User talk:Matt-eee

Hello, and welcome to my user page's talk page; how can I help you? If you are talking about an article, please blue link the title of it. Thanks.

I have been contributing since the 17th Nov 2009, so I am very green in the many aspects of WP, so I am always interested in helpful suggestions. Thanks!

November 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article Senescence, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

_________________
Thanks. I have now re-added the info with appropriate sources.

Neutrality and verifiability

Welcome to Wikipedia, Matt. I see from your contributions that you have an interest, and I dare say, and expertise in biology, with special interest in aging and biodiversity. I think you're going to be a valuable contributor to Wikipedia, if you can keep in mind the policies of neutrality and verifiability. Several of your recent contributions did not follow these policies, and I hope that by pointing out the issues, I can help you become a great contributor here.

1. This edit added a significant fact to Senescence without citation, making the fact unverifiable.

   (As a postscript, I'll add that the lack of citation has been addressed. Nicely done!)

2. This article was essentially an essay stating your take on the issue of over exploitation as it relates to sustainability. As the article was entirely unsourced and really not quite neutral, I found it best to redirect the article to the Sustainability article. If you feel any of the information you have would help the Sustainability article, please feel free to add it there.
3. This series of edits was excellent, providing useful facts and the citations to verify them.
4. This edit was troubling to me, as it seems to denigrate the term "biodiversity" in favor of other terms. While it may be true that the biological community favors those terms, without a citation to that effect, the edit seems non-neutral and somewhat biased.
5. This article seems relatively benign, but perhaps unnecessary, as it doesn't really express much about homogeneity, but rather links to a bunch of articles about biodiversity (which is the exact opposite of homogeneity).

In the future, I hope you'll keep the guidelines in mind as you become an excellent resource to the Wikipedia community. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

_______________________________

Thanks for the welcome WikiDan61. Yes I have an undergrad in Ecology and Conservation, as well as a MSc in Evolutionary Biology, in addition to being part of the UK Enviornmental Law Association’s Climate Change Working Group. I am still getting used to the Wiki layout so appreciate your input.

Just a few comments in response to your comments:

1. Over-exploitation is one of the five main causes of biodiversity impoverishment. Whilst, admittedly the article was brief and not sourced, it is not the same as sustainability, which is only one solution in combating over-exploitation. Over-exploitation is also a specific industry used term, not my opinion.

2. Biodiversity has been a ubiquitous buzz-word in use since the early 90’s. It can, and usually does, unfortunately, mean many different things. The article on biodiversity does go into the three areas which it typically encompasses (genetic diversity, ecosystem diversity & species diversity). However, I felt the article failed to highlight that the term should not be used as a catch-all to replace the more clearly defined and long established terms ‘species diversity’ and ‘species richness’. This is quite difficult to source as it is just common knowledge, but I will dig around and see what I can find and update later.

Matt 03:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Diatom life cycle diagrams

Hi Matt. Thanks for updating the diatom article. I've a quick question about the diagrams you added. They're rather large, and perhaps not best-designed for WP. Is there any way that they could be re-drawn such that the text is bigger? That way, they can be shrunk down a bit rather than taking over the article. Also, the full size versions of them don't appear to work (my browser claims they contain errors), and it looks like they contain JPEG artifacts. You might want to upload them again as PNG images (lossless compression), or SVG images if possible. The latter are, apparently, favoured here at WP, and several of my diagrams in the diatom article have been successfully converted to this latter format by other editors (I can't make them myself). Give me a shout if any of this doesn't make sense. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 16:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
______________________________________
No problem, I have shrunk them for the time being. I will have a go at redrawing them and then uploading as a PNG as you suggest. I am not sure why the full size versions aren't working as they seem to be ok on my browser. Maybe if i reload as a PNG it might rectify this?

Thanks for your input. If I get stuck, I shall drop you a line.
Cheers Matt 16:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Wikipedia prefers SVG format if possible. I know Microsoft's Visio will produce this format, if asked. I don't know about other drawing packages. Scans of hand-drawn pictures probably can't be saved as SVGs. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah-ha. WikiDan61, now that you're here, can you perhaps direct me, and Matt of course, to any other packages (freeware preferably) that does the conversion. I'm happy to produce SVG if I've got something to do it. None of my art packages can produce them, so I usually wind up drawing stuff in Powerpoint then bitmapping (and PNGing) it in Paint Shop Pro. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 19:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Scalable Vector Graphics#Software and support in applications, OpenOffice.org Draw can produce SVG files. This is a free utility from the OpenOffice suite that mimics the capabilities of Microsoft Visio and Microsoft Publisher. This page may offer some other alternatives. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

PLUMBAGO I have altered the diagrams at Diatoms#Life-Cycle, but couldn't upload them as a PNG or SVG. Hope they're looking better though Matt (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Overexploitation

Hi Matt. In the article on overexploitation, you make certain statements about the way the term is used in ecology and conservation biology. However, I am not sure that these statements are correct, and you didn't provide citations. I have tried to find reliable sources myself, but without success. I was under the impression that the term is basically a fisheries term, and was unaware that ecologists and conservational biologists use the term elsewhere to mean something different. Would you please add some sources. Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Epipelagic. Thanks for your post and thanks for not just deleting the page and for your additions. I am not sure the term is used differently; it is just used to encompass more species than fish.

I think a better definition would be “populations are harvested at a rate that is unsustainable, given their natural rates of mortality and capacities for reproduction”. This should fit both scenarios. What do you think? Maybe we could take this point to the discussion page of the article?

As for the ecologists use of the term: Russell (1932) was one of the first to deal in detail with harvesting problems in fisheries after many marine fisheries significantly reduced during early 20th century due to overfishing. This decline sparked a vast amount of research on the “overfishing problem”. Logistic models, dynamic pool models, Beverton-Holt recruitment curve, Concept of Optimum Yield and many more, mainly focus on the fishing industry or fish populations.

Overexploitation, however, is not limited to fish. It is affecting many different species. It threatens one-third of endangered vertebrates, as well as other groups. Excluding edible fish, the illegal trade in wildlife is valued at $10 billion per year. Try looking at the ‘bushmeat crisis’, for example.

I realise the article was in need of work, I just have not had the time to address it. I have, however, now tweaked it a little, with additional references.

If you would like some literature on the subject, try:

Primack, R.B. (2002). Essentials of Conservation Biology, 3rd edition. Sinauer Associates Inc. Pages 265-294.

Cuarón 2001. A global; perspective on habitat disturbance and tropical rain forest mammals. Conservation Biology 14: 1574-1579. A special issue focusing on mammals, with many excellent articles on hunting.

Wilke, D.S. and J.F. Carpenter. 1999. Bushmeat hunting in the Congo Basin: An assessment of impacts. Biodiversity and Conservation 8:927-955.

David Attenborough also did a documentary called the ‘State of the Planet’, which addresses overexploitation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/programmes/tv/state_planet/over.shtml

hope this helps Matt (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I replied to your comments on the article talk page. I think there is the makings of a significant article here, with a much wider scope than I initially thought. Are you interested in working the article up for a joint DYK? It need to be expanded five-fold within five days. Well the article had 3,590 bytes just over four days ago. We have another 22 hours from the time I poated this, to complete the expansion. I'm sure we could do this. We should then have another few days before it actually goes on the front page, to make it respectable. It will give a fine focus. Are you up for it? --Epipelagic (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

ok,yes, lets give it a go. i'm not sure how much time i can put into it today, but i'll try my best. I don't think we need much more, you seem to have done a good job expanding already -Matt (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

we're now on 20,605 bytes. its a bit rushed and I don't have any more time at the mo to invest. if by fivefold it means five times, then we're on the money! -Matt (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I have added some more, and the article is now at 28K and looking quite good, apart from one key area. When you are back in the saddle, let's look at this statement, "Ecologists use the term to describe populations that are harvested at a rate that is unsustainable". This is the bit that I am having a big problem with. You have established that a leading ecology textbook has actually stated this. Now we need to look at whether other mainstream ecologists have the same view. If they do, then we need to reconcile this view with, for example, the very contrary, and (according to me) very logical view set out in the fisheries section. Also, we need to establish what exactly the five main activities threatening global biodiversity are. You list (and source), apart from overexploitation, pollution, introduced species, habitat fragmentation and habitat destruction. But other sources do not support this particular list, and we need further discussion about it. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

“Overexploitation' is a term used in fisheries, where it means that a fish stock has been fished down to the point of diminishing returns.”

“Ecologists use the term to describe populations that are harvested at a rate that is unsustainable, given their natural rates of mortality and capacities for reproduction.”

Comparing these two statements, I do not see a fundamental difference. Diminishing returns would be related to catch, ie a stock has been overexploited and therefore futures catches are reduced. The cause of that reduction would be that fish are being taken out of the population faster than they can reproduce. Ie populations are reproducing at a rate lower than the catch rate (“capacity for reproduction” and “mortality rate”). If this activity is continued over a period of time, there will be an increase in diminished catches. Continuing to overexploit will bring the population to a point at which it can no longer viably sustain itself (through reproduction) . So the point the when the number of viable reproductive adults being taken from the population is greater than the populations ability to reproduce, the activity of taking those individuals becomes “unsustainable”, because at some point in the future, the population will become extinct. Which is also the logical conclusion to “diminishing returns”. So I don’t see it as a contrary view at all. However, I would say that the ecology description goes further and is more detailed. If you are looking for further references, or sources, they can be found in most good ecology/biology text books, or in biological dictionaries which are easily accessible online.

“Also, we need to establish what exactly the five main activities threatening global biodiversity are. You list (and source), apart from overexploitation, pollution, introduced species, habitat fragmentation and habitat destruction. But other sources do not support this particular list, and we need further discussion about it”

This is what I was taught, what I’ve read about, and readily accepted in the ecology field. If you have an alternative view point, or sources, please list those sources or alternatives so I can give an informed response.

Good work on the article BTW Matt (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Overexploitation

On February 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Overexploitation, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Calmer Waters 06:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• This article came out really nice. I enjoyed reading about how phenomena like overfishing, overgrazing, and overlogging can be discussed as aspects of a single phenomenon. I’m glad objections to the article were ironed out with such positive results. Kudos. --Griseum (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

On Death of Ian Tomlinson - I reworded your sentence slightly when it was readded, and fixed the reference.

On Ireland national football team (1882–1950) - The IP added the image of the Flag of Ireland (the present state) not a flag used in 1882 or for decades after that. The article already uses a different flag for Ireland in the infobox. The main reason for my revert of the IPs edit was his addition did not work, the flag did not get displayed.

On President of the United States - That is about a pre 1801 incident. The article was linking to an island, it should have been linking to the state at the time as others do which was the Kingdom of Great Britain.

Hope that explains the changes. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Block

This user is asking that their autoblock or shared IP address block be lifted:

Matt-eee (block log • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • user rights management • checkuser (log))

---

IP address: 78.129.143.129 (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • unblock • checkuser (log))
Blocking admin: KrakatoaKatie (talk • blocks)
Block message:

{{blocked proxy}}: <!-- 21, 80, 443, 8080, 3389 -->

WARNING: If you were blocked directly then you are using the wrong template and your block will not be reviewed since you have not provided a reason for unblocking. Please use {{unblock | reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} instead.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, or when you need checkuser assistance, please place {{subst:Unblock on hold-notification | 1=Matt-eee}} on the administrator's talk page. Then replace this template with the following:

{{unblock-auto on hold | 1=KrakatoaKatie | 2=<nowiki>{{blocked proxy}}: <!-- 21, 80, 443, 8080, 3389 --></nowiki> | 3=78.129.143.129 | 4= | 5=~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting decline reason here with any specific rationale. If the decline= parameter is omitted, a reason for unblocking will be requested.

{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1=78.129.143.129 | 2=<nowiki>{{blocked proxy}}: <!-- 21, 80, 443, 8080, 3389 --></nowiki> | 3=KrakatoaKatie | decline=decline reason here ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1=78.129.143.129 | 2=<nowiki>{{blocked proxy}}: <!-- 21, 80, 443, 8080, 3389 --></nowiki> | 3=KrakatoaKatie | accept=accept reason here ~~~~}}

Can you explain why you edit from what seems to be an open proxy?  Sandstein  19:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW - I tried to use this address as a proxy and all I got was "Install the Omniquad Surfwall Remote Client to use Surfwall Remote ISA Filtering -or- Add your gateways Ip in IP Ranges Page.", so it's not truly open - looks like some sort of business firewall filtering system.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't edited for well over six months. I logged on at work today and it said that IP address was blocked, but I havent edited from that PC and neither has anyone else? Any ideas why it would be doing this?