User talk:Ganeshbot/Archive 1

Part of the text needs amending[edit]

Sorry, but part of the intro sentence needs changing a bit. Please see the note I left on Ganeshk's talk page. Invertzoo (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strioterebrum[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Strioterebrum, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.bing.com/reference/semhtml/Terebridae. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benthomangelia[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Benthomangelia, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://linnean.org/index.php?id=429. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Atlanta lesueurii[edit]

On 27 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Atlanta lesueurii, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Oxygyrus keraudrenii[edit]

On 28 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oxygyrus keraudrenii, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Tags are not needed to note what is not present[edit]

In many articles this bot is inserting tags noting that sections are empty. In some cases, the section headings and the message tags are a large part of the article.

1) Someone who is an expert doesn't need a tag to inform them something is missing.

2) Someone who is not an expert doesn't have any ready way to fix the article, and to those people, who are the vast majority of readers, the tags are intrusive. They force a casual reader or editor to stop and read them, but provide no information on the actual topic.

3) The tags create a false impression that certain information is available, but is missing. Equally that certain other information that is missing is not deemed sufficiently important to ask about.

In sum, the tags either state the obvious, are intrusive, or are misleading.

Please stop adding these tags to articles. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The empty sections were added to provide a structure to the article. They also help human editors to add information without having to enter the headings. Would you be okay with just the section headers without the tags? — Ganeshk (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		The Minor Barnstar
		Good work on taxonomy of all heterobranch articles! Snek01 (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Protolira valvatoides for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Protolira valvatoides 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/Protolira valvatoides 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. Shroffameen (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Congo disambiguation page[edit]

When you edited the Odostomia alia article, you added a link to Congo, which is a disambiguation page rather than an article. If you know from the source material whether it's referring to the Republic of the Congo or the Democratic Republic of the Congo, could you please edit your link to point to the appropriate page? Most common usage referring to the country simply as "Congo" is about Republic of the Congo, not the DRC, but I didn't want to assume that in this case since you're probably more familiar with the topic. Thanks! LarryJeff (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me who added the text. — Ganeshk (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked at the wrong line in the history. Sorry about that. LarryJeff (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link as "Congo" in this case refers to a geographic region in the Atlantic Ocean at the latitude of Congo. JoJan (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about linking to Congo River or Congo Basin? Seems like that would be accurate. LarryJeff (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have linked it to Congo Basin. — Ganeshk (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odostomia turrita[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Odostomia turrita, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=141022.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False alarm. The information at WoMRS is available under a Creative Commons license. — Ganeshk (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thanks for creating all of those mollusk articles and for your significant efforts to improve the encyclopedia. A truly impressive mass of new articles! Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sadasivpet[edit]

The article Sadasivpet has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mdann52 (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cymbiola nobilis[edit]

On 9 June 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cymbiola nobilis, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Cymbiola nobilis (pictured) is vulnerable due in part to overcollection for the shell trade? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cymbiola nobilis. 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Workpages category[edit]

hi Ganeshbot -- perhaps you could consider using a "private" subcategory to Category:Wikipedia workpages, the category has become really unmanageable due to the large number of entries you made. --dab (𒁳) 16:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dbachmann:, I am not active on Wikipedia, if someone wants to move those pages to a private sub-category, that will be fine with me. — Ganeshk (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Microvoluta hottentotta[edit]

The article Microvoluta hottentotta has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I think this was created in error - there's no such species on WoRMS, even as a synonym. The links in this article point to Volutomitra hottentota, not Microvoluta hottentotta. M. hottentotta isn't mentioned on WoRMS at all, so I don't think it's suitable to redirect this to V. hottentotta.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sistrum iostoma[edit]

The article Sistrum iostoma has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WoRMS, does not exist as a valid name, not a synonym of anything, so not suitable as a redirect.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy templates[edit]

It's creating {{Speciesbox}} taxoboxes without the taxonomy template existing, which is filling Category:Automatic taxobox cleanup. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles go into this error-tracking category quickly, but they come out very slowly without null edits, which are very time-consuming. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]