A tag has been placed on Open Root Server Confederation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -WarthogDemon 01:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Aquatic Plants Digest, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://theaquariumwiki.com/APD.

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.) MadmanBot (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use, etc. I may have even written parts of that quote. This isn't a problem.

Look, we collected this info for the community to reuse when we built the aquarium newsgroups. Check for yourelf.

We use it. You are welcome to. If you don't. nobdy cares. Wikipedia isn't in a position to be turning down material. If ou want to I cold care less, I did this out of courtedy and ususualy hear "thank you" and if want to scream at people for helping why don't you go do something else?

Replied here: [1]. -WarthogDemon 12:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, slowly and carefully now... a reference like (Fang 2001:17 [ref. 25285], Kottelat 2013:99 [ref. 32989], Kottelat 2015:41 [ref. 33971] is of no earthly use. How do you suppose that should be quoted in Wikipedia? Where is the reader to look it up? Either ratchet your ego down a notch and provide a journal article title or book (rather than just copying useless pre-formatted reference code from somewhere), or this will keep getting reverted. And if you think "REF:CoF" conveys any meaning, no it doesn't - not everyone uses the same acronyms as you do. So please. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"And if you think "REF:CoF" conveys any meaning, no it doesn't "

The world of ichthyology they do. If you have non-fish people editing scientific information about fish of course there are going to be issues.

Would ou habe grade 3 students edit pages bout Tensor Calculus.

I DO apologize for knowing what I'm talking about. But this doesn't mean you do.

P.S. Don't use FishBase. It is not authoritaitve and full of errors. The SOLE gold standard for fishes is Catalog Of Fishes ("Cof") William Eschmeyer, Richard van der Laan, Ron Fricke

http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/Ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.141.187.194 (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]