User talk:Epipelagic/Archive 2013

Barnstar

 * Thanks. But there's no cynicism or irony here... just the sober facts. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hypocrite?
"Wasn't Malleus blocked for calling an admin a hypocrite?" Not as far as I know. I think you're probably thinking of the time he was blocked for calling somebody a sycophant. Bishonen &#124; talk 06:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC).
 * Yes, you are right. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"Hypothetic nonsense"
Dear Epipelagic, I recently removed a note from the article Tide, stating thereby that it was "hypothetic nonsense". The note read: "Hypothetically, if the ocean were a constant depth, there were no land, and the Earth did not rotate, high water would occur as two bulges in the oceans' height, one facing the moon and the other facing away from the moon. There would also be smaller, superimposed bulges on the sides facing toward and away from the sun." Someone had already attached a remark " " to this note, in fact asking for a reference in a very friendly way.

It is a very common misconception that the tides only affect the waters on our planet and the note about the hypothetical situation of a non-rotating earth only adds to this confusion. If the earth indeed would not rotate with respect to the moon (that is at least what is meant here by a non-rotating earth), then all off the earth would be deformed in such a way that there were two bulges, one directed towards the moon, the other one directed away from it. It is nonsense to speak of two bulges of ocean water. The tidal forces do not discriminate with respect to the matter upon which they act. A kilogram of sand grains is affected in exactly the same way as a kilogram of water is. Given enough time (which is the idea of a non-rotating earth), they would both deform in exactly the same way. And indeed this happens. It is not the effect of the tides but our earth has indeed a huge equatorial bulge, caused by it's rotation. And it's not just the oceans that react to the rotation but every particle in the earth. If not, we would have oceans of over 20 kilometers depth at the equator, and our polar regions would be totally drained of water.

There is no sensible reference where you can find justification for this rediculous hypothesis I removed. If you think there is one, show me! If you can't find one, then just be so kind as to undo your last edit to the article. Best regards, Wikiklaas (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)




 * Wikiklaas, the footnote belongs there and is not nonsense. If anything should be expanded and incorporated in the main text of the article. It is not worded as well is it might be, which is perhaps why you found it confusing. It is normal in mathematical physics to start with simplified models that focus on the most significant or first order effects. Your talk about how the earth itself can deform entirely misses the point.


 * Whoever wrote the footnote starts with "Hypothetically...". I think that might have mislead you into thinking he was proposing a new hypothesis, which he was not. He is referring to a simplified underlying model of the earth, stripped down to the most relevant factors. This makes it easier to understand how the main events occur. His talk about the ocean being a constant depth and there being no land is also poorly worded. The very simplest model is where the earth can be regarded as composed of water alone, and does not rotate with respect to the moon. You are right in saying that "the Earth did not rotate" should mean that the earth did not rotate with respect to the moon. I think the footnote could be worded more like this:


 * "As a simplified model, if the earth were composed of water alone and did not rotate with respect to the moon, then high water would occur as two bulges in the oceans' height, one facing the moon and the other facing away from the moon."


 * The value of this is that it illustrates the important point that both tidal bulges are caused by the moons gravity gradient, and the outer bulge is not significantly affected by the rotation of the earth (which some text books claim). There will also be a slight equatorial bulge due to the slow, 28 day, rotation of the earth, but that is of small importance to tidal dynamics. The next simplest case would be for the earth to have a solid core which is rigid and non deformable. This is precisely the underlying model implicit in the diagram at the right, which is an image used in the tide article. A further step would be to start rotating the earth with respect to the moon, causing a phase shift in the bulges. And so on. Models like these lend themselves to mathematical or computer solutions, and at the same time explain the most obvious, or higher order effects. A further stage in modelling might be to allow the solid part of the earth to deform easily. That seems to be the issue which so bothered you above. If the solid part is allowed to deform easily enough, then it will no longer be solid, but will have become a liquid again, and we would be back to the model we started with. Allowing any of this underlying deformation does not change the essential tidal dynamics. Best regards. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Some sources:
 * Tidal Misconceptions Donald E. Simanek. Retrieved 6 January 2013.
 * Chabay RW and Sherwood BA (2011) Matter & Interactions Page 453, John Wiley. ISBN 9780470503478.
 * Ramsey WL and Burckley RA (1965) Modern earth science, Page 61, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
 * Morrison D and Owen TC (1996) The planetary system, Page 203, Addison-Wesley. ISBN 9780201554502.
 * Hynek, Joseph Allen (Ed.) (1951) Astrophysics (symposium) Page 468, McGraw-Hill.
 * The Planetary Report, 1998, Volumes 18-19, Page 96, Planetary Society, University of Virginia.


 * Hi Epipelagic, I heartily agree with the way you model the process here, starting off with a simple case. That however, is not what the note did. You are very right when you say that the note could be worded differently. I think it should, and in that case it should also state that it is a simple model, as you worded it above. I did not find the present note confusing. I found it misleading. Hypothetically, if the earth would not rotate with respect to the moon, we would not end up with two bulges of water, we would end up with an earth in the form of an ellipsoid. I'm convinced, by the way, that this build-up of a model, starting with a very simple case, should not be placed in a note, but should be a key part of the main text.
 * As you mention the equatorial bulge in your discussion: I did not mention the equatorial bulge as part of the tide (which it isn't) but to give an example of how water and "solid" earth react exactly the same to a disturbing force. If that's clear, then we'd better leave that topic and let not enter it into our discussion of the tide.
 * The picture you added, is a picture of a rotating earth with no friction and also not taking into account the maximum velocity of wave propagation, or celerity. It is often used as a very simple model to explain why many places on earth experience two high- and two low waters each 24 hours and 50 minutes. Therefore, it is necessary for the earth to rotate. It is thus not an illustration of the hypothetic non-rotating earth as mentioned in the note. For example in Donald Simanek's excellent page on tidal misconceptions, there is not a single model with a non-rotating earth, except for the one he critisises. Simanek also warns for the erroneous descriptions of the tide and tidal models that are given in many text books. I could not read the text of your second reference but as Simanek pointed out; the fact that there is a book making use of a model with a non-rotating earth is not proof that it is a good model. I think every model that adds to the confusion that water reacts to a disturbing force in a different way than the "solid" earth does, should be avoided in a text trying to explain the tidal phenomena. Wikiklaas (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As I got no more reaction from you, I deleted the note a second time. Not only because it was misleading but also because it was cited at a place where it did not do any good, under Laplace's tidal equations. The note didn't clarify anything there. The paragraph "Forces" would be a place much better suited for introducing a simple model in the main text. Wikiklaas (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I was slow reacting because it is difficult to know how to respond to the ideas you raise, since they are just not correct. Such as the idea that tidal movements affected by the moon are just as important in the earth's crust as they are in the ocean itself. Or the idea that if the earth was entirely liquid and was shaped by tidal forces into an ellipse (prolate ellipsoid), then because no solid earth is present there can be no baseline shape or reference surface (such as the sphere the earth would take if no moon was present) from which tidal rises and falls may be measured. However, I do take the point that the footnote can further confuse readers with little background in physics. It would be best therefore to drop the footnote, or expand the matter properly in the text. Personally I think the matter should be expanded, since most text books gloss over these matters, just as the text in the article does. It would nice to see a more explicit explanation set out for why the bulge on the far side closely mirrors the bulge on the near side, and what happens to the axis of the bulge when the earth rotates relative to the moon. However I don't have energy to try and clear all this up at the moment, so we can just drop the matter. If you want a further opinion, Crowsnest would be a good person to ask. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not state the tidal movements of the earth's crust are just as important. I was talking of the shape the earth would take after "some time" long enough to reach equilibrium. But as a matter of fact the amplitude of the tidal movements in the earth's crust is indeed not much smaller than the tidal amplitude in the open oceans; it is at least in the same order of magnitude. The timing is different of course, as waves propagate much faster in the earth's crust than they do in water. See e.g. Earth tide on Wikipedia, and Earthtide Calculator from Universität Bern.
 * Tidal rises and falls are a consequence of the earth's rotation. There would be no tides if the earth did not rotate with respect to the moon. A baseline shape or reference surface, as you mention it, therefore has little meaning. There would of course be a tidal deformation but it would be constant (that is, if the distance between the earth and the moon would be constant too). I hope this is enough to stop you from remarking that my ideas are "just not correct". It would be quite easy for me to say the same of your ideas but that's no way to resolve a debate. Cheers, Wikiklaas (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Earth tides are almost an order of magnitude smaller than ocean tides, and have even less effect on the actual rise and fall of ocean tides along the coasts. Earth tides are what they are, not because the earth is solid, but because the liquid earth underlying the thin crust, is denser than water. Anyway, let's leave it there. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello
LOL :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Anthony. That's seriously reassuring, so I've put it on my user page. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice. Spread the good news. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shell growth in estuaries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rhombic (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) 11:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Social/structural change in Wikipedia
If you can add anything to this list it would be appreciated. I think we need to talk about a central repository for this splintered discussion. Perhaps a notice in Signpost? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

User Page
Per WP:UP, I would appreciate it if you would remove that quote from you userpage. Since you've made it obvious you disagree with it, I can only assume it's meant to disparage me. While I stand by my words for problematic editors, you're using it out of context in bad faith. I don't object if you wish to do it like User:Dream Focus has, but I don't appreciate the intentional belittling of my opinion.--v/r - TP 23:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with your view, but I haven't disparaged or belittled anyone's views on the user page. One of those views belongs to Jehochman, whom I hold in high esteem. Perhaps you found the heading Reassurance from admins disparaging. I have replaced it with Admin views on blocking, which seems entirely neutral to me. Admin views on blocking are important and should be known to the wider community. I would have thought you would be delighted that your views are given a bit more oxygen. If you feel I am misrepresenting you in any way, please feel free to add (briefly) any context you believe is needed to my user page. Does that address your concerns? --Epipelagic (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sort of. If you'll acknowledge that when I made those comments, Anthonyhcole hadn't made clear that the topic was inappropriate/bad blocks and he later clarified it to me, then I'm fine.--v/r - TP 01:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure I'll acknowledge that. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Shell growth in estuaries
Hello Epipelagic, I realized that you had asked me specifically what I thought of this new article. I think it's surprisingly great, even though, as you say, the scope is quite narrow (since I would guess that the great majority of exoskeletons in any marine habitat are chitinous) and also, as you say, focussing on estuaries is partially just a convenience, as that is where most of the research was done. At some point in the future I suppose the article will need to be greatly broadened in scope or maybe expanded and split into several articles.

I have tweaked the prose in a few places to make the meaning clearer. I also got the graphics lab to rotate the (beautiful) main image until the horizon was level. I was thinking about taking some of the individual images that you have in the gallery and placing them into the text next to where each species is mentioned? What do you think of that idea? Let me know if you think it looks OK like that (I added a couple as well) or is too messy. Invertzoo (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I don't believe that Monetaria annulus (or any true cowry species) can tolerate living in an estuarine environment; they like the clean rocky outer coast. Although I see that Trivia monacha (not a true cowry, in the family Triviidae) "may also live in estuaries". So... should I remove the mention of that species or should we change the wording a bit?

Thanks for pointing out this very good new article to me. Invertzoo (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I also see that one of the references mentions the specialized sea snails known as pteropods; the shelled ones (sea butterflies) are the Thecosomata, but I don't think this group is specifically mentioned in the text. They are planktonic denizens of the open water and have very thin delicate shells that have been shown to be very vulnerable to ocean acidification. However I don't think pteropods are a big presence in estuaries. Maybe this article was an essay that someone prepared in college or graduate school, and they a little bit shoe-horned some references into it that were not 100% relevant to estuaries. Invertzoo (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the reference to estuaries in the title should be removed. Then there aren't issues about which shellfish should be included. I still rather favour Growth of calcareous shells. There *should* be an article with that title! It leaves the article open to other issues such as factors other than temperature and salinity, how the shell growth actually occurs, and climate change concerns. And, as you say, if it get a bit long, subarticles can be spun off. I also think there might be a better hook for the dyk. What do you think?
 * I agree with what you are doing with the images. The image of the planktonic crustacean Hyperia macrocephala should probably be removed. I don't think it has a significant calcium in its shell. I put it there, partly as a place holder until a more appropriate image could be found, and partly just because I love the image. Your lovely image of Limacina helicina is a worthy replacement for a pelagic example, even though it is not a crustacean. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Epipelagic, I noticed your revert on the dyknom. It is the same person. The account was created right after the original post (six seconds to be exact). Also this edit confirms it. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 23:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ganeshk... I was starting to feel that Isthatfog was getting far too much credit here, but that's not the case at all. I nearly told him off for removing part of his own article, so I'm glad that's cleared up! --Epipelagic (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

If you really like the idea of it, maybe you could change the title to "Growth of calcareous shells". You are right that there is a great deal of promise of expansion in that subject name. We would have to change the intro radically and some of the other wording in the article. We could even have a subsection about estuaries in particular which could absorb some of the rather good estuary references. I was trying to think of a title like "Factors affecting the growth of calcareous shells" but it's too long I suppose? We do have paragraphs about shell growth in several articles already that are mollusk-related. Of course this article also contains info about fish bones and fish scales, what would we do about that? And... do we need to say "marine" somewhere in the title, because of course there are a huge number of land mollusks with calcareous shells, and also a pretty large number of freshwater mollusks with calcareous shells. Invertzoo (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You raise good points Invertzoo. I don't have strong views, so if you have a clear preference then go for it. As I see it there are pros and cons for whichever title you choose. There is already an article for fish scales, and fish anatomy is a place for fish bones. I'm just thinking that Growth of calcareous shells sounds like a useful article, waiting to be written, and that this article, for the most part, would provide a nucleus for such an article. Perhaps it could be expanded to cover all calcareous shells, including terrestrial and freshwater. There must be many common factors that could be brought out in the article. Or even better, why not use this to seed an even more general article called Calcareous shells. Potentially, many subarticles could be spun from this. I think that makes even more sense, and could be nicely complemented with another article, Chitinous shells. And yes, I think "Factors affecting the growth of calcareous shells is a bit long, though it could coexist as a subarticle. Anyway, these are just my thoughts. You and other gastropod people should decide what title you want, not me :) --Epipelagic (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As a fisheries guy and the person who rescued the article from immediate oblivion, you are certainly every bit as welcome to weigh in on this as anyone else, if not more so. :) Invertzoo (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Stories Project - Love Dart Article
Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause and get involved with the open-source movement.

According to the edit history of the page, it looks like you were collaborating with user:invertzoo and user:snek01 to write the article for 'Love Dart'. This is such a curious article!

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Ideally, I'd like to have a story that we could publish along with the other two users by Valentines Day this year.

Please let me know if you're inclined to be interviewed about your collaboration on this article.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I am taking part in this
Hello Epipelagic. Just wanted to say I am taking part in this video thing, and if you can bear to I would very much encourage you to agree to be interviewed too. The story of how the love dart article came into existence is a pretty great one, and it really does show that international co-editing works! Best, Invertzoo (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I've agreed to do that. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks Epipelagic. I wish we could have gotten Snek to take part, but apparently he told Victor he wouldn't. Invertzoo (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Shell growth in estuaries
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Congratulations in getting this to DYK Epipelagic! Invertzoo (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Donghak Peasant Revolution
What do you think about Donghak Peasant Revolution? Answer in User talk: Seonookim, please.--Seonookim (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply
No, that was not my intention. I just did not want the reader to be confused because of two sections with the same title. I can restore it if you would like to. I also would appreciate it if you gave me advice on aiding the Donghak Revolution article, or better, edit it yourself.--Seonookim (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Evolution of fish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fishbowl (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) 11:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sardines
Hi Epipelagic. Looks like we are both wrong. According to the legends of the Japanese originals, whatever it is in Japanese has been translated as 1. sprat; Sardinella zunasi; 3. Mamakari; 4; big-eyed herring; etc. So, it is not even a sardine! ;-) Apologies for the very looooooooooooooong URLs!!! Well done on all your hard work on fishes!  [http://translate.google.co.za/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://plaza.rakuten.co.jp/natunohibi/diary/20090904/&prev=/search%3Fstart%3D10%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26tbo%3Dd%26noj%3D1%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D610%26tbs%3Dsbi:AMhZZisR6PL00hPtmDb97PSsFPAza7O4Lfo0wboZdF3siKyb_1f8hLlZ7F8mlv-lUbH8ocLjM2TrIrPwxxW2SP0gTQzxvHQLEdRn3l42TB4KN4CDQ3Vy3rqadkHoqc4raRAsprFO1dDFihKv5WmVXtOCGDrHxVMLonv7ehHza1OLOwRjk_1zO6dnoOE2M6RTyt5LB3SF4kxvIPe6kx0M3RqQdHGwZ5jqhu1f6YR3o1Rt4zHqTrQSx2o5HMVq04jbC0XixO-M0BTaVzkoMgaRqX4UDaWEnw6PBEu0czKzIXNS5eSiA2fC_14iBxvSW0LS_1ERFV1oymiX79oQJkcw5-TqH3RwzhlvR0yUX7tMAWpPR0dKZnlpBYnkZwMbNQUteV3-ajO468hc_1oCWW_1LCykDrxdrKdtnsGl1pUqYPXBiyuXyr7dwZpQtfQzn6fnILqvZjj5I2S3KDZBlH6pYDXV8HonGO5li4mrrZLxnhl7A7ZDQgJctOxAWKswW1-TEfaoDnZ5-KyIhlt-0zzJ8ARsBZ4zH4wLnOCm1BTtL-bR0lo14q6XPHCsaHX4eFGhK_1i0P3-FDGi5A95pudyctdsMXtSO9HKS8sHchQ9ELhenxtPtUFdHDIDQ7n_1hkKQvITGUOmPIwF7S8MNCWp9jNPVhDC8dZYgbJoubCwFtImq77ugi_1ZbXnIbGXncy_1t8JzU6-PmvLLdFJInhcFzx3_1AgD1yEt34ZmT2y1ipiuSlWxmJSDr0RkRw79xtyYB3E_1q1UW4KmVf1turvXCcrGquHeoiyNlQK5n75n3x-nvvvwhBnZw1BUVmIcqTQBWlZbTlSBuzHL8Yno-aP7PQiq_1SnZAAadLMtj10e2S0M9v5ocVJs4ejBM-o-_1e2S3UloVhe5fCWvVfeWi8z8inBl9Fsua4sWnXSW7OcEX-OKiHadD-3Bt-0WNsM2hJj_1tDA6d8H7ZYE5jct31cPmiHn3dzEqWsnVp6Ce6Vuvcehv22L9JKlGBSJ2EX9DYK5F-W1wtV6so9jOT6Ibc42oUxK3Z4USkr2LwQvPq3wEnTu0pL5CyM0O2DWfCptK6aY0ptaz-QDa_1rI4OjNNQPjmwq0Glk-vCQJwBb9JebYSMCmRz-zD4sdqKOd8vxPD_1DMH0gxNlKzNf3COv_1wF4-MAnToSSLcNmcG-YGK22oA_1wphpp0xmwUNXH4Di0YCb14TYIlIqICxTAKRXA56MD71tkEzJi1XXXMnVMjYxYRbSGRV8oQtT0vjW2Sd-fDinfVPGg9FJOHXanO5XVmGuTOxLGHSp_1y4JLWorqDmx07QI7Pb1-w&sa=X&ei=NigEUb7OEM2XhQe8toH4Ag&ved=0CDUQ7gEwATgK] – Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Rui. I've collapsed your very long urls. I agree with you about the sauce. They were covered with noodles that had been dipped in sauce. However, I do not agree that the fish in the image cannot be described as sardines. Both sardine and sprat are flexible and almost interchangeable terms which can be applied to many small thunniform fish. The FAO/WHO Codex standard for canned sardines cites 21 species that, for commercial purposes can be called sardines  including true sprats (Sprattus) and small herrings (Clupea ). Mamakari is a Japanese term for a small herring or sardine.  You could also call the fish in the picture "sprats", since that is also an acceptable term for any small fish shaped like these are. The fish are definitely not big-eyed herrings, which are large fish, up to one metre long, and used for bait, not usually for eating. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The meaning of "near"
Hi Epipelagic. I need some help, and I am certain you would know - What is the meaning of "near" in names of species? A few examples: It would appear that is is always used with names of new species. The last example would indicate that it is nothing more than exactly "near", but I thought there might be more to it - like being the closest species or something along that vein. You help would be appreciated. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Bactrocera B. sp. nov. near paraxanthodes
 * Species of fruit flies that are not economically important include Bactrocera anomala (Drew),  B. calophylli (Perkins and May), B. gracilis (Drew), B. minuta (Drew), B. redunca (Drew), B. simulata (Malloch), B. sp. nov. near obscura, B. sp. nov. near paraxanthodes, and Dacus sp. nov.
 * With the exception of B. sp. nov. near paraxanthodes, all of the non-economic species are attracted to Cue-lure. B. sp. nov. near paraxanthodes is like B. quadrisetosa in that it is not attracted to known male lures.
 * B. calophylli was thought to be a species near B. calophylli, but further host surveys and taxonomic studies have now determined that it is in fact B. calophylli.


 * I don't think it's a formal term, I suppose the writer just means "taxonomically close to". You could ask at WikiProject Insects whether it has some special meaning in connection with fruit flies. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Was this necessary…
…or helpful? [] I think not. AGK [•] 20:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please find more constructive and collegial things to do with your time AGK --Epipelagic (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Epipelagic, I am merely asking you to consider, privately, whether your remark was necessary (or whether I misunderstood you). Airing genuine grievances is intrinsic to being collegial; trolling your peers, on the other hand, is about as unconstructive as it is possible to be! I will leave you to your thoughts. AGK  [•] 21:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are abusive remarks AGK. I consider the DoW a friend and I addressed a comment to him on his talk page. I was trolling no one. You however, appear to be trolling me. Go and find something constructive to do, like writing an article. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Fish anatomy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Esophageal, Tunica albuginea and Germinal epithelium


 * Actinopterygii (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Barbel

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Evolution of fish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Chimera


 * Filter feeder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Arcuate line


 * Plant physiology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Photoreceptor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Common names
Hi Epipelagic - thank you for your kind words: the common names debacle was indeed unfortunate. In retrospect I was not altogether blameless but, as I recall, my work was obliterated and the article more or less started off again from where it had left off. The material I added did need better referencing but I think there is much to be learned and said about common names that is omitted in the current article. I'm not sure i have the energy to go again on this but if you find anything worth resurrecting I could try and find better sources. Good to seee all the excellent work that you are doing - GT  Granitethighs  23:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Bio-star Barnstar

 * Thanks --Epipelagic (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Your Placoderm Diagram
Shouldn't all of the orders end at the end of the Devonian? I've never heard of any ptyctodontids surviving into Early Carboniferous time.--Mr Fink 05:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Mr Fink. That's some good work you have done on palaeontology articles down through the years. Yes, I think you are right. My initial concern was to faithfully present the data as Michael Benton presented it in Vertebrate Palaeontology 2005. The diagram is based on his chart on page 73. This clearly shows ptyctodontids surviving for a short period into the Carboniferous. I was tempted to treat this as an error, and adjust the chart. But then I noticed that Benton does the same again with another chart on page 35, and again shows the clear survival of a small number of placoderms into the Carboniferous. I used this as a basis for this chart. So now I don't think it is appropriate to adjust the charts without good reason. Benton doesn't seem to mention the matter in his text, but surely he wouldn't have done that unless he had good reason. I haven't made any assertions about the matter in the Wikipedia articles, but have merely said that the charts are based on Benton, which is true. I can't find any references to placoderms or ptyctodontids surviving beyond the Devonian, though page 7 here refers to Carboniferous records for placoderms as being potentially "reworked fossils". So what do you suggest? Maybe we could just comment in a footnote that Benton shows some survival into the Early Carboniferous, though this appears to be an error. Or do you think we should modify the chart, and put a footnote that it has been modified? Or ask Benton whether it was an error or not? --Epipelagic (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess to avoid synthesis, we should leave it as is, aside from mentioning that it was based on Benton's notes. But, one of us definetly should contact Benton to ask about those Carboniferous ptyctodonts. From what I've been able to glean of the matter, all "Carboniferous" placoderms have turned out to be either a) reworked fossils/zombie taxa, b) mistaken identification, or c) from strata later reappraised to be (Late) Devonian.--Mr Fink 18:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Pages 18–19 of Douglas Palmer's 1999 The Marshall Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals has a chart mapping out the evolution of the placoderm orders. It is very much aligned with Benton's chart, and shows the ptyctodontids as progressing clearly into the Carboniferous. However he doesn't mention his source. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, if that's the case, then I suspect that Palmer and Benton are using very out of date sources.--Mr Fink 03:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's a more recent source from the University of South Dakota claiming placoderms survived to the "end of Permian" (slide 9). On the other hand Janvier, in Early Vertebrates 1995, specifically excludes ptcytodonts on page 291 "A sudden extinction of the major placoderm taxa occurs, however, at the Fammennian-Carboniferous boundary. Although represented by a variety of taxa (antiarhs, arthrodires, ptcytodonts, and phyllolepids) up to the latest level of the Famennian, no placoderm survives into the Carboniferous." --Epipelagic (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to trust what Monsieur Janvier says, as he's a noted specialist of Paleozoic fishes, placoderms and agnathans in particular.--Mr Fink 04:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. That's why I pointed to him. But the source to Janvier is the most dated of the lot, and Benton is not to be ignored either. Nelson in his Fishes of the World 2006 says there "is no clear evidence of placoderms surviving a major extinction event into the Lower Mississippian", and cites:
 * Carr, R.K. 1995. Placoderm diversity and evolution. VIIth International Symposium: Studies on Early Vertebrates. Bulletin du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, 17: 85–125.
 * Maisey, John G (1996) "Fossil Fishes: So Much Diversity, So Little Change". Natural History, 105 (6).
 * This is not the same as saying it didn't happen.
 * The Britannica article states that placoderms "existed throughout the Devonian Period (about 416 million to 359 million years ago), but only two species persisted into the succeeding Carboniferous Period."
 * This 2010 paper has a chart on page 473 clearly showing some placoderms as crossing the Devonian Carboniferous boundary. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I just find it frustrating that no one seems able to put names on who these Carboniferous placoderms were. That, and I would be more to accept the placoderms surviving into the Carboniferous if we were able to find literature more substantial than just tantalizing snippets and graphs.--Mr Fink 16:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've relocated this thread to Talk:Placodermi, which seems a more appropriate place for it. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Fish anatomy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Caeca


 * Osteichthyes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Operculum

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello there
I saw your comments at WP:VPP about the importance of content. So I thought you might be interested to see that the new version of the WP:5000 shows article rating statistics. And WP:TOPRED now shows what content might be most desired but is missing. Biosthmors (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, Epipelagic, Thanks for your response to my section merge request on Talk:Sustainable fishery &tc. My apologies for posting multiple comments, w/out a common link. I know how to do that with an article merge request, but was not sure how to best facilitate that with a section merge request. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, my apologies. I'm not doing very well getting it right, but will keep trying. I took your earlier response to heart & had (and have) no intention of making your responses seem unreasonable. I appreciate your further substantive reply. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Lungfish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Posterior


 * Placodermi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Trichotomy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Coastal Forces of World War II for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Coastal Forces of World War II is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Coastal Forces of World War II until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The Bushranger One ping only 03:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Northern pike, 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) 12:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Epipelagic - just to say that I accidentally removed the wrong reference. It was the one that was left I hadn 't found easy to access and It seemed to me that they were both referring to the same docs. in which case I don't see the point. ? thanks Iztwoz (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Dharmic writers
Category:Dharmic writers has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Yworo (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of threatened sharks and rays, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mako and Ray (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) 12:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Re entry Baltic herring that simple redirects to Atlantic herring
Linneus classified Baltic herring[[ as a sub - species of [[Atlantic herring:

The entry Baltic herring redirects to Atlantic herring, but nothing mentioned there about the smaller Baltic herring.

Recent research has shown that there are few distinct genetic differences between the two: where genome differences have been found.

This was reported on in an article on Swedish Television's website: my translation here:

It is now scientifically proven that there IS a difference between herring (Swedish: sill) and Baltic herring (Swedish strömming). We were correct after all these years to differentiate between sill and strömming. There are small but distinct genetic differences, that are dependent on adaption to different environmental conditions, new Swedish research shows. For centuries we have differentiated between sill and strömming (herring and Baltic herring). If they are caught north of the Kalmar sound they are called strömming, otherwise they are called sill. Sill are larger and fatter than strömming, but despite this, no biologist has been able to prove that there is anything that differentiates them genetically. Until now. Researchers at Uppsala and Stockholm's universities have proven that therre are a few - but - definiive - genetic differences. - For about five percent of the genes we found very distinct differences, not only between sill' and strömming'' but also between different stocks of sill and strömming. (Atlantic and Baltic herring) Leif Andersson, professor in functional genomics at Uppsala university said. Genetic adaption According to Professor Andersson, these differences depend on genetic adaption to local environmental conditions. The prevailing conditions, such as salinity and temperature differences, have caused the fish to undergo genetic adaption so as to better survive in the Baltic, whose prevailing conditions differ from other waters. But the results aso show that for the majority of both of the two varieties' genes, there are no differences whatsoever. According to Leif Andersson, this shows that Atlantic herring and Baltic herring (sill and strömming) are very closely related. - Linné classed the Baltic herring as a sub-species of herring, and our results support that point of view. But the next step will be to test how well sill (Atlantic herring) can survive in the waters of the Baltic. If this proves not possible, perhaps one should reconsider whether strömming (Baltic herring) is not a completely different species in any case. Conclusions of research may help to protect fish Leif Andersson now hopes that the conclusions of his research can be used as a means to protect fish stocks in our Swedish seas. - Hopefully, our conclusions will enable us to better appreciate the development of fish stocks in the Baltic and the North Sea, and in this way make a contribution to responsible custodianship of the incredible natural resource that sill' and strömming'' (herring and Baltic herring) provide. Nils Pejryd

reporter Swedish Television/ Science

Regards RPSM (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks. I'll get around to this matter in a few days. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

What are they doing?
Hello! I'd like to call on your expertise with fisheries and aquaculture to help me figure what kind of economic activity takes place in these photos. They are taken a year ago on the Anhai Bay, the tidal estuary of the Shijing River, near Shijing, Fujian, China. It looks like people are doing something similar to digging for clams; but they have invested a lot in stone walls dividing the tidal mudflats into rectangles, with little gates here and there for water flow. These structures can also be seen on Google Maps satellite view. The activity is not unique to this estuary; it can be seen, for example, in the Luoyang River estuary east of Quanzhou as well (satellite view), and probably all along the Fujian coast. Any idea what this can be? -- Vmenkov (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, sorry. I have no idea what they are doing. That's a lot of photos you have taken of those activities! --Epipelagic (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it was a several miles' long seaside road, and I was really curious what all these structures-in-the-mud were all about... Since oysters are said to be prominent in Quanzhou's cuisine, I was guessing that this may be oyster cultivation, but, frankly, not much is seen above the mud (although in File:Anhai Bay - DSCF8875.JPG it looks like people are filling plastic bags with some stuff) to tell a non-expert what really goes on! -- Vmenkov (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. What puzzled me was that there was no visible structures - posts and strings with oysters stuck to them - visible above the mud, as e.g. on this series of pictures ( http://www.panoramio.com/photo/20681476 ), or in some photos in commons:Category:Oyster culture; but maybe it was just a different stage of the production cycle... -- Vmenkov (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. Actually, it turns that blood cockles Tegillarca granosa and razor clams Sinonovacula constricta (and maybe other species) are being farmed in that exactly area. (安海湾南岸滩涂养殖贝类死亡原因调查分析 (Analysis of the causes of death of farmed shellfish on the mudflats in the southern part of Anhai Bay)). So I'll be able to put the photos to good use somewhere, after all :-) -- Vmenkov (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of List of threatened sharks
Hello! Your submission of List of threatened sharks at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Gobōnobō + c 21:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

thanks for fixing my mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul.henningham (talk • contribs) 08:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

thanks
thanks for fixing mistake on shark finning — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul.henningham (talk • contribs) 08:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Early naval vessels of New Zealand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Māori (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) 09:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for List of threatened sharks
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Sorry about the confusion about my semi-protection of Five Ws. I never meant to take sides in this dispute, nor to impune anybody. See my comments at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. Thank you very much for alerting me about this discussion, especially since I was off-Wiki for the Easter weekend.

Bearian (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC) 

Template:Phanerozoic eon
I added the noninclude code so it does not be seen in other articles. The template should link to other articles. It cannot be a dead end. So you undo your own edit. --24.218.110.195 (talk) 20:13 08 April 2013 (UTC) 5:13pm 04/01/2013 EDT.

Disambiguation link notification for April 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sockeye salmon, 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) 14:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Removed Pictures
I removed the picture of Parahelicoprion from Helicoprion because it concerned a different genus. Plus, I believe that the picture is already featured in the corresponding genus page, anyhow. No hard feelings?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No that's fine. I realised what you had done was okay when I reverted my comment. In any case, you're perfectly entitled to delete pictures, I was just wanting to know why. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * List of threatened rays (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Vulnerable, Ray and WWF


 * Sarcopterygii (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Extant

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. I invite you to revert this edit not because it seems to be utterly pointless, or aggressive, both of which are true, but because it makes you look ridiculously childish and I think you're a better contributor than that, regardless of what side of an argument you're on. --Dweller (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't mind looking "ridiculously childish". It's hard to contribute in any authentic way on those boards without looking childish. But I don't understand why the remark seems to upset you so much. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it was the utter pointlessness of it. It hasn't upset me at all, I just thought that it wasn't worthy of you and all it was doing was further souring the already reeking atmosphere without any redeeming benefits. I just hoped that with the benefit of a moment of reflection, you might agree. I guessed wrong, I suppose. --Dweller (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I might have reverted, but TRM had already replied to the comment when you asked. Incidentally, I don't think the atmosphere was reeking, though one admin was very aggressive (not TRM). These are issues that need rational redress, and until admins are willing to do that content editors will continue to get upset. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't get your dichotomy of "admins" and "content editors". Both TRM and I are both admins and content editors. You don't rack up the amount of Featured material he has (I have a fair bit, but he has stacks more than me) without being a content editor. You ought to check out the confetti at the top of his user page - try this diff. --Dweller (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I already acknowledged that when I said "Yes of course some admins contribute content", and also acknowledged that TRM has made good contributions. My comments were somewhat tongue in cheek. Some of the most committed blocking admins are not content contributors, and I had in mind that CBM's most notable contributions these days seem to occur when he emerges every few week to block Alan again. Anyway, in an unguarded moment, I said some things that might have been reworded. The main point remains, that long term committed editors who on balance contribute usefully are being needlessly blocked to the detriment of both Wikipedia and the morale of other editors. There has to be a more skilful approach. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a long record of arguing (except in truly egregious circumstances, such as outing) against community bans and indef blocks for troublesome productive users and have mentored several back from such bans and blocks, so you're preaching to the converted.

However, Alan's difficulty is not a trivial one. Don't be misled by thinking it's about useful or not useful fiddling with technicalities in articles and categories. It's not that at all.

It's that he demonstrates repeatedly that he cares not a jot for the community, consensus and collegiate editing. That's fine if he's writing for Britannica, but it doesn't work here and is a serious issue. When confronted with opposition, he either ignores it completely, or dismisses it because he disagrees.

I'd be happy to try to help him work through the issue, but he so apparently doesn't care that there's no point. And while, like I said, I'll go out on a limb for productive editors, I'm no patron saint of hopeless causes. --Dweller (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Re ani
Just so we don't sidetrack it further, edit filters are easily broken like the blacklist by not doing the triggering act, whatever it may be. This includes spacing the urls or redirecting them through other sites or by creatively merging content. Its not difficult, but socking is perhaps the easiest way around most things. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah... thanks very much for that. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for List of threatened rays
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you --Epipelagic (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Requesting inputs
Hi, I am an admin from other language wiki and since some time back I have been visiting Abuse filter talk page to have technical inputs wherever possible.

Since one user Arthur Rubin reported at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter, I happened to read one of the closed discussion.I am neither aware nor interested nor want to comment on merits of restrctions on particular user Alan. But I want to put a different perspective that will help me in technical improvement after discussion with you.

My personal perspective is outright opposition to "technological solution for sociological issue" is self contradicting and not a balanced view.Blocking an user or blocking a page also are in a way "technological solution for sociological issue" ; simmilleraly edit (abuse) filters basic concept and substantial part of its practical usage has been "technological solution for sociological issue". That does not mean we can engineer every aspect of human life through technology,actually this does not need a separate mention every one understands that.

What I am interested factually is in technological feasibility aspect.What I propose is

1)Like other user level/rights if at mediawiki software itself a separate level is available to distingush topically restricted user, then it will be easier to an edit filter to know in advance the given user name is to be checked for limited purposes so such an enhancement may help in saving on resources.(This need not be prerequisete or urgent but if available the better)

2)When user name comes first in list of syntax it reduces load on resources as rightly said by user Arthur Rubin

3)If variable added_lines is used effectively utilisation of resources is going to remain very minimum

4)The problem remains if a category is to be searched in a large/big size article, usage of variable "old_wikitext",This can be resource consuming. But here if we restrict the user from editing large size article (With help of variable old_size) and allow only to edit only small size article, it allows user to keep working on small size articles and we can restrict the said user from editing restricted category pages too (out of small size articles). Thus we save resources.


 * Besides we can file a bug to have facility/feature to searching an article from bottom to a certain limited length to search a category.So entire article will not get searched and hence save the resources.


 * I do have more suggestions to share on the subject but its better to move forward slowly. Please ,I am eagerly looking forward to your point of view and inputs on technological improvement aspect.


 * Thanks and warm regards


 * Mahitgar (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure I'll engage. However, the thread you referred to on the English Wikipedia has made it clear that admins here prefer to humiliate editors with demands that they "bend to the will of the community", where "will of the community" = decisions made by admins and followers of the drama boards, like the one just linked to. This is a classic lose-lose scenario. Trying to help English Wikipedia admins grow up has never worked in the past. Many of them were schoolboys when they were appointed, and crazy as it may sound, they are appointed for life. There's a huge number of them now, and they action only decisions that suit them. There is no oversight. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello again Epipelagic ,
 * It's very nice to see your positive response and look forward to your inputs.


 * As I said earlier, since I was not following the issue earlier it would not be fair on my part to be judgemental. But if one looks at the discussion you were engaged in a neutral point of view; justifiably one will feel wiki culture is getting more and more democratised, so mob mentality wins against the reason and enshrined expected balance perspective vis a vis original values. like wikipedians are expected to avail offer maximum freedom.


 * What consensus is supposed to offer is deliberation and understanding and best possible inclusivity to opposite side view.When I compared two sentences of two users in discussion


 * 1) We can't ban everyone! We need to also remember that his "violations" were actually improving things and the only reason he is being blocked is because he violated a sanction, not because he is doing any harm.


 * 2) Your thoughts, while noble, don't actually address the issue of why he can't just follow his topic ban.


 * When you compare two things are being forgotten.a)Human beings are not made for rules but the rules are made for human beings wikipedia basic founding principle expects one to be flexible enough in this respect.b) So second argument is very much talking about punishment.To my knowledge wikipedia blocking does not permit punishment it calls to be preventive. and for being preventive a technological solution in edit filter ensures better level of freedom to both sides and could have been given a chance ? may be.


 * acknowledging only limited sides to solution that is X or Y and then rejecting both and not accepting there can be more sides to a solution z or abcd for that matter is very much a logical fallacy used with a predecided purpose.


 * So ? actually sociological issue on opposite end too :) Hope better sense prevails in times to comes.


 * Till then we can carry on with some positive steps. Would be waiting cross fingered to your inputs towards technology aspect.


 * Thanks and regards
 * Mahitgar (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well it's better to continue this at Abuse filter talk page and see if the technological issues can be cleaned up. While the English Wikipedia prefers moralising and punishment, other Wikipedias may prefer functionality. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your valuable inputs at Abuse filter talk page.
 * >>other Wikipedias may prefer functionality<<
 * Yes there are such wikis and admins which do prefer reason and functionality, if technically feasible.That is why I requested for inputs. We do have our own technical expertise, still taking inputs from various sides helps improve the things further and we can save time on reinvention of the wheel every time.


 * Thanks again and warm regards Mahitgar (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Pygmy pipehorses
Hello there! We've never met, but I believe we have an editor in common (Invertzoo). I was wondering if you could offer me your input about this recent happening. Also refer to my talk page for part of the discussion. Thank you for your time! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I commented here. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Renaming Begging behavior in birds
Hi Epipelagic. Thanks for your recent help in renaming Surface wave detection by animals. Another article has recently been posted which in my opinion would benefit from a similar more general title. Could you please cast your eyes over Begging behavior in birds. I feel it should be renamed Begging behaviour in animals. The article needs work in several areas, but getting the title right will be a start. Cheers. __DrChrissy (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you search Google Scholar on |%22begging+behavior%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 "begging behaviour"|"begging behavior", 88 of the the first 100 articles are about birds. Of the remaining 12 articles, five are about non bird taxa (ants, seals , meerkats , prairie voles , apes ) three about begging from humans by habituated animals (apes , foxes , otters ) and four on human begging. Overwhelmingly, the literature is about birds. I think a balanced approach would be to leave Begging behavior in birds as it is and start Begging behaviour in animals as a companion article. Alternatively, a section about begging in other animals could be added to the bird article. But I'm not necessarily convinced by my own arguments, and if you just want Begging behaviour in animals that would be fine too. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

how do you know about kayaks?
I'm no expert on kayaks, but I have almost got lost at sea because my anchor trolley ripped out from the side of my yak when the anchor was dragging along the bottom and caught on a rock. I think the reason we are clashing heads is because you are a sit-inside kayak fisherman & I'm a sit-on-top kayak fisherman. They are totally different from each other & both narratives deserve to belong. I fish on the flats (saltwater) and find banks to fish from and then mark them onto my gps. Banks are primitive sandbars which don't fully rise above sea level, but they offer 360 degrees of fishing & you never encounter another human being (or have to deal with them). I was wanting to upload a few pics of a kayak tethered to a |[stake-out pole|] on a saltwater bank (4 feet deep) and catching lane snapper in an adjacent shipping channel (which is strictly a deep water fish which can only be caught offshore). I'm not trying to domineer the article--just trying to be an advocate for an activity that I love. Tomato expert1 (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes you are right. I have mainly used sit-inside ocean kayaks for making long trips with camping equipment. If you have some good photos of someone fishing from a kayak, they would be good to add to the article (photos taken from a kayak are not so useful). --Epipelagic (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good followup. I think I represent the typical attention-deficit hyperactivity kayaker. I fish saltwater and look for banks that are adjacent to deep holes. That way I can frequently enter/exit my kayak (dozens of times in a typical fishing trip) because I can't just stay in a claustrophobic sit-inside kayak. I feel too constricted. Anyways, I'll try to post some photos later. I took them with my camera phone so I will have to email them to myself then upload them to wikipedia. I wish there was a wikipedia way of instantly uploading my pictures from my phone to wikipedia commons similar to the way youtube allows a unique, hidden email upload ability for each account. (see here) Anyways, are you from NE, SE part of usa? And do you fish fresh or saltwater or both? Tomato expert1 (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I mainly kayak or use to kayak in the sea, from island to island or bay to bay along the coast of New Zealand, which has a coastline of 15 thousand kilometres compared to 20 thousand kilometres for the USA including Alaska. The west coast is treacherous, and the east coast is relatively sheltered. The south island can be cold. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse discussion on species articles
I was not trying to 'encourage' or 'discourage' the creation of articles for specific species… I was trying to explain a way to address the objections raised to the creation of the article. I was intentionally trying to avoid the actual argument about the 'notability' of the specific species, which is a topic for AfC, and point out that it would probably not get the same objections if the higher level article was better, and suggest how the author could 'fix' this.

I'm sorry if that was unclear in what I said. I actually personally think that both species merit their own article, however, the 'area' also needs work by an expert, as the linkages between the various taxa (order, family, genus) is unclear in those articles.

BTW, I see no way in which a redirected link from the species name to a section of the genus article is in any way objectionable, unless the section is so long it needs to be in a separate article. Specific articles about species are a good thing, but what I was suggesting makes WP more 'usable', which is what I was referring to by 'classification of knowledge'.

Revent (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree for the most part. The article is perfectly capable of standing on its own, but quite frankly it would've been a mess for avid readers if the incongruencies were not addressed. In any case, the user didn't take it very well (fter all, it would've been quite straightforward to get it fixed) and his lack of Wikipedia experience might've led him astray. As a sidenote, his anger was probably due in part to misunderstanding how AfC works. We're looking into ways to change that at the moment. Water under the bridge now :) FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Which is why I was trying to stay out of that argument, and just talk about 'how to do this in a WP-friendlier way'. Revent (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a tough one quite often. But I understood where you were coming from, editing discrepancies aside. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (random to be talking here, but the first comment was specifically to Epi) IMO, Bio people are right to focus on 'content' in Biology articles. It's what they are interested in and know about. What's even more important tho, and this isn't a criticism, just a statement that someone should do it, is going though something like fishbase and making all the missing redirects. Much faster than creating stubs, and it lets people find the existing content.
 * For instance, the guy that wrote the pipefish article. If that redirect has been there, he probably would have fixed that article first. Revent (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well he has written the article now, and it is a very good article. I'm going to nominate it for a DYK. I can understand his irritation, and sometimes less input is better than more. The tricky bit is to know when to stand back a bit! --Epipelagic (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * (looks) Nice.... :)
 * I'm going to toss the navbar and Biology portal and such on. You're right, it is really good. Revent (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh...what he did was what I originally recommended. Anyway, glad he did it in the end. We all learnt something along the way. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't figure out exactly how (where to put it in the code), but it would look a lot better if the toc could be moved to the right, next to the taxobox, with the 'genera' section flowed to it's left, hint hint Much less whitespace. :) Revent (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What about now? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (had to scroll, missed it at first) I was actually talking about the 'toc' itself...giving it a 'forced' location at the top, nested into the whitespace. That does look better, though. Revent (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a 'clear right' to the top of the text there (where you put the table)....when I adjusted to 100% zoom, I got a narrow column crunched in between the images... This way, it's just a whitespace that resizes, instead of the text. Thoughts? (zoom in and out a bit) Revent (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * (since this is where the conv ended up and it rambled) I've tweaked the layout a bit in my sandbox, and put a link to it in a new thread on the article talk page. 'Topical' location. :) Revent (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Fish ladder
Hello epipelagic! You have just removed a unique picture of salmon in a salmon ladder. Should we follow the practice you must also remove the image of the interior of a church, then it is not a church. It's your choice. I will not try to put the picture back. Have a good evening. Regards --Jarvin (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Jarvin, you have taken a nice photo of two fish, but it just doesn't illustrate anything about fish ladders. Your photo doesn't show the interior of a fish ladder, or the exterior of a fish ladder, or anything at all about a fish ladder. Instead, it shows two salmon which could be anywhere. You say the fish are inside a fish ladder, but there is nothing in the photo to indicate that. The fish could be inside a fish bowl in a church. That wouldn't make a good image to put in an article about churches.  --Epipelagic (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Anatomical terms of location
What is your motive for changing the nice, tidy table back to the messy one that was there before? — Smjg (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that's begging the question, when you talk about your "nice, tidy table" and the "messy one" that was there before. Your coding is more simple and more tidy, but visually I prefer the original table, which is consistent with other tables in the article. On a widescreen, your table meanders the entire width of the screen. It is more difficult to read, is a boring uniform gray, and wastes space. I meant to come back and recode the original table (and other tables in the article) in a more straightforward way, remove the thick lines, adjust the colours so they are more subtle, and tweak the tables so the main body of the article text flows round them. But I forgot. However it is just a matter of preferences, and if that upsets you then you can leave it the way you prefer. Regards. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Hippocampinae
The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

 * Yum... thank you! --Epipelagic (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Holistic management
Hello, You made a post on talk page, then reversed it, then in comments asked a question. Curious if you are interested in helping me improve the article? Or was that a random drive by shooting? Redddbaron (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hardly
Re this. Hardly. Admins are only a small part of the problem. Pumpkin Sky  talk  02:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that vulgar removal by Drmies, without acknowledgement even in the edit summary, shows just how far the system has ground into the mud. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To me that looks more like an edit conflict - note the times. Unfortunate, but not vulgar or actually anything to do with adminship or admins. You could visit Bugzilla and try to suggest that they treat the various bugs and suggested improvements re edit conflict handling with a higher priority, but there isn't much point assuming badfaith of other editors. I'd suggest you just reinstate your edit with an edit summary of "assume that was lost to an edit conflict". As for what it shows about the system, well the devs would argue that we have lived with these edit conflict problems for years. Though I suspect if someone could be persuaded to measure it, the lost edits and the discord it generates, not least in annoyed and driven away newbies would justify a high priority to fix the various edit conflict bugzilla requests rather than the low priority that they are currently stalled by.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  05:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that :) I'll check it out. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a relief, and a lesson on not jumping to conclusions. Things have not ground that far into the mud, but that bug needs fixing! --Epipelagic (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOOD Needs You!
Hi there Epipelagic! I've noticed you have yourself listed as a member of the Food and Drink Wikiproject. Unfortunately it looks like the project has been slowly sliding into inactivity except for a couple of people. That makes me a sad potato, and nobody likes a sad potato amirite?

If you'd like to turn my frown upside down, can you do two small things?

First off, go here and add Tick (✅) next to your name if you're still part of the project.

Second, go to the project talkpage and participate in a discussion about how to make the project more active, and how to go about making articles in our area of interest a lot better.

You don't want to make me cry, do you? Potatoes have a lot of eyes you know. So come on, join in! :)

— The Potato Hose 18:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Potato, I had unpleasant encounters with a user who seems to believe he owns the project, so I decided to work elsewhere for now. Perhaps that's happened to others, and is why the project has slid into inactivity. However, removing people who don't affirm they are currently part of the project, doesn't strike me as a good idea. It means you are removing records other users added which point to their past involvement with the project, sometimes even with details of what that involvement was. Some users might regard that as disrespectful and be less likely to return if things improve in the future. The more usual way projects keep inactive members from clogging the active list is to move users who have not made any edits on Wikipedia for, say, six months to an inactive list, with a note that if they return they are free to move their name back to the active list. Trying to exert too much control can backfire. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Epipelagic
May I send you an Email? Thank you, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Links Removed.
Hi.

Why did you remove my additions on the Spin Fishing Page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabastian130 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed the three citations you added because (1) two of your citations were to other Wikipedia articles, which are not regarded as reliable sources, and (2) your third citation was a spam link. Regards. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

FisheriesWiki
Hi Epipelagic - regarding your message of 30.4 about my having entered enough links to the Fisheries Wiki and adding more might put me at risk of breaching the spirit of Wikipedia policies and guidelines on promotion and the like, I first want to apologise for the delay in responding. But on the issue of adding links to FisheriesWiki where the article in question is about a fish species or group, I have noticed that most (all?) such articles have links to FishBase, and I was simply following the logic of that by adding FisheriesWiki links. FisheriesWiki is a site that is basically the same as FishBase - a global information system with contributions from scientists and managed by a non-profit, which in the case of FishBase (or SeaLifeBase, its sister site) is organised around marine and freshwater aquatic *species* whilst in FisheriesWiki the data is organised around the *places* (fisheries) where those species are exploited/caught. These sites are in close collaboration as well. Every FishBase and SeaLifeBase species article has a link to FisheriesWiki (in the 'Human uses' section), which will take the user to a list of all profiles on FisheriesWiki that deal with that same species (e.g., for Gadus morhua there are currently 64 profiles). And for every FisheriesWiki profile, there is a link on the profile ID page to the FishBase article on that profile's matching species. In sum, then, I do understand Wikiepedia policies on promotion but do not see in this instance how I was in danger of violating those policies, and so would like to continue to add external links to FisheriesWiki to Wikipedia articles where this is relevant/appropriate - such as articles on other aquatic species where information on a site devoted to human uses of that species would add considerable value for users. Your thoughts? --Jackwhalen-sfp (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * FisheriesWiki is an open, contributor-based platform based on a model that has a lot in common with Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia does not have the sort of quality controls that, say, a peer reviewed scientific journal or a reputable newspaper has. Consequently Wikipedia editors are not permitted to cite Wikipedia itself as a reliable source. For similar reasons, it seems to me that FisheriesWiki, however useful as a general resource on fisheries, cannot be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. There are some important points of contrast between say FishBase and FisheriesWiki. FishBase is a massive, long established database with a reputation for reliability, controlled and monitored by high profile academic scientists such as Daniel Pauly. It is not funded, as far as I am aware, by any groups which have interests other than scientific ones. FisheriesWiki is a recent start up, and not been round long enough to consolidate a reputation for reliability. It is the product, as they say on their web site, of "an alliance of buyers, suppliers, and producers". There is clearly scope for local commercial and political influences on content within the wiki. So for these, and other reasons, I do not see how it would be appropriate to use FisheriesWiki as a reliable source on Wikipedia. You say that FishBase articles link to corresponding FisheriesWiki articles, but they link also to corresponding Wikipedia articles. So that doesn't further the argument for FisheriesWiki being a reliable source. Wikipedia may not be a reliable source, but it can be an excellent starting point to get a (maybe) reliable overview of how the land lies together with a list of reliable sources which can then be followed up. Similarly, it seems to me that FisheriesWiki can be a useful starting point for investigating a fishery, and may be a good place for for a Wikipedia editor setting out to develop an article on a fishery. For that reason, I didn't revert your entries when you added the wiki a few times as an external link.
 * Anyway, that is just a personal initial impression and not a Wikipedia position. I have referred the matter for further comment to the Reliable sources noticeboard. Regards. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hydronymy
Hallo, I am interested in hydronymy as it looks the language of prehistoric Europe is reflected therein. I left a message on the wikiproject rivers talkpage, just looking for editors with similar interests to exchange information. I have discovered the so called old european hydronymy is not limited to Europe but has many correspondences in Iran, India and furhter away so I think this disproves the current scholarly etymological interpretations. Presently I am trying to research Bengal and Burma. Thanks for reading.Aldrasto11 (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{||}

Monkey brains
The page on monkey brain eating doesn't cover live monkey brains except to say it's an urban myth. Pseudomonas(talk) 08:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but if it is an urban legend it is certainly a "classic" one, and still warrants mention. The references supplied for dismissing it as an urban legend fall far short from being reliable sources. Many other (also mostly dubious) sources suggest otherwise, such as this one or here. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

External Link to New Fulton Fish Market
Hello dear editor,

I am from New Fulton Fish Market. I added our information link to New Fulton Fish Market site in Wikipedia to make the page user friendly, so public find us quickly. The link that I added is not to promote or spam your site but to help users to find the market online. I added "http://www.huntspoint.com/Fulton_Fish_Market.htm/" external link to make new Fulton Fish Market easy to find online.

By adding the link to Wikipedia page, we were not trying to promote any individual's interest, and trying to help the public to improve your website. New Fulton Fish Market is located in Huntspoint which is the largest food distribution center that is located in the US. Wikipedia did not have any valid external link to The New Fulton Fish Market information to help people who are trying to find the market location, find the forms, communicate with the market, communicate with the coop...etc. That link contains the New Fulton Fish Market's information that will help public with is the goal of Wikipedia and the link will increase the accuracy of Wikipedia.

If it makes sense could you please add the coop link to "New Fulton Fish Market" ("http://www.huntspoint.com/Fulton_Fish_Market.htm/")name on Wikipedia site. That is going to help the public and increase the accuracy for wikipedia.

Thanks for your time. Our Coop will be looking forward to help to public. New Fulton Fish Market Coop Team


 * There are several problems with the way you added those links. Firstly, you say that " Wikipedia did not have any valid external link to The New Fulton Fish Market information". If you look at the article again, you will find that the New Fulton Fish Market website is in fact prominently linked where it should be linked, which is as the first link in the section containing external links. It is additionally linked in inline references in other parts of the article. Secondly, you were linking to the official website for the Fulton Fish Market in multiple places, whereas Wikipedia guidelines state that such a link should appear once only in the article. Thirdly, HTML links should not be embedded within the article using descriptive titles. Finally, you should avoid linking articles to a site where you have commercial interests. Instead, a better approach would have been to raise your concerns on the article's talk page.
 * There is also an issue with your account name, and you should read this guideline and this one. Regards. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at the goblin shark article
Hello Epipelagic. I see that you have been taking part in the recent edit war at the goblin shark article. I know it was only one revert, but I'm leaving you this message as there has been a history of edit warring at that article, and because I have left notes for all the other editors who took part in the most recent round of reverting. I've protected the article for two days as an interim measure. I'm sure that you've read all the relevant policy pages before, so I'll just point you to my comments on the protection and note that until a consensus has been reached I'll be blocking anyone who continues to revert. Do let me know if you have any questions about any of this, though. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 01:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Report
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Freedom of Speech for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -buffbills7701

Sockeye salmon
Thank you for providing a better link when you reverted me. My initial response to your revert was a bit heated, as I didn't think you understood. Anyway, I did check out your link, and then it (eventually) dawned on me that the operative word was "flesh". While I wouldn't call their flesh "striking" (though I recognize it to be brighter than any of the other species I have worked with), the key thing is that I thought that the initial reference was to their bright red flanks when working their way upstream. Sorry for not reading the original article as well as I should have. 50.193.171.69 (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK RfC

 * As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat&#124;Contributions 03:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Were you aware...
...that comments you made at civility talk have been copied into user Soham321 talk page without proper attribution?-- Mark  Just ask! WER TEA DR/N 05:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pelagic zone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Decapod (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) 11:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

DSA and BSA algorithms
Dear Sir/Madam,

As you know DSA and BSA links are under an edit-war. Since these algorithms have been proposed recently, it may be thought that they are not well known by the related community. As you can easily check, both DSA and BSA are the 4th most-downloaded papers in the journals they have been published, for several months. The manuscript of DSA has been downloaded more than 4000 times. In my opinion, Wikipedia must not prevent the accession of readers to the recently developed high-performance algorithms such as DSA and BSA. Otherwise optimization community will never be able to develop. Therefore I request you not to edit-war against DSA and BSA links. Analogical-Swarm intelligence models of DSA and BSA can be found in related papers.

Regards, Mehmet Emre Phd.Student — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.228.174.93 (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Mehmet. DSA and BSA are new algorithms, and enough time hasn't passed to say whether they will become notable or not. To date they have been mentioned in only one review, where they were mentioned in passing but were not evaluated. According to Google Scholar the paper you cited as a seminal paper for the BSA has one citation while the paper you cite as a seminal paper for the DSA has nine citations. This is a marked contrast to citations for more notable algorithms. An ACO seminal paper has 2,148 citations, a PSO seminal paper has 6,259 citations, and an SPP seminal paper has 2,414 citations. Time will tell whether DSA and BSA are going to join this company, but that time doesn't seem to have arrived yet.
 * I have transferred this discussion to Talk:Swarm intelligence, since that seems a more appropriate venue. Please continue any further discussion there. Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=570496532 your edit] to Rainbow trout may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * gov/index.cfm?adfg=steelhead.main|accessdate=26 August 2013}} in Canada and the United States . In Australia they are known as ocean trout, although they are the same species.

Hi, I am really sorry for the inconvenience caused. I am new to Wikipedia editing and i am keenly interested in contributing. To begin with i have started working on adding wiki-links and while working on it i found that, in most of the articles, reflist goes only into the section "references" and so where ever there was reflist under "notes" i changed the heading to "references". Now, that i understand that its not the right thing to do, i will avoid doing it further. Can you please suggest me areas where i can work on for better contributions to Wikipedia as i have little knowledge about the editing but a keen interest in contribution. Please respond on my talk page. thank you! Lizia7 (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter - September 2013

 * Posted by Northamerica1000(talk) 01:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:Food
It would be appreciated if you joined in the conversation occurring at WT:Food regarding the layout and presentation of the project's main page. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Invitation
Following your message, thanks for the invitation and the remark about the stub!! I am very active at the moment because I have plenty of time but in one week I will start again to work hard underwater with fishes and won't be able to contribute for a long time :( Cheers, Bastaco (talk) 11:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! --Epipelagic (talk) 11:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 18:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Fish measurement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Red snapper


 * Standard weight in fish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Red snapper

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing
I hadnt noticed your removal of the image i added. that removal was very reasonable; thanks for your sensitivity though. I may revisit that article to see if i can improve it in other ways, or find better images, and discuss such on the talk page first. thats all cool. The problem which upset me was apparent ownership of the WikiProject California Highways, where one admin doing a lot of good work there has refused to allow the articles to be tagged with other project tags. It seems silly, as it doesnt actually affect article content, but it really bothered me that i cannot include those roads which exist entirely within the Bay Area in its task force, which i put a lot of work into (and hopefully dont act like i own myself). other editors have noted this ownership issue. I have quoted policy and guidelines for project tagging, and the consensus there is that they dont want other projects to "claim" their articles, thus their good work for other projects (and also end up editing them badly). this seems so against the spirit of projects. I just walked away from the issue, as i dont actively edit those articles anyway. Im actually amazed how rarely i seem to be involved in any dispute, as there are so many here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter - October 2013

 * Delivered by Northamerica1000(talk) 20:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Fisheries edit
I removed the entry because, quite frankly it was climate change propaganda that didn't belong in it. The segment should be strictly about defining fisheries without commentaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianne93101 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. You deleted cited material on overfishing which had nothing to do with climate change, let alone "propaganda", and you deleted in an untidy manner leaving behind broken syntax. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Pelagic zone
Spurious accuracies?? Are you sure you know what "spurious" means? I suggest you look it up before making accusations against me! There was nothing "spurious" about the accuracy of the conversions I changed/added! The changes I made were more accurate than the ones on the page, as can be shown by any calculator that does conversions! Besides the fact that I added some conversions that were not there to begin with! I resent your accusations of "spurious", and I suggest you check your facts!!

e.g. 200 m = 656.1679790026247 ft., 1,000 m = 3280.839895013123 ft., 4,000 m = 13,123.35958005249 ft., NOT 650, 3,300 and 13,000 ft. respectively, as stated in the article! NOTHING spurious about these figures at all, and the inaccuracies just continue to grow the larger the numbers get. To what would you round 1,000,000 m.? 3.2 million ft.? The only one that was close to being accurate was 6,000 m = 19,685 ft. Wikipedia is supposed to be a place for accurate figures, NOT figures that are rounded up/down just because they look better! Good day, sir!

For your education: spu·ri·ous spyo͝orēəs/

adjective adjective: spurious

1. 1. not being what it purports to be; false or fake.

"separating authentic and spurious claims"

synonyms: bogus, fake, false, counterfeit, forged, fraudulent, sham, artificial, imitation, simulated, feigned, deceptive, misleading, specious, informal, phony, pretend

"an attempt to be excused due to some spurious medical condition" Zargon2010 (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Zargon, when the Pelagic zone article said the mesopelagic extends to "around 1,000 meters (3,300 ft)", you introduced spurious accuracy when you replaced the phrase with "around 1,000 meters (3,281 ft)". "Around 1,000 meters" means approximately 1,000 metres, and does not indicate an accuracy to within one foot. The degree of accuracy was indicated by the conversion in the original text, which was to the nearest 100 feet. The seeming accuracy you introduced is spurious because it is a bogus or pretended accuracy, an accuracy that was not there before your "conversion". --Epipelagic (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
I'm wondering if this IP might be the same editor that you reverted. It seems too coincidental that two non-NPOV editors would be editing now after the article has been stable for some time. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 01:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The evidence is mixed. The POV and the editing and citation styles are identical, but the style of the edit comments and style of incivility differ. My guess is that they are partners of some sort. Unless other editors come in to help, there are no procedures to deal with this sort of thing on Wikipedia. The admin system merely sets up roadblocks for content builders, and if we try and do the right thing, admins will be looking, not to help, but to see how they can block us. Unless you are willing to invest a huge amount of time that would be better spent elsewhere, it would make sense to just walk away. These are the places where Wikipedia truly loses credibility. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I changed your heading and removed the first comment because it had nothing to do with the article but was simply attacking other editors. Your comment may have been directed at me or other editors with whom you disagree but name calling has no place on a discussion page agreeed? Neither does any discussion related to who or what editors are. Agreed? Please take a look at that first sentance which I tried to remove and could you please self-revert the section of the discussion in which you discuss editors and not the article? Thank you. If you want to know my motives. Just ask! :) And here it is. I hopped in because I see such a positive spin in that article that it looked like a silly pamphlet in parts not at all reflective of the news. I read in the talk and I see defenders of the SSCS and I thought that it was completely illogical. Granted I am no seasoned editor but this just looked out of control, so I hopped in to help the article. I don't know who any of you are in real life and really it doesn't matter. The important thing is the content of the edits, not the person behind them. Here's to more assumption of good faith in the future. 76.112.8.146 (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What I said was that the "neutrality of this article is currently compromised by the aggressive tandem editing of two pro Japanese whaling spa editors". The comment was primarily focused on the neutrality and content of the article, and referred to other editors only so far as their behaviour was affecting that neutrality. That is a factual and verifiable comment on behaviour. It is not a personal attack. It is there in the edit histories that both of you are essentially spa editors, and that your edits have, without exception, been in the direction of supporting Japanese whaling interests and discrediting Sea Shepherd. It is also there in the edit histories that both you and Veritas Fans were aggressively editing in tandem, and both of you referred to AussieLegend and myself as "vandals". Those are examples of personal attacks.


 * There is sometimes a problem on Wikipedia with special interest groups taking control of articles. This can particularly be a problem in controversial commercial, political and religious areas. Sea Shepherd is controversial in both commercial and political areas, so you can see why it looked suspicious when you and Veritas Fans started editing together in the manner you did. However, you have clarified your motives, and I accept that you are not here to protect commercial whaling interests in a manner that involves a conflict of interest. Accordingly, I have softened the section header. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fish anatomy, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ventricle and Auricle (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) 12:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

Content builders and admins
You wrote on WP:AM that "Individual admin have much too much freedom to punish content builders". I think you are making a false dichotomy, which does not help the community.

While it may be true that some administrators tend to abandon content development to do other necessary work on the project -- for example I am amazed at user:Moonriddengirl and her companions hard work on copyright violations (other than running out of money the one thing that could pull this project down is litigation in the US against Wikipedia for not having due diligence over copyright violations, so I think that the single most useful contribution by a volunteer to the project is her work on removing copyright violations), and for example there are some others admins I know who spend a lot of their time working on WP:RM -- there are other admins who to do a lot of content building for example User:Charles Matthews. If you look at X!'s Edit Counter for There is a fairly similar profiles.
 * you
 * and me

-- PBS (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course some, maybe most admins are useful content builders. In the context of my statement it should be clear I was referring to mere content builders, that is, content builders who are not admins. I also used the term content builder in a general or extended sense to emphasis the actual building of Wikipedia, which is the core reason we are here. Activities such as those of Moonriddengirl are essential to content building; you could think of it as quality assurance, checking the construction materials to make sure they are sound. Similarly, renaming articles, categorising and designing navigation templates (like building roads, road signs and maps), reverting vandals (repairing damage), finding or making images (adding fixtures and decorations), and all such other associated activities are integral parts of content building and maintenence. But none of this should have detracted you from the main thrust of what I was saying. There are many hundreds of admins. Most of them were created admins in the early days, when practically anyone who wanted to be an admin was given the bits. Admins are not appointed for a fixed term but are bizarrely created for life. They are a mixed bag. Some of them, like Moonriddengirl, are superb admins, and there are many other fine admins as well. Others are poor admins, even atrocious ones, dedicated to creating an atmosphere on Wikipedia which is fraught and threatening to mere content builders. Some compromise themselves morally by using their admin powers to pursue personal vendettas and dislikes. You need look only at the mixed behaviour of admins around EC to see that what I say here is true. Additionally, individual admins, including the bad ones, have much too much freedom to punish content builders. That is because the admin system is structured the wrong way, and needs reconstructing. That's another story. None of it is rocket science, but admins as a group pretend these issues aren't there. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I find the way people structure their arguments interesting, Winston Churchill way very clever user of rhetoric -- for example he often used the rule of three -- and your use of admins and content builders is I think an example of rhetoric this because you are making a distinction that frames a debate if your hypothesis (that admins and "content builders" are different) is not rejected. It is a well known technique and the classic example is the question "Do you still beat you wife?" ... and then "Sigh! Please stop procrastinating a simple yes or no will suffice". I do not know if you are using such a rhetorical construct on purposes, because one can also structure the sentence to be inclusive which would frame the debate in a different way.
 * There is no need to answer this post if you do not want to as I am probably taking up your time in non-constructive discourse. It is just the longer I have been editing on Wikipedia the more I notice this type of rhetorical construct along with some others (placed there intentionally or unintentionally in debates on Wikipedia) and I am curious if people who use the technique do so deliberately to capture the high-ground and frame a debate. -- PBS (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That is disingenuous, shifting the focus to a pretend analysis of imagined rhetoric rather than examining the substance of what was said. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello – Echo alerted me to this discussion. Is there a particular issue you would like addressed? I'm familiar with the argument you are making, but have never found it to be a fruitful topic on its own. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What don't you find a fruitful topic? Dissecting dysfunction in the admin system? --Epipelagic (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The point you have raised is a postulated dichotomy. You can probably find some support for it, given that there are many hundreds of admins. My first problem with that is only what I would have with any form of "selective quotation".


 * PBS was kind enough to say that I'm an admin, and I work on content. True enough, though not entirely visible here (I have created more than twice as many articles on Wikisource as on Wikipedia). The topic I don't find "fruitful" is the supposed exclusive-or: you work on content, or you're an admin.


 * There is actually nothing wrong with having a division of labour, at all. I don't think the division of labour is really the one you are describing; the intention of having admins is that there should be some division of labour, such as speedy deletions. I have said in the past that 99% of admins are perfectly fine, so I'm not likely to agree with you on that.


 * So I'm asking where you are going with your premise. I have thought in the past that admins were behaving badly. Some self-proclaimed content writers certainly behave badly. Some issues here fall into the "faults on both sides" category. In a problem-solving fashion, I thought I'd raise with you whether you would care to be more specific. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm at a loss responding, since I don't see the "postulated dichotomy" you talk of in anything I have said. Please read my first response to PBS above. The response starts with the sentence "Of course some, maybe most admins are useful content builders", and continues to enlarge upon that. You make the rather extraordinary claim that "99% of admins are perfectly fine". That's a precise and startling quantification. Where is the data that support that, or did you just make it up? I have commented lately on the actions of some bad admins. These admins usually contribute very little towards building Wikipedia, but create hostile working environments for the editors who do contribute. You are clearly one of the many admins (but certainly not 99%) that do not fall in that category. You seem to be pushing a rosy but unfounded view of admins instead of looking to see what is actually going on. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Shrug, then. The 99% figure is something I'm on the record as saying, perhaps in 2007 or so, when I had some responsibility for the way the site was run. If you look, I did use the past tense. I understand now just as much as when I came to this page, which is that you dislike the actions of some admins, unspecified. If you care to respond with more details, fine. I was asking for your take. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying you haven't followed the relevant discussions over recent years, and you want me to explain them here. I'm not sure where to start, but you could start by looking at recent events involving admins making blocks on Eric Corbet. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * My interactions with him, such as they were, were entirely unhelpful. I decided to have nothing more to say on the matter long ago. I do support the idea that we need a good working environment. Something which his closest ally decided to sneer at. A good reason to draw a line right then and there, and move on.


 * So I'm not completely uninformed on the issue. Otherwise I respectfully decline the invitation to be more of a spectator in these matters. It's not so consistent with the idea of dedicating myself to content, you know.


 * In sum, there may be a number of extremely poor role models around, as there always have been. They are on both sides of your "fence".


 * You can usually tell what is going on when the "you are with me or against me" riff comes out, and that is what Malleus decided was a good ploy with me, which was really bad judgement, and I have had nothing more to say on that divisive topic since. Elevating it to some political principle goes way, way back and has always been really destructive.


 * Bottom line, I have no time for the self-fulfilling side of what you imply. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Well that's quite a ticking off. I've clearly been chided for something, though I'm not sure what. What is this "fence" you refer to as being "mine"? What also is this "self-fulfilling side" that is apparently mine? Am I part of some "you are with me or against me" riff? The destructive polarising and false dichotomies seem to be coming from you. I don't agree with your idea that content builders who are not admins should know their place and not look at what is going on around them. I wonder if you would hold that view if you were not an admin. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The real answer to the last question is "yes, if I hadn't happened to have been made an admin in 2004, I think I'd see things just the same as I do now". You are making it the "big deal" it is not supposed to be.

You are being chided, which is not such a bad word, for elevating a single example to a general principle, because (a) it is intellectually sloppy to do that, and (b) you are choosing an example that egregiously is not going to prove anything to anyone, given the extremes of uncivil behaviour and taunting and tag-teaming said example has resorted to down the years.

You have now misquoted me twice. I did not imply that "content builders who are not admins should know their place and not look at what is going on around them". If I implied anything, it was that attention-seeking fools are best ignored, given that there is work to do.

I do have an extended interest in the actual social mechanisms of Wikipedia; I'm a published author on the subject, in fact. I haven't though found much enlightenment down the years in the "OMG X is leaving/OMG Y is doing a death-spiral/OMG Z is back dissing people as before" cycle of drama. That stuff is not worth spectating. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Look, you came to this page and asked me for an example of admins behaving in questionable ways towards non admins. The implication was that you have not recently examined such behaviour, and didn't know what sort of things went on. Out of politeness I offered you an example. Apparently it was an unsuitable example because you have a personal animus towards the non admin involved. You then went off at a tangent, fulminating about the way the non admin behaved rather than looking at the admin behaviour. Instead of responding in such a haughty way, you could have just asked for another example (there are hundreds).
 * You then tell me I am "intellectually sloppy" for "elevating a single example to a general principle". It is in fact you who elevated the example to a general principle. You keep attributing positions to me that I do not identify with. There might be some point if you want to engage with views I actually hold, but projecting your own phantasy versions onto me is just wasting time.
 * I apologize if I in turn misinterpreted you as thinking that "content builders who are not admins should know their place and not look at what is going on around them". I gather that what you really meant to say is that non admins who critique anything to do with admins are "attention-seeking fools" and "are best ignored". I suppose you mean me. That view is worse than the one I attributed to you. You tell me I have "misquoted" you twice. Where? I have quoted only what you said. You have not answered a single query I directed towards you in my last response. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, what I actually think is that you have got hold of an old onsite meme that should have been allowed a natural death a long time ago. The right question "is not is it true?" because it's a crock. It's the lawyers' question "Cui bono?", who benefits if this idea "Individual admin have much too much freedom to punish content builders" takes hold? It has always seemed to me that it is the people who reason "admins should be held to a higher standard" and deduce "I should be held to a lower standard, because I'm not one". Where this actually leads, as I think we know, is to ad hominems and putting words into the mouths of others, which accounts for my tone above. Not the way we should do business. I wish you well, but that seems to be enough said. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Charles, I don't know how anyone could have a sensible discussion with you. Each sentence in your paragraph above seems to be spawned from a different idea, vaguely projected, and not connecting to previous vague ideas in previous sentences. It's like a bouncing ball of vagueness, but not a round ball, like an American football that bounces each time in a random direction. (And BTW, the "but" in "I wish you well, but [...]" conveys the unspoken message to deny what just went before it.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, as this thread clearly illustrates, persistent incoherence is a key and widespread admin strategy :) --Epipelagic (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Fixed
Thread closed, so posting here ... you inadvertently altered DGG's sig here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks --Epipelagic (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For nothing (it was funny-- I was trying to post to DGG and kept ending up somewhere else-- took me a while to figure out what was up !). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hallucinogenic fish
Hello! Your submission of Hallucinogenic fish at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

back links to sections on pages
This may not be the place to ask but I cannot get my link to go to a specific section on a page. For example on the Fish page and the "Immune system" section in the last sentence I tried to link 'evolved' to the adaptive immune system but it just goes to the top of that page. The exact place is: "as a whole evolved in an ancestor of all jawed vertebrate."


 * Hi Sbartl. When you link to an article, the first letter in not case sesitive. Thus adaptive immune system will link to Adaptive immune system. However, when you link to a section in an article, as in adaptive immune system, the first letter of the section, "Evolution" in this example, is case sensitive. Thus, your link should have been to adaptive immune system. Regards. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks much!! Sbartl (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Euryhaline, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Asian shore crab and Green sea urchin (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) 09:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Hallucinogenic fish
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Physiology of dinosaurs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Ward (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) 08:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Concerning my arbitration complaint
I didn't get back to respond.

Here is what you either didn't take in, or don't know.


 * Eric Corbett made at least twenty changes to the Wells Cathedral article. Some were very useful formatting, and other were expression.
 * At least 9 of his changes to expression remain untouched and unchallenged. Another, which I challenged, he rewrote to a better form.  I reverted two because one missed the point and the other introduced an error of fact.


 * Eric Corbett was personally thanked, on his talk page, by me, for his contributions.
 * Eric Corbett simultaneously made a number of other edits which resulted in an edit war with another party over the use of which/that. (I haven't counted these)


 * I do not indulge in article ownership games.
 * Several editors have expressed uncertainty about facts, expressions, clarity of vocabulary. (Derek Andrews, Anythingyouwant and others). Queries and changes that make it clear that someone has not understood are the absolute foundation of good encyclopedic writing. The questions, ideas and rephrasings from these two, and others, have contributed to the quality of the way the information is expressed.


 * RE: Anythingyouwant's attempt to improve the lead image. For some reason it was a technical stuff-up. I editted the pic to what I thought she/he was trying to achieve, and we were both satisfied with the result.


 * For some reason (I have been assured that it wasn't co-ordinated) two editors descended upon me simultaneously with an aim of getting me to accept Corbett's wording. It was seriously unpleasant, and misguided.


 * The reason that it was misguided was this:
 * 1) I did not take Eric Corbett to arbitration to get my own way over the wording. It was to redress his rudeness
 * 2) In a matter of expression, there was a clear consensus that Corbett's expression was preferred.
 * As far as I am concerned, this is a consensus of ignorance, because it has been made by people without the expertise in the particular subject.
 * On the other hand, the majority of our readers will not know the difference, and would not care to know why an expert in the field might prefer "the majority" to "most". "Most" people think that brevity is better.


 * So I had let the edit stand as per the consensus of opinion.
 * ...and having done so, was swooped upon by people who had read the arbitration discussion, missed the point, and were determined to get me to change a mind that was already changed by consensus prior to putting in the complaint about Corbett's insulting, threatening behaviour.

I am not a member of the "administration pack" (which is what it appears to be). I am simply a very competent editor who makes major contributions to art and architectural articles, and is wondering why "the pack" would make such a consolidated attack on a person with expertise, over a preferred mode of expression.

Let me repeat, Eric Corbett's particular change to the article, and all this apparent bullying and accusations of "Ownership" has been over my preferred mode of expression (as the expert in the field of medieval architecture) not over a point of grammar, and certainly not over a point of fact.

Rodw called me in, in the first place, because he new what I would bring to the article. If the article belongs to anyone, it is Rodw's. It is his initiative, not mine, and if it is blocked at FA because of hostility to me that would be low indeed.


 * I hope that this makes the situation clearer to you than it apparently was when you expressed the opinion that all those poor people were having such difficulty with me.
 * Amandajm (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be unwise for me to express another opinion. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you...
...for your AIV report regarding SHFW70. I though you may be interested in this in case you run into the same sock edits in the future. --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Longear sunfish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservation (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) 12:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Cod fishery collapse
CBC published an interview and documentary about Debbie MacKenzie's work on the collapse of the fisheries. Her work is counter to the DFO's authorities (who very notably and scientifically regulated the collapse). She is much closer to the fishery than the authorities, and (in the opinion of many) probably right despite her contrary positions. Would a CBC interview and documentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxGU9Mlduso#t=26) be notable enough to stand as a reference? I feel her message needs to be heard, if only for the sake of equipoise and balance in the historical record of the catastrophe. I suppose we could go to her sources, which would meet Wikipedia policy standards for reference, and reconstruct her argument - or else, find some way to acknowledge her impressive work. What say you? BCameron54 06:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Debbie MacKenzie has thought provoking ideas, and provides further sad illustrations of shifting baselines, another notion from a fellow Canadian. The problem is she has no formal background in marine biology, she holds or has held no notable research or management positions, and she has received no notable awards. She has not been published by recognised publishers, such as in scientific journals or by book publishers. There is only her self-published web site. No academic publication has ever cited her. What she does have going for her is the CBC documentary and an acknowledgement by Farley Mowat and Martin Willison. But this documentary establishes only that her work has not been credibly refuted by the DFO. That is not enough to start citing her in Wikipedia articles. There may well be something in what she says, but we are not equipped in our role as editors here to assess and recognise that. Nor can we "reconstruct her argument", as that would be contrary to wp:or --Epipelagic (talk) 09:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

project tagging
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastal_geography and the related template I see came from your starts - excellent! my prob lem is tackling the western australian coastline, i find a lot of the articles processes are not tagged for projects in any way, and I am prone to tag with oceans, rather than geography per se. I would haveliked (if my edits were the same level as 5 years ago, to have started a task force for coastal processes for the oceans project, but no time or energy now...) your opinion would be appreciated. thanks. satusuro 14:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Having a template for articles on the Australian coast doesn't seem like overkill, and a task force could be appropriate if you can get several interested editors together. I'm not Australian, though I could be interested in something similar for New Zealand. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive
{| |}

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
De728631 (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holiday(s)

 * And a happy holiday to you too. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy year 2014 by Bheem26  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bheem26 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy new year 2014   to you     by Bheem26  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bheem26 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Happy new year to you too. Please sign your posts on talk pages with the 4 tildes ( ~ ). --Epipelagic (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy newyear by Bheem26

Happy newyear by Bheem26

Happy newyear by Bheem26