User talk:MidgleyDJ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, MidgleyDJ, 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! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Viriditas 10:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to Butterfly Koi

I don't know why you hacked up the Butterfly koi page like you did... It didn't exist a month ago, and I went to the trouble of creating it, and when you had a difference of opinion, I was polite and respectful,... Do you honestly think you added value by removing the picture... without offering a better one in its place? Do you think a lay person will get enough sense of it by a verbal description of "longer fins",... and as the mainstream Nishikigoi world tends to deligitimize longfin, don't you think that the quote from the Japanese emperor is germane to that controversey? DO you think that the two headers "Growing popularity" and "unpopularity" are what one would call "elegant wordsmithing"? I just don't get why you did that... it isn't worth the energy for me to fight over it,... I tried to create something from nothing,.. and now I just won't do that anymore (not here)... but hey thanks for that life-changing kernel of wisdom on Calcium phosphate... millions of people will really benefit from your input. YFJA Oops Sugarboogy phalanx 15:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sugarboogy phalanx, thanks for your comments. I think it would be worth examining the guidelines for civility here at Wikipedia (WP:CIVIL). It's also worth checking the history for the page in question (Butterfly Koi). If you did, you would find that I didnt remove the taxobox OR the picture from this article. That was done by a different user. What I did do was rewrite some of the text and use one common name (butterfly koi) for consistency. I agree with your comments re: popularity and unpopularity as section titles and have altered them to reflect this. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, I've tried to improve the article with WP:STYLE in mind. MidgleyDJ 21:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the un-civility, I was typing while upset, and I especially apologize for my ineptitude in accurately reading the history. Nonetheless I think the WP culture and the public license that goes with it.. might be a bad fit for my personality. I don't think I will ever be fully comfortable to see something I worked hard on get heavily modded by strangers who may or may not share my ideas of style or my insatiable appetite for "max-information". On the topic of Butterfly Koi,... there is Huuuuuge backstory to that, and it includes a cultural conflict between Japanese and non-japanese breeders. When butterfly koi came on the scene, it created a paradigm shift in which american breeders (like Blueridge) were no longer at a disadvantage, and perhaps even held a leadership role,... The Japanese koi association who had no problem in changing their rules/categories for Doitsu Koi (same thing, a ferrel breed-hybrid that didn't fit their "scales" criteria)... deligitimized Butterfly koi forever because longfin would have made koi a balanced global trade phenomenon rather than the snobbish nippocentric racket that it is today. The petty bigoted comments that importers and Japanese breeders make about Longfin (right now... today) are not mere heresay, they are relevant to a multi-million-dollar business, and are an essential primer for anyone considering an investment in butterfly koi for anything beyond pond-stock. IF there's one page on earth where all the information should be preseted, it is here. Just imagine: If american swordsmiths came up with a better way to make a Katana, actually superior to existing techniques in every way,... and then the Japanese armors exerted influence so that these would not be allowed in competitions, auctions, and even barred the term Katana from being applied to what many would consider the finest blades in history. And then, after a falla outlines all the facts, somebody deletes half the article such that a reader only sees "Yankee Longswords are not Katanas". I think I'll just be one of those freeloaders who get immense value from WP without giving anything back... but I acknowledge that it's entirely my hangup. Sugarboogy phalanx 03:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sugarboogy phalanx, I think it would be a shame to not contribute further to this article you obviously have considerable knowledge about the politics surrounding butterfly koi. Wikipedia encourages bold, NPOV edits and discussion - feel free to do either if you think it will improve the article. Thanks for the explanation. MidgleyDJ 04:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gasteria

Thanks for your contributions to the Gasterias page Wolfie001 22:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Nomination: Tim "Youngblood" Chapman

An article that you have been involved in editing, Tim "Youngblood" Chapman, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim "Youngblood" Chapman. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

--TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 19:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

Huon has already repaired it for you. When making a second nomination you need to specify the name of the nomination page in the link in the log (so, {{subst:afd 3|pg=Maria Wong (YAF) (2nd nomination)}} ). You had left out the 2nd nomination part, so the old nomination appeared. Cheers, Yomanganitalk 10:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there was no first nomination. I assume you used Template:afdx instead of Template:afd1. Probably the problem should have been solved by moving the deletion discussion page, but I didn't realize until after I had changed the link on the log. Yours, Huon 10:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I just noticed that too, I'll fix it, but the nom might look broken for a minute or two. Yomanganitalk 10:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
So prod is different to afd1? Sorry for my confusion, I'm new to this proposing deletion discussion business :(. MidgleyDJ 10:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, prod doesn't count as a nomination for deletion. The article had already been prodded (twice), so you did the right thing in nominating it (I'm pleased to see you also attempted to get the editor to cleanup the page before nomination and have contacted them to let them know about the AFD - makes a nice change). Cheers, Yomanganitalk 10:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anurag kumar

You can put the speedy tag back on it, the creator of the articles that are tagged are not allowed to remove the speedy tag. –– Lid(Talk) 12:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  • oh, thanks. I've listed it for AfD. I'm not certain what to do with it. Notability (at this point) hasnt been established. MidgleyDJ 12:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asclepiadaceae

Hi MidgleyDJ - this page had been vandalised by Hummerh2 shortly before you edited; I've largely reverted to the previous edit by Berton, which I fear has resulted in some of your edits (as far as I could tell, grammatic changes to the vandalised text) being lost - could you check over to see if all is OK with what you intended to do? - thanks, MPF 00:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

-Hi MPF, Fixed. I reverted the changes back to my last version and removed the vandalism (re: the inclusion of Salix). Should all be fixed now, thanks for the heads up. Cheers, MidgleyDJ 06:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] regarding abortion

Good to see this site works fine with the removal of the word death. Cheers Freedomspeechman 11:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Huh? I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly. If this is about a reversion of Abortion, then I reverted an edit you made as it was far less detailed than the version you blanked. If you have an issue - discuss it, dont just delete other people's point's of view. MidgleyDJ 11:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if your meaning to be rude or it came across that way ? Just quickly my only intention in contacting you was say I was fine with the change you made.

I had posted an item to discuss the use of the word death as it breaches the NPOV which was edited out! Whets this blanking out ?

I didn't blank anything out I wrote what I thought was an appropriate description of abortion.

It was then changed by i thought you but it was someone else changing the word from death to termination. which i and i think others will be fine with. No need for attitude mate! Freedomspeechman 11:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Downey

Hey MidgleyDJ, no worries. Keep up the good work. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ecopave

Excellent work. This has brought to my attention the fact that this area is not covered well, but advertorial is for sure not the way to fix that. Guy 15:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Venus flytrap

Why did you revert my edit to Venus flytrap and call it nonsense? I'm no expert on the matter, but I did source the statement. Paul Haymon 00:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for being civil, but may I direct your attention here? [1]

[edit] references

I am a little bit critical, but I do not see any proper references in your articles about cyclids. please make proper references (preferably from international media) or I had better chop out the unsourced allegations. (and I am serious about this!) Jeff5102 20:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, Most of the cichlid articles I have worked on are referenced appropriately. I think you'll find cichlids dont rate a huge mention in the international media. Thanks MidgleyDJ 23:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, never mind. I guess I was a little hot-tempered. Anyway, I believe you have the right motivation to write here, so please continue. (No, this was no sarcasm). Bye. Jeff5102 19:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] references-Adnan Oktar

Since you wrote I should use more “independant references” to the Adnan Oktar-article, I gladly present some supplementary articles with the person Oktar in it. Please use it to improve the article; you might understand I have no desire to do it myself at the moment.

http://web.archive.org/web/*sr_1nr_10/http://www.geocities.com/evrimkurami/* An archive containing (now off-line) webpages of Turkish scientists who defended themselves against Oktars campaign.

Some Islamic analysis: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/inayat_bunglawala/2006/07/darwinism_muslim_scientists_ha.html . Inayat Bunglawala (media secretary at the Muslim Council of Britain) about Oktar and evolution.


About Oktars alleged anti-Semitism: http://www.axt.org.uk/antisem/archive/archive1/turkey/turkey.htm , http://www.axt.org.uk/antisem/archive/archive2/turkey/turkey.htm#Parties show reports from 1996 and 1998 about Oktars racism, although he seems to become more tolerant toward Jews: see http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2004/turkey.htm

From Turkish newspapers: http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/archives.php?id=14117 . See the Smells like Susurluk-part. And the following http://web.archive.org/web/20040622222249/http://www.turkishdailynews.com/past_probe/11_21_99/politics.htm#d2

And see also http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol19/8300_islamic_scientific_creationism_12_30_1899.asp about Oktar’s teachings.

About recent activities, check out http://www.thenewanatolian.com/tna-3378.html and http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=38617

I guess a nice article can be made of it. If you find some publications that look beneficial for the article and/or Mr. Oktar, please let me know. And if you have no time for editing, I will understand: if I think the Oktar-article takes to much of my time, you may think the same, of course. Good luck, Jeff5102 21:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis Calero

Could you please respectfulyl explain why dozens of comic books artists have articles on them, and yet an article about Dennis Calero, one of my favorite artists, who has drawn for Marvel comics, should be deleted? I'm hoping to keep my article and add to it, and not have it deleted out of hand. It does not seem to meet any of the 12 criteria for speedy deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ughmonster (talk • contribs).

As to notability, Dennis Calero has worked on HUNDREDS of comics, including an upcoming prequel story to 28 days later. Please allow me more than a day to expand the article and please stop targeting it for deletion. The article went up today.

With all due respect, I don't see anything in your background that entitles you to judge whether this figure in comics is "notable". Please don't take my tone as rude.

As to notability:

"Accordingly :

"Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work

Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field" "

Dennis Calero, as an artist with 10 plus years in comics, having worked, as I have said, on hundreds of titles, whose most recent work has been nominated for a Harvey Award, oneof the top awards in his field, and having multiple potentially significant projects in the near future, qualifies.

Again, I have requested mediation on this issue. At least until I hear from them, PLEASE STOP MARKING THIS ARTICLE FOR DELETION. Civility, please.

With all due respect, I've been perfectly civil. I also havent remarked the article for deletion, if you check the edit history here you'll see that. Please dont YELL, its unhelpful. MidgleyDJ 07:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

From MeninBlack page:

First off, my assertion was more along the lines of "well, you're accusing me of this...isn't it odd that the same thing seems to be happening on the other side." But of coure, Midge neglects to mention that he clearly began the tirade of accusatons. Am I blameless? Of course not. But he's the more experienced user and I felt he was acting like a bully and I'm not the only one.

And I think it bears scrutiny that on the one hand Midge admits that he knows little about the subject yet was very quick to mark the article for speedy deletion at some point and clearly cared enough to come back to this subject and put in his two cents. Why so often if for no other reason than he had decided at some point this article shouldn't exist and to heck with anyone who disagrees.

I'm not claiming that Midge is a bad guy and he does a lot of admirable work on wiki, but a even a cursory examination of the discussions on his page make it clear that this isn't the first time he's become embroiled in some sort of minor contraversey over a hasty decision to delete or mark an article for deletion without giving it due thought.

ManinBlack, you've been incredibly helpful, and I appreciate the fact that you think it best to simply let problems like this get quashed, and I don't disagree. But surely, it's also clear that wiki seems to be rife with people for whom this is a hobby to which they donate an inoridinate (and perhaps innappropriate) amount of time and that somehow makes them feel overly territorial.

I suggest, and I hope you agree in spirit, the wikipedia rules seem designed to welcome new users and not bog them down in dogma or only allow users whose point of view matches those already contributing. Wiki is potentially a resource of near-infinite space and length. There should be room for everybody. --Ughmonster 01:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree to disagree and I understand that I could have handled some things more appropropriately, but I hope you don't feel you are blameless and couldn't have handled things a bit better yourself. Well, whatever you feel, best to you and yours. --Ughmonster 01:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US

what a joke...not sure what we can do, but i am with you. 4.18GB 12:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University

Dear doctor, Do you work at a University in Australia? If so, can you reccomend one for marine biology?

Hi - yes, I do. I'd recommend James Cook University in North Queensland. MidgleyDJ 02:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
That's good info. Out of curiousity, do they specialize in sharks? --ConeyIslandBoy 03:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I've no idea. Try their website MidgleyDJ 03:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Sorry if I was a bother. --ConeyIslandBoy 03:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem, sorry I couldnt be more help! MidgleyDJ 03:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Do american students have problems generally enrolling in Aussie schools? Thanks! --Mild Mannered 03:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, I'm not sure. I think you'd have to contact JCU's international student office. MidgleyDJ 04:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tilapia

Hello David! Thanks for creating the Tilapia (genus) page. I also appreciate what you're doing with the Cichlid page. For two such important animal groups, I think it's important to get the cichlid and tilapiine pages into good shape. If you want to see where I'd like to go with the references, have a peek at Halfbeak which I've basically re-done from top to bottom. How much work would it be to get the cichlid page fully referenced throughout? I know they're a massive group, but I'm really not on top of their literature at all. Even as an aquarist, I don't keep them very much. Anyway, have fun! Neale Neale Monks 08:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletions

I wish to express an opinion on speedy deletions and not biting the newcomers, and I'm not singling you out since I've noticed other new page patrollers who do the same thing!

I think it would be a good thing to leave the template message (the bit that says something like {{subst:spam-notice|pg=Bell Pottinger Group}} ~~~~ at the bottom of the box) on the creating user's talk page, especially if it is a new user who is probably unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. If I were a newcomer who found my article suddenly deleted without explanation I would be quite offended.

Thanks

LittleOldMe 10:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, will do. Thanks for the advice, MidgleyDJ 18:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fwa River

Hi could you start an article from http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/thor_brauschi.php using the info. It is another fish native to the Fwa river. The name is Thoracochromis brauschi Ernst Stavro Blofeld 10:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure will do. MidgleyDJ 10:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey well done I think I will write an article on it using the source I gave to you later. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambar - deleted and then restored

Not sure if this has been pointed out, but it looks like AfD screwed up. Just to start the ball rolling and institute a culture change, I'm trying to get all admins closing things at AfD to remember to check the page history of an article before deleting, so that drastic changes in the nature of a page are spotted, and also urging those voting at AfD to do the same. See the following for details:

Copied to closing admin, restoring admin, deletion nominator, all who voted in the AfD discussion, and the AfD talk page. Carcharoth 23:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please substitute *all* user talk template messages

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. As a rule of thumb, always substitute templates when putting them on a user's talk page. Kavadi carrier 03:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a wee reminder buddy

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Glen 09:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Will do, apologies for my ignorance of these matters. MidgleyDJ 09:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Cramp

This particular article has been set up by the pupils of the Nottingham Boys High School, and done so with the teacher's full knowledge. Peter Cramp actually finds his entry amusing, something to almost be proud of. Whilst you may not agree with it, and many of the claims made on there are clearly false, it is all a bit of harmless fun. To be perfectly frank, only those who know Peter Cramp would bother searching for him on Wikipedia - true, a few others may come across his entry, but as I just stated, only those who actually know him are likely to search for him here. I'm sure that you have plenty more to do with your time that visit obscure entries on Wikipedia. Kind sir, please do take these comments into regard.

[edit] JMoslow

Hi Midgley! Thanks for your edit. I am posting for the first time so i am learning as i go along. I've added in the Category (i missed that!) for my article and tried to make the introduction a bit easier.

When you mentioned that there was no context, what exactly did you mean? I thought the first para put the remainder of the article into context. Could you share with me your thoughts please, so that i can make the article more readable or apparent to anyone else.

Thanks!

JM

[edit] KCLO4X

how come my bit about the alkaloids was deleted from Arunda Donax?

Because it was copyrighted. I placed a comment on your talk page. Cheers! MidgleyDJ 08:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] DJuice1

Do you feel that the following are also not "worthy" of inclusion in Wiki?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Stock_Imagery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IStockphoto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_images http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhotoDisc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Image_Bank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperStock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_Images http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterfile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShutterStock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamstime

I feel you are not giving a chance for me to put togther a proper researched article with sources. You are just quickly nominating for deletion. It clearly states in What is Wikipedia that articles on company are acceptable if guidelines are met.

Djuice - if notability is establish (as required) I have no issue with the addition of corporations. It's not my rules (see: WP:CORP - it's the rules for Wikipedia. MidgleyDJ 05:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
MidgleyDJ - do you feel the references that have now been included are proper and moving in direction of notability before I proceed with the work of writing article based on those references only to have work deleted later. User:Djuice1
Djuice, it's not up to me. A consensus needs to be formed in the AfD discussion. In saying that, it is a significant improvement in my opinion. MidgleyDJ 09:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Getty

From the looks of it you haven't even read the notability rules. "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other" and it continues ... "What constitutes "published works" is broad and encompasses published works in all forms, including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc."
Going even further, for corporations it says "The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices.4 Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded." Well Getty are a publically traded company/
Getty Images are the world's largest photographic company and have been mentioned literally thousands of times across the globe. Wikipedia allows entries from people who are merely bloggers and you are questioning the notability of a multi-billion dollar company with thousands of employees worldwide. Could you please explain why? --87.74.11.57 12:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I've replied on your talk page - but the issue here isnt notability per se, it's the lack of it's assertion in the article. Gettys is almost certainly notable - but nothing in the article asserts this with reliable sources. Re: your comments about me having read the guidelines etc see: WP:CIVIL MidgleyDJ 19:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] page for review, Jain Irrigation

Review and contribute suggestions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jain_irrigation

Jisl 14:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Middlegroundx deletion?

I think thats abit Unfair. We have only just started this page, it might not make sense at the moment, but it will do. We are not advertising our blog, only raising awareness of the issue on Korean Reunification. Prehaps you should open your eyes on the plight of its people at Middlegroundx. Instead of being a to quick to think admin. We would welcome your input to improve our page, like showing us how to include Templates and source lists. Many thanks, the Middlegroundx team. Victory to the korean people! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freedom4korea (talk • contribs).

Hi - thanks for your message. The notability guidelines for webpages/blogs etc Wikipedia are quite clear (WP:WEB). If the article is to remain on Wikipedia you need to establish the notability of the website using reliable, independant sources (WP:RS). MidgleyDJ 10:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links to Loach Online

I find this site quite reliable, somewhat like Catfish of the World site for the catfish group. Loach Online species pages got contributions (photos + information) from those who actually travel to remote streams and collect them from the wild. It's not my sole source because I have plenty other sources for field explorations: websites, magazines (not in English though). -- Lerdsuwa 04:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PRO

I think you were wrong to judge the word pro.. it is not vandalism. it is considered a religion in are part of the country. thanks

ok so i put a page on The PRO page, and you just disrigarded it without even knowing the true meaning? I think the Pro religoin needs to be expressed over wikipeida as i was editing it a few moments ago.

Please dont add nonsense to Wikipedia, including the PRO page. Thanks MidgleyDJ 09:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Tag placed on Mansion Records

Yes, u have put a tag on my page. Just wanted to let you know that "Mansion Records" is something me and my friend started up as our own thing. and if you would be kind enough to take off the tag, i would appreciate it. We only want to put up the page so people ccan see it and maybe have an interest in joining "Two-Timers" or the other groups we have. Thank you for your time. Mcdope_2x 5:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi - Unfortunately the notability requirements for inclusion are clear WP:MUSIC- the article is currently undergoing a deletion discussion to determine if it meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Cheers - MidgleyDJ 07:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tilapia articles

As I wrote on User talk:Neale Monks talk page:

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 13:27, 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 13:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Aquarium Fishes

Glad you finally joined the project. Welcome! Here's the current newsletter.

The Aquarium Fishes WikiProject Newsletter
Issue III - February 2007
News
Discussions

To subscribe or unsubscribe this newsletter, or if you would like to to add news to the next issue, please see here.

--Melanochromis 00:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate external links

Hello David --

Why are we removing links to Planet Catfish from catfish articles? I have to admit to being fond of that site, and consider it to be valuable above and beyond what Wikipedia and Fishbase provide. On the whol I agree, hobbyist sites don't usually add anything useful, but Planet Catfish and ScotCat both seem to be thoroughly researched and run by people who go out and collect catfish from different parts of the world, i.e., experts, albeit amateur ones. Thoughts?

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 10:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi David -- I have no firm idea how to decide what makes a worthwhile hobbyist site. I think that's something to be argued at the WikiProject Aquarium Fishes. I agree with you that we don't want to many hobby sites. The problem becomes severe when doing pages about some species of fish that ends up with links covering nothing but that fish in aquaria but nothing about it in the wild, science, etc. This becomes even worse when the section describing the fish says something like "it eats flake foods" as if the fish eats flake food in the wild!!! So speaking as a hobbyist and a scientist, I do see there's a need to balance the enthusiasm of the fishkeeping hobby with the rigour and breadth of ichthyology generally. Anyway, discussions for another day. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 21:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Carnivorous plants

Hello there! I know dedicated editors are hard to come by and it seems you've found a great WikiProject already to contribute to. I noticed that you have a nice photo of a VFT in your gallery and that you've responded to someone's comments at Talk:Venus Flytrap recently. Consider checking out WikiProject Carnivorous plants and putting us on your watchlist. Join us if you'd like. We've got quite a few article that could use a gentle nudge from A-class to FA-status and our relatively narrow area of focus allows for potential generation of quite a few quality articles. Keep us in mind :-) Cheers, --Rkitko 08:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Aquarium Fishes Newsletter: March 2007

The Aquarium Fishes WikiProject Newsletter
Issue IV - March 2007
News
Discussions

To subscribe or unsubscribe this newsletter, or if you would like to to add news to the next issue, please see here.

--Melanochromis 22:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Oscar (peer review)

I think it looks very good. I appreciate that the aquarium stuff has been confined to its own space and backed up with references. (Like you, I can't bear articles about fish that start "Such-and-such a fish is an intelligent, playful fish that appreciates soft and acidic water and suitable tankmates...") I'm interested in the diet section. I recently wrote a (commercial) piece for an aquarium trade web site, and learned quite a lot about their dietary items.[2] As is reported in your revised oscar article, fish are very a minor part of their diet, contra almost everything in the hobby literature.

You might also want to mention they are whitewater, not blackwater, fish. As for the minimum temp. limiting their distribution, I'd have though 12C would be the lethal temp. in the short term, and a higher temp. would be the lowest average temp. for a viable population in terms of tolerance of the cold season in subtropical zones. The way it's phrased, it suggests they can live down to 12.9C, which they certainly can't for very long.

I'd also like to see a section on etymology -- i.e., why "oscar" (I believe it's a mispronounciation of "ocellatus", i.e., as osk-ell-atus, but that should be confirmed). Also glad there's mention of feral populations; these seem to be among the cichlids that most readily adapt to exotic habitats. Is anything known on phylogeny? I'd like to know how they relate to other Neotropical cichlids, though perhaps that's best left in the Astronotus article. Also, anything on commercial or subsistence value to local populations in S America? I'd have to assume they're a food fish, given their size.

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 17:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latin names & Mayan cichlid

Hello --

I'm enjoying this discussion very much. As a (former, at least) taxonomist the use of common names in anything other that children's book drives me nuts. I can't see the point to them, and eventually they always seem to come down to "well, in my part of [insert country] we always call them XXX". If those wretched birdwatchers hadn't come up with "official common names" we wouldn't have keep justifying Linnaeus every 5 minutes, eh?

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 20:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latin names & project fishes

Yes, I'm willing to help persuade the Project Fishes towards a less restrictive use of common names. As I've suggested elsewhere, the only situation where "official" common names are likely to exist for fish will be in fisheries science, primarily for legal reasons. I'd have to check that though. There certainly are NOT any official common names in fishkeeping or angling. And, as far as I know, Fishbase may use a single common name but that doesn't make it official in any way. As a default, a common name used there might be the least contentious common name, but that's about it. I'm worried the bird situation -- where there are official common names -- has muddied the situation for everything else. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 22:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fish naming change proposal

Hi Dave, I have responded to your comment on my talk page. Cheers, Nick Nick Thorne 03:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the heads-up! I contributed my 2 cents to the discussion. Shrumster 08:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reverts at organic farming

You have reverted edits made by User:M.soendoro perhaps as many as three times. I'd appreicate it if you read Wikipedia:Revert which has good advice on how to deal with reversions to help make the article come out best. I think the Do's and Don't highlight the main points, but also the section further down titled, "Explain reverts" suggests starting a section in the talk page regarding a revert. Thanks! Pdbailey 13:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that the person was adding link cruft, I'm not sure the other editor agreed it's spam, and I'd suggest assuming good faith and just adding a section in talk in the future. I realize this case is on the borderline, I'm just trying to encourage a positive editing atmosphere just in case. Pdbailey 14:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for your review

Thank you for your constructive comments on Alpheidae (pistol shrimp). By the way, I am not the author or even one of the editors, but I liked the article so much that I wanted to nominate it. I hope the authors will take notice of your comments and improve it so as to make it qualify as a good article.

Incidentally, I know this goes against the instructions for reviewing "good article" nominations, but I wish that you had left a "failed" notice on the list of good-article nominations for at least 48 hours instead of deleting the nomination. Perhaps this should be addressed to the administrators of Wikipedia, but I thought I would run my opinion by you first. 69.140.164.142 02:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/d/User_talk%7EMidgleyDJ_4b26.html"