User talk:Fluri/archives/2007Feb

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 02:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Lacustrine
I have amended the page lacustrine as I didn't know what it meant. Do you think my definition is right? Malcolm Morley 22:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's a good job. I added a couple of words just to make it clear that we're describing a trait possessed by a population of fish. Dave 00:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Morph
Sorry to be a nuisance but I think the brown trout article is really good but I am just trying to make it both scientifically comprehensive and readable for as many people as possible. I am just not quite sure exactly what the word morph means in this article. I am assuming it is a subspecies but don't want to expand on it without being sure. I have looked at the article morph but it doesn't really explain it in this context. Do you fancy editing the morph article and then linking it across? Cheers Malcolm Morley 15:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A morph is, literally, a particular "form" of fish. It is not a subspecies. It's a (sub)population or a stock that exhibits a specific life history. It's thought by some a "strategy" to allow partitioning of resources. For example, let's say that running up streams to spawn is a natural inclination for adult brown trout and migrating downstream is a natural inclination for juveniles. If migrating downstream brings them to the ocean, they'll form an anadromous population (morpha trutta.) If they're far from the ocean, they may find a large lake that provides a similar sort of opportunity. These fish will form a potamodromous population (morpha lacustris.) If there's neither an ocean nor a sufficiently large lake available to the fish, they may form a stream-resident population (morpha fario.) This is overly simplistic in some sense but it's an illustration. If a species, within its genotypic "space", has a certain level of plasticity in their life history strategy, let's say, they can exhibit these various conditions throughout their range.


 * Another example would be certain Arctic char populations. There are landlocked Arctic char populations where the fish in the lake segregate into distinct morphs. One subpopulation has morphed into planktivorous, small, early to mature fish. Another subpopulation may be piscivorous, larger and later to mature. These two subpopulations, especially if the fish community is fairly simple to begin with, will harness the finite resources available more efficiently than either population would in isolation. The subpopulations also tend to segregate spatially to "avoid" direct competition for similar resources and to minimise intra-specific competition and predation. These are not subspecies because fish only have a "tendency" to exhibit one strategy over the other. They can take on alternate strategies if available. If you take a brown trout, let's say a yearling, from a stream-resident population and move it to a stream that has access to the ocean, that fish may begin to migrate to the ocean or it may not. It's likely to remain stream resident, if the stream conditions are appropriate, but it will not necessarily do so. So, in summary, a morph is a population or subpopulation of fish which have an innate tendency to exhibit a particular life history. But the total "space" occupied by the superset of all visible life history strategies is considered the normal operating space for the species as a whole. Does that make any sense or am I speaking Greek or something? :-)


 * Some biologists claim that this sort of functional polymorphism, to use the term in a novel fashion, is a precursor to (sub)speciation, especially if the morphs remain or become reproductively isolated.


 * As far as looking at the Morph page and linking back here, that's something I'll have to put on the 'to do' list. I'm extremely busy right now working on a major project. Thanks for your interest, Malcolm. It's a pleasure speaking with you and seeing your enthusiasm for Wikipedia. Dave 19:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I have linked the word morph to the discussion on this page as it seems to be a pretty good explanation until the article Morph (ichthyology) or Morph (biology) is written by someone more qualified than myself. Cheers. Malcolm Morley 17:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Malcolm, I've completed an entry for Morph (zoology) and wikified the brown trout article to point to it. Please feel free to edit any of it as you see fit.  Once again, thanks very much for your help with these articles. &mdash; Dave 02:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Good job spotting that Yellowknife/Yellowstone mistake on bear attack page
Thanks for correcting that mistake I made on the bear attack page. Sometimes the old Hoke gets bleary-eyed if I do this too long. Feel free to add some more content- names, amplifications, etc.--Hokeman 02:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles spelling
Thanks for noticing the spelling vandalism. I incorrected atributed this to you until I saw the previous edit which I apologise for. Thanks again. Steelbeard1 20:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Salmon
Thanks for making the corrections to the salmon page. I have not had time to work on it. However, I am working on a rewrite. As you might have noted the discussion page has some additional information and my own website has more. http://www.didgood.com/recipes/information/salmon/salmon.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by meatclerk (talk • contribs) 00:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC).

AE <--> BE spelling changes are NOT vandalism
National spelling differences are addressed in Manual of Style (spelling). Changes between 'fertilisation' and 'fertilization' in an article such as Salmon is NOT vandalism, and it is poor form to call it such. --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  10:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it's not vandalism by rigorous definition. I should point out, however, that nothing of that nature is stated anywhere in Manual of Style (spelling) to which you've referred me. (Rather, it's found in Vandalism.) At the same time, Manual of Style says that changing from one spelling variant to another for no apparent reason is "inappropriate". More specifically, it also states that "...if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles..." In this case, no argument can be made as to internal consistency since the -ise or -isation suffix occurs only once in the article. I felt that, according to the MoS, the edit was "inappropriate" or "wrong". Now, only in the edit summary, I used "vandalism", perhaps, as a shorthand to mean an inappropriate edit. For that perceived lack of precision in language, I have to say mea culpa. It's not as though I reported the user or sought to get him banned. Nonetheless, before I reverted that, I checked the user's contribs. There is no doubt that I reverted an inappropriate edit by an editor whose contributions are, thus far at least, suspect at best (in fact, at least half of the edits from that user are clearly vandalism by a rigorous definition of that word.) I note, as well, that you chose not to provide any guidance or advice to the editor who was the object of my reversion. So, in the end, we are left with the situation where your complaint amounts to the fact that the shorthand I used in the edit summary to describe my reversion of an inappropriate change was not sufficiently rigorous for your taste. Well, thank you for pointing that out... &mdash; Dave 01:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a big gap between 'inappropriate' and 'vandalism'. Unless you can see that a user who has been informed of the guidelines in Manual of Style (spelling) is deliberately violating those guidelines (and they are 'guidelines', not 'policy'), calling changes from one national spelling preference to another 'vandalism' is a violation of Assume good faith (which is 'policy'). --  Donald Albury ( Talk )  10:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Salmon as food
Thanks for fixing up that section. I had made several correction, but had not had time yet to fix that section. I thank you. --meatclerk 18:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Clupea harengus.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Clupea harengus.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok  ☠  18:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Muzulman - Unreferenced template restored?
I see that on your recent edit (annotated m for minor, with Edit Summary indicating a correction of "diction") of the Muzulman [sic] page, that you restored the Unreferenced template. What was your rationale for this?

Although the page lacks particular inline citations, I did add both a library Reference and a Web-accessible External link. I added both to the Page, with section headings for each. The fairly extensive rewriting I performed is based upon these resources, so this is verifiable encyclopaedic content as required.

Furthermore, I plans to expand the page beyond "Stub" quality after consulting additional resources. I'm currently investigating what's involved in a Move to rename in this case where the suitable name (that I can support) is presently in use as a Redirect page. Meanwhile: if there's something I don't understand about referencing, I'd be glad to know it. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 07:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Gee, I'm not really sure how I did that. It most assuredly wasn't my intention. The only thing I can think is that, when checking out the side-by-side diff, I clicked "edit" on the left pane instead of the right pane to make that minor change. I apologise for that and I shall remove that template forthwith. Thanks for pointing out my fallibility! :-) Dave 18:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

74.97.6.44
Blocked. Fred Bauder 21:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Fred. I suppose that's the cost of RC Patrol... Dave 21:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Peter van Pels
Sorry, I ended up putting the vandalism warning on the IP account at User talk:74.137.129.254 when you in fact were the one who made the reversion (we both went for our guns at the same time but you were on the draw!) My apologies - it was accidental and I should have double-checked the edit history before going to place the warning. Bencherlite 02:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, no worries, friend. Please don't give it another thought. And thanks for your help on the anti-vandalism front. Dave 02:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)