User talk:Neale Monks/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Neale Monks. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
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)
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
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)
History of science
Neale, please consider joining the proposed History of Science Wikiproject.--ragesoss 01:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Well done. Thanks. WAS 4.250 23:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
The Aquarium Fishes Newsletter: December 2006
 Issue I - December 2006 | |
|
|
|
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)
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)