User talk:2ocean7

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, 2ocean7, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Epipelagic (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Reef fish

Your addition to reef fish has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:11, 23 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, and later summarized. I am the sole copyright owner of all the material contributed.

I mean how stupid would it be for me to plagerise something and then provide links to the plagerised source within my own post? - William Alevizon, Ph.D. (aka 2ocean7 2ocean7 (talk) 17:12, 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 releasing your copyright privileges.

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)

Coral reef fishes

The article on coral reef fishes has now been nominated for DYK (it has to be nominated with five days of starting the expansion). It should appear on the front page in a day or two. The article is just a first pass, and it still needs a lot of work. However it would be really good if you could pass a critical eye over it before it goes public. Regards. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have begn to work my way through it. Have gotten through the "feeding strategies" section and signing off for now. Will attempt to do more tomorrow. Lots to do. One of my main goals is to keep the article focused upon fishes, and so I have deleted a fair amount of material I believe more suited to an article focused upon coral reefs per se.2ocean7 (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Need to add complete references for my newly created "Distribution and Diversity" synopsis section. Wiil do that this PM. Other than that, I think it can go public for everyone to participate. I've done about all I can in the way of initial editing/writing on this at this point.2ocean7 (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

References completed. Let me know if you have any questions or problems with what I did. Regards2ocean7 (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Great. I hope you don't you don't mind me outlining some editing issues on Wikipedia, in the hope that you may be around for a while. Editing for Wikipedia is a game with its own rules, different from the rules implied when writing a text book, scholarly paper, general interest book, or an article for a newspaper. The key rule is that Wikipedia, as an encyclopaedia, is concerned with verifiablilty, and not with truth. It's no good adding something to Wikipedia just because you know it's true, since when you add something to an article here, you are wearing your Wikipedia editor hat. As editors, none of us carry any authority as a source. Anything that could be disputed must be backed by citing an external reliable source. Some specific points:

• You may want to cite your own publications at time. That in itself is not a problem, but if you yourself enter citations to your own work directly into an article, that would lay you open to conflict of interest issues. You should avoid this by mentioning the citation on the article talk page. Then another editor, such as myself, will add it to the article for you.
• You clearly understand the need to provide sources when you add new material, but just to remind you, the additions you made here and here need citations.
• Generally, Wikipedia articles should conform to the manual of style. Don't worry too much about this for now. I'll just "align the article with MOS" when needed.

Articles like this are never really "finished"; there's just a point where you stop working on them. However, this article could still stand more development. I'm up for that if you are. Regards. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Added the first requested (ciguater) ref no problem, but the second (on diversity) I would use a book already listed as a Reference in two places, but don't know how to format that like you do with the Moyle and Cech refs. The one I want to use is: Liske, E and R. Myers. (2001) "Coral Reef Fishes: Indo-Pacific and Caribbean" Princeton University Press. ISBN: 0691089957

For multiple references to the same source, one of the citations should be like the one you entered,

<ref name=LiskeMyers>Liske and Myers, 2001.</ref>

This has been named with an arbitrary identifier you just make up, "LiskeMyers". Then for all subsequent citations, you just use the identifier, as in

<ref name=LiskeMyers />

(note the closing slash). You can see where I have entered this here. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Coral reef fish

Actually, the article title needs to be singular. I've explained why on the article's talk page. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Coral reef fish

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)

http://spam.coral-reef-info.com

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Jamie: On what basis do you suggest that the link you removed 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 to: http://www.coral-reef-info.com/coral-reef-fishes.html 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. 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".

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 baseless 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)

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) 10:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reinstated your link, since it seems that it does conform to Wikipedia's guidelines after all! --Epipelagic (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I appreciate very much you taking the time to look into this. Re: your comment "there is no credible independent, peer reviewed assessment of your website" - I agree, but then it is after all simply a website, not a scientific publication. I am unaware of any formal process of peer-review of websites - the only case I can think of where that might exist is if a researcher simply posts a PDF or text version of one or more of their own peer-reviewed publications, which is technically violation of copyright of the journal's publishers unless permission was specifically granted. So I have no idea how anyone would obtain a "credible peer-review" of a general informational website such as mine. I would think that no recognized, well-published scientist would ever put their real name on a "scurrilous website", but I guess it is possible. I agree with you that in the future, the best course of action is to ask another editor to add any links to one's own site if one believes such link appropriate. And as incongrous as it may seem, I note that DMOZ does allow editors to add their own sites to the directory, with some caveats.2ocean7 (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)