User talk:Neale Monks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello Neale, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful in editing pages or creating new ones: How to edit a page, Tutorial, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should probably read our policies at some point too.

But don't feel you have to read every policy document before you do anything. Dive in, be bold in editing, and if you do anything wrong, someone will be quick to correct it and let you know (hopefully, politely!)

As a paleontologist, you might be interested in the WikiProject to get accuracy and consistency of style to all articles on living (or indeed, extinct) organisms.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Again, welcome! --ALargeElk 16:36, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ancyloceratina

Hi there. I saw your Hamites article and was hoping you might know about the spelling of Ancyloceratina (the ammonite suborder). I've researched it and sometimes it's spelled Ancyloceratida (with a "d"). I decided finally to leave the article at Ancyloceratina, but was hoping you might know more about this suborder. Also, there are articles I've created at Baculites and Scaphites that you might be interested in perusing. Thank you for your time. --DanielCD 20:11, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Daniel,

Oh, this is a real minefield!

There doesn't seem to be any consensus among ammonite workers when it comes to the use of the endings "ina" and "ida". When I was writing my PhD thesis, I made the choice to stick with the forms using "ina", which implies a suborder. This is the format used to describe the big heteromorph ammonite group in the current Treatise on Invertebrate Palaeontology, and was defined by Wiedmann in the 1960s.

However, there are some people who use Ancyloceratida, which I believe is an order rather than a suborder for all these things. The reality is that it doesn't matter much provide the conceptual goal of uniting all the heteromorphs and other ammonite with four-lobed sutures is understood.

Anyway, as you've seen, what tends to happen is the two terms get used interchangeably as if they mean the same thing (which, strictly speaking, they do not). But since Acyloceratina is the form used in the Treatise and probably the one used most widely in the modern scientific literature, that's the one I've used here.

Thanks for writing!

Cheers,

Neale

[edit] Nice shot

Hello Neale; I was just enjoying your photo on the Hildreth Meiere page. I have been eyeing that page for a while, planning to add to it - including my shot of the floor, and still might do it. Don't worry about the safety of your picture, it is a much better detail than any I have. I am also considering changing it with the one at the top of article which is [i believe] a modern work based on a Meiere drawing or design. Life is good - even after millions and millions and millions of years. Carptrash 04:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I just found your note, partially because it was cunningly hidden on my user page rather than on the discussion one. The Capitol building in Lincoln keeps showing up on Top 10 [or whatever] lists of American buildings and i suspect that HM's work there is part of the reason why. Modern buildings, what ever else they are, rarely contain the level of excellance that Goodhue and his crew managed. Carptrash 02:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of science

Neale, please consider joining the proposed History of Science Wikiproject.--ragesoss 01:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)




[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject:Amphibians and Reptiles

Just wondering would you be interested in collaborating on this project. It includes fossil and living forms except Dinosaurs, you can leave a message on my talk page. Thankyou Enlil Ninlil 01:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Ammonite question

A question has appeared at the talk page of Ammonite I was hoping you would be able to help with. I'll quote it here:

"Only the last and largest chamber, the body chamber, was occupied by the living animal at any given moment. As it grew, it added newer and larger chambers to the open end of the coil." I've seen statements to this effect before, but I still don't understand how this proposition can be correct. It would mean that ammonites that died old would have more whirls than ammonites that died young. But, for example, Asteroceras Obtusum always has five whirls, regardless of size or age at death. Regards, Nick. Nick 08:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --DanielCD 22:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Live bearers and Poeciliidae

Hello! I've come heree not necessaryily to try to change your decision but to try to persuade you to help - I've added a comment of the Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 25 to explain - basically I've created a new category category:live-bearing fish for all fish eg sharks, guppys etc. It has two sub categorys. If you have expertise in this area maybe you could populate it (you probably know more than I do regarding which of the poeciliidae are ovoviviparous and which viviparous and which are somewhere in between.) The category 'live-bearing fish' already contains the genus 'poeciliidae' so at a basic level no more work needs to be done. However if you have the time and inclination to do stuff it would be great. Thanks.HappyVR 17:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Neale Monks 13:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Business logic

Just so you know, I have no problem at all with you nominating the article for deletion (although in the future, if an article has a history, you might want to talk to previous editors first). My frustration relates to the users who continue to call it "patent nonsense" (the worst thing that can be said about a Wikipedia article) despite all evidence provided to the contrary and all of Uncle G's improvement work, apparently out of some subjective dislike for business terminology. I don't know what to tell them. But again, that has nothing to do with you. Gazpacho 23:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halfbeak

Hi Neale! About webpages on this site - I'm not sure if it meets the sourcing guidelines. I'd just double-check and make sure it does. Thanks! :) RN 06:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope it does. I've written about halfbeaks for various aquarium magazines and web sites, and this is just a more thorough collection of information. But I'm open to comments. I'm a scientist and science writer who happens to enjoy halfbeaks, so I have tried to make all the data there valid and reliable. The breeding information is obviously empirical: there are pictures and graphs logging the growth of one brood of baby halfbeaks. Thanks for your help on the Halfbeak article, by the way. looking over the fish articles generally, most are fairly indifferent. I'd like to see this one look good. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 08:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Crab Cangrexo 66eue.jpg

Hellow Neale Monks. (Sorry, I speak very bad english, but I can read. I speak spanish, portuguese and Galician language). You can use the image commercially, it's free, but the image have a license GFDL (you must read GNU Free Documentation License). Greetings --Lmbuga to speak 19:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liberty Bell

Why don't we put the two versions of the sentences up for a poll somewhere? --evrik 19:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I have now changed your edits, again. I have also added a more authoritative source, again. If you continue changing the article, and inciting an edit war, I will report you for violating WP:3RR. Please stop. --evrik 17:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Evrik and I have agreed a compromise wording that seems to satisfy all parties, so this debate is thankfully now resolved! Talk:Liberty_Bell#Perception_abroad Neale Monks 20:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tilapia | Cichlid article

Hi Neale -

I thought you might like to know I created a genus listing for Tilapia here Tilapia (genus). It's pretty brief at present and is linked via the Tilapia and Cichlid articles. I'll hopefully be able to add meaningfully to the hybrid and diet section of Cichlid soon. Cheers, David aka MidgleyDJ 23:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Morning Neale, this current editor who continues to alter the species number is very similar to a previous editor who had the same modus operandi (see: User_talk:69.232.73.33). Both editors would not provide references, both would not use edit summaries. It becomes vandalism at some point I'd imagine. MidgleyDJ 20:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bell Pottinger Group

Re: your edit to Bell Pottinger Group, is that how you want to leave it? It qualifies for speedy deletion in the state it's in now. The only assertion of notability it had was that it was #1 according to someone - now it just says it's a PR firm. It's already been deleted once when it was just shameless spam. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fish

Hi there, thanks for adding references to fish -- it definitely helps the article! Since you're working on it, I wonder if you can help make the introduction a little easier to understand. It would be great to have an introductory paragraph that was both scientifically accurate and easy to understand for all ages. For instance, right now it doesn't mention in the opening paragraph that fish live in water. It's also a wee bit long and could probably be broken up a bit. Can you help? cheers, --phoebe 23:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tax farming

Well done. Thanks. WAS 4.250 23:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Aquarium Fishes

Hi, Neale Monks. I saw your name all the times when I edited fish-related articles. Just wonder if you'd be interested to join the WikiProject Aquarium Fishes. And maybe you can give some suggestions on the project. I'd really appreciate it. Cheers !! --Melanochromis 03:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome the WikiProject Aquarium Fishes and thank you so much for correcting the guidelines. I like your examples. They are very clear and easy to understand. Do you have any suggestions for what articles the project should focus on first? The current tasklist was inherited from WikiProject Fishes and it might be a little dated. --Melanochromis 13:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image for cichlids?

Hi Neale -

Wondering whether you had any thoughts on the cichlid image used for the taxobox as per:Talk:Cichlid#Image_in_the_taxobox_-_replace_the_angelfish.3F? Cheers, MidgleyDJ 20:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Aquarium Fishes Newsletter: December 2006

The Aquarium Fishes WikiProject Newsletter
Issue I - December 2006
News
Discussions
  • A new fishkeeping stub is being created. Suggest your idea or vote for the design you like here

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

--Melanochromis 23:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Archie

I'm not trying to be difficult regarding your AfD on Archie (squid). I actually think it's a fairly silly article. On the other hand, I can't particularly find a rationale under Wikipedia policy that would argue against keeping it. I tend to favor inclusion over deletion, especially when I'm not an expert in the field. Hope you understand. Tarinth 22:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Aquarium Fishes Newsletter: January 2007

The Aquarium Fishes WikiProject Newsletter
Issue II - January 2007
News
  • Let the stub-sorting people know you're supporting the stub and vote to keep the stub here.
  • Find more fishkeeping-related stubs and mark them with {{Fishkeeping-stub}} (but please do not mark this stub to the fish species/genus/family articles as they are in the scope of fish-stub)
Discussions
  • "Aquarium box" for fish articles. Several wikipedia in other languages have boxes for aquarium care information (temperature, pH, water hardness, size of fish, etc.). Should we apply that to ours too? See more info and discuss here.
  • Should Bloodworms be merged into Midge (insect)? (discuss)
  • Should Nano reef be deleted? (discuss and vote)

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

--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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. —Pilotguy (ptt) 23:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tilapia articles

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)

[edit] 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[1] about cooking apples? Very odd. Anyway, have fun! Neale Neale Monks 14:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] The Aquarium Fishes Newsletter: Febuary 2007

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 15:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery of beloniform fishes

I have added a "{{prod}}" 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-mantalk 17:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Halfbeak

Thanks for your constructive comments, here.[2] 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. — RJH (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[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 22:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ovophiles

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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: Wikipedia: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#fauna_article_naming_conventions. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. — ERcheck (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/e/a/User_talk%7ENeale_Monks_fe92.html"