JoJan, it's nice to see it up. I will do my best with using it. Invertzoo (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

List of prehistoric gastropods

Hi JoJan, I just started working on cleaning up this article. First I had to remove 7 identical images of a fish:

Zoarces viviparus is a modern species of the genus Zoarces

. That struck me as an odd sort of mistake or vandalism... ?? Then I was looking at the list itself and I see that there are many genera that are still extant, and yet are marked with a dagger. I will go through and take off all the daggers which are next to extant genera, or at any rate, genera that I myself happen to know are extant. But does the inclusion of extant genera mean that this is no longer a "list of prehistoric gastropods"? I mean does the title of the list need changing? Or do these genera need to be excluded? What do you think?

P.S. I also see I need to remove extraneous images of this same fish from another 3 articles: the lists of prehistoric annelids, echinoderms and foraminifera. Invertzoo (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at this very long list and checking the first entry Aaleniella in the Paleobiology Database [3], I found out that this genus does not belong to the Gastropoda, but actually is an extinct crustacean genus from the Podocopida. Probably there are more of these. The extant genera you've found probably are also known from prehistoric fossils. In this case, the title could be changed into "Gastropod genera known from prehistoric fossils". I advise you to take up contact with the original contributor User:Abyssal leviathin and explain the problem to him. I guess this list will need a lot of work. JoJan (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks JoJan for this; it is much appreciated. I have "talked" some with Abyssal leviathin already, since I first asked you about all this and I get the general impression he is not interested in doing any of the cleanup himself. Also I wanted to ask you one more thing that I personally have a problem with the use of the word "prehistoric" in the title of this and a few other similar lists that this editor created. "Prehistory" is simply the time span before written history, so it is often applied to times of just a few thousand years ago. I would much rather use the word "fossil" which I think is more specific and more accurate. It's more scientific than the word "prehistoric" which to me sounds amateurish in this context. I am tempted to move the article to a new title, "List of fossil gastropod genera". Do you have an opinion on this? Thanks a lot JoJan for always being prepared to try to help me with these problems. Invertzoo (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. "Prehistoric" does sound amateurish.On the other hand, the name you're proposing suggests that these genera are all extinct, which is not the case, as you have shown. Therefore I suggest the following title : "List of gastropod genera with fossil records" and a mention in the lead paragraph that some of these genera, or at least some species in those genera, are still extant. I think this may be closer to the intention of the article. JoJan (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again JoJan, Last night I found out that the list is currently only of MARINE genera. Although he does not give any references on the article itself, Abbyssal Leviathin says on his talk page that these lists he is doing are copied from "Jack Sepkoski's 2002 compendium of marine fossil genera". I am assuming that the list is copied verbatim. Is copyright is an issue for us on something like a list?? I do hope AL has not copied the rest of the text verbatim as well... I will try to see if I can find something similar on the web, and maybe this coming Friday I can see if I can find out at the museum, as I am currently volunteering in Invertebrate Paleontology. So anyway, if we end up letting the article stand, I suppose we would have to call it, "List of marine gastropod genera with fossil records" or "List of marine gastropod genera in the fossil record"...

Also the introductory paragraphs say that the list includes every genera that was originally thought to be a gastropod, but which has since been identified as another kind of organism, so maybe that was the case with Aaleniella? It sure would be helpful if that was indicated in some way, perhaps with an asterisk. Maybe it was indicated on the original Sepkoski list.

Oh, and by the way, I discovered yesterday evening that a very large percentage of the listed genera that are "blue links", are in fact only linked to articles on Greek Heroes and that kind of thing, including in one case a popular music group. Very few of the blue links are linked to actual gastropod articles. To clean up this article properly represents a huge amount of work. I think first we should find out if the whole thing is a copyright violation before I do too much more work on it. Invertzoo (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this list constitutes a copyvio. Checking at Sepkoski's Online Genus Database, it says "You are welcome to use these data with proper citation of Sepkoski's work. It would also be appropriate to acknowledge this online database". I've added both to the references section of the list. But cleaning up this list will be a tough nut to crack. This morning (European time) I've cleaned up all the false links in the A section and it took me more than one hour (using pop-ups to work fast). Then I didn't even check yet in the Paleobiology Database if all these genera actually are gastropods. For example the crustacean genus Aaleniella is marked in Sepkoski's database as an Archaegastropoda. Checking further in de GBIF database, Aaleniella is confirmed as belonging to the Podocopida [4] . If we have to do this for every genus, I wonder if we'll reach the end of it before the year ends. Furthermore, I have great doubts about the benefit of using "nomen nudum", "nomen oblitum" and "nomen dubium" in a list (I didn't use the Latin plural : nomina nudi etc. in an English text). If you want to clean up this list, fine with me. But I have better things to do. A comprise could be : cleaning up all the false links and perhaps the daggers before still extant genera. Your opinion ? JoJan (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks JoJan. Yes, I just now myself found the same website with the info from Sepkoski. To clean up the list properly would be a really daunting amount of work. I do not have much interest in trying to plough through the entire thing properly, although I don't mind trying to remove the daggers on all the genera that I happen to recognize as extant. I have done part of that already. I do think we should change the name of the article though. Did you read my previous two paragraphs in my question to you? Here they are edited down: "Last night I found out that the list is currently only of MARINE genera. I suppose we would have to call it, "List of marine gastropod genera with fossil records" or "List of marine gastropod genera in the fossil record"... "The introductory paragraphs do say (I have clarified this) that the list includes every genus that was originally thought to be a gastropod, even those which have since been identified as another kind of organism, so I guess that was the case with Aaleniella." Still it is quite unhelpful to include those as far as I am concerned. But I am not a paleontologist. Invertzoo (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As to the title, I have a slight preference for "List of marine gastropod genera in the fossil record". And as to the cleaning up : if you do the daggers, I'll do the false links. I was in the middle of uploading a lot of photos to the Commons, but this will have to wait a bit. JoJan (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, good, I like that title better too, so I will go ahead and move it now if that is OK with you. Please don't interrupt what you are doing for this, it can wait. Right now I am only going through and taking the daggers off of the extant gastropod genera which I actually recognize, and that I notice the names of, I am sure I am missing many that I don't notice, or am not familiar with the names of. Invertzoo (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

More on List of marine gastropod genera in the fossil record

Hi JoJan. I am still working on taking out the daggers where needed. However I wanted to say that the list is 95 kilobytes long, and has been tagged with a "Wikipedia article size" tag. It is rather slow to load. Do we need to split this into two or even three articles? Also, can you tell me what code do you use to make the entries go into multiple columns? Currently the list has that in some sections and not in others. Thanks for all your help. Invertzoo (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The move is OK. Never mind the 95 kilobytes. I've also made a few very long lists, such as the orchid list List of Dendrobium species, which is 51 kb long. The length of a list is determined by the number of accepted species and there's nothing we can do about it. As to coding columns, I advise you to look a the codes used at the end of the list, under the headers X, Y, or Z. More help on : Template:Column. Actually, it comes down to counting the total number of species for each letter A, B, C, etc. and then divide by the number of columns of the list (in this case : 5, the 5th column being empty). Then you'll know where to put the necessary code, such as {{col-4-of-5}} . The code is easy, applying it however may be a bit tedious. JoJan (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks JoJan. Thanks so much for getting rid of false links in the "A"s, it certainly is much better like that! I have started dividing some of the alphabet sections into columns: it is a bit hard to do all the counting on the long ones isn't it. I see mine did not come out perfectly level on the fourth column, but either I or someone else can tweak it later, or leave it because I assume more genera will perhaps be added to this list gradually over time so I guess it is good to show that there is room for expansion. Invertzoo (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Mollusca

Hello JoJan. As you will see from the below, I've been referred to you as someone who could advise about the Mollusca question. Do you have any thoughts? Cheers GrahamBould (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi InvertZoo. Would like your opinion on changes I'm thinking of doing to the high level Mollusc pages, but am a bit nervous precisely because it is at such a high level. 1. Rename Caudofoveata to Chaetodermomorpha (with Caudofoveata as a synonym), 2. Make Chaetodermomorpha a subclass of Aplacophora (and remove duplicate families from one of them), 3. Remove Caudofoveata from the class list in Mollusca. Any thoughts? There are inconsistencies at present. Ideas based on ITIS Cheers GrahamBould (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Graham. Oh gee, this is a hard question. I would not just assume that ITIS is using the most "well-regarded" molluscan taxonomy right now; in fact they may be quite a bit behind the times. I would address this question to JoJan, who would give you a better opinion than I can. He is at: [5] ....best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, the taxonomy of the Mollusca is in a flux. The taxonomy of the Gastropoda is using unranked monophyletic clades for taxa above the rank of superfamily (see : Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005). I guess we may expect the same for the other classes in the near future.

As to the Caudofoveata, I found this website [6] with a taxonomy and this book : Jones, A.M.; Baxter, J.M. (1987). Molluscs: Caudofoveata, Solenogastres, Polyplacophora and Scaphopoda: keys and notes for the identification of the species. Synopses of the British fauna (new series), 37. E.J. Brill; W. Backhuys: London, UK. ISBN 90-04-08197-6. vi, 154 pp.

While older publication used Caudofoveata as the accepted name, newer publications (2006), seem to prefer Chaetodermomorpha (Falcidens halanychi, a new species of Chaetodermomorpha (=Caudofoveata) (Mollusca) from the northwest Atlantic Ocean 1 ; Marine Biology Research, Volume 2, Issue 5 October 2006 , pages 303 - 315).

I found also this text (dating from 2004) :

"Another special case that arises from an invalid synonym being assigned the parental hierarchy of its valid counterpart is when the adopted parent is at the same taxonomic

level as the invalid name. For example, class Solenogastres is invalid. Its valid synonym is subclass Chaetodermomorpha. The parent taxon for both these names is class Aplacophora. Since a class can not have a taxonomic parent which is also a class, .... "

As you can see, the most recent information is found on the internet (Google scholar) and not in ITIS. JoJan (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi JoJan. Thanks for taking the time to reply. As a mere amateur I don't think I will be making any changes - it's obviously a case for experts to sort out. Cheers GrahamBould (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Bindurathore

Just to let you know, I reverted you on this one. A registered user is not prohibited from blanking their talk page. What they had been trying to do was use it for advertising, which is why I reverted to the warnings in the first place. But if they want to blank the page, they are allowed to. Pairadox (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. But since there was a blocking request going on, I wanted to see the warnings. I could have done this via the History, but blocking without visible warnings is asking for trouble. But I decided not to block after all. JoJan (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Alyxia-buxifolia.web.jpg

Hi,

If you can remember, would you mind giving a bit more information about this photo e.g. where you took it? Hesperian 12:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help you. The photo came originally from the Polish wikipedia. JoJan (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I misunderstood. Sorry and thanks. Hesperian 03:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Those Mesogastropoda stubs

Hi JoJan, Did you by any chance read this note from Alai on the "stubs types for deletion" page? "[Insert usual Polbot-related rant here.] If someone can give me a list of which articles are to be reclassified on a taxon-by-taxon basis, I should be able to start depopulating this, and indeed fixing the taxobox at the same time. If that's not possible, then as Intertzoo says, this will for practical purposes have to be postponed until the population is reworked by other means... Alai (talk) 02:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)" Should we accept Alai's offer and explain what needs doing with those Mesogastropoda stubs and the fixing of the related taxoboxes? What do you think? It shouldn't be too hard to do if the taxobox contents can now go straight from class to family. What do you think? Invertzoo (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Most stubs could be categorized as Caenogastropoda-stubs. However, when looking a bit more closely, I found equally families categorized under Archaegastropoda, that should be under Caenogastropoda; The family Choristidae had to be renamed as Choristeidae (because of homonymy with a family of scorpionflies). Another family had to be downgraded to subfamily Cochlostomatinae. Most described families are mere stubs without almost any information. Surely, there is still a lot of work to be done on those families. Concerning the taxoboxes, since the new taxonomy only includes UNRANKED clades above the rank of superfamily, I'm thinking about proposing the creation of templates Clade1, Clade2 etc.. for the taxobox, such as in the Dutch wikipedia [7]. This way, we would avoid renaming clades as superorder, order, suborder or infraorder, which they aren't since they're unranked. What is your opinion about this proposal ? JoJan (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think its a good idea. Can we include group and informal group maybe? Invertzoo (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Reposting deleted articles

I noticed that you had Filo & Peri deleted back in August 2007, but now that they just scored their first number one single on the Billboard Hot Dance Airplay Chart with "Anthem," is there a way to have the article about this duo reinstated but this time have it rewritten? Thanks. Robert Moore 18:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have complied with your demand if the article hadn't been a copyvio of [8]). There are strict rules on copyright in wikipedia. I advise you to start from scratch and write a completely new article. Make sure to all that they have become notable (Wikipedia:Notability (music)) and give independent references (Wikipedia:Verifiability). Then you stand a good chance that your article will be accepted by the community. Good luck. JoJan (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

semi protection for Tomato

Hi JoJan - Haven't chatted with you in a while. Hope all is well, Happy New Years etc! Would you take a moment to check out the edit history of Tomato - it's getting a lot of IP vandalism, and seems like a strong candidate for semi protection. Cheers! de Bivort 22:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Semi-protection during 1 month. JoJan (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! de Bivort 15:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

List of fossil gastropods

Hi JoJan, I am glad to say that thanks to your work and my work that exasperating list is now in pretty good shape. There are no more false links, many of the incorrect daggers have been removed (still plenty left though I am sure) and the list is in columns. Phew! Invertzoo (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The credit is mostly yours. You have tamed a monster. JoJan (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Monoplacophoran illustration

Thanks, JoJan, on providing that picture of Neopilina. I've been on the lookout for some time to fill that gap in the taxobox, with no luck. It looks much better, now. Tim Ross·^talk 17:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I found it in the Macedonian wikipedia and uploaded it to the Commons. But I couldn't identify the Neopilina species. JoJan (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow up to block

163.153.134.19 was blocked for recent defacements. The school district has reported that they have identified the student involved and has taken appropriate action. --NERIC-Security (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine. JoJan (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Bufo

Once I have finished creating all the appropriate genus articles for the Bunfonids, then I will clean up the Bufo and Bufonidae articles, including a description of Frost et. al.'s work. The Bufo article is in a bad way, so I need to remove all the species one by one before I am comfortable with only including the true Bufo. Otherwise, it makes it harder because of the way I make all the changes. Since I'm still actively working on all the otad articles at the moment, I should hopefully notice anyone adding incorrect taxa. Thanks --liquidGhoul (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine. JoJan (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Your warning about taxobox colours

Hi JoJan,

Thanks for the warning, but that will not be a problem at this moment. Eubot will only remove the colour parameter if the kingdom exactly matches the format in {{Taxobox colour}}; in the case of Plants, this means "[[archaeplastida]]" or "[[plant]]"ae or "[[plantae]]", nothing more (except for changes from uppercase to lowercase). So if the kingdom is "''[[plantae]]''",, it will not remove the colour. This means that there will be some leftover parameters which have to be cleaned up, but I prefer that over broken taxoboxes. Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

deletion of Roflism

it's been recreated already. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And deleted again JoJan (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wenceslas Cobergher

Thanks for the help on that one - can't believe I forgot categories.

I'm also going to be translating the French article on Les Moëres, since apparently there's nothing on the English Wikipedia on the subject (the current page is simply a redirect). Would you perhaps be able to help me get some information out of the Dutch Wikipedia article, once I'm done with the French? My Dutch is...well, nonexistent, to say the least. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 20:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, is there any particular reason you removed the birth and death cats from the article? I haven't heard any word on the subject; are they no longer supposed to be used? --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 20:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm planning to do additional work on this article of Wenceslas Cobergher. It drew my attention while doing new article patrol, because some years ago I visited the "Les Moères" or ("De Moeren" in Dutch). I saw immediately that the French article, on which you based your translation, was lacking much information. I haven't started yet doing much research, because lack of time. As to the birth and death cats, I didn't remove them. But there was an edit conflict. Perhaps they were removed inadvertently while trying to restore my version. As to the article "Les Moëres", there is already an excellent ref. (in French) you could use in the article on Wenceslas Coberger. JoJan (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I did some work on Les Moëres, but it could use a lot of work. Not tonight, as I need to go to bed. But perhaps tomorrow I'll look at the other link. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 05:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, it should be done - have a look. And thanks for all your help on this; it's become much better than I ever could have made it. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 01:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Ali mcmc

Not that I think User talk:Ali mcmc is doing worthwhile edits but in order to be fair, he has not vandalized since I gave him a last warning earlier today. -- Alexf⁴² 18:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We're dealing with a logged-in user whose contributions have only consisted of vandalism. Such a person should not be dealt with with soft gloves. Nevertheless I've given only a short block of 24 hours. Has this been a dynamic IP I would have reconsidered. JoJan (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Tks. Just asking to see if you had noticed. I have him watchlisted. -- Alexf⁴² 18:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for saving my userpage

For the record, I have NO IDEA why he picked me out to vandalise... But thanks for taking care of him... Probably some pissed person I blocked a while ago... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry. It only happens with the best of us. JoJan (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A problem maybe you can help me with?

Hi JoJan, I have been working a bit on some of the articles about Hitchcock movies. There is a weird thing in the Strangers on a Train (film) article. If you look at the article and then at the edit this page version you will see that there are about 5 sections whcih are in the edit page that are not on the article page. I am thinking this is because of something incorrect that the person wrote in the code that has to do with references? I would very much appreciate any help you can give me with this. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there was one slash missing in a ref. code JoJan (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help with this JoJan! Invertzoo (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Belated Thanks

Hey, thanks for reverting that vandalism on my userpage. I hadn't even noticed it until now. So yeah, umm... thanks. Regards. Thingg^⊕⊗ 15:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion?

Hello. I did not create the entry "Philip Defranco" simply because he is a "real person" as you put it. I created his page because 85,000 people subscribe to his page on YouTube. That means that 85,000 people watch him whenever he posts a video, and many more who haven't subscribed yet. That means he is easily important enough to have a wikipedia page. (I am not Philip DeFranco. I am putting him here because he is worthy of the site. If he is not, who is more so? Lan Cao? Hm. Please don't delete it; I promise, others will contribute to his page once it's created, you'll see his desert of a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicopac (talk • contribs) 07:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The entry "Philip_defranco" (notice the difference in spelling) has been speedily deleted twice : once by me (10 March 19.33) and by Jmlk17 (14 March 18.42). I'm willing to restore this article again, but this time in your userspace. But before you bring this article into the main space, make sure that the article conforms to the pillars of wikipedia in order to survive other attempts at deletion by other admins : Wikipedia:Notability (web), Wikipedia:Verifiability (in reliable, independent sources), WP:NPOV, Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:No original research (in other words, your own opinions don't count; you can only rely on opinions published by others). These are a lot of rules, but if you comply to them, you can safely move your article back into the main space. Otherwise, you know what to expect. Cheers. JoJan (talk) 08:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Article recreated in User:Chicopac/Philip DeFranco. JoJan (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Date of "Acquisition of sovereignty" of Belgium?

Thank you for your common sense edit to the List of countries by formation date article. Please contribute to the discussion: here:

• Talk:List_of_countries_by_formation_dates#Belgium

--Mais oui! (talk) 09:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Dendrobium species - accepted by whom?

Hi JoJan: I suspect that your list of accepted Dendrobium species may have come from the Kew World Checklist of Monocotyledons. May I add a link or a reference to that effect? Interestingly, there are about 2720-1190 = 1530 synonyms in Kew's list now. I guess it's inevitable that, in such a large genus, botanists would frequently overlook published species, thinking they have discovered a new one. I have been studying the new H.P. Wood book, The Dendrobiums; it may inspire additions to the Dendrobium article to describe popular sections of that genus. Drbillellis (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this list is based on the Kew World Checklist of Monocotyledons (December 2004), as I always do with orchids. I hope you can contribute to the article Dendrobium as there must be much more that can be said about this genus. JoJan (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Evora Manuscript

Hello! I found your wonderful photo of an antiphoner from Portugal on the Antiphoner page. I am very interested in this manuscript and hope you might be able to lead me to more information about the source. I will gladly explain further in private communication. Thank you!Troporum (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Troporum

I made this photo while visiting the Church of St. Francis, Évora, Portugal in September 2006. It was exhibited close to the entrance of the underground Chapel of the Bones. It shows a Roman antiphonary according to the Tridentine Council. It was printed in Venice in 1748 in the Balleoni workshop. More photos of my visit to this church on the Commons : Igreja de São Francisco (Évora). I'm afraid there is nothing more I can say about this antiphonary. Greetings. JoJan (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! That is more information than I had hoped for. Troporum (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleting "Unjust"

I was trying to add content to the Unjust page and it was deleted for copyright violations. I am actually a member of the group and was wondering how you decided this was a copyright violation? How to post this information? Please reply. -Thom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thom2478 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This article was deleted by me ONE YEAR ago on 9 March 2007 as a CSD G12 - copyvio of http://www.cargorecords.co.uk/artist_zoom.php?artist=1128&PHPSESSID=ec621fd194427788e5b672333e783e89. It was deleted again also as a copyvio by another admin User:Violetriga on 9 October 2007. BTW the website of Cargo Records doesn't mention any reference to the free copyright license GFDL, used by Wikipedia. Therefore, you cannot copy text from this website, even if you are a member of the group. If you think the group is notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, you better write an article in your own words that comply to Wikipedia:Notability (music). I hope this explanation was any helpful. JoJan (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Arc de Triomphe1.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Arc de Triomphe1.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [9], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Arc de Triomphe1.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Polly (Parrot) 00:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Bikebooth.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Bikebooth.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [10], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Bikebooth.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Polly (Parrot) 02:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Street light.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Street light.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [11], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Street light.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Polly (Parrot) 02:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Authorisation : see talk page of the image. JoJan (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Brewer's Blackbird1.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Brewer's Blackbird1.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [12], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Brewer's Blackbird1.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Polly (Parrot) 02:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Clover leafs.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Clover leafs.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [13], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Clover leafs.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Polly (Parrot) 03:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Crosswalk.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Crosswalk.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [14], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Crosswalk.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Polly (Parrot) 03:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Cue chalk.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Cue chalk.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [15], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Cue chalk.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Polly (Parrot) 03:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Diner1.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Diner1.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [16], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Diner1.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Polly (Parrot) 04:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

your note

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Orobanchaceae. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Duly referenced new genera have their place in Wikipedia JoJan (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I know this is a template you use, but you might have noticed that I did, in fact, put a reason in the edit summary and discuss the edit in the talk page. Yes, duly referenced genera have their place, but as had already been mentioned by another editor in that talk page, this is not usually the place. It may have been a little bit of an overreaction for me to delete the whole section, but once the new species has been officially named I hope you will remember to go back to Orobanchaceae and remove the text that you put back in. maxsch (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this was a template, using Twinkle. While checking my (very long) watchlist, I noticed the deletion of a whole chunk of text in Orobanchaceae. I saw the reason, but didn't agree, since this wasn't original research. That's why the "good faith" template. I only noticed the discussion on the talk page later on, but still thought I had done the right thing. And I see now that User : Florentino floro is thinking along the same line of thought on the talk page of Orobanchaceae JoJan (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it is commendable to have a long watchlist, but the point I was trying to make was that the passive aggressive automatic note that you sent to my talkpage insinuated that I hadn't put a reason in the edit summary or the talk page, when, in fact, I had. I appreciate you assuming my good faith, but I resent your ignoring the obvious problems (which I explained) with the text that I deleted. I did not say that the text was original research. I said that the Orobanchaceae article is the wrong place for it, which it clearly is. The fact that there is no better place for this content (yet) means that temporarily leaving an edited version in Orobanchaceae is probably a reasonable thing to do. So that is what I have done. maxsch (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Typo redirect IOperculum

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on IOperculum, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because IOperculum is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting IOperculum, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted it myself. JoJan (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

Excuse me JoJan but could you please state if the Hattians had long or short noses (which is it exactly?) and give your source for the last paragraph of the Hattians article. (in the Hattians article itself) After all, you were the person who made the edit about them here: [17] Your statement here is unclear and somewhat confusing. The Hattians likely disappeared from history long before the 13th century BC Battle of Kadesh. Leoboudv (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk:Hattians JoJan (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the update on the Hattian talk page. I wasn't sure who had the long nose and who had the short nose or if the discussion should have been removed. It was really confusing. I suppose the Hattians didn't disappear--they just were assimilated by the Hittites in Anatolia. Cheers, Leoboudv (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jojan, I've made an edit for Hattians based on your cited information here: [18] Pls check to see on which particular page Akurgal describes the Hattic statuette from 2000 BC. I don't have access to his book. You do. If it is on a different page, then please make a correction to my page 8 reference here.

PS: From your description, you (or rather Akurgal) seems to imply that there was a Hittite Indo-European elite ruling over a Hattian non-Indo-European population. This is what I mentioned in my edit. I use very careful words such as "reportedly show" or "Akurgal claims" because I don't have access to "the book." If I am wrong in my assumption here, please do not hesitate to make a correction to my edit on the Hattians article. I don't wish to be accused of giving misleading statement for a people I barely know. Cheers, Leoboudv (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

As an Aside, Wikipedia is really strict on the downloading of images on Wikicommons. A friend told me he had an image of himself deleted because he didn't physically take it. Comments like "No revenue loss" or "Image is of a low resolution" etc may or may not help under Fair use. But if you don't give several reasons for a downloaded image, it will likely be deleted within 3 days. Here is one image with several good fair use rationales that will be less likely to be challenged: [19] I personally haven't tried to place images on Wikipedia. Maybe one day. Hope this helps a little. Leoboudv (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well done. But to be utterly clear : the rulers were Hittite kings but the common people were of Hatttian and Hittite origin, or mixed (which would be normal with a common 1500 year history and the Hittite policy of coexistence). As to the downloading of images, I don't quite understand the problem. I've downloaded more than 6,000 images to the Commons (and I'm preparing another batch of 800). Only a few have ever been deleted. Those were from the early days of Wikipedia when the copyright restrictions weren't so stringent. I never use "Fair use" pictures. But you probably were speaking in general terms. In this case, upload your images to the Commons, so that wikipedias in all languages can benefit from them. And be sure that you understand the copyright restrictions and the acceptable licences Commons:Licensing. Good luck. JoJan (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank You. BTW, I did not know you were an Administrator. But anyway, I am glad I did not come into conflict with you over the last 'noses' paragraph. I thought someone was playing around with the article since it was referenced in a general way. (with only the reference to Akurgal's book at the bottom) I prefer footnotes (if possible) so that readers know what exactly the source is. It helps that I have a University background. From Akurgal's comments, I suppose the real Hittites had short noses among other differences. I wonder what other differences they had with the Hattians. However, this is a discussion for another day. Leoboudv (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I find it hard to be a Admin. I have neither the time nor the temperament. There is just so much vandalism, crackpot theories and nonsense that someone like my contact Doug Weller here who is NOT an Admin must put up with: [20] or on the supposed battle of Grobnik Field [21] I checked Wikipedia's competitor, Citzendium, and I doubt that site will ever rival Wikipedia's popularity with the public. They still don't have an article on Ramesses II (the Great). Unbelievable. Leoboudv (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin

can you promote me to be an admin?

How to be an admin?

What can an admin do? 118.100.96.89 (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.100.96.89 (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

First make an account. Then read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. And, most of all, don't start vandalising, as you did to User: Hydrogen Iodide. JoJan (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hattians

Do you know how to insert "Hattians c.2500-2000 BC" in the History of Anatolia tag on the right as an Admin? They are absent here even though they were part of ancient Anatolia. (someone forgot to add them) I'm at a loss at how to enter this change in the tag. Thank You, Leoboudv (talk) 09:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. JoJan (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank You. I don't know if they date to 2000 BC or 1700 BC but adding them in the tag helps. Cheers, Leoboudv (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC) If Akurgal gives a time-line for the Hattians, then perhaps you could use it.

Template

• Its very strange. Someone is really adding the Ancient Near East portal template to almost every Hittite or Sumerian article. However, in this case, I thought there was already a separate {Hittite kings} template at the bottom of the article: [22] I wonder who this person is. I like templates but too many of them can be a bit distracting. Its location is certainly prominent. Is this good or bad?

I don't mind someone adding the Ancient Near East template to these articles. This template and the template of the Hittite kings together can help an interested reader on the right track through these set of complex civilizations. JoJan (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• As an Aside, are you a low profile Admin Jojan? Do you just make a few edits a day (revert vandalism, etc) because you have a real world job. (like me) I must confess I have never heard of you...but it was good to know you. Without you, I would never have heard of Prof. Akurgal. He must be the Kenneth Kitchen of Turkish ancient history, I gather? My interest is primarily on Egyptology. Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather active as an admin, but I don't meddle much with politics unless I have something to add that hasn't been said before by someone else. Going through my long watchlist (about 1,100) and my duty as an admin takes me about 2 to 3 hours every day. Furthermore, I'm also active, on a lesser scale, in other wikis (a total of twelve). At this moment I'm busy putting the finishing touches on a biography of a still living Belgian sculptor of worldwide fame for the nl.wikipedia. I had the honor of being received at his home yesterday to discuss my final draft. At the same time I'm busy uploading to the Commons another 800 photos of my trip this month to Umbria, Italy, and of my visit to Paris, France, last weekend. But first I have to edit them all in Photoshop. Then I have to write new articles or expand the existing articles about the places, churches and museums I visited and, if necessary, write or expand biographies about the artists whose works I photographed. This will keep me busy for another couple of months. When I'll be through with all this, I have a load of biographies of artists waiting to be published in the nl.wikipedia. These articles were written by the curator of my local art museum. My job consists in doing further research and converting these biographies into encyclopedic articles and in uploading photos of their paintings. I've already done a number of these, such as nl:Edouard Hamman and nl:François Musin. As you can see I'm not low profile, neither as an admin nor as a contributor (my total contributions must be close to 40,000). As to the Hattians and the Hittites, I have so much detailed information in this book of prof. Akurgal that I bought in Ankara, Turkey, but I simply lack the time to add them at this moment to wikipedia. If only every day consisted of 48 hours ! JoJan (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jojan for your frank answer. I have a contact in Toronto, Canada (Keith) who has a great job. He flies throughout the world (mostly Europe and the USA) on business for his software company and he can visit and take photos of various rare objects in the local museums in his trips. It sounds like you love your job and that you travel the world like my friend. As for me, I live near Vancouver Canada but apart from my previous life in Malaysia (I immigrated to Canada when I was 15 in 1989), the only country I've visted is the US in 1994 for only a few hours of mall shopping at Bellingham, Washington. However, I do have a great University--UBC--which has access to the second largest collection of books after the Univ. of Toronto in Canada. Unfortunately, like you, I just don't have enough free time. I don't know where you live but if it is the UK, you are 8 hrs ahead of me. As I said, I really like Wikipedia, but the amount of vandalism is a turn off. If it wasn't for someone like you or my friend, I suppose most articles wouldn't have any photos at all. I thought Citizendium will be better but I notice they also have vandalism problems. But Citizendium looks like it will never be like Wikipedia. If they don't have an article on Ramesses II (the great), it tells me they aren't doing well.

PS: This is one short article on Iuput II. I provided all the academic references. My friend took the picture of this minor king from Brooklyn Museum. Cheers from Canada, Leoboudv (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

As to this article on Iuput II, have you read the interesting criticism by David Rohl [23] ? There are also some interesting images on the French wikipedia fr:Ioupout II. And as to vandalism, don't let this turn you off. Bots revert most vandalism in a matter of seconds. But the remaining vandalism can sometimes be a real pain and, even worse, a waste of time (warnings to be given, users to be blocked, emails of blocked users to be answered). Luckily, as an admin, I can resort quickly to semi-protection of an article. As a result, vandalism on such an article vanishes almost immediately. If you ever need an article to be semi-protected, don't hesitate to call on me if it is warranted (there are also rules...). JoJan (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't view Rohl as a credible scholar, even though he is a scholar. His journal has now shut down since no reputable Egyptologist wanted to be associated with his ideas on fundamentally revising Egyptian chronology by several hundred years based on unconvincing or uncertain evidence. Besides, there are also Assyrian and Babylonian synchronysms with Ancient Egypt and the Babylonians and Assyrians had detailed, comprehensive kinglists. They can't be wrong. The Waste of Time website also disposes with the logic of his arguments: [24] Regards, Leoboudv (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token 51430873c58f7e9de3922f5971ac845f

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Deletion of FakenMC user input

Hello JoJan, the Ericeira wiki page also has a link to the local surf club, so I did the same with the Sesimbra page and added a link to the local surf club. Why is the criteria different? The Surf Club of Sesimbra website is full of pictures of Sesimbra beaches and waves, contrary to the Ericeira surf club, which is not even online! Thank you! FakenMC (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't allow commercial links into our articles. Anyway, surf clubs are not encyclopedical, unless they produce champions. I didn't know about the Ericeira page, since this article is not on my watchlist. Thanks for pointing this out, I'll look into it and delete the link if necessary. JoJan (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

THANKS

Thanks for the advice JoJan. It is nice to meet an oldtimer...ha,ha,ha....(you are laughing, right?) I see you are interested in plants. Wonderful. My wife and I are leaving for the country to spend a relaxing weekend fighting with weeds, planting a tree, etc, Nice to meet you.--Buster7 (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

About a wrongly labelled image

Hi JoJan, hope you are doing well. Can I ask you for help again? I wanted to ask you what I should do about this: this image is described as being the "pier" in Nevis, whereas in fact it is the (relatively new) seawall and not any kind of pier at all. In the article Nevis where the image is used, I corrected the caption, but should I also put a note on the talk page of the image explaining this? If not, what is the best way of handling something like this? Thanks again as always, Invertzoo (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the description of the image into "seawall". Nothing more has to be done. JoJan (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks JoJan! Invertzoo (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Dutch Language Union

At the beginning of this article is an announcement that...."This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands....". As I ask on the talk page there...should it not also be within the scope of WikiProject Belgium????--Buster7 (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I've added the template. JoJan (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Just thought you'd like to know [25]. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. He deserved an indef block. JoJan (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please help me once again JoJan... Update: OK, no need now!

Hi JoJan, This morning for the first time ever, my fingers slipped and I accidentally created an bogus article while trying to post on a new talk page. Can you help with speedy deletion? The "article" is Date+June 2008. I am sorry about this. Invertzoo (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC) OK, another editor did it already, and explained what I should have done. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)