User talk:Somanypeople

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Somanypeople, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! NickelShoe (Talk) 05:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diseases

You have recently created a large number of pages about diseases affecting different plants, good job on that. However, simply putting a table is not quite an article. Please place lead paragraphs in the article to explain the context of the article. Just something simple like 'This is a '''list of diseases effecting [[the type of plant]].' The three apostrophes will make that text bold, as is standard in articles, and the double square brackets will make an internal link to the article of that title. Message me if I can be of any help! J Milburn 17:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it is good to see a new member writing such useful, well referenced pages. Good job. J Milburn 17:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phytopathology

You and I both seem to be working on the sadly abadoned phytopathology pages :) I'm trying to get a phytopathology stub created at the moment. (a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation 12:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I was once a plant pathologist and still have many fond memories of that life. I am a wikipedia fan, but have found that phytopathology is not well represented. I'm currently doing some grunt work and I am creating a phytopathology framework (disease lists, disease stubs) where I hope that knowledgeable phytopatholists like yourself can contribute. Somanypeople 02:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah been away from Wiki for awhile, PhD interviews have kept me busy. I like the plant disease info box you've created the question is when do we use that and when do we use the taxo box? Is it when the species and the disease have separate articles only? (Million_Moments 17:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hope that your interviews have gone well. I haven't been very actively lately either. The 'plant disease info box' still needs some work - I'm not that happy with it yet. Any suggestions would be appreciated. As for when it should be. As you know, I have a strong preference for having separate articles for the pathogen and the disease, in which case the plant disease info box would be included in the disease article. When the article includes both the pathogen species and the disease, I think that it'd be appropriate to include both the taxobox and the disease info box. btw, it was good to see your recent contributions to the phytopathology article. Somanypeople 23:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub

Well I found all the information for creating a template, but the one thing it was missing was where in the wide world of wikipedia is this template to be posted so that it actually becomes a stub! Perhaps you will understand it: Wikipedia:Stub. (a Mentally Efficient Loonies And Nice Insane Elephants creation 13:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I think that I've got it ([1], [2]). Feel free to change the icon. Somanypeople 20:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You rock, I'll probably spend the afternoon stubbing things now :) Thanks for the help! (Million_Moments 17:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Plant-disease-stub

Hi - I see that you have created a new stub template. As it clearly says at Wikipedia:Stub, and at many other places around Wikipedia, stub types should not be created without first being discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals. That way they can be assessed to see that they would have sufficient stubs to be viable for editors, are correctly formatted and named, and do not cross other stub categories. Your new stub type is listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments as to its creation and use there. Grutness...wha? 06:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was original proposed as a phytopathology-stub but it was decided to call it a plant-disesase-stub, see [[3]]

Oops! Apologies - I missed the original discussion somehow (probably didn't notice it because of the changed proposal name). Grutness...wha? 00:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines for plant disease articles

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Guidelines for plant disease articles, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ... discospinster _talk 01:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday you marked the following article, Guidelines for plant disease articles for deletion. I am relatively new to Wikipedia and I'd appreciate it if you would explain why you did so. The template states that "How-to" guides for Wikipedia articles do not belong in main article space". Is the problem the location of the article in the main article space. If so, where should it go? I've noticed that Wikipedia has a "How to" cagetory, but I haven't seen any articles on how to create a how to article. Could you please point me in the correct direction. Thanks. Somanypeople 23:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello you may userfy the page. As you are a registered user, the simplest technique is to move the page to a user subspace, in this case User:Somanypeople/Name of page to be moved. Just remember to delete the {{prod}} notice after you complete the move and to add {{db-author}} to the article Guidelines for plant disease articles. If you wish, I will do the move myself. Just let me know.

In general, "how to" articles are not allowed on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:How-to), although this article is an exception as it is a guideline on how to write Wikipedia articles. As for proposing this guideline, you may suggest it at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) or find out if there are more appropriate places by posting a question at the help desk. I hope this helps. Feel free to ask any other questions, and I will do my best to answer them. Cheers, Black Falcon 05:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response and your suggestions. For the time being I will host the guidelines/style guide on user subspaceStyle guide for plant disease articles until I get some feedback from members of the 'plant disease' article community as to whether they feel the style guide would be of some benefit.

I wish you the best of luck in developing the guideline. Cheers, Black Falcon 23:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Powdery mildew

There's already a page on powdery mildew, which specifically has a paragraph on barley. So, I redirected your Powdery midlew (barley) to Powdery mildew. Also notice that you made a misspelling in the article title. eaolson 20:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but, the powdery mildew article is a general discussion of pathogens that produce powdery mildew symptoms on a variety of different host species. The Powdery mildew (barley) article (and I corrected the spelling of mildew) is an article specificly about powdery mildew of barley. The article is currently a stub and will be expanded.

Article names

Hi again - after leaving comments on the platanus diseases, I looked through your edit record and noticed a couple of things worth mentioning about the names. First is another US-British thing, the article List of English walnut diseases. There's nothing particularly English about the this (common walnut or Persian walnut here), in fact in the past it was even doubtful whether it could be depended on to ripen in England. The name English walnut is largely unknown in England. Second, in List of douglas-fir diseases, I believe it would be conventional to capitalise Douglas, as originating in a proper name. Cheers. Imc 21:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I changed the name to List of Persian walnut diseases. "The term “English” applied to walnuts is a misnomer. It apparently refers to the English merchant marines whose ships transported the nuts for trade around the world." I also made the correction to Douglas. Somanypeople 00:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello kindred spirit

I love the plant disease lists you've been coming up with, and I like the style guidline as well, but I'm wondering if you'd consider helping with this sort of thing on Wikibooks. I'm currently the only active author of A Wikimanual of Gardening, and lately I've mostly been working on pest and disease issues, including compiling lists both of the pests and diseases affecting various plant genera, and lists of the plant species affected by particular pathogens or pests (wander around b:Category:A Wikimanual of Gardening a bit and you'll see what I mean... I use wikilinks in both directions). I eventually want to replace the "lists" as they are now to "troubleshooting guides" for each plant (e.g., if a Rhododendron has notched leaf margins, look for Weevils, then see the page on controlling weevils). It will of course take many years to do a complete treatment of this, but the more the merrier! Interested? --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 20:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interested, yes, but, at this point I think that I need to focus on what I'm working on now, there's a lot to be done. Good luck with gardening manual. Somanypeople 23:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about "old genera"

Hi Somanypeople. What's the best way to "interpret" pest and disease lists from "old genera" that have either been broken up or eliminated? An obvious example is pest and disease data for Chrysanthemum, which has of course been broken up into many genera now (Leucanthemum, Nipponanthemum, Dendranthema, Tanacetum, etc). Old sources always use the old names, of course, but the entomologists and pathologists seem to still use the old names even in the latest literature. In the other direction, Lycopersicon vs. Solanum poses similar difficulties. I notice APS generally uses commons names as well.

There's probably no best way. I think that it just takes times for the adoption of taxonomic changes and the determination of associated pathogenic specificity.

BTW, one concern with APSnet is its copyright. You might want to consider trying to use multiple sources for the articles you're creating, because a lot of the pages you've created are pretty much just copies of the pages on APSnet. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 17:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, however, the pages are evolving and I hope that additional references will be added as time goes on. It is my hope that since the American Phytopathological Society is a non-profit organization dedicated to the study and control of plant diseases, that they would not object to the use of these lists in a noncommercial work such as wikipedia.Somanypeople 23:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Things

I was going to merge the two rust articles but there is some debate over what name they should be merged under. I was thinking for now the pathogen's name could just be used but if not my first choice would be wheat leaf rust as its more descriptive. It doesn't matter that much because redirects will be created anyway...Just asking since your my fellow plant pathologist. (Million_Moments 14:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm North American centric, so my preference is wheat leaf rust, but either is fine. However, if you decide to use brown rust, I would suggest that you rename the article to 'Brown rust (wheat)' for the purposes of disambiguation. Although, unlike most other disease names, I think that brown rust is quite specific and is pretty much only used to describe a disease of wheat. When you do the merge, you might also want to add a reference to the following article: http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=9915. Also, in the next few days I'm going to take another look at fixing up the disease info_box and then that could be added and it would list the various common names for the disease. Somanypeople 12:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've been working on this pathogen in the UK for a year and we always called it wheat leaf rust so I think that is the best choice. (Million_Moments 17:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

APSnet, etc.

I wandered across another of the lists of disease articles today, and I really think you should try to get permission from APS before continuing with these. I've asked some of our "comrades" at WP:PLANTS to have a look too (I might be wrong about it), butfor now, maybe you could work on getting permissions rather than spending time (looks like a lot of time!) turning their lists into wikitables. It would be great if they gave permission, but upon reading that copyright again this morning, I get the feeling they might not want their data included on a wiki. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 11:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather have the lists deleted than ask APS for permission to use them. It's ridiculous that they have any sort of copyright on these lists in the first place. This is the type of information that they should be encouraging others to make use of for both non-commercial and commercial purposes. If you want to advocate for the lists to be deleted, feel free to do so. Somanypeople 18:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly I'd rather have the lists... it's good information and might help us prioritize particular diseases that are found on many plants. But the lists were made by the people at APS, and so we have to respect their copyrights even if we don't agree with them. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 19:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just talking to some folks on IRC about this, and they advised me to bring it up on WP:ANI for more opinions. I'll do so, but please don't take this as anything other than genuine concern... you've done so much work on these lists, and I really hope you'll continue to make more of them if our "copyright experts" think it's OK. If it is OK, you can be sure that I'll be importing each and every list you made to Wikibooks, because this kind of list will be very helpful there :). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 19:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've asked around more, and apparently since they're "objective lists", they aren't eligible for copyright. Sorry to be alarmist, I just saw how much work you were doing, and if it were me, I'd be pretty upset if after hundreds more hours work, it all ended up being deleted :).

I'm wondering though what you think about adding "pests" to this as well. Interlinking the pests as well as the diseases could also be helpful for diseases spread primarily by vectoring insects (viruses mostly, but also some fungi and bacteria). Vectoring relationships are quite cutting edge, so including them on Wikipedia (and/or Wikibooks) could be helpful for those researching the ecology of phytopathology. On the Wikibooks side, this is more aimed at the practitioner: A_Wikimanual_of_Gardening/Macrosteles_facifrons, for example, will be linked from A_Wikimanual_of_Gardening/Aster Yellows, but also provides links to genera that serve as hosts to the Aster Leafhopper, including weeds, so that a farmer, gardener, or nurseryman can have a guide to identifying alternate hosts for the insect, control the insect on both the cultivated plants and any alternate hosts in floral strips or meadows, etc. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 15:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fungus ..

Thanks, Are these from Wikispecies? If not you might also be interested in contributing to that project... ShakespeareFan00 19:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

have also created a category [[Category: Fungal plant pathogens and diseases]] for your recent additons. Hope it helps ShakespeareFan00 19:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but, the category that I meant to use was Category:Plant pathogens and diseases, which already exists.

I'd created the new category as it was more specific :). ShakespeareFan00 19:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phytophthora

Hi Somanypeople,

Phytophthora is formely cited as a fungus, but now it is cited in the Chromista kingdom. (see Phytophthora)

--Ricardo 16:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject Plants

Hello, Somanypeople and thank you for your contributions on plant- or botany-related articles. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Plants, a WikiProject aiming to improve coverage of plant-related articles on Wikipedia.

If you would like to help out and participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! Rkitko ^(talk) 02:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plant disease stubs

Hi; you might well be interested in this proposal for subtypes of the plant diseases, as creator of many of the articles. Alai 22:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oidium leucoconium

A tag has been placed on Oidium leucoconium, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. :) Chetblong 11:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Potato virus U

Potato virus U, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Potato virus U satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potato virus U and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Potato virus U during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Tiptoety 20:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you try to add a little info to your plant diseases thanks ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 21:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Powdery mildew

You seem quite knowledgable on your synomyns for species. Do you think Erysiphe poligoni and Erysiphe polygoni are the same species. We have powdery mildew on our lupin at the moment so I was going to add a picture. Literary search turned up the name Erysiphe poligoni but that's so similiar to polygoni I can't figure out if they are the same! Million_Moments 16:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty certain that Erysiphe poligoni is either a misspelling for Erysiphe polygoni, or a translation of it to another language, but I'm not certain which language. Perhaps Esperanto. In Esperanto, Polygonaceae is Poligonacoj. In any case, lupin is one of the host species for Erysiphe polygoni, so the odds are that that's what you've got. Somanypeople 20:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greeting from Mildew Man

Good evening, Somanypeople. Great to see your mildew page. I'm a specialist in powdery mildews - of barley in particular, but I've also worked on wheat and cucumber. I'm starting to add to the Blumeria graminis page, although I've only got as far as tidying up the names of the formae speciales so far.

I don't want to duplicate material between the Blumeria graminis and Powdery mildew (barley) pages. Do you think the two pages should be merged, with a redirect from one to the other? I'd be happy to do that if you wish. My preference would be to have the main page as Blumeria graminis with redirects from Powdery mildew (barley) and (wheat), (oats), maybe (rye) and from Erysiphe graminis. Please let me know what you think about this suggestion - you should be able to email me from my User page; if not, please respond here. OldSpot61 (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not responding sooner - I haven't been very active lately. My philosophy is that there should be separate articles for pathogens, hosts and diseases with some overlap between them. There's so much to say about each of them. With obligate parasites it gets a little tougher to justify separate articles for the pathogen and disease. I guess it makes sense to have just one article if it is fairly short, but as it expands it's probably appropriate to create separate articles. However, I'm easy. Whichever way you want to go is fine with me. What I'd really love to see is other pathologists like yourself get involved with wikipedia.

Taxonomy for some Rhizopus articles

Hi,

I'm going through categorising some of the fungus articles in Category:Plant diseases and pathogens according to taxonomy. I've run across two articles that you created which puzzle me a little. I'd just like to check that Rhizopus stolonifer var. stolonifer and Rhizopus circinans belong in the class Dothideomycetes and not in the class Zygomycota. Only, there are four or five other articles about species in the Rhizpous genus which are placed in the class Zygomycota. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Coffee rust articles

Hi there! Great to see a fellow plant pathologist on here. I have just found the Coffee rust article stub and have merged it with Hemileia vastatrix until such time as the content is expanded. I saw you had links to both articles from your page User:Somanypeople/Style guide for plant disease articles. Any probs, please get in touch. Many thanks, Safflle (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Slopek Jozef Juraszek 1824 03-10 painting.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Slopek Jozef Juraszek 1824 03-10 painting.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for File:Slopek Jozef 1824 03-10 painting.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Slopek Jozef 1824 03-10 painting.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:StefanSlopek.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:StefanSlopek.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Grape pests and diseases has been nominated for discussion

Category:Grape pests and diseases, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 17:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Beet yellow net virus for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Beet yellow net virus 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/Beet yellow net virus until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article.

Velayinosu (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Millet red leaf virus for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Millet red leaf virus 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/Millet red leaf virus until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article.

Velayinosu (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hypoxylon tinctor for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hypoxylon tinctor 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/Hypoxylon tinctor until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Vitaium (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pratylenchus dulscus

The article Pratylenchus dulscus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Cannot find any sources or evidence which don't link back to wikipedia. Does not seem to exist, not even in any database. WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES does not apply because of this.

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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Meloidogyne fruglia

The article Meloidogyne fruglia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No such species. List of African daisy diseases of was vandalized in March 2007, replacing M. javanica with M. fruglia. The creator of the list of African daisy diseases went on to create articles for the listed diseases without noticing that the list had been vandalized.

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. Plantdrew (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Meloidogyne gajuscus

The article Meloidogyne gajuscus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No such species. List of African daisy diseases of was vandalized in March 2007, replacing M. incognita with M. gajuscus. The creator of the list of African daisy diseases went on to create articles for the listed diseases without noticing that the list had been vandalized.

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. Plantdrew (talk) 00:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Meloidogyne gajuscus

Please do not introduce inappropriate pages, such as Meloidogyne gajuscus, to Wikipedia. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been deleted. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. UtherSRG (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]