Jump to content

User talk:Epipelagic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.181.128.253 (talk) at 23:28, 31 March 2011 (If of interest see Wikipedia talk:A nice cup of tea and a sit down "Talk" also, as User:Arthur Rubin has been deleting comments on others Talk Pages: User talk:OhanaUnited and User talk:Granitethighs (see View History)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Push to talk
Archive
Archives

Fish kill

I concur with your recent edit comment and I had half a mind to delete the Crab entry - I don't include Crabs as fish but I understand that some do. I have also found no good source for a number and to cap it all it is an Asian alien species which wouldn't be expected to survive cold winters. Evolution taking its natural toll I suspect. I might remove the entry entirely when I'm feeling particularly ratty. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   22:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

jeremiestrother

My edits are intentionally and overwhelmingly within MoS guidelines - please, no self-agrandisement! If any of my edits are incorrect: please correct them. My talk page is just as accessible as yours -

Hey! I could use some help in learning to be a better editor - would you be willing to e-mail me?

Red tides

My experience of red tides is very limited (as well as almost everything else marine) but we do have occasional and spectacular red-tides caused by Noctiluca scintilans a protozoan. The few occasions we have experienced them, there have been associated invertebrate mortalities, presumably from oxygen depletion in near shore waters. If there were fish they would have been difficult to see and would probably have been scavenged by the gulls. I was wondering whether there is an assumption amongst non-scientists that all red-tides are algae or is there good evidence for the identification of algal species in every case?  Velella  Velella Talk   23:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no more clued on this than you are. There is clearly confusion about the terms "algal bloom", "algae bloom" and "red tide". Some of these issues have been discussed in the past on talk pages, but not really clarified. "Algae bloom" tends to be used by non specialists while "algal bloom" is used by specialists. And oddly enough, "red tide" is used by both specialists and non-specialists more than the bloom terms, not just in North America, as I first thought. I suppose that allows fudging whether algae are involved. If you want to to engage seriously on the fish kill article and see if we can clarify things like this, perhaps try for an GA, them I'm a participant. But this no speciality area of mine, and we would have to research it! --Epipelagic (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010



To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK query

Hi Epilpelagic, I've reviewed your nomination of cyanotoxin but have a query. Could you take a look at T:TDYK#Cyanotoxin? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cyanotoxin

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aquaculture topics

I note that you blanked {{Aquaculture topics}} yet it is still used an a couple of articles. Is there a replacement for it? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should code it as: {{fishing industry topics|expanded=aquaculture}} --Epipelagic (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cold seep

Hello Epipelagic, I have expanded cold seep article. Feel free to tweak it if you like and I hope you can lead it to "good article". --Snek01 (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Snek, I'll give a hand when it comes under review. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Spawn (biology)

Hello! Your submission of Spawn (biology) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 11:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FISH FARMING

The addition you made to Fish farming was seriously misleading. Your citation, aside from being very dated and unreliable, did not apply in any way to current or historic fish farming practices, whereas the context you placed it in made it appear that it did. Please consider this a warning, and desist contributing to Wikipedia if you intend to continue adding misleading information. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


Please elaborate, Epipelagic. --THC Loadee 15:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

How about a response instead of idle threats? I don't mind opposing viewpoints, however, dogmatic enforcement of so-called valid sources is a bit tedious. Let's talk --THC LoadeeTHC Loadee (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Epipelagic. You have new messages at Template_talk:Did_you_know#ASM-N-5_Gorgon_V.
Message added 04:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Spawn (biology)

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HDML page operating Medusa's engine room

Hi Epipelagic, Forgive me if I have contacted you in the wrong way, I am new to Wikipedia and I am learning to understand how things work. In response to your question with regard to citing of sources, yes I can with regard to what I write. The material orginates from myself. I am the Chief Engineer of HDML 1387, and as such I am trying to provide first hand information regarding the operation of the vessel type's machinery space. This is not formally covered in any publication that I am aware of, and I have been running the vessel's machinery for over six years, ecompassing the rebuilding of her machinery and systems. Also, I note with a little concern that the power of the engines (Gardner 8L3s) is miss quoted. I can assure you that 152hp is the correct figure, I beleive the 204 hp figure is for the rail traction engine and/or the later 8L3B version. Neither of which were fitted to HDMLs. I have performed a hull speed analysis of the vessel using profesional Naval Architecture software, which provides accurate speed prediction, using the Holtrop model series, and the 152 hp (after adjustment factors) is the correct figure for the vessels top speed of 12.5 knots. I also know that the vessel will acheive this, because I have recently operated the machinery space during trials on HDML 1387 at emergency full ahead, and this was the speed recorded through the water. Further, if the Gardner manual for these engines is consulted (I have a copy, then it will be seen that I speak the truth. My intention is to provide a genuine and unique insight for people with regard to this aspect of HDMLs. I beleive I may claim to be some thing of an authority on this aspect of HDMLs because I am the only person in the world, that I know of, that operates a HDML engine room that is still in it's original form, or indeeed even operational. My intention is to provide photographs and more detail as time permits, but, I may reconsider enriching this page if the modifications that I make are tampered with or repeatedly undone. Of course I don't mind people adjusting my writing to reflect the correct style and format, infact I am grateful for this help. I will also request that all that I have written so far, and my name be removed if people refuse to accept the content of what I write. All information that I will forward will be sourced from my own experience first hand of this type of vessel, in the same way that my good friend Mike Boyce wrote 'Medusa'.

My appologies if the tone of this is a little stern, but I am trying to add value to the page, not vandalise it. If my additions are unwelcome then please indicate this and remove my name, and all that I have written from the page permenantly. That is all the material regarding the engine room operation, because I wrote all of it.

I would prefer to continue to add information, and provide some fantastic photos too. But this is going to depend upon whether I can write without fear of having my text altered by people who may not know the facts for sure. Please let me know your thoughts on all of this.

Kind regards,

John Weller — Preceding unsigned comment added by John A Weller (talk • contribs) 20:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, your edits are very welcome, and your input is exactly what the article needs. However, there are some things you need to know about Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are meant to be encyclopaedic. In practice that means the focus is on verifiability, and not on truth. It means that any assertions that are likely to be disputed should be cited with reliable sources. That might seem a little odd at first, but if you think about it you will see it is the best way to go. Wikipedia itself should not be regarded as a reliable source. If something on Wikipedia is not true but is adequately supported by reliable sources, then it still belongs on Wikipedia. If at a later time further research is done correcting this, the article can be updated with the new sources.
It is not enough for you, as a Wikipedia editor, to just assert that something is true. No matter how certain you are, and no matter that you are an insider who really does know. The same applies to me and all other Wikipedia editors–what we think has no encyclopaedic value unless we can support it with reliable sources. If a topic has no reliable sources, then as far as Wikipedia goes the topic doesn't really exist. So if you were an old salt, who came here to reminisce about what happened on HDMLs during the war, then your contributions are at risk at being removed, on the grounds that they are unsupported. If we didn't have a rule like that, imagine the chaos! If instead, you wrote a book about your experiences, backed up with accounts from other people and published by a reputable publishing house, then you might be able to cite your own book as a reliable source.
Lately lots of people, including yourself, have added all sorts of reminiscences to the HDML article, to the point where the article is shaping up very nicely. Except, and it is a big except, that most of it is not cited! At any time, some other editor could remove most of the article because it is not cited. That is why I nudged you about finding "reliable" sources. I certainly didn't mean to imply you are an "unreliable" source :). It's just that it's not enough for you to attest something is true–what is needed are reliable published sources.
If you google for Gardner engines in HDMLs you get 48 results for 204 hp but just one result for 152 hp ... and that is your amended Wikipedia article. Similarly, if you google for the Gardner engine by itself, you get 547 results for 204 hp but only 118 results for 152 hp. That is why I initially reverted your edit. I thought you mixed it up with 152 KW, which is what 204 hp magically translates to. I knew nothing about your background, and in the absence of more information, 204 hp seemed the more likely figure. If the Gardner manual says otherwise, that would be acceptable as a reliable source. I tried, without success, to download the manual from IFOD Online Manuals. Anyway, if the manual supports your figure, you can cite it as your source (give the title and publisher of the manual, its date and the relevant page number, and, if it has one, the ISBN number).
Now is it really just a magical coincidence that 152 KW is the same as 204 hp? I doubt it. I suggest that way back someone on the web (probably on Wikipedia) misread 152 hp as 152 KW. From there we arrive at 204 hp. It must have been an article widely referenced around the web. There are 11 Wikipedia articles referring to the Gardner 8L3. Most of them say they generated 204 hp, but some of them say there was an alternate version of 152 hp (bull shit I think, by editors trying to resolve the conflicting accounts). You are probably in a better position than me to resolve this yourself, and correct the other offending Wikipedia articles (not forgetting to include the reliable source, which puts an end to the nonsense!)
So John, I accept you are now our resident expert on HDMLs. Please continue improving the article, and good photos would be great. If the article is to endure and perhaps become a definitive article, as it should, then the encyclopaedia game must also be played. It must be backed with reliable sources. Was Mike Boyce's "Medusa" published by a reputable publisher? There may be useful sources in historical naval documents. Best regards --Epipelagic (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

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) 15:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done

The Barnstar of Good Humor
I was tempted to block you for butting in on a conversation between admins... but instead I thought I'd give you this barnstar instead because

this made me laugh as I love a good bit of sarcasm. It's good to see that it's not only Brits who can use it! SmartSE (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Geeze... how embarrassing. Better to just block me. Why a bloody barnstar for that! What makes you think there was any sarcasm in that purely factual account? --Epipelagic (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Epipelagic. You have new messages at Bluerasberry's talk page.
Message added 02:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Ross Tiger

Thanks for your edits and safguarding of the page. I have since checked the G Welbourne name on the previous skippers section and seen that it is indeed spelt Welbourn; a typo on my part when originally writing the article. I'll correct this - Daft I'd have made a mistake with him as I see he sailed with my late Grandfather! Hope you're well, Regards, D Ornsby Dornsby (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fishes of the Guzman basin

A painted turtle is swimming, apparently in an aquarium, and we see it front on at large scale, with its left webbed foot raised.
Hi.

I have a reason (tangential) for wanting to learn about the fishes of the Guzman basin. Can you help? Also what's an administrator? Is that like...a moderator, on this...eh...forum? TCO (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't know anything about the fishes of the Guzman basin. There are the usual online sources, like here and here, though really there is not a lot there.
That is a very naughty question you asked, about administrators. You must know by now that it is better for content editors to not think about such matters. It is enough to know that... well we really shouldn't even utter the name... that it is the elect you are referring to, the Wikipedia overlords, a nobility which is appointed for life. Most of them do good work on various administrative tasks, such as blocking vandals, moderating deletion debates and dealing with spammers. But having knowledge of what it takes to be a competent content editor is not a requirement for an administrator, in fact it seems to be an obstacle. If you wish to become one of the elect yourself, you should make your move soon. Otherwise you are in danger of becoming overqualified.
But then, for some reason, which totally escapes me, they are also given powers to block legitimate content editors. In the minds of some administrators, content editor = vandal. There is a small but very damaging group of administrators who resent content editors who write better content than they can, and try to block them on the flimsiest of grounds whenever they can. I suppose it's just human nature, but it's mean and destructive. If a content editor tries to defend themselves, perhaps by stating something quite factual about the administrator's behaviour, they can block you for "incivility" or "a personal attack", which is their arcane code for "something I didn't want to hear". You then have a block record they will never erase, which follows and brands you, so other administrators and administrator wantabees can see at a glance that your thoughts are impure. Administrators can do this with impunity, they are not normally held responsible.
Administrators of this ilk tend to operate a set of linked delusional beliefs, such as "no editor is indispensable", "content editors are always replaceable", "there is an endless pool of quality editors falling over themselves to write for Wikipedia", "we don't need content editors now because Wikipedia is basically written", "all we need now are administrators to tidy thing up". There is no vision at all for the quality of the project. I've lost count now of the number of key scholars and scientists I've seen driven off Wikipedia by administrative buffoons. These people are not replaceable. Many of the world's best qualified editors willing to work with Wikipedia may well have already made their attempt, and will never return.
The administrative set up is very provoking, and the longer you edit the more unpleasant it seems to become. If you want to stay on here as a content editor, then the longer you stay, the more you come under the notice of the more predatory administrators, the more likely you are to have a growing block record, and the more saintly you must become. It is a systematic method of negative conditioning devised, perhaps unwittingly, by the administrative corps, as a regimen of escalating punishment for contributing well to Wikipedia. It is perhaps close to point where blocks are becoming badges of honour for content editors, a sign that they are the responsible editors, who contribute the content that needs to be contributed and don't shirk saying the things that need to be said.--Epipelagic (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wow. Very cool response. Thanks for typing so much (serious). I was going to ask Newyorkbrad "who the fuck are you? I never see you in FA or even in dasharguments at MOStalk or just editing around anywhere, but everyone acts like you are some Prince Charming." Maybe I will wait, for now.

2. On the Guzman, I am (no kidding) in touch with a 100 yo scientist, the most famous living American herpetologist (perhaps most famous ever) and have somehow hatched a science idea that is a worthy addition wrt a species that has over 2000 papers. In fact, the most published turtle species ever. The fish thing is the tangential connection. All of this coming from jerking around on teh Wiki.

3. You are really smart and funny. I like you!TCO (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a serious note, "There is no vision at all for the quality of the project." is the biggest issue. There is a trajic lack of any perspective on what makes a good book, journal article, magazine, newspaper, or even webpage design. Just blows me away to see the amount of time spent on Rodhullandemu or whatever his name is, but then the lack of any benchmarking or thought on what the status of the content is by de facto leadership. (founder, arbcom, board, etc.)TCO (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That great outpouring of energy for Rodhullandemu had nothing to do with the integrity of the project. It was just other administrators horrified to think they could be could be desopped for jerking content editors around. Some administrators think that is what they are there for. Desopping itself is very rare, and when it happens it is usually because the administrator was jerking other administrators around. The "de facto leadership" has no centre, there is no central intelligence operating in Wikipedia. That is perhaps, at the same time, its biggest strength and its biggest weakness. It's another topic.
Btw, don't harass Newyorkbrad. At the final reckoning, the content entered by the content editors is everything, and there will be no vanishing trace of anything else including administrator egos. But to get there many things have to be held together, and Newyorkbrad contributes valiantly in those areas. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I won't dick with him. Still, what I reall admire are the Volokhs.TCO (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Epipelagic (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turtles

We need to generate a lot of turtle GA/FA content by 01APR. Do you think you could write up a GA on some turtle subject? Please? How about turtle fishing? Or Green sea turtleTCO (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No! Sorry, but I've got at least 150 other articles I want to write, and I know nothing about turtles. I really don't understand these fuckwits who think Wikipedia is almost written! There's hardly anything on marine biology! Or just about any other area you look at for that matter. But if you start an article on turtle fishing and hang in there, then I'll hang in there with you. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Green sea turtle is almost done man. It just needs reading Ernst and going over it to see where we miss something and fill it in. Not looking for FA, just GA. And a turtle in the ocean is practically marine biology.TCO (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just start with some copy editing. BEfore you know it you will do some content reorg. Than ref formattting. Then the next thing you know you're looking up new content. Then...you're done with the article. Just come on, take that first drag. I can get you hooked. TCO (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turtle excluder device

Enough fishing related?TCO (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I've already written half of that, and don't want to develop it further right now. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

review por favor?

How about a review for state reptile over at FLC? (It's a light easy article...the only tension is trying to explain stuff for the nonUSAians without bogging things down for the USAians, I'm hoping that I managaged it.) In exchange, I promise not to tease the moderators for at least 24 hours. TCO (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No really TOC. These reptile pages seem to be getting plenty of attention, but there are huge areas in marine biology that have nothing written about them. But you are doing a good job yourself! --Epipelagic (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, man! I know it's work to do a good review, but it's less work than content creation from a blank slate. I may not be here much longer before I get repermabanned (I'm really a 3 month newbie, first Wiki experience was all escalating bans). Let's do some content together. I won't misbehave too much and bring you down in my dramah. I promise. Seriously, this stuff is pretty tangential to marin bio (sea turtles, animals in general). Plus it's a light article (not bio intensive). Do you want me to beg? Pleeeeeze. Pleeeeeze. Oh.....pleeeeeze! TCO (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh...and IANAMB, but I have seen some wierd shit in the marine world (deep sea monsters, strange barnacle sucker things, flying fish dying on the deck). quid pro quo? I'll do something for you? TCO (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing like walking down the deck and having some sea lion almost decapitate you, as it jumps across a wide deck from pen to pen. TCO (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lernaeocera branchialis

Hello! Your submission of Lernaeocera branchialis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback needed

Your inputs would be appreciated on this:
User:Staticd/Physoclists & User:Staticd/Physostomes Currently I have set the pages Physostome & Physoclisti to redirect to Swim_bladder#Structure_and_function. Do they deserve a separate page?
Pro: linking / searching for these term should bring some thing immedeately relevant (there were a few dangling links to it). May be of taxonomic importance?
Con: Articles likely to remain stubs for a long time.

CC to User:Mokele.

thanks for your time. Staticd (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think they could make reasonable, and quite interesting standalone articles. They can certainly be developed past stubs. You could develop the articles further in your sandboxes, and then submit them for DYKs. Do you want to develop the articles by yourself, or would you like to develop them jointly with me? --Epipelagic (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick response. I moved the two pages into the mainspace. Any help will be welcome and count me in if you see anything that needs to be done :) .(Ill be working on a few other articles for now).Staticd (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption of Ala'a Eddeen

Is there any policy that backs up your edit which I and others perceive to be a disruptive edit? Warnings to readers are most important now than ever as it gets the most attention now. Passionless -Talk 22:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lernaeocera branchialis

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hi Epipelagic, thank you for what you've done today. It was brave of you, and it was nice of you because I know you do not like the article. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're one very brave lady yourself! --Epipelagic (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be brave if you reviewed state reptile for FA. Also, I didn't know Mbz wuz a gurl. I would have been nicer.TCO (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that's cool

dick with it...and fix it...and support it. Was some work to research it.TCO (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking pretty good to me. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are still some refs to go in, but pretty mechanical, now. Just got get srunched up and do it.TCO (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar!

I really appreciate it, and your comments. My involved with Wikipedia is minimal now, though I do some anonymous edits still. I just found the dickwickery (great word!) just too much.

Cheers, Neale

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

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) 21:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Fish processing

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Epipelagic. You have new messages at La Pianista's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Biopreservation

Thanks from the DYK Project and Victuallers (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

Invertzoo has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Yummy pie for Epipelagic, a nice person!
To spread more WikiLove, install the WikiLove user script.
Well thank you very much. Most yummy. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hurdle technology

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful comments on Talk:Sustainability regarding File:Nested sustainability-v2.gif ... see Talk:Individual and political action on climate change and wp:tea

See wp:tea. 166.137.141.189 (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If of interest see Wikipedia talk:A nice cup of tea and a sit down "Talk" also, as User:Arthur Rubin has been deleting comments on others Talk Pages: User talk:OhanaUnited and User talk:Granitethighs (see View History). 99.181.128.253 (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Epipelagic&oldid=421732146"