User talk:Epipelagic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Chirs huh bg blue.jpg
If you leave a message here, I will normally reply here unless you ask me to reply elsewhere
Archive
Archives
Antennarius striatus.jpg


Animal anatomy portal[edit]

Hi. I just noticed that on Fish reproduction you added the box for the WP Animal Anatomy project. The button for the Animal Anatomy Portal in that box shows up as a red link. Not sure how to change this myself so I thought I would let you know. By the way, nice editing on Fish reproduction.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The portal is red linked because it hasn't been written yet. I don't think there's any great hurry, but at some stage one of us could start it. That's good stuff yourself, and on Pregnancy (fish). --Epipelagic (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Edits to the Sexual Dimorphism article[edit]

Incase you missed the edit you just reverted I was attempting to replace a known dead link with an active version of the paper. while my initial attempts to edit in failed the final attempt was completed.

I have gone ahead and completely replaced the dead link now.

So unless you have a personal bias for not allowing said paper to be accessible and present I suggest we conclude this matter now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwavenhobble (talkcontribs) 23:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

That's fine :) --Epipelagic (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Identification of aging in fish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Opercula. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

A bunny for you[edit]

The soft bunny of happiness and tranquility.

A nice bunny being given to you, and maybe not for the first or last time. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Anna. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open![edit]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open![edit]

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

With much joy & happiness....[edit]

XmasTreeWorm-Atsme- IMG 0514.jpg
Thank you Atsme, and much joy and happiness to you --Epipelagic (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: "Fallujah during the Iraq War" article.[edit]

I'm not entirely sure how to do references within an article (that article used a means very different than I do, anyway), but I provided a reputable source for the rock-throwing in my comment. I actually took that source directly from the main "Fallujah" page, which states such. - unsigned comment by Dupreem (talk · contribs)

I didn't notice the link you provided in your edit summary until after I reverted. There is a better reference to Human Rights Watch at the end of the following sentence. You can look at the source code there to see how it was done. However, it remains that the rock throwing was a separate incident which occurred in an earlier demonstration, and not during the demonstration that was fired upon. When you make comments on talk pages please sign your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your username and the date. Regards. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

FAR of Marine shrimp farming[edit]

I have nominated Marine shrimp farming for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

McKenzie River dory[edit]

Geronimo, you kindly wrote "Thank you for your contribution to McKenzie River dory. Can you provide inline citations, which include the relevant page numbers to the reference you added? --Geronimo20 (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)" Sorry to take forever but, Yes! I finally got to it and did what needed to be done! Thanks Geronimo20! RRFWTommartin (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Well that's a blast from the past. Well done! --Epipelagic (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Epipelagic![edit]

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

Your advice is welcome[edit]

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

"Higher Vertebrates"?[edit]

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

Yes, it would be good to have some discussion about this. I haven't introduced the term anywhere apart from on Amniote itself, merely linked it where it already exists on Wikipedia. The issue needs to be acknowledged and handled in an upfront way. Perhaps there could be an account of the history and archaic nature of the term in the article on amniotes. Or perhaps there could be an article called "Higher vertebrates". There are parallels with some recent discussions about the use of the term "primitive fish", and perhaps that could be revisited as well. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I've copied the comments above to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals, since that seems a better place to have the discussion. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Mustang dab[edit]

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

Re: Uncivil environment[edit]

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

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

Fish[edit]

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

This discussion started on your talk page, and I have continued it there. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Re "Why have you messed up the formatting of this article and broken it up again to separate sentences?"[edit]

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

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

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

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

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

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

Spot Fish and Spot croaker[edit]

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

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

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

Also

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

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

List of commercially important fish species[edit]

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

Hidden here somewhere? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
This is a ref now at the article. This folder seems to be empty. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, your guess is as good as mine Anna. The FAO have redeveloped the interface to their database system, and at the moment it seems disorganised. I guess it'll settle down. Is the ref you mentioned the one you want? --Epipelagic (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll check back at their site periodically. The ref or data I'm after are these: Global Aquaculture Production and Global Capture Production. There are two other datasets that might contain something useful for the article: "Global Fishery Commodity Production" and "Trade Global Production", but I'm not sure because they are also 404 right now. Thanks for the feedback. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Swarm intelligence[edit]

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

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

The Fish Article[edit]

Hi, I would like to bring this to your attention & get your input on it.(Link Below) With this in mind. I would like to look forward to collaberating and creating accurate content and building this article up.

Link below
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spot_croaker#Response_to_Reliable_Sources
I do not feel that we should argue over the article and not make progress to correct it.

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

Disambiguation link notification for March 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fish diseases and parasites, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ich (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Gordon Bridson[edit]

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

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

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

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

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Schwede66 17:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The matter is being addressed here. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Good on you. I looked at the article for assessment, came across some British orders (which I'm also working on), read his DNZB entry to figure out what exactly was awarded when, and thought that sounded rather much the same. Thanks for going back to it to fix it up. Schwede66 23:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in[edit]

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

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

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

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

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

Salmon as food[edit]

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