User talk:Neil916/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2



Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For your excellent review on the SSP page against Father's Wish, and always keeping the case up to date. Well done. PS: Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. Iolakana 12:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On 18 November, 2006, Did you know?[1] was updated with a fact from the article barndoor skate, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Allen3 talk 01:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sei Whale Congratulations

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
Let me be the first to congratulate you on Sei Whale reaching Featured status. Thanks for your excellent work! Kla'quot 17:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


Hi Neil,

I started editing "fish" when I discovered there were about 500 entries in the fish category all random and hopeless to work out. There is now one entry - Fish and everything else is in subcategories.

My understanding is that ichthyology covers the study of fish. Therefore articles such as "Fin" "Tail" or "gills" would be appropriate. Articles discussing individual species of fish should be in the appropriate species category. In most case that will be a subcategory of the "Ray Finned Fish" category.

Corydoras are Catfish ( Order Siluriformes). They correctly belong in a subcategory of Siluriformes called Armoured Catfish which covers fish in the family Loricariidae or Callichthyidae (Corys are Callichthyidae).

Try going to Category:Fish as that is the top of the tree and you can easily find the other categories from there.

Hope this helps

Kerripaul 18:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Corydoras etc

Heloo, I was thinking about creating a sub category for all the corydoras species - but was uncertain whether to use Category:Corydoras or Category:Callichthyidae. Do you think a corydoras category (possibly as a sub cat. of Callichthyidae) should be used or just put them all straight into Category:Callichthyidae?HappyVR 17:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with your response - corydoras will get it's own category. Also thanks for sorting out barbel - I assume there was confusion between barbels and barbs, definately haven't found 50 species of barbel.HappyVR 17:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


I'll try to sort out the barbel page as soon as possible as it currently looks a mess - I'm thinking it should get the same treatment as chub or carp.HappyVR 23:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Hello, I added a spam +tag to the external links section and removed the commercial link. The "Toothy Critters" page is not for profit and has a large meaningful amount of information. I would like to see that link stay. What do you think ? SirIsaacBrock 12:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The guidelines to consider when looking at external links are outlined at Wikipedia:External Links (WP:EL as a shortcut). Basically, external links should be included if there is meaningful, relevant content that isn't necessarily appropriate for the article itself. Looking at the section entitled "links normally to be avoided", I see the toothy critters page stumbling over items #1 and #9 (and maybe #3). What is unique to that site that wouldn't be appropriate to just add to the article itself, or to a related page? The site appears to be a collection of links to other sites and forums, and other information that isn't particularly encyclopedic. I'm not criticizing the site itself, I think it's fine, but I don't think it merits inclusion in Wikipedia. I haven't gone through every page on the site, so if there is a page that has a lot of relevant information that I have missed, I wouldn't object a link directly to that page, with an appropriate caption, rather than just linking to the main page, which looks like linkspam. Neil916 15:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
SirIsaacBrock (talk • contribslogs) was indefinitely blocked for an unrelated reason, so it doesn't look like this discussion will continue. Neil916 15:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

sport fishing

Who are you to "determine my change was unhelpful". Your user page has pictures of fish, do you love them? You are a hypocrite. Sport fishing is cruelty to animals. I don't oppose fishing for food, that's the way of nature, but not for entertainment! Catch and release is b.s. (my edit was not appropriate there, ok), that's even worse, leaving fish injured like that. I hope aliens invade earth and hunt you and humans like you for fun —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 10:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


I'll stop when you use the compromised version.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by OverlordPower (talkcontribs) 13:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC-7)

That's very gracious of you to offer that, whatever you're talking about. Unfortunately, I'll have to decline and will continue to revert and report your vandalism, sockpuppetry, and maliciousness as I encounter it. Neil916 20:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Betta tank size

I did look at the talk page. There is no mention of tank size other than how often to change the water. What do you mean? -- 15:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just in the process of editing that talk page. Bettas are frequently kept in aquariums as small as 1 gallon, however, this practice is strongly discouraged as it usually results in the death of the fish. The 10 gallon minimum tank size does not refer to keeping only one fish per ten gallons; other species of fish can also be kept in that same aquarium. However, 1 gallon aquariums are so unstable with regards to water parameters that it is unnecessarily cruel to the fish. (I'm also adding this comment to the talk page of the article). Neil916 15:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
You suggest that every betta ought to be kept with others? Most bettas do better on their own, as other species can cause them stress. Acceptable betta tankmates are rare.
I totally agree that 10 gallons is great for a betta, but this is opinion only. NOBODY keeps bettas in 10 gallon tanks all by themselves. They only need 1 gallon, and with proper care, can thrive in 1 gallon. That is the minimum size, not 10 gallons. 6 gallons is considered incredibly roomy for a betta. Personally I keep mine in 3-4 gallons. -- 15:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
As well, the article DOES say "individual betta", not "betta kept with other fish". -- 15:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I am suggesting that common practice should not dictate recommended practice. As an example, it is common to keep a goldfish in a small bowl. These fish suffer from the same water paramter problems and the practice receive some news coverage recently when the city of Rome banned it by law.
I wouldn't oppose a change to the article text to address your last concern about individual betta vs. betta with other fish. Neil916 15:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I also wouldn't oppose the change to 1 gallon if you can link to a credible source (not a hobbiest site) that indicates that 1 gallon would be fine. Neil916 15:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
As 1 gallon is the typical reccomended minimum size, I shouldn't have to validate it; rather, you should have to validate the ridiculous notion that 10 gallons is required. -- 15:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Any changes you make to Wikipedia need to be validated. The fact that the original article may not have followed that practice doesn't give you free license to change content without accurate sources. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. Neil916 15:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The original article had a minimum size of 2 gallons, a much more reasonable minimum. It was edited on June 18th. I wouldn't be opposed to the edits made by anonymous being reverted. 2 gallons is also a reasonable estimate at the minimum tank size. -- 15:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I must note that the user making the original edit has a reputation for adding nonsense to articles. -- 15:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I cited the source of the 10 gallon minimum on the article's talk page. Different sources may say different things. Find a credible source for the smaller tank size minimum and let's edit the article to identify the controversy while maintaining NPOV. Neil916 16:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I also looked at that user's edit history and agree that several of his/her edits are vandalism in nature, including an edit to goldfish a couple of days later that changed the minimum tank size from 20 gallons to 100 gallons that was subsequently reverted. I'm not going to stick to my guns on this topic. If you really feel I'm off-base and you feel that you can justify your claims with sources, then make the change. Neil916 16:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Your source is far from credible. Most of their information is wrong. The "max reported age" is ridiculously low; that is the common lifespan of a betta, far from their maximum. Also males cannot be housed with females. Surely if you know anything about bettas, you know these things, and you know that source is baloney. -- 16:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
It also occurred to me now that your source may be referring to that tank size as being the minimum for multiple bettas, as it does say, "Aquarium keeping: several females for one male; minimum aquarium size 60 cm". -- 16:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
And cm is a nonstandard way of measuring tanks. Tanks vary in their height, width, and depth ratios. This source is a very mild overview with vague information that is half-wrong. -- 16:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


(Quoted {{spam1}} talk page notification removed)

OK, I Have removed all my articles - please do not re instate them !! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cosgrif (talkcontribs) 12:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but please don't feel that you are being singled out. Your actions indicate that you were greatly offended by the removal of your weblinks from the article. My removal of the links were because they don't agree with Wikipedia policy, not because I dislike you or your site, although your action of putting them right back in [2] without comment within minutes of my removing them was somewhat provacative.
  • If you think that Wikipedia's policy needs revising, feel free to discuss that topic on Wikipedia talk:External links.
  • If you think my removal of the links was inappropriate, discuss it on the article's talk page.
  • If you were offended by the text of the statement I added to your talk page, discuss revising it on the template's talk page. The template used was {{spam1}} which is a first-level notification to users for first-time insertion or reinsertion of inappropriate links to Wikipedia. You can also refer to {{spam2}}, {{spam2a}}, {{spam3}}, {{spam4}}, and {{spam5}} to see other templates that are commonly used (listed in order of increasing severity, althouth they are not necessarily used in order, or at all). Neil916 20:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Father's Wish

Aloha. Sure, that is perfectly fine. Edit the report as much as you want! Thanks and regards, Iolakana|T 20:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am the sock puppeter for most of the IPs above, I don't think all of them are mine though, only the Chicago based ones are mine. I'm terribly sorry and I have stopped. 00:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

that wasn't the question. The sockpuppet page has been unprotected, so you can respond there. The question was: Are the user accounts listed at the top of the page (not the anonymous IP's) all yours? Neil916 16:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I have added further edits to the SSP page. Thanks, Iolakana|T 13:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Fishing Site Links

I was just curious why the link to was not relevant. It's a site that has a section specifically for bass fishing reports from Central Florida which is widely considered the bass fishing capital of the world. The reports are submitted by local anglers and professional captains alike, which would seem to be pretty onn topic. Just asking to see the reasoning and where I went wrong. Thanks for taking the time to help the Wikipedia community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheRealTerry (talkcontribs) 01:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure exactly which of my edits you are referring to, so I'll assume it was this one, which was removing an external link to that website from the Bass fishing article.
Generally, the rule of thumb is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web directory. When a user looks up bass fishing, they want to see relevant content, not a bunch of links. Other sites exist that are much better at providing links to other web content (Google and Yahoo are just a couple of the more well-known ones) and it should be assumed that any user would also be researching those avenues. In fact, many visitors to Wikipedia are referred from such search engines, so trying to act as a list of links would just be redundant. That's the short answer.
The longer answer is that Wikipedia has a set of guidelines that relate to external links. Those guidelines are outlined at Wikipedia:External links. That document has a section entitled "Links normally to be avoided". The link to runs afoul of the following sections:
  1. Section 1: "In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose."
  2. Section 2: "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)"
  3. Section 4: "Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that that require payment to view the relevant content. See External link spamming."
  4. Section 9: "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard."
I hope that helps answer your question. If you object to any of my viewpoints, I'm open to discussion. Neil916 08:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, I do object. The site I referenced provides a resource well above and beyond the scope of the article. I pointed teh link to a page that is updated constantly with fishing reports from both your average Joe angler and licensed fishing professionals. It tells of conditions, patterns, what the bass are currently reacting to, etc... This is most certainly a resource above and beyond what this article provides, or ever will provide. As far as factual material goes, it's people's personal reports of their bass fishing experiences, I don't think this rule applies at all. As far as the site primarily existing to sell a product, that is absurd. The site primarily exists to promote the fishing community, the ads which are used only to cover expenses are minimal and unobtrussive. In the section I linked to the exist only as a single block of Google AdSense over on the side and does not interfere with the good content at all. While you might be able to classify the reports as "blogs" or social networking under section 9 there, that is also not relevant as these posts are up to date reports on bass fishing in the bass fishing capital of the world. Quite honestly, a link doesn't get much more relevant than what I posted. I really have to disagree with you.

Notes from a Wikipedia spammer

Kneel, You and me are going to have a nice face to face sport fishing discussion. I will be back on the West Coast in 3 weeks and I want to see the little pwetty fish collector who thinks he is a sportfishing expert, that's quite a jump from pretty fish warden to Sport Fishing expert. You must have tons of time on your hands to be be so far up Wiki's butt. I think if Wiki ever came to a sudden stop your head would pop three feet up it's asshole. Of course Kneel and Bob (what you do) would like that I am sure judging from your pwetty fish cowection. I have wasted enough time dealing with your little childish spam policing Mr "Tuff Guy" hiding behind a computer screen. I really am looking forward to our face to face discussion about sport fishing in three weeks you liberal panty waist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 02:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Should I interpret your above statement as a threat? This "face to face sport fishing discussion" you refer to sounds rather menacing, especially as I'm not much of a fisherman. Neil916 06:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
"especially as I'm not much of a fisherman" -- EXACTLY WHY you should not be editing the fishing and angling pages. You don't know how valuable certain links you delete are to real anglers and wanna be anglers - You are just deleting based on a semi commercial nature even when linking to a specific page which you said was OK. Also, if you were an angler or just a friend to the millions of sportsmen in this country you would NEVER EVER EVER let the Anti-fishing site PETA show up on the sport fishing page considering they were caught murdering dogs and throwing them in dumpsters, considering they have absolutely NOTHING to do with sport fishing.
If you were a friend to the sportsmen of this country you would ABSOLUTELY DIE before you would let PETA show up on a page read by millions of anglers and sportsmen. It destroys Wiki's credibility as a page written by anglers and sportsmen. You are ruining the fishing pages as being somewhere anglers can go for quality fishing information. You MUST have something better to do than police a fishing page when you are admittedly not a even a fisherman. Goodbye
And Neil I would not threaten you so take heart that you have nothing to fear. More of a rant really gone wild because you are such an aggravating ass. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 16:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Does that mean that I'm not qualified to remove the linkspam from the Baldness article and related articles since not only do I have full head of hair, but I don't even know any bald people? I'm sure the guy who keeps reposting links to his hair loss website feels that I'm pretty aggravating as well, but I assure you, the feeling is mutual. Neil916 17:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
And by the way, I'm well aware of the PETA poster, these are some of the comments he's had for me removing some of his less-than-useful additions to Wikipedia about a week ago: [3]. Neil916 06:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok look, dude, the reason I wrote that comment was because you had removed my addition of animal cruelty link in see also section of sport fishing (not the other edit which was indeed stupid). The sport fishing article has bloodsports links at the bottom, and that is obviously cruelty to animals, so how was my edit vandalism? I guess you saw my other edit and decided I'm a vandal and all my edits are automatically vandalism. Now, this fisher dude here removed my peta link and the other link which contained much useful and relevant information, but you don't revert his edit, which kind of means you approve his action. Funny that you remove his link too. In any case, fishing just for fun should be unacceptable in a civilized world, like slavery, and it will be illegal in the future I'm sure. Better pick your side. Suffering of millions of fish is more important than perfection of your wikipedia. Bye.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 21:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Excellent points. I'll be sure to be more even-handed in the future and remove such links as violations of WP:NOT. There's no taking sides here, unless you are talking about the people who want to flaunt their ability to disregard the guidelines set out by Wikipedia vs. the people who have to clean up the mess afterward. -- Neil916 23:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


You removed my contribution of an external link to the FishGeeks profiles. Can you tell me what the violation was so I can contribute correctly?

You also removed this one:

Can you please explain why as there are some 10 other sites with lesser content that FishGeeks which remain listed there.

Thanks!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mbuna (talkcontribs) 15:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mbuna. Thanks for discussing this before resubmitting the links. Generally, the rule of thumb is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web directory. When a user looks up discus, they want to see relevant content, not a bunch of links. Other sites exist that are much better at providing links to other web content (Google and Yahoo are just a couple of the more well-known ones) and it should be assumed that any user would also be researching those avenues. In fact, many visitors to Wikipedia are referred from such search engines, so trying to act as a list of links would just be redundant. That's the short answer.
The longer answer is that Wikipedia has a set of guidelines that relate to external links. Those guidelines are outlined at Wikipedia:External links. That document has a section entitled "Links normally to be avoided". The link to FishGeeks runs afoul of the following sections:
1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article. (short answer: add content, not links)
2. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. (the articles contained in FishGeeks are user-submitted accounts that don't pass WP:OR).
3. A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.
4. Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming. (Your user history of contributing only links and not content to Wikipedia suggests that your motive is to drive traffic to your site more than it is to improve Wikipedia)
9. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself.
I hope that helps answer your question. Please understand that this is not a criticism of your website itself; I've had FishGeeks in my own bookmark list for years. It's just that for the reasons cited above, it's just not an appropriate link to add here. I thought about it for a while before making the reverts because I was familiar with the site and think it's useful on its own, but concluded that it would be unfair to be selective about applying Wikipedia's policies to certain links. If you object to any of my reasons or would like to discuss it further, I'm open to discussion.
As for why your link was removed and the others remained on one of the pages, it was because I was going through and removing your addition at the time. I haven't necessarily gone through each of the pages you added content to to check the rest of the links and I agree that some of the pages need to be cleaned up as's not because I'm singling you out. Neil916 15:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S.: I've cleaned up the the Aquarium article now. Neil916 15:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
You forgot age of aquaria (aquahobby).  :-) I appreciate your efforts and I hope that you will apply them evenly.Mbuna 16:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right, I looked at that one again and removed it. P.S.: In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Button sig2.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! Neil916 16:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Neil. I understand the generic link to the site. However I'd like to add an external link to the detailed profile for the species that exist in wikipedia already. Much in the same way you have them now going to FishBase. I don't feel it is beneficial to duplicate the information into Wikipedia when it's already done on FishGeeks especially as the profiles at FishGeeks are continually being updated. If we duplicate the content then they will get out of sync and you'll end up with bad/outdated information here. Is this something that can be allowed? Mbuna 16:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
That would seem logical. However, the way Wikipedia is set up is to have Wikipedia as a reference on its own (back to the "add content, not links" motto). The reasoning is that contributions to Wikipedia have higher standards for content than most websites (no original research, content must be verifiable, citations are required). It does make it much more work and there's a lot of info that I'd love to add here myself but it's all based upon my own experiences breeding aquarium fish or things I've picked up on usenet posts, websites, discussions, etc., but it's original research and isn't appropriate here.
When I made some of my first contributions to Wikipedia, I pretty much had the same attitude you ("I have great information that I'd love to share") but the above standards were pointed out to me the same way and I've come to agree with them over time. One possibility is to add the content directly to wikipedia and use inline citations (refer to WP:CITE and {{Cite web}}) to reference the appropriate content on Fishgeeks. Like any other contribution to Wikipedia, I can't guarantee that someone else won't come along later and mercilessly hack away at it for being original research, I can only speak for myself; if it's not blatant linkspam, I usually leave it alone. Also, beware of just cutting-and-pasting from your site, other editors may tag it as a copyright violation if they think someone is plaigerizing FishGeeks. Without a doubt, all these restrictions do make it much harder, but make the project better in the long term. Balancing that out somewhat is the fact that almost all of the other content you find here on Wikipedia can also be freely copied to your site. Neil916 16:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you point me to a way to add multiple entries? I'm considering dumping out a subset of the information from FishGeeks for inclusion in wikipedia. However I don't think most of the species will exist in wiki yet. For example I would like to easily add entries for all species of lamprologus that I have profiles for.Mbuna 20:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is an easy way to import multiple entries. One option would be to go to the Wikipedia Fishes project's talk page and ask someone over there for help. If I end up with a little more time in the near future, I'll help out as well, but my Wikipedia time is likely to be limited for the next couple of weeks. Neil916 (Talk) 15:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


I appreciate your quick and informative response. I'll just try to stay on top of his disallowed edits; maybe he'll actually register someday, and hopefully act more responsibly then. Thanks again -- Tenebrae 03:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

(Re: The Scars article feedback) Well...

... I didn't think "pounding the skins" was going to be the source of some confusion, but seeing as though I'm fully entrenched in the world of music, I suppose I wouldn't be able to see it from the perspective of someone who isn't, or isn't as much. I did edit that out and put something else more explicitly worded. I don't know what else to do to the article to make it sound more "formal". I did try to keep as much of my own personal biased (as a fan) emotions and thoughts away from the actual article and tried to make it as neutral as possible, but maybe you have more information and feedback along those lines. (Krushsister 08:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

I'm not sure how well I'm articulating my comment about the article's "informalness". I think what I'm getting at is that the article does still seem somewhat emotional and slightly wordy, which makes it seem not-so-neutral in tone. Example, "He is currently working as a wildly successful producer and film scorer". Perhaps it is my inexperience in reviewing music-related articles.
I'm still seeing some jargon in the article that should probably be revised, such as "gigs". I know what gigs are, and many others probably do, but it's still slang. Is there a non-slang word that would work as well, such as "performances"?. Also look at "full-page spread", "supporting slot", "beyond the glare of the limelight", and so on. Hope that helps. Neil916 (Talk) 15:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
How about just "successful"? Or "highly successful"? Because Mr. McLaughlin has had a great deal of success as a film scorer and music producer/engineer. And I guess my usage of slang is second nature to me because of my immersion in the world of music, but I do also use those terms/phrases as synonyms to keep the text of the article interesting. I don't want to end up making the article seem boring. Why don't you ask someone you trust who's more of a veteran with working with music-themed articles to figure out alternate text so that I don't end up using the word "performance" or "live performance" over and over again, for instance? (Krushsister 02:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC))

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 09:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:PRA/O06#Fin Whale

Just thought I'd let you know, I misplaced a not symbol in my script earlier, which explains the erronous infobox + images messages. The images and the taxobox in Fin Whale shouldn't have triggered those suggestions :(. Thanks, AZ t 00:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Fin Whale

Yeah, i've been following your inputs on the fin whale, some good stuff. I definitely think that it is worthy of GA, and FA shouldnt be too hard either, so might as well go straight for that and not bother with GA at first as that will just take more time.

I did start doing some changes, like the British spelling, i will look through again and check those (if you use Firefox 2.0 you can set the dictionary to British-English and it will underline any words spelt wrong in the edit box). As for the numbers, i changed them to not using commas at first as that is the correct scientific format, but then i realised that it wasn't for Wikipedia, as it looked a bit weird, even with the non-breaking space, particularly with the low thousands (eg. 2,000 --> 2 000). So commas i think are standard and best.

I might have a bit more info that i could add (i have a couple of books to hand) which i can look into tomorrow. They may not be to great, or have that much more info to add. chris_huh 18:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I have gone through and can't see anything wrong with it. I added a few subheadings, but couldn't really think of any better ones for the rest of the physical characteristics bit, so i just left that. Do you think its time to nominate it then? chris_huh 11:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Probably should wait a week or so. One of the criteria for FA is that the article is "stable". With all the changes that we've made, someone may raise that objection. So one of us can nominate it after it shows a few days of inactivity. Neil916 (Talk) 16:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Leaf concerns

I fixed one, misnamed ref, replied in another in the Ryan Leaf FAC. Jaranda wat's sup 21:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed both sentences. Jaranda wat's sup 21:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


Hey Neil,

Thanks for your fixes here. Sorry about that; I thought they were all fixed. :/ Happy editing! Firsfron of Ronchester 22:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, anyway

Neil, thanks for all the reviews of the Tourette articles, but I'm sorry you had to waste your time. I was bothered when another editor - knowing that I'm the only author - put all four articles up for GA review just as I was traveling and didn't have time to finish them. Those three articles contained most of the crufty and useless information the Tourette syndrome article had acquired before I brought it to featured status; they need cleanup and rewriting, as they basically consist of information which I needed to remove from the main article. Further, as I find the GA process to be a misuse of valuable editor time, I've removed the remaining noms, which I should have done from the beginning (except that I had limited internet access). When the articles are finished, I will submit them to the Medicine Project for review and comment. I've noticed you've made some very detailed and helpful comments at both GAC (which I don't consider to be a star worth pursuing, since anyone can confer GA status, and it has very little meaning), and at WP:FAC - I was hoping you would be interested in helping out at WP:FAR, where we have a backlog of the articles at the bottom of the list, and could really use more good reviewers. Those that are in most urgent need of additional review are listed in a template on my talk page; if you're interested in helping out, you might add that template to one of your pages. Again, I'm sorry you had to waste your time on the TS articles, and if I had been asked, I would not have recommended they be submitted to GA until I could finish them. Hope to see you at WP:FAR, where we could really use some help! Sandy (Talk) 14:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Improvements to the Psychology portal

Hi, I'm working on trying to get Portal:Psychology up to Featured portal status. Any tips you can offer on how to improve it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Rfrisbietalk 16:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


No "hold" for the mitosis review? – ClockworkSoul 22:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm watching the article, so I'll already be familiar with it if it is resubmitted to WP:GAC. I'll take another look at it then. I didn't put a hold on the article in this case since it needed quite a bit of work on the references issue and I am learning that holds are supposed to be used for relatively minor and easy-to-address issues. In addition, it will tend to languish on hold since other reviewers tend to not look at articles that a different reviewer has put on hold. The natural sciences category isn't backlogged right now, the only two articles left are ones I can't review myself because I've significantly contributed to them, so resubmitting shouldn't add considerably to the time it sits waiting for a review. Neil916 (Talk) 23:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
TimVickers has been adding lots of good references. Does it look adequate to you? – ClockworkSoul 23:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
As an extra note, adding references to scientific articles is generally easy work, because a good amount of this information is found in a myriad of textbooks. – ClockworkSoul 23:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry if I was short with you: I unfairly took my bad week out on you. It won't happen again. – ClockworkSoul 22:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Science portal

Okay, here's a big one! Please offer any feedback you have at its talk page on how to improve this portal to featured status. Thanks. Rfrisbietalk 15:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

SkyTrain (Vancouver)

I believe all of your objections have been taken care of and I think it's ready for GA status. -- Selmo (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The Fish Portal

Hi, User:Melanochromis has done a great job getting the Fish Portal up an running. At this point, more sets of eyes can help make it even better. If you can offer some tips on the portal talk page about how to improve Fish up to "featured" quality, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Rfrisbietalk 13:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

about Tanabe Jyuji article

Helo, this is Uryah. Thank you for giving question to the article.I add why the person is important to the article Tanabe Jyuji. Can I remove the "{{prod}}" template ? Uryah 09:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You can remove the {{prod}} tag from any article you feel should not be deleted. I don't plan to pursue deletion of the article. Neil916 (Talk) 09:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Flower Wars

Hi could add this to the Flower wars pages i try by just new to Wikipedia (as seen below) Thanks, Kyoto37


Age Of Kings Conquerors expansion, the first mission of the Montezuma (Aztec) Campaign

Mr. Couch

I don't see why my page is requested for speedy deletion because we have been the subject of a 30 minute or longer broadcast on a TV network. I said that in the fisrt paragraph. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hyphonated (talkcontribs) 07:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

I have removed the speedy tag and have nominated the article for the more formal deletion process. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. couch. Neil916 (Talk) 08:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Botany articles

Well, if I can find one done halfway well, could you make suggestions about needs for expansion areas and put it in logical order--(Sei whale) flows, many botany articles don't, even some of the best ones. We have good copyeditors, and good technical editors, especially with multiple editors on one article, what's missing is a comprehensive look at what the botanical article should contain, imo, and I'm not getting good feedback from botany editors? Not being a botanist, but having a biological background, would actually be to everyone's advantage. KP Botany 17:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, time permitting, I'd be happy to help out. Point me in a direction, my latest article projects are beginning to wind down. Neil916 (Talk) 05:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sei whale lead paragraph

Ahhggg, no! Don't expand the lead section of this article--it's very well done. See my not on FAC page. KP Botany 18:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at it last night and have a lot of comments today. Please don't take it as being critical overall of the article, which is excellent, that I have so many comments. I spent enough time in Marine Biology that I care more about how this article looks than many others, plus it started off a lot stronger than many FAC in my opinion. KP Botany 15:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
This article is really excellent, so I feel badly for providing such a tremendous number of edit comments for FA status. In fact, many FAs are not up to the quality they really need to be, imo, and the exceptions tend to be weird articles, like the one on Jaws the movie, in spite of its tone, and there is some weird cricket article up now, that could be. However, I think this is one of the very few standard encyclopedia articles that could be everything Wikipedia should aspire to, in fact, it appears that many of the Cetacean articles could be superb. When Sei Whale gets featured on the front page, I would like everyone to really see that Wikipedians can do science. KP Botany 18:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that appropriate

Hi! Heads up on this if it was yours.
   Additionally, I'm concerned that GA Candidate tag is now on the talk, and don't think it all that appropriate. That's a heady claim for something that went down in flames so readily, and which obviously needs a lot of work. Has that aspect of things ever been discussed on a forum, and if so, can you give me a lead? Seems a lot like a mouse putting on a beard and beating it's breast, claiming it's a lion. Go figure. Thanks // FrankB 01:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've responded on the article's talk page. I don't know what you're referring to about the GA Candidate tag. Do you mean the tag that says that the article was a former GA candidate that did not make it? Neil916 (Talk) 16:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

une question

How are administrators able to stay on Wikipedia for hours and hours? And I'm pretty sure you don't get payed... --Perpetuality 12:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your comment and I have no interest in getting into some kind of flame war, but I would remind you that civility extends to making a serious effort when reviewing the work of many other committed participants. Your review (of an article I have never contributed to, btw) strikes me as highly, even offensively, insolent. You have made a set of criticisms in the context of judging the quality of the JSB article that is demonstrably false and, in the case of your OR assertions, almost inexcusably lazy. The project, frankly, deserves better. Eusebeus 01:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Eusebeus 14:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sei Whale FA

Please post a note on my talk page when this is set to be on the Main Page! KP Botany 19:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

WindowHome template

WindowHome template is widely used in Italian Wikipedia. I found nothing similar in English one. Of course, if any is available, I will be glad to use it. Otherwise I would appreciate if you could keep it. Thank you in advance.--Dejudicibus 13:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Proteasome peer review

Hello - you had commented on the prose in proteasome during its peer review, but the holidays intervened. There have been some subsequent improvements to the prose, and an additional image created to better illustrate the inhibition section; the article is now up for FAC here if you have any further comments or thoughts. Thanks! Opabinia regalis 06:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing speedy deletion tags

I did exactly as I was instructed and removed no speedy deletion warnings. Handon was inserted at top of page as instructed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bchristie (talkcontribs) 07:09, April 9, 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you inadvertantly removed the speedy tags twice while making your edits. Don't sweat it, it's all set up OK now, with both the speedy tag and the hangon tag. Just be sure to make a note on the talk page of the article as soon as possible summarizing what information you'll be adding to make the article conform to Wikipedia's notability standards. Neil916 (Talk) 07:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - didn't realize that I edited out the {{db-bio}} tag (or that it had any function).

Very frustrating to start a page only to have someone (within seconds) want to delete it. I'm new to this process. Bchristie 07:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't get frustrated, but please do review WP:NOTE and WP:AUTO to find out why people keep tagging your work and make the neccessary adjustments to the article, if possible. Neil916 (Talk) 07:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

On my page that you marked for speedy deletion, I posted reasons why it should not be deleted on its talk page. Just letting you know just in case you do not see it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaider83 (talkcontribs) 06:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, I did notice that. Neil916 (Talk) 06:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Konstantin Burshteyn

You marked my page for speedy deletion, I have written on the talk page why I disagree. Konstantin Burshteyn 19:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I only marked the page with a speedy deletion tag. An administrator will review the page to see it it meets Wikipedia's notability standards. If it does not (and in my opinion, it doesn't in its current form), that administrator will delete the page without further notice. Neil916 (Talk) 19:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for reverting the blanking of my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo 17:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem...I still had your page on my watchlist from our earlier conversation. :) Neil916 (Talk) 17:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi Neil -

I've added some material to Cichlid re: selective breeding. Wondering whether you thought it sufficient for our WP:FA needs? Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 06:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing speedies

Actually, I *think* that if the {hangon} tag is left, then it still appears on the speedy delete list; leastwise, I don't fight over the original speedy tag as long as the hangon tag stays. My reasoning being that the page still seems to appear in the cat "candidates for speedy deletion". Happy vandal-hunting! Canthusus 20:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That is true; however, the {{db-spam}} tag additionally categorizes the pages into "spam pages for deletion", so some admins who are focusing only on certain types of speedy deletions can go through them easier. Neil916 (Talk) 20:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop deleting my pages please

I understand you do not like the pages I right but do not delete them! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zlnetworks (talkcontribs) 16:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

I have not deleted any of your pages. I am not an administrator. I have only placed a deletion tag on articles requesting that an administrator review the page to see if they agree with my assessment that it does not meet the Wikipedia community's guidelines for notability. If the article was deleted it means that at least one administrator agreed. This does not prevent you from re-creating the article, once you can establish its notability. Please review the guidelines, because if the same article is re-created, it will most likely be deleted again. Neil916 (Talk) 16:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Trust me

It was db-nonsense when I tagged it. See the earlier pages =/ -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 01:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I did see that history. Was trying to figure out what was going on. I changed it to a db-web because it looks like the nonsense has been trimmed down. Neil916 (Talk) 01:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


...for the userpage revert. Cheers! Tony Fox (arf!) 05:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


Hello, there are many problem in Planorbidae taxonomy. But certainly Planorbis planorbis, Planorbis carinatus, and Planorbarius corneus (syn. Planorbis corneus) are 3 different species. Taxonomy at probably consist only North American species meantime and is old. So:

  • Keep page Planorbis (and add there link Planorbis corneus if necessary).
  • I think you should keep page Planorbidae in version [4]
  • I think you should keep page Planorbarius corneus in previous version too. So simply: revert all your changes. Thanks. --Snek01 14:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I reverted all edits. Neil916 (Talk) 15:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Link added and tagged

Please don't tag my link as spam. I added a link to an external website that has an alternate and worthwhile take on seasoning a pan. I did not add the content to the page because it is not gfll, but this is a worthwhile link. There was another link that added nothing to the dialog and that probably should have been removed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drewsachs (talkcontribs) 06:58, June 4, 2007 (UTC)

Neil916, I agree entirely with you that Drewsachs's links are spam. These links are all he's added to WP, and the content is nothing special. --Macrakis 13:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

From Tanttari2478

cant figure out this comment thing. new to this. i just wanted to make a page for a few of my mates, but it got deleted? so how do you quit your account? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tanttari2478 (talkcontribs) 07:30, June 6, 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're having problems. Take a look at the What Wikipedia is not article to see why articles you have been creating have been deleted. Your history of edits, such as "cory harasym is a sexy beast"[5] and "paal olsen is the gun" [6] have not been helpful additions to the encyclopedia. People have spent a considerable amount of time writing the articles, and don't appreciate edits like that, which are considered vandalism. Sorry, I don't know what you mean by "how do you quit your account". Neil916 (Talk) 07:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

yeah their friends. they were jokes,,,yeah i know its serious. didnt realise until i created this account. people spend years on this creating articles. You do a good job, should get a job maybe at encyclopedia britanica (spelling)

wont happen again. i meant resign from wikipedia? (...this is me and my mates joint account,,,and the great idea of creating accounts is over)


...for reverting my userpage. :) WATP  (talk)(contribs) 19:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


Ah, thanks for clearing that up. I guess Meatpuppet is indeed the proper word for it. Looks to me like it's two friends vandalizing together. Anyway, ongoing speedy tag removal war is still on. Andante1980 07:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, thanks. Wasn't planning to put anymore time into this guy. Thanks, for your help at point out the meatpuppet thing. (Still learning new things even after hanging out on wikipedia for a while.) Andante1980 07:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for taking the time to review Vermicompost for GA. Cheeers! Wassupwestcoast 01:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

anonymous, non-responsive cichlid editor

Hi Neil -

Thanks for the update re: our troublesome mystery editor. I've begun to treat most of the changes as if they are being made in poor faith. I'm not sure what else we can do. Until this user is willing to collaborate and discuss changes it's a problem. Anyway thanks again for your help on the matter. Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 02:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Neil - 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. I'm going to let Neale Monks know also. MidgleyDJ 04:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Neil, thanks for the heads-up. I do try and follow some of his/her edits. It's a shame he/she won't contribute more constructively, since he/she obviously has a lot of knowledge about cichlids. Sigh. Neale Monks 11:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
This user has now been blocked for 1 week, and the Jewel cichlid article has been semi-protected for one week. I wish I could be optimistic that the editor will change his ways and contribute in a constructive rather than a destructive manner, but I'm not holding my breath. Keep an eye out for new unregistered users making similar edits and if it looks like a block evasion, we can nip it in the bud. Neil916 (Talk) 18:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
His name is Mark and I've contacted him previously via email to try and emphasize the need for a collaborative approach. Unfortunately I made little progress and user did not respond. On the 17th of August another unregistered user (talk · contribs) changed the estimate of cichlid numbers again. I reverted the change and have no proof, but strong suspicions that this IP also belongs to our mystery editor. btw: thanks also for reverting vandalism to my user page. Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 07:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Apology regarding my report of 3 revert violation

Dear Neil916. I apologize for an error I made on the page for reporting violations of the 3 revert rule. I made a typographical error on the IP address of the anonymous violator.

The correct address is, not My error induced you to post a warning on the talk page for that should have gone on the talk page for

Again, I apologize. Yours, Famspear 17:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops... I've removed the warning I left and struck out my comment on the 3RR page. Neil916 (Talk) 18:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


I appreciate it.  :^) — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:‎

Apologies for changing your warning, it was inappropriate of me. I'll keep an eye on the user's contributions. GlassCobra (talkcontribs) 08:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Neil916 (Talk) 16:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Tristan Fry

Hi, thanks for letting me know that the Tristan Fry article was nominated for speedy deletion. I've been away at my brother's wedding, so unfortunately I didn't get the message until after it was deleted.

I have to say, I'm pretty surprised that the page was nominated. A google search brings up 315,000 hits. He has played percussion for the London Symphony Orchestra, the London Philharmonic Orchestra, the London Sinfonietta, the Academy of St. Martin in the Fields, The Beatles, Duke Ellington, Frank Sinatra, Igor Stravinsky, Fred Astaire, John Martyn, Elton John, played drums for the band Sky, recorded several James Bond scores, and he has an All Music Guide profile. He is also listed on Wikipedia's music encyclopedia.

Have you any objections to me starting the page again? Martin 23:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Martin..
I'm not an administrator so I can't go back and look at the deleted article, but if memory serves, the article consisted of only one sentence, "Tristan Fry is an English guitarrist." or something to that effect. When you create the article, make sure the article explains why the subject is notable enough to have an encyclopedia entry. Take a look at the following pages for reference: WP:N, WP:SPEEDY, and WP:BAND. Hope that helps. Neil916 (Talk) 21:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Neil. The page had only just been created (after I noticed it was red-linked on another article), and I was intending to expand it a bit after I got back. Oh well, no harm done! :-) Martin 00:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


Ok, then close it. -FlubecaTalk 01:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


Question about editing out spam, On 2Clix page … the support group is a non commercial entity and adds to the discussion about 2Clix issues that the users are having, there is no financial benefit gained by this link being there —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boxcar456 (talkcontribs) 08:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Boxcar456 08:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:External Links. The upshot is that Wikipedia isn't a web directory, it is an encyclopedia. There are search engines and directories that accomplish that function much better and efficiently than Wikipedia ever can. External links should be used very sparingly in Wikipedia, and should consist of items that are relevant to the article in question that cannot be integrated into the article itself. A link to a support forum is only tangentially related to 2clix and is inappropriate promotion of your site. The fact that the site is commercial vs. non-commercial isn't a factor here, although technically the term "spam" may be a misleading characterization. Neil916 (Talk) 15:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Itwire is not a self-published reference, it is a major Australian IT news organisation. The 2clixhelp web site is a relevant part of the whirlpool/legal controversy. This is not original research. Muzzamo 05:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Says who? Find a reliable source. That ITwire is a place where I can self-publish my own press releases that say anything I want about myself. Clearly not a reliable source. Hint: any web site with a "submit your press release" link on each page is not a reliable source. Neil916 (Talk) 05:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As a journo for ITWire I take some offence here. Press releases can NOT be self-published. If you are a vendor you can submit your press release to the editorial team for review. That's standard for any publication. You are erroneously assuming that "submitting" is the same as "publish". I can assure you, ITWire has NO self-publishing and has a paid team of contributors who are verifiable technology journalists. Davidmwilliams 11:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Well, I know everything. Actually, the algae, or what we call the algae, and hell if I know what you call them, are in tremendous flux due to major molecular phylogentic studies over the past decade, a little less. This is complexed by the fact that there are not many practicing phycologists. I've studied phycology, but not recently. Still, I have recent text sources, and know a number of the on-line sites. They all differ tremendously in their taxonomic treatments of the algae. I often use AlgaeBase for Wikipedia articles, but it differs from much of the literature and my texts. So, what's your specific question now that we've identified that we first have to make sure we're talking about the same thing with the word "algae" and that the topic is in high confusion. KP Botany 05:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the Dictyosphaerium article. This, and hundreds of others, were created from a database dump from the NCBI website. The taxobox shows class = Trebouxiophyceae, no family, no order, and the genus, Dictyosphaerium. If I look up that same genus on AlgaeBase,[7] Class= Chlorophyceae, Order= Chlorococcales, and Family= Dictyosphaeriaceae. Same results on ITIS,[8], which I've been bashed in the past for relying on because of its being considered outdated. So what needs to happen to the taxobox on the article? Like I mentioned, this is just one of the many hundreds of similar articles created. Is NCBI a more reliable source than ITIS and Algaebase? Neil916 (Talk) 05:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see the issue. Some problems here, NCBI does not have an overarching taxonomy, so its internal taxonomy is inconsistent. ITIS, unlike NCBI, may be out of date here and there, but the world's leading experts on the taxon are able to contribute and correct it--whereas I think NCBI just relies upon the data attached to the genome. NCBI is not a taxonomy site. Who's the bot owner doing the data dump, or is it the user Willow? This may need a bot to correct, and a discussion on plants--or was there one? Thanks for the notice. This will need more input. KP Botany 06:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This[9] was the only discussion on WP:PLANTS that I've seen on the subject, and there wasn't much discussion other than "well done, want to take on another order?" and pointing out that the kingdom was wrong. I was a little put off by NCBI's notice on their pages that "The NCBI taxonomy database is not an authoritative source for nomenclature or classification - please consult the relevant scientific literature for the most reliable information". Thanks for any input. I was thinking of dipping my toe into the algae articles, but was (am) a bit uncertain how to proceed. Neil916 (Talk) 06:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. There are no phycologists on Wikipedia. I've posted on W:Plants. Let's work on the solution there. ITIS is problematic, but it can be used when tied to the citation. NCBI should not be used for taxonomies. KP Botany 06:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's[10] the unpleasant comment I received about ITIS in the past when trying to clean up some aquatic snail articles that badly needed it. Neil916 (Talk) 06:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow! The post was fine, and I was wondered what you were up about, it was just someone disagreeing with you. Then I read the last sentence. Okay, I can see why you got pissed off. However, let's ignore that post for now--oh, and yes, the aquatic snail articles are a disaster, some of them. ITIS is problematic with its taxonomies for various reasons, but they are taxonomies, and if you can't find an online article that is preferentially usable, and you inline quote, and someone gives you hell so rudely again, please say something to me--I promise to be polite in response, but will discuss the issue so you don't have to. Taxonomy isn't something that everyone can grasp by just copying, and you at least seem to understand what you're doing when you're editing. I'm not sure that Willow has a background in taxonomy, but we'll ask, and clear the issue, and get a bot for clean-ups if need be--we do have a bot for plants articles. I forget who runs it, but we can find out. NCBI is not a taxonomy site, and when we have two editors doing articles on less than familiar subjects, and one knows something about taxonomy, and the other may not, we should at least pause until the matter is sorted out. Again, thanks for catching this, and pop over to plants and contribute as necessary. KP Botany 06:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Little note on algal taxonomy

Hi Neil,

Thanks very much for taking on the improvement of all those Chlorophyta stubs! I'll be glad to help out as well, although I'm rather swamped right now with other articles. Here are a few points that might be helpful to you:

  • According to EncycloPetey, the people at WP:PLANTS are using "divisio = Chlorophyta" rather than "phylum = Chlorophyta" in the taxobox. I know that's not what they have at AlgaeBase, but there you have it. I'd made the substitution in my Chlorophyta pages down to the level of order, if I remember correctly, but not yet down to the family or genus level. The Desmids are all fixed down to the level of genus.
  • After consulting with people at the various WikiProjects, it seemed sensible to abbreviate the genus name to its first initial in the "subdivision = " part of the taxobox, e.g., Acetabularia. That prevents "wraparound" problems in many taxoboxes where both the genus and species names are long.

Hoping that this helps, Willow 19:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that help, I'll make those changes. All other feedback is greatly appreciated. Neil916 (Talk) 20:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Acetabularia resources?

Hi Neil,

I've been asked to bring the algal genus Acetabularia up to snuff, which I've been doing fitfully for maybe a week or so. Do you know of, or have, any good resources on that genus? I have a few review articles that I'm distilling, but I would love to get some good, non-copyrighted pictures to illustrate the article. The one present picture is good at showing the relative length of the stalk, but it doesn't show the shallow goblet shape of the cap very well, to say nothing of the whorls and rhizoid. Pointers to other pictures, say of Hämmerling's experiments or fluorescent images of the nucleus or the cytoskeleton, and other scholarly write-ups of Acetabularia would be really welcome as well. Thanks muchly! :) Willow 03:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm afraid I can't be of much help to you there. Neil916 (Talk) 04:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

File:Golden Spike Neil916.JPG

I've added an extra template to your image. 3D articles have their own copyright (held by the creator), so it's needs to be shown that it's very old - otherwise you need permission to have a photo of it - the USA does not allow photographs of modern sculptures to be used on Wikipedia, from the image it's not obvious how old it is  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

fin whale ref

Hi. What does the following ref have to do with fin whale movements in the North Pacific?

Reeves, R.R.; M.W. Brown (1985). "Whaling in the Bay of Fundy". Whalewatcher 19 (4): 14–18.

I don't have access to it. Did you mean to cite something else? SaberToothedWhale (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


I closed the TfD for this template as no consensus, but your suggestion to modify the template seems sensible. Could you go ahead and make any necessary changes? Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for looking at the article but I' have no idea what you mean by "there seems to be false precision issues with units of measure in the article, probably from several generations of being converted from imperial to metric, and back again". LittleJerry (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It means that at some point, somebody took some measurements in U.S. measurements. Then they had to publish a book or an article with units of measure in metric, so they converted them but forgot to round them off to the appropriate number of significant digits. Then someone else came along and converted them back to U.S. measurements for their own paper, and so on, and so on. That's what the "several generations of being converted..." comment meant. Neil916 (Talk) 04:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Well I don't know what to do about that. LittleJerry (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
You can't find any other reliable sources that contain average height and weight information about elephants? Really? Neil916 (Talk) 08:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Natchez Massacre

Hi, I've replied to your comments here, so please take a look. Thanks. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I took another look tonight. The article is a good read, but it still seems like reading a CliffsNotes version. Perhaps I've read too many awesome military history featured articles in the past, but this version still seems really thin to me. WP:MILHIST seems like one of the most amazingly active projects on the wiki, have you considered putting out a call to them for content assistance? Neil916 (Talk) 06:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
What's your preference, Neil, would you like to see the nom try to finish this up during the current FAC, or would you rather run it through Milhist's A-class process first? (Reply at the FAC, please, if you have a preference.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

God of War FAC

Addressed all current points. --JDC808 23:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

All new points addressed. --JDC808 21:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I've left a couple of responses. --JDC808 20:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Just a short comment as well; I have my Wikipedia account set up to ping my email if you leave a note on my talk page, so if it doesn't look like I'm around (I was), a note here will alert me to pay attention. Neil916 (Talk) 20:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay. --JDC808 20:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Notifying you that God of War (video game) is up for FAC again. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/God of War (video game)/archive4 --JDC808 20:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Ping. --JDC808 17:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


For sorting out my talk page while I was away. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No sweat. Neil916 (Talk) 16:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this consensus discussion? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

SNCF Article

Hello, Neil916. Thanks for your detailed and measured response to my request on the SNCF article. As you seem to have a neutral point of view on the topic and good knowledge of Wikipedia's guidelines, I am interested to continue discussing the article with you, to see if we can find a solution to the issue of including inaccurate claims within the WWII section. To this end, I have replied on the article's discussion page, offering a new suggestion and would appreciate your input once again. Jerry M. Ray (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and a follow-up question

Neil, thanks for reviewing my requested COI changes on DePaul University and allowing me to make most of them.

Per your comment on the Theatre School ranking -- is it more acceptable to include this if I source the original Hollywood Reporter article? Let me know either way.

Also, may I have permission to add a photo of the new Theatre School building?

Kris (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Question about Ipanema page

Hi Neil,

Thanks so much for the feedback on the Ipanema page. Get your point about some of the sourced articles. Would something like this be ok, if we found a couple more and then pulled out the relevant info from it? Just wanted to check before I did it again. Read the company instruction page as well, and I think this one's fine as it's neutral, third-party, non-promotional, etc.

Sorry for the faff. Thanks for feedback.

(DianneDianneDianne (talk) 12:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC))