User talk:Epipelagic/Archive 2010

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You also have new messages at WP:CHU The Thing _{Editor Review} 08:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You logged in under your old name; that may affect the reattribution, I'm not sure :( -- Avi (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know; get a hold of a developer, I guess. Sorry :( -- Avi (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The DFG offered to send a certificate directly to WIKIPEDIA. Can You please give me an address. I also wrote to the Consulate to give you prove of the EB-1 visa but they are always slow. Happy New Year Uwe Kils 16:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you interested in becoming an administrator? I'd be proud to nominate you at Requests for adminship, or you can self-nominate. Requests for adminship can be a bruising process (not that I have any specific concerns for you), and I would suggest that if you are interested then you pick a week when you have ample spare time to answer questions.-gadfium 19:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is the article title plural in this case, when Wikipedia:Manual of Style requires singular titles? This doesn't clearly fall within one of the exceptions. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. It looks as if most of the links to that article are from a template. I've fixed the template accordingly and it may take 24 hours or so for the correction to appear when you click on "what links here". After that it will be possible to ascertain which links still need to get fixed. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Epipelagic. We need a papermail address - this is like an examination in school Uwe Kils 13:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Category:Hypophthalmichthys is a nonsensical one. There are many categories which contain 3-4 pages. Explain me why you think that Category:Hypophthalmichthys is a nonsensical one? --Amit6 (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --Amit6 (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Your message to me of today (see below) regarding my contribution to the article "reef fish" which you removed due to alleged copyright violation.

Exactly what do you mean? Whose copyright did I violate? That is original material that I wrote and first published in 1994. I am the sole copyright owner of all the material contributed.

How stupid would it be for me to plagerise a source and then provide active links back to the actual plagerised sources?

If you are in doubt about the source, I suggest you simply use the "contact me" email address on the alleged plagerized source and query me as to whether thhis material has been authorized for contribution to Wikipedia.

Sincerely

William Alevizon, Ph.D. (aka 20cean7)2ocean7 (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ocean7 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Clairvoyance is not accepted as a valid tool when dealing with Wikipedia copyright issues. Even when you tell us that you are William Alevizon, that still needs to be verified, since from our end, we need to make sure you are not being misrepresented by an impersonator. Even if you verify who you are, it still alters nothing, since both the book and the web site you cited display copyright notices. There has been no formal permission from you to use that text, and without that, leaving the text in place would leave Wikipedia formally in breach of copyright law. Looking at it from another another angle, the text was removed precisely to make sure that your own copyright interests were protected.

If you want to give Wikipedia permission to directly use content from your book, you should read WP:Donating copyrighted materials. You will then need to contact permissions-en@wikimedia.org for text for an article on the English Wikipedia, or another English Wikimedia site. Then an WP:OTRS ticket number will be granted.

However you should be aware that this will mean that content from your book can also be directly used outside Wikipedia, so you will in effect, release your book into the public domain. It also means that any content from the book can be further changed by Wikipedia editors. In this case, the content you contributed will definitely be changed. I was, as it happens, poised to expand this article anyway. So for now I will, shortly, restore the content and citations you contributed, but the text will be paraphrased so it no longer violates copyright. This means that there is not really much point in you relinquishing your copyright interest.

It would be great if you would like to participate in the further expansion of the article. I will, in any case, nominate it in a few days time for a joint DYK, so it appears on the front page of Wikipedia (you will receive credit for that). --Epipelagic (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Epipelagic - Thanks for the info. Your point "Clairvoyance is not accepted as a valid tool when dealing with Wikipedia copyright issues" is well taken. I did not really consider copyright much of an issue in this case as I felt the brief snippets I contributed would be considered "fair use" under international copyright law even if I was not the original author.

As for ccontributing further to this project, count me in as this is my field of expertise.

As a start, I would like to add 4 or 5 general referrences that would be of use to persons interested in coral reef fishes of specific geographic regions (i.e., Red Sea, South Pacific, Hawaii, etc.), I also would strongly suggest (if it would not "step on" another article in Wikipedia) that the name of this be changed from "Reeef Fish" to "Coral Reef Fish". The term "reef fish" is also widely applied (by ichthyologists at least) to temperate rocky reef fishes such as those that inhabit kelp forests.

Regards 2ocean7 (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that's great, you are most warmly welcome. I have started a discussion about renaming the article on its talk page. Also, you might like to have a look at Coral reef. I am currently rewriting and expanding this article, and it could sure do with another hand, particularly from someone who really knows the subject. Corals are not my speciality area, and working on them alone gets tedious when I hit areas of uncertainty. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for letting me know :) -- Avi (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

[[1]] - Could you please address? Much appreciated. Wipkipkedia (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have moved the user's question to my talk so feel free to respond there. —DoRD (?) (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, thank you. It's the 3rd time I try to insert some links and nothing. I just wanted to thank you. Shall I try again or shall I wait for some instructions?

Again, THANKS--MontseBL (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ref. Your Answer on 3rd February- Yes, you are right, the first impression is not very clear, but as you says regarding fisheries and agriculture sector the information is very rich and full of FAO self studies. If you agree with that I can do the link directly to one of this sections better that to the “General information” page instead. Please let me know.--MontseBL (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's do a thing, in the Spanish Wikipedia there's a section called "Country of the week". If you agree with that I will do a link to that Country, I will look into the characteristics and do the link to the most apropriate sector. Then, you editors decide what to do, to keep it or leave it. Is that ok with you?--MontseBL (talk) 11:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

blockquote> OK then. Let's try. Thanks:-)--MontseBL (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Epi, I redirected the page in the effort to fix disambiguation links, the page was listed automatically in the list, I did not go looking for it. Second, I created the page for Leuciscinae when I noticed that the majority of Minnows - " True Minnows " belonged to that particular genus. Leuciscinae was already placed as the sub-family under which the true-minnows are included by someone else, I assure you I did not come up with an obscure category just for the page, I just created the already listed page.

Taxonomically they are Cyprinidae, I posted a reference and an external link in case you want to verify, I saw most of the individual pages for true minnows are stubs and decided to point it to the sub-family they are all included in. Your objection has been noted, As per your instructions I will Revert my re-directs back to the page, a word of notice thought- those pages directing to the Minnows page would show up back in the list of disambiguation pages requiring links [2] and someone else will make similar changes. You can help by re-directing the pages away from the Disambiguation page. I regret any inconvenience in the mean time. Thank you.--Theo10011 (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

All my edits for Minnows have been Reverted.--Theo10011 (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

On February 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Coral reef fish, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Epipelagic, Thanks for your help at Adi Da. I followed your advice and participated in an agreement of no editing without consensus there. In the past week I have spent many hours on the talk page doing something near 100 entries there [[3]] in order to make polite, clear and concise statements regarding my concerns over NPOV. Once my concerns were clarified here: [[4]] , an argument that took me several hours to put together, Tao2911 went ahead and without consensus made substantial changes to the article [[5]] adding in his summaries that they were per me, but they weren't. I tried a revert [[6]] but was undone by Goethean [[7]] I felt this meant that our agreement was off and that we were now being bold. I then tried to make edits for more neutral language [[8]] , [[9]] , [[10]] , [[11]] , [[12]] , with a discussion at Talk much like Tao2911 did with his edits, [[13]] . I was then, or course reverted, accused of vandalism on the talk page with a whole section titled "David Starr vandalism" [[14]] threatened with being reported to admin [[15]] I plea for consensus [[16]] other editors agree with me [[17]] [[18]] [[19]] Tao disagrees [[20]] Tao then says the editors are agreeing with him, that he made the changes for me, and that he can work with people , but he's sick of repeating himself to me, [[21]] Instead of addressing the issues raised, Tao2911 propagandizes, and generally discusses the subject of the article and continues accusations of vandalism, [[22]] And then this bit of uncivil commentary [[23]] At this point, after many many hours over the past week of trying to edit the article I am frustrated and feel totally abused. I have yet to be able to make a single edit to the article without invoking an edit war from Tao2911. I feel that Tao2911 is a tenditious editor who is bullying and taking ownership of the article. He pretends to want consensus at times, but will not allow me to edit. Period. He himself though has basically edited at will over the past week without consensus. [[24]] I feel that I am making a good-faith gesture to bring neutrality into some fairly biased additions and have the consensus of other editors. I also feel that I have been as fair as can be expected in the face of insults, threats, and accusations by Tao2911.

Would you be willing to add your opinion as to our behavior at Adi Da and also any ideas as far as how to resolve our dispute? It would be very much appreciated. David Starr 1 (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha! I also came over to try to get you back involved in Adi Da. Of course I could make some case here with 42 links for my sad abused self, but you can go to the talk page and catch up. Needless to say I disagree with Starr's characterization. I've requested mediation, but Starr is refusing to sign off on it in order to hold the page hostage with his POV alert label (been here before.) Come on over if you are bored. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi E, just wanted to say thanks for helping over at Adi Da, very much agreed with what you had to say in the more thoughts pop down, very clever. I think you might have an essay there. I have been thinking this week how Wiki is just like playing a game, as in a board game or a video game. Of course you do have to wear the hat. Wikilawyering? Guilty as charged. Thanks again. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

First off, spare me your arrogance of pretending to know who I might be – you don't; and I don't know the person you're referring to personally. I merely seem to concur with other users who don't think the image is appropriate there. Secondly, as a precaution, don't act like you're [WP:OWN|owning] the template. I'm not accusing you of it, though reverting edits purely because you like it isn't reasonable. Thirdly, before you reinstate the image, I ask you to justify its use on the template.

The argument of it not adding much to the template is valid, though other templates use purely illustrative templates as well. Other than that, the image is pretty limited, showing specifically an angler, which is too specific for a broad template on fishing in general. I wouldn't have a problem if it was used on a template just referring to angling (except for the next point…). It may not be an argument that the cartoon image is pretty ugly, but it also feels very much out of place when compared to the other fishing templates, which use real-life images of fisher(wo)men or fishing vessels. Your image doesn't fit into the subject.

Please partake in discussion before just reverting the edit again. You may want to look for more suited images as well. Don Cuan (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I assumed you would respond promptly with puffery. Wikipedia is not a toy for you to play with. However, the issue's not important enough to waste more time on, so you can collect your shout. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Pleasure talking to you. Have a nice day :) Don Cuan (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Epipelagic,

you reverted my change to coral reef on the grounds that I had changed British English to American English, but I don't believe I did. I have never heard of phosphorous being a British spelling of phosphorus, and the phosphorus article doesn't mention it (compare the aluminium, caesium, sulfur articles, all of which talk about the Brit/Yank differences). However, phosphorous is a real word, but it's an adjective rather than a noun, meaning "containing trivalent phosphorus". --Trovatore (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

On February 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Overexploitation, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Calmer Waters 06:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This edit to Sustainability is in extreme violation of wikipedia's policy for civility. I feel that the concerns I voiced about the content you proposed to add the the article were legitimate. The type of comments you made are not only against policy but highly inappropriate and do not contribute to the collaborative process of writing an encyclopedia. Please apologize. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please moderate your language, and address the issue. I am trying to reflect as accurately as I can the concerns you seem to advocate. If the comment, in any way at all, misrepresents your position, then please correct the matter where it belongs, on the article talk page. I have no idea what I am meant to apologize for, but please accept my apology if you feel offended. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Epipelagic/Archive 2010 - Thank for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Epipelagic aka Geronimo20 - I’ve just completed drafting my first WP essay in my user space: Creating A Better List. As of yet it is not linked anywhere except through the {{Essay}} template. My ultimate objective is to move this essay to the project space, but at this point, that is premature without some feedback from fellow editors. As such I would appreciate your opinion on the essay, especially on two points. 1) Have I made any statements contradictory to WP policy or guidelines? 2) Are there additional examples that could be included to demonstrate my points more effectively?

Thanks in advance for your review and feel free to make any editorial changes you think would enhance the essay. Please provide comments here, as I am asking several editors to comment and would like to keep them all in the same place--Mike Cline (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know whether it's that organised against common sense. The issue was first noticed at WT:MOS, which has recommended the after-punctuation method for some time, in contradiction to FN. I went and changed FN boldly so that it's consistent with the MoS, and met resistance. I think the small superscript argument is strongest, since publications that use the before-punctuation system are invariably (like Nature) those that use normal font, normal position ref tags.

Christopher Parham, bless his heart, seems to have in-built genes against any form of change at all. It's very annoying. He pops up all over the place to resist progress. Tony (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Epipelagic, I wonder, if you have a spare moment, would you look over a new article, a BLP I Just created? This guy is a designer so it's outside your and my areas of expertise, but I do trust your judgement. The refs are a bit of a mess; I am not so good on formatting those. I don't know what else needs fixing, but please let me know if you see anything amiss, or please go ahead and fix things yourself if they are simple and fast to do. I intend to try for a DYK with this so I want to try to make it look decent. Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Your criticisms are very welcome. I was looking to hear that kind of thing, so thank you. If I can't make a case for him being notable enough then the article is not worthwhile. Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I note your rv, which is fine, but a few points. 1. Yes, it needs to be sourced. 2. I think it needs to be reworded, since I work on related subjects and it doesn't even make logical sense to me. 3. It's grammatically incorrect (I think - because as I said, it doesn't logically compute - should be functionS (?). And finally, 4. Does this really need to go in the introductory paragraph? While it may be an important point, the intro generally should only have the most important information about the subject, with details that follow in the body. Cheers Arjuna (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of the issue involved. Both article titles existed previously, with the one without the "s" redirecting to the other. When I was covering this year's Classic for my newspaper, I realized that the official style of the title is without the "s," but our article had it with the "s" with the proper title redirecting. Since I couldn't use the good ol' Move button, I did the manual method, with the intent to go back later and get an admin to fix the edit history. As I am not an admin, I can't do it myself, sorry. I have fixed all the Wikilinks from other articles, except those on talk pages and such. I think the title of the tournament may have originally been with an "s", but when ESPN took over the tournament they may have changed it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

With respect to the EL at Biodiversity, you've made some (I feel) rather harsh and unjustified claims in your edit summaries and your comments. Simply put, we're not a link farm, and there is no obligation to include every link that exists. If you feel strongly about a link, by all means make a case for it based on its suitability under the external links guideline. However, please note that this particular link was added without any explanation whatsoever, by an editor whose only edit was to add said link. We certainly do not keep ELs in articles simply because someone happens to have posted them; there is no "free pass", and the onus is on editors to justify why a link deserves to be included, not the opposite. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You reverted an incorrect image, it was explained the vessel is NOT Danish and she is NOT a freezer trawler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttonbanger (talk • contribs) 03:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcoming words. I just created my userpage so you may see my fields of interest.Scarabaeoid (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

On February 27, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tyranny of small decisions, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for deleting. I was editing the article Mullet and noticed the picture of a cod. I didn't realize it was a template. --Buster7 (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Epipelagic. Could you have a look at Bottle_trap and provide me with some comments? Thanks.Scarabaeoid (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The cherry or seema salmon (Oncorhynchus masou) is a salmon of the western Pacific. It is anadromous. How was including it in the list of Pacific salmon not constructive? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_salmon Kilgore Rosewater (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I am referring to the page on fish migration which lists the "five species of Pacific salmon" as examples of anadromous fish. I added the Cherry salmon, you removed it... Kilgore Rosewater (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

On March 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Coastal fish, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

On March 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trophic level, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Wow, I was just checking out the work you have been doing at the Sustainable fisheries and I am very impressed, thanks for doing such great work. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you --Epipelagic (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Epipelagic. Anyway I am glad it worked. Invertzoo (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

First you delete the picture of a fisherman first you said it wasn't recreational and now you are saying something different. It is not self promoting becuase who would promote themself with a picture of a bowfin. This picture is more representative of a recreational fisherman than any other picture that is up there. Please do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Clarence (talk • contribs) 04:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow Wikipedia is not a place for dishing it out talking about that photo being a beefcake picture of me. You have no idea who I am so you should not make assumptions. I do believe it contributes something to the article and I will discuss in the fisherman forum we will let the others decide wether or not it should be in the article because you obvioulsy take a lot of ownership in this page and have an issue with me. I could construe you as edit warring because you have no grounds to say that I am missrepresenting fisherMAN in the article. (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2010 (UMD)

Hi Epipelagic. You removed my newly added Image:Taiwan 2009 SuHua Highway Fixed Net Fishing FRD 6865.jpg from Fishing net. Your comment made perfect sense to me. After all, that was a page about 'net', and my image does not really show net.

I've moved it to Wild fisheries and Littoral zone instead. I think the image now makes more sense in its new homes. What do you think? Thanks. Fred Hsu (talk) 06:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I do watch pages on which I have active conversations :) Fred Hsu (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

On March 27, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Reed boat, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

On March 29, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fishing down the food web, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 04:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Coastal management is wonderful. Much thanks for improving/replacing my attempt at collating the links in a template (which I've now prod'd for deletion). Have a good weekend :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You left a note on my user page concerning a contribution I had supposedly made to the longline fishing article. I see no such contribution in the history of the article, my own history, nor do I recall making same or even having ever read the article. The closest I've come to discussing fish is challenging a rather sweeping claim about bowfin. I wonder if you wouldn't mind showing me where I wrote about longline fishing. Thanks. HedgeFundBob (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Epipelagic. I wonder if you could do me a favor if you are not too busy. There is a brand new user, a scientist who lives in NYC not far from me, and who I am sure will become an excellent editor. His user name is User:Enviromet. He has written two articles on copper so far.

• Antimicrobial properties of copper
• Antimicrobial copper touch surfaces

He is a fairly good writer, but he is so new that he has not quite got the hang of Wikipedia tone and prose style yet. One of the articles picked up two tags, which it may or may not deserve. You are such a fine writer I was hoping you can take a quick look at his articles and perhaps be able to tell him what needs adjusting in his approach to writing for Wikipedia. I personally find it hard to put into words exactly what is wrong with his articles, because it is not glaringly obvious. Mostly I think he does not quite understand how to write a good lead and also how exactly to write for an encyclopedia. Could you let him know what you think? I already told him I would ask you to comment if you can find the time. I will be away for 3 weeks starting April 14th. Many thanks for anything you can do. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 12:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Back in March, you made an edit to Aquaculture that included a bad reference. Here is the diff: [25] Please fix it. Lfstevens (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

:) Eusebeus (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Saw your edit and removal to my talkpage ... I did want to ask if you had actually read the full reasoning, both in the block notice and the block log ... nothing was WP:PUNISH as I don't believe in that, it was pure preventative, especially if you read the reasonings. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to discuss rationally, do so. Attacks, and hiding threads in the middle of a talkpage are not rational discussion. My actions were clearly an WP:AGF attempt to protect, not punish anyone. As you are aware from the WP:ANI thread that I purposely initiated related to the incident, there were many others with similar and related concerns. I will never apologize for actions which I take in an WP:AGF manner to protect the project for any reason. If I had purposely chosen to punish, you're right, the argument would be different - however, I don't care how many times you suggest otherwise, I was not punishing anyone. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not behaviour any reasonable person would expect from a competent administrator. --Epipelagic (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You're not going to prod me into becoming uncivil. I expect polite discussion, and I expect you to have read enough to have a better understanding. Reading the entire ANI (and his own admission that he f'd up), reading the reasoning of the original block, and every now and again assuming good faith. I am always willing to discuss my actions, but you gain more discussion by not acting the way you have been. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you have succeeded in diverting this discussion from your own talk page, where it belongs, by suppressing comment there. I have, of course, carefully read the "entire ANI". Is there some specific point you think I missed? In view of your truculence, why should the issue not be raised there again? Neelix did not say "that he f'd up", he politely apologised, obviously in a state of considerable consternation, and explained what he thought he was doing. He was polite in the face of your grievous behaviour. You are the one that "f'd up". I invite you to offer the much overdue apology you owe to Neelix. --Epipelagic (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have already acknowledged Neelix's comments to him/her directly. I did not f-up: I made a decision based on the information available at the time - when it comes to protecting Wikipedia, I did the right thing. Does it turn out that Neelix was perhaps blocked incorrectly? Not necessarily, based on the information that was available, and the potential for damage if I was actually correct in reading the evidence. Am I sorry that he was blocked? Overall, yes, but again, based on the information available at the time it was the right decision at the time. If Neelix has an issue with me, it's none of your business. You're normally a good editor who seems to believe in the concepts around Wikipedia...why not keep it up? I hope that this is my last post on your talkpage - Neelix can contact me on my talkpage, by e-mail, or however they wish. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

So you're not going to apologise are you, and you can't resist the patronising touch, can you? Perhaps you are normally a good administrator... why not return to that and try to keep it up? Cheers. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You are invited to Auckland Meetup 5 on the afternoon of Sunday 9th May 2010 at Esquires Cafe, Ground Floor, Auckland Central City Library, Lorne St, Auckland. Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 5 for details and RSVP. You can also bookmark Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland to be informed of future NZ meetups. - Linnah (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for a long delay in asking this but I have only just come across Traditional fishing boats and the use of the photo that I took back in 1972 of the coracles fishing below Cenarth. In your edit of 4th July you have assigned names to the two fishermen which was not part of the metadata of the original image. I don't doubt that the names are correct but I would be grateful if you let me know the source of this information so that I can update the metadata on the image file on Commons. Many thanks.  Velela  ^{Velela Talk}   10:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Epipelagic, you appear to be using Twinkle to engage in an edit war over the use of an image, further inappropriate use of twinkle may result in you being blacklisted or blocked. I have also rolledback your warnings posted by TW at User talk:Lord Clarence. Gnangarra 01:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Request deletion of the image, seek second/third opinions from an uninvolved admins, request page protection, take it to WP:3R, the point is dont go it alone, dont use TW do do manual reverts because its not vandalism, its a content issue as the picture is related to the article. Gnangarra 03:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I've responded to your comments on the Tuna,Thunnus, and the Northern, Southern, and Pacific bluefin Tuna pages. Thanks! XXVII (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you erased the {{fishing techniques}} just tagging it as deprecated. Could you explaine me exactly what you mean? You see I created the article trabucco about a giant historical construction which people used not only for fishing but often as place to inhabit. I created the above mentioned template to show, where necessary, fishing tecniques in those article not immediately related to fishing tackle, and it correctly match this criteria. Regards, --Theirrulez (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

When a list is written normally (without line breaks between each item), my screen reader JAWS will tell me how many items are in each list (for example by saying "list of 6 items"). When that list is separated by line breaks, JAWS will announce it as six lists of one item, so it will say "list of 1 item, item 1, list end; list of 1 item, item 2, list end ...". This is also true of other screen readers, and occurs because MediaWiki finishes the HTML list when it encounters a line break. If you need the spacing between list items, add "<br/>" to the end of each list item, as I've just done. Graham87 06:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for formatting the references section, but was there reason for the see also section that linked back to the article? [26] Jujutacular ^T · C 19:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Epipelagic. Thank you very much for endorsing the Geography Barnstar award that Casliber awarded me a few days ago (for my work on the abyssal plain article). This is the first time I have received any sort of award from the Wikipedia project, and it really means a lot to me. I have been working hard on this project, and it is nice to be noticed. Your vote of confidence in my abilities provides me with a modicum of reassurance that my efforts to date are actually helping to improve the Wikipedia project. Please let me know if I can ever be of assistance to you in some way. DiverDave (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel as though I am being bullied out of Wikipedia when all I do for the most part is qualitatively improve articles by adding citations. I have a group of malign editors that have formed a cohort against me. They have searched really hard to find a few matters of dispute out of my 20,000 or more edits that I have made to this Project. I would appreciate some of your time.
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Epipelagic,

Hope you are doing well. The editor I have spoken to you about before, Mila, has added some underwater images she took in Kona, in the Hawaiian islands. She asked me what kind of fish this might be, but I have no idea. Do you have any idea? Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"Here I saw them a lot very deep inside those corals. They were not moving, so I assume they were nocturnal. Sometimes there were two or three inside the same coral. Do you know what kind of fish it is? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)"

Thanks for your help Epipelagic. Also I wanted to show you this strange association between a nudibranch and a goby species:

http://www.seaslugforum.net/message/2131

I apologize for our guys giving grief to your guys! Invertzoo (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah! Tell your guys to lay off using our guys for breakfast, lunch and dinner! Dealing with the thuggy crabs is bad enough without all the the fish chomping going on. Tell 'em that vegetarianism is good for your health and longevity! Look at those 100-year old carp! Invertzoo (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What's your take on this partnership? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37353877 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.204.141 (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the day of the authentic hunter is over, replaced by bizarre high tech activities by over-resourced people trying to kill time. It would be like establishing a conservation park for Siberian tigers, funded by "hunters" on the agreement that they can sit in a humvee and shoot some of them with high powered rifles. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:Sport fish topics requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. Terrillja _talk 03:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Epipelagic

Enjoyed working with you, but as you can see from the following exchange posted on the "coral reef fish" talk page, I will choose to spend my time elsewhere.2ocean7 (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Jamie: On what basis do you suggest that the link you removed (http://www.coral-reef-info.com/coral-reef-fishes.html) does not conform to the established guidelines for adding external links? These guidelines state (Under "What should be linked"):

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues..."

The link that you removed certainly conforms with the above. I am the author and sole copyright holder of that material, reworded from material originally published in my book "Pisces Guide to Caribbean Reef Ecology" published in 1994 and referenced numerous times in this article (ref #13). The page to which you removed the link definitely fits the Wikipedia criteria "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues". The material is also not readily available to most Wikipedia users as the book is out of print.

As a former Professor of Marine Biology who spent over 30 years researching coral reef fishes and published over 30 peer-reviewed articles on that topic in international journals, I find it incredibly surprising that you took it upon yourself to make such a change to this article, which I helped to develop over the last 6 months. Surely, you can find more appropriate ways to spend your time as part of the Wikipedia "spam police". All you are accomplishing here is to discourage contributions from qualified authorities.2ocean7 (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)'

Canvassing links to your own site on various pages is a violation of our conflict of interest and spam policies, regardless of your credentials. We have plenty of excellent contributors who don't promote their own websites. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not a "conflict of interest" or "spam" to cite work (even your own) that is relevant and not otherwise available. Do you see any adsense on my pages (other than the search box which is there for the visitor's convenience and does not make me enough to buy a cup of coffee each month). I spent some time correcting factual inaccuracies and omissions originally placed in this article by your other "plenty of excellent contributors who don't promote their own websites". The referred link was approved and reinserted by the topic editor (Epipelagic) after discussion with me. If you want to play "spam cop' and edit articles in technical fields about which you know nothing, so be it. If this is allowed to stand, I will waste no more time writing or editing for Wikipedia. Over and out.2ocean7 (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

William, I am very sorry you were subjected to this rudeness. I apologise for being so tardy responding, but I really just didn't know what to say. I too am toying with bowing out from Wikipedia, and have been losing the will to contribute lately. Content editors are hugely devalued on Wikipedia, and I have seen too many ignorant and sickening attacks lately on irreplaceable content editors by administrators. It is utterly demoralising, and can be rationally addressed nowhere on the forums available, because to challenge such behaviour has implications which might cobble powers administrators simply must have elsewhere. This is the area of great weakness in Wikipedia. Key content editors end up powerless and feeling devalued, while self-obsessed administrators ride roughshod over them. The difficulty is that administrator functions are essential, and must be performed by someone. Administrators often seek the job because they want control over other people, a bit like the problem we have with politicians. Some administrators are little more than schoolboys. They do not have to demonstrate ability to add real encyclopaedic content, only the ability to play the Wikipedia version of wiki-political correctness. Beyond that, core decency and courtesy can go out the window. As a further inducement, they are appointed for life. Think of the power some of these under-qualified lads and lasses then experience knocking back people like yourself. And if we dare demure, some will put us on their hit list, waiting for a chance, any chance, to block. Filthy stuff.

Still it is not simple. I am sure Jamie, from his own end, is acting with integrity, with a mono-focus on eliminating spam and self-promotion. An essential function, and laudable that he is willing to contribute his energy doing just that. The downside is perhaps an understandable tendency to overreact here and there, regarding all cases as a matter to be squashed. For what it is worth, when it comes to the crunch, I agree with Jamie removing your website. Reliable sources are articles in peer-reviewed journals, etc. In general, self-published websites are not reliable. I can list a number of websites self published by at least PhDs in marine biology which are scurrilous. You know, and I know, that your website is probably the best and most reliable source of information on coral reef fish on the internet, However, straightforward, easily verifiable criteria must to be adopted by Wikipedia so editors can evaluate such sites. The fact is, there is no credible independent, peer reviewed assessment of your website. Therefore, it must be excluded, otherwise the other scurrilous websites cannot be excluded. There is no getting away from this.

However, I do not agree with the manner in which Jamie pre-empted your website. Jamie's statement "We have plenty of excellent contributors who don't promote their own websites" is demeaning and simply wrong. You know, and I know, you are probably the only real expert on coral reef fish willing to share his knowledge on Wikipedia. Jamie's idea that there is an infinite pool of such experts is naive and damaging to Wikipedia. I do not know how often he alienates other key contributors like yourself, but he has only to alienate one or two to completely undo the cumulative merit of his own contributions. Pretty much anyone can revert spam and self promotion. I also find it sad that the longer content editors put energy into Wikipedia, the more they can become at risk, particularly if they say what needs to be said. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reinstated your link, since it seems that it does conform to Wikipedia's guidelines after all!

I was passing by Coastal fortifications of New Zealand a few weeks ago and nominated it as a GA. The review has been put on hold, but unfortunately I know next to nothing on the topic. As you are the main contributor you may like to take a look. Cheers, Adabow (talk) 11:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

On June 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trolling (fishing), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The article has been reviewed at GAN, and is nearly there! I can do some of the more technical/MoS stuff, but can you add some more inline citations? Thanks Adabow (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Just to say thanks for your efforts with the plankton template. Although I've been staring at it for months now, I didn't really pay attention and properly notice it until today. Anyway, nice work. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 08:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members	Editorial LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick "catch"! I'm embarassed to have left it in such messy condition: I'm glad you fixed it so quickly! :) SteveStrummer (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• blocked Lord Clarence for continual disruption and edit warring. If he returns, you can just post at WP:AN/I ask for help it's tends to get a faster response than contacting an admin directly Gnangarra 11:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your adjustment and suggestion Epipelagic. I will go over the lead again. Granitethighs 11:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I and many other editors have had similar experiences with John as your own, but he's convinced himself of his own righteousness and won't listen to anything you or anyone else tells him about his arrogant attitude. "If you don't like it, then wikipedia may not be for you" is a quite typical response. But he doesn't quite ever go far enough to justify an RfC, so the only way I've found to deal with him is to pretend that he doesn't exist; it's far too frustrating trying to make intransigent boneheads see sense. Malleus Fatuorum 15:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do whatever you can w respect to John I will support it. I feel like my hands are tied as far as editing. I wouldn't be surprised if he blocked me indefinitely for imaginary infractions weeks after the fact. Richmondian (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent message on my talk about the tone I used when helping improve the Paul the octopus article in July. I want to formally apologise for communicating with you in a way that disturbed you, even though I stand firmly by my position on the content issue. I hope I shall do better in future. Best wishes, --John (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi John. Really I was not seeking an apology at all, and I have no objections to your positions on content issues. I was merely hoping you might find a way to behave towards content editors in a more friendly, respectful, and less self-important manner. In this way, you would be a real asset, serving the community in a genuinely positive and constructive manner, instead of leaving a trail of bewildered and resentful wreckage behind you. As a community, it is important for content editors to trust and have pride in administrators, and to achieve this you need only adjust your tone. Best wishes, --Epipelagic (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not leave Wikipedia, Epipelagic. You are a superb contributor. I am in awe of the excellent articles you write, and so many of them, all of such high quality. Invertzoo (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello again Epipelagic, I thought you might like to read this also:

Hi John, because it seems to relate directly to our recent conversation, I thought you might be interested to read this very brief Wikipedia Signpost news piece[27], which is about a Harvard study of communication norms on Wikipedia.

To quote the abstract of the paper: "These norms speak to the intentional stance and communicative behaviors Wikipedians should adopt when interacting with one another." The study contrasts "supportive communication" with "defensive communication", and explains that "Supportive behavior/climates are characterized by non-judgmental description, problem orientation, spontaneity, empathy, equality, and provisionalism. Their 'defensive' opposites are evaluation, control, strategy, neutrality, superiority, and certainty."

The study concluded that in the majority of the material examined, "Supportive" communication was the Wikipedia norm.

Thanks and best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Epipelagic. I've just come across this article, which you created years ago. It's still unreferenced, but I know nothing about him. Can you help? Thanks, Markiewp (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news New parameter for military conflict infobox introduced; Preliminary information on the September coordinator elections	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members July's contest results, the latest awards to our members, plus an interview with Parsecboy	Editorial Opportunities for new military history articles
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Epipelagic! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 317 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. John Lambert (naval historian) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you reverted the change to the lead. As the article refers to Coastal Forces of the Royal Australian Navy‎, the lead is misleading if we talk about the Royal Navy. The lead could be rewritten to reflect what the article is about. IMO, the first sentence does not make sense referring to the Royal Navy, as the article is about or should be about the Royal Australian Navy‎. I will seek some feedback from Wiki experts. Regards Newm30 (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. But maybe you misunderstood my edit summary. If you think there was a formal division called "Coastal Forces" in the RAN, then you need to supply a reliable source confirming that. As far as I am aware, there was no such division. The article is about the boats used by the RAN during the second world war that were equivalent to the boats used by Coastal Forces in the RN. That is why the article starts by explaining that. There are other related articles here. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen any reference to the RAN having a "Coastal Forces" division. Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't comment on whether or not the RAN had a Coastal Forces division as I don't have the specific knowledge, but what I will say is that the citation used for the link to the Royal Navy is not a valid citation and should be removed. It is an in line citation to another Wikipedia page. We don't consider ourselves as a reliable source and hence the way to provide this link is through an internal or "wiki" link, not an inline citation. In regards to the content of the lead, I can see Newm30's point that it is confusing to mention the Royal Navy, particularly in the first sentence. Perhaps it would be best if it were reworded. Something like this might suffice: "Although the Royal Australian Navy did not have a Coastal Forces division, it has nevertheless operated a number of small coastal defence craft similar to those that were used by the Coastal Forces of the Royal Navy. These craft included..." This way the focus of the first sentence is upon the subject of the article, but the point is made clear that the RAN did not have a Coastal Forces division (assuming that this is accurate). Hope this helps in some way. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've removed the unreliable source. Also, while "Forces" should be capitalised in the title "Coastal Forces of the Royal Navy" as part of a proper name, it shouldn't be capitalised in articles such as Coastal Forces of the Royal Canadian Navy, Coastal Forces of the Royal Australian Navy‎, Coastal Forces of the Royal New Zealand Navy and Coastal Forces of World War II. At the time of writing these articles back in 2007, it seemed like a good idea to me to compare equivalent forces in different countries, which is why I put some focus on the Coastal Forces in Britain. Now I'm not sure that's really a good idea, and perhaps they should just be about coastal forces. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, no worries. Can we change the lead to reflect similar lines of what AustralianRupert is recommending? I have purchased some new books and will be able to hopefully expand on the article and provide additional in line cites. Thanks Epipelagic for your valued work on wiki. Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, do what you think is right. I'll add my two cents if I think I have something to contribute. Perhaps we could also keep an eye on the related articles and try and keep some common threads running through them. Here in New Zealand I still occasionally run across people with interesting recollections. There must be many adventures and tragedies about these craft, and possibilities for interesting articles. But for over three years you are the only other person on Wikipedia who has shown any interest in coastal forces, and not many people look at the articles. Oblivion closes in and the world moves on. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL - fishing and the military? I bet you don't even know here Oxford is! :) RewlandUmmer (talk) 11:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for welcoming me to the WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing. I appreciate it. Farjad0322 (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey there Epipelagic. Your last edit to Overfishing messed up the formatting, so I thought you should know. In addition, the "Addendum" section seems a tad unencyclopedic. Could you figure out a way to incorporate the quote, or better yet, a summary of the quote within the text somehow? Thanks a bunch! WDavis1911 (talk) 05:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks --Epipelagic (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for the sectioning of the Fishing television template; I decided that perhaps I could benefit the site by becoming a logged-in user, as well. Perhaps next time I'll have learned enough to make a similar edit, should the need arise. If I may comment, your above-mentioned thoughts of "bowing out" of Wikipedia and the reasons for that train of thought are spot-on; then again, that's a working example of human nature. Why can't life be as simple as it seems to be for the oceanic fauna? Guillaume0320 (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants	Editorial In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Because you participated in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hi878/Secret Page List, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 06:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, regarding your comment on meditation, and the revert of Yworo please source those items within the next week or so, else we will just have to assume it needs it get commented out, until a source is found. In Wikipedia, the hypothesis that someone knows it is not enough. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I find myself in a very similar position currently at the Eido Shimano page as I once did at Adi Da. Biased editors with admin support bullying opposition with specious arguments. I wonder if you'd mind taking a look?Tao2911 (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)	Editorial In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
• There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
• If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for your recent edit to my interference with the Fishing trawler page. I do feel I have to say that I was a little taken aback by the tone you took on the edit history page in your comment. It seemed uncalled for. I also can't agree that the only remaining vessel of her kind, of what was once one of the largest fishing fleets in the world, could be described as 'rather unremarkable' either. However, I recognise and agree with what you said regarding 'showcasing' and realised that, although I was trying to make a genuine contribution, it probably did come accross as such. I have therefore removed the sentence regarding Ross Tiger from the 'side trawler' section. There is no other mention of individual vessels for types and as such there shouldn't be mention of her. Regards, Dave Ornsby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.85.51 (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Some chaps stuck it back tho! I shall meddle no more! Ha :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dornsby (talk • contribs) 22:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Dave, if you look further down Fishing trawler you will find that there is a whole section given over to the Ross Tiger, including a picture gallery. The article is not about individual trawlers, and even if it were there would be many trawlers with at least as great a claim to be there as the Ross Tiger. Still, I left your reference to Grimsby as a peace offering. When you then removed it yourself it was reinstated by a certain tenacious editor. This editor was responsible for inserting the section on the Ross Tiger in the first place. So you can see that if this editor has his way, then the article will become increasingly unbalanced, as the Ross Tiger progressively takes over. Btw, that's an interesting article you have written on the Ross Tiger. Well done :) --Epipelagic (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't realise you've had previous trouble in this department... I stept into a battlefield did I?! I fully understand and agree with what you've said. The edit I made afterwards wasn't to remove the Grimsby section, it was removing the section regarding the Ross Tiger from the description of 'side trawlers'. I added her in there as a surviving example of the type as it explains that these were replaced by stern draggers or whatever. The other tenacios editor you're on about stuck it back in again when I took it out and I assumed he was some authority moderator on the page! So didn't mess again! My main intention was to stick a tiny bit on Grimsby in there because despite her history there wasn't a mention. I stuck the Tiger in with it since it is Grimsby and I thought the picture was pretty! lol. But i realise it appeared to be showing off a particular trawler and there isn't that attention given to any others so RT shouldn't have any special favours! I appreciate you keeping what you did, thankyou.

I did notice those pictures stuck at the bottom. I altered his description of her as a 60's type as she was built in the 50s and mentioned that they were prior to renovations because he's doing no favours to the old girl showing pics of her in that state! Ha.

Thanks again. Regards, Dave Dornsby (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking out the overlinking that I recently added to fishwife. Two of those were clearly wrong; sorry I forgot to check them. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Since you do a lot of AV work using TW, do you want me to request rollback? It's a lot faster than twinkle, and you can use them simultaneously. Please answer on my talk page or leave a {{talkback}}. Thanks. --T H F S W (T · C · E) 18:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge Epipelagic. I've not lost interest - every now and again the real world comes crashing in though. Still plenty of unfinished business to do on WP but it may be the New Year before it is tackled. Seasonal greetings to you and best wishes for the coming year ... Granitethighs 22:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not use edit summaries to attack or insult another editor.

"Why do you always have to know better." [28]

If the editor is creating problems in the article, the problematic edits can be reverted then discussed on the article talk page, and the problems with the user can be reported at various venues after giving warnings on the user talk page.

--Kleopatra (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of lots of edits of coral reef. You're a fantastic editor, but is it really necessary to make changes such as shifting spelling from American to English while I'm in the middle of the task? I'm getting edit conflicts which really slow things down. I appreciate your tolerance while I struggle through. Lfstevens (talk) 04:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I will work my way through your objections. See Talk. Lfstevens (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit to the article on Unintended consequences. At the time time tags were put in, they were justified. The tags prompted people to make improvements. I think you are right that they are no longer needed.

This article is probably a good example of the tags doing a good job.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Hi Epipelagic. With this barnstar I would like to thank you for your kind involvement during my block. Mbz1 (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Epipelagic,

I hope I'm doing this right, I'm just learning how to get around Wikipedia.

Here is a suggestion for a change that might improve the Bubble Ring article, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_ring

In the article, it describes the spin of a bubble ring like this: "The ring of air as well as the nearby water spins poloidally as it travels through the water, much like a flexible bracelet might spin when it is rolled off a person's arm." The quote is correct, but it would be more accurate if it was changed to read "The ring of air as well as the nearby water spins poloidally as it travels through the water, much like a flexible bracelet might spin when it is rolled off a person's arm (except the spin is in the opposite direction as when a bracelet is rolled off in this way.)"

Thanks! David Whiteis owner at http://www.bubblerings.com DavidWhiteis (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that, David. At first I didn't see why the poloid spin direction mattered, but of course, the spin is produced by the water underneath punching its way though the air bubble. So it spins the same way a flexible bracelet might spin when it is rolled on to a person's arm. I've changed the article accordingly. I've also left a welcome on your talk page, and some pointers about your possible conflict of interest issues. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. I have been reading up on how Wikipedia works in general, and reading all of the COI stuff too.

I'm not sure I made myself clear on the spin issue though. I'm not sure I know the right way to say it, so I will explain what I think I know to you, and see if you find a nice short way to say it.

(This discussion seems like a good way for me to learn a lot about how things are done on Wikipedia, by the way. But if you would rather I leave well enough alone just let me know, I am fine with that.)

The issue is what direction the ring is spinning in relation to the direction the ring is traveling through the water. For instance, most bubble rings created by humans travel straight up towards the surface of the water. In these cases, a bubble ring spins in the opposite way as the arrow shown in DaveBurke's drawing here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Toroidal_coord_poloidal_only.png

The example of a bracelet rolling on or off an arm is a good one because it explains how the spin happens for people that don't understand what the word poloidally means. (They might think it means that the rings spin the way a steering wheel spins.) It is a bad example because the spin is in the wrong direction, whether the bracelet is going on or off the arm.

Maybe I can find or create a better drawing. I think we need a drawing like DaveBurke's, but with the spin arrow in the opposite direction, and another arrow that points straight up that is labeled "overall direction of bubble ring travel" or something like that.

DavidWhiteis (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well done. I think your diagram covers it nicely. Are you satisfied with that, or do you want more detail in the text? --Epipelagic (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Please consider signing up for the 2011 WikiCup; WP:WikiCup/2011 signups. Best to just sign up before January 1st, then drop out if it is not to your liking, because there are no late sign-ups allowed. Abductive (reasoning) 05:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

May I enquire as to why you started a new ANI thread in the middle of the page? (I guess it could just have been a mistake, though the '+ new section' button at the top of the page rarely malfunctions in that way...) ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 11:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see. My apologies, I misunderstood you and thought you were just stirring. I have no idea my addition was up one entry from the bottom (not exactly the "middle" of the page). It was a mistake, and I think you can assume good faith. Why would I insert the entry one place higher in "bad faith"? Why does it matter so much? --Epipelagic (talk) 12:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

What made you think it mattered "so much" and in what way does "thought you were just stirring" assume good faith?
I genuinely did not – and cannot – see how it would be possible to add a section anywhere other than the bottom of the page accidentally; that is all. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 12:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Geeze, I honestly have no idea how I did that. I didn't click the '+ new section' button, but went to the bottom of the page and edited the bottom section. I must have added my bit at the top of the section instead of the bottom. You seem insistent that I did that, not accidentally, but deliberately for some nefarious motive I can't imagine. I certainly don't remember doing it deliberately. I apologise profusely for disturbing you by doing that, and assure you that I did not wilfully insert the entry slightly out of place with the specific aim of personally distressing you. And it was dreadful if I didn't assume good faith. Thank you so much for giving me (three times now) that link. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Three times? A slight exagguration... ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 13:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Commercial mollusc topics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 16:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

---

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Epipelagic. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 2005

←

Archive 2008

Archive 2009

Archive 2010