User talk:Epipelagic/Archive 9

Teleost
Thanks for deciding to join. Would you be able to work on "Development and growth"? LittleJerry (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well perhaps, but I'm not sure so far about this rewrite. I have difficulties with the idea that you can pick out teleosts and write extensively about them without at the same time attending equally to the complementary and balancing material for bony and ray-finned fish, etc. Teleosts need to be firmly put in context. It's not like writing an article about a species. You are talking here about most of the aquatic vertebrates and nearly half of all vertebrate species. This means there is enormous diversity amongst teleosts, though focusing on diversity too much is not going to give a good sense of what a teleost is. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

"pescatarianism" vs. "pescetarianism"
Hi Epipelagic. I've replied to this discussion on Talk:Pescetarianism. Cheers. --Rekkss (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Another barnstar

 * That's very nice of you. Thank you. Yes, we are screwing ourselves, that and on another hundred other upcoming issues. There is an article specifically on that particular issue. Gives perspective to editing Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Six years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Cavefish vs. template
Just wonder about cavefish in the template here. It looking at the Cavefish article, it easily matches or surpasses several of the templates other habitat articles in quality and it has high quality references throughout (compare that to Coldwater fish, Tropical fish, Freshwater fish and Groundfish; that's almost half the articles under habitat). It is definitely also a distinct habitat. Could you provide a good argument for its removal? Regards, 62.107.218.185 (talk) 15:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops... that was an inadvertent deletion, and I have reinstated your addition. I meant only to edit the group heading for "habitat". Cavefish most certainly belongs on the template, and you've done an excellent job creating the article. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your replies and the star. It's appreciated. Yes, both IPs are me. If you see a fish article edited by IP 62.107..., there's a good chance it's me. I sometimes edit other animal-related articles, but that's pretty much it. I may well have 10K+ edits by now? It's a dynamic IP and changes every few days, but the first five numbers usually stay the same (if it can be controlled somehow, it's beyond my capabilities). Since I only care about editing articles –I try hard to avoid wiki politics– I've not bothered with the hassle of setting up a "proper" account.
 * I've left a reply @User talk:62.107.218.229 (if you have further comments on that, please leave them over there). Thanks, 62.107.218.185 (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

William Lane Craig
Why did you revert?

“The Kalam Cosmological Argument, as it is presented by William Lane Craig who is best known for using it and defending it, is first and foremost a piece of philosophy that represents no particular (or single) world religion and over which there is intense debate.”

If you agree with the statement above, and there is no reason not to unless you have the ulterior motive of wanting people to dismiss the idea that William Lane Craig is firstly a philosopher, it is clear for the following reasons that, whatever else William Lane Craig is, he is best known as a philosopher.

1. We can't use the adjective Christian because the argument itself does not represent any single world religion. We are talking about an individual argument, not his cumulative set of arguments that include discussion of the Resurrection and what we know about it (for which there is a veritable crowd of scholars such as Bart Ehrman). He is less well known for defending the other arguments he defends such as fine tuning teleological arguments for a designer of the universe. I agree the whole is 'Christian apologetics' (after all the 'whole' contains arguments for the Resurrection of Jesus) but we are talking about an individual part considered separately from the whole, not the whole.

2. Apologist, without the word Christian, just means that William Lane Craig defends the concluding position of the Kalam argument (that the universe has a cause of its existence) in philosophy. That tells people nothing new as they already know philosophers often do that with specific positions in intense debates over various philosophical arguments.

3. The idea that the universe has a largely indeterminate cause of its existence is clearly one, first and more foremost belonging to philosophy, not Christian apologetics.Col8lok8 (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter – March 2016
– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter – April 2016
– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Relevant template?
Hi. This template is relevant to Breaking wave, as I know. But its link doesn't exist in template. Link must be added to template or tp removed from article? Mahdy Saffar  14:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Although breaking waves frequently occur along coastal areas, a breaking wave is not in itself a coastal land form. Strictly, the template should be removed from the article (though it's not a big issue). --Epipelagic (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ekso logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Ekso logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --unsigned BabyJonas (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Editor of the Week&thinsp;: nominations needed!
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven   Talk  for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Chinook salmon
I, of course, would completely disagree that the images I added in my good-faith-edit to the Chinook salmon article "don't really add anything". In fact, these images add far more to the article than the group of generic images there. They are also placed in context-relevant sections dealing with; the life-cycle of this salmonoid, the harvesting in the last century, the Alaskan aboriginal fishing. I'm surprised anyone with knowledge of this subject and Wikipedia article improvement would decide to revert the edit. The short reason you gave does not really do justice to what is considered best practice in documenting a reverted edit. To quote: ''A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. The result will be an improved article, a more knowledgeable editor and greater harmony.''

I hope this will either assist in explaining your action in more detail than a personal opinion, or to just undo the revert.

Thank you in advance. 72.234.220.38 (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your interest. The images shown in the article should be chosen because they are of reasonable quality and because they illustrate and clarify points that are made in the body of the article. There are |%22Oncorhynchus+tshawytscha%22|%22king+salmon%22|%22Quinnat+salmon%22|%22spring+salmon%22&biw=1602&bih=1001&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjM6cLBr6nMAhViE6YKHehpALQQ_AUIBigA&dpr=0.9 over 700 images relating to Chinook salmon on commons, so it is not just a matter of arbitrarily adding further images you happen to find. If you had examined my edit properly, you would have noticed that I didn't remove the historic image of native Americans holding what may be a Chinook salmon. But I did remove the very grainy and unclear image captioned "landing an 18lb Quinnat Salmon in the Rakaia River - 1920". What is the point of adding that image to the article? You can hardly claim I have a negative bias, since the image is from an area where I have lived most of my life. Likewise, I removed the image of "dead post-spawn Chinook". The image is of very poor quality and does not blow up to show any real detail. There is a more appropriate image here. Nor is adding that the dead salmon happen to be on the Palena River in Patagonia relevant to a general article on Chinook. A user talk page, like this one, is not the place to discuss content issues like this. If you want to discuss the matter further, please continue on the article's talk page. Regards. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. I've chosen to not continue this on the the article's talk page as I'll leave the edit at the current status-quo. The images were not chosen arbitrarily from the commons, they were chosen to specifically bolster the visual & education value of this article.  I had noted that you did leave the "historic image of native Americans holding what may be a Chinook salmon."  (Common visual clues should remove the word "may".  That size & shape of salmon can only be reached by Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha.)  As to the NZ Quinnat image, I'll yield to your "local jurisdiction" on this, though, it was placed in the article section discussing the placement of Chinook in NZ.  Some detail may be better than none when no other image is available.  Which applies equally to the third image you mention.  This was the only commons image of the often seen decaying carcasses of Chinook post-spawn - no matter what river it may be.  There is not "a more appropriate image here".  The salmon species in that image is of Oncorhynchus nerka or "red salmon" as called in Alaska where this photo was taken (but word is that nerka transplants in the last century failed in NZ, so you get a pass on that Smiley.svg).  Perhaps a better image will show up or be sourced, one can hope.  I do thank you for the "Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay" note you sent.  I feel that since I've been editing articles here for at least as long as you have, I'll decide to stay.  I just chose to not "become a Wikipedian and create an account", a choice quite a few very talented editors have also decided to make.  Keep working to make Wikipedia better as I myself do Symbol thumbs up color.svg. Regards. 72.234.220.38 (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation looking for input on Environmental Science student guidebook
Hi there! The Wiki Education Foundation is looking for community input on an upcoming print brochure for US and Canadian university students. The handbook focuses on editing Environmental Science topics on Wikipedia. I wanted to make sure you were aware, and felt invited to make some suggestions. If you're willing, you can read the proposed document here. Thanks! --Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

NZ animal welfare legislation
Hi Epi - yes, I wasn't able to stay away too long! ;-) I have been working on writing a Pain in cephalopods article (it is in my sandbox if you want to look at it).  I was rather surprised to see that the NZ law on animal welfare seems to protect octopuses and squids, but not cuttlefish and nautiluses.  I have been using this reference, scroll down and click on the version "as at 09 November 2015", and go to page 11 (the top) where the protected animals are defined.  Am I interpreting this correctly?  It seems rather an unusual dichotomy.  I could understand the nautiluses perhaps being left out because of their very different brain structure, but I really do not understand why the cuttlefish would be considered distinct from the octopuses and squid. Any help would be much appreciated.  DrChrissy (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Template default
Eh? The normal template default is simple autocollapse, which works perfectly with nothing in the template header. The aquatic one had really peculiar behaviour, which I switched off, so it behaved normally in the presence of other templates. If you know another way to make it do that, fine - the simplest is just to let it be like everything else, and it's certainly the least tricky. Rationale: the template should collapse completely when any other template is present. Currently, part of it sticks open regardless, pretty horrid. Hope that's enough rationale for you - I look forward to seeing it fixed, or let me know if I can do it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Very odd. I supplied a title (same as the template's name), and this both fixed the missing buttons issue, and straightened out the odd behaviour automatically. I suspect that having subsidiary templates for components must cause stay-open behaviour unless the parent has default, and that happens if there is a default title, but it's not fathomable without more delving into template geekdom than is healthy. I'm glad it fixed itself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion you might be interested in
Hi. I thought you might be interested in discussion at Talk:Duck (food) about whether this should be moved to Duck as food along with other similarly named articles - I think you have offered thoughts on this before. I'm not canvassing here because I still have not made my mind up (and I have not voted), but I do know we should try to achieve consistency across WP. All the best. DrChrissy (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Consciousness vs. awareness
I think it is common sense, not original research, that consciousness is a state that precedes awareness. Consciousness is the readiness for receiving information, awareness exists after receiving information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:8780:A082:D19F:3CF6:8BF9:37CE (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, it can be annoying if you are certain something is true, and even a matter of "common sense", but you cannot source it. But perhaps the most important core policy on Wikipedia is that any content you add to an article must be verifiable, that is, it must be possible to cite it with reliable sources. If you add content you cannot verify then you are said to be engaged in original research. There may be some sense in which consciousness can said to precede awareness, but it is not good enough to add that to an article just because the user operating from the IP 2804:14C:8780:A082:D19F:3CF6:8BF9:37CE says so. Not just on my say so either, or just on the say so of any other editor on Wikipedia. Our main task as Wikipedia editors is to find reliable published sources for any content we add. Given that consciousness is an issue that has for a long time exercised many prominent philosophers and scientists, you would need to source your statement to distinctly notable academic philosophers or neuroscientists. --Epipelagic (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Please don't be annoyed with my comment on the inaccuracy of the definition in the article. As common sense is not good enough, one could perhaps refer to Aristotle's distinction between act and potency as a "reliable source". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:8780:A082:D19F:3CF6:8BF9:37CE (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I was commiserating with your annoyance, I didn't say I was annoyed. The problem is one person's common sense can be another's consternation, so it's no good vaguely waving your hands and saying it is "common sense" if someone else doesn't agree. In the 21st century, Aristotle is a reliable source about Aristotle only. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Mind you, Aristotle does not count as a "distinctly notable academic philosopher" any more, only those that, "since the time of Descartes and Locke, have struggled to comprehend the nature of consciousness". Not annoying, funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:8780:A082:D19F:3CF6:8BF9:37CE (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, you are continuing to make up rather childish stuff and apparently interested only in trying to take the piss, so I am finished here. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC).

"consciousness corresponds to the capacity of a system to integrate information", that is to say that consciousness is the readiness for receiving information. Reliable source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC543470/ If you agree, I'll edit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:8780:A082:8D38:5779:CC:6168 (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you wish to discuss an edit, this should be done at the article's Talk page, rather than at a single editor's talk page. This ensures it receives the attention of all editors interested in the article.  Please take your suggestion there. DrChrissy (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, if you have sources and specific proposals please discuss them at Talk:Consciousness --Epipelagic (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: Shark finning
Hi Epi,

You mentioned this edit here. My thinking was that these are also isues related to marine environmental issues in East Asia. I realized they weren't directly related to sharks, but seeing that a link to crab fishing practices was also included, that's why I included these. I understand if you see these as irrelevant. 27.115.113.102 (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are not relevant. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter (August 2016)
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fly fishing waters
Template:Fly fishing waters has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Plantdrew (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Re:John Key edits
It was not my intention to remove that sentence in the first place; I accidentally removed it again because I began editing before you reverted me. I apologise for any confusion. I intend to incorporate the 'controversy' section into the larger 'Prime Minister' section. I will be reinserting the sentence. -- Hazhk (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter: September 2016
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marine invertebrates, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phyla. 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) 09:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18
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.


 * Marine invertebrates
 * added a link pointing to Mya


 * Marine life
 * added a link pointing to Mya

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Newsletter: October 2016
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Great job!
I think your Template:Microorganisms is pretty great. Best Regards,
 * Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks --Epipelagic (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter: November 2016
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Revert
"Thanks" for your kind words in Eel. I fully accept disagreements and calls for discusssions, but I'm less inclined to appreciate when edits are called "nonsense". I even linked to WP:REDYES. Not my mistake that someone decided to make the redirects, as Congroidei≠Anguilliformes, Nemichthyoidei≠Anguilliformes. I presume we agree on that but if you want to defend your comment that they're "self-referential" (≈equal≈synonymous) I certainly do look forward to seeing your refs for that. Regardless, you'd think that someone with as many edits as you would know the general view on hostility, like calling edits nonsense simply because you disagree. You may consider how you'd respond if someone did that to an edit of yours, and may also want to check WP:BITE (newcomers) and WP:Etiquette (everybody). Even if there had been very little to add it would at least be possible to make temporary "list-like" articles for Congroidei and Nemichthyoidei, exactly like Anguilloidei (another suborder of Anguilliformes), Clupeinae (vs. Clupeidae; guess who made Clupeinae) and many others. I can only assume you'll redirect those soon, as they presumably appear nonsensical to you. I had planned on making larger additions to those eely suborders today (bringing them beyond "list-like" format), as a new paper that resolves some of the earlier uncertainty via broader genetic sampling was published last month. Instead I got to waste my time on this "nonsense", which you're obviously welcome to revert. Happy editing. 80.62.116.239 (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your comment does not belong here. If it belongs anywhere, it is on Talk:Eel. The links you made were, in context, self-referential. That is, when you click on them they reopen the same page you are already on, the eel page. That is pointless, perhaps even disrespectful of the reader. Continuing to make such a fuss about this is nonsense. --Epipelagic (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Science ref desk
Hi. There is a question on the Science reference desk Reference desk/Science that might interest you. DrChrissy (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead paragraphs in "Shrimp" article
Hi Epipelagic — I've made another attempt at fixing up the style of the lead paragraphs in Shrimp. Before my edit just now, the first two paragraphs read:


 * The term shrimp is used to refer to some decapod crustaceans, although the exact animals covered can vary. Used broadly, it may cover any of the groups with elongated bodies and a primarily swimming mode of locomotion – most commonly Caridea and Dendrobranchiata. In some fields, however, the term is used more narrowly, and may be restricted to Caridea, to smaller species of either group, or to only the marine species. Under the broader definition, shrimp may be synonymous with prawn, covering stalk-eyed swimming crustaceans with long narrow muscular tails (abdomens), long whiskers (antennae), and slender legs. They swim forward by paddling with swimmerets on the underside of their abdomens. Crabs and lobsters have strong walking legs, whereas shrimp have thin fragile legs which they use primarily for perching.


 * Shrimp are widespread and abundant. They can be found feeding near the seafloor on most coasts and estuaries, as well as in rivers and lakes. To escape predators, some species flip off the seafloor and dive into the sediment. They usually live from one to seven years. Shrimp are often solitary, though they can form large schools during the spawning season. There are thousands of species adapted to a wide range of habitats. Any small crustacean which resembles a shrimp tends to be called one.

I had previously removed the highlighted sentence, but you restored it. I said in my edit summary that the sentence was "out of place"; upon reverting it you said that this deletion was "incomprehensible". Here's my reasoning for why the sentence is out of place, and why I originally deleted it:
 * 1) The sentence is about the use of the name "shrimp", but it comes at the end of a paragraph that discusses something different: the characteristics of shrimp themselves.  (I've come across many Wikipedia articles where an unrelated sentence seems to have been grafted onto the end of a paragraph discussing a different topic.  Often it seems to come about when a user wants to add more information to an article, but doesn't consider the flow of the article's text when choosing where to add it.  They tack it on to a paragraph chosen at random, breaking up the flow but introducing useful information nevertheless.  That's what this sentence looked like to me.  The appropriate followup edit for an out-of-place sentence like this is to move the information to a place where it fits better into the article.  Candidate locations in the case of "Shrimp" include the first paragraph of the lead section, or the "Classification" section.)
 * 2) The same idea (the use of the name "shrimp") is discussed in greater detail in the first paragraph of the lead section, which briefly covers broad and narrow uses of the term "shrimp", as well as related / frequently confused terms like "prawn", "lobster", and "crab".  It strikes me as redundant with the discussion in the first paragraph, and perhaps even a little bit contradictory with it: anything resembling a shrimp "tends to be called one", but by whom?  The discussion in the first paragraph is more specific, outlining the use of the term by different communities.
 * 3) The sentence is repeated almost word-for-word, with a similar citation, in the "Classification" section of the article.  Reading an article clear through and seeing the same sentence repeated twice (particularly just two paragraphs apart) is jarring and gives the article an amateurish style.  I think the sentence is used much better in the "Classification" section, where it clarifies another idea.

So, reasoning that the sentence doesn't belong in lead paragraph #2, is redundant with other sentences in lead paragraph #1, and is already used in the "Classification" section, I deleted it, per WP:BOLD. Your edit summary on the reversion, however, indicated that you think that the removed sentence is a "key sentence", so you boldly reverted it. =)

I still believe the sentence is out of place at the end of the second paragraph, so I've moved it to into what I believe is the most appropriate spot in the first paragraph. This leaves it intact in the lead section of the article, but puts it in a context where it relates more to the sentences around it. I hope that this is a good compromise and that you agree the new location is a better home for the sentence in question. (My edit also moves another sentence within the second paragraph to resolve similar issues.)

Cheers, Control.valve (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, your rearrangement is better :) --Epipelagic (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Green on the mudflat
Hi Epipelagic, Concerning your [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diatom&oldid=prev&diff=754632766 edit], the photo shows how diatoms look like in nature, a vague green substance on the mudflat. When I was as child on the beach many years ago, I have seen this green stuff, now I know what it is. After your edit, the article gives the impression that diatoms can only be seen under a microscope, which is not true. I am okay if you choose a better description for under the photo, but I would like to ask you to look closer to the photo now you know what to look for. I am sorry I have no photo with flowers or butterflies, this is how diatoms look like in nature. Greetings - Romaine (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a wonderful time of the year!

 * Thank you Atsme and a very Merry Christmas to you too. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)