User talk:Epipelagic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Geronimo20)
Jump to: navigation, search
SEMI-RETIRED
This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.
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

Contents


Re: Tryptofish discussion[edit]

I completely agree with your red pill explanation and I think you have a good handle on the problem. But just like in The Matrix, few people could handle going down the rabbit hole. I think Trypto felt like you were attacking him for his arbcom opinion, and he's pretty sensitive about such things. I think you're correct about Kudpung, but there are several differert ways to make your point without directly attacking Trypto. For example, you could have informed him that according to Kudpung's absurd recall criteria, Trypto is no longer allowed to participate in the recall process. Of course, criticizing Kudpung is like shooting fish in a barrel, so it's not very sporting. This is a guy who claimed, quite unbelievably, that the Wifione case was a good reason to keep the tools bundled and adminship as high a bar as possible in the very face of evidence that showed otherwise. Wifione was able to get away with mischief for five years precisely because adminship is an elite process that protects and rallies around its own. If the tools had been debundled, Wifione would have been desysopped at the first sign of trouble. Trypto probably isn't aware of any of this or Kudpung's hilarious recall page, which is literally designed to prevent anyone from recalling him! Go read it if you don't believe me. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Only a master buffoon could produce Kudpung's recall page. He places what must be a record 22 restrictions on any attempts at participating in his recall, and then delivers the coup de grâce to any remaining attempts at holding him accountable:
Note: I reserve the right to strike or delete any post or part of a post that I consider irrelevant, uncivil, or piling-on 'as per'.
I'm disappointed at Trypto's seeming indifference and at his or her provocative suppression of objective and demonstrable fact, claiming as a rationale that it is a "personal attack". The context is the election of arbitrators. If we do not have the freedom normally extended in democratic societies to examine the behaviour of election candidates, then our election process is an even greater disgrace than I thought. I can only assume Trypto's energy is focussed on being an apparatchik here, and that he or she is trying to smooth the way towards an RfA. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree, but I fully understand his personal rationale. I've spent a lot of time getting in his head. :-) As he makes clear in his introductory comments to the thread, he is trying to avoid all drama, attacks on admins and arbs, and off-topic discussion. Believe you me, he has removed lots of my comments in the past, so I know how you feel. Still, I really get the sense you understand the problem better than others, and I'm impressed. It's a good feeling to know that I'm not living in my own private Idaho. I want to discuss this with you further, but I have to finish up several GA's right now. I want you to know how much I appreciate your perspective and it definitely brightened up my day to know I wasn't alone. Viriditas (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Nice. I just saw this, but no one told me about it. In case no one noticed, the place where those comments that I "hatted" were, was in a discussion that has nothing to do with my election voter guide. If you are worried about losing content editors, you can worry about losing me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I sure as shit am not interested in becoming an apparatchik. Nor do I want other editors talking to me like I am one, or calling me one behind my back. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
And if anyone doesn't like my voter guide, then you can disregard it when you vote, or even write a guide of your own, but you don't need to beat up on me over it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Apparatchik! I think you're taking this way too seriously, dude. You have every right to be concerned about running for admin, and I think both Epipelagic and myself would end up voting for you. Our concern about Kudpung and your opinion about him isn't really all that important. We disagree, that's all. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry you have reacted this way Tryptofish. Viriditas started the thread here after you hatted and suppressed our attempts to discuss things with you on your talk page. I did consider pinging you, but then realized it was inappropriate given your clear indication that you had no interest in such a discussion. I wouldn't have attempted to engage you on your user guide if I didn't respect your opinion. If you felt my comments were in the wrong place, and if you respected my opinion, you could have relocated them further on in its own thread. As Viriditas indicated, we could agree to disagree, though reaching that point can require open discussion. I apologize for speculating on your motive. That was unnecessary. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
And let me say both thank you and my own apologies to both of you, Epipelagic and Viriditas. Epipelagic, what you just said was most reasonable and I appreciate it. Rather obviously, I'm having a tough period of time these days, and I was very sensitive to what I saw. (Viriditas said something above, albeit facetiously, about getting inside my head. Believe me, you don't want to go in there, although I'm sincerely flattered that anyone would care. If you knew what my psychiatrist knows, you'd be horrified. So please understand that I have some reasons to be sensitive.) Viriditas, I'm not running for anything in the foreseeable future, nor was I before the block. I'm not into hat collecting (no reference to the hat template Face-smile.svg). Epipelagic, you are right in what you say about which talk threads would be appropriate about it. Here's why I reacted the way that I did. In talking about Kudpung, you are talking about a candidate for ArbCom, but not about a present-day member of ArbCom. Obviously, then, he played no role in my block. It is illogical to discuss him as part of some sort of overall meta-process that led to my block. If you want to disagree with me about my voter guide, that's no problem, but it does not belong as part of the discussion about my block. Not only are those two different things, but I have a very serious interest in how I present the informal poll I am conducting. Any one editor making sweeping comments about how bad all admins are will offend ten more editors who otherwise would have been helpful to me. I have a big talk page, so I have every right to make just one section of it, the section containing the informal poll, a rant-free zone. Now I know that what I just said goes hand-in-hand with the undeniable fact that other editors disagree with me about the entrenched cultures of Wikipedia. But, well, we disagree, that's all.
So let me answer here some of what I think you were asking me about Kudpung and those other things that I think are unrelated to my block. I haven't looked at anyone's recall pages. No matter how recall is constructed, it's a meaningless process. It's always a rigged system, and it only differs from one admin to another in the extent to which it is rigged. Please remember that I was the public face and punching bag of WP:CDARFC. We don't have a good system, and no admin's recall page will fix that. And it's fine if you disagree with me about my voter guide recommendations. But I am not going to change them. You should just vote however you wish to vote, and create a competing guide if you feel like it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
And this would not be complete without my saying thank you for that helpful reversion at AN. Much appreciated! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I gather you don't want me to comment on your talk page about your block Trypto, because you think I am an editor who makes "sweeping comments about how bad all admins are". So I won't. However that is just not true. I have repeatedly stated there are many fine admins, and have probably given more barnstars to deserving admins than to content builders. The view that I "tar all admins with the same brush" is a lie persistently repeated by Kudpung, presumable on the principal that the more he repeats the lie the more it will be believed. I'm dismayed you apparently believe Kudpung's attacks. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Please let me clarify. All that I "don't want" on my talk is comments in the section about the informal poll that appear to me to be about things other than what I ask in the informal poll. You are very, very welcome at my talk, to say anything you want in any other talk section. And nothing that I said about editors at my talk page has anything to do with anything Kudpung said. It's about what I said. I'm not familiar with any conflicts between Kudpung and you, and none of that played any role in my thinking. But I certainly wish you well. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that clarification :) --Epipelagic (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I guess it just goes to show, my voter guide obviously did not determine all of the outcome. Which, in hindsight, is OK with me. All the best, --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Why?[edit]

Do you have idea why Kudpung ran at all? I don't think there was good-faith re chances of being elected. So my theory is somehow he gets off on disputatious confrontation w/ perceived enemies. (Which would explain other edits I've seen of his, for example practically howling to the moon to draw combatants as he was stomping out of WP:Editor Retention, and none came.) IHTS (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung is an admin's admin, deeply committed to further enhancing admin powers and dignity regardless of the cost to content builders. He stormed out of WP:Editor Retention because it is the last organised place on Wikipedia where content builders can receive recognition. He was enraged that they were giving content builders awards instead of admins like himself. To fellow admins Kudpung is a warm, hail-well-met friend with a good heart, but his tone can change very sharply if he discovers he is communicating with a member of the content building caste. By his own testimony he is a retired teacher of 11-year olds, which seems to be how he views content builders. He thinks content builders should be seen only by their works, and otherwise are not entitled to opinions. In particular, any criticism of the admin system by a lowly content builder is a personal affront to all admins. He explained recently that admins are a special breed who should keep to their own kind. I expect Kudpung will be elected, because there are enough admins committed to his vision of the admin as grandee to ensure that will happen. Wikipedia has become a place where committed content builders experience much unnecessary suffering, and that suffering will intensify if Kudpung has his way. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I think you're right - a career can have impact how one deals w/ outside world. (It explains why Kudpung occasionally finds a teen RfA candidate outstanding ... I'm sure there were occasionally remarkable kids in his classes.) I personally can't imagine the election could be successful for him (how more self-destructive could he have conducted his Q & A?!). He seems to think if he hasn't abused his tools his admin badge is shiny. But that's just reflection on the high bar to desysop. Another reason this is so bizarre for me ... the prejudice is so blatant & undeniable - how is it that there seems to be no care re reputation, especially when one has previously self-identified?! IHTS (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I hope you've both seen this high strangeness. I feel sorry for the guy. He just doesn't get the problem with his continuous stream of personal attacks (that page is full of them), and he holds bizarre beliefs that I cannot begin to understand. He thinks, for example, that it is perfectly normal to hate teachers. That's a very strange belief. In my entire educational career, I probably disliked four teachers, mostly due to their style, but I would never in a million years describe my dislike as "hatred". While I fully understand that this gentleman comes from a different era where teachers were encouraged to act like little dictators and tyrants, it is 2015 the last time I checked. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I recall there was one teacher in my early days who wanted his students to hate him, and he literally acted like a tyrant in class, banging desks with a heavy pointer and raising his voice. The thing is, it had the complete opposite effect, and everyone loved him to tears because he really cared about his students and it showed in his firm, but half-serious approach. Kudpung seems to have really lost his way. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Kudpung is not a real problem... the real problems arise from the way the system is structured. It is this structure that allows admins like Kudpung the leeway to disempower and inflict gratuitous pain on serious content builders. A successful campaign that opposed Kudpung would achieve nothing, since it would leave the underlying system untouched. Better to vote for and encourage the Kudpungs, so the systemic dysfunction can continue maturing at an optimal rate. It's a waste of time trying to change anything from within the system. Better to work outside it. For example, I am currently transcribing this well-articulated talk (starts at 4h 36m and runs for 42m), given a few weeks ago at WikiConference USA 2015. In this presentation, a prominent physician enumerates some problems Wikipedia presents to academically competent content builders, and suggests some directions in which solutions may evolve. He suggests that professional bodies outside Wikipedia can over time offer alternatives which Wikipedia, if it values its currently privileged position, will need to act upon. Yes the janitorial work that maintenance workers like Kudpung undertake are valuable and important. But the claustrophobic and myopic views that maintenance workers like Kudpung express about content building cannot be allowed to control and restrict the growth of Wikipedia for too long. At the moment, the tail wags the dog, and maintenance workers and populist social networkers are allowed excessive control of content building and consequently the substantive development of the encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is not the possession of Jimbo Wales and administrators like Kudpung. It was built by the content builders. It is the foremost repository of open source information for the world. If Wikipedia is to retain that privileged status, then eventually it is going to have to refine its control of content building and give some dignity back to the content builders. External professional bodies around the world will ensure that as they start to grapple with the increasingly inadequate and incompetent manner in which the Wikipedia administration currently addresses these issues. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:45, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Well said, especially re: the tail wagging the dog. - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I should have mentioned Viriditas, that we cannot change Kudpung. In another decade he will be as old as I am. And we cannot prevent other janitors and wannabe janitors and social networkers from supporting him. So I suggest just accepting Kudpung, and maybe celebrating him as the almost perfect expression and consequence of having a system where the janitor not only rules but makes up the rules. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Epi - just wanted to commend you for the following statement: "It was built by the content builders. It is the foremost repository of open source information for the world. If Wikipedia is to retain that privileged status, then eventually it is going to have to refine its control of content building and give some dignity back to the content builders." Kudos. Hope it's ok if I quote you from time to time in the future. 😊 Atsme📞📧 19:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
In any case, the mass mail-out means the arbcom election results will be more random this year. There's an interesting thread here. Whether Kudpung is elected or not will be more like the roll of a die. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open![edit]

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It's that time of year....[edit]

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic)
Time To Spread Some Happy Holiday Cheer!!
I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season.

What's especially nice about the digitized version is that it doesn't need water,

and it won't catch fire.
Wishing you a joyous holiday season...
...and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

--Atsme📞📧 22:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Pure pun-ishment. [1]
Thank you Atsme. You are very kind. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

HMNZS Canterbury[edit]

I don't know how to cite a video showing HMNZS Canterbury entering habour with her 4x .05 cal you can clearly see them all 4 atop the bridge when she is entering the harbour ... I have also toured the ship and seen them... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=090NZ-ZcXrE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.59.162 (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree it does look like four guns on the YouTube video. Still, that's not what the Navy says on their official web page for the ship (see bottom left), and you cannot cite the video as a reliable source. Can you find a report somewhere which says the ship upgunned? This discussion would be better recorded on the article's talk page, so I have moved it there. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The Navy don't update their page that often (one of those annoyances)... ie; before the old HMNZS Canterbury was paid off, according to them it never had PHALANX Close In Weapon System according their website at the time it still had seacat... The site will probably never get that updated saying they now have 4 .05 cal and it will probably never get mentioned as it is such a minor thing. It is not really classed as up gunned either, as they are have probably always carried that many but in the passed on had the 2 mounts.

As for MASS Decoy some odd reason you are saying I edited it. "No I did not", However I do know we are getting the MASS Decoy system when the two frigates are up-graded starting next year but I didn't edit any page. Every time I log on to the net I get a different IP address??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.59.162 (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It must a coincidence with other people using the same IP address (that happens). If the Navy can't be bothered to maintain accurate information on their own official web pages then the corresponding Wikipedia article can't be expected to be accurate either. The policy on Wikipedia is that statements of fact should be verified by citing reliable sources. That's about the best that can be done. Normally a Navy's official web pages would be regarded as reliable sources. If the official pages are unreliable then the Navy is the problem, which is not something Wikipedia can fix. If, on the other hand, you can find an independent reliable source documenting the unreliability of the Navy web site, then that could be reported on Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

A search for Septima Clarke (mispelled) redirects to We Shall Overcome when it should redirect to Septima Clark. I mistakenly overwrote We Shall Overcome while trying to correct the redirect. I immediately undid my mistake, but I see it automatically undid it anyway. I'll figure it out soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelphious (talkcontribs) 11:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Fixed now. 206.248.175.112 (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings![edit]

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
Thank you, and the same to you. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Golden Galen barnstar[edit]

Bronze prize medal awarded by the Pharmaceutical Society, Lo Wellcome L0059076.jpg The Golden Galen barnstar
You have been awarded the prestigious Golden Galen award for your contributions to anatomy articles on Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions!

I hereby gift to you this barnstar for your any contributions to the general field of anatomy on Wikipedia. We might not always agree, but I want to let you know that your contributions, especially towards animal anatomy, are recognised and appreciated :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much Tom. That is a totally unexpected surprise! --Epipelagic (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Teleost[edit]

Thanks for deciding to join. Would you be able to work on "Development and growth"? LittleJerry (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Well perhaps, but I'm not sure so far about this rewrite. I have difficulties with the idea that you can pick out teleosts and write extensively about them without at the same time attending equally to the complementary and balancing material for bony and ray-finned fish, etc. Teleosts need to be firmly put in context. It's not like writing an article about a species. You are talking here about most of the aquatic vertebrates and nearly half of all vertebrate species. This means there is enormous diversity amongst teleosts, though focusing on diversity too much is not going to give a good sense of what a teleost is. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

"pescatarianism" vs. "pescetarianism"[edit]

Hi Epipelagic. I've replied to this discussion on Talk:Pescetarianism#Requested_move_17_January_2016. Cheers. --Rekkss (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Another barnstar[edit]

Allaroundamazingbarnstar.png All-Around Amazing Barnstar
You are thoughtful, reflective, and provide interesting commentary and content. I notice. I notice you. And I thank you for it! KDS4444Talk 12:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
That's very nice of you. Thank you. Yes, we are screwing ourselves, that and on another hundred other upcoming issues. There is an article specifically on that particular issue. Gives perspective to editing Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Kindness Barnstar Hires.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Just a thank you for the consideration of writing that transcript. Whatever becomes of it, I truly appreciate the effort. If you'd like me to help clean up areas where my diction (or the recording) made it more difficult, just say the word and I'll dive in. Regardless, it was extremely thoughtful and I thank you. — soupvector (talk) 03:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Two years ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
fish
... you were recipient
no. 778 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Three years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Cavefish vs. template[edit]

Just wonder about cavefish in the template here. It looking at the Cavefish article, it easily matches or surpasses several of the templates other habitat articles in quality and it has high quality references throughout (compare that to Coldwater fish, Tropical fish, Freshwater fish and Groundfish; that's almost half the articles under habitat). It is definitely also a distinct habitat. Could you provide a good argument for its removal? Regards, 62.107.218.185 (talk) 15:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Oops... that was an inadvertent deletion, and I have reinstated your addition. I meant only to edit the group heading for "habitat". Cavefish most certainly belongs on the template, and you've done an excellent job creating the article. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies and the star. It's appreciated. Yes, both IPs are me. If you see a fish article edited by IP 62.107..., there's a good chance it's me. I sometimes edit other animal-related articles, but that's pretty much it. I may well have 10K+ edits by now? It's a dynamic IP and changes every few days, but the first five numbers usually stay the same (if it can be controlled somehow, it's beyond my capabilities). Since I only care about editing articles –I try hard to avoid wiki politics– I've not bothered with the hassle of setting up a "proper" account.
I've left a reply @User talk:62.107.218.229#Citations (if you have further comments on that, please leave them over there). Thanks, 62.107.218.185 (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

William Lane Craig[edit]

Why did you revert?

“The Kalam Cosmological Argument, as it is presented by William Lane Craig who is best known for using it and defending it, is first and foremost a piece of philosophy that represents no particular (or single) world religion and over which there is intense debate.”

If you agree with the statement above, and there is no reason not to unless you have the ulterior motive of wanting people to dismiss the idea that William Lane Craig is firstly a philosopher, it is clear for the following reasons that, whatever else William Lane Craig is, he is best known as a philosopher.

1. We can't use the adjective Christian because the argument itself does not represent any single world religion. We are talking about an individual argument, not his cumulative set of arguments that include discussion of the Resurrection and what we know about it (for which there is a veritable crowd of scholars such as Bart Ehrman). He is less well known for defending the other arguments he defends such as fine tuning teleological arguments for a designer of the universe. I agree the whole is 'Christian apologetics' (after all the 'whole' contains arguments for the Resurrection of Jesus) but we are talking about an individual part considered separately from the whole, not the whole.

2. Apologist, without the word Christian, just means that William Lane Craig defends the concluding position of the Kalam argument (that the universe has a cause of its existence) in philosophy. That tells people nothing new as they already know philosophers often do that with specific positions in intense debates over various philosophical arguments.

3. The idea that the universe has a largely indeterminate cause of its existence is clearly one, first and more foremost belonging to philosophy, not Christian apologetics.Col8lok8 (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter – March 2016[edit]

– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter – April 2016[edit]

– Sent by Northamerica1000 using mass messaging on 17:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Relevant template?[edit]

Hi. This template is relevant to Breaking wave, as I know. But its link doesn't exist in template. Link must be added to template or tp removed from article? Mahdy Saffar 14:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Although breaking waves frequently occur along coastal areas, a breaking wave is not in itself a coastal land form. Strictly, the template should be removed from the article (though it's not a big issue). --Epipelagic (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ekso logo.png[edit]

⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Ekso logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --unsigned BabyJonas (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2016‎ (UTC)

Editor of the Week : nominations needed![edit]

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of Buster Seven Talk for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Chinook salmon[edit]

I, of course, would completely disagree that the images I added in my good-faith-edit to the Chinook salmon article "don't really add anything". In fact, these images add far more to the article than the group of generic images there. They are also placed in context-relevant sections dealing with; the life-cycle of this salmonoid, the harvesting in the last century, the Alaskan aboriginal fishing. I'm surprised anyone with knowledge of this subject and Wikipedia article improvement would decide to revert the edit. The short reason you gave does not really do justice to what is considered best practice in documenting a reverted edit. To quote: A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. The result will be an improved article, a more knowledgeable editor and greater harmony.

I hope this will either assist in explaining your action in more detail than a personal opinion, or to just undo the revert.

Thank you in advance. 72.234.220.38 (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. The images shown in the article should be chosen because they are of reasonable quality and because they illustrate and clarify points that are made in the body of the article. There are over 700 images relating to Chinook salmon on commons, so it is not just a matter of arbitrarily adding further images you happen to find. If you had examined my edit properly, you would have noticed that I didn't remove the historic image of native Americans holding what may be a Chinook salmon. But I did remove the very grainy and unclear image captioned "landing an 18lb Quinnat Salmon in the Rakaia River - 1920". What is the point of adding that image to the article? You can hardly claim I have a negative bias, since the image is from an area where I have lived most of my life. Likewise, I removed the image of "dead post-spawn Chinook". The image is of very poor quality and does not blow up to show any real detail. There is a more appropriate image here. Nor is adding that the dead salmon happen to be on the Palena River in Patagonia relevant to a general article on Chinook. A user talk page, like this one, is not the place to discuss content issues like this. If you want to discuss the matter further, please continue on the article's talk page. Regards. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I've chosen to not continue this on the the article's talk page as I'll leave the edit at the current status-quo. The images were not chosen arbitrarily from the commons, they were chosen to specifically bolster the visual & education value of this article. I had noted that you did leave the "historic image of native Americans holding what may be a Chinook salmon." (Common visual clues should remove the word "may". That size & shape of salmon can only be reached by Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha.) As to the NZ Quinnat image, I'll yield to your "local jurisdiction" on this, though, it was placed in the article section discussing the placement of Chinook in NZ. Some detail may be better than none when no other image is available. Which applies equally to the third image you mention. This was the only commons image of the often seen decaying carcasses of Chinook post-spawn - no matter what river it may be. There is not "a more appropriate image here". The salmon species in that image is of Oncorhynchus nerka or "red salmon" as called in Alaska where this photo was taken (but word is that nerka transplants in the last century failed in NZ, so you get a pass on that Smiley.svg). Perhaps a better image will show up or be sourced, one can hope. I do thank you for the "Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay" note you sent. I feel that since I've been editing articles here for at least as long as you have, I'll decide to stay. I just chose to not "become a Wikipedian and create an account", a choice quite a few very talented editors have also decided to make. Keep working to make Wikipedia better as I myself do Symbol thumbs up color.svg. Regards. 72.234.220.38 (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


Wiki Education Foundation looking for input on Environmental Science student guidebook[edit]

Hi there! The Wiki Education Foundation is looking for community input on an upcoming print brochure for US and Canadian university students. The handbook focuses on editing Environmental Science topics on Wikipedia. I wanted to make sure you were aware, and felt invited to make some suggestions. If you're willing, you can read the proposed document here. Thanks! --Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

NZ animal welfare legislation[edit]

Hi Epi - yes, I wasn't able to stay away too long! ;-) I have been working on writing a Pain in cephalopods article (it is in my sandbox if you want to look at it). I was rather surprised to see that the NZ law on animal welfare seems to protect octopuses and squids, but not cuttlefish and nautiluses. I have been using this reference [2], scroll down and click on the version "as at 09 November 2015", and go to page 11 (the top) where the protected animals are defined. Am I interpreting this correctly? It seems rather an unusual dichotomy. I could understand the nautiluses perhaps being left out because of their very different brain structure, but I really do not understand why the cuttlefish would be considered distinct from the octopuses and squid. Any help would be much appreciated. DrChrissy (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Template default[edit]

Eh? The normal template default is simple autocollapse, which works perfectly with nothing in the template header. The aquatic one had really peculiar behaviour, which I switched off, so it behaved normally in the presence of other templates. If you know another way to make it do that, fine - the simplest is just to let it be like everything else, and it's certainly the least tricky. Rationale: the template should collapse completely when any other template is present. Currently, part of it sticks open regardless, pretty horrid. Hope that's enough rationale for you - I look forward to seeing it fixed, or let me know if I can do it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Very odd. I supplied a title (same as the template's name), and this both fixed the missing buttons issue, and straightened out the odd behaviour automatically. I suspect that having subsidiary templates for components must cause stay-open behaviour unless the parent has default, and that happens if there is a default title, but it's not fathomable without more delving into template geekdom than is healthy. I'm glad it fixed itself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion you might be interested in[edit]

Hi. I thought you might be interested in discussion at Talk:Duck (food) about whether this should be moved to Duck as food along with other similarly named articles - I think you have offered thoughts on this before. I'm not canvassing here because I still have not made my mind up (and I have not voted), but I do know we should try to achieve consistency across WP. All the best. DrChrissy (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Consciousness vs. awareness[edit]

I think it is common sense, not original research, that consciousness is a state that precedes awareness. Consciousness is the readiness for receiving information, awareness exists after receiving information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:8780:A082:D19F:3CF6:8BF9:37CE (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it can be annoying if you are certain something is true, and even a matter of "common sense", but you cannot source it. But perhaps the most important core policy on Wikipedia is that any content you add to an article must be verifiable, that is, it must be possible to cite it with reliable sources. If you add content you cannot verify then you are said to be engaged in original research. There may be some sense in which consciousness can said to precede awareness, but it is not good enough to add that to an article just because the user operating from the IP 2804:14C:8780:A082:D19F:3CF6:8BF9:37CE says so. Not just on my say so either, or just on the say so of any other editor on Wikipedia. Our main task as Wikipedia editors is to find reliable published sources for any content we add. Given that consciousness is an issue that has for a long time exercised many prominent philosophers and scientists, you would need to source your statement to distinctly notable academic philosophers or neuroscientists. --Epipelagic (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Please don't be annoyed with my comment on the inaccuracy of the definition in the article. As common sense is not good enough, one could perhaps refer to Aristotle's distinction between act and potency as a "reliable source". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:8780:A082:D19F:3CF6:8BF9:37CE (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I was commiserating with your annoyance, I didn't say I was annoyed. The problem is one person's common sense can be another's consternation, so it's no good vaguely waving your hands and saying it is "common sense" if someone else doesn't agree. In the 21st century, Aristotle is a reliable source about Aristotle only. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Mind you, Aristotle does not count as a "distinctly notable academic philosopher" any more, only those that, "since the time of Descartes and Locke, have struggled to comprehend the nature of consciousness". Not annoying, funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:8780:A082:D19F:3CF6:8BF9:37CE (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, you are continuing to make up rather childish stuff and apparently interested only in trying to take the piss, so I am finished here. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC).

"consciousness corresponds to the capacity of a system to integrate information", that is to say that consciousness is the readiness for receiving information. Reliable source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC543470/ If you agree, I'll edit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:8780:A082:8D38:5779:CC:6168 (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) If you wish to discuss an edit, this should be done at the article's Talk page, rather than at a single editor's talk page. This ensures it receives the attention of all editors interested in the article. Please take your suggestion there. DrChrissy (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, if you have sources and specific proposals please discuss them at Talk:Consciousness --Epipelagic (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: Shark finning[edit]

Hi Epi,

You mentioned this edit here. My thinking was that these are also isues related to marine environmental issues in East Asia. I realized they weren't directly related to sharks, but seeing that a link to crab fishing practices was also included, that's why I included these. I understand if you see these as irrelevant. 27.115.113.102 (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are not relevant. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter (August 2016)[edit]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fly fishing waters[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Fly fishing waters has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Plantdrew (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Re:John Key edits[edit]

It was not my intention to remove that sentence in the first place; I accidentally removed it again because I began editing before you reverted me. I apologise for any confusion. I intend to incorporate the 'controversy' section into the larger 'Prime Minister' section. I will be reinserting the sentence. -- Hazhk (talk) 21:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter: September 2016[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marine invertebrates, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phyla (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) 09:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Marine invertebrates (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Mya
Marine life (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Mya

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Newsletter: October 2016[edit]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Great job![edit]

I think your Template:Microorganisms is pretty great. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks --Epipelagic (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter: November 2016[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Newsletters/template MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Revert[edit]

"Thanks" for your kind words in Eel. I fully accept disagreements and calls for discusssions, but I'm less inclined to appreciate when edits are called "nonsense". I even linked to WP:REDYES. Not my mistake that someone decided to make the redirects, as Congroidei≠Anguilliformes, Nemichthyoidei≠Anguilliformes. I presume we agree on that but if you want to defend your comment that they're "self-referential" (≈equal≈synonymous) I certainly do look forward to seeing your refs for that. Regardless, you'd think that someone with as many edits as you would know the general view on hostility, like calling edits nonsense simply because you disagree. You may consider how you'd respond if someone did that to an edit of yours, and may also want to check WP:BITE (newcomers) and WP:Etiquette (everybody). Even if there had been very little to add it would at least be possible to make temporary "list-like" articles for Congroidei and Nemichthyoidei, exactly like Anguilloidei (another suborder of Anguilliformes), Clupeinae (vs. Clupeidae; guess who made Clupeinae) and many others. I can only assume you'll redirect those soon, as they presumably appear nonsensical to you. I had planned on making larger additions to those eely suborders today (bringing them beyond "list-like" format), as a new paper that resolves some of the earlier uncertainty via broader genetic sampling was published last month. Instead I got to waste my time on this "nonsense", which you're obviously welcome to revert.
Happy editing. 80.62.116.239 (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Your comment does not belong here. If it belongs anywhere, it is on Talk:Eel. The links you made were, in context, self-referential. That is, when you click on them they reopen the same page you are already on, the eel page. That is pointless, perhaps even disrespectful of the reader. Continuing to make such a fuss about this is nonsense. --Epipelagic (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Epipelagic. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Science ref desk[edit]

Hi. There is a question on the Science reference desk Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Can female Guppys reproduce via parthenogenesis? that might interest you. DrChrissy (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead paragraphs in "Shrimp" article[edit]

Hi Epipelagic — I've made another attempt at fixing up the style of the lead paragraphs in Shrimp. Before my edit just now, the first two paragraphs read:

The term shrimp is used to refer to some decapod crustaceans, although the exact animals covered can vary. Used broadly, it may cover any of the groups with elongated bodies and a primarily swimming mode of locomotion – most commonly Caridea and Dendrobranchiata. In some fields, however, the term is used more narrowly, and may be restricted to Caridea, to smaller species of either group, or to only the marine species. Under the broader definition, shrimp may be synonymous with prawn, covering stalk-eyed swimming crustaceans with long narrow muscular tails (abdomens), long whiskers (antennae), and slender legs. They swim forward by paddling with swimmerets on the underside of their abdomens. Crabs and lobsters have strong walking legs, whereas shrimp have thin fragile legs which they use primarily for perching.
Shrimp are widespread and abundant. They can be found feeding near the seafloor on most coasts and estuaries, as well as in rivers and lakes. To escape predators, some species flip off the seafloor and dive into the sediment. They usually live from one to seven years. Shrimp are often solitary, though they can form large schools during the spawning season. There are thousands of species adapted to a wide range of habitats. Any small crustacean which resembles a shrimp tends to be called one.

I had previously removed the highlighted sentence, but you restored it. I said in my edit summary that the sentence was "out of place"; upon reverting it you said that this deletion was "incomprehensible". Here's my reasoning for why the sentence is out of place, and why I originally deleted it:

  1. The sentence is about the use of the name "shrimp", but it comes at the end of a paragraph that discusses something different: the characteristics of shrimp themselves. (I've come across many Wikipedia articles where an unrelated sentence seems to have been grafted onto the end of a paragraph discussing a different topic. Often it seems to come about when a user wants to add more information to an article, but doesn't consider the flow of the article's text when choosing where to add it. They tack it on to a paragraph chosen at random, breaking up the flow but introducing useful information nevertheless. That's what this sentence looked like to me. The appropriate followup edit for an out-of-place sentence like this is to move the information to a place where it fits better into the article. Candidate locations in the case of "Shrimp" include the first paragraph of the lead section, or the "Classification" section.)
  2. The same idea (the use of the name "shrimp") is discussed in greater detail in the first paragraph of the lead section, which briefly covers broad and narrow uses of the term "shrimp", as well as related / frequently confused terms like "prawn", "lobster", and "crab". It strikes me as redundant with the discussion in the first paragraph, and perhaps even a little bit contradictory with it: anything resembling a shrimp "tends to be called one", but by whom? The discussion in the first paragraph is more specific, outlining the use of the term by different communities.
  3. The sentence is repeated almost word-for-word, with a similar citation, in the "Classification" section of the article. Reading an article clear through and seeing the same sentence repeated twice (particularly just two paragraphs apart) is jarring and gives the article an amateurish style. I think the sentence is used much better in the "Classification" section, where it clarifies another idea.

So, reasoning that the sentence doesn't belong in lead paragraph #2, is redundant with other sentences in lead paragraph #1, and is already used in the "Classification" section, I deleted it, per WP:BOLD. Your edit summary on the reversion, however, indicated that you think that the removed sentence is a "key sentence", so you boldly reverted it. =)

I still believe the sentence is out of place at the end of the second paragraph, so I've moved it to into what I believe is the most appropriate spot in the first paragraph. This leaves it intact in the lead section of the article, but puts it in a context where it relates more to the sentences around it. I hope that this is a good compromise and that you agree the new location is a better home for the sentence in question. (My edit also moves another sentence within the second paragraph to resolve similar issues.)

Cheers, Control.valve (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, your rearrangement is better :) --Epipelagic (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Green on the mudflat[edit]

Hi Epipelagic, Concerning your edit, the photo shows how diatoms look like in nature, a vague green substance on the mudflat. When I was as child on the beach many years ago, I have seen this green stuff, now I know what it is. After your edit, the article gives the impression that diatoms can only be seen under a microscope, which is not true. I am okay if you choose a better description for under the photo, but I would like to ask you to look closer to the photo now you know what to look for. I am sorry I have no photo with flowers or butterflies, this is how diatoms look like in nature. Greetings - Romaine (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a wonderful time of the year![edit]

Merry Christmas tree worm.jpg

Christmas tree worms live under the sea...they hide in their shells when they see me,
So with camera in hand I captured a few, and decorated them to share with you. Face-grin.svg
Atsme📞📧 15:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Atsme and a very Merry Christmas to you too. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon![edit]

US-O11 insignia.svg 6 Star.svg
Milhist coordinator emeritus.svg

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)[edit]

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Hi, how come your talk is skewed 30 degrees? If it not an artistic endeavor, then please ignore this message. Otherwise, know this, I think it's really cool that you have but for reasons of HTML and of graphical limitations a rotated image won't display properly as the way you intended. You need more anti-aliasing and more algorithms to show an image that on an angle on a square pixel screen. Much respect, 108.65.249.149 (talk) 06:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017[edit]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Needs some limelight[edit]

This concept of modified-extensive aquaculture (form of) needs some push for giving some sort of attention.[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.208.114 (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

(IP has also posted to my talk page - replying here) User:14.139.208.114, if you think the topic requires an article, or a larger part in an article on an overarching topic (fish farming did seem a suitable destination), then do feel free to add such material. However, it is crucial that you provide published, reliable sources for your additions - this is where your recent edits have failed so far. In my judgement, your addition to fish farming was fine (if in need of a little condensing and de-jargonizing), but you sourced it to a single, non-peer-reviewed, unpublished sources. This does not satisfy the requirements of the basic Wikipedia policy on verifiability. Once the paper in question has been a) peer-reviewed, b) published, and c) evaluated by the scientific community (which generally manifests in the form of citations of the paper), it qualifies as a suitable source. But is isn't there yet. We don't "create attention" for subjects or "put them in the limelight", we merely document what is already receiving attention. So if there are no other reliable sources you could use as references, the concept of modified-extensive aquaculture just isn't ready for Wikipedia yet. - As an aside, I recommend you register a user name, so that your edits aren't spread across a variety of different IP addresses; this makes it a lot easier to communicate. In any case, please sign entries on talk pages (but not in articles) with four tildes "~~~~" to enable a timestamp and signature. Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, to reinforce what Elmidae said, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which reports on concepts already established in reliable sources. It does not promote new unproven concepts. The article you are trying to promote may well become acceptable in time, but at the moment it is not peer reviewed and has no citations. You can revisit the matter if that changes, and particularly if it is cited favourably in a reliably sourced review article. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fish pond, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pike (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) 10:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Bogus Edits[edit]

Hello,

I am a Science teacher teaching 5th graders. Every time the subject of research comes up my students tell me that Wikipedia is not good a resource because anyone can edit it. I wanted to show them how fast editors like you correct mistakes. Wikipedia is a good resource in terms of accuracy, but it is often over a 5th graders head. Is there a better way for me to show them the process you guys use without committing acts of vandalism? Johnstanley1 (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

John, I am what is called a talk page stalker. If you are suggesting that you want to make bogus edits and see how long it takes for these to be changed, please do not do this. It would be pre-conceived vandalism and could get you banned from Wikipedia - perhaps even for life. Another approach would be for you or your students to spot a mistake in an article, raise the concern on the article's Talk page and see how long it takes an editor to change the article. THis will vary considerably on how many people are watching the page. All the best. DrChrissy (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, demonstrating acts of vandalism in front of 10 year-olds might not be a particularly helpful approach. Wikipedia has software "robots" which automatically detect and revert the more obvious forms of vandalism. There are also utilities which allow Wikipedia editors to manually patrol for less obvious vandalism, such as this "Recent pages" utility. By refreshing the page, your class can see how rapidly new edits are happening on Wikipedia. With experience, editors can usually spot which edits are more likely to be vandalism, and additionally can use further software which highlights likely vandal edits. There are also utilities which allow editors to revert vandalism they have identified and post an appropriate warning with just two clicks of the mouse.
You could also show them "Listen to Wikipedia". This will give your students a better idea of how much activity is occuring around the world on Wikipedia. Unfortunately "Listen to Wikipedia" lacks an option to highlight what appear to be the vandal edits. Hope this is of some value to you. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Cruelty to animals edit[edit]

The issue here is NOT right or wrong. It is that "cruelty to animals" is an inherently moral statement! There are some who believe (or at least claim to believe) that there is no such thing as cruelty to animals, and I acknowledge that in my edits. I am NOT condemning any wrongs-as you note, I did not SPECIFY what cruelty to animals is, because that is where the differing points of view are. But the fact remains that the word "cruelty" itself implies immorality. If Wikipedia doesn't want it defined such then it should just delete the article. I think it best to deal with this here before editing again.70.190.102.49 (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Fish migration[edit]

Yes my comment goes far beyond fish migration and instead states that we are terrestrial immigrants from the saline soup. Should anadromous migration as an evolutionary journey not somewhere fit into Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:902:A140:D118:7A42:4D3:920 (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Look, you clearly have a measure of awareness and could be an asset to the project instead of the trivial digression you are at the moment. Dissipating your abilities with joking is fine and funny for a little while – but jokes like that rapidly become stale and boring. I am very old, heard that sort of thing too many times to want to waste further time with it. Perhaps you are young. If you are not too cynical or insecure, you could reconsider your attitude – maybe even start a new account and reboot your approach to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is massively flawed with a thoroughly demented administrative system, but unless you field immense political or monetary power it remains your best chance to do something useful. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Getting it right[edit]

I'm not going to say you're completely wrong about this, but I wonder if you could help me figure out what the ideal recommendation would be, if the time were ripe, I were made queen for a day, etc.

(Please {{ping}} me; I've given up on my watchlist completely.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Well here's an attempt at perspective. The health industry is one of the great economic sectors, driven and distorted by huge commercial forces. The integrity of medical articles is also particularly at issue because lives could be at stake. This creates special needs for articles that touch on medical or health concerns, and these have to be accommodated somehow in any practical solution. Special needs include a tailored approach towards sourcing championed by Jytdog and the human centric approach championed by Doc James, since the reality is that most readers are focused on information about humans. The only way I see to properly address the issue is to separate medical from other concerns. The problem could have been partially addressed at the outset if the "Anatomy" project had been called the "Human anatomy" project. I tried to remedy this a few years back by creating the Animal anatomy project. But there was no fair hearing from the Anatomy project, and my attempts were too little to have much effect. The problem has since been aggravated with the creation of the "Physiology" project. This turns out to be the "Human physiology" project, again under the control of the medical project. Articles on animal physiology are not accommodated and their development on Wikipedia continue to be inhibited.
As a compromise solution, I would like to see anatomy articles organised in two parallel streams. One stream would be monitored by medical projects, and the other stream would be monitored separately by animal projects. In the medical stream, an article such as Mouth or Urinary bladder, would be about the human mouth and human urinary bladder. However, it would make it clear in the lead that the article was focused on humans. In line with how Doc James sees it, there would be a section, perhaps at the end of the article, called "Other animals". That section would include some summary information about other animals, particularly insofar as they throw light on the anatomy of humans. In addition, the other animals section would prominently display a link to the parallel article which deals with animals. The parallel articles in the animal stream would be structured around evolution. So we would have Evolution of the mouth and Evolution of the urinary bladder. This can allow comprehensive and organised coverage of the relevant animal anatomy, function and form, vertebrates, invertebrates perhaps at the phyllum level, including parallel evolution. There could perhaps be a small section at the end of these animal articles leading into the corresponding article about the human anatomy. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
postscript: I think issues in vertebrate anatomy relevant to veterinary medicine would fit well in the corresponding medical articles. More restricted animal anatomy material, such as the evolution of the urinary bladder which is largely confined to vertebrates, could be covered well as part of a more general article, such as "Evolution of the urinary system". I think an approach along these lines would fit the needs of both the medical and the scientific streams, and would put an end to these entirely unnecessary conflicts and demoralisation of science editors that goes with it. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm a die-hard mergist, so my knee-jerk reaction is that I don't really want to end up with two separate streams. But I can see the benefits.
What I want to know, though, is how you'd structure individual articles. Take an article like Tapetum lucidum. Humans don't have this, so there's no potential medical issue. Do you think that sections on "Classification, Mechanism, Uses, Pathology" is how an anatomy textbook would approach this? I assume that at the very minimum, a textbook would mention its development. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Well from my perspective, die-hard mergism will just perpetuate the problems. In your reply, you have selected for comment a topic that does not concern most medical projects, perhaps only veterinary medicine. This means the issues of how to deal with the different requirements of the medical and scientific projects does not arise. We are at cross purposes, since I thought these different requirements were the focus of this discussion. The control the medical projects currently have over the articles means they are satisfied with how things work at their end. So there is no motivation for medical editors to want to make the articles work at the animal science end. Animal editors who engage with medical editors seem to be meek, and are generally in trouble if they are not meek. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of animal editors to stand up as a group, but this has not happened and I see little sign of it happening.
Anyway, as far as Tapetum lucidum goes, I would structure the comparative biology around the evolution of the tapetum, starting with earlier known appearances among invertebrates, progressing to the present including relevant points about anatomy, physiology, parallel evolution. This paper reviews the evolution of the tapetum, but is not referenced in the article. Adding a table like the one on page 192 might also be useful. As far as section headings go, I don't like the "Uses" section which includes uses by both animals and humans. The section could be called "Human uses". Animal uses could be included in a section called "Function". However, I would avoid a rigid schema governing what headings should be used. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
A semi-rigid section heading scheme helps some editors write broader articles, and if we know what a good system is for organizing a 'simple' item of anatomy (i.e., one that doesn't introduce complications about human medicine), then we could probably figure out how to fit in the human-medicine bits into that system.
I assume that ==Uses== is ==Function==, and that someone (possibly me; it was a long time ago) has tried to make it easier to understand by choosing a shorter word.
I think it might make sense to include a description of 'what the (modern) thing is' (something like ==Form== or ==Structure==?) fairly early on. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Talk page stalker I have been making some bold edits to Tapetum lucidum. Feel free to make comments m the Talk page over there. One change I made was to move a description of what purpose the Tapetum lucidum has to a new section Function and mechanism. This was formerley in the Uses section - a word I dislike. I also moved the Function and mechanism to be the first section as before that,, it was not mentioned until half-way through the article. DrChrissy (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

DS Alerts[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--Kyohyi (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Shrimp[edit]

I removed the taxonomic box before you told me to remove it. I recognize that I made a mistake the minute after I putted that box.

Why is your table of contents curved? What sorcery is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrkin (talkcontribs) 20:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The sorcery is in the source code...
<div style=-moz-transform:rotate(-4deg);-webkit-transform:rotate(-4deg); transform:rotate(-4deg);>__TOC__</div>
--Epipelagic (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Royal New Zealand Air Force[edit]

This comment does not belong here... I have transferred it to the relevant talk page. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary? It’s pretty explicit on the Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts: Don't overload articles with images & Don't use images for tables or charts. Further the source provided is current to 2017 as opposed to 2015, and there are un-sourced notes in the table defying WP:CBALL – cheers FOX 52 (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Postal codes[edit]

A message has been left for you at Talk:Volgograd#Postal code(s). You are welcome to peruse it at your convenience before resuming your usual activities. (Seriously, thank you for the blog reference; it made my day)Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 29, 2017; 21:04 (UTC)

Biological vocabulary question[edit]

Hello. I am French (and don't speak very well english) and I would like to add an article on wikipedia (French) dedicated to "subaquatic grasslands in fresh water".
Can you help me by telling me what is the word or the English expression used for these subaquatic habitats.
Thanks --Lamiot (talk) 08:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not clear what you mean by "subaquatic". In British English "subaquatic" can just mean "under water", relating to conditions, existence, or activities that are under water. If this what you mean, then the term is somewhat redundant, and you could perhaps just refer to "freshwater grasslands". Alternatively, "subaquatic" can mean somewhat aquatic, living or growing partly on land, partly in water, or along the littoral zone of shorelines, or in freshwater wetlands. According to your user page on meta.wikipedia, you have an interest in the exploration of "wetlands, underground streams, quarries, environments and canals, etc.", and in particular the "subaqueous landscapes" of "sections of canals without barges and where recently a rather clean water is coming back". You also refer to finding unexpected underwater species, including a "totally subaqueous mushroom". So I'm not sure the term "grassland" is really covering the scope of your article either. Maybe something like "freshwater plants of the littoral zone" or "fringing freshwater plants" (see here). But really I would need to see your article before I could offer a view on how you might characterise it in English. Perhaps you could send me a link when you publish it. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)