User talk:MiltonT

Obligatory, yet month late welcome message follows!

Welcome
Hi MiltonT. Thanks for adding the notes on the the species of fish with aerial locomotion to the flying and gliding animals page. Very interesting stuff. Nicolharper 22:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Electrolocation/Electroreception
Hi. I think you should have merged (or proposed to merge) these articles instead of just redirecting. There was information in electrolocation that was not in electroreception, although they do discuss the same general subject. Natalie 17:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Danionin
Quite like what you've done in activating Danio and Devario pages. (if you look at the history on danionin you will probably see I follow that page VERY closely). Are you planning to do pages for the other danionin genera? I have done a few minor changes, adding in hyperlinks for Danio and Devario and changing the link in chela to chela (fish) as chela goes to a disambiguation page. Have also removed category cypriniformes as it is a supercat (ie has subcategories cyprinidae and danio), the point is that if you put every cypriniform fish in the cypriniformes category that category would end up with thousands of species and be impossible to use effectively. Would also request that you state what you have done in the edit summary when making changes.

Regards

Kerripaul 17:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Counter-current exchange
Hi, you merged this article to Countercurrent exchange, but the correct name is Counter-current exchange with the hyphenated word, because it is two words not one. I will attempt a page move (but do not expect it to succeed because of the previous history) or will list it at WP:RM in the near future. If you have any objections, can you voice them on my talk page. Viridae Talk 09:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Size of wels catfish
Hallo !I´ve seen you have written that wels catfish grow to 4m and in the Volga and Danubia, but I can confirm you that this are all big fish stories without any prooves, although it can be read in several book(and you can also read many other false dates, for example that great white sharks reach a size of 12m...). I have taken really much research in the last years about the maximum size of wels catfish and other large fish, many comparisons and calculations with known record specimens and known growth rates. The result was that it is nearly impossible for a wels catfish to grow to a size of 4m, and there are in fact really no prooves that such big specimens ever existed. Please don´t re-alter it again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.224.108.1 (talk) 17:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Hello, in reply to this, I merely moved information from one article to the other. I didn't actually write that information. MiltonT 18:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Aquarium Fishes
Hi. I saw your edits to several fish articles. Just want to let you know that the WikiProject Aquarium Fishes has been set up recently. We have a couple of participants already including User:Kerripaul who is also a Danionin guy like you. I just thought you might want to have a look at the project page and see if it interests you. Cheers !! --Melanochromis 05:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ludisia
Just a quick thanks for adding a Taxobox to Ludisia discolor. Regards, Fvasconcellos 13:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Aquarium Fishes Newsletter: March 2007
Thanks for adding taxoboxes to those articles! Here's the latest issue of WikiProject Aquarium Fishes newsletter. Just in case you want to know what's going on.

--Melanochromis 22:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Anabantoidei - thanks
Just want to thank you for cleaning up references in Anabantoidei. --Melanochromis 20:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Aquarium Fishes
Hi Milton. You have been contributing so much to fish articles. Just wonder if you want to formally join the WikiProject Aquarium Fishes and make yourself known to other editors? I usually announce new project members in each newsletter. Your name could be in the April newsletter which should come out in a couple of days. Cheers, --Melanochromis 16:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoplatystoma
Hi Milton. Thanks for helping me updating the newsletter. To change an article's title, I think using the "move" function (on top of the page) is a good way to do as it also transfers the history and talk page to the new title. Otherwise, they all got lost and it became a brand new article rather than a renamed/revised one. --Melanochromis 07:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Aquarium
Hi, I've just been doing some work on Aquarium and I have to say the article is a mess. I think it's overly long and should probably be split up. Firstly, much of the lead section refers to Public Aquariums the establishments that contain many aquariums. So I think we should move most material related to Public Aquariums to that article. Secondly, some sections of the article deal with topics related to keeping fish and should be dealt with at Fishkeeping (eg: Aquarium and much of the sections Aquarium and Aquarium). Thoughts? Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 08:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I had a feeling that many of the sections could be discussed well elsewhere. However, the Environmental impact one may (and should) also discuss corals and other invertebrates, but there isn't much information there yet about that; it is true that a lot of the current information could be in Fishkeeping, though. I think the aquarium ecology is much more closely related to aquariums specifically, so that section should remain. Go ahead and move the other material. MiltonT 14:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Milton, parts of the Ecology section are about "nitrogen cycle maintenace" while this is universal to water filled aquariums it's a issue related to keeping fish/inverts. As such I think it's an issue for Fishkeeping not Aquarium (in my view) :-) .The Aquarium article should deal with the history of aquariums, the styles, home and commercial use etc. Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see your point there. Move it as you see fit. MiltonT 20:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers Milton MidgleyDJ 20:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Milton, Great work on the article! Apologies for the unit links. Was trying to clear things up a little. There was lots of volumes in cubic metres, mixed with US gallons etc etc. Looks good now, thanks! MidgleyDJ 02:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Aquarium Fishes Newsletter: April 2007
--Melanochromis 22:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheat Day
An article you contributed towards, Cheat Day, is being considered for deletion. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, the deletion page can be found here WLU 17:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Todo
Hi Milton -

Can the todo template used at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fishes also be implemented for Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aquarium_Fishes? It is getting difficult to sort the requests for help out from the discussions in the list. I'd do it myself but I'm not sure how to :). Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 21:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorubim
Nice work on this article. I noticed that before all references to this genus were "Sorumbim." Is that just an old typo? It gets a lot of google hits, but that easily could be the case if it had been there a while. There was an article on the French Wikipedia with the name Sorumbim, but I moved it because it seemed like your sources confirmed that as a mistake. Rigadoun (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My assumption is that Sorumbim is a typo.MiltonT 17:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Aquarium
Hi, MiltonT; can you please post an update at Featured article review/Aquarium? Typically, after a two-week review period, articles are removed to FARC (Featured article removal candidates) if all concerns haven't been addressed; if work is ongoing, the review period can be extended. Alternately, even if the article moves to FARC, that provides another two-week period to work on the article, which can also be extended if needed. Please let us know if you think the concerns can be addressed. Regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 13:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Milton -

Thanks for the heads up re: monotypic genera. I knew about the rule - but had it the wrong way around in my head.

Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 20:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Aquarium Fishes Newsletter: May 2007
--Melanochromis 20:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Aquarium FAR
Hi Milton. I'm wondering if you're going to be able to work on this article some more? A lot of work was done for its FA review, but it has now stalled. Update us there. Marskell 07:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Farlowella
Hello there, Milton. Thank you for the modifications made. I appreciate it very much. Positively acknowledging that the Farlowella is indeed a "clan". Best regards. - Rodsan18 Dragonbite 20:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Sturgeon catfish, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page. 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   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. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 16:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Steindachneridion, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Aquarium Fishes June 2007 Newsletter
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Aquarium Fishes. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, remove your name from here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 20:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC).

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I was surprised nobody has given you a barnstar yet. You totally deserve it! --Melanochromis 22:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Auchenipterichthys
Hi, I've nominated an article you worked on, Auchenipterichthys, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know where you can improve it if you see fit. Regards,  howcheng  {chat} 20:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Snakeskin Gourami and Moonlight Gourami images
Out of curiosity and concern, where does Johnny Jensen say that you can use his images from FishBase? FishBase too makes the comment that copyright remains with the owner (except for drawings by Robbie Cada, which are public domain). I haven't seen any indication from the owner of these images that they are actually under the creative commons license; if they are copyrighted images like it seems they are, then these images are not allowed on Wikipedia. MiltonT 13:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Kindly correct the licensing part or delete the photos if necessary (as you may see fit). You can assist me in determining how to attribute it to the source or copyholders. Thanks for pointing out. Just want to improve/contribute more to our articles in the Wikiproject Aquarium Fishes (in good faith).  Will return sometime soon to creating articles based on the task list (as soon as I find time).Dragonbite 14:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi there, MiltonT. Taking note of your changes to above articles.  Any recommendation where I could find suitable images for the above and perhaps future articles I could contribute.  You've been instrumental in my past contributions to the project (as well as User:MidgleyDJ).  Probably better to let you guys (and the others) do the image insertions for now, in relation to the project.  Thanks again.Dragonbite 16:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Erethistes
Hi MiltonT. You are off to such a great start on the article Erethistes that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page would help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. Again, great job on the article. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 20:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Identifying an Aquarium Fish - Image:AquariumPetFishRodsan18c.jpg
Dear MiltonT. How are you doing? I need assistance in identifying this fish image which I uploaded, so that I can perhaps post it on the appropriate article page. Can you please help me on this one? Would appreciate it... Thank you in advance. Dragonbite 05:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not familiar with this species of fish. It appears to be some sort of killifish (Cyprinodontiformes). It's not a very common species in the aquarium hobby, probably. MiltonT 20:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Aquarium Fishes July 2007 Newsletter
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Aquarium Fishes. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, remove your name from here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 14:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Rita (genus)
Hi MiltonT. You are off to such a great start on the article Rita (genus) that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Again, great job on the article. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 18:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Microrasbora/Danionin
First of all ref: Microrasbora, Scientific papers have been discussing which genus erythromicron belongs in for some time now. Essentially it has been in and out of Danio and Microrasbora like a yo-yo. Fang dealt with the 1999 reallocation pretty thoroughly in her 2003 paper which stated that while essentially more research was needed it was not a Danio and Tyson Roberts also addressed the issue in his 2007 paper. Hence it is still listed as Microrasbora in Fishbase (http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/speciesSummary.php?ID=24410&genusname=Microrasbora&speciesname=erythromicron). The paper you quote states

"Danio erythromicron, a species originally described in Microrasbora, is found to be more closely related to D. rerio than the putative species of the non-monophyletic Microrasbora resolved herein".

I don't think there is much doubt among the scientific community that erythromicron is related more closely to Danio than the other Microrasbora species, however that is not justification for putting it into the Danio genus. While there are many similarities to Danio, [for example the erythormicron/margaritatus eggs are Danio like (ie large albumen and non adhesive) rather than the other Microrasbora eggs (small and adhesive) which are Devario like] there are, however, also fundamental differences betwen Danios and erythromicron, not least in body shape and the total lack of Barbels (and for a fish claimed to be a Danio - a total lack of Barbels is somewhat remarkable to say the least). Erythromicron also has features only found in the other Microrasbora species and Celestichthys such as the protruding anus [although today I have just discovered that another small rarely available Devario, D.sondhii has this latter anatomical feature, this could mean that D sondhii is a microrasbora, it is after all endemic to the same waters as M. cf rubescens. Time will tell]

There is also what appears to be a major mistake in the Abstract, I quote "Danio is identified as a monophyletic group sister to a clade inclusive of the genera Chela, Microrasbora, Devario, and Inlecypris, not Devario nor Esomus as hypothesized in previous studies." ie it says it is part of a clade with Devario then says it isn't. This does not exactly inspire confidence

Erythromicron is almost certainly the sister fish of Celestichthys margaritatus and Tyson Roberts seriously considered moving it into Celestichthys in his recent (2007) paper. Roberts had this to say about the Generic placement of erythronicron "Generic placement of "M." erythromicron is momentarily left unresolved...Based on the evidence now available it seems likely that the species eventually will be placed in Celestichthys." He held back pending research into whether both erythromicron and margaritatus had evolved separately, a most unlikely prospect but one that could not be discounted without further study, given the distance between their habitat, and also that their respective habitats also contained microrasbora rubescens and microrasbora cf rubescens, very similar fish that live in separate habitats with no obvious connection.

Essentially it is generally expected that erythromicron will become Celestichthys erythromicron, in the meanwhile, until its status is resolved it remains a Microrasbora. To the lay person both erythromicronn and margaritatus are pretty well identical, in every physiological and behavioral aspect, except body colour. Tyson Roberts considered whether margariatus was a Danio and gave good reasons for erecting a separate Genus.

Frankly in my opinion effectively saying that its closely related to Danio therefore it is Danio" in a study which did not even appear to include Celestichthys margaritatus is not good enough. In addition, that paper you quote actually dates back to January 2006 (before Celesticthys margaritatus was discovered - see http://www.sicb.org/meetings/2006/schedule/results.php3?&search=%28abstracts2006.sessionnumber+%3D%27S2-1%27%29+and+%28abstracts2006.postertheme+%3D%27%27%29%29) so it appears that by the time it was published in 2007 it was, with regard to erythromicron it was already superseeded by Tyson Roberts 2007 paper. Roberts calls it "Microrasbora" erythromicron not Danio erythromicron and it would therefore seem wise to use Roberts description of "Microrasbora" erythromnicron for the time being pending its probable transfer to Celesticthys at some time in the future. I do concur with the authors of the Paper about the status of Esomus, which I have doubts is even a Danionin, but that cannot be wikified until further study sorts this out.

Re the list of species, we must be careful to make Wikipedia accessible and useful to aquarists and other lay people as well as scientists. That list is a complete list of every fish that has ever been claimed to be a Danionin, with confirmation of its current valid status, and is the fruit of some days research, and is as such a useful resource to many people (and I have been told as much!). I also noticed that you only listed some of the species in the relevant genus pages (ie: all links to Danios as yet scientifically unnamed were removed making it impossible to find the relevant pages, you had also removed the reference to two Danios now deemed synonymised with abolineatus, again making it impossible to find the page). As many people have these fish in their homes and the relevant pages have links to photos of the said fish, by destroying the link, this makes Wikipedia a less useful resource to the aquarist.

White Clouds - while scientific papers have not claimed it to be a danionin for many years some of older printed books have claimed it is leading to the belief among some that it is, a sort of "Urban Myth". Even Dr Brittans 1960's TFH book "Danios" (as far as I know the only published book on Danios ever written) included the White Cloud (but also stated it was not actually a Danio). Again I come to the point that Wikipedia is not just for ,so ordinary aquarists are likely to look for it on that page because of the above, which is why I included it in the listing, but making clear that it is NOT a Danionin and referring people to the correct page.

One other thing you did was hide the list of no longer valid Danionin species altogether. I'm not sure why you suppressed this list. It is perfectly correct and is a useful resource. Mystifying me further still is why, before you suppressed it altogether, you removed some fish from it (eg Danio tweediei and Danio pulcher). I can only presume you had the mistaken view that these were never valid scientific names. This is not the case. I have copies of the original papers by Smith and Brittan respectively, and I note that you have removed the reference to these papers from the wikipedia pages for these fish - I am at a loss to understand why you did this, as the information was accurate, and I had made quite clear that the fish were currently deemed synonimised with Albolineatus.

Kerripaul 07:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Danionins again
Milton, I dont think we will fully agree on the neccesity for the listing, however I have pulled the current and former species listing from the Danionin page and put it on a new disambiguation page called Danionin species disambiguation. I've also removed the length details from each species that had it- this was a hangover from when the page was called Danio and was almost the only page on the subject. I hope this now closes the matter

Microrasbora - havent't read what you rewrote yet but agree with your sentiment that it should be discussed on the M. erythromicron page.

Regarding of the wording of that abstract, it is VERY confusing. Also I am unaware of any previous paper that has claimed Danio and Devario are in a single clade since Fang's 2003 paper erected the Devario genus. I would however say I am fairly sympathetic to the broad conclusions of this paper. I suspect Danionins will eventually consist only of Danio, Devario, Microrasbora, Celestichthys, Inlecypris and some of the Chela species (as I have seen evidence suggesting that Chela, already much shrunken, is paraphyletic). A lot more research is needed.

Also reference 3, Roberts 1986 paper you put PDF but no link to a pdf of the paper, did you mean to include a link?

Kerripaul 20:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you know if the 2007 paper by Mayden et al is available anywhere online?

Kerripaul 21:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

DC Meetup notice
Greetings. There is going to be a Washington DC Wikipedia meetup on next Saturday, July 21st at 5pm in DC. Since you are listed in Category:Wikipedians_in_Delaware, I thought I'd invite you to come. I'm sorry about the short notice for the meeting. Hopefully we'll do somewhat better in that regard next time. If you can't come but want to make sure that you are informed of future meetings be sure to list yourself under "but let me know about future events", and if you don't want to get any future direct notices \(like this one\), you can list yourself under "I'm not interested in attending any others either" on the DC meetup page.--Gmaxwell 22:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Bagarius
Hi MiltonT. You are off to such a great start on the article Bagarius that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 21:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Helogenes
Hi MiltonT. You are off to such a great start on the article Helogenes that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 21:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Dekeyseria
Hi MiltonT. You are off to such a great start on the article Dekeyseria that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 21:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Bullhead Catfish
Nice job. I had set it up and wikilinked it, but your additions add some much needed polish. Thanks! Pharmboy 21:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Acrochordonichthys
Hi MiltonT. You are off to such a great start on the article Acrochordonichthys that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 13:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Breitensteinia is good, too. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 13:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sarcoglanidinae also is good. I hope you don't mind the short reminder; I come to your talk page the most and I figure you know what to do, but it doesn't hurt to post a reminder.--  Jreferee  (Talk) 01:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well deserved

 * In fact you've been so prolific you've attained the particular honour of being accused of creating a "bias" on the Main Page: Talk:Main Page. Only a handful of article writers have accomplished the feat before, so definite congratulations! :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 16:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Congrats
Congratulations on all the good work you've been doing. It's nice to see another UD-er on here. Raul654 16:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

catfish
Greetings. I left a note for you here. All the best, – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Halfbeak
Wow. Thanks! You've done some good work there. I'm kind of halfbeaked out having done a lot to make the article worthwhile, and seeing the differences you made has really been rewarding. Don't forget to add a "Yes" or "No" comment to the Feature Article discussion! Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 16:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, anything to help. The more featured fish articles there are, the better. I'd like to make it a yes, but would like to see a couple days work on it at least to see if we can't boost it with some more information. I mean, through just a little flipping through my books I found information like "hemiramphids....are stomachless fish", so with a couple more days between two or more authors I'm sure a little more can be dug up. I'm in the process of adding information that I believe to be valuable from some of the great sources that are already cited. Feel free to edit; after all, that's what Wikipedia's about. MiltonT 17:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Aquarium Fishes August 2007 Newsletter
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Aquarium Fishes. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, remove your name from here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 21:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC).

A Siluriformes reference
I saw on your user page that you don't have access to the "Delturinae, a new loricariid catfish subfamily (Teleostei, Siluriformes), with revisions of Delturus and Hemipsilichthys" in the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society (2006). I do have access to the full online version of the journal, and if you still need the article give me a holler and i'll get it to you.

Kare Kare 08:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you could get that to me that would be awesome, even if it means only one or two more articles can be added to. MiltonT 18:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If i upload it to megaupload or rapidshare would that be ok? Either that or i send it to your email address.Kare Kare 04:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would be good if you could upload it online. Thanks. MiltonT 14:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.megaupload.com/?d=YM3A7GBP There you go. Kare Kare 07:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks! MiltonT 15:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Halfbeak
Hello Milton, Thanks to your work and others, Halfbeak is getting really good. Can you please add your approval (or otherwise) to its FA Discussion entry. As things stand now, Tony1 is the only vociferous opponent, seemingly on matters of writing style rather than substance. Sincerely, Neale Neale Monks 13:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Chubs and Disambiguation
Greetings. Recently, on Tue 16 Oct, I constructed a disambiguation page for the various fish known as chubs. After having done so, I began to contemplate whether that page and the current Chub page might be better named. I posted a discussion on the Chub page but it's not yet received any comment. I noticed from the article's revision history that you had made one or more contributions to the page. Consequently, I thought I might profit from your advice at Talk:Chub#Page title if you have a moment or two to spare. Thanks. &mdash; Dave (Talk | contribs) 03:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rate Your Students
An article that you have been involved in editing, Rate Your Students, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Rate Your Students. Thank you. W-i-k-i-l-o-v-e-r-1-7 (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Notice to Members of Wikiproject Aquarium Fishes
Notice to Members of Wikiproject Aquarium Fishes If you have recieved this notice it is because you signed up for the WP:AQF mothly newsletter, and have made a contribution to wikipedia within the last month. Wikiproject Aquarium Fish has seen a decline in member involvement over the past several months. This project is neary dead. I am trying to revive this project. Anyone who is still interested in working on this project please reply back to Drew R. Smith (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)). If you know of any active members who have not contributed recently and might be interested in the project please forward this message to them. If no reply is given member will be removed from member list. Thank you. Drew R. Smith (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Labyrinth (organ)
While this is ancient history, I am curious as to why you made Labyrinth (organ) a redirect rather than preserving it as a separate article. I found dozens of articles that could link to a dedicated page, and it seems to be worthy of such a page. Jeffrey Henning (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Piranha
Hi,

In this edit several years ago, you added some content that was word for word copy of a copyrighted source. I've removed it and just wanted to let you know. The article is in rough shape now, with large portions of the prose having been removed. I don't work on that article at all, but it's been on my watchlist for some time, and was only investigating why an anonymous editor placed a "ref needed" tag there. It was upon investigation of the existing "Freeman" source that I eventually uncovered the copyright violation. Dawnseeker2000  03:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Canister filter listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Canister filter. Since you had some involvement with the Canister filter redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Widefox ; talk 10:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)