User talk:Epipelagic/Archive 2011

Fish kill
I concur with your recent edit comment and I had half a mind to delete the Crab entry - I don't include Crabs as fish but I understand that some do. I have also found no good source for a number and to cap it all it is an Asian alien species which wouldn't be expected to survive cold winters. Evolution taking its natural toll I suspect. I might remove the entry entirely when I'm feeling particularly ratty. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk 22:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

jeremiestrother
My edits are intentionally and overwhelmingly within MoS guidelines - please, no self-agrandisement! If any of my edits are incorrect: please correct them. My talk page is just as accessible as yours -

Hey! I could use some help in learning to be a better editor - would you be willing to e-mail me?

Red tides
My experience of red tides is very limited (as well as almost everything else marine) but we do have occasional and spectacular red-tides caused by Noctiluca scintilans a protozoan. The few occasions we have experienced them, there have been associated invertebrate mortalities, presumably from oxygen depletion in near shore waters. If there were fish they would have been difficult to see and would probably have been scavenged by the gulls. I was wondering whether there is an assumption amongst non-scientists that all red-tides are algae or is there good evidence for the identification of algal species in every case?  Velella  Velella Talk 23:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm no more clued on this than you are. There is clearly confusion about the terms "algal bloom", "algae bloom" and "red tide". Some of these issues have been discussed in the past on talk pages, but not really clarified. "Algae bloom" tends to be used by non specialists while "algal bloom" is used by specialists. And oddly enough, "red tide" is used by both specialists and non-specialists more than the bloom terms, not just in North America, as I first thought. I suppose that allows fudging whether algae are involved. If you want to to engage seriously on the fish kill article and see if we can clarify things like this, perhaps try for an GA, them I'm a participant. But this no speciality area of mine, and we would have to research it! --Epipelagic (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK query
Hi Epilpelagic, I've reviewed your nomination of cyanotoxin but have a query. Could you take a look at T:TDYK? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Cyanotoxin
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   06:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Aquaculture topics
I note that you blanked Aquaculture topics yet it is still used an a couple of articles. Is there a replacement for it? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you should code it as: --Epipelagic (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Cold seep
Hello Epipelagic, I have expanded cold seep article. Feel free to tweak it if you like and I hope you can lead it to "good article". --Snek01 (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure Snek, I'll give a hand when it comes under review. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Spawn (biology)
Hello! Your submission of Spawn (biology) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 11:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

FISH FARMING
The addition you made to Fish farming was seriously misleading. Your citation, aside from being very dated and unreliable, did not apply in any way to current or historic fish farming practices, whereas the context you placed it in made it appear that it did. Please consider this a warning, and desist contributing to Wikipedia if you intend to continue adding misleading information. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please elaborate, Epipelagic. --THC Loadee 15:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

How about a response instead of idle threats? I don't mind opposing viewpoints, however, dogmatic enforcement of so-called valid sources is a bit tedious. Let's talk --THC LoadeeTHC Loadee (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Spawn (biology)
Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

HDML page operating Medusa's engine room
Hi Epipelagic, Forgive me if I have contacted you in the wrong way, I am new to Wikipedia and I am learning to understand how things work. In response to your question with regard to citing of sources, yes I can with regard to what I write. The material orginates from myself. I am the Chief Engineer of HDML 1387, and as such I am trying to provide first hand information regarding the operation of the vessel type's machinery space. This is not formally covered in any publication that I am aware of, and I have been running the vessel's machinery for over six years, ecompassing the rebuilding of her machinery and systems. Also, I note with a little concern that the power of the engines (Gardner 8L3s) is miss quoted. I can assure you that 152hp is the correct figure, I beleive the 204 hp figure is for the rail traction engine and/or the later 8L3B version. Neither of which were fitted to HDMLs. I have performed a hull speed analysis of the vessel using profesional Naval Architecture software, which provides accurate speed prediction, using the Holtrop model series, and the 152 hp (after adjustment factors) is the correct figure for the vessels top speed of 12.5 knots. I also know that the vessel will acheive this, because I have recently operated the machinery space during trials on HDML 1387 at emergency full ahead, and this was the speed recorded through the water. Further, if the Gardner manual for these engines is consulted (I have a copy, then it will be seen that I speak the truth. My intention is to provide a genuine and unique insight for people with regard to this aspect of HDMLs. I beleive I may claim to be some thing of an authority on this aspect of HDMLs because I am the only person in the world, that I know of, that operates a HDML engine room that is still in it's original form, or indeeed even operational. My intention is to provide photographs and more detail as time permits, but, I may reconsider enriching this page if the modifications that I make are tampered with or repeatedly undone. Of course I don't mind people adjusting my writing to reflect the correct style and format, infact I am grateful for this help. I will also request that all that I have written so far, and my name be removed if people refuse to accept the content of what I write. All information that I will forward will be sourced from my own experience first hand of this type of vessel, in the same way that my good friend Mike Boyce wrote 'Medusa'.

My appologies if the tone of this is a little stern, but I am trying to add value to the page, not vandalise it. If my additions are unwelcome then please indicate this and remove my name, and all that I have written from the page permenantly. That is all the material regarding the engine room operation, because I wrote all of it.

I would prefer to continue to add information, and provide some fantastic photos too. But this is going to depend upon whether I can write without fear of having my text altered by people who may not know the facts for sure. Please let me know your thoughts on all of this.

Kind regards,

John Weller — Preceding unsigned comment added by John A Weller (talk • contribs) 20:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi John, your edits are very welcome, and your input is exactly what the article needs. However, there are some things you need to know about Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are meant to be encyclopaedic. In practice that means the focus is on verifiability, and not on truth. It means that any assertions that are likely to be disputed should be cited with reliable sources. That might seem a little odd at first, but if you think about it you will see it is the best way to go. Wikipedia itself should not be regarded as a reliable source. If something on Wikipedia is not true but is adequately supported by reliable sources, then it still belongs on Wikipedia. If at a later time further research is done correcting this, the article can be updated with the new sources.


 * It is not enough for you, as a Wikipedia editor, to just assert that something is true. No matter how certain you are, and no matter that you are an insider who really does know. The same applies to me and all other Wikipedia editors–what we think has no encyclopaedic value unless we can support it with reliable sources. If a topic has no reliable sources, then as far as Wikipedia goes the topic doesn't really exist. So if you were an old salt, who came here to reminisce about what happened on HDMLs during the war, then your contributions are at risk at being removed, on the grounds that they are unsupported. If we didn't have a rule like that, imagine the chaos! If instead, you wrote a book about your experiences, backed up with accounts from other people and published by a reputable publishing house, then you might be able to cite your own book as a reliable source.


 * Lately lots of people, including yourself, have added all sorts of reminiscences to the HDML article, to the point where the article is shaping up very nicely. Except, and it is a big except, that most of it is not cited! At any time, some other editor could remove most of the article because it is not cited. That is why I nudged you about finding "reliable" sources. I certainly didn't mean to imply you are an "unreliable" source :). It's just that it's not enough for you to attest something is true–what is needed are reliable published sources.


 * If you google for Gardner engines in HDMLs you get 48 results for 204 hp but just one result for 152 hp ... and that is your amended Wikipedia  article. Similarly, if you google for the Gardner engine by itself, you get 547 results for 204 hp but only 118 results for 152 hp. That is why I initially reverted your edit. I thought you mixed it up with 152 KW, which is what 204 hp magically translates to. I knew nothing about your background, and in the absence of more information, 204 hp seemed the more likely figure. If the Gardner manual says otherwise, that would be acceptable as a reliable source. I tried, without success, to download the manual from IFOD Online Manuals. Anyway, if the manual supports your figure, you can cite it as your source (give the title and publisher of the manual, its date and the relevant page number, and, if  it has one, the ISBN number).


 * Now is it really just a magical coincidence that 152 KW is the same as 204 hp? I doubt it. I suggest that way back someone on the web (probably on Wikipedia) misread 152 hp as 152 KW. From there we arrive at 204 hp. It must have been an article widely referenced around the web. There are 11 Wikipedia articles referring to the Gardner 8L3. Most of them say they generated 204 hp, but some of them say there was an alternate version of 152 hp (bull shit I think, by editors trying to resolve the conflicting accounts). You are probably in a better position than me to resolve this yourself, and correct the other offending Wikipedia articles (not forgetting to include the reliable source, which puts an end to the nonsense!)


 * So John, I accept you are now our resident expert on HDMLs. Please continue improving the article, and good photos would be great. If the article is to endure and perhaps become a definitive article, as it should, then the encyclopaedia game must also be played. It must be backed with reliable sources. Was Mike Boyce's "Medusa" published by a reputable publisher? There may be useful sources in historical naval documents. Best regards --Epipelagic (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well done

 * Geeze... how embarrassing. Better to just block me. Why a bloody barnstar for that! What makes you think there was any sarcasm in that purely factual account? --Epipelagic (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ross Tiger
Thanks for your edits and safguarding of the page. I have since checked the G Welbourne name on the previous skippers section and seen that it is indeed spelt Welbourn; a typo on my part when originally writing the article. I'll correct this - Daft I'd have made a mistake with him as I see he sailed with my late Grandfather! Hope you're well, Regards, D Ornsby Dornsby (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Fishes of the Guzman basin


I have a reason (tangential) for wanting to learn about the fishes of the Guzman basin. Can you help? Also what's an administrator? Is that like...a moderator, on this...eh...forum? TCO (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No I don't know anything about the fishes of the Guzman basin. There are the usual online sources, like |fishes|fishing&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws here and |fishes|fishing&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=sp here, though really there is not a lot there.


 * That is a very naughty question you asked, about administrators. You must know by now that it is better for content editors to not think about such matters. It is enough to know that... well we really shouldn't even utter the name... that it is the elect you are referring to, the Wikipedia overlords, a nobility which is appointed for life. Most of them do good work on various administrative tasks, such as blocking vandals, moderating deletion debates and dealing with spammers. But having knowledge of what it takes to be a competent content editor is not a requirement for an administrator, in fact it seems to be an obstacle. If you wish to become one of the elect yourself, you should make your move soon. Otherwise you are in danger of becoming overqualified.


 * But then, for some reason, which totally escapes me, they are also given powers to block legitimate content editors. In the minds of some administrators, content editor = vandal. There is a small but very damaging group of administrators who resent content editors who write better content than they can, and try to block them on the flimsiest of grounds whenever they can. I suppose it's just human nature, but it's mean and destructive. If a content editor tries to defend themselves, perhaps by stating something quite factual about the administrator's behaviour, they can block you for "incivility" or "a personal attack", which is their arcane code for "something I didn't want to hear". You then have a block record they will never erase, which follows and brands you, so other administrators and administrator wantabees can see at a glance that your thoughts are impure. Administrators can do this with impunity, they are not normally held responsible.


 * Administrators of this ilk tend to operate a set of linked delusional beliefs, such as "no editor is indispensable", "content editors are always replaceable", "there is an endless pool of quality editors falling over themselves to write for Wikipedia", "we don't need content editors now because Wikipedia is basically written", "all we need now are administrators to tidy thing up". There is no vision at all for the quality of the project. I've lost count now of the number of key scholars and scientists I've seen driven off Wikipedia by administrative buffoons. These people are not replaceable. Many of the world's best qualified editors willing to work with Wikipedia may well have already made their attempt, and will never return.


 * The administrative set up is very provoking, and the longer you edit the more unpleasant it seems to become. If you want to stay on here as a content editor, then the longer you stay, the more you come under the notice of the more predatory administrators, the more likely you are to have a growing block record, and the more saintly you must become. It is a systematic method of negative conditioning devised, perhaps unwittingly, by the administrative corps, as a regimen of escalating punishment for contributing well to Wikipedia. It is perhaps close to point where blocks are becoming badges of honour for content editors, a sign that they are the responsible editors, who contribute the content that needs to be contributed and don't shirk saying the things that need to be said.--Epipelagic (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Wow. Very cool response. Thanks for typing so much (serious). I was going to ask Newyorkbrad "who the fuck are you? I never see you in FA or even in dasharguments at MOStalk or just editing around anywhere, but everyone acts like you are some Prince Charming." Maybe I will wait, for now.

2. On the Guzman, I am (no kidding) in touch with a 100 yo scientist, the most famous living American herpetologist (perhaps most famous ever) and have somehow hatched a science idea that is a worthy addition wrt a species that has over 2000 papers. In fact, the most published turtle species ever. The fish thing is the tangential connection. All of this coming from jerking around on teh Wiki.

3. You are really smart and funny. I like you!TCO (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * On a serious note, "There is no vision at all for the quality of the project." is the biggest issue. There is a trajic lack of any perspective on what makes a good book, journal article, magazine, newspaper, or even webpage design.  Just blows me away to see the amount of time spent on Rodhullandemu or whatever his name is, but then the lack of any benchmarking or thought on what the status of the content is by de facto leadership.  (founder, arbcom, board, etc.)TCO (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That great outpouring of energy for Rodhullandemu had nothing to do with the integrity of the project. It was just other administrators horrified to think they could be could be desopped for jerking content editors around. Some administrators think that is what they are there for. Desopping itself is very rare, and when it happens it is usually because the administrator was jerking other administrators around. The "de facto leadership" has no centre, there is no central intelligence operating in Wikipedia. That is perhaps, at the same time, its biggest strength and its biggest weakness. It's another topic.


 * Btw, don't harass Newyorkbrad. At the final reckoning, the content entered by the content editors is everything, and there will be no vanishing trace of anything else including administrator egos. But to get there many things have to be held together, and Newyorkbrad contributes valiantly in those areas. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I won't dick with him. Still, what I reall admire are the Volokhs.TCO (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

--Epipelagic (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Turtles
We need to generate a lot of turtle GA/FA content by 01APR. Do you think you could write up a GA on some turtle subject? Please? How about turtle fishing? Or Green sea turtleTCO (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No! Sorry, but I've got at least 150 other articles I want to write, and I know nothing about turtles. I really don't understand these fuckwits who think Wikipedia is almost written! There's hardly anything on marine biology! Or just about any other area you look at for that matter. But if you start an article on turtle fishing and hang in there, then I'll hang in there with you. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Green sea turtle is almost done man. It just needs reading Ernst and going over it to see where we miss something and fill it in.  Not looking for FA, just GA.  And a turtle in the ocean is practically marine biology.TCO (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Just start with some copy editing. BEfore you know it you will do some content reorg.  Than ref formattting.  Then the next thing you know you're looking up new content.  Then...you're done with the article.  Just come on, take that first drag.  I can get you hooked.   TCO (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Turtle excluder device
Enough fishing related?TCO (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, but I've already written half of that, and don't want to develop it further right now. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

review por favor?
How about a review for state reptile over at FLC? (It's a light easy article...the only tension is trying to explain stuff for the nonUSAians without bogging things down for the USAians, I'm hoping that I managaged it.) In exchange, I promise not to tease the moderators for at least 24 hours. TCO (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No really TOC. These reptile pages seem to be getting plenty of attention, but there are huge areas in marine biology that have nothing written about them. But you are doing a good job yourself! --Epipelagic (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Come on, man! I know it's work to do a good review, but it's less work than content creation from a blank slate.  I may not be here much longer before I get repermabanned (I'm really a 3 month newbie, first Wiki experience was all escalating bans).  Let's do some content together.  I won't misbehave too much and bring you down in my dramah.  I promise.  Seriously, this stuff is pretty tangential to marin bio (sea turtles, animals in general).  Plus it's a light article (not bio intensive).  Do you want me to beg?  Pleeeeeze.  Pleeeeeze.  Oh.....pleeeeeze!  TCO (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh...and IANAMB, but I have seen some wierd shit in the marine world (deep sea monsters, strange barnacle sucker things, flying fish dying on the deck). quid pro quo?  I'll do something for you?  TCO (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing like walking down the deck and having some sea lion almost decapitate you, as it jumps across a wide deck from pen to pen. TCO (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Lernaeocera branchialis
Hello! Your submission of Lernaeocera branchialis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Feedback needed
Your inputs would be appreciated on this: User:Staticd/Physoclists & User:Staticd/Physostomes Currently I have set the pages Physostome & Physoclisti to redirect to Swim_bladder#Structure_and_function. Do they deserve a separate page? Pro: linking / searching for these term should bring some thing immedeately relevant (there were a few dangling links to it). May be of taxonomic importance? Con: Articles likely to remain stubs for a long time.

CC to User:Mokele.

thanks for your time. Staticd (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think they could make reasonable, and quite interesting standalone articles. They can certainly be developed past stubs. You could develop the articles further in your sandboxes, and then submit them for DYKs. Do you want to develop the articles by yourself, or would you like to develop them jointly with me? --Epipelagic (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your quick response. I moved the two pages into the mainspace. Any help will be welcome and count me in if you see anything that needs to be done :) .(Ill be working on a few other articles for now).Staticd (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Adoption of Ala'a Eddeen
Is there any policy that backs up your edit which I and others perceive to be a disruptive edit? Warnings to readers are most important now than ever as it gets the most attention now. Passionless -Talk  22:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Lernaeocera branchialis
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi Epipelagic, thank you for what you've done today. It was brave of you, and it was nice of you because I know you do not like the article. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well you're one very brave lady yourself! --Epipelagic (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be brave if you reviewed state reptile for FA. Also, I didn't know Mbz wuz a gurl.  I would have been nicer.TCO (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

that's cool
dick with it...and fix it...and support it. Was some work to research it.TCO (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's looking pretty good to me. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There are still some refs to go in, but pretty mechanical, now. Just got get srunched up and do it.TCO (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar!
I really appreciate it, and your comments. My involved with Wikipedia is minimal now, though I do some anonymous edits still. I just found the dickwickery (great word!) just too much.

Cheers, Neale

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Fish processing
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   08:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Biopreservation
Thanks from the DYK Project and Victuallers (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

A pie for you!

 * Well thank you very much. Most yummy. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Hurdle technology
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your thoughtful comments on Talk:Sustainability regarding File:Nested sustainability-v2.gif ... see Talk:Individual and political action on climate change and wp:tea

See wp:tea. 166.137.141.189 (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If of interest see Wikipedia talk:A nice cup of tea and a sit down "Talk" also, as User:Arthur Rubin has been deleting comments on others Talk Pages: User talk:OhanaUnited and User talk:Granitethighs (see View History). 99.181.128.253 (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I don't like the way you are doing things. I've refactored your disorganised heading. Are your messages the socks of one person, or are you more than one person? Why do you keep changing your IP address? Why are you going round "thanking" everyone? If you want to talk, create an account, and do things in a more upfront way. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: User talk:64.25.27.130
Epipelagic, excuse me if I am violating some wikipedia rule by posting on your talk page.

OK, fair enough, I will create an account- after my JetBlue flight! ; ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.25.27.130 (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, Epipelagic, now you can talk to me or send messages if you want. This is my new user account.Liberation3 (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Bait ball
Hey Epipelagic, please consider nominating this for GA review. It is a fine piece of work--thanks for writing it. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bait ball
The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia New Zealand
User:Brian has done some of the initial legwork to get this set up. There is a website at http://nz.wikimedia.org/ but it hasn't been maintained for a long time. There's a still older page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_Zealand and there's a mailing list at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedianz-l which was last used in 2008. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/nz/5/5c/Wmnzproposal.pdf might also be of interest.- gadfium 03:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform
To be quite frank, your negative comments around the board about admins and/or adminship are in  bad faith and there's a limit to  how far our Wikipedia 'AGF' mantra carries towards such postings. Continue editing where you  will, but  if you  have nothing  pleasant to  say, at  least please stay  away  from projects  you are not interested in  contributing  to in  a constructive manner. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that is a very strange comment. I have offered thoroughly constructive solutions to the current problems, such as unbundling the current set of administrator facilities, and setting up a special procedure for administrators who have the right to block established editors. I would have though it was people like yourself who are avoiding constructive solutions by dismissing such suggestions, and instead just tinkering with the current structure. Your message above appears to be a warning. Are you telling me that I am now in peril unless I become silent? --Epipelagic (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Kudpung did the right thing. You might well see a perennial problem, and I have always said I agree with part of what concern you. But what you wrote today was purely disruptive; basically slamming an attempt at constructive progress just to air your grievance. Seeing Kudpung's message above as a threat highlights the problem with your approach and outlook here, in what universe is it a threat. There is no way you could become "in peril" because you've been asked to not comment if you won't be constructive. Of course, if you did become "in peril" that proves your point, doesn't it. The foundations of a Straw man exists there somewhere. No, it is just a polite request to either be constructive or leave the page in peace.
 * Take this as an example; what if I came to an article you were writing and said "wow, this article is a farce. The writing is crappy and you shouldn't bother trying to improve it". This is basically the stone you threw in the faces of people who have been working hard on the RFA reform page. It's simply rude and, for someone trying to promote a collegial atmosphere, somewhat ironic.
 * Whatever anyone says in reply to you, you seem to become the victim. Please do consider reflecting carefully on why people are responding so negatively to your approach; I don't think it is because you are assaulting the bastion of adminship.
 * As I said to someone the other day; I don't see this drastic abuse of admin privileges that certain individuals keep bringing up. What I do see is a clique of admins who don't view the role as "just a tool" and have lost sight of the fact that we are all just editors with different specialities. I also see a clique of self-styled content editors who appear to have a victim complex, on some idea that they are under threat of blocking at every second (a problem I've not yet seen demonstrated). I also see lots of admins and content editors who get on with it, and work together in a collegial manner every single day. Both of the cliques appear to think of themselves as superior to the other group, and to any other editor. Both cliques appear unable to see the irony of this.
 * So, yes, something might need to be done. But all I have seen you do so far is re-hash stuff that has already failed (perhaps because of the resistance of the cliques), and use that as an opportunity to pit the cliques (and others) against each other, deride constructive attempts to improve things etc. etc. As I suggested to that other individual when we discussed the matter; why not go present evidence of a perennial problem, suggest a workable and constructive solution. That no one seems to do so every time I ask them is... well... frustrating.
 * The final comment I have is this: reflect carefully on this message and consider this - is everyone against you, or are you part of the problem too? --Errant (chat!) 10:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are editing in good faith Errant, and doing your best. I suppose, for me, it has been seeing some simply too shocking examples of admin bullying, and wanting to find a way to work towards an environment where stuff like that is less likely to happen. As far as Kudpung goes, when he says "there's a limit to how far our Wikipedia 'AGF' mantra carries towards such postings", he/she is being very regal with that "our" and is clearly implying a threat. Anyway, I see you have just closed ranks with Kudpung, retracted your thread and mocked my reply. So I accept I am outnumbered, and there is not much that can be done. It is disheartening. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not mocking, being critical. Please do take the chance to reflect. As both a content editor and an admin I've seen the dark sides of both :) Look; I understand you see a serious problem. Imagine me clueless (I am, because I don't quite see it) and demonstrate it to me. That is all I ask :) --Errant (chat!) 11:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Upbundling and unbundling are both potential solutions to RFA, but both ideas have flaws that need resolving before they are likely to get consensus. They certainly aren't the only potential solutions to RFA, but if you have ideas as to how we can resolve those flaws I'd be very keen to discuss them with you on the talkpage of User:WereSpielChequers/RFA reform. As for admin bullying, have you made a complaint and if necessary escalated it to Arbcom?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  11:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've redacted the threads myself as being unproductive. The RfA "reform" process is broken beyond repair. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Self-propelled particles
The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Can I help?
First off ... your "push to talk" above is either inspired or theft :) Second ... can I help with copyediting any of your articles that are headed into GAN or A-class review?  I see you're not feeling well, and I'd like to do something. - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Damn... you've unmasked me as a thief! I'm feeling fine Dank, but I much appreciate your offer to help with GAN if your offer still stands. I would like to do some GA work, and some hand holding at the beginning would be great. I have already approached another editor about taking a recent article to GA. It is a clearly defined topic, with reasonable sources and good images. It needs further expansion before it would be ready. But other articles might be better candidates. I would appreciate your thoughts? --Epipelagic (talk) 08:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm doing some copyediting now. British English, right? ("artefact").  I generally don't do images, but you'll want some commas where you have semicolons.  "As might be expected for a settlement preoccupied with the sea, the occupation density was much higher ...": Why?  "fifteenth century": I have no problem with that, but we're usually going with "15th".  "were the central figures in the village at the top of the social hierarchy.": possibly redundant, I'd consider losing "central figures".  - Dank (push to talk) 12:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, British English. I've copied the relevant bits of the above to the talk page of the article, which seems a better place to proceed. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Earth elevation-area graph
Hello! The source for my graph was NOAA's ETOPO2 database:. There is now a more detailed ETOPO1 available, but the graph would not noticeably change as a result. Let me know if you have any other questions! Citynoise (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sparrow's Nest Merge
Ah, sorry about that! As I've said over on the talk page it wasn't done deliberately, more as a way of trying to rationalise a bunch of Lowestoft related articles created by less constructive editors over the years. I'd be happy to work with you, or others, on developing something for HMS Europa/Sparrow's Nest. I hope I've managed to retain something about the place in the Lowestoft article as it stands. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't feel bad, I don't doubt your genuineness. I would put energy into redressing Sparrow's Nest, except there are so many other areas. If remaining veterans of Sparrow's Nest held their hands up I'd put the energy in. HMS Europa/Sparrow's Nest is definitely notable enough for an interesting article in its own right, and the guys that could really flesh the details out are dying as we type. But, you know, stuff just drops into oblivion... --Epipelagic (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Walraversijde
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Marine habitats
The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciated your comment at Less Heard's talk page last week. Since you seemed to have an opinion on the matter, I thought you might want to know about this RfA, Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2. Lvklock (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

News
--Snek01 (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarek vs content editors
Hello. I'm not quite clear why you feel that Sarek of Vulcan's admin style is bad for content editors. Can you point me to something specific?  Kenatipo   speak! 17:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to reflame this issue. But you can see yourself if you look at SoV's blocks of well established content editors here, and the associated discussions on ANI where the validity of these blocks were challenged. SoV does not seem to think it's an admin role to create a more workable environment for nonadmin editors, trying to defuse rather than inflame situations. Nor does he seem to think highly committed content editors should be blocked only as a last resort. At one point it seemed like he was trying to block as many such editors as he could, as though he was collecting feathers for his hat. This creates a fraught and threatening environment for editors. If admins continue down this path, content editors will start regarding blocks as honourable battle wounds they must endure if they are to do a good job, and start placing records of such blocks amongst their awards. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Without the names of the individual editors, this would take a long, long time to research. What I seemed to notice looking at the list of Sarek's blocks is that editors that Sarek blocked 18 months ago for 24 hours or a week are blocked today!  I guess they didn't learn their lesson.  I also fail to see why a committed content editor with tens of thousands of edits would ever engage in behavior that would get him blocked.  Hasn't he played the game long enough to know what the rules are?  Anyway, thank you for the time you took in responding.    Kenatipo    speak! 03:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Theoretical ecology
Another article contributed, thanks Victuallers (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Undeleted User Talk after User:Arthur Rubin deletion, of interest?
If of continued interest, User:Arthur Rubin (Arthur Rubin) continues to hide other's Talk, this time on User Talk:Zodon ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zodon&diff=429845197&oldid=429841834 ) ... on March 30th 2011 it was User talk:Granitethighs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Granitethighs&diff=prev&oldid=421531277 ) and User talk:OhanaUnited ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OhanaUnited&diff=421531280&oldid=421528249 ). These are related to Sustainability (and associated topics). 99.181.147.187 (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If of interest, more ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Large_Cities_Climate_Leadership_Group&diff=432283159&oldid=432278426 99.181.140.6 (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Message from Serketan
Hi Epipelagic. As I don't know where to reply to you, I'll just reply here to your comment on undoing my changes to the swarm intelligence article. Please note that obvious content doesn't need citations. Note there are no citations for the other systems listed as exhibiting swarm intelligence. Read the definition of swarm intelligence and you'll see the brain obviously satisfies it. Please tell me if there is something I'm missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serketan (talk • contribs) 02:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice reply and for explaining to me why the other examples are cited.

I still think brains are obviously an example of swarm intelligence, but I can understand it's not obvious to anybody.

Here are some of my reasons: It is true there are different parts to the brain and some parts have some "centralized control". However, even these emerge from local behavior. Moreover, within a part of the brain, (which still typically contains many more agents than the other examples listed) there is no such centralized control or design. The behavior is clearly collective, and neurons self-organize, for example via Hebbian learning. Each neuron is a simple agent, which interacts only locally with 1000 to 10000 of its neighbors (compared to the 100000000000 neurons in the whole brain, that's very local indeed). The rules according to which they behave are quite simple too. There is certainly a lot of randomness in their behavior. And any individual neuron is not aware of the global intelligent behavior of the brain.

We know for sure that only a tiny fraction of the brain network is specified in advance, as the genome can only contain that many bits of information (See Geoffrey Hinton's work for more insights). So the rest self organizes during learning and brain development, which happens through local interactions.

Finally, see:

Johnson, Steven (2001). Emergence: the Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software. New York: Scribner

http://www.kinephoria.com/assets/swarm-intelligence.pdf

or just do your own (Google) search on brains and swarm intelligence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serketan (talk • contribs) 13:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for your thorough response and for being patient with me! I didn't know swarm intelligence is about moving agents (is it mentioned in the article?). It is true that neurons don't move too much once they have found their place in the network, even though they can migrate before that. What do you think about embryo-genesis, is that an example of swarm intelligence? Serketan (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Admin: "We are your overlords"
TCO (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This WMG is blocked in my country. Here, we are kept in deep ignorance; we may suspect, but can never know. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Crap. Just google Viking kitten Led Zeppelin.


 * Aaaaaaaaaaaaa-ah! You found the administrators anthem! Not very realistic is it? Many admins are more shrill than that. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * But they look like that, no? Wearing their helmets and waving their hatchets...but really little kittens.TCO (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The wee helmets and hatchets are right, and the noise level and self-obsession almost gets there. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

malaprabha
hi, My contributions for edit regarding Malaprabha river were deleted by you.! I would like to get published the notification to regarding what is required exactly as reference material to my stands.Your posts regarding yellama deity is completely a false.Neither is it a deity concern in the region and neither is the temple of the deity existing in the source region of Malaprabha in the village of Kankumbi.Only Kankumbi is followed as a pilgrimage center, and the temple concern in the region is of the Deity, Mauli Devi.The temple is of Mauli Devasthan(Cooperation Society), and the administration of temple is taken care by the Kankumbi Mauli Devi Trust Committee.The region was a completely inaccessible region in past and even today the issues regarding access remains a question mark,with only one bus of the Karnataka State Government transport plying to the temple of Mauli Devi per day.Survey regarding any form ,either Archaeological or soil always remained unsolved as a matter of inaccessibility. Only matter that can be produced at present form is the photos.The people of the village remained uneducated for lack of schools.present day education stands only clearances until standard tenth.No Higher secondary education, no libraries, no even connectivity of Landlines and Broadbands.Social problems always remained a question. Density and other factors of the region is laid by the Panchayats organised by the government.In past social problems of crimes and disputes were solved by the Panch Mandala of the Temples of the villages around neighboring regions including Chigule, Chorla, Parwad, Chikale all included in the legal forums of Karnataka at present; Surla, Sada, included in Goa and Kolik, Talewade, Mangeli, included in Maharashtra.These Panch Mandala are hereditary followers of the families who looked after the security issues of temples in prehistoric times.These regions are still compensated for losses of agricultural outputs due to environmental hazards and instability as the main occupation of the people here is agriculture. All these issues are related to Malaprabha and the Ecosystem, and hence as a responsible educated resident if the region, i felt the need to discuss it on this forum of Wikipedia as its the only way we as this residents of this system can raise through to reach to the ears on the Union of World Trade Organisation for compensating to the environment losses. I would be great full to you if our voices reach the concerned media.Support in the form of photos and Google uploads can always be directed by me.This is the only way we can discuss this issue.White papers are out of our reach to produce to you. Isotropic and anisotropic pore properties are not the factors which can be proved to you as of the lack of technical surveys, as it is also a rare event observed after 12 to 15 years due to orientation properties.I would appreciate it from your part if you could technically challenge the beliefs of the myth of such a thousand followers of the deity. Any more contributions from my side in my limit of reach would always be produced to you in the form of links.I am a new user to Wikipedia, and hence i would be happy if you could direct me with the process of system. Hoping you could contribute to the goodwill. No personal gains from my side but a hope of preserve of our ancestors contributions.Appreciation is calculated for the value.--14:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepeshchowgule (talk • contribs)--DeepeshChowgule 14:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC) 14:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well sure, I'm happy to help you, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you please point me to where you think I deleted something you wrote? Are you confusing me with Staticd? --Epipelagic (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ya its regarding Staticd --DeepeshChowgule 14:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC) --14:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not Confusing you with Staticd, but a discussion as of this time you available for reply. This is the reply for the action taken on the discussion Staticd. Is their any other way to discuss on this indent.Please help me a guide to discuss the issue for more contributions of mine.--DeepeshChowgule 14:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)--14:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepeshchowgule (talk • contribs)


 * Well firstly, I thought the comments Staticd made on your talk page were correct. You need to be clear about what the basic rules are here, and the most important one is that any additions you make can be challenged and must be attributed to a reliable source. Staticd was entirely in order challenging you the way he did, and I would have done the same. So now, you need to find, somewhere in the literature (or on the web), the reliable sources that back up what you want to say. There is nothing personal in this. Wikipedia is not about what you or I believe, but about what has been documented in "reliable sources". That is what all editors here have to accept if we want to make contributions that survive on Wikipedia. In fact, you should celebrate this, because this is the rule that basically steers Wikipedia and gives it some ability to survive in the real world. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not about "truth".
 * Secondly, your English is poor. That's not a criticism, my Hindu is much worse, but it makes it difficult for you to contribute to the English Wikipedia. If you find appropriate reliable source in English, then I will help and copyedit what you want to add (and I think Staticd would do the same). --Epipelagic (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Fine, I do agree my English stands poor in above discussions as it is not coming from a verifiable source.Truth doesnt need to be verified. It stands by its statement, counteracting the truth is surely needed to be verified. My English is good if not very good. Infact satisfactory to understand the issue. Debating on English and other Languages is not the standby.
 * If infact you are talking to work on accepting your challenge then there was no need to discuss on this issue here. The work to stop degrading the ecosystem of malaprabha is already been challenged by the Supreme Court of India. Still Working against the challenge, infact neglecting the challenge is proved on a wide stand as of cancellation of state transport buses to serve to public on road have already been stopped by the Kadamba Transport department of the State Government of Goa due to instability of failure and collapse of road at the source of river Malaprabha. Karnataka State Road Transport corporation(KSRTC) has also stopped the only one bus serving to village of Chigule. The flow of Cement in the region could confirm the work of Degradation is still ongoing by its stands for diversion and against the Challenge and order against the work of diversion of Kalsa-Bhandura diversion project into the Malaprabha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepeshchowgule (talk • contribs) 06:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC) --DeepeshChowgule 07:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)--07:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Epipelagic for your attention to Planetary boundaries.
Thank you Epipelagic for your attention to Planetary boundaries. 99.190.81.244 (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you! :-)  216.250.156.66 (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contributions. I look forward to reviewing them.  (",)   97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I plan to read your additions as well. Be aware that User:Arthur Rubin (Arthur Rubin) hides/deletes other's Talk, such as May 19th on User Talk:Zodon http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zodon&diff=429845197&oldid=429841834  ... on March 30th 2011 it was User talk:Granitethighs http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Granitethighs&diff=prev&oldid=421531277 and User talk:OhanaUnited  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OhanaUnited&diff=421531280&oldid=421528249 These are related to Template:Sustainability and Sustainability (and related topics).  There are many other examples of Tendentious editing such as Large Cities Climate Leadership Group... Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin.  64.27.194.74 (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Epipelagic, thank you. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Stop spamming me with all your socks. I told you before, I'm not interested in discussing things with you unless you operate in an upfront way from a stable account. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't intend to trick you. My last two reverts really were reverts of my own edits.  Hence, when you reverted the last, you really were reinstating my edit.  My concerns about the article still stand, but I wasn't trying to trick you into reinstating my edit.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The "concerns" you link to are utterly trivial. Much ado about nothing. And I don't care for the snide oneupmanship you are trying to display here. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK
Hey Epipelagic, I checked the article with WP:DYKCHECK and unfortunately it isn't long enough (missing 7000 characters). I've left a note at T:TDYK about it. Good work though with the expansion. SmartSE (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Landing Page problem
Please let me know if the landing page is not appropriate with the external link.. this site is dealing with fishing trips and fishing guides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.236.121 (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Look, the site you want to add is fine in itself. But if you are allowed to add it to the fishing article, which is just an overview of what fishing is generally around the world, then to be consistent sites about fishing in Bangladesh, Turkmenistan and Mongolia would also have to be accepted. Then people in the US would want sites for individual states, so we would have sites on fishing in Alabama, Washington and Wyoming. Then people with sites they think are better, or more specialised, would want to add them as well. We would finish up with hundreds, maybe thousands of entries. Any given entry, such as your one, would be highly irrelevant to the majority of people who come to read the article, and the article would become a clutter of stuff that no one wants to read. That is why your site doesn't belong there. On the other hand, you could create a new article called something like "Fishing in Australia". Then, it might be appropriate to add your site. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Got It :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.236.18 (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Phosphorous supply
I know this is getting silly, but in what sense is 'phosphorous' an adjective in the phrase 'phosphorous supply'? The supply was phosphorous? What does that even mean? The supply was of phosphorus - now that makes sense. Ewen (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oxford Dictionary: "The correct spelling for the noun denoting the chemical element is phosphorus, while the adjective meaning ‘relating to or containing phosphorus’ is spelled phosphorous." --Epipelagic (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm. So why does the article not use the adjective 'nitrogenous'? I'm not convinced that 'phosphorous supply' is an example of an adjective as it's a supply of phosphorus not a supply which has something 'phosphorous' about it. Ewen (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for the authors of the Applied Geochemistry article, but they are not incorrect. A phosphorus supply is a supply of the element phosphorus, whereas a phosphorous supply is a supply containing phosphorus or phosphorus compounds. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * So the article should refer to the 'phosphorous cycle' then? Ewen (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Which article? You might use "phosphorus cycle" if you are focused on how the element phosphorus gets recycled, and "phosphorous cycle" if you are focused on how particular phosphorus compounds get recycled. But in this context, I don't know whether it matters that much. In scholarly use, the term "phosphorus cycle" is usually used, since what they are usually interested in is what is happening to the element phosphorus, rather than its particular compounds. But if you look at Google web wide, "phosphorus cycle" gets 186,000 hits and "phosphorous cycle" gets the same. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * So, the mass ignorance of Google trumps all other arguments? And why not 'nitrogenous' if you're going to insist that 'phosphorous' is correct? Ewen (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's enough. This has become trivial, and now you're being obnoxious. The use of the terms phosphorus and phosphorous is, in any case, not as simple as the Oxford Dictionary would have it. According to them, there would be no such thing as phosphorus acid. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if you found my comment 'obnoxious' but counting Google hits is not really a reliable source when debating spelling and grammar, is it? Googling 'the element phosphorous' (obviously a wrong spelling) gives 12,900 hits - almost a quarter of the hits for 'the element phosphorus'. Does that mean we should adopt 'phosphorous' as an acceptable spelling for the element? No. And of course this argument is trivial - it started that way and was never going to become profound. Ewen (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, as you said at the outset, this thread is somewhat "silly", suggesting we shouldn't put too much energy into it. Common usage is always a consideration, and inflammatory terms like "mass ignorance" don't cast light. Not everyone out there is dumb. I never suggested that "Google trumps all other arguments"; that's ridiculous. But it often provides valuable background information. It is you who started talking about "phosphorous cycle", not me. In response, I merely pointed out that it depends on your focus, and that academics tend to use "phosphorus cycle" but general usage seems split either way. There is no way that what you or I think is going to have any significant impact on the way the world uses these terms. We can only sit back, look at what is actually going on, and write articles that have some conformity with that so we are actually communicating with readers.


 * This thread was precipitated by the use of the expression "phosphorous sources" in the title of a research paper. The first point I would make is that the title of a such a paper must be respected exactly as the authors wrote it, regardless of typos, spelling errors, or syntactical or semantic confusions. Because that is what the name of the title actually is. If we misrepresent the title as something else, it will not be possible to google or otherwise locate it. The second point is that I think the title is fine as it stands. That is how I would have worded it anyway, not "phosphorus content", because most phosphorus (arrrrh... phosphorous) discharges into the ocean are compounds. But I'm certainly not "insisting" on this, as you claim, just stating that I think there is nothing wrong with it; it's an opinion. The third point is that I really don't give a shit, as long as we are communicating okay, and readers clearly understand what has been written.


 * I definitely don't want to expand into arguing about "nitrogenous" :) --Epipelagic (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Nice work
While I completely agree with your sentiments, your message on Arthur Rubin's talk page could be construed as a personal attack. I would recommend removing it. The fact that some people will see white and describe it as black, and others will call black white, is to be expected. Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your revert tells me you have good judgment. If I can be of any help in the future, let me know.  Dealing with AR is not easy, and if it helps, I understand how you feel.  I'm open to starting an RFC on his behavior in the future if you are interested in co-signing, but it may be best to sit back and collect evidence at this point.  The fact that he tried to sink your DYK and tag the PB article based on nothing but his penchant for strong climate skepticism (bordering on fringe beliefs if you ask me) appears to be a violation of the arbitration sanctions on climate change and subject to a sanction. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All I know is that to edit here, lowly content contributors must keep their heads way below the parapet, and not even whisper of how it is. Perhaps that is the real meaning of the saying, Wikipedia is not about truth. When the vanishing and demoralised pool of real content editors finally disappears, many admins will continue partying on the body created by the content editors, dancing even while the body rots as a corpse, and they will have noticed nothing. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing lasts. I'm reminded of the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain. Viriditas (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Stupidity seems to endure. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It depends on how you define intelligence. Arthur Rubin believes he's one of the most intelligent people on the planet (see his user page). Viriditas (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No Planetary boundaries offense intending on my part. You have done great work there, thank you.
No Planetary boundaries offense intending on my part. You have done great work there, thank you. Clarification needed on your Talk:Planetary boundaries comment, please. 99.181.130.125 (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Please be aware, I might get knocked-offline ... DDOS (?)  99.181.130.125 (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You have been told repeatedly, by myself and others, to please stop operating with shifting IPs, which is a form of sockpuppetry. You are unlikely to be "knocked-offline", because dynamic IPs cannot be easily blocked. But it is annoying never being clear which edits are yours, and it is against Wikipedia policy. Please create a proper account, and operate only from there. Then we can be clear which edits are yours, and can talk to you properly on your talk page if we want to discuss your edits. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Gravity wave
Hi

I think the gravity wave picture is inappropriate, as it is a complex wave with rotating water masses, not a simple gravity wave. I don't think it's appropriate for illustrating gravity wave principles. Please can you explain why you reverted my edit?

Thanks Andrewjlockley (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Well it was just a passing-by reaction to you claiming that an ocean wave is not a "true gravity wave" just because it happens to be breaking on a beach. That is still a true gravity wave, breaking up as a gravity wave would when subject to certain boundary conditions. Still, it is a poor photo, so if you want to remove it again that's fine by me. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you still believe Template:Environmental law be deleted?
Do you still believe Template:Environmental law be deleted? Do you suggest a replacement? 99.181.155.142 (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think templates should be honest, meaning they should deliver on the content they claim to represent. The template itself is well constructed, impressive looking, and visually prominent. But its content fails to reflect its majesty; it delivers next to nothing in real terms. Only four articles have been written (one of them is duplicated) that are directly relevant to its topic. Of these, one is just a stub, and the other three are not well written. The remaining 13 relevant topics listed in the template have not been written at all. If the 13 missing articles are warranted, and were written and written well, then it would be a good template. But as it stands, three (and one tenth) dubious articles do not warrant a special navigation template at all, let alone such an imposing one. If I was sufficiently interested in the topic, I would put my energy into doing the hard work and writing some of the missing articles. As it stands, there is no value trying to prop up this inappropriate template; it just mocks Wikipedia's coverage of this topic. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Will Steffen
Thanks from me and the Wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to log in
Thanks for your note to 174.118.72.222. Actually I simply forgot I was not logged in and made a one-word correction (I think that's the one you wrote about --- you're welcome). This is me otherwise. Still not used to the messaging system, hope I'm replying to the right place. Antillarum (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, that good. When you come to a talk page and start a new thread, like this one, it is also usual to add a section header, like the one I've added here for you called "Forgot to log in". Your contributions to fish migration and other articles are very welcome. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you (",)
Thank you for your contribution to Ban Ki-moon, regarding Climate change/Global warming. (",) 99.181.145.99 (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure about this revert
this didn't look like a vandalism revert to me.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Look again. The IP copied the list of inline references and pasted them back as a jumble at the bottom of the reference section. The IP also gave a phoney edit summary ("added actual company name to website reference"), so it is clear he was vandalising. I usually just mark a first offense by an IP as a test edit and don't template them for vandalism, but that one irritated me. Probably because at first, like you, I thought it wasn't vandalism. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, sorry.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 13:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Rainer Froese
Hello Epipelagic, I made a comment to Rainer Froese DYK hook nomination. Best Regards, --Snek01 (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences
Hello! Your submission of Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Moonraker (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Johan Rockström
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 05:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Rainer Froese
The DYK project (nominate) 06:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences
EncycloPetey (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for SeaLifeBase
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for LarvalBase
Hi Epipelagic, I reviewed your nomination for LarvalBase and there are a few issues. Could you read my comments and reply / address them at the nom? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I don't know if blanking the page is allowed though... probably another thing that needs to be discussed at WT:DYK. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ichthyoplankton
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences
Materialscientist (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's now also the lead DYK on Portal:Germany. If you have more DYK related to Germany, please feel free to place it there yourself, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Planetary boundaries
Yes Epipelagic, looks good basic info at this scale. I have added it as a link in the text referring to "scale" along with a link to the book "Limits to growth" which develops similar arguments on a planetary scale. Let me know if you think it should be dealt with in a different way. Granitethighs  12:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Safe operating space listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Safe operating space. Since you had some involvement with the Safe operating space redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hachikō
Hi! Sorry, but you are wrong. Please take a look at this. The original page is here. Oda Mari (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, its a minor issue, but if Hachikō died on March 8 you would expect his memorial services to be held on March 8, and not a month later. Is there perhaps an error in the date of his death, or are one of the sources incorrect? --Epipelagic (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There isn't. See  original page and, original page. Oda Mari (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That suggests the error is in one of the sources. Can you confirm them with other sources? --Epipelagic (talk) 09:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The error? Sorry, but I don't understand. Please specify. If you talk about the age, please see East Asian age reckoning. Oda Mari (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I am not talking about the traditional age system (that has been legally obsolete since 1902). If Hachikō died on March 8, then you would expect his memorial services to be held on March 8 and not on April 8. So one of the sources is presumably in error. I'm sorry, but it seems straightforward to me and I don't know how to state the issue more clearly. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's understandable people would expect his memorial services to be held on March 8. But the fact is not on March 8, but on April 8. That's all. If you cannot accept the date difference, please find some ref. supporting your opinion. Or send an mail to the address on this page and ask it to Shibuya city office for yourself. Oda Mari (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Kalamazoo Kid
Thanks for your comments and I've already talked to Arthur. There is a way to stop their behavior and that's to create an easy, low maintenence method of either:
 * upfront prevention (programming to bar abusively overlinked edit summaries) or
 * after the fact erasure (bot or admin deletion or at least hiding of abusively overlinked edit summaries

Assuming the kid's goal is to have the info be online for all to see (as opposed to just getting some sort of rewards for momentarily having a link up), then if the community takes that carrot away, the kid's behavior will stop. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Your DYK nom for Tom Skinner
Hi Epipelagic, I have reviewed your nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Skinner 2 and there is an issue with the referencing. Could you please see my comments and reply there after addressing them? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tom Skinner
Materialscientist (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011
(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.)

The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to  these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere.

A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising  the project  pages, researching  statistics and keeping  them  up  to  date. You'll also see for example that  we have recently  made tables to  compare how other Wikipedias choose  their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits.

The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on  specific issues of our  admin  selection  process and to develop  RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that  all Wikipedia policy changes take a long  time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to  be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments.

The object of WP:RFA2011 is not  to make it  either  easier or harder to  become an admin -  those criteria are set by  those who  !vote at  each  RfA. By providing  a unique venue for developing ideas for  change independent  of  the general discussion  at  WT:RFA, the project has two  clearly  defined goals: The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project  pages to  suggest  and discuss ideas that are not  strictly  within  the remit  of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they  will  offer maximum exposure to  the broader community, rather than individual  projects in  user space.
 * 1) Improving the environment  that  surrounds RfA in  order to  encourage mature, experienced editors of the right  calibre to  come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their  time to  admin  tasks.
 * 2) Discouraging, in the nicest  way  possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to  guide them towards the advice pages.

We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in  order to  build consensus.

New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern.

Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any  editors are always welcome on  the project's various talk  pages. The main reasons  why  WT:RfA was never successful in  getting  anything  done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody  remembers them and where they  are hard to  find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on  the founder's talk  page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 15:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

Could you please discuss any reasons why you think I'm a sock or meat puppet?
I though we already went through this some time ago when I was Googlesalot on the Admin board [|here] I know it might have been weird having another account and editing when I did. I just lost my password from my other account. However I did create this account about a week ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Googlesalot2 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, ignoring your opinion on my status or whatever, do you really think the edits were that bad? Or was it that you thought I was a Sock/Meat puppet?Googlesalot2 (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Fish Hatcheries
Dear Epipelagic

Thanks for the welcome, I did have a look through the links you provided before posting my update to the Fish Hatcheries article. If there are any specific recommendations you could make to improve my style/formatting/areas that could do with some expansion I'm happy to make those changes. I have a fair bit more research in my notes however I was told to avoid getting into too much detail - if I have erred on the side of over-simplicity please let me know.

Cheers R.moyle (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

AN notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Being accused of sock/meat puppet with no solid evidence". Thank you. 28bytes (talk) 07:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

SPI report about Skipsievert
You have been mentioned in a report at WP:SPI. You may wish to have a look and comment there. LK (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Vision in fishes
Orlady (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

AN notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. → Σ  τ  c. 08:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Your DYK nom for Raceway (aquaculture)
Hi Epipe, I've reviewed your nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Raceway (aquaculture) and I have an issue with paraphrasing and the interest factor of the hook. Could you see my comments at the nomination page and reply there? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Links in reference sections
I don't want to get into an edit war by any means, but your arguments for removing links from reference sections are to my mind unsound. WP:OVERLINK applies (only) to the prose of the article, and not to the reference sections; the idea that the links are distracting simply doesn't apply, because people read the references section only to find details of the citations, so it wouldn't matter if every character were part of a link. There are considerable benefits to including the links – mostly to editors, admittedly – and no practical disadvantage at all. The only valid argument you have tendered is aesthetic, and as such is entirely subjective. As an editor, it is much easier to see whether a journal article would be worth putting effort into (a vague proxy of notability, if you will) by examining the number of incoming links. That, naturally, only works if those links are generally present. It also makes typos in journal titles easier to spot if links are generally included: someone might see a red link, but know that an article on that journal exists, and thus realise that it is mis-spelt in the link (I've had this with titles using "&" and "and", for instance). I'm sure there are other advantages, too, which I can't think of at the moment. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Re-reading your edit summary, you even doubt the usefulness of blue links to journals. That is very short-sighted. I often check articles on the journals to find out information. You can often judge an reference by the journal it appears in, and in fields I don't know well, finding out that a journal has a high impact factor is likely to inspire trust in the source, whereas finding out that the journal is not peer-reviewed, for instance, would decrease it. I don't think you can reasonably argue for those links to be removed! It doesn't matter if the functionality is used by "hardly anyone", since their inclusion causes exactly zero harm. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not getting into an edit war, and you are welcome to revert if you want. But to comment on the issue... some time back Tony1 campaigned against a tendency to overlink. Remember when we use to link all the dates, as in 8 September 2011. Then Tony campaigned against linking well known localities, like Australia. Generally these changes have been adopted, and, in my view, it has been a great improvement. I think the ability to link optimally is quite an art, picking just which words should be linked and which shouldn't. Appropriate linking can be brilliant and enormously enhance the value of an article.


 * But there is a point where adding more links becomes overlinking, and from that point on the article can deteriorate precipitously if linking continues. Linking words which shouldn't be linked defeats the purpose of linking. It produces an indiscrimate dazzle of blue where there is no indication about what might be the useful links to click on. It get's even worse if the overlinking includes redlinks, and becomes a visually distracting nightmare. It might appear we are on opposite sides of some fence here, but I doubt that is really true. How references are formatted and linked is a huge area, and, in my view, has not been discussed adequately on Wikipedia. Anyway, here's some thoughts...


 * What I'd like to see in reference sections is a blue link wherever possible on each title. For journal articles, a link either to a pdf for the full article or, if that is not available, to the abstract, preferable the online abstract from the publisher. For books, a link either to the appropriate google book entry, or a least to a good review if google books is inadequate. If that approach is adopted, then there is little need for links to journals or publishing houses. If the reference titles are mostly linked, then there is already a sea of blue links, and some discipline is needed to keep unnecessary further link creep in check.


 * As far as journals go, there seems to be a fairly standard contraction used for each journal. I would like to see those contractions used in the references, again to reduce clutter, and a redirect to the journal should be available from the contraction. If you want to look up the journal, then you need only copy the contraction and search on it. You say you need to examine "the number of incoming [red] links" to see if it is worth writing an article on a journal, but you get that information just as quickly, and more completely, by searching on the journal name.


 * We might have to agree we don't agree on red links. Personally I hate red links. When I write an article on a new topic, I search for where the topic is mentioned in other articles and link the new article. Even if other editors have red linked the topic, you still have to look at all the occurrences to do the job properly. So there has been no gain by having those distracting red links sitting there (for years?). I see it sometimes claimed that red links encourage people to write the articles. I doubt that. How many article have you been personally inspired to write because you saw someone else's red link? I have never written an article for that reason. If you can write the article you don't need someone to point out it should be written. I have several hundred articles in mind to write, and the list grows faster than I can write them. Red links just don't come into it. On the other hand, if you are red linking journals as an aid because you are intending to write articles on them, then go for it.


 * As an aside, I think the blue links on the ISBN numbers and DOI addresses are also messy and unnecessary. What I would like to see blue-linked is just the letters, ISBN or doi. No one is interested in what the numbers and addresses actually are, and they don't need to be visible at all, any more than the url renders visibly when you already have a title for it, as in Oxford dictionary . --Epipelagic (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

also
It's a useless filler word and a sign of poor writing. Just a pet peeve of mine.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I notice you use the word yourself here (nine times), so you must feel it is not always just a useless filler word. Perhaps I use it the wrong way.
 * The first use – Offshore aquaculture has two main advantages. The first and really important advantage, is that wastes become less problematic. The second, but lesser, advantage is that using offshore aquaculture eases user conflicts. In the statement "Moving aquaculture offshore can also alleviate user conflicts...", I don't see that "also" is redundant, functioning as a mere filler. It would function as a filler if removing the word made no difference in meaning or emphasis. But, to my mind, it presence links problematic wastes with user conflicts, and implies the later is of secondary importance. Not bad, getting two functions from the use of one small word.
 * The second use – "...current tuna systems... use open net cages at the surface of the sea (as is also done in salmon farming),...". The salmon cages are a passing aside, and the use "also" here seems appropriate to me because salmon cages are used in very different ways to tuna cages, it's just that they (also) have a similarity in this particular context.
 * Well, that's trying to keep it short. But please untangle me if I am tangled. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding those for me in the other article, I do my best to purge them when I find them, I really was surprised to see them in there because I know that I had swept it before. If you want to use it in your piece, that's fine, I passed it at DYK and that was the only flaw I found with it.  I don't agree with you, but you seem to be passionate about it.  I was just trying to be helpful.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey... I'm not passionate about it at all. I just that so far I really can't see where you are coming from. If "also" is a useless filler word then I seriously want to understand that. Can you point me to some essay which explains it? --Epipelagic (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was originally told so by an editor (offline) a few years ago, and took his advice by saying everything using "also" and dropping it to see if it loses emphasis. Tony at FAC believes it's a redundancy, he has a good article on redundant words in general:; like I said, because of an editor who pays me I was told it's what I said earlier.  Not a huge transgression, just a pet peeve, although I took 50+ of them out of a 1000 word piece that made it sound like it was written by a 9-year-old!  :)--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that essay is excellent (though Tony didn't follow his own advice – "readers will also want to"). Anyway, I'm working on it ... --Epipelagic (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we all fall into it, especially if we read what we write aloud. Sometimes it is just how we speak.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Aquaculture of sea cucumbers
The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Aquaculture of cobia
Thanks from me and the wikiVictuallers (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Issues wtih DYK noms
Two of your recent DYK nominations have been returned from prep areas to the noms page. See Did you know/Removed for details -- and links to the specific noms that need attention. --Orlady (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyright issues
I posted information a few times from articles I have written (yes, I am the primary author) on western North Pacific angelsharks. A lot of that was deleted due to fears of copyright infringement. It might be because I have a personal connetion to this subject, but the current entries leave much to be desired in their current form. They don't seem very usable to me if someone with little knowledge of them was to come to Wikipedia for information. And as a former teacher, I'm well aware that many people come to Wikipedia first. I understand that this is not a copyright violation if authors are posting their own work, and I think that people editing my posts know a lot less about the subject matter than I do. How can this be rectified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.90.0.235 (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please point me to the article you edited and let me know which account or IP you used. There have been no copyright issues with any of the articles on angelsharks since April 2009‎. Back then, nearly all the articles had material removed in a coordinated cleanup program after an editor made mass copyright violations. The edit you made prior to the one you made above, appears to be vandalism. Are you are just being disruptive? --Epipelagic (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Coral aquaculture
Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Raceway (aquaculture)
Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply from Pond101
I understand why the picture was removed, there was a query over copyright. I was explaining that as I am part of the company who sells these flexible liners I have the right to use the image as I wish. We do not want to use Wikipedia for advertising, we want to put as much information on as possible regarding garden ponds and fish keeping as there are a lot of things not currently covered on Wikipedia. I find that more and more people are using the internet now to find out information about potential new hobbies, our aim is to make this information as accessible as possible and we thought Wikipedia is the best way to do that. I am a beginner on Wikipedia and I find replying to comments or issues a bit clunky, so I apologise if this is not the way to do it. I know there are a lot of help pages available, I am trawling my way through them all and hopefully along the way you will see the pages improving. -- added by Pond101 (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2011‎ (UTC)
 * I've transferred your reply back to your talk page in order to keep the discussion together. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Offshore aquaculture
Hi Epipe, I've picked up the review from Orlady at Template:Did you know nominations/Offshore aquaculture. I'd like some feedback on some alternate hooks, if you please. Thanks! Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Self-reference etiquette in taxonomic authorship
Hi Epipelagic - thanks for your friendly Welcome comments on my user page here. I'm an admin on Wikispecies (where I have a more informative user page) but, so far, only a sporadic contributor here. You kindly offered to answer questions, so here goes... I see that the several fish species I have named are already the subjects of pages in Wikipedia, but their taxoboxes, when mentioning my surname as author, had linked to the wrong person. I previously deleted the incorrect person's link and substituted my name; e.g., but this results in a red link since there is no such page here. Since as already stated I did create a user page at Wikispecies, I thought I could just link to that one, so I tried: This external link, however, triggered a box stating "Your edit has triggered a filter designed to warn editors, organisations and companies against using Wikipedia as an advertising medium...." No advertising nor self-promotion intended; I merely want to replace a reference to the wrong person with one to the right person. Is it better to override the warning and link to my Wikispecies page (considered 'external' even though within the Wikimedia community), or link to my minimalist user page here which references the WS page, or just not link my name at all; or some other approach? Thanks for considering. MKOliver (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * binomial_authority = Oliver, 1989
 * binomial_authority = Oliver, 1989


 * Well yes, Michael K. Oliver red links because there is no article with that name on the English Wikipedia. And you cannot link to your personal user page on Wikispecies because Wikispecies is not a reliable source. For the same reason you cannot link to your user page on Wikipedia. However, what you can do is to cite the original paper for the species beside each instance of your name. I've looked through your entries on Google scholar to see whether they meet the first criterion for academic notability. There are about 16 entries and 160 citations. That goes someway to meeting the first criterion, but not far enough, it seems to me. You could read the guidelines and assess whether you make the grade on other criteria. If you do, then let me know and I'll write the article for you. I like your web site, and it seems you could write a luminous and authoritative article for Wikipedia with a title something like The cichlids of Lake Malawi. Regards. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Deviations
See Template talk:Physical oceanography. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome --Epipelagic (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Offshore aquaculture
Thank you Victuallers (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011
Hi, Epipelagic. I am concerned about your remarks. Here we have a new user that is obviously quite knowledgeable, and at a time when Wikipedia is losing long-term contributors, it would be better not to post such remarks on a new contributor's talk page. You two seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot; please try to restrict your remarks to discussions of the content and not make volatile remarks that might lead to us losing a potentially valuable contributor. Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am surprised you would post such a thing here. I see you dated this message "October 2011". Does that mean this is a warning, and unless I let this new editor run amok you will block me? If you are going to support him for bulldozing like this, then I will be the editor who has to leave. I have no idea why you say "quite knowledgeable" when the only skill he seems to bring is some html. Are you letting your own bias on templates cloud your judgement here? I see on your talk page, a long-term contributor with a well established track record felt he had to leave because of the way you disagreed with him on templates. And now you come here, apparently telling me it is better to lose long-term contributors than try and reign in out of control new editors, such as this editor who will not discuss why he does things but just does them anyway, while he shouts in uppercase letters about ownership. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Epipelagic. I am disappointed and dismayed that you have responded to my post with more remarks about editors and their behaviour, rather than content. I invite you to re-join the discussion about colours and the technical aspects of flatlist that is underway at Template talk:Physical oceanography. Regards, --Dianna (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Octopus aquaculture
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   12:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Culture of microalgae in hatcheries
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform
I know you're not keen on the whole RfA reform project, but it is a good faith attempt to improve a part of wikipedia that is generally considered problematic. Whether you agree with it or not, comments like appear to be designed to reduce enthusiasm for the project, and deter any action. Can I ask that you at least try to keep your comments constructive or if you are wholly at odds with the project, that you take it off your watchlist. I'm happy to inform you personally when any proposals are brought to the community. WormTT &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am making a serious effort to recover from my addiction to adding content to Wikipedia. Please support me in this, as it is not easy to reform. In return, I will make every effort to support the goals of the group around Kudpung. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Epipelagic, as long as you keep your comments constructive, I have no problem with them being on the page. If there's anything I can do to help out, let me know. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Worm. A weight is lifting from me. I am starting to see that Wikipedia is about the decorum and dignity of administrators, not at all about adding content. It is like the dawning of the true order; I feel the freedom! Thank you! --Epipelagic (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A new article, Tangle net
Hello Epipelagic, How are you doing? I hope you are OK. I got an ACL tear a couple months ago so I am still in a brace and still in some pain. Over at Project Gastropods we have a new contributor, User:Shellnut, who recently made an article on Tangle net, because this is a common way in the Philippines of catching interesting sea snails for the international shell trade. They also used the old tangle nets rolled and bundled into a sausage-shaped "lumen lumen" net and left on the bottom for a while to pick up a vast diversity of minute mollusks. In any case since you are the fishing expert as far I am am concerned, I wanted to ask you to look over the article and see what you think. Many thanks and all my best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Epipelagic. Did the tangle net article seem OK to you, at least for the time being? As for my injury, it was sort-of linked to shell hunting, but not very directly, as I partially tore it this spring on the way to Nevis to hunt shells, and then totally tore it walking in the shallow ocean water at Encinitas, California this September 5th. Invertzoo (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Apology
I'm sorry for ranting on your page the other day. No hard feelings. Best, --Jsderwin (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine :) --Epipelagic (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Coral Reefs Article comments
Dear Epipelagic, My appologies for not formally logging in for the comment on coral reefs, but I did provide my name at the end of the comment. As far as promoting my article goes, I'm not suggesting that you replace what is written for my work; the suggestion was merely to get you source information from a recent scientific review rather than an intro to fish biology [17]. The point is to use primary scientific literature where possible or secondary literature such as reviews such as mine. I would be happy to help improve this article in areas were I have expertise. So feel free to contact me if you need input. If I don't know directly, I will know someone who does. Saludos, Paul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.33.189.245 (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the slow reply. Yes, it would be great to have your input on coral reefs. Would you please create a user account and let me know what it is. We can take things from there. Could you email me (link on the left) an electronic version of your chapter, so we are on the same page as it were? The book is not yet available in libraries I access here. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverting Weird.Tesseract
Hi, I noticed you reverted Weird.Tesseract as "vandalism" here. This looks like a mistake - AFAICT he was just removing somebody else's vandalism, which you've inadvertently re-added, so I re-reverted. --GenericBob (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Weird. Tesseract was on a vandalism rampage, so by chance some of his "reverts" were legitimate. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, after looking at some of his other edits I can see why that would be an easy mistake to make. --GenericBob (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: going through his edit history, I don't think he's a deliberate vandal, more like a newbie who's making mistakes because he hasn't taken time to figure out how Wikipedia works. But since he seems unwilling to listen to advice, the end result may be much the same. --GenericBob (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

10 Simple Rules
I see you added a link to Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia to your user page. I can't help but think something is wrong when there are fewer rules for you to date my teenage daughter than to edit Wikipedia.- gadfium 19:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't believe the Neanderthal that crawled out from my inner depths when my innocent daughter came home with her first (declared) date. But sometimes I think it's harder bringing up an article on Wikipedia than bringing up a daughter. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

A decent essay somewhere
Hi, I saw your post at ANI and I must admit I hadn't realised you were still so concerned about the template issues. I took the time to review the discussions at Template talk:Physical oceanography and I was wondering if there's enough material in there to make the core of the essay that you think would help? I thought we both managed to see each others' point-of-view at that talk page, so I'm hoping that you would be willing to work with me to see if we can avoid more content editors being upset. I like to think of myself as bit of an "all sorts" of editor - I only have a few GAs, one FA and a FL to my name, but I can write reasonable content as well as poke about with the inner workings of the software. I would understand if you're too busy and I wouldn't want to drag you away from what you're currently engaged in, but I'm happy to leave an open offer for you, if you find yourself with some spare wiki-time on your hands. Regards, --RexxS (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Rex. I was entirely comfortable the way we interacted and the way you addressed the issues. None of the comments I made at ANI were directed at you, and I wouldn't have used the term "a handful of technos" if I had had you in mind. However, much of what you and I were talking about in that thread was somewhat tangential to the main issues. I'm up for writing the essay with you, but not for a week or two. Would you like to make a start? --Epipelagic (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and yes of course, I'll make a start by collecting as much stuff as I can find to begin with and eventually drop it all into a user subpage that I can stare at until it starts to make sense :) Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

minor editing of Fish diseases and parasites
Dear editor,

you may have noticed that I am not used to editing pages on wikipedia. However, when I read "Fish that spend part of their life cycle in brackish or freshwater, like salmon are a particular problem. A study in Seattle, Washington showed that 100% of wild salmon had roundworm larvae capable of infecting people." I felt forced to try to improve that part of the article. The roundworms mentionned in the second sentence are indeed Anisakidae that are obligate marine parasite. Their life cycle usally involves marine mammals or birds as definitive hosts, small crustaceans as intermediate hosts and fish as paratenic hosts. People can get infected by eating raw infected fish muscles. The first sentence thus goes against the meaning of the second one.

More importantly, the whole meaning seems to explain that freshwater fish can harbour zoonotic parasite in constrast to marine fish. I hope to have convinced you that both freshwater fish and marine fish may harbour parasites, and this is precisely what I wanted to express with my editing.

Sincerily,

Sylvain aka Furet-bzh (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right. I misunderstood you, and have restored your edit. Sorry. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

:-)
Thank you for your comments on Talk:Animal cognition. Please see WP:Tea. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No... I'm not sitting down to a cup of tea with you until you stop using dynamic IPs and get a proper account. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Resilience of coral reefs
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Neurotoxin
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Salmon run, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spawn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review of Bluespotted Stingray
Hello, I saw that you were an active member of the Wikipedia fish project and I was wondering if you would mind doing a Peer Review on the Bluespotted stingray. Your help will be greatly appreciated. Thank You, Stanfordbound 14 (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've made some comments here --Epipelagic (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Salmon run
Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply
I do not dislike Malleus. I dislike his actions, his word choices and his temper. I am challenged by my faith to bring Peace to arenas of War. I feel that little acts of anger corrupt what could be. They lead us astray and prevent the natural flow of collaboration. For some reason, I trust your reaching out to me. I probably will have less and less to say at the various pages about the incident. The fact that I was present (at the table so to speak) at the moment of Malleus' cursing is what has kept me responding and involved...and the fact that, long ago, an essay I wrote about Incivility came about because of interactions with Malleus. I hope he stays and lives a long and happy WikiLife. But, I want to live here too and I prefer a peaceful climate. I hope we meet again. TRA! Buster Seven   Talk  11:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Buster. I do not believe for a moment Malleus is in any way dishonourable. I believe he is profoundly hurt by the too many inexcusable, mean spirited and resentful attacks that have been made on him over a period of years, for no reason other than his huge competence as a contributor to Wikipedia. Malleus reacts badly to this vile treatment, and I think it is up to other Wikipedia editors to appreciate what is really going here, and give him some protection. As for the issues about the use of particular words, purely issues of where you happen to live, I couldn't care less. Anyway, my regards to you. Let's work towards what, in the long reach, actually matters. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

-