User talk:Grolltech

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Grolltech, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for North Atlantic right whale. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Epipelagic (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		For stepping up and creating Shark Finning Prohibition Act when its absence became glaring. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! I thought of this recent study after I gave you the barnstar, but ... it's exactly what I've been doing for years. Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Cquote

I have reverted a couple of your changes to the U.S. constitutional amendment articles back to {{quote}} instead of {{cquote}} per WP:MOSQUOTE. However, you have made changes to apparently all of the articles, and I would prefer that you go back and undo your work. Just so you know, this issue has been discussed before on the Talk pages of some of the more prominent amendment articles, and cquote has been rejected as stylistically incorrect per WP guidelines. Thanks for your cooperation.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted or undone this change to all of the amendment articles. SMP0328. (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, folks... I was away at my parents' for Easter, and was thrust back into the 20th century until this morning.... Groll†ech (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Grolltech/Soldal v. Cook County has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Soldal v. Cook County, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Soldal v. Cook County, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Dalisays (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update on the Ptown article

Much appreciate your update today to the Provincetown article. The Cape articles in general need more good content like this. Cheers! --Seduisant (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Glad to do it! I just added my "To Do's" to my user page. They are:

Work in progress

• User:Grolltech/Ocean Noise Pollution

To Do

• Geology of Cape Cod
• Provincetown Spit
• Long Point (Cape Cod)

Groll†ech (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'll do some Sandbox work on Long Point... but my "Haven't Written" articles list is already pretty long.

I prefer to keep conversations in one place; some editors (not me) use the talkback templates... --Seduisant (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice that list! And unfortunately, it's not one with which I'd have the least bit of familiarity! No worries, I've got a bunch of info tucked away on my hard drive that I'd need to dig out in order to put it into the 'Long Point' article.... Groll†ech (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks Great! so far... although the list of buildings may be of limited interest outside the Cape and Islands Group. But I've been wrong before. You may want to consider adding [File:Long Point CACO Map.png] to the article, which I just created from the swell NPS map available online. I did much the same thing for the North Truro article a while back. Keep up the good work... --Seduisant (talk) 03:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Hatfield–McCoy feud, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. SudoGhost 17:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Long Point (Cape Cod)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Right whale

The FAR has gone stale. Do you have any further comments on the article? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hello? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry about that... I've put a great deal of work into an updated article on which I was working offline, and I was getting close to posting it when I had a computer crash a couple weeks ago... you'll notice my contributions fell off a cliff at that time. I'm still a day or two away from from getting the results of the data recovery effort. I'd completely understand if you need to close out the FAR – as I've never done one before, I assume the level of difficulty is the same for passing an FAR as it is to pass an FAC?  Grollτech (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
    • The FAR will be closed out once a consensus is reached, however long that takes. If you improve the article as you'd planned, then it's likely everyone will say "keep" and it'll stay FA. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I'll do my best... thanks! Grollτech (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Re Jones

Thanks for the edits. Do you think there should be a link to the pdf of the case somewhere in the intro or the box to the right of the text? Also, does it look like there are too many links(to other wiki articles) in the intro paragraph? Rybkovich (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

How's this? I've changed the opening sentence of United States v. Jones (2012) to read:

United States v. Jones, 565 US ___, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012), was a 2012 Supreme Court of the United States case...

I tried using the {{cite court}} template, but that adds a period where, in this case, it would not be wanted.

As to whether there are too many wikilinks in the lead section, my only thought is that the parenthetical lists of which justices concurred with which opinions is unnecessary in the lead. That detail only muddies the water, and can be determined by looking at the infobox or reading the article further.

I did just notice the last sentence of the first paragraph, which can't possibly be correct as it stands:

The question of whether a warrantless search would be a violation of that amendment was not addressed.

A "warrantless search" is by definition a violation of the Fourth Amendment! I haven't read the referenced 'Goldstein article' yet (I'm about to), but that can't be what he said...

Grollτech (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I think S.Ct. change works, but opinion page references would have to be changed to court cites. I would keep the justice names. If reading for first time, that is necessary info re SC opinions and makes sense that one should not have to look in other parts when getting an intro. Re Goldstein's argument: He considers an example of a trespass followed by short term GPS surveillance, all warrantless. This would be considered a search do to trespass. But based on Alito's concurrence, he thinks that there are four justices who would not think that a "search" occurred (do to them ignoring trespass and surveillance being short term) and hence they would also vote that a warrant was not required. Out of the 5 justices that think that a search had occurred - four (all except Sotomayor) are considered conservative, consequently it is rational to suppose that one of them would vote that a warrant was not required. In other words, they would vote that a search occurred because of trespass but then fit it into an exception and did not require a warrant, because they are conservative.Rybkovich (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

P.s. just thought that S.Ct. cites should be added to not replace pdf page cites, since the pdf file is also great to have a link too.Rybkovich (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Florida v. Jardines, Grolltech!

Wikipedia editor FreeRangeFrog just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Awesome article, good job!

To reply, leave a comment on FreeRangeFrog's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Thanks very much! I also just created its companion article, Florida v. Harris, which was also before the Supreme Court today... Check it out! Grollτech (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		In recognition of the excellent grooming you are doing on marine life articles --Epipelagic (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Great to be recognized by someone who shares your interest – a peer, if you will. I've been distracted the last week and a half, but I'll be at it again, I still want to create a "dynamic" cladogram template... Grollτech (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Autopsy_images_of_Ngatikaura_Ngati

Your recent comment on Talk:Autopsy_images_of_Ngatikaura_Ngati made a whole lot of bulletted points. Could you change them to numbered points please, so that they can be addressed in a systematic fashion? Stuartyeates (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, will do. Grollτech (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

In this edit you said "Someone in New Zealand would have a better chance of getting a hold of the judge's ruling, which is public information, and I know that someone in New Zealand is paying attention to this discussion who would be more than happy to produce it, if it will prove me wrong." It's hard to see how to read that except as an accusation of bad faith reference-hiding on my part, which is especially disappointing pretty much all of the directly-relevant refs on the article and talk page have been found by me, including a batch in the immediately preceding edit. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) That's one way of reading it. A less reactionary approach would be that of assuming one is naturally less inclined to pursue extended searching for refs which support an opposer's POV. Such a situation is human nature and is not the same thing as saying someone already holds refs which are deliberately being withheld. Editors who are willing to search extensively for evidence which substantiates all points of view are of tremendous value to the project and are probably under-appreciated. -- Trevj (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

[yet another (edit conflict)] Thanks Trevj, I couldn't agree more.

In re-reading my post, I can certainly recognize and understand why you would feel that my comment was directed towards you, especially in light of my "apparently convenient edit conflict". I am *truly* sorry for that, and the best I can do is to give you my solemn word that I wrote what I wrote long before I even saw that I had an edit conflict, let alone the content of your contribution, which I *still* haven't read, because I've been beside myself over this misunderstanding. No, I assure you that I did not have you in mind at all when I wrote my post. Of course, you don't know me, aside from our interaction on that page, and that's unfortunate, because I am certainly not as shallow as to play coy little games like that. Besides, we may be on opposite ends of the spectrum on the issue of inclusion/exclusion, but during our various interactions on that page, I have found your responses to be reasonable [well, most of them – I chose to ignore the "building an encyclopaedic article" remark ;-)], specific and logical (which I like), and fair. Why would I do that, especially when doing so would undermine my own credibility – even more so on this specific point – one which is not rooted in the "moral/ethical quagmire", but rather one which I believe to be purely based on empirical evidence and logic?

I'll tell you what was on my mind when I wrote that... This is a highly polarizing issue, one in which few people will feel ambivalent enough to be impartial – myself included, and I recognize that. You would surely know better than I, but I daresay that the more or less evenly divided opinions on the issues that have swirled about in our little wiki-microcosm have probably mirrored quite closely against the "bigger picture" of the public opinions within New Zealand. Am I right? I also know that "vocal dissenters" (such as ourselves) are like cockroaches – for every one of us that you see, there are a hundred (or a thousand) more lurking in the shadows muttering to themselves, "mmm-hmm, that's right, you tell 'em!" THAT'S who I hoped to hear from. I was hoping to reach someone (preferably from my roach clan) who happened to live around the corner from the Auckland High Court, or, being that it was Monday morning (your time) when I posted, maybe I'd reach someone who would stop in during their lunch break to get a photocopy from the clerk's office.

As you are only too painfully aware, my responses can become a tad, er, um, voluminous on certain rare occasions (*ahem*). It takes me a good deal of time to write those responses. Yes, I knew that you were preparing a response to me, which is why I was wanted to get my response to Bilby finished before you got your response posted. With the household distractions while sitting in front of the TV on a Sunday night, my 3100+ byte response took 2.5 hours... and I can safely guarantee you one thing: I made a single save attempt (which failed due to the edit conflict), and that attempt was only about one minute before I finally saved my post. I don't know how to access the logs, but I know that somewhere there is a server log that recorded my edit conflict, and which would prove that I would not have had the time to re-write my response based on yours during that minute. Grollτech (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for joining WikiProject Freedom of speech

Much thanks for joining WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Florida v. Jardines, Florida v. Harris

Congratulations. I think you must have set a world's record on nominating something, getting it approved, and already promoted for Main Page appearance. Wow. You'd better do some more, because DYK seems to appreciate your output. — Maile (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't have been done without your guidance! Thanks for that, very much appreciated! Grollτech (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Florida v. Jardines

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Florida v. Harris

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK issue

Hello! Please see Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Problematic hook. Thanks! —David Levy 03:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you know...

...that I have nominated Nycticebus kayan for Did You Know? Chris857 (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code that was emailed to you.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Nycticebus kayan

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding use of picture of shipping routes

Dear Grolltech,

my name is Magnus 653gnosu (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Juel and I am a student and freelance journalist from Norway. Currently I am writing a piece of article about containerization for a norwegian magazine called Aftenposten Innsikt, I guess you could say it is the norweigan version of magazines like Der Spiegel or Time (http://www.aftenposteninnsikt.no/). I wonder if I could use your picture of shipping lanes in the world in my article? You will off course be credited for the picture, either with "Grolltech" or with your real name if that is your prefered choice. The picture I am thinking about is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shipping_routes_red_black.png

Please let me know you opinion on this.

Best wishes

Magnus Juel

Magnus,

Thanks very much for your interest, and for contacting me. The image is licensed under the CC-BY-SA Creative Commons license, you may definitely use the image any way you like, with attribution. Note that the image is a derivative of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shipping_routes.png – in keeping with the license, attribution must also include the original author (especially since he/she did most of the work, and I simply applied color to the image).

It would therefore be appropriate to attribute "Tomislav Hengl/Dieter Groll" if space allows, or "T. Hengl/D. Groll" otherwise.

By the way, I don't know if you are using the image for print, online, or both, but I have created several other color options as well, available here, if one of those might work better for you. Let me know if you have any difficulty viewing the folder. I can also make any other color combo you prefer.

Finally, if the article will appear online, I'd love a link to it, or an estimated publish date, so I can keep an eye out for it. Thanks again! Grollτech (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Pi Kappa Phi Founders.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pi Kappa Phi Founders.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding use of picture

Thanks for the quick and positive reply! I will make sure that the picture gets credited as you explained. I love the other versions of the picture as well, hard to make a choice! My deadline is March 15, but my editor has not told me when the article will be published. I guess it will be sometime in the upcoming two-three months. I will get the finished article in pdf, so I could mail it to you if I get your e-mail. Alternatively, I can send you the link to the article if it gets published on Aftenposten Innsikts website. Aftenposten normally posts old articles from the printed version a month or two after it was in print. Let me know how you feel, and keep up the splendid work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 653gnosu (talk • contribs) 18:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Grolltech; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Whydah Gally citations

Thanks for the feedback! I'll see if I can find any online versions. Most of the material I have is old photocopies. I'll go in once I have something to add! Erodley (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Insinuation

I am insinuating only that it is not a good idea to edit a wikipedia article and then point to that same article in trying to make a point. It just does not have any credibility. Everyone knows that nothing in wikipedia can be cited as a reliable source anyway. And the model is a student working on their homework putting something into wikipedia and then citing wikipedia as the source. The correct way to cite something from an article, is edit the article all you want, and cite the references in the article, not the article. Apteva (talk) 05:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for answering the poll at the village pump about how effectively we communicate existing policy via the actual wording on the policy pages. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Centralia RfC

I left a message on Barek's talk page and he told me the banners on the top of the pages may be taken down. Also, stop bugging me about the sockpuppet incident. It wasn't a huge thing and I only had one other account. I saw investigations with over 6. Please let this whole thing blow over and I will go back to normal editing. I'm even considering getting a WP:MENTOR. Leoesb1032 (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, Grolltech, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Pratyya (Hello!) 06:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Your warning to Groupuscule

I'm not sure I understand your warning to Groupuscule here, particularly its shouting and sarcastic tone. Clearly cited sentences in quotation marks are generally not copyright violations in my understanding; certainly, you would expect a direct quotation to repeat its source word-for-word, so I'm not sure why you appear so surprised and outraged about that. Perhaps you could clarify? -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

@Khazar2: Yes, I just realized my mistake about a minute ago... undoing it now...  —Grollτech (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I do appreciate your vigilance--Wikipedia always needs more people doublechecking sources. But this is a good example of why it's better to go in asking than shouting... -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

@Khazar2: Of course, I feel about an inch tall right now... Can you look at his talk again, and let me know if there is any more that I can do to correct it? Thanks  —Grollτech (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. Mistakes happen, and Group's an experienced and good-hearted editor who I think is unlikely to hold a grudge or be too worried about it. And again, sincere thanks that you're checking for copyvio in the first place, which not enough Wikipedians do. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting

You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Report

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

About tuna countercurrent heat exchanger

Hi can you explain further to me about the "re-claimed" heat of venous blood and how it transferred to arterial blood? I am getting confused since my teacher told me that the counter-current exchange should be from warm and thich arteries to cool thin veins to transfer heat to the surface of tuna. I don't really understand the re-claimed part you said. I've looked up papers about the counter-current heat exchanger but without any detailed illustration. I've also checked out the wikipedia page of the counter-current heat exchange: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countercurrent_exchange#Countercurrent_exchange_of_heat_in_organisms, which looks like it is from arteries to veins.

Thanks for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wosiiro (talk • contribs) 06:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I can try, but I'm really not an expert on the topic myself... First off, many species utilize a rete mirabile ("wonderful net"), for many different purposes. For example, in slow-moving sloths and lorises, which may cling to or hang from a tree branch for an eternity, they use the rete to lower their limb temperature, and therefore lower the metabolic requirement for oxygen and nutrients in the tissues of that limb.

In tuna, the direction of heat exchange does seem counter-intuitive at first glance, because we humans naturally think in terms of blood flow in warm-blooded mammals such as ourselves. The key to this puzzle (I think) is that in tunas, the heart and gills operate at ambient temperature – the temperature of the ocean. Also, don't think of the arteries in terms of the human aorta, for inside the rete, all of the veins and arteries are a maze of thin vessels that touch each other over a high surface area, as shown in the rete mirabile article.

A-ha! I was right! I just found a great quote from a new reference (well, it's from 1984, but it's new to me) – which I'll probably use in the article – that explains it better than I can:

"Oxygenated blood that has just reached thermal equilibrium with ambient sea water in the gills enters the rete on the arterial side, while warmed, deoxygenated, and carbon dioxide-laden blood enters on the venous end. In the rete, countercurrent flow and the high surface area contact between the two blood supplies facilitate the transfer of nearly all of the metabolic heat in the venous blood to arterial blood, thus conserving muscle temperature. After exiting the rete, arterial blood continues to the red muscle capillary beds, and cooled venous blood flows to the gills where carbon dioxide is excreted and oxygen is loaded."

So in other words, the oxygenated blood in the arteries is heated from ambient temperature on its way from the heart to the muscles. By the way, when they say "nearly all of the metabolic heat", they're not kidding, because the heat exchange in the rete is extremely efficient in tunas – in bluefin tuna, for example, that heat exchange approaches 99% efficiency! The warmer blood, as the article further explains, is able to deliver more oxygen and ATP to the muscles.

Hope that helps!  —Grollτech (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Whaling in the United States

Have you read the paragraph you restored? It cites no sources, it doesn't fit the chronology of the section it's in, and the quality of the prose is really quite poor. I couldn't (and still can't) find anything in there worth incorporating into the article, so I felt the best course of action was simply to remove it all.

In future I will add an edit summary to any changes I make. 78.105.161.59 (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)