User talk:Epipelagic/Archive 14

Disambiguation link notification for January 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Biomineralization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spicule.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marine biogeochemical cycles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vertical mixing.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Environmental DNA, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High-throughput.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Plant microbiome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biotic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Good article drive notice
This message has been sent to users signed up for the Good articles newsletter. Add or remove your name from the list to subscribe or unsubscribe from future updates. Alternatively, to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. -- For the drive co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Metabarcoding, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bipartite.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you Gerda! — Epipelagic (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Metabarcoding, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HTS.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Seagrass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hydrophilus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! — Epipelagic (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Marine protists
 * added a link pointing to Phototrophic
 * Seagrass meadow
 * added a link pointing to Thalassia

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

my additions to cyanotoxins
Hi, any specific parts where you miss a citation? I think with the three references this shold be fine? Timo Niedermeyer (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine now. I didn't realize you were still editing when I made that comment. Well done. — Epipelagic (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive
Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive and create a worklist at WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:FISHING
Glad everything is back to normal now. I know already told you this, but I do apologize for my lack of consideration for you and the project members and should have handled it sooner and without complaint. Jerm (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fine. We're all good now :) — Epipelagic (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marine sediment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aeolian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Marine sediment
 * added links pointing to Rock and Sedimentation rate
 * Human impact on marine life
 * added a link pointing to Dead zone

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marine protists, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bipartite.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Mangrove
 * added a link pointing to Hypoxia
 * Seagrass meadow
 * added a link pointing to Hypoxia

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Microfossil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Archaean.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Microfossil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dormant.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Biomineralization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Celestine.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 12
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Bacterial motility
 * added links pointing to Pili, Permeability, Vesicle and Stokes equation

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Resource for Protist locomotion
Hello there Your creation of Protist locomotion is an awesome endeavor. There is a category for cell movement too. Here are some well written notes from one of the top protistologists in the world, Alastair Simpson. Locomotion

There are some more resources in my protist library if that would be of interest; it is in the link as well.

Hope it helps out!

Single Eukaryote T / C 16:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks heaps for that. Those course notes are good. There seems little general interest in articles in topics like these – sometimes seems like the more riveting the fewer the page views. — Epipelagic (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bacterial motility, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pili.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Chlamydomonas reinhardtii
 * added a link pointing to Eyespot
 * Phototaxis
 * added a link pointing to Eyespot

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Protist locomotion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Photoreceptor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't get it
Why would they even remove that image?  Atsme 💬 📧 21:17, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Atsme. You added the original image as Image:Sherwin c new.jpg. Presumamably someone deleted it, but I can't find any record of the deletion. — Epipelagic (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * According to the deletion log, Atsme requested speedy deletion on 3 June 2018, by placing   on the image page.- gadfium 04:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see now. Thanks for that gadfium — Epipelagic (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cyanobacteria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pili.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cyanobacteria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pico.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Aeroplankton
 * added a link pointing to Aeolian
 * Microbial consortium
 * added a link pointing to Biotic
 * Rhizosphere
 * added a link pointing to Biotic

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Plant holobiont, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ATP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Lower means early
For future reference, the "Lower" Jurassic is another name for the Early Jurassic. It is the "Upper" or Late Jurassic that immediately precedes ("abuts") the Cretaceous. That said, your edits on Shrimp can still stand, as the paragraph is still just as accurate! The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Silica cycle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phototrophic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nomination period closing soon
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election voting has commenced
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting period closing soon
Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche will be closing soon. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sponge spicule, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ediacara.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi!
Hi Epipelagic, thank you for the welcome!

I'm very keen to help with contributions wherever I can, and have started familiarising myself with how it all works. I look forward to hopefully producing more new content moving forward whenever I have time. Thanks for the tips and the links for assistance :)

All the best! — MitranaSage (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Good. I look forward to your contributions. There are very few serious content builders left on Wikipedia, so there's a huge amount that has never been done, and will probably now never be done. The best and most able content builders have become targets of resentment on Wikipedia, and have mostly been run off, "cancelled", or in Wikispeak "site banned", by the social activists and ideological purists who have massively overrun the site. If you intend to survive and make serious contributions, you will periodically be dragged before an inquisition board called the ANI, which functions like an electronic version of the medieval stocks. There you must submit to public shaming for contributing well. You will need an infinite capacity for enduring, without complaint, the ritualistic cyber-flagellations that will follow. Do not ever point out what is happening. In wikispeak that is called "casting aspersions", and you will be cancelled (site banned). Aside from that, may you enjoy content building. — Epipelagic (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

MitranaSage (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC) oh dear!:D thanks for the heads up, I shall steel myself for the impending onslaught. I look forward to hopefully fighting the good fight for some time to come. I'm sure there are loads of marine species that could use pages, I've periodically come across numerous species redlinks, although currently focusing on another area of interest - renewable freshwater and integrated water resource management and associated topics.

Disambiguation link notification for October 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marine food web, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morphology.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Lumnitzera littorea and Aegialitis annulata
Please do not redirect species to genus pages. Lumnitzera littorea has 1,700 Google Scholar hits and Aegialitis annulata has 606. These are orders of magnitude more GS hits than the average species, and a number of editors have been making efforts to clear the redlinks from User:Pengo/missing plants, on which both these species appear. Abductive (reasoning) 15:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I have my own reasons for creating redirects of species which lack their own article to their genera. Perspectives differ, depending on what you are trying to do on Wikipedia. I appreciate your position, but there is no reason why this situation cannot work for both of us. All you need is a simple app which will identify species which redirect to their genera. To make the app more useful, allowing you to dispense with Pengo's missing plants page, the app could also record the number of Google Scholar hits. In the meantime, I create the species redirects to genera because my focus is on writing overview articles. Species that are red-linked have been red-linked for over two decades now. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for something to happen. In the meantime, readers need to be directed to something helpful. The genus article in many instances is all they need. Alternatively, I could just link manually to the genus. But then the species itself is not linked, and if someone does eventually write the missing article, the link will not automatically update. This way, if you use a bot as I suggested, we both get the best of both worlds. Regards. — Epipelagic (talk) 04:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A glance at the archives of WikiProject Plants' talk page will reveal that editors are none too happy with these redirects, because they make it much more likely the articles will never be made. Why not just make a stub, if you are worried about the readers? Abductive  (reasoning) 05:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Because the redirects I make are selective. They are for relatively important species that should, but do not have their own article, and I make the redirect because I need to reference the species in an overview article. I am NOT just randomly creating redirects, as you seem to be suggesting. Yes, of course I could make stubs, but they are generally articles that need more than a stub. If I start writing species articles adequate to their needs, that would be the end to writing overview articles. Far from making it "much more likely the articles will never be made", if you followed my suggestion you would be able to target your efforts more effectively, and it would be much more likely the needed articles will be made. My concern is with missing species pages generally, not just plant ones. I have read the concerns expressed historically on the WikiProject Tree of Life' talk page, such as here. I see where they are coming from, but I do not think some of the more black and white, proscriptive and potentially punitive approaches some of the editors there seem to favour are constructive. — Epipelagic (talk) 06:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I can tell you are being selective, I wouldn't have bothered talking to you if I didn't think you could be persuaded. Looking at your contribs I see now that you are not into making stubs. And of course you are correct, the difference between waiting three years and ten years for an article to be created means nothing for the redlinks now. I have long wondered at the strange persistence of redlinks for species that are clearly more in need of an article than the median species. How is it that so many articles are being created daily, but seemingly divorced from any readership need? I'm working as fast as I can to create stubs based on a number of metrics that indicate broader interest in a species, such as being available for sale, being a weed, having lots of GS hits, and so forth. As for detecting redirects, I just make a list in a sandbox, then right-click and look at the page source. They are all labeled as existing, not existing, redirs and disambigs in there. If need be I copy and paste into a spreadsheet to sort them. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * That seems an excellent approach — Epipelagic (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Microswimmer
Hey there, I just tagged Microswimmer as copyvio as the whole thing appears to be lifted from. I see that you're a far more experienced editor than me so feel free to trout slap if I'm missing something. Retswerb (talk) 05:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've missed something.Click on "Copyright and License information" just above "Abstract". That clearly states the article is under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The citation in the Wikipedia article also states that, and says that material has been copied from it. Please remove your tags from the article and its talk page. — Epipelagic (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for the gentle correction. Retswerb (talk) 05:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome — Epipelagic (talk) 05:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Microbiome
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Microbiome you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bacterial motility
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bacterial motility you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bacterial motility
The article Bacterial motility you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bacterial motility for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Microbiome
The article Microbiome you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Microbiome for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mangrove forest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tidal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Archaeal virus
Hello. I strongly apologise to bother you, but if you do not mind, I would like to ask a question regarding the article Archaeal virus. It mentions TKV4-like proviruses, and I wonder what they are: viruses or perhaps endogenous viral elements? According to Wikipedia, EVEs have been found in animals, plants and fungi, but are there prokaryotic ones, too? Thanks a lot! Kind regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * : I have no particular knowledge of archaeal viruses, and certainly no knowledge of anything like the relevance of TKV4-like proviruses to prokaryotics. The entry concerning TKV4-like proviruses was not made by me, but by as shown here, so you might like to see if they have information beyond that contained in the source they gave. Please don't apologise when you have absolutely nothing to apologise about :) — Epipelagic (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Plant microbiome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interspecies.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Microbiome
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Microbiome
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Bacterial motility
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Neuston, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morphology.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey about History on Wikipedia
I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Portuguese man o' war, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dimorphism.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Copying text from research papers
Hi, while your copying of text from research papers under compatible Creative Commons licenses is not a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies, you can't just dump text from research papers into the article without attempting to adapt it, it does not make for good quality encyclopedic prose. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree in the case you are referring to. Must have been on automatic pilot. — Epipelagic (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aeroplankton
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Aeroplankton you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marine sediment
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Marine sediment you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricane Noah -- Hurricane Noah (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Environmental DNA
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Environmental DNA you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Environmental DNA
The article Environmental DNA you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Environmental DNA for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Renomination of Marine sediment
Following a request, I've renominated Marine sediment in your name and deleted the previous review. Seddon talk 01:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Aeroplankton
The article Aeroplankton you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Aeroplankton for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Environmental DNA
The article Environmental DNA you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Environmental DNA for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter – 018



 * February 2022&mdash;Issue 018


 * Tree of Life


 * Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:Fishing villages has been nominated for merging
Category:Fishing villages has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Concerned
Hi Epi, I noticed you haven't made an edit since early January. I hope you're okay.- gadfium 21:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your concern gadfium. I'm fine, though I had a series of strokes in January. I find it a bit difficult concentrating and reading a computer screen. Not really something wrong since I'm in my eighties. I'm bouncing back a little, so I might start occasional editing again in trivial ways. I was hoping to to tidy articles I've written to GA-level. But maybe I've done as much as I can expect on Wikipedia. I hope things are going okay with you. — Epipelagic (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I was worried. All's good with me.- gadfium 04:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Tree of Life/Newsletter/019



 * March 2022&mdash;Issue 019


 * Tree of Life


 * Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Articles are not suited to your preferences
Your claim of "aggression trying to enforce deep trivia and override other people's personal preferences" is not what I'm doing and as someone who has been on Wikipedia for over a decade, you should know that articles are not about personal preferences. A claim like that implies you have ownership over the article and you don't. And I don't see why you're getting worked up over a minor edit. We should reduce unnecessary amount of spacing on Wikipedia. Authority Control doesn't need to be separated by an extra space from the other templates above it. Including expanding templates state on articles makes it longer in appearance than it actually is and should be. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Traditional fishing boat for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Traditional fishing boat is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Traditional fishing boat until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 21:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter – 020



 * April 2022&mdash;Issue 020


 * Tree of Life


 * Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations opening soon
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting opening soon!
Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Correction to previous election announcement
Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting closing soon
Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"messed-up caption formats"
I don't know what did you mean by "restore messed-up caption formats" in. These captions had many problems and violated multiple local and general guidelines. I've tried to correct as much as I've noticed, but you have restored many of them to the wrong state. Please explain. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 14:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Please dial down the high-handed and inflammatory language. You seem to be objecting mainly to the way the captions have been centered in some images and diagrams. Please point me to the (multiple) guidelines I "violated" on that matter. In fact, in image galleries the captions default to centered. There is no "right" or "wrong" here. It just so happens that, while image galleries default to center, the standard file format  [[File:... ]]  defaults to left justified. Nothing can be read into that – it is just that there needs to be a default. To me it makes sense that short captions are centered and long captions are left justified. The issue doesn't seem particularly contentious – nor does it seem to be directly addressed anywhere in MOS guidelines.


 * You also seem to object that some captions in large and complex diagrams have been given a summary title (by bolding). As far as I am aware, no guidelines directly address this issue either, so common sense needs to prevail. MOS says, "Captions for technical charts and diagrams may need to be substantially longer than usual; they should fully describe all elements of the image and indicate its significance... The text of captions should not be specially formatted, except in ways that would apply if it occurred in the main text (e.g., italics for the Latin name of a species)". But that does not address the issue of a bolded title for a long, detailed technical caption. Both galleries and multiple images specifically provide for bolded titles.


 * Finally, as the most excruciatingly minor issue, you are removing spaces or hairspaces I added before a reference at the end of a caption without a period. I agree, and alway adhere to the rule that there should not be a space between the punctuation at the end of a sentence and its reference. However, that is not the situation when a reference follows a caption that is not a sentence, but a sentence fragment. In that case, there is no period, and jamming the reference hard against the last letter of the sentence fragment seems quite wrong. Some time ago, I started adding a space, as seemed more appropriate. More recently I discovered the hairspace,, which seems better. As far as I know, this issue has never been addressed or considered in MOS.


 * I see on your talk page that there are ongoing issues where claim that your own, apparently not-thought-through preferences, are required by Wikipedia guidelines, when they are not. You have aggressively reverted my initial revert, without giving me the courtesy of waiting for my response. Please undo your reversion. — Epipelagic (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I frankly don't think that "messed-up" is less "inflammatory" or "aggressive" than links to and quotes from WP:MOS, but anyway...
 * These quotes that I've provided in my edit summary more or less clearly say that no special formatting should be applied to captions and that references must not be spaced (except some special cases, which do not apply to those captions). If you don't agree, please ask at the MOS talk pages of the forum. Regarding styling some particular captions, MOS:DEVIATIONS generally advises against such practice, adding that: "It also creates a greater degree of professionalism by ensuring a consistent appearance between articles and conformance to a style guide." One of the problems was that caption formats in your version were not only inconsistent with other articles but even within the article itself.
 * Moreover, some of them looked very poorly: notice how prominently off-center are the first two "centered" lines (due of the "Enlarge" icon) and how badly the lines are split by hard-coded line breaks. On my system, with a different font, the line breaks are even worse, with the 3rd line consisting of a single word "in", and for other users with other font or size preferences the results might be strange as well. In a similar fashion, formatting with  is a bad idea too (first, this is generally an inappropriate way of spacing elements in HTML; second, converting this to a proper markup would need some rationale for selecting the gap size, but most importantly, why this gap is needed at all). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, you have a point about the use of line breaks in captions, and the way different browsers and fonts can result in unintended effects. I have wondered in the past if that might be happening, so I appreciate you pointing that out. I will be more cautious with line breaks. I did, earlier, use non-breaking spaces occasionally to force a desired format. I no longer do that, since appropriate formatting functions are now available, like, ....
 * I gave you a detailed reply above to the issue of using a (hair)space before a reference to a sentence fragment. You do not seem to have read it.
 * You do not mention at all the bulk of the changes you made, which were to do with removing the centered captions. Where is your MOS justification for that?
 * The next most major changes you made were removing all the caption titles. You do not mention that either. A caption title can give some structure to a complex technical caption. I mainly write overview articles that often use technical diagrams needing extended descriptions. The fact is that MOS does not consider in any detail the requirements of captions for complex technical diagrams. It merely acknowledges, . It is important sometimes to have some leeway from rigid rules which work well, but only for for simple captions. — Epipelagic (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for acknowledging the problem with line breaks. It's just one of the reasons why MOS:CAPTION and MOS:DEVIATIONS advise against using hard-coded visual formatting instead of relying on standard styles (which are different in different "skins" and can be additionally redefined in user preferences). The problem with centering is similar. In particular, as I've already me mentioned, the first lines (one or two, depending on the skin) in the manually "centered" captions are in fact noticeably off-center, which at least looks sloppy.
 * Using (with quads instead of ordinary spaces, which can vary significantly by font) is of course better than the code I've removed, but again, there must be some rational reason to make this particular gap. And most certainly it must be done by semantic rather than visual markup. If it's a list, then format it using some list template; if it's a legend, then format it as a legend; and so on.
 * I have read you reply about hair spaces and did mention again that "references must not be spaced", but I can quote MOS:REFSPACE once more: "All ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, with no intervening space." There is a small note about "the unusual case", but no exceptions for "sentence fragments". References inside sentences (not after punctuation) are also placed directly after a word, without any spaces.
 * Regarding "caption titles", MOS doesn't have this notion at all and prescribes formatting captions as regular text. This means that "centering", manual line breaks, and boldface should not be used (in case of bold, the exceptions are described in MOS:BOLD). In addition, bold formatting in that particular article wasn't even applied consistently. For example, in the archived example that I've provided above, "Fishing down the foodweb" seems to be a "title" but is not bolded and only separated from the rest by a hard-coded line break, without any punctuation (the harm of this approach has been already discussed). Your quote from MOS doesn't mention or justify any special improvised formatting. If you think that in some cases regular text isn't enough, please use appropriate image templates (for example, has dedicated header and footer parameters). But most articles use the standard markup without any problems, so there is no reason to surprise the readers by deviating from it (see also WP:ACCESSIBILITY). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Epipelagic!


Happy New Year! Epipelagic, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 16:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 16:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Marine vertebrate for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marine vertebrate, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Marine vertebrate until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Phytoplankton-zooplankton-oxygen model in Phytoplankton
Hi there. I've just removed an image and caption from Phytoplankton that I think you added. It related to a strange phytoplankton-zooplankton-oxygen model published a few years ago. In my professional life, I came across similar work by the same authors recently, and was sceptical of its gross oversimplification of the oxygen cycle, something that's repeated in the cite previously added here. Rather than have a strange mathematical cul-de-sac in a more general article on phytoplankton, I decided to pull it. Anyway, I just wanted to explain. Cheers, --P LUMBAGO 14:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Prawn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Decapod.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Biogeochemical cycle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Respiration.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Revision of Microbiome Article
Dear Epipelagic, In continuation for your post on Mr.Ollie talk page, I appreciate your positive opinion on my contribution to microbiome article. I did put a lot of efforts in writing this text. And I do feel that this information is now lacking. I will be happy if you can revert Mr.Ollie's decision and rewrite the text that he deleted. I am no sock puppet and I can refer you to any evidence that I have no relation to his concerns. Nowadays, I am trying to appeal his decisions, erasing my text from many different pages. Best regards, Levytau Levyitau (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)