User talk:Neale Monks

Archive 1 2004-2006

The Aquarium Fishes Newsletter: January 2007
--Melanochromis 04:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC) == Image:W11logolarge.jpeg listed for deletion == Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:W11logolarge.jpeg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission.  While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, a non-profit website, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license GFDL-self to license it under the GFDL, or cc-by-sa-2.5 to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use PD-self to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Media copyright questions. Thank you.

Tilapia articles

 * Tilapiine cichlid
 * Tilapia in aquaculture
 * Tilapia as exotic species

Given that to a non-expert user like myself, these articles seem to cover different aspects of the same fish, which should be part of the same article, the split has not alleviated confusion - if the articles are about seperate species or groupings of species, that needs to be made clear in the intro sections by stating what differentiates each. — Swpb talk contribs 13:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, we will go back and make sure that tilapia (lower case), Tilapia (upper-case italicised), and tilapiine cichlids are clearly differentiated where required. This actually reflects very nicely why scientists use Latin names -- common names often lead to exactly this type of confusion. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 14:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Tilapia in aquaculture and Tilapia as exotic species both refer to Tilapia in the commercial sense (not the taxonomic sense as I assumed previously) - why are these pages not part of Tilapia, of which they appear to be subpages? Page length is not an issue, so forcing readers to a subpage is unnecessary. — Swpb talk contribs 13:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Simple -- while some introductions of tilapia have been from fish farms, many have not. Tilapia have been introduced outside their normal range as anti-mosquito predators, to stock lakes for sport fishing, and to clear away aquatic plants. Accidential introductions have been caused by aquarists dumping unwanted fish in the wild. In Asia most introductions have been following on from aquaculture, but in the Americas and Australia, aquaculture is not an important factor. So yes, there is some overlap between Tilapia in aquaculture and Tilapia as exotic species, this is not always the case. Hence, the two subjects should be kept apart. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 14:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Bramley Apple Bias
You injected subjective bias in the Bramley Apple page. It has now been toned down. Thanks--172.189.43.214 07:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Who are you? Bias on a page about cooking apples? Very odd. Anyway, have fun! Neale Neale Monks 14:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:Watch your back (aka shivs and shanks)
Well, it's "fashion" on purpose because it's unlikely that you'll come across something already perfectly broken and ready for use. I didn't change it to "shiv" in the text because it's more or less a "shard" being used as a "shiv", but it's definitely not a knife as it had been changed to. Also, when Luthor picks it up, he doesn't let anyone know about it, and when he uses it, he uses it in a way that models prisoners (the twist and break off for maximum damage in one hit). I also didn't change it because it's relatively original research, as it's never stated in the movie what it is or how he is using it. I think had he wrapped some tape around the end, it would have been more closer to the definition of "fashioning" a device. You could take a sliver of glass and wrap tape around for a handle and that's a shiv. Anyway, I was only trying to say that it wasn't a "knife", and definitely wasn't a reference to Darkseid's knife, in the edit summary. Bignole 23:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to change it to "shiv" on the grounds that "shard" is a neutral term (one that I had originally used till I thought that "shiv" was more accurate) that doesn't give way to interpretations, it is what it is. Bignole 00:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The Aquarium Fishes Newsletter: Febuary 2007
--Melanochromis 15:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Gallery of beloniform fishes
I have added a "" template to the article Gallery of beloniform fishes, 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). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Mr.Z-man  talk  17:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Halfbeak

 * Thanks for your constructive comments, here. Made the changes where I could. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 23:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Good luck with wherever you're going to take it. &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

MONKS
Keep your grubby little mits of my edits Monks. That toilet entry was inspired. CUNT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.198.179 (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

planetcatfish / scotcat
Evening Neale -

I'm happy to be guided by your thoughts on this issue (though I dont have time to revert the changes tonight). Perhaps a better way forward would be the use of these sites as references rather than external links? These two sites may be put to better use in the "In the aquarium" sections? As external links I think they need to provide something unique - which in a way, I guess they do. My main concern is the potential for this to open the gate to many more hobbyists websites. Either way, I'm happy to simply revert the changes if you'd prefer.

Cheers - MidgleyDJ 10:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Aquarium Fishes Newsletter: March 2007
--Melanochromis 22:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ovophiles
Thanks for your contribution to the Ovophile article. Interesting, important, and well referenced. —mako (talk•contribs) 19:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

peer review
Hi Neale -

I've tried to improve oscar (fish) to the point were it is close to good article status. Wondering if you would mind looking over the article? MidgleyDJ 02:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Mayan cichlid
Hi Neale -

Thanks for the help re: the oscar article.

I'd appreciate your input on the naming of the Mayan cichlid article @ Talk:Mayan_cichlid. MidgleyDJ 01:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Neale, I'm glad I have your support for this argument over so-called common names! It's a nonsensical policy for most cichlids (and other fish). The common name in question isnt "common" and it seems very silly to me to use it - when a much better, universal name already exists (although it's worth pointing out I guess that the species is unlikely to remain in Cichlasoma for long now that Kullander has limited the genus to C. dimerus and similar species). I'm hoping others will come to the same conclusion. Not sure if you've seen the most recent reply to your comments by User:Melanochromis - but I think one of the links he provides (to the tree of life project) has a sensible policy for this ie: if the species has a formal, universal common name use it - otherwise use the scientific name.


 * Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 21:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Neale - are we interested in discussing this issue at a higher level? (eg: WikiProject Fishes) In my view this project would benefit from clarification of the "use the common name" rule. In my view unless the common name is universally used in "common" english (not fishing or aquarist english), in all english speaking countries, and is unambiguous - the scientific name should be used. MidgleyDJ 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion created Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fishes. Please feel free to join in. Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 23:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Neale, seems like WikiProject Fishes is close to reaching a consensus. Would you have time to make the small alterations requested by Neil and Stefan to the proposal? I think this is a major step forward for fish articles on Wikipedia, and I think you've done a great job on the current proposal! Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 10:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Neale, Wondering if I could get your input on this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fishes & Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fishes? Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 08:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Neale - I'm in need of advice yet again :). Would appreciate your thoughts here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aquarium_Fishes. Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 22:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Paul Myers
I am neither Paul Myers or his PR agent (I don't think he needs me). I did add detail as the page was initially a stub and this is an industry I am well versed in, although I confess I know nothing at all about fish and would not dare correct an expert's on any subject that I know nothing of.

Your edited version as follows contains certain inaccuracies; Paul Myers is a former record producer and founder of the online music store Wippit and the free ISP X-Stream. As a record producer he was worked with artists including Gregory Hines, Forest Whitaker, and Betty Boo.

I reverted your changes because, they are inaccurate: 1. He did not work with artists Messrs Hines and Whitaker as a record producer. 2. The page does not give a full description of this persons work. 3. "he was worked with"? What language is that?

Three glaring errors in two short sentences and the removal of a ton of fact is not an improvement on the original. That's why I reverted them. Not because I am a PR agent.

Furthermore, I neither added the mention of the nomination or the radio appearence you allude to (check the history before pointing the finger). However the background of the inventor / pioneer of free internet access, creator of the world's first legal p2p system and who has now been nominated for a lifetime achievement award by his industry peers might be of interest to some, if not you.

It appears after looking at the other comments on this page perhaps you should stick to subjects you're expert in and read the articles you're editing before editing them. Wikipedia is a wonderful resource but benefits no one if information that is useful is removed on an ill educated whim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.191.79 (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Wikipedia isn't about levels of expertise alone, but verifiability as well. If you want to expand the article so that it has a neutral tone and gives verifiable references to every statement, particularly laudatory ones, then please go ahead and make them. I for one would appreciate that and support those changes. If there are technical errors with what is written, then again, make those changes. But to leave in place things like "he created a revolutionary idea that would change the face of the Internet - Free Internet access" is not only difficult to reference but impossible to verify. As such, it should not be included. Neither should links to his e-consultancy page or pages plugging his books. If he was nominated for an award but didn't get it, does it matter? Is the award notable enough to deserve an entry here? I'd encourage you to make constructive changes and corrections to the article, and bow to your better knowledge of the gentleman in question, but please try to keep the tone neutral and encyclopaedic. Other changes you have made to other articles have been reversed because other editors have the same perception of them that I do. Perhaps learn from that, and act accordingly. If in doubt, discuss on the Talk page before making a change. Thanks, Neale Neale Monks 19:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Birds and "significance"
Okay, I agree with what you're saying. I tweaked your phrasing a bit but left the essence of the change intact; see what you think. My intention with the "significance" language was to indicate that birds are significant to _us_ ... since they're still around, and are an indisputably important group of animals in the modern world.

However, I think you're right that it's probably stronger and simpler to omit bird "significance" (or lack thereof) entirely. Killdevil 22:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Prairie fish
Hi. You recently tagged this article for speedy deletion as patent nonsense. I'm afraid I'm not seeing the nonsense aspect (although the article is poorly written) so I'm wondering what led you to this conclusion. Natalie 23:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought but I figured I'd check. If you check the criteria for speedy deletion again, though, you'll find that hoaxes are explicitly mentioned as not falling under CSD. I would suggest prod for this, as I doubt it will be challenged. Natalie 23:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It certainly fooled me! Maybe WP:BJAODN would want this... Natalie 23:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying this hoax. &mdash; User: (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fish Quiz
Sure. You can delete all the questions/scoreboard and start a new question. I already archived them. --Melanochromis 19:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The Aquarium Fishes Newsletter: April 2007
--Melanochromis 22:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Mouthbrooding
Hi Neale - Thanks for the clarification re: male mouthbrooding cichlids. I'm wasnt aware of Sarotherodon melanotheron, I've clarified my comments. Are there many other species that paternally mouthbrood? Thanks for the heads up. Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 08:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Neale, changed to examples instead of exclusive cases. MidgleyDJ 08:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Have to say...
You're the only one who's ever taken down my edits on the KJA article with a sense of humor. Thought I'd acknowledge that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.165.9.161 (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

bala vs silver shark
Hi Neale -

A quick query re: Balantiocheilos melanopterus. This species is always known in Australia as the silver shark, this doesnt seem to be the case in the USA where it is known as the Bala shark. Wondering what this fish is called in the UK? Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 10:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * While we are talking names - I'd appreciate your thoughts here on the Talk:Three spot gourami also. Sorry to keep bothering you :D! David. MidgleyDJ 12:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mythical chickens
An article that you have been involved in editing, Mythical chickens, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Mythical chickens. Thank you. -  irides cent   (talk to me!)  22:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The Aquarium Fishes Newsletter: May 2007
--Melanochromis 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Planohamites.jpg
Hello Neale Monks, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Planohamites.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Neale Monks. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 05:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks
Hello Dr. Monks, we haven't worked together on any articles that I recall, but I wanted to thank you for supporting my position in the recent discussion at Talk:Dinosaur. While I agree completely with the comments you made, I've reversed my initial position on the topic due to points made by a couple of other editors. I still don't think the section actually belongs in the article, but if it remains short and serves to keep the nutters away from other articles, then maybe it's worth keeping. I know that I didn't express my reasoning very well when I first suggested the change (although you clearly understood), but I was a bit stunned that the first several responses opposed the change. Still, in any situation where Firsfron contradicts me, I'm willing to consider that I might be mistaken. So for now, it might be best to let things lie as they are, and we can revisit the topic in the future if it seems necessary. Thanks again, and happy editing. Doc  Tropics  17:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fish of Michigan
Which page did you mean by "unreal?" And how would I "switch it" back on? And I didn't actually think you were being sarcastic - I actually went to my library yesterday after school and found some books. I just didn't realize that they had so many books about it. :P So your advice was actually very helpful. Thanks for the link, though. I'm sure I'll find it helpful in the future. Corvus  coronoides   Contributions  M Go Blue 01:10, 2 June 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 20:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC).

Zambezi river shark
OK, not trying to revert you, just trying to understand things, Zambezi and Zambezi river which is the same page does not call the river 'Zambezi River', it is called Zambezi, so therefore I think??? It is a the a shark called Zambezi 'river shark' not 'Zambezi River' shark, if you understand the difference. Well English is not my first language so what do I know. Anyway have to run now. But would like to know if I think wrong, or if Im just confused :-) Stefan 23:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Julian Sprung
Hi Neal, I was the one who put the article above up for deletion, but now I do not feel comfortable to keep defending its exclusion. If possible, would you mind stopping by the deletion discussion to make your point? Deleting or not is not important, the important is if the article stays is because the subject is notable. Thanks! Stellatomailing 22:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Focus? On the Striped Bass Talk Page
Neale, I just duplicated my comments here FYI--Mike Cline 13:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I intend to trim the stuff about angling way back. It's totally out of proportion for an article about the biology of a fish. Take a look at Atlantic salmon or Common carp and you'll see a much more realistic balance between general biology and angling. If people prefer, we could always divest the angling stuff to its own article (say, Striped bass fishing). But as it stands now, there's a huge amount of unreferenced, chatty stuff about angling. Naming brands of lures and suggesting warm footwear really isn't relevant to the article at all. Much more valuable would be referenced quotes on the value (in dollars) of the striped bass fishery, the environmental impact of introducing striped bass on native fish faunas, use of striped bass by native peoples (if any), and so on. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 09:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Neale I am going to agree with you on this one and actively follow-up on your suggestion:

If people prefer, we could always divest the angling stuff to its own article (say, Striped bass fishing).
 * The biology of a fish is the biology of a fish, whereas the cultural, recreational and economic aspects of a fish, especially one such as the Striped Bass are so exceptionally diverse, evolving and complex that trying to include them in an article purportedly devoted only to the biology of the fish is very difficult. Your comment:

Take a look at Atlantic salmon or Common carp and you'll see a much more realistic balance between general biology and angling.


 * Illustrates my point to in the best possible way. The history of Atlantic Salmon angling is storied and is a basis for much of our angling traditions today.  There are even today, evolving recreational fishing opportunities and techniques for Atlantic Salmon, especially the Landlocked strains.  On the Carp side, here is a fish that today is becoming one of the hottest tickets in fly fishing--the Golden Bonefish--It is a challenging and difficult fish to catch on a fly.  In both cases, the articles are clearly imbalanced toward the biology of the fish--a biology that is pretty much fixed, known, yada, yada.  Whereas, the economic, cultural and recreational aspects of this fish word for word, makes their biology a minor bit of information.


 * So Neale, I would encourage your support and the support of others involved in the "Fishes" project to concur with and support the creation of Fish Fishing articles and removing the angling aspects from the Fish Biology articles. --Mike Cline 13:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow
Wow, someone with some actual expertise on wikipedia! You deserve a barnstar more than half these jokers!--24.15.11.254 17:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your copy/paste move of Dwarf Upside-down Catfish
Hi Neale,

Please don't move pages from one title to the other by copy/paste-ing their contents. This means that the edit history is no longer connected with the correct article. Only use the "move" tab, or if that does not work, request a move at WP:RM. Thanks. Eugène van der Pijll 15:40, 17 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)

Many thanks
...for your reversion of the various advertising links by 75.176.1.82.

I've alerted an Admin here if the problem persists. --Major Bonkers (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A note on WP:SELF
Just a quick note: Though I, of course, won't edit-war if you choose to restore content about Ebert in the macguffin article, if you should choose to do so, you'll have to refrain from mentioning the wikipedia article itself. WP:SELF strongly discourages self-reference. (If the article were truely significant/notable, that might be different, but if it's mentioned as an aside, as with "incidentally...", then it just really shouldn't be included at all.) It's kinda like breaking the fourth wall. :) Bladestorm 17:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you certainly made a good case for including it then. :) Bladestorm 19:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

PYGMIES + DWARFS
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on PYGMIES + DWARFS, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because PYGMIES + DWARFS fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: pointless redirect To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting PYGMIES + DWARFS, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 22:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bass fishing
Hello Mike,

The list of secondary references is *way* too long. I appreciate the effort you've made in standardising the format and alphabetising them, and wonder if you could find a way to trim the back a bit and/or encourage others to do so. One way is to take them from the book list and add them as in-line references. In theory, *all* works used by contributors should be cited as references, not as further reading titles. This makes it possible for people to go back and verify the fact or statistic quoted to see if it really is in said reference book. Another approach is simply to cull the list down to, say, the top ten titles from a historic and usefulness perspective. I note that some editors seem to do nothing but add book titles to articles, presumably because they are authors or sellers of said volume. Since I know nothing about bass fishing I hesitate to crop the book list myself, though in due course I may pluck up the courage.

Yours etc., Neale Monks 09:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Neale -- Interesting thoughts as the list of books is only but a portion of the work out there. I have not added many of the more pedestrian and fadish books on bass fishing that are out there. The idea that one could cut down to the "top 10" would be a very subjective exercise. If I cared less about fly fishing for bass, none of those would make the list.  The same would hold true if all I cared about was fly fishing for bass, many of the titles wouldn't make my top ten.  I added the books, because in total they provide and excellent overall perspective of Bass Fishing from its earliest practice up to today.  It is weak on the professional side, but not because there isn't good literature on the subject, but because that's not my area of experience.  Every book I added, I have read and studied and have in my personal library.  They all provide insights into Bass Fishing.  To include their ideas and cite them as inline references would essentially turn the article into a literature review on Bass Fishing which I don't think is the intent.  However, as secondary references, they indeed, IMHO, contribute to the encyclopedic content of the article.

Since I know nothing about bass fishing I hesitate to crop the book list myself, though in due course I may pluck up the courage.
 * I would not think of removing references to Aquarium fish from an article, unless I had read the work and could cite unequivocally that the reference did not apply.

The list of secondary references is *way* too long.
 * I would consider the above a very subjective statement, clouded by realities of print publishing that just do not apply to digital works. We have the luxury of including extraordinary amounts of USEFUL information unconstrained by mere space requirements.  All that should guide whether or not information is included is relavance, NPOV and verifiability.

--Mike Cline 12:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pufferfish in popular culture
Pufferfish in popular culture, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Pufferfish in popular culture 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 Articles for deletion/Pufferfish in popular culture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Pufferfish in popular culture 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. Eyrian 19:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Quoting you at an MOS discussion
Hi. I just thought you'd like to know that I quoted at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style something you wrote at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/archive_9–just facts about who capitalizes common names and who doesn't. I hope you don't mind. &mdash;JerryFriedman 00:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Cichlid anonymous editor
I've made a comment about this editor on the User talk:MidgleyDJ‎ page, and have also reported him for 3RR. Neil916 (Talk) 18:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Neale - this editor has returned. Making repeated, unreferenced reversions this time to Jewel cichlid. I've this posted up on the Wikiproject also (here). Any help you can render would be appreciated. MidgleyDJ 04:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Commercial use of halfbeaks
I was just scanning through the article and i thought i'd give you a heads up about Southern and Eastern Sea Garfish being used as a major seafood species in Southern Australia. Garfish are one of the most popular and widely taken species in this region, which the article doesn't mention (i'm not surprised... it is only a tiny part of the family's range). Here are a few links:
 * 
 * 
 * (its in the article)

I hope they are of some use, i'd do it myself but i'm going away for the weekend so if you need any more stuff, i should get back to you by Monday (South Australian time), and I'll give the article a look over and comment on the FA page.

Cheers Kare Kare 06:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Halfbeak comment strikeouts
Re the recent changes to the Halfbeak featured article candidate page: I think the usual way this is done is for an article editor to put a comment under each bulleted item when the item is fixed, and for the author of the bulleted item to strike it out after reviewing the change. No harm done this time, but I thought you'd like to know.

By the way, have the dashes in ranges been fixed? If so, please put a comment under that bullet and I'll go review that. Eubulides 17:08, 10 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).

Common Hatchetfish
Hello, I was wondering if you could transfer your image of the Common Hatchetfish to the Wikimedia Commons so it could be used by every Wikipedia? Thank you. Doo -  dle  -  doo  17:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:fish
I'm sure that the picture I added adds value to locomotion section simly because the picture gives the link to other image, which shows the same fish swimming in normal position, which in my opinion what locomotion is about. I do not know what fish it was because the image was taken in a wild, but I'm sure that if the picture would have been on display for few days somebody would have named the fish. Besides, the pictures do show locomotion of a fish. Is it so important to know what kind of the fish it was? I'm not going to put the image back, yet I believe that, if the 2 of us are disgree,as you found out, you should have disputed the removal of the image at the article talk page instead of removing it once again. Thanks.--Mbz1 14:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
 * Per Wp:user I could do with my talk page whateever I wish without you telling me it was wrong. On the other hand critisisng my English is concidered not civil. I'm really not interested in learning your opinion about my English, my pictures and my edits. Please do not write me any more. Thanks.--Mbz1 15:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
 * No wonder, you did not see a locomotion in the pictures, if you even did not notice such a clear thing that I do upload my pictures to commons for the last more than 4 months. As a matter of fact 99.999% of the pictures I uploaded so far were uploaded to commons. If this [[Image:Eel and fish locomotion.jpg|64px]] image does not show a fish locomotion, I'm not sure what image does. Well, of course it is easier instead of trying to explain why the same fish swims on his side and a moment later swims "normaly" simly remove the image.  In my opinion, if one sees a spelling error it is easier to correct it than to point it out to a contributer (of course I'm talking about what a  polite person will do). Btw, if you look at the message about hawk pictures at my talk page, I hope you could understend how polite people are discussing image relevence for an article and, if you look at your message, you would see the sample of non-civil and rude discussion.Oh, and sorry for my English--Mbz1 17:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
 * And one last thing, as I mentioned earlier I'm not interested in recieving any more of your messages, so I believe it would be only fair to let you know that I would delete all and every one of them with no reading. I just do not want you to loose your time writing them. Your time will be spend much more productive, by removing few more pictures of mine from the articles.Thanks.--Mbz1 17:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Myxocyprinus asiaticus
''Can you please move Chinese high fin banded shark back to Myxocyprinus asiaticus. We have an established naming protocol for fish article names (see here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fishes). In this case, because Myxocyprinus asiaticus is referred to under a number of common names (high-fin shark, freshwater batfish, wimple, Chinese banded shark, etc.), none of them universally, then the Latin name is favoured. I noticed you create the article initially under the Latin name, so if I might say so, your initial approach was the right one! Thanks very much! Neale Neale Monks 10:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)''
 * Done. Moved back to Latin name. Thank you and regards. - Dragonbite 20:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Cladogram
Phylogeny of the halfbeaks. The halfbeak family Hemiramphidae (in bold) is paraphyletic.

Phylogeny of the halfbeaks. The halfbeak family Hemiramphidae (Zenarchopterinae + Hemirhamphinae) is paraphyletic.

The clade template definitely is more easy to maintain. Sometimes it does not do well with too much text. Perhaps the reduced text size is causing the readability problem you suggest. Here is an alternative. Maybe the paraphyly can merely be noted in the text. Here are some alternatives forms that may be a little better looking. Shyamal 01:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Planohamites.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Planohamites.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 image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jusjih 00:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have undeleted your image. Please add a license tag there.--Jusjih 02:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Trachinocephalus myops
Thank you for adding the ifnromation to the talk page. RJFJR 13:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Blennies
I don't think it's quite fair to say that the saber-toothed blenny pretends to be a cleaner, as that would imply a certain amount of conscious intent. DS 17:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The pot calling the kettle black?
You are right. I should have discuss it before removing.--Mbz1 14:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Chicken
Dinosaur Comics: clearly too good for you to appreciate. --Arkracer 10:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

cleaning station, eel and so on
Hello, Neale Monks. If you want to move my images out of any fish articles they are in, please, go ahead. Thanks.--Mbz1 00:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:W11logolarge.jpeg
Thanks for uploading Image:W11logolarge.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The Aquarium Wiki Encyclopaedia
Hi Neale, I'd thought I'd mention another Wiki called The Aquarium Wiki Encyclopaedia to bring to your attention. We'd thought we'd try to put online a comprehensive Encyclopaedia on the Aquarium hobby and it's filling out very nicely.

We're always looking for comments and editors. So we'd welcome any input.

--Quatermass (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Problems With MacGuffins
A revert war is underway between myself and ILike2BeAnonymous over this section you created back in May 2007. I like the citations, and have moved them to description, however your contributions following the citations appear to be in disagreement with what you just quoted. It is original synthesis and WP:NOR to do so, without corroboration of that disagreement from another source.

IL2BA has not returned my overtures of discussion, and merely seeks to mindlessly revert the section, so I hope that I can open a discussion with the original contributor to resolve this issue. Thank you for your prompt attention. MMetro (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Zambezi river shark?
Sorry to take up space, but I got back from Zambia. I'll read the article, and so thank you. Please keep wrighting so many aquatically themed articles. thank you!Jourdy288 (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry, I just realized I wasted your space.Jourdy288 (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

My Wikiproject
I am making a wikiproject. I think you will be interested. User:Jourdy288/Wikiproject Aquatic Inverts Jourdy288 (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your copyedit request
On 31 August 2007, you made a request to the League of Copyeditors for a copyedit on Halfbeak. Because of a heavy backlog and a shortage of copyeditors, we have been unable to act on your request in a timely manner, for which we aplogize. Since your request, this article has been subject to significant editing and may no longer be a good candidate for copyediting by the League. If you still wish the League to copyedit this article, please review this article against our new criteria and follow the instructions on the Requests page. This will include your request in our new system, where it should receive more prompt attention. Finetooth (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Vorlons.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Vorlons.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Bayeux diablo.jpg}
Thank you for uploading Image:Bayeux diablo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:14, 21 May 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)

File copyright problem with File:Ceratopteris thalictroides emerse foliage.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Ceratopteris thalictroides emerse foliage.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 uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Ceratopteris thalictroides submerse foliage.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Ceratopteris thalictroides submerse foliage.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 uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Drawing board.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Drawing board.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. The Evil IP address (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Gizmo theme macos.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Gizmo theme macos.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. The Evil IP address (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Paul D. Taylor
A tag has been placed on Paul D. Taylor requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. — Chromancer  talk/cont 10:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Monstrous carbuncle


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Monstrous carbuncle, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cadwaladr (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Aquarium3.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

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) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Hikari first bites.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Hikari first bites.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F6 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 08:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Human face fish listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Human face fish. Since you had some involvement with the Human face fish redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 04:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)