User talk:Snek01

My Talk Archives

User talk:Snek01/Archive 1

This webpage has no regular archive: most items are deleted as soon as they are completely solved. Only a few important items are retained here.

Subpages: User:Snek01/Awards

Hi, the image on iterative reconstruction does not look to be the result of the iterative reconstruction algorithm. Would you mind if I replace it with something else? Martin.uecker (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But if you will determine anything from this set http://www.flickr.com/photos/31382190@N05/favorites/ then I can upload it. --Snek01 (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

..........................................

these articles already have some images[edit]

• This is Bielzia coerulans [1]
• This is a fine view into the pneumostome of Arion rufus This image might be good to illustrate the article pneumostome [2]
• Mating Arion rufus here: [3]
• This is Cepaea nemoralis [4]
• This Limax maximus [5]
• This is Arianta arbustorum [6]

Video[edit]

And this video is indeed Thecacera pacifica. [7]

And this video is of Nembrotha cristata as labelled. [8]

Identified[edit]

All identified photos have been uploaded. --Snek01 (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You had requested fixing these genera. http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=413350. Can you please give a diff what needs to be fixed. Thanks. Ganeshk (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fenestrosyrinx belongs to subfamily Raphitominae
• Species Fenestrosyrinx granata (Hedley, 1922)
• Species Fenestrosyrinx gratiosa (Suter, 1908)

They were not created at all(?)!. I can start these two easily, but I have let them for you to test why they were ommited.

Fenestrosyrinx were not created because they were not listed as genera on the Conidae page. I stick to genera that is listed on the family article. That was the reason for this post.

• Taranis (gastropod) belongs to subfamily Raphitominae

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taranis_allo&action=historysubmit&diff=353247922&oldid=353077844 You can also make wikilink to Taranis (gastropod), when changing the subfamily. --Snek01 (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on this one. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Fixed the Taranis taxoboxes. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michal,

I hope you are doing well. I just wanted to say two things:

1. When talking about geological time, if you are going to use the word "recent", to refer to the current geological period is should be capitalized like this "Recent". However, the word Holocene is probably preferable because it is quite unambiguous.

2. When you are writing a sentence fragment, for example in a caption like, "Two views of a shell of Xxxxxx xxxxxx", this phrase does not require a period/full stop. Only full sentences take a period.

Very best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, OK, where's that article with "Recent" vs. "recent"? Check for example article Pupilla loessica for my better understanding. --Snek01 (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me so long to reply to this. The ones I find I have already changed one by one as I encounter them. I do not keep track of them. Invertzoo (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me try to check it, not tonight but tomorrow. This genus has a lot more species in it then were previously thought to exist. Invertzoo (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is Busycon carica, but the spines are a lot longer than they are in shells of this species from the Northeastern US, the area I live in. Invertzoo (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I get back to NYC I will ask a friend in Florida who really knows his stuff what he thinks of the images. I suppose perhaps this species may looks like that in the southern part of its range, but up here the spines are very much smaller, more like little knobs, and the siphonal canal is longer too. Invertzoo (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you making these from time to time and was wondering if you know the site Fauna Europaea. You can use it to create lists of all Gastropods in a set European country. Might be helpful for the creation of these articles? See: http://www.faunaeur.org/, click on distribution, then "list species by region". Maybe you known this already, but I thought I'll inform you just to be sure. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your message. I have used it for taxonomy only meantime. Maybe I will use it as additional source (because of copyright issues) next to original research source articles. Your advice about lists is very helpful. Thank you, --Snek01 (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of help. I have been wondering about the copyright of that. It is a list of species which occur in a certain country, thus essentially it only consists of facts. The fact that they made the list first, shouldn't be enough to have a copyright on this information would it? If they would have copyright, this would mean nobody else could gather the information and publish it. It is the same as having an article on the "number one hits in the UK chart in 1970". If someone could have copyright on that information, it would essentially mean that nobody could ever use it anywhere else. You cannot change the info, because changing it would always mean it is incorrect. Anyway, just my frustration with copyright in general.. :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agree. --Snek01 (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would greatly appreciate you take part in this discussion. Sincerely yours, Mithril (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to explain the deletion of Glacidorbis pawpela and Glacidorbis pedderi from the species list. In 2000 Winston Ponder published a review on Glacidorbidae (see the link in "References"). In the paper he moved these two species to the Benthodorbis and Striadorbis genera respectively. Ponder's notes in IUCN redlist (1996) are outdated in that way. Mithril (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the list after the review. Mithril (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, very good. Thank you for your note. It is better to write synonyms like this [9] (and also inline reference for all species). --Snek01 (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for making you doing twofold work with inline refs. I'll keep in mind this form of specifying symonyns. Mithril (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michal, do you perhaps know how to add "alt text" for images that are in a gallery? I tried to do this for the gallery in the Eustrombus gigas article, but obviously I am not using the right method. Invertzoo (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there is a bug that prevents doing this [10]. It seems that we may have to use a Multiple image instead of a gallery. Invertzoo (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't known that before. Alt text added for thumb images. --Snek01 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not long since you were last blocked for edit warring, and you seem to have slipped back into those ways. Even if you think you are right, repeatedly making the same edits without engaging in discussion is disruptive. You should always seek consensus for your edits; that is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia, and one that cannot be ignored. You don't like the extra spaces in the taxoboxes. Well, OK, that's a very minor formatting issue, and it doesn't warrant the kind of strong-arm tactics you use. WP:TX doesn't proscribe any usage; it merely gives an example. Similarly, WP:PAIC covers running prose only. I'm sure there is a lot of work to be done writing articles on gastropods. I suggest you stick to that. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here, too. This is not acceptable behaviour. Please learn to discuss changes and to engage with people in an attempt to reach a mutually acceptable solution. Your changes to the TaxonIds sandbox are useful, because they allow (or rather allowed, before you edited the main template unilaterally) a comparison of the two, at Template:TaxonIds/testcases, which could be used in a discussion of their relative merits. I think that discussion would be useful; I can see arguments on either side. I suggest you revert the changes to the main template and open up a discussion on which solution is better. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I will not talk to you. You have been reported at Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#User:Stemonitis. --Snek01 (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This summary that "nobody disagreed with the discussion for over two months" is misleading. Two people (myself included) were in favour of keeping the identifiers and two (yourself included) were opposed. There was no consensus, and so no changes resulted. The time that has passed since is irrelevant. Please undo your last edit of Template:TaxonIds, and join in the discussion that I have started at Template talk:TaxonIds#Identifiers. Your point will be made much more strongly if you can muster a consensus there. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have invited the main participants from previous discussions to join in the new one. Please feel free to inform anyone you think I may have missed out. The wider the participation, the better. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michal, can you reproduce the cladogram in this ^[1] reference? It's on page 261. I think it would be a nice addition to both the Strombidae and Stromboidea articles.

Best wishes! Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have created both cladograms. Let me to know if changes are needed. --Snek01 (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snek01. I've stopped working here due to various differences with the way things are run-- tolerance for bullying, edit-warring, etc. when it's on the side of content removal, the ridiculously subjective "notability" criteria which, if strictly and impartially enforced, makes it pointless to work on any minor, obscure, interesting subject, such as Japanese cinema outside of Kurosawa, Mizoguchi, Ozu...

That said, I've collected several images of Maeda, and posted some at off-WP projects. Lately I've been contributing a lot at Eigapedia (http://eiga.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page) You can see two images of Maeda at Eigapedia's stub on her:

http://eiga.wikia.com/wiki/Michiko_Maeda

I've also started a stub on the film there:

http://eiga.wikia.com/wiki/Revenge_of_the_Pearl_Queen

Yes, I believe that's Maeda in the upper right corner, but probably any of the portraits we have of her are Japanese PD, as she was fired in 1957, and all the publicity photos would pre-date that.

Here is an article on her with a few pictures: http://www2u.biglobe.ne.jp/~kazu60/sintoho/sitoho14.htm

Still basically pointless posting them here, I think, when someone could change the "rules" any time and have them deleted...

By the way, this page:

http://miwako-f.web.infoseek.co.jp/shintouhou/actress.htm

has portraits of many Shintoho actresses from the '50s. This weekend I started stubs on all of them at Eigapedia. Feel free to copy that info over here if you want, or, better yet, join me over there, where verified content is not under constant threat of deletion, and good contributors are not subject to constant harrassement, endless discussion, and everything else detrimental to building encyclopedic content. Best regards. Dekkappai (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thank you for valuable source of information. There is also http://eiga.wikia.com/wiki/O-Tora-san while it is not on the Wikipedia O-Tora-san. --Snek01 (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O-Tora-san? Yes, very interesting series based on a radio show then a TV show, and not related to the famous Torasan. I started that article this weekend. Just a few others that don't have articles at WP: Yōko Fujiyama, Onna keirin ō, Kyōko Hashimoto, New Bad Reputation, Okinawa Hanging Phantom Ghost Story, Ghost Story: Cruel Phantom, Ghost from the Continent.... Then there's a fascinating obscurity from 1927 like Restoration of Imperial Rule. It may very well have been the Star Wars of its time and place. But, you know, "I never heard of it. Where's the reliable, significant secondary sourcing??? DELETE!" What a waste. At least information on Japanese cinema will be found in English over there... as well as ~gasp!~ pictures of actors/models/celebrities at their articles. Every good Wikipedian knows that a performer's appearance has nothing to do with their career... Keep your eye on my work there. I'm just getting warmed up. You'll see a lot coming that I wouldn't have started here because I'd have to do too much exaggerating to make it sound more important than it is-- it's just a damned movie, with some damned actors in it... Why should a "sum of human knowledge" not have articles on them. Oh no, they've got to be "notable" in the eyes of some anonymous know-it-all know-nothings... Bah, I just regret I didn't leave this mad-house sooner... ;) Take care. Dekkappai (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michal, I was able to talk a bit to Jimmy Wales about the Project this week, and I told him again, as I did last year, that you contribute the most content to WikiProject Gastropods. Well done for all of your hard work of very good quality. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michal, about the NOAA image of limpets which may be Shinkailepas kaikatensis? Yes, it seems clear from the accompanying text that these are indeed that species, many adults and egg cases too. If you can upload the image, it can be added to the family article Phenacolepadidae, the genus article Shinkailepas and the species article too, so that would be great! http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/04fire/logs/april14/media/limpet_eggs.htmlhttp://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/04fire/logs/april14/april14.html http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/04fire/logs/april14/april14.html

The caption that NOAA gave is "Conical limpets (2 cm, 0.75 in) cover the rock surfaces at East Diamante. The white dots on the rocks and shells are limpet egg cases. An arc crab investigates the scene. " The photo was taken at a hydrothermal vent at the East Diamante seamount, which is westsouthwest of the small island of Farallon de Medinilla in the Southern Seamount Province of the Mariana Islands. The hydrothermal vent at East Diamante is "shallower than 200 m (650 ft)."

Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, image uploaded, but I a not sure what species, genus, or family it is. If it seems clear for you, add it to articles. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Michal, I will put it in the relevant articles, probably tomorrow. Invertzoo (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to the articles (including a new article for the species) but I did not do the inline citations, although I provided links as external links only. Invertzoo (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Michal, There are at least 3 articles that Graham Bould created (by copying info verbatim from the book Powell 1979) about some land slug species in the genus Reflectopallium. I made a genus article for it, however when I looked it up on Google, it seems to be the case that the species that were in that genus back then are now placed in the genus Pseudaneitea or possibly in the genus Athoracophorus. Since you know a lot more about land slugs than I do, maybe you can see what you think we should do about cleaning this up? Invertzoo (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not know that right now, but I would firstly use informations from Department of Conservation (New Zealand), if available. I will solve it slowly step by step. --Snek01 (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Portal Barnstar
		The Portal Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who have made significant contributions to topic portals. This award is for Snek01 for the creation and constant maintenance of a beautiful Portal for WikiProject Gastropods. Invertzoo (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! :) --Snek01 (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michal. This image of a shell of Melo aethiopica just got Featured Picture status! I guess it can be placed in the Portal, in the species article, maybe in the genus article too... Invertzoo (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michal, if you do get around to reading this at some point... I am sorry that you got disgusted and left, although I do understand why you felt like that. Ever since early in 2007 you have been a tremendously active contributor to the encyclopedia, especially to WikiProject Gastropods, and your work has been very valuable. If you should ever feel like popping in again to help out, we will be delighted to see you. All my best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snek, I am also sorry to hear that you have left. The sheer volume of contributions that you made to WP:Gastropods significantly improved the project and have been a real service to wikipedia. Although wikipedia doesn't always work as smoothly as one would hope, it is frankly amazing that a global collaborative project like this works at all given that we can all have widely different opinions and ideas at times. I hope to see you around at some point back here. If not though, best wishes for your future. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Michal! Same to you, happy new year! There is only one species in the genus Tamayoa listed in Simone (2005). It is Tamayoa banghaasi (Boettger in Thiele, 1927). Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Snek01 (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the slow reply, Snek, I mislaid your post. I don't really have a view whether there should be a Category:Edible molluscs as a subcategory of Category:Commercial molluscs. Perhaps if WikiProject Food and drink wants to do something systematic with edible molluscs, such as writing a series of articles on molluscs as food. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invertzoo (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC) live[reply]

The one I have is at any rate a lot better than the image in the taxobox at the species article now. Invertzoo (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, send it. --Snek01 (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spiraxidae stubs, which you created, has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/January/18#Category:Spiraxidae stubs. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted this, since the majority of it looks like a copy and paste from this website. Also, please don't remove copyvio tags or refer to them as "bot spam". Please take care not to add copyrighted material or WP:close paraphrasing to Wikipedia in future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This website" is mostly a copy of the Wikipedia article Clionidae – naughty naughty Snek, copying your own article! --Epipelagic (talk) 04:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, it is indeed a mirror. My apologies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Snek. It's been a long time. :) I still appreciate the work that the gastropod wiki project did on the Graham Bould WP:CCI (back before we had one). You guys really set the model for "great project participation" on those. I'm evaluating the same listing that HJ Mitchell was. On evaluation, it seems that at least some of the content in the article was authored by others;this was the condition of the article prior to your first logged edit to it, in 2006, and some of the content in that version was carried over to Clione antarctica. (I double checked at Clione in case you had authored it there, but it doesn't seem so.) It's perfectly fine to move content from one Wikipedia page to another, but unless you are the sole contributor to the first page you do need to attribute. This is essential, since our content is not public domain but liberally licensed by the copyright owners (that is, the Wikipedians who add it). :) Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia sets out the process, for future use. I'll go ahead and provide the attribution in this case. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, duh. You already did! Sorry about that. Since I didn't see the {{copied}} template at the talk (which is optional) and the listing had not been marked off of WP:SCV, I presumed you had overlooked it. I'll go strike it, and sorry for the waste of bandwidth! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Snek. I couldn't help but notice this message in the FLC closure log. The message has been removed from the log multiple times now; this is because it's only meant to be a place for the directors to comment on closures and provide some basic project news. Any issues with a closure should be taken up on the talk page of the director who performed it (myself, in this case). Since you have concerns, I'll comment on them quickly:

• The two opposers whose issues you attempted to address never struck their opposition, even though they both commented subsequently at the FLC. Did you ask them if their concerns were resolved to their satisfaction? If opposers maintain some involvement at the FLC and don't strike their opposes, I as a director have little choice but to assume that they are still valid. As a general rule, it is always helpful to send reviewers a message after addressing their comments. It can help clear up any opposition, and makes things easier for the directors.
• Nominators aren't counted when tallying supports. Only outside reviewers are counted; therefore, there was only one support.
• "NOBODY commented the remained 'issue'". The Rambling Man referred to "ultra-specific referencing", which I was talking about when I mentioned over-referencing. If you have a three- or four-sentence paragraph cited by one source, you don't need a cite after each sentence. I think that's what he was getting at, and I would have commented on it if I had given a review.
• Two supports really isn't enough to promote a list. Three or more is considered the requirement.
• A lack of reviewers is a problem for all of this site's content processes. You could always try asking some of the reviewers you see at other FLCs to have a look at your list. Most of the active reviewers are happy to offer a helping hand.
• Whether a re-nomination is worthwhile is up to you, though I certainly think you shouldn't give up on the list. The best thing you can do is go to the opposers and work with them to resolve their concerns. Take a week or two to do this and you should find a second FLC to be more successful. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Giants2008, thank you for your message that clarifies the closure from your point of view. Thank you also for your very brief and universal advices, that unfortunately does not fit to my needs. --Snek01 (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michal, I just wanted to let you know that User:Llez on Commons has created 8 images of shells of pulmonates, which you may want to add to the articles on those species. The images are shown here: [11]

Further down on the same page is an image of a live Helix pomatia from Germany. However I did not check to see whether that image is better than the ones we already have in that article or not.

You can see that there are also a number of new images of marine shells too.

Sorry I did not yet send you the image of Subulina octona, I have been very busy but I will do that soon.

Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Few ones are also prepared on the resource page of the wikiproject. --Snek01 (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snek, Thanks for the barnstar. The bot is happy. :) — Ganeshk (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Smartse told me you thought an article on Alecton discoidalis would be a good idea and I am happy to write one if you would like. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the article now. You can see it here in a half formed state if you are interested. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is now completed and published, Alecton discoidalis. I found it difficult to find much information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar! Quite a surprise. - I see you added some description from the French. Do you think the dimensions given for Alecton discoidalis as Long. 4½, larg. 2⅓. are in millimetres or in centimetres? How big are your snails? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure, but it can be neither mm nor inches. So It should be: lenght 4.5 cm and 2.3 cm width. --Snek01 (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michal, Peter Poyt has made for us a new snail shell photo from Australia, and has put it in the stub for that species. I took a quick look and could not find much info online about the species. Here is what Peter said:

"Dear Zoo, Michael Shea of the Australian Museum is wonderfully helpful with any queries. Yesterday I photographed another shell, and it is identified as Meridolum middenense. I hope Mr. Snek or you can make the article bigger and better. Kind wishes, Peter Poyt448 (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)"[reply]

Best, Invertzoo (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Another photo of Meridolum. That will be a great challenge! --Snek01 (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as I see, that you have reviewing rights: I was working on the Palacký University of Olomouc. I got it to B level, could you please give me some hints on what could/should be done in order to promote it further to GA? Thank you very much. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, (those my reviewing right are not associated with Good article nominations process). I am not very familiar with articles about educational institutions. There is one unresolved thing: Philosophical Institute, maybe you can incorporate it to the "Palacký University of Olomouc" article. I think that the UP Olomouc article is very good. If you believe that it fulfill Good article criteria (Wikipedia:Good articles), feel free to nominate it (Wikipedia:Good article nominations). It seems that it has similar quality as other similar good articles Wikipedia:Good_articles/Social_sciences_and_society#Education, so I think that it will pass. Good luck. --Snek01 (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that this reviewing might not be connected to it, but it made me feel, that you might know how the thing is done, which you really do. Thank you for guiding me. I see that you also contributed to the Philosophical Institute, so therefore I invite you to share your view on merging it into the University article. I don't think that much of the information at the Institute page could be meaningfully incorporated in the Uni article, therefore the merger would effectively mean loosing some of them (augustinian order, curriculum, etc. - this is all info that could be used, if a special Philosophical Faculty wikipage with a history section is made, however it is too much focused on 1840s to be used within the current text). Thank you very much! Cimmerian praetor (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michal, I wondered, is there a special reason why you have not yet put your name back on the list of members of WikiProject Gastropods? Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I found no reason for adding. I feel much better like that. --Snek01 (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snek. I haven't yet put any of my own articles through GA. I'm going to have a go with some of them shortly, but until I've done that I don't feel I should do GA reviews. However, I will copyedit Chittenango ovate amber snail and help out in other ways. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've started copyediting. However, I need to check with you. I am radically altering the formats you use when referencing research. Are you okay with this? If not, just revert my edits and I'll back out. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Since you are clear your text reads more cleanly, just revert back to it. I'm not ready to do reviews yet, as I explained above. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Epipelagic, some of the changes you made were quite interesting. Meeting other points of view is always helpful. In any case, the article got promoted =). Thank you too, Michal! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Snek, I have noticed you making Mollusc articles for some time and I thought you might be interested in this CC-3.0 article. All text and pics are free to use, see: http://www.pensoft.net/journals/zookeys/issue/101/ Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you very much for your message. I will focus on this article and this interesting but very large group a bit later (but this year), when also other publications about its systematics (probably) will appear. / Is there a way how to get informed automatically about only gastropod articles from this source? --Snek01 (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dont know really, but I check it regularly and I will be more than happy to notify you of any such articles..! Cheers Ruigeroeland (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As promised I would let you know if a new article was published. "Chemosymbiotic bivalves from the mud volcanoes of the Gulf of Cadiz, NE Atlantic, with descriptions of new species of Solemyidae, Lucinidae and Vesicomyidae", see: http://www.pensoft.net/journals/zookeys/issue/113/ Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very good! Thank you. Its about bivalves but I like gastropods. I have expanded the Gulf of Cádiz article and a little (but very usefully) expanded the cold seep article to be prepared when more gastropods will be reported from the area. --Snek01 (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another one: http://www.pensoft.net/journals/zookeys/issue/115/ Description of two new species of Rissoella Gray, 1847 (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Heterobranchia) from Venezuela, with a key to the Caribbean species known for the genus. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles: "Annotated type catalogue of the Amphibulimidae (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Orthalicoidea) in the Natural History Museum, London" and "A new species of hydrobiid snails (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Hydrobiidae) from central Greece", See: http://www.pensoft.net/journals/zookeys/issue/138/ Cheers Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A new one: http://www.pensoft.net/journals/zookeys/issue/151/ "Sphincterochilidae from Tunisia, with a note on the subgenus Rima Pallary, 1910 (Gastropoda, Pulmonata)". Cheers Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Two new and rare mountain door-snails (Gastropoda, Pulmonata, Clausiliidae) from high mountain areas in Macedonia http://www.pensoft.net/journals/zookeys/article/1919/
• New taxa of terrestrial molluscs from Turkey (Gastropoda, Pristilomatidae, Enidae, Hygromiidae, Helicidae) http://www.pensoft.net/journals/zookeys/article/2273/

--Snek01 (talk) 21:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michal, I wanted to say,

1. That the word "Distribution" is a singular noun and therefore it should be used with "includes" not include.

2. That rather than saying say "a species of a land snail" it is better to say simply "a species of land snail".

Thanks so much for all your new articles. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your message. I will remember that. --Snek01 (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am just sort of a WP Slug, plodding along improving stuff about Montana hoping not to get stepped on. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I finally uploaded the image I had of the live Subulina octona using Upload Wizard, which is new and extremely easy to use. Invertzoo (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. --Snek01 (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michal,

I think we will need to get another round of bot approvals before we create this genus. Turbonilla is a large genus; it will be nice if we could get the species articles created as well. Although Facebook and e-mail allow us to connect easily, it will be best to keep Wikipedia-related discussions on Wikipedia itself. I hope you understand.

Regards. — Ganeshk (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I see you have recently created one or more new stub templates or categories. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. This helps to reach consensus about whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries, where comments are welcome as to any rationale for this stub type. Please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature. Grutness...wha? 08:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sorry, but you're going about this the wrong way. Wikimedia UK has negotiated a collaboration with a global partner organisation, and its result is the sharing of some text with Wikipedia. If you want to ask questions about the project, it's a simple matter to contact the people involved, either in Wikimedia or ARKive. Disrupting the project and threatening its lead with a block is inappropriate . I'm sure you appreciate the importance to Wikipedia of building relationships with scholarly and educational bodies to share openly-licensed text. It's important that we do not undermine these projects. Please restore the disputed text and discuss with the project participants before taking further action. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Martin, thank you for your message. I have answered by email. I am looking for further details on associated talkpage(s). --Snek01 (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! A stub template or category which you created has been nominated for renaming or deletion at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type most likely doesn't meet Wikipedia requirements for a stub type, through failure to meet standards relating to the name, scope, current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals! This message is a boilerplate, left here as a courtesy, and should not be considered personal in nature. Dawynn (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Snek, I don't know if you saw this yet, but Peter Poyt made a beautiful new image of an Australian land snail and created this stub. I don't know if you can find any info to add to it? Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That is fascinating! Expanded. I will add drawing of the shell tomorrow. --Snek01 (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Snek,

Thank you for the award. I'm honoured. As soon as I saw this wonderful little snail I thought you would like it. This snail was in eucalyptus forest, not in rainforest where I usually find snails. Poyt448 (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michal, I just wanted to say that most (with maybe 2 exceptions) of the A-class articles need to have a better lede or intro section: it is necessary for the lede to summarize the content of the article. If those articles lacking this were submitted for GA review, that would be one of the first things a reviewer would comment on. (I have tried before to work out how to give the B&R article a lede and failed, but maybe I can try again.) Invertzoo (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This morning I have written a summary-style lede to the B&R article so that it would have that necessary item when the article is submitted for GA. You can take a look at that lede and see what you think, maybe you can improve it. Invertzoo (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Today I quickly expanded the ledes in the other A articles that did not include a summary of the info included in the article. The ledes need more fine-tuning but they are better than no summary at all. Invertzoo (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From A to GA?[edit]

If (as you mentioned) you want to get our current eight so-called A-class articles promoted to GA, I would recommend that we focus on each one in turn and ask a few members to help fix them up before they are submitted for GA review. I notice that some of the species articles have numerous strikes against them as far as even A class goes. Prior to my recent work they lacked a proper lede, they also have some prose difficulties, and in several cases, only one reference. If we do try to nominate one of these eight, I would also recommend that you yourself are not the nominator, and that while the review is in process you make a great effort to restrain yourself and not fight against suggestions that are made by the reviewer. A combative approach almost always guarantees failure.

Awarding A-class[edit]

I also would like to remind you once again that A-class can not be awarded by the same person who puts the article together. The article must be reviewed by an impartial reviewer either from the WikiProject or from elsewhere. This means that most of the eight cannot legitimately claim to be A-class articles. And do they even meet the criteria?

A-Class criteria[edit]

The criteria are as follows (my emphasis):

The article provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia: How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate.

Thank you for all your hard work and your good intentions, Invertzoo (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Michal, I thought you might like to see this new article which User:IceCreamAntisocial put together about a rare freshwater limpet species from the USA. I see we do not have a genus articles for either Lanx or Fisherola. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snek, We need your input here, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods#Pyramidellidae. Thanks. — Ganeshk (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snek, How are you? My name is Matthew Roth and I'm a Storyteller working on the 2011 fundraiser with the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco. In past years, we've relied on Jimbo to carry the bulk of the fundraising weight and he's done very well helping us hit our yearly funding targets. This year, however, we're broadening the scope and reach of the fundraiser by incorporating more voices and different people on the funding banners and appeals that will start running full-time on November 7th. We're testing new messages and finding some really great results with editors and staff members of the Foundation. You can see the current progress of the tests here. I'm curious if you would want to participate in an interview with me as part of this process? The interviews usually last 60 minutes and involve a number of questions about your personal editing experiences, as well as general questions about Wikipedia and its impact in the world. Please let me know by emailing mroth (at) wikimedia.org. Seascapeza recommended I contact you. Thanks! Matthew (WMF) 19:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snek01!! I have been working up a genus article for Africonus as a test page to get a general consensus among the senior editors of Wikiproject Gastropods and I thought I'd ask your opinion as well. I hope to get an approved format then put together genus articles for all genera of Conidae as set forth in the classification proposed by Tucker & Tenorio, and set forth as "alternative representations" in WoRMS by Dr. Bouchet. Please either refer to the Wikiproject Gastropods page or my User Talk page for comments. Thanks in advance for your mentoring and for your assistance.Shellnut (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David, thank you for your message. I have taken a very brief look on that. I think that you are doing good work and some people are unintentionally worsening your good work. Anyway it is a step forward and keep going! Good luck and I am happy to hear from you in the future. --Snek01 (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snek! Feel free to send me a regular e-mail so we can discuss.Shellnut (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This may seem like it's out of left field, but I was wondering if you could offer some assistance. I'm in the process of disambiguating links to Cox and have found a not small number of them in the infoboxes of various animal articles. I happened to look up who added that link in the case of Placostylus cuniculinsulae and it turned out to be you. So, I was hoping that you would know who that link should actually be referring to and either fix it or, if there's no appropriate article, just remove the link. Also, if you perhaps had the time and wanted to be extra helpful, you could maybe take a gander at this list of other pages that link to "Cox" and assist in disambiguating those as well. In just a short time that list will most likely only contain zoological articles, as I'll have disambiguated the rest. Any help at all would be very much appreciated. -- Fyrefly (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your message. There are 7 Cox in malacology. I have added them right now to the "malacologist" article. It is James Charles Cox for this species. I have added the reference. --Snek01 (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it. I'll probably leave the rest for people who have seen the word "malacologist" before, which I had not. Happy editing! -- Fyrefly (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kenpei to barabara shibijin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenpei to barabara shibijin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Six Sided Pun Vows (talk | contribs | former account) 01:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Gaza superba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dall (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The article 'Staffordiidae' has a dead link that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix it?

Dead: http://zsi.gov.in/zoological-survey-of-india/zsi-data/checklist/Checklist_Land_mollusca.pdf

• You added this in September 2010.
• The bot tested this link on 5 March, 7 March, 9 March, 17 April and today, but it never worked.
• The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

This link is marked with {{Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots |deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Partulina kaaeana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Baldwin

Partulina mighelsiana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pfeiffer

Partulina proxima (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pease

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Dryptus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albers (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About three years ago, you created about fifty articles about Japanese films from the 1950s. Things like Inazuma Kaidō. I am kind of wondering why you made so many articles, which have all just been abandoned since then. Was this meant to go somewhere? JoshuSasori (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Joshu Sasori, thank you for your message. I was creating 1950s and previous films only. I had no intentions to create newer ones. There are very much things to talk about it and we can chat about films, about my contribution or about my intentions for example via Facebook if you like. You can use also Special:EmailUser/Snek01. I am looking for your message. --Snek01 (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why Wikipedia needs so very many articles on those 1950s Japanese films. It seems lot of them are not available on VHS or DVD and don't have articles on Japanese Wikipedia, and nobody except robots has edited them for three years. Anyway, for now I am just asking, but at some point I might get around to putting them up for deletion. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is such possibility. I think they are notable enough, but I am usually not able to expand them or to prove its notability. As far as I know some of them (few, about 3-5?) were proposed for deletion, but were kept:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenpei to barabara shibijin
• Chichi Koishi
• probably few others

At least one was deleted Rikidōzan monogatari dotō no otoko without proposal for deletion(!). I do not know any, that was deleted with proposal of deletion. --Snek01 (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have decided not to send them for deletion because it's not a productive use of time. But I sort of wondered why so many almost empty articles needed to be created, many of which are about forgotten films which cannot even be viewed any more. Just because there was a poster image? Anyway I suppose these empty articles don't do any harm. JoshuSasori (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Oblong rocksnail, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Centerville and Buck Creek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Long time. Hope you are well. Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak#Suggesting a Commons deletion?'s talk page. 00:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Galba cubensis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pfeiffer

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Snek01, thank you so much for writing Simpulopsis rufovirens. I love it, and what a beautiful animal! Atlasowa (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words and I am looking for fruitful strawberryful cooperation with you. --Snek01 (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to help, but sadly I am totally incompetent about snakes snails ;-) For example, i have no idea if this is helpful or just repetitive... --Atlasowa (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. That was very useful addition of information to the article. --Snek01 (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he described 450 taxa, does that mean he's the 'taxa man.' Nice to see the article getting all this attention. Good job. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar? Why, thank you!

הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[12]. --Snek01 (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause and get involved with the open-source movement.

According to the edit history of the page, it looks like you were collaborating with user:Invertzoo and user:Epipelagic to write the article for 'Love Dart'. This is such a curious article!

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Ideally, I'd like to have a story that we could publish along with the other two users by Valentines Day this year.

Please let me know if you're inclined to be interviewed about your collaboration on this article.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

[email protected]

Victor Grigas (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be really great to have you in on this Michal, as the third person who created Love dart. You won't reconsider? It was a very successful piece of work, done internationally in a very short time. Invertzoo (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A new editor reverted your recent changes to the Elimia article. As a result we now still have a Elimia article, as well as having those species listed under Pleurocera. The new editor disagrees with the reassignment of Elimia species to Pleurocera by Dillon (2011) and mentions a new article that was still "in press" when he left the note. The new editor made the mistake of leaving his note on his own talk page, instead of on the talk page of the appropriate article. I copied and placed it there so people can see it. In any case... we can't use as a reference a science paper that is not yet published, even though it is in press. I wonder if perhaps the new editor, User:Polarfire1, is one of the authors of the new paper? Invertzoo (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted his changes back to your redirect. Invertzoo (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your message. I am interested in new further references. When they will be available in any form, I will try to check it out newly. --Snek01 (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Snek01, I'm contacting you because we need some Czech translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on cs.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Czech Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pat, thank you for your message. I am sorry. I am very busy these days. Have a nice day, --Snek01 (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for the reply, Snek. PEarley (WMF) (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of non-marine molluscs of Honduras has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There's been no content (i.e. non-category or editing-specific template) edits in 3 years and there are only two list items and a number of empty headers on this page. Even for list articles a minimum amount of content and/or activity is reasonable and this is an almost empty list. This list is dead, it has ceased to be, it is an ex-article, it's pining for the fjords.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cat-fivetc ---- 22:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Cat-fivetc ---- 22:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cat-five, thank you for your message. I have expanded the list. Have a nice day. --Snek01 (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Snek, and thanks for all your helpful recent contributions. I understand why you like to reference every sentence individually within an article. However, in the new article Abbottella which you created, 136 items all use the same reference, which makes the article look strangely cluttered with 136 repetitions of the notation [2]. I would consider this to be citation overkill. Invertzoo (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your message. I checked it out at Wikipedia:Overreferencing#Needless_repetition_of_citations. You are right! I have left 1 visible reference per paragraph and I have hidden the rest of them. Have a nice day, --Snek01 (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the good new gastropod articles you have been creating recently -- much appreciated! Invertzoo (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I am not sure with this image File:Megalovalvata_baicalensis_shell.png. I need to write more articles. Maybe Teratobaikalia macrostoma or more likely Benedictia maxima??? http://vk.com/club7240352?z=photo-7240352_330030847%2Falbum-7240352_00%2Frev I am confused but I will clarify it step by step. --Snek01 (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to comment on this draft article, an AfC submission? I have already made some comments on the project talk page about it. Invertzoo (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message! OK, I have put my opinion at the project talkpage. --Snek01 (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your useful input. Invertzoo (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michal, I wanted to ask you about O. draparnaudi. In the British Isles the ones I found were always quite large, and all of them had very striking cobalt-blue bodies, a strong dark blue with a little grey or black around the sides. I also found one like that but smaller in the New York Botanical Garden during a BioBlitz this Sunday.

However a friend in Florida considers this snail from San Diego to be that species. But it has no blue color, and the shell shape does not look right to me; it looks more like perhaps O. cellarius.

My friend also thinks these snails from Oregon are O. draparnaudi. The shell shape on these looks perhaps OK (although very flat in the spire), but again there is no blue coloration, which I always thought was diagnostic for that species. I understand there are around 100 species of Oxychilus. Do you think these ones that have no blue coloration are O. draparnaudi, or perhaps they may be another species?

Are the soft parts of O. draparnaudi always dark blue in your part of the world? Invertzoo (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ox. draparnaudi has a darker shell and body and wider last whorl. Ox. cellarius has a lighter shell and body. This also comply with Horsák et al., 2013.^[1]

I would say that Ox. draparnaudi is dark blue or somehow dark. Ox. cellarius is bluish grey. According to my opinion all previous photos are dark enough to be Ox. draparnaudi. For example my Ox. draparnaudi http://gastropods.wordpress.com/tag/oxychilusdraparnaudi/ are not very blue but they are dark. How much dark they appear on the photo maybe also depends how the photo is taken. It may appear medium dark on one photo and the same specimen may appear very dark on the another photo. --Snek01 (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK! That is very helpful, thank you. Invertzoo (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 December 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rathouisia leonina, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Chinese land slug Rathouisia leonina is carnivorous? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rathouisia leonina. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went through this article and fixed the prose as you had requested of me. Please, in future, if you wish to communicate with me about a Wikipedia article, do so on my talk page instead of via email. Thank you. Invertzoo (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Theodoxus fluviatilis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jan.Kamenicek -- Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 07:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you have already seen, I am trying to help with getting this article past the GA review process. As I mentioned on the GA review page, I could go ahead and make a separate list article for the distribution section and then try to summarize it in the main article, as suggested by the reviewer. But I will not do that if you are going to fight his suggestions. Let me know. Invertzoo (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your note. Yes, you did guess my thoughts. I would like to challenge some of those ideas. I need to consider them carefully. I rely on your help and I probably will need your opinion soon. Wait a few days, please. Thank you for your patience. --Snek01 (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you fight you may lose the GA process overall. As I said, I can help you but only up to a point. Invertzoo (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could simply divide that section into subheadings such as "Western Europe", and so on and then make the prose continuous in each of those sections. That would not be hard to do. I could do that. Invertzoo (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I did do that as a compromise between what the reviewer wanted and what I assume you wanted. Invertzoo (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, very good. --Snek01 (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the reviewer's suggestion at the bottom of the review page where he mentioned finding some more info on predators? Are ADW and EOL reliable sources, or not? Invertzoo (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can finish the "fixing up" of the references, I think we may be good to go on this review. I have a lot to do now before I go away for 4 weeks in less than a month's time, so I may not be able to spare much more time to work on this. Invertzoo (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Theodoxus fluviatilis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Theodoxus fluviatilis for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jan.Kamenicek -- Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michal, I just made a proposal in Wikimedia at the new Community Wishlist Survey for a much needed bot : Create a bot to show changes in articles for each WikiProject. ([13]). This requires endorsement for at least one other member. We used to have such a bot created by the German wikipedia, but since the changes last year, this bot no longer operates, making it impossible to watch all the changes made to the articles in our WikiProject. I suppose I can rely on your cooperation. JoJan (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 November 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Semisulcospira libertina, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Semisulcospira libertina (pictured) is the most common freshwater snail in Japan? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Semisulcospira libertina. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Asian Month Barnstar
	Thanks for your great contribution in Wikipedia Asian Month 2015! --AddisWang (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you want to join Gasteropod Lovers League

logo

• Picture introduction :The snail as the prototype, a symbol of love that a mountain of flowers and grass, love the natural wonders of nature. The upper level represents the wisdom of the light, the second layer is a symbol of accumulation, the third layer is a symbol of rigorous, fourth layers of the sea is a symbol of the learned, the last layer represents a broad tolerance.

Gasteropod Lovers League need you to jion in very much .We can konw each other better ,if you join .page:Wikipedia:WikiProject Gasteropod Lovers LeagueStarsareintherose (talk)

Starsareintherose (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] 

On 20 January 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Metorchis conjunctus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the trematode Metorchis conjunctus can cause disease in fish-eating mammals including humans? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Metorchis conjunctus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HI Michal thanks for your encoragement .Each student has English lessons from the primary school to the University.Now I am 17 years old ,learning in High school. Fortunately, your blog is the first foreign personal website I can see. I also set up a combination of English and Chinese website. I hope we make progress together in English. My website https://site.douban.com/245727/

By the way ,could you please teach me how to use wikipedia email . Your letter sent to me can't be replied. Starsareintherose (talk) 09:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please teach me how to use wikipedia email? And I want to say that I don't have fresh water snails' photo . Starsareintherose (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to use Wikipedia email:

1) Go to user page. 2) Click on "Email this user" in the left sidebar. 3) Write a message and click "Send" button. --Snek01 (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sinotaia aeruginosa, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the freshwater snails Sinotaia aeruginosa and Cipangopaludina cathayensis are used in Chinese cuisine? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sinotaia aeruginosa. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 February 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cipangopaludina cathayensis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the freshwater snails Sinotaia aeruginosa and Cipangopaludina cathayensis are used in Chinese cuisine? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Snek I have amended the page Carychium minimum noting that in addition to the short and very partial list of countries Carychium minimum occurs through Eurosiberia and (not noted) according to Fauna Europaea all Europe This renders the short list redundant but I did not delete it (the refs are useful). Have you any comments or suggestions Best regards Notafly (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Notafly, thank you for your message. The Distribution section is one of very important sections in gastropods. Each gastropod article usually starts with a Distribution section (and with some short Description and with few Ecology notes). As we can see in Featured articles and in Good articles, all countries, where the species occur must be explicitly included. See for example Laevistrombus canarium#Distribution (featured article), Lobatus gigas#Distribution, Theodoxus fluviatilis#Distribution (good articles) and others. Practically the Distribution section usually start as a list of countries and then it is transferring to the prose step-by-step slowly. But always there are all countries included (when the article reach good article status). I would certainly recommend to keep all countries in the article, even if it stub. Moreover I think, that ordinary readers are looking for information, if the certain species live in the certain country or not. Some species have even more detailed description about its distribution, see for example Kerry slug#Distribution. List of countries is just a necessary start. It is useful to use IUCN red list as a reference for species, that are included at http://www.iucnredlist.org/search Your addition to the article is useful. That sentence about general distribution of the species should be also referenced. I can recommend few resources for such informations, if you like. I briefly answered your question, but feel free to ask me if you have any other questions. (I can also recommend WikiProject Gastropods Talk Page.) Cheers, --Snek01 (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]