User talk:Epipelagic/Archive 8

Happy New Year Epipelagic!


Happy New Year! Epipelagic, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  13:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.


 * May you prosper too ! --Epipelagic (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Your advice is welcome
Hi User:Epipelagic. I am coming to your talk page as I note you signed the The Autie Pact back in 2012. I am a non-neurotypical who lives with Autism in the form of Asperger Syndrome. If you know much about those of us on the Spectrum as well as Wikipedia editors on the Spectrum, you probably understand that editing and communication can be difficult enough for neurotypicals, excruciatingly difficult at times for editors like me with Autism. I am here on your talk page not because I am asking you to intervene, I am not canvassing for support. I am here because you signed the Autie Pact that is meant to be a way to move toward bridging the gap between neurotypical editors and editors with Autism Spectrum Disorder(s). Currently, there has been a discussion for a few days at AN/I regarding my ability to edit. I have been open there about being a person with Asperger's. When that information was brought forth, the reactions have been -- shall we say -- less than complimentary to those expressing their views about editors with Autism. This discussion and the comments from long-time and not-so-long-time editors is, in my opinion, an example of how far we still have to go in Wikipedia toward understanding that we are made up of editors with different editing styles and different ways of seeing the world. Of course, the difference in editors with Autism is more obvious and can be, at times, more maddening to neurotypicals. That said, with the rate of autism being somewhere between 1:55 - 1:110 and Wikipedia being a magnet for those with ASDs, I think it's fair to say that awareness is extremely important. Also important to remember is that discrimination against editors because they have ASDs is just not appropriate nor does it echo WP:AGF. If you are interested in seeing the thread at AN/I I am referring to, the link is here. I have no expectation that you will look at it, my purpose here is really just awareness that Wikipedia still has a long way to go in the way of interactions and understanding between autism-spectrum editors and neurotypical editors. And, as the title of this section says, your advice would be welcome. Thanks for your time. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

"Higher Vertebrates"?
Hi Epipelagic, just wondering about the recent series of edits with the term "higher vertebrates". I definitely like re-directing it to Amniotes, and using it in quotes, but using it within articles seems a bit, well, 19th century, with a strong flavor of "scala naturae" on top. I poked around, and it is still used in scientific papers (which I disapprove of), but since we can use a better term, I think we probably should (aside from direct quotes of old sources). HCA (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would be good to have some discussion about this. I haven't introduced the term anywhere apart from on Amniote itself, merely linked it where it already exists on Wikipedia. The issue needs to be acknowledged and handled in an upfront way. Perhaps there could be an account of the history and archaic nature of the term in the article on amniotes. Or perhaps there could be an article called "Higher vertebrates". There are parallels with some recent discussions about the use of the term "primitive fish", and perhaps that could be revisited as well. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I've copied the comments above to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals, since that seems a better place to have the discussion. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Mustang dab
Withdrew my proposal to close, didn't realize the vote was going toward keeping it as primary, and parenthetical dab is the worst-case scenario here after we got 400 horse breed articles to natural dab. Montanabw (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Uncivil environment
Hi. I thought I would take this discussion here out of respect for Sitush as he has tired of it. Who are these "moral campaigners" you speak of, and where can I find their activity? I think everyone should be treated with respect without intent to harm. That does not make me a moral campaigner. If someone is misbehaving in a way that can harm other people, we have every right to point that out and ask for and demand a more civil dynamic. I've noticed that some editors, particularly admins, will interpret any criticism of their behavior as a "personal attack" or "harassment". This is not the case. And this is an important point. We can criticize behavior and actions as inappropriate without incivility. For example, if a hypothetical admin closes an ANI discussion to protect their friend, and by so doing makes numerous false accusations against the complainants, it is not uncivil nor a personal attack to point out problems with this close. In the same way, if someone treats me with disrespect and intends to harm me, my objection to this behavior does not make me a "moral camapaigner". I think Sitush means well, but his demand that we redefine words like disrespect, harm, and rudeness, seems unreasonable, and is basically an attempt to continually move the goalposts. Viriditas (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * C'mon Viriditas, what are you rabbiting on about? You know very well the battle for decent governance on Wikipedia is lost. The admin system is controlled by the admins themselves. The Wikimedia Foundation has made it clear that no real awareness of the problems of content building will be coming from them, and the founder has made it even more clear that he has no interest in the plight of content builders. The daily traffic on the drama boards degenerates into froth from social networkers seeking to punish content builders and self-preening admins who want to be grandees. Content builders are tolerated only if they keep their heads down and pretend things are okay. As you know, the founder is demanding content builders who speak out be muzzled and purged, and is offering the reassuring distraction that his purges are to be based on "love". The latest Signpost offers an example of this distracting bunny fluff, and we will no doubt see a lot more of it. I said what I think in the past, but the principal admin strategy is to systematically refuse acknowledgement of constructive criticism. I now rarely say what I think, principally because most other content builders remain silent. There is a striking parallel to the failure of the US academic community to speak out during the Bush-Cheney administration. There is nothing you or I can say that will change any of this. The preening and posturings by some admins and dramatic manipulations and moralizings by some social networkers inflict unnecessary misery to content builders, but in the long run they amount to nothing. Ultimately only genuine additions to the encyclopaedia count. Despite all the obscuring froth and fluff, Wikipedia remains a noble project. Those who contribute in genuine ways know what they have done. To a degree that stuff endures, and that should be enough. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a thoughtful response. Putting aside the usual issues with governance and the tyranny of the admins for the moment, I'm curious what you mean by "problems of content building" and "the plight of content builders".  Please help to elucidate on this when you have some free time.  There's no hurry, I just want to know more on a point by point basis.   One point I do want to address is that you seem to think leadership comes from the top.  But wouldn't we have more leverage if more editors organized and stood shoulder to shoulder rather than separated and apart? Viriditas (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Fish
You cannot site Wikipedia as proof. That would be called Original Research and it is not allowed (WP:NOR). These are the rules which bind us and keep the Wikis working. Breaking those rules takes us down the rabbit-hole from fact to fiction. When referring to multiple fish or species of fish, the term is just "fish". Adding the "ES" to the root word changes it from a noun to a verb. I could ask, "Do you know where Bob fishes?" Someone could answer, "Bob fishes at Blue Lake." The creature he catches are just "fish". If you have a direct reference to a definitive source for your argument, you should post it. Otherwise, stop trying to start and EDIT WAR WP:WARRING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.240.241.240 (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This discussion started on your talk page, and I have continued it there. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Re "Why have you messed up the formatting of this article and broken it up again to separate sentences?"
Hi - Sorry I don't understand why the page has to be formatted in 2 columns. I have put a lot of work into this page and was setting it up to be similar to other prominent sailors - e.g. Ben Ainslie and Nathan Outteridge. Neither of their pages are in 2 columns. Is there some rule I am unaware of that pages need to be in columns and that sentences about different things cannot be spaced? Sorry if I am doing it wrong. Hb26 (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The main body of the article should not be split up into individual sentences, but there is no guideline saying the results have to be formatted in two columns. You can choose what you personally want there, so I have put it back to one column since one column seems to be your preference. That doesn't mean that the other articles you referred to are doing it the "right way"... merely that whoever wrote those articles either doesn't know how to put the results in two columns, or personally prefers one column. Either way, carry on... you are doing fine! I'm trying to help you get started, not to hinder you. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Precious again
  fish

Thank you for quality articles on marine life and ecosystems, such as Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences and list of threatened sharks, and for the image of "tidy the remnants of productive content builders", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 778th recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Spot Fish and Spot croaker
Hello Epipelagic, hope you are doing OK. Do you know about this? A brand new editor considered that the Spot croaker article was faulty, so he created a new one in parallel. It got hit with a speedy delete tag, but it seems to me the two should be merged. That could be a pain to do... but do you have the willingness to tackle this? I would have a go at doing it, but I know almost nothing about fish. Thanks and best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The new article is a gross copy violation, so I've tagged it as such. I don't see anything particularly wrong with the original article. The new editor's claim that the fish is not called a "croaker" has no merit, and is not backed even by their own sources. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

If you read their ToS, I am 100% in compliance with it. Check citations, credits and references. And last I checked Wikipedia obtains not utilizing the page for a commercial gain since it is 100% funded by donations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheatspace (talk • contribs) 00:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Also

Please check out the following books from your local library. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay: A Guides to Freshtwater and Saltwater Species Saltwater Fishes North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia: A Guide to Inshore and Offshore Species Ken Schultz's Field Guide to Saltwater Fish The Illustrated Guide to Marine Fish of the World Encyclopedia of Marine Science Encyclopedia of the Aquatic World Encyclopedia of Coastal Science None of these books will you at all find the Spot(fish) referred to by or referenced as a croaker.

Also check out these 2 videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P447yPGN8wM - notice no sound coming from the fish. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtiPtWT9mnk - croaker(NOT A SPOT) croaking. Oh and so i am not called bias. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=spot+croaking find 1 video showing a spot croaking(Unedited) I will donate $10,000 to Wikipedia and recant my article. All you will find are Atlantic & White Croakers. – Cheatspace (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

List of commercially important fish species
Sorry to bother you. I'm ready to update it. When I go to http://data.fao.org/statistics and select FISHSTATS in the database box, it returns 4 items. I click the first one " Global Aquaculture Production" and then download then select the first item CSV, I get a 404 thing. I is there another place to get these CSVs? Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hidden here somewhere? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a ref now at the article. This folder seems to be empty. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, your guess is as good as mine Anna. The FAO have redeveloped the interface to their database system, and at the moment it seems disorganised. I guess it'll settle down. Is the ref you mentioned the one you want? --Epipelagic (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll check back at their site periodically. The ref or data I'm after are these: Global Aquaculture Production and Global Capture Production. There are two other datasets that might contain something useful for the article: "Global Fishery Commodity Production" and "Trade Global Production", but I'm not sure because they are also 404 right now. Thanks for the feedback. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Swarm intelligence
You asked: "(where is the rationale on the talk page?) (undo | thank)" - the talk page is extremely small. And the rationale is right there: WP:SYNTH. It is your job to provide references which say that rivers are swarm intelligence, not mine to engage with you in theoretical discussions about AI. -M.Altenmann >t 08:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You were the one who deleted the section on the grounds that it was "irrelevant". In fact, casual inspection of the seminal paper shows clearly that it ticks all the boxes required to be classified as swarm intelligence. That's not synthesis. Anyway, this discussion belongs on the article talk page, so I will continue this thread there and give you references you apparently need which will tell you that River Formation Dynamics is a form of swarm intelligence. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The Fish Article
Hi, I would like to bring this to your attention & get your input on it.(Link Below) With this in mind. I would like to look forward to collaberating and creating accurate content and building this article up.
 * Link below
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spot_croaker#Response_to_Reliable_Sources
 * I do not feel that we should argue over the article and not make progress to correct it.

Cheatspace (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fish diseases and parasites, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ich. 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) 08:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Gordon Bridson
We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Gordon Bridson (created back in 2008), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/5b41/bridson-gordon, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Gordon Bridson and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Gordon Bridson, in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Gordon Bridson. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the material is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Gordon Bridson with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Gordon Bridson saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!  Schwede 66  17:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The matter is being addressed here. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Good on you. I looked at the article for assessment, came across some British orders (which I'm also working on), read his DNZB entry to figure out what exactly was awarded when, and thought that sounded rather much the same. Thanks for going back to it to fix it up.  Schwede 66  23:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in
Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:


 * Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
 * Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see HighBeam/Citations
 * Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Salmon as food
I will keep WP:ENGVAR but I have moved the images of salmon dishes into the newly added gallery for images (rather than the collapsible table). The way it was formatted previously, the nutritional table was pushing dead space between the article and the list of salmon dishes, so I moved closer to the beginning of the article. I also went through and reviewed/updated the refs. Please let me know if you disagree with my edits before reverting them. Cheers (Skoot13 (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC))

Recent edit to Seashell
You seem to have accidentally reverted to a vandalized version, so I've un-reverted. DemocraticLuntz (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks --Epipelagic (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thermoregulation in fish
Hi. I thought you might be interested in this. Rather ground-breaking in fish physiology perhaps. A little busy (!) to make edits at the minute, but will return to it. DrChrissy (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

RS, MEDRS, the Biodiversity article
There are three things I think you should know about that edit of mine you just reverted: the claim that you re-inserted into the Biodiversity article is WP:EXTRAORDINARY, the source you're using is WP:PRIMARY, and the manner in which this made it into Wikipedia in the first place is somewhat mysterious. I haven't seen the guideline that says we ignore source quality in all non-medical articles. Geogene (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: red links in navboxes
Lockley, would you accept a revised red link guideline that requires a minimum of three blue links to existing stand-alone articles or lists, with at least 50% of all included links being blue, coupled with the clarification of the existing "succession" and "complete set" exceptions? Personally, I think that would be an extremely reasonable compromise, and if I can get 10 committed supporters, I'm ready to start lobbying previous !voters (not a violation of WP:CANVASS) in favor of compromise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

collective animal behaviour
Hi Epipelagic,

It was indeed rubbish, thanks for deleting it! I found another link http://www.math.chalmers.se/~olleh/U18.pdf however Google Translate will not translate it.

I hope yr revert was for the best reasons (bec it was rubbish and not bec you're not npov).

The criticism in the Swedish reference may be better. But seriously, you have to admit that the existing subject of collective animal behaviour is considered rubbish by a majority of practising zoologists and mathematicians, considered to be based on the shallow and discredited 'systems theory.'

That is, as you know, engineering talk or geo-engineering talk, and the proponent at Chalmers writes "my primary vision for the future is the further use of technology and mathematics for finally doing ‘systems biology’. "

OK so what do you advise, myself going on a single-handed intellectual quest to learn all this stuff? I wish you'd left that stub in place. Comment please Createangelos (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

PS I have to say, I was a little apprehensive seeing in recent talk page discussions that someone accused you of thinking that rivers constitute swarm intelligence -- but was quite reassured to learn that the idea is that nature can bring advances to the subject of computer science, not the other way around. Well done, I'm genuinely impressed. So now how about some comments about how to proceed with the fact that 'collective animal behaviour' promotes what seems to be a single theory and is missing any criticism section....Createangelos (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I have replied to this on the article's talk page --Epipelagic (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement
You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement'' arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement'' arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

Fishing
Re the fishing pages, I was restoring text that had vanished. Its clearly germane to an article on fishing trawlers to explain the history of their development including important aspects such as advent of steam power that were previously missing. I don't understand what your objection to this material is.Noodleki (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It was okay when you added some material to History of fishing. Well done. It is not okay to then duplicate the same material in Fishing, Fishing trawler and Fishing vessel. I haven't removed your duplication in the Fishing article, though I should. That article is a summary overview of the entire field of fishing, and your addition there is undue. That was previously a balanced article. It is now unbalanced, and carries far too much emphasis on the material you added compared to everything else. Yes, I most definitely removed the same material when you (repeatedly) inserted it on Fishing trawler and Fishing vessel. That is going too far. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * People like you really encourage others to edit here, don't they. Was it 'okay' and 'Well done' to comprehensively improve the state of the History of fishing article from the total mess it was in previously? How very magnanimous of you. You are not explaining why material on the history of the fishing trawler is 'unbalanced'. If you think it's too long then I will happily, and with great joy, abridge the material. Then we can all be happy.Noodleki (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @User talk:Noodleki I think you should be very careful about the tone you are using here. Sarcasm rarely comes across well on WP - try reading Sarcasm is really helpful.  Editors have different styles of writing and communicating.  Some gush with pleasantries, others are more stoic with their words. Epipelagic is a highly respected editor with considerable experience.  All editors should be treated with respect. DrChrissy (talk) 12:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Could I be treated with respect?Noodleki (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back!
RL tends to get it the way, as does WP drama. I missed your moments of collaboration (both supportive and otherwise), and your exceptional work and oversight on WP fish articles. I'm sorry I couldn't pick up the slack, but my work is currently under attack. It seems I have a COI with fish. Atsme 📞📧 19:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Why thank you Atsme, though I haven't really been away, just dilatory. It's hard to see the point of bothering given the way people behave on this site. I hope your current issues are allowed to resolve in a more spacious and less confrontational manner than seems to be happening so far. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

ANI closure
Hi Epi - I have just seen the closure of the genuine question I raised at ANI - I feel the tone of the closure totally vindicates the comment you left there and just further supports the uncivil editing some editors seem to delight in. What a farce that place is. DrChrissy (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I think it is an error to expect civility issues to be addressed, and you may be on a hiding to nowhere if you keep thinking that is going to happen. My own attitude is summed up well here. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit on Chinese fishing nets
Ref. my edit on Chinese fishing nets, it was done as per advice from another experienced editor like you (please see here). His advice was, ''They also do not need collapsed=no. If two or more templates are found, default is to collapse them all. If only one is found, it should be uncollapsed''. Guess I have clarified my action.--jojo@nthony (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That was not optimal advice because your template defaulted to "expanded". I have replied on your talk page. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Heads up
Hi - as far as I can see your presence at the CCD article Talk page is personalized and WP:GANG-related (you got involved starting at DrChrissy's Talk page, criticizing me and arguing against me). I know DrChrissy is unhappy with me. He already got himself topic-banned after following me into a topic and editing in a disruptive way there. I warned him on his Talk page about pursuing conflict with me further into other articles, and he is doing so anyway. I don't know how this will all shake out, but I suggest that you consider carefully what you are doing. If the same thing happens here as happened with acupuncture, he will face more editing restrictions, and to the extent you have been encouraging him or making the kinds of arguments you are making at CCD, you may face them too. Anyway, see you on the article Talk page.Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a chilling and threatening post Jytdog. --Epipelagic (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Epi, it's a shame you have decided to withdraw from the discussion, but I can certainly understand your reasons.  I'm sure you will find a less ugly place to contribute to the project. DrChrissy (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Your edits at Template_talk:Meat
Thanks buddy for adding that last comment back to the discussion. --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Common fish 2
Template:Common fish 2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coarse fishing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grayling. 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) 12:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Question
Good afternoon, E!! - Did you see the following: Atsme 📞📧 17:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit of self propelled particles
Hi,

the previous page on self-propelled particles was far too limited. The topic ranges far beyond the Vicsek model, locust or birds. We will keep the previous references to these systems but for the general audience, a complete overview of the field of self-propelled particles would be very useful.

Best,

Happy Boson Happy boson (talk) 08:09, 23 September 2015 (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. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Epipelagic. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Just a heads up the NPOV has been reinstated for the fish pain page, as the template should only be removed whenever any one of the following is true: 1.	There is consensus on the talk page or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved. 2.	It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. 3.	In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

As none of these criteria have been met, the notice stays until we sort this out. Professor Pelagic (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

hi
hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.184.158.48 (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

EotW nominations
Hello. Hope all is well. Can you do me and WER a great favor and keep your eyes peeled for potential "Editors of the Week". Some of your previous candidates (you have nominated a dozen) have achieved great things here at WP. I just want to be sure we don't run out of accepted candidates in a few weeks...which could happen. I also invite any of your friendly stalkers (from the looks of your talk, a rather discerning crew) to consider a "pat on the back" for any editors they might know about. Thanks. Buster Seven   Talk  16:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you not noticed Buster? The twilight of the content builders is dimming terminally as the era of vainglorious administrative grandees dawns in a blaze of their self-generated light. The wishes of the Wikipedia founder are being realized. Committed content builders who dare speak out are being cast into outer darkness. The great love and warmth of the founder's regard is enveloping the new elect and the agenda-driven social networkers who gather around them. WER has run its course. Kupdung indicated that a while back when he queried why WER was not handing out awards to people like himself. WER needs reformulating and renaming, perhaps to something like Wikipedia Administrator Real Topdogs. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * More than a WART, Civil Administrators Nullify Content Editor Retention (CANCER). IHTS (talk) 23:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yea...Well...WER may have run its course but I still have the keys to the front door and I am trying to keep the lights on as long as possible. But, I agree. The place is lonely. Except for EotW, nothing is happening. Whether you know it or not, Kudpung and I don't see eye to eye. Maybe its because of his vaunted position in the scheme of things or maybe its the high-heeled shoes. I don't know. If you go to WP:LOC you will find the Collective AdMin Cabal which I uncovered years ago. I do know about the chastised content builder that has been ostracized and it saddens me. He was one of the recipients for the award you know!. Ihardlythinkso, also! I don't wear silk robes nor do I have satin slippers. I'm just a regular guy trying to spread some "pats-on-the-backs" to content creating editors you may never have even heard of. Until Dennis asks for the keys, I'll keep doin' what I'm doin'.  Buster Seven   Talk  00:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015 newsletter
– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 23:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: Tryptofish discussion
I completely agree with your red pill explanation and I think you have a good handle on the problem. But just like in The Matrix, few people could handle going down the rabbit hole. I think Trypto felt like you were attacking him for his arbcom opinion, and he's pretty sensitive about such things. I think you're correct about Kudpung, but there are several differert ways to make your point without directly attacking Trypto. For example, you could have informed him that according to Kudpung's absurd recall criteria, Trypto is no longer allowed to participate in the recall process. Of course, criticizing Kudpung is like shooting fish in a barrel, so it's not very sporting. This is a guy who claimed, quite unbelievably, that the Wifione case was a good reason to keep the tools bundled and adminship as high a bar as possible in the very face of evidence that showed otherwise. Wifione was able to get away with mischief for five years precisely because adminship is an elite process that protects and rallies around its own. If the tools had been debundled, Wifione would have been desysopped at the first sign of trouble. Trypto probably isn't aware of any of this or Kudpung's hilarious recall page, which is literally designed to prevent anyone from recalling him! Go read it if you don't believe me. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Only a master buffoon could produce Kudpung's recall page. He places what must be a record 22 restrictions on any attempts at participating in his recall, and then delivers the coup de grâce to any remaining attempts at holding him accountable:
 * Note: I reserve the right to strike or delete any post or part of a post that I consider irrelevant, uncivil, or piling-on 'as per'.
 * I'm disappointed at Trypto's seeming indifference and at his or her provocative suppression of objective and demonstrable fact, claiming as a rationale that it is a "personal attack". The context is the election of arbitrators. If we do not have the freedom normally extended in democratic societies to examine the behaviour of election candidates, then our election process is an even greater disgrace than I thought. I can only assume Trypto's energy is focussed on being an apparatchik here, and that he or she is trying to smooth the way towards an RfA. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I fully understand his personal rationale. I've spent a lot of time getting in his head. :-) As he makes clear in his introductory comments to the thread, he is trying to avoid all drama, attacks on admins and arbs, and off-topic discussion.  Believe you me, he has removed lots of my comments in the past, so I know how you feel.  Still, I really get the sense you understand the problem better than others, and I'm impressed.  It's a good feeling to know that I'm not living in my own private Idaho. I want to discuss this with you further, but I have to finish up several GA's right now. I want you to know how much I appreciate your perspective and it definitely brightened up my day to know I wasn't alone. Viriditas (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Nice. I just saw this, but no one told me about it. In case no one noticed, the place where those comments that I "hatted" were, was in a discussion that has nothing to do with my election voter guide. If you are worried about losing content editors, you can worry about losing me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I sure as shit am not interested in becoming an apparatchik. Nor do I want other editors talking to me like I am one, or calling me one behind my back. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And if anyone doesn't like my voter guide, then you can disregard it when you vote, or even write a guide of your own, but you don't need to beat up on me over it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparatchik! I think you're taking this way too seriously, dude. You have every right to be concerned about running for admin, and I think both Epipelagic and myself would end up voting for you. Our concern about Kudpung and your opinion about him isn't really all that important.  We disagree, that's all. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you have reacted this way Tryptofish. Viriditas started the thread here after you hatted and suppressed our attempts to discuss things with you on your talk page. I did consider pinging you, but then realized it was inappropriate given your clear indication that you had no interest in such a discussion. I wouldn't have attempted to engage you on your user guide if I didn't respect your opinion. If you felt my comments were in the wrong place, and if you respected my opinion, you could have relocated them further on in its own thread. As Viriditas indicated, we could agree to disagree, though reaching that point can require open discussion. I apologize for speculating on your motive. That was unnecessary. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And let me say both thank you and my own apologies to both of you, Epipelagic and Viriditas. Epipelagic, what you just said was most reasonable and I appreciate it. Rather obviously, I'm having a tough period of time these days, and I was very sensitive to what I saw. (Viriditas said something above, albeit facetiously, about getting inside my head. Believe me, you don't want to go in there, although I'm sincerely flattered that anyone would care. If you knew what my psychiatrist knows, you'd be horrified. So please understand that I have some reasons to be sensitive.) Viriditas, I'm not running for anything in the foreseeable future, nor was I before the block. I'm not into hat collecting (no reference to the hat template {). Epipelagic, you are right in what you say about which talk threads would be appropriate about it. Here's why I reacted the way that I did. In talking about Kudpung, you are talking about a candidate for ArbCom, but not about a present-day member of ArbCom. Obviously, then, he played no role in my block. It is illogical to discuss him as part of some sort of overall meta-process that led to my block. If you want to disagree with me about my voter guide, that's no problem, but it does not belong as part of the discussion about my block. Not only are those two different things, but I have a very serious interest in how I present the informal poll I am conducting. Any one editor making sweeping comments about how bad all admins are will offend ten more editors who otherwise would have been helpful to me. I have a big talk page, so I have every right to make just one section of it, the section containing the informal poll, a rant-free zone. Now I know that what I just said goes hand-in-hand with the undeniable fact that other editors disagree with me about the entrenched cultures of Wikipedia. But, well, we disagree, that's all.


 * So let me answer here some of what I think you were asking me about Kudpung and those other things that I think are unrelated to my block. I haven't looked at anyone's recall pages. No matter how recall is constructed, it's a meaningless process. It's always a rigged system, and it only differs from one admin to another in the extent to which it is rigged. Please remember that I was the public face and punching bag of WP:CDARFC. We don't have a good system, and no admin's recall page will fix that. And it's fine if you disagree with me about my voter guide recommendations. But I am not going to change them. You should just vote however you wish to vote, and create a competing guide if you feel like it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * And this would not be complete without my saying thank you for that helpful reversion at AN. Much appreciated! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I gather you don't want me to comment on your talk page about your block Trypto, because you think I am an editor who makes "sweeping comments about how bad all admins are". So I won't. However that is just not true. I have repeatedly stated there are many fine admins, and have probably given more barnstars to deserving admins than to content builders. The view that I "tar all admins with the same brush" is a lie persistently repeated by Kudpung, presumable on the principal that the more he repeats the lie the more it will be believed. I'm dismayed you apparently believe Kudpung's attacks. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please let me clarify. All that I "don't want" on my talk is comments in the section about the informal poll that appear to me to be about things other than what I ask in the informal poll. You are very, very welcome at my talk, to say anything you want in any other talk section. And nothing that I said about editors at my talk page has anything to do with anything Kudpung said. It's about what I said. I'm not familiar with any conflicts between Kudpung and you, and none of that played any role in my thinking. But I certainly wish you well. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that clarification :) --Epipelagic (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I guess it just goes to show, my voter guide obviously did not determine all of the outcome. Which, in hindsight, is OK with me. All the best, --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Why?
Do you have idea why Kudpung ran at all? I don't think there was good-faith re chances of being elected. So my theory is somehow he gets off on disputatious confrontation w/ perceived enemies. (Which would explain other edits I've seen of his, for example practically howling to the moon to draw combatants as he was stomping out of WP:Editor Retention, and none came.) IHTS (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Kudpung is an admin's admin, deeply committed to further enhancing admin powers and dignity regardless of the cost to content builders. He stormed out of WP:Editor Retention because it is the last organised place on Wikipedia where content builders can receive recognition. He was enraged that they were giving content builders awards instead of admins like himself. To fellow admins Kudpung is a warm, hail-well-met friend with a good heart, but his tone can change very sharply if he discovers he is communicating with a member of the content building caste. By his own testimony he is a retired teacher of 11-year olds, which seems to be how he views content builders. He thinks content builders should be seen only by their works, and otherwise are not entitled to opinions. In particular, any criticism of the admin system by a lowly content builder is a personal affront to all admins. He explained recently that admins are a special breed who should keep to their own kind. I expect Kudpung will be elected, because there are enough admins committed to his vision of the admin as grandee to ensure that will happen. Wikipedia has become a place where committed content builders experience much unnecessary suffering, and that suffering will intensify if Kudpung has his way. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you're right - a career can have impact how one deals w/ outside world. (It explains why Kudpung occasionally finds a teen RfA candidate outstanding ... I'm sure there were occasionally remarkable kids in his classes.) I personally can't imagine the election could be successful for him (how more self-destructive could he have conducted his Q & A?!). He seems to think if he hasn't abused his tools his admin badge is shiny. But that's just reflection on the high bar to desysop. Another reason this is so bizarre for me ... the prejudice is so blatant & undeniable - how is it that there seems to be no care re reputation, especially when one has previously self-identified?! IHTS (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I hope you've both seen this high strangeness. I feel sorry for the guy. He just doesn't get the problem with his continuous stream of personal attacks (that page is full of them), and he holds bizarre beliefs that I cannot begin to understand. He thinks, for example, that it is perfectly normal to hate teachers. That's a very strange belief. In my entire educational career, I probably disliked four teachers, mostly due to their style, but I would never in a million years describe my dislike as "hatred". While I fully understand that this gentleman comes from a different era where teachers were encouraged to act like little dictators and tyrants, it is 2015 the last time I checked. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, I recall there was one teacher in my early days who wanted his students to hate him, and he literally acted like a tyrant in class, banging desks with a heavy pointer and raising his voice. The thing is, it had the complete opposite effect, and everyone loved him to tears because he really cared about his students and it showed in his firm, but half-serious approach. Kudpung seems to have really lost his way. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Kudpung is not a real problem... the real problems arise from the way the system is structured. It is this structure that allows admins like Kudpung the leeway to disempower and inflict gratuitous pain on serious content builders. A successful campaign that opposed Kudpung would achieve nothing, since it would leave the underlying system untouched. Better to vote for and encourage the Kudpungs, so the systemic dysfunction can continue maturing at an optimal rate. It's a waste of time trying to change anything from within the system. Better to work outside it. For example, I am currently transcribing this well-articulated talk (starts at 4h 36m and runs for 42m), given a few weeks ago at WikiConference USA 2015. In this presentation, a prominent physician enumerates some problems Wikipedia presents to academically competent content builders, and suggests some directions in which solutions may evolve. He suggests that professional bodies outside Wikipedia can over time offer alternatives which Wikipedia, if it values its currently privileged position, will need to act upon. Yes the janitorial work that maintenance workers like Kudpung undertake are valuable and important. But the claustrophobic and myopic views that maintenance workers like Kudpung express about content building cannot be allowed to control and restrict the growth of Wikipedia for too long. At the moment, the tail wags the dog, and maintenance workers and populist social networkers are allowed excessive control of content building and consequently the substantive development of the encyclopedia.
 * Wikipedia is not the possession of Jimbo Wales and administrators like Kudpung. It was built by the content builders. It is the foremost repository of open source information for the world. If Wikipedia is to retain that privileged status, then eventually it is going to have to refine its control of content building and give some dignity back to the content builders. External professional bodies around the world will ensure that as they start to grapple with the increasingly inadequate and incompetent manner in which the Wikipedia administration currently addresses these issues. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well said, especially re: the tail wagging the dog. - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I should have mentioned, that we cannot change Kudpung. In another decade he will be as old as I am. And we cannot prevent other janitors and wannabe janitors and social networkers from supporting him. So I suggest just accepting Kudpung, and maybe celebrating him as the almost perfect expression and consequence of having a system where the janitor not only rules but makes up the rules. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Epi - just wanted to commend you for the following statement: "It was built by the content builders. It is the foremost repository of open source information for the world. If Wikipedia is to retain that privileged status, then eventually it is going to have to refine its control of content building and give some dignity back to the content builders." Kudos. Hope it's ok if I quote you from time to time in the future. 😊 Atsme 📞📧 19:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * In any case, the mass mail-out means the arbcom election results will be more random this year. There's an interesting thread here. Whether Kudpung is elected or not will be more like the roll of a die. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It's that time of year....

 * Thank you Atsme. You are very kind. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

HMNZS Canterbury
I don't know how to cite a video showing HMNZS Canterbury entering habour with her 4x .05 cal you can clearly see them all 4 atop the bridge when she is entering the harbour ... I have also toured the ship and seen them... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=090NZ-ZcXrE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.59.162 (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree it does look like four guns on the YouTube video. Still, that's not what the Navy says on their official web page for the ship (see bottom left), and you cannot cite the video as a reliable source. Can you find a report somewhere which says the ship upgunned? This discussion would be better recorded on the article's talk page, so I have moved it there. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The Navy don't update their page that often (one of those annoyances)... ie; before the old HMNZS Canterbury was paid off, according to them it never had PHALANX Close In Weapon System according their website at the time it still had seacat... The site will probably never get that updated saying they now have 4 .05 cal and it will probably never get mentioned as it is such a minor thing. It is not really classed as up gunned either, as they are have probably always carried that many but in the passed on had the 2 mounts.

As for MASS Decoy some odd reason you are saying I edited it. "No I did not", However I do know we are getting the MASS Decoy system when the two frigates are up-graded starting next year but I didn't edit any page. Every time I log on to the net I get a different IP address??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.59.162 (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it. It must a coincidence with other people using the same IP address (that happens). If the Navy can't be bothered to maintain accurate information on their own official web pages then the corresponding Wikipedia article can't be expected to be accurate either. The policy on Wikipedia is that statements of fact should be verified by citing reliable sources. That's about the best that can be done. Normally a Navy's official web pages would be regarded as reliable sources. If the official pages are unreliable then the Navy is the problem, which is not something Wikipedia can fix. If, on the other hand, you can find an independent reliable source documenting the unreliability of the Navy web site, then that could be reported on Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

A search for Septima Clarke (mispelled) redirects to We Shall Overcome when it should redirect to Septima Clark. I mistakenly overwrote We Shall Overcome while trying to correct the redirect. I immediately undid my mistake, but I see it automatically undid it anyway. I'll figure it out soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelphious (talk • contribs) 11:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Fixed now. 206.248.175.112 (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Epipelagic: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 23:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
 * Thank you, and the same to you. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Golden Galen barnstar
I hereby gift to you this barnstar for your any contributions to the general field of anatomy on Wikipedia. We might not always agree, but I want to let you know that your contributions, especially towards animal anatomy, are recognised and appreciated :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Tom. That is a totally unexpected surprise! --Epipelagic (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)