User talk:Amit6/367890361

Hola por intermedio de la liturgia católica he conocido esta lengua latina, que me interesa interiorizarme aún mas. Si me puedes ayudar lo agradecería.

Saludos cordiales

amezaoliva@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.72.208.218 (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds April newsletter

The April 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. MeegsC | Talk 15:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The WikiProject Greece April 2009 newsletter

The April 2009 issue of the WikiProject Greece newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.--Yannismarou (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hello, Amit. I reverted your changes to the en and la language userbox templates because I don't see any reason to add a link to the template itself; all language userboxes are standardized at that form and if a user wants to add the userbox to their userpage they can easily see the required code from the source of any page they find the box on. Also please provide informative edit summaries to your edits, "aaa" is not an edit summary. You can discuss your changes in the talk page attached to each template. Mxipp (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I understand that you are a native speaker of Bengali. I would be most grateful if you could translate something for me in to English from Bangladesh's Ministry of Foreign affairs please. I understand it is about Kosovo. [1] Regards Ijanderson (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds May newsletter

The May 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 06:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds June newsletter

The June 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 13:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds August newsletter

The August 2009 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Newsletter delivery by –xeno ^talk 02:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Chess_position

Template:Chess_position has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. SunCreator (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Amit6, I saw a bunch of your edit summaries were "a" or some variation. The point of an edit summary is to be useful to other users. They don't need to be long and they can be copy and paste if you are doing the same thing to many articles but please don't just use "a" as your edit summary. Thank you. gren グレン 17:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article Awaous grammepomus, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

I notice you recently created a batch of pages on fish species. If you are planning to do something similar in the future, you might consider applying for the autoreviewer permission. This will make pages you create not show up in the log of new unpatrolled pages, reducing the workload on new page patrollers. You can file the request here. Cheers. — æk^Talk 17:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Was just about to leave you this same comment. Have you applied?  7  08:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Stubs

Hello. I noticed you've been creating quite a few articles on various species of fish. However, they're too short to be of any use at only a few words in length, and I was wondering if you could make an effort to include more content in your articles. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, lots of your articles include duplicated references, which I've been consolidating (e.g. here) - could you try using the "refname" tag to cover multiple citations of a single source? Gonzonoir (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Also - category Fish of South east asia is a much better category than fauna! - cheers SatuSuro 01:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries, an ongoing problem

Please take the time to write an edit summary. Repeating your username there lots of times is a common thing that vandals do...please don't taint your reputation for good edits. DMacks (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Rajpal Yadav has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Hitro talk 16:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Flag icons and dates

Per WP:MOSFLAG (and WP:MOSFILM) we don't liberally add flag icons to infoboxes.

Also, we don't wiki-link dates without due reason, especially not in infoboxes. See MOS:UNLINKDATES. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hypophthalmichthys

Please explain why you created Category:Hypophthalmichthys? I cannot see any sense in this at all. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

There are only three species! What do you achieve with a category like that, apart from creating clutter? If other misguided people have created similar clutter categories, as you claim, then there is no need to add to them! There is already a category for carp, which is more than adequate. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Capitalizing fish names

Hi! You seem to be moving articles about fish species to capitalized versions of their common names (e.g. here). Please note that this is specifically against the naming practice recommended at WP:FISH#Common names. If you think that guideline should be changed, please discuss it there first. Thanks, Hqb (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Images in you User Space

Hey there Amit6, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free images are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:Amit6/sandbox50. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Species authority

Template:Species authority has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Rich Farmbrough, 23:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC).

FishBase parsing/taxon lists

First of all, thanks for parsing all the stuff from FishBase. Having all these species articles (even though they are all tagged "orphans") is quite useful!

But a few problems have popped up with the taxon lists and articles generated. Some of the results are on the border of usability, see e.g. Labeobarbus (click on the "common name" of L. natalensis...):

• no italicized genus names for the species articles
• FishBase is not 100% reliable; if an article uses recent WP:RS, it should overrule FishBase
• FishBase subspecies listings are almost never reliable
  • (as a rule, we don't make subspecies articles just "so that they're there", but only if the subspecies is particularly significant, e.g. Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir. But as it seems, creating the subspecies articles could not be avoided anyway in your work, so that's just as well)
• special characters (accents, umlauts etc) broken are sometimes (not always, and I cannot see a lear pattern)
• whitespace problem. Having long lists in a single column makes genus pages very hard to read/use
• before overwriting/deleting something, it needs to be checked if editor's annotations (some text within <!-- -->) are present
• using the "dashitem" in species lists is not the way anyone in the scientific community would do it, and thus we don't either (it looks ugly when the author/date is in parentheses)
• common names are listed before scientific names only if common names exist for every species. It used to be like you did it, but it was too confusing and has been abolished.
  • If standardized common names exist for every species (only for birds (at the moment), the format is:
  • [Common name], [Scientific name] [author/date if necessary] (taxonomic annotation, e.g. recently moved from another genus)
  • All other organisms get listed as:
  • [Scientific name] [author/date if necessary] – [Common name if one exists] (taxonomic annotation)
• Most importantly I think: taxon authors go to the taxobox and to the taxobox only whenever possible. In the taxobox, we can annotate everything easily, tag it for verification/correction and whatever may be necessary - we have the information in a single place, meaning we have only one place where the rat-tail of disputed facts will wash up. If lists of species in a genus article, lists of genera in family articles and so on all have the taxon authors... well, you don't want to know how many hours I have wasted in correcting them (your lists are generally good, but the occasional error has escaped even FishBase's notice. You should have seen some of the amphibian genus articles I edited... pure mess, sometimes 50% of the author citations had at least one error). It is very disturbing to see a taxon author listed differently in a genus list and a species article, because one can rarely say which is correct. And then we'll have two "verification needed" (one at genus and one at species), which is suboptimal. And to follow up with tagging/referencing all these cases throughout the articles, that is an extreme workload, which, if skipped, will make fact-checking harder (as editors will "trust" Wikipedia - it's the lazy way to do it and often pretty damn the best info to get).
  • There are two exceptions to "authors go to taxobox only":
  • a taxon that does not have its own article yet but is listed in the article of its higher taxon (species listed in genus article, and so on). Then, the author should be listed, so that it can be moved to the lower taxon's article when that is created and needn't be looked up anymore.
  • homonyms and similar cases of nomenclatural dispute. See e.g. Cassia fistula and Cassia (genus) for why the author is still listed on the genus page even though the species article exists. (Cassia is a genus that is a nomenclatorial nightmare, and thus it generally illustrates when and where to list taxon authors, and when to move them to the species page. Note also that synonyms are listed when the species has no article yet, but moved to the species article when it is created.)

Check out e.g. Oecophorinae#Selected genera for the usual way it is done. Every editor has some personal tweaks, but the general layout is like here. (I picked this example because it shows basically everything that can happen or go wrong in taxon lists. You'll need to check out the editing mode to see the mess I hid away... to the reader, the page looks clean, but this has been perhaps the ugliest work I've been doing since I did in the last 3 years or so... basically every source is wrong in some way, and you have to pick out the bits that seemed good... but having all the data, of course, why throw it away? (Note the difference in "[verification needed]" between Carcina and Cephalispheira ;-) ) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Latin translations

Episcopus Romae Patriarchus Ecumenicus Constantinopoli Patruarchus Alexandriae Patriarchus Antiochiae Patriarchus Hierosolymae Æetlr Creejl 17:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you already have them, but they're also listed here. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Latin translations revisited

Hi, it is not Patriarchus, but rather Patriarcha, in all cases. And it is Constantinopolis, not Constantinopoli. Nivaca (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Arabic translations

Not entirely sure why you want these, but whatever.

I'm not very up on Church terminology (and I don't know the word for "ecumenical," which doesn't exactly appear very often in my studies), but this is as close as I can get:

أسقف روما ʾAsqaf Rūmā
بطريرك القسطنطينية Baṭrīark al-Qusṭanṭīniyyah
بطريرك انطاكية‎ Baṭrīark Anṭākyah
بطريرك أورشليم Baṭrīark ʾŪrshalīm (some religious Christian usage) or بطريرك أورسالم Baṭrīark ʾŪrsālim (some religious Christian usage) or بطريرك القدس Baṭrīark al-Quds (general usage)
أسقفية روما ʾAsqafiyyat Rūmā
بطريركية القسطنطينية Baṭrīarkiyyat al-Qusṭanṭīniyyah
بطريركية انطاكية‎ Baṭrīarkiyyat Anṭākyah
بطريركية أورشليم Baṭrīarkiyyat ʾŪrshalīm or بطريركية أورسالم Baṭrīarkiyyat ʾŪrsālim or بطريركية أورسالم Baṭrīarkiyyat al-Quds

Good luck! Lockesdonkey (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Help:Translate to Arabic

1. أسقف روما= Bishop of Rome
2. Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople= بطريرك القسطنطينية المسكوني
3. Patriarch of Alexandria= بطريرك الإسكندرية
4. Patriarch of Antioch= بطريرك انطاكية
5. Patriarch of Jerusalem= بطريرك القدس
6. Bishopric of Rome= أسقفية روما
7. Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople= بطريركية القسطنطينية المسكونية
8. Patriarchate of Alexandria= بطريركية الإسكندرية أو بطريركية الإسكندرية للروم الأرثوذكس
9. Patriarchate of Antioch= بطريركية أنطاكية وسائر المشرق للروم الأرثوذكس أو بطريركية انطاكية
10. Patriarchate of Jerusalem= بطريركية القدس

for moor informations in arabic visite Cordially Trabelsiismail (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hiii , I think Trabelsiismail do what you want --Mohamed Ouda (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Translate to Arabic

• Bishop of Rome= أسقف لروما
• Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople
• Patriarch of Alexandria= بطريرك (البابا) الإسكندرية
• Patriarch of Antioch= بطريرك أنطاكية
• Patriarch of Jerusalem= (بطريرك أورشليم (القدس
• Bishopric of Rome= أسقفية لروما
• Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
• Patriarchate of Alexandria= بطريركية الإسكندرية
• Patriarchate of Antioch= بطريركية أنطاكية
• Patriarchate of Jerusalem= (بطريركية أورشليم (القدس

Syedalinaqinaqvi (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)