User talk:Epipelagic/Archive 2010

3244:

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 Knowledge. 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 Knowledge version of wiki-political correctness. Beyond that, core decency and courtesy can go out the window. As a further inducement, they are appointed

3262:

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 Knowledge 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.

5103:'side trawlers'. I added her in there as a surviving example of the type as it explains that these were replaced by stern draggers or whatever. The other tenacios editor you're on about stuck it back in again when I took it out and I assumed he was some authority moderator on the page! So didn't mess again! My main intention was to stick a tiny bit on Grimsby in there because despite her history there wasn't a mention. I stuck the Tiger in with it since it is Grimsby and I thought the picture was pretty! lol. But i realise it appeared to be showing off a particular trawler and there isn't that attention given to any others so RT shouldn't have any special favours! I appreciate you keeping what you did, thankyou. 1292: 3276:

share his knowledge on Knowledge. Jamie's idea that there is an infinite pool of such experts is naive and damaging to Knowledge. 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 Knowledge, the more they can become at risk, particularly if they say what needs to be said. --

2361:

him what needs adjusting in his approach to writing for Knowledge. I personally find it hard to put into words exactly what is wrong with his articles, because it is not glaringly obvious. Mostly I think he does not quite understand how to write a good lead and also how exactly to write for an encyclopedia. Could you let him know what you think? I already told him I would ask you to comment if you can find the time. I will be away for 3 weeks starting April 14th. Many thanks for anything you can do. Best wishes,

3803: 3221:

some time correcting factual inaccuracies and omissions originally placed in this article by your other "plenty of excellent contributors who don't promote their own websites". The referred link was approved and reinserted by the topic editor (Epipelagic) after discussion with me. If you want to play "spam cop' and edit articles in technical fields about which you know nothing, so be it. If this is allowed to stand, I will waste no more time writing or editing for Knowledge. Over and out.

175: 5950: 971:] At this point, after many many hours over the past week of trying to edit the article I am frustrated and feel totally abused. I have yet to be able to make a single edit to the article without invoking an edit war from Tao2911. I feel that Tao2911 is a tenditious editor who is bullying and taking ownership of the article. He pretends to want consensus at times, but will not allow me to edit. Period. He himself though has basically edited at will over the past week without consensus. 31: 1331:. As of yet it is not linked anywhere except through the {{Essay}} template. My ultimate objective is to move this essay to the project space, but at this point, that is premature without some feedback from fellow editors. As such I would appreciate your opinion on the essay, especially on two points. 1) Have I made any statements contradictory to WP policy or guidelines? 2) Are there additional examples that could be included to demonstrate my points more effectively? 1446:

proper title redirecting. Since I couldn't use the good ol' Move button, I did the manual method, with the intent to go back later and get an admin to fix the edit history. As I am not an admin, I can't do it myself, sorry. I have fixed all the Wikilinks from other articles, except those on talk pages and such. I think the title of the tournament may have originally been with an "s", but when ESPN took over the tournament they may have changed it. -

3363: 2206: 2136: 1851: 1751: 1566: 1166: 866: 2580:". Is there some specific point you think I missed? In view of your truculence, why should the issue not be raised there again? Neelix did not say "that he f'd up", he politely apologised, obviously in a state of considerable consternation, and explained what he thought he was doing. He was polite in the face of your grievous behaviour. You are the one that "f'd up". I invite you to offer the much overdue apology you owe to Neelix. -- 5018:'rather unremarkable' either. However, I recognise and agree with what you said regarding 'showcasing' and realised that, although I was trying to make a genuine contribution, it probably did come accross as such. I have therefore removed the sentence regarding Ross Tiger from the 'side trawler' section. There is no other mention of individual vessels for types and as such there shouldn't be mention of her. Regards, Dave Ornsby 107: 5922: 486:

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 Knowledge 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.

4081: 5356: 5165: 4797: 4522: 3912: 3494: 4289:

consider ourselves as a reliable source and hence the way to provide this link is through an internal or "wiki" link, not an inline citation. In regards to the content of the lead, I can see Newm30's point that it is confusing to mention the Royal Navy, particularly in the first sentence. Perhaps it would be best if it were reworded. Something like this might suffice: "Although the

2595:

on the information that was available, and the potential for damage if I was actually correct in reading the evidence. Am I sorry that he was blocked? Overall, yes, but again, based on the information available at the time it was the right decision at the time. If Neelix has an issue with me, it's none of your business. You're normally a good editor who seems to believe in

3184:

to which you removed the link definitely fits the Knowledge criteria "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Knowledge article due to copyright issues". The material is also not readily available to most Knowledge users as the book is out of print.

517:

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 relinquishing your copyright interest.

5549: 1049:

it was used on a template just referring to angling (except for the next point…). It may not be an argument that the cartoon image is pretty ugly, but it also feels very much out of place when compared to the other fishing templates, which use real-life images of fisher(wo)men or fishing vessels. Your image doesn't fit into the subject.

740:- Yes, you are right, the first impression is not very clear, but as you says regarding fisheries and agriculture sector the information is very rich and full of FAO self studies. If you agree with that I can do the link directly to one of this sections better that to the “General information” page instead. Please let me know.-- 1479:. However, please note that this particular link was added without any explanation whatsoever, by an editor whose only edit was to add said link. We certainly do not keep ELs in articles simply because someone happens to have posted them; there is no "free pass", and the onus is on editors to justify why a link deserves to be 4385:

recollections. There must be many adventures and tragedies about these craft, and possibilities for interesting articles. But for over three years you are the only other person on Knowledge who has shown any interest in coastal forces, and not many people look at the articles. Oblivion closes in and the world moves on. --

5862:

for some nefarious motive I can't imagine. I certainly don't remember doing it deliberately. I apologise profusely for disturbing you by doing that, and assure you that I did not wilfully insert the entry slightly out of place with the specific aim of personally distressing you. And it was dreadful if I didn't

1924: 4343:. At the time of writing these articles back in 2007, it seemed like a good idea to me to compare equivalent forces in different countries, which is why I put some focus on the Coastal Forces in Britain. Now I'm not sure that's really a good idea, and perhaps they should just be about coastal forces. -- 3780:

Hi John. Really I was not seeking an apology at all, and I have no objections to your positions on content issues. I was merely hoping you might find a way to behave towards content editors in a more friendly, respectful, and less self-important manner. In this way, you would be a real asset, serving

3243:

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 Knowledge, and have been losing the will to contribute lately. Content editors are hugely devalued on Knowledge, and

2684:

and the use of the photo that I took back in 1972 of the coracles fishing below Cenarth. In your edit of 4th July you have assigned names to the two fishermen which was not part of the metadata of the original image. I don't doubt that the names are correct but I would be grateful if you let me know

2360:

He is a fairly good writer, but he is so new that he has not quite got the hang of Knowledge tone and prose style yet. One of the articles picked up two tags, which it may or may not deserve. You are such a fine writer I was hoping you can take a quick look at his articles and perhaps be able to tell

1044:

First off, spare me your arrogance of pretending to know who I might be – you don't; and I don't know the person you're referring to personally. I merely seem to concur with other users who don't think the image is appropriate there. Secondly, as a precaution, don't act like you're the template. I'm

788:

Hi Epi, I redirected the page in the effort to fix disambiguation links, the page was listed automatically in the list, I did not go looking for it. Second, I created the page for Leuciscinae when I noticed that the majority of Minnows - " True Minnows " belonged to that particular genus. Leuciscinae

579:

As a start, I would like to add 4 or 5 general referrences that would be of use to persons interested in coral reef fishes of specific geographic regions (i.e., Red Sea, South Pacific, Hawaii, etc.), I also would strongly suggest (if it would not "step on" another article in Knowledge) that the name

516:

However you should be aware that this will mean that content from your book can also be directly used outside Knowledge, 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 Knowledge editors. In this case, the content

5861:

Geeze, I honestly have no idea how I did that. I didn't click the '+ new section' button, but went to the bottom of the page and edited the bottom section. I must have added my bit at the top of the section instead of the bottom. You seem insistent that I did that, not accidentally, but deliberately

3856:

To quote the abstract of the paper: "These norms speak to the intentional stance and communicative behaviors Wikipedians should adopt when interacting with one another." The study contrasts "supportive communication" with "defensive communication", and explains that "Supportive behavior/climates are

3781:

the community in a genuinely positive and constructive manner, instead of leaving a trail of bewildered and resentful wreckage behind you. As a community, it is important for content editors to trust and have pride in administrators, and to achieve this you need only adjust your tone. Best wishes, --

3220:

It is not a "conflict of interest" or "spam" to cite work (even your own) that is relevant and not otherwise available. Do you see any adsense on my pages (other than the search box which is there for the visitor's convenience and does not make me enough to buy a cup of coffee each month). I spent

3183:

The link 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 and referenced numerous times in this article (ref #13). The page

2910:

article). This is the first time I have received any sort of award from the Knowledge project, and it really means a lot to me. I have been working hard on this project, and it is nice to be noticed. Your vote of confidence in my abilities provides me with a modicum of reassurance that my efforts to

2061:

Wow Knowledge is not a place for dishing it out talking about that photo being a beefcake picture of me. You have no idea who I am so you should not make assumptions. I do believe it contributes something to the article and I will discuss in the fisherman forum we will let the others decide wether

1357:

Hi, I don't know whether it's that organised against common sense. The issue was first noticed at WT:MOS, which has recommended the after-punctuation method for some time, in contradiction to FN. I went and changed FN boldly so that it's consistent with the MoS, and met resistance. I think the small

5680:

The issue is what direction the ring is spinning in relation to the direction the ring is traveling through the water. For instance, most bubble rings created by humans travel straight up towards the surface of the water. In these cases, a bubble ring spins in the opposite way as the arrow shown in

5600:

In the article, it describes the spin of a bubble ring like this: "The ring of air as well as the nearby water spins poloidally as it travels through the water, much like a flexible bracelet might spin when it is rolled off a person's arm." The quote is correct, but it would be more accurate if it

5102:

Ah. I didn't realise you've had previous trouble in this department... I stept into a battlefield did I?! I fully understand and agree with what you've said. The edit I made afterwards wasn't to remove the Grimsby section, it was removing the section regarding the Ross Tiger from the description of

3764:

Thanks for your recent message on my talk about the tone I used when helping improve the Paul the octopus article in July. I want to formally apologise for communicating with you in a way that disturbed you, even though I stand firmly by my position on the content issue. I hope I shall do better in

3187:

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 change to this article, which I helped to

3055:

Yes, the day of the authentic hunter is over, replaced by bizarre high tech activities by over-resourced people trying to kill time. It would be like establishing a conservation park for Siberian tigers, funded by "hunters" on the agreement that they can sit in a humvee and shoot some of them with

2930:

I feel as though I am being bullied out of Knowledge when all I do for the most part is qualitatively improve articles by adding citations. I have a group of malign editors that have formed a cohort against me. They have searched really hard to find a few matters of dispute out of my 20,000 or more

2594:

I have already acknowledged Neelix's comments to him/her directly. I did not f-up: I made a decision based on the information available at the time - when it comes to protecting Knowledge, I did the right thing. Does it turn out that Neelix was perhaps blocked incorrectly? Not necessarily, based

1048:

The argument of it not adding much to the template is valid, though other templates use purely illustrative templates as well. Other than that, the image is pretty limited, showing specifically an angler, which is too specific for a broad template on fishing in general. I wouldn't have a problem if

1016:

Hi E, just wanted to say thanks for helping over at Adi Da, very much agreed with what you had to say in the more thoughts pop down, very clever. I think you might have an essay there. I have been thinking this week how Wiki is just like playing a game, as in a board game or a video game. Of course

993:

Ha! I also came over to try to get you back involved in Adi Da. Of course I could make some case here with 42 links for my sad abused self, but you can go to the talk page and catch up. Needless to say I disagree with Starr's characterization. I've requested mediation, but Starr is refusing to sign

552:

Epipelagic - Thanks for the info. Your point "Clairvoyance is not accepted as a valid tool when dealing with Knowledge copyright issues" is well taken. I did not really consider copyright much of an issue in this case as I felt the brief snippets I contributed would be considered "fair use" under

89: 5818:

Oh I see. My apologies, I misunderstood you and thought you were just stirring. I have no idea my addition was up one entry from the bottom (not exactly the "middle" of the page). It was a mistake, and I think you can assume good faith. Why would I insert the entry one place higher in "bad faith"?

5017:

page. I do feel I have to say that I was a little taken aback by the tone you took on the edit history page in your comment. It seemed uncalled for. I also can't agree that the only remaining vessel of her kind, of what was once one of the largest fishing fleets in the world, could be described as

3275:

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

2814:

about a giant historical construction which people used not only for fishing but often as place to inhabit. I created the above mentioned template to show, where necessary, fishing tecniques in those article not immediately related to fishing tackle, and it correctly match this criteria. Regards,

2320:

You left a note on my user page concerning a contribution I had supposedly made to the longline fishing article. I see no such contribution in the history of the article, my own history, nor do I recall making same or even having ever read the article. The closest I've come to discussing fish is

1445:

I'm aware of the issue involved. Both article titles existed previously, with the one without the "s" redirecting to the other. When I was covering this year's Classic for my newspaper, I realized that the official style of the title is without the "s," but our article had it with the "s" with the

1425:

I note your rv, which is fine, but a few points. 1. Yes, it needs to be sourced. 2. I think it needs to be reworded, since I work on related subjects and it doesn't even make logical sense to me. 3. It's grammatically incorrect (I think - because as I said, it doesn't logically compute - should be

1267:

Please moderate your language, and address the issue. I am trying to reflect as accurately as I can the concerns you seem to advocate. If the comment, in any way at all, misrepresents your position, then please correct the matter where it belongs, on the article talk page. I have no idea what I am

755:

Let's do a thing, in the Spanish Knowledge there's a section called "Country of the week". If you agree with that I will do a link to that Country, I will look into the characteristics and do the link to the most apropriate sector. Then, you editors decide what to do, to keep it or leave it. Is

5695:

The example of a bracelet rolling on or off an arm is a good one because it explains how the spin happens for people that don't understand what the word poloidally means. (They might think it means that the rings spin the way a steering wheel spins.) It is a bad example because the spin is in the

4493:

template; I decided that perhaps I could benefit the site by becoming a logged-in user, as well. Perhaps next time I'll have learned enough to make a similar edit, should the need arise. If I may comment, your above-mentioned thoughts of "bowing out" of Knowledge and the reasons for that train of

4288:

I can't comment on whether or not the RAN had a Coastal Forces division as I don't have the specific knowledge, but what I will say is that the citation used for the link to the Royal Navy is not a valid citation and should be removed. It is an in line citation to another Knowledge page. We don't

1391:

Hi Epipelagic, I wonder, if you have a spare moment, would you look over a new article, a BLP I Just created? This guy is a designer so it's outside your and my areas of expertise, but I do trust your judgement. The refs are a bit of a mess; I am not so good on formatting those. I don't know what

792:

Taxonomically they are Cyprinidae, I posted a reference and an external link in case you want to verify, I saw most of the individual pages for true minnows are stubs and decided to point it to the sub-family they are all included in. Your objection has been noted, As per your instructions I will

485:

Clairvoyance is not accepted as a valid tool when dealing with Knowledge 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

2838:

will tell me how many items are in each list (for example by saying "list of 6 items"). When that list is separated by line breaks, JAWS will announce it as six lists of one item, so it will say "list of 1 item, item 1, list end; list of 1 item, item 2, list end ...". This is also true of other

2535:

You're not going to prod me into becoming uncivil. I expect polite discussion, and I expect you to have read enough to have a better understanding. Reading the entire ANI (and his own admission that he f'd up), reading the reasoning of the original block, and every now and again assuming good

2028:

First you delete the picture of a fisherman first you said it wasn't recreational and now you are saying something different. It is not self promoting becuase who would promote themself with a picture of a bowfin. This picture is more representative of a recreational fisherman than any other

4243:

confirming that. As far as I am aware, there was no such division. The article is about the boats used by the RAN during the second world war that were equivalent to the boats used by Coastal Forces in the RN. That is why the article starts by explaining that. There are other related articles

3261:

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

4219:

Hi, I noticed that you reverted the change to the lead. As the article refers to Coastal Forces of the Royal Australian Navy‎, the lead is misleading if we talk about the Royal Navy. The lead could be rewritten to reflect what the article is about. IMO, the first sentence does not make sense

3731:

I and many other editors have had similar experiences with John as your own, but he's convinced himself of his own righteousness and won't listen to anything you or anyone else tells him about his arrogant attitude. "If you don't like it, then wikipedia may not be for you" is a quite typical

4384:

Sure, do what you think is right. I'll add my two cents if I think I have something to contribute. Perhaps we could also keep an eye on the related articles and try and keep some common threads running through them. Here in New Zealand I still occasionally run across people with interesting

346:

OK. It looks as if most of the links to that article are from a template. I've fixed the template accordingly and it may take 24 hours or so for the correction to appear when you click on "what links here". After that it will be possible to ascertain which links still need to get fixed.

1252:. I feel that the concerns I voiced about the content you proposed to add the the article were legitimate. The type of comments you made are not only against policy but highly inappropriate and do not contribute to the collaborative process of writing an encyclopedia. Please apologize. 4365:

Ok, no worries. Can we change the lead to reflect similar lines of what AustralianRupert is recommending? I have purchased some new books and will be able to hopefully expand on the article and provide additional in line cites. Thanks Epipelagic for your valued work on wiki. Regards

4745:

Hi, regarding your comment on meditation, and the revert of Yworo please source those items within the next week or so, else we will just have to assume it needs it get commented out, until a source is found. In Knowledge, the hypothesis that someone knows it is not enough. Thanks.

5321:

Thanks for the nudge Epipelagic. I've not lost interest - every now and again the real world comes crashing in though. Still plenty of unfinished business to do on WP but it may be the New Year before it is tackled. Seasonal greetings to you and best wishes for the coming year ...

120:

I wish you a Happy New Year, everything good for your family, your loved ones and yourself, peace and joy for all the people of the world. I also wish a joyful and peaceful expansion for Knowledge, may it bring helpful, generous, and peaceful information to everyone in the

5626:

Thank you very much for that, David. At first I didn't see why the poloid spin direction mattered, but of course, the spin is produced by the water underneath punching its way though the air bubble. So it spins the same way a flexible bracelet might spin when it is rolled

5481:. You're a fantastic editor, but is it really necessary to make changes such as shifting spelling from American to English while I'm in the middle of the task? I'm getting edit conflicts which really slow things down. I appreciate your tolerance while I struggle through. 3010:

Yeah! Tell your guys to lay off using our guys for breakfast, lunch and dinner! Dealing with the thuggy crabs is bad enough without all the the fish chomping going on. Tell 'em that vegetarianism is good for your health and longevity! Look at those 100-year old carp!

3188:

develop over the last 6 months. Surely, you can find more appropriate ways to spend your time as part of the Knowledge "spam police". All you are accomplishing here is to discourage contributions from qualified authorities.2ocean7 (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)'

973:] I feel that I am making a good-faith gesture to bring neutrality into some fairly biased additions and have the consensus of other editors. I also feel that I have been as fair as can be expected in the face of insults, threats, and accusations by Tao2911. 627:. I am currently rewriting and expanding this article, and it could sure do with another hand, particularly from someone who really knows the subject. Corals are not my speciality area, and working on them alone gets tedious when I hit areas of uncertainty. -- 5705:

Maybe I can find or create a better drawing. I think we need a drawing like DaveBurke's, but with the spin arrow in the opposite direction, and another arrow that points straight up that is labeled "overall direction of bubble ring travel" or something like

1426:

functionS (?). And finally, 4. Does this really need to go in the introductory paragraph? While it may be an important point, the intro generally should only have the most important information about the subject, with details that follow in the body. Cheers

5106:

I did notice those pictures stuck at the bottom. I altered his description of her as a 60's type as she was built in the 50s and mentioned that they were prior to renovations because he's doing no favours to the old girl showing pics of her in that state!

4297:. These craft included..." This way the focus of the first sentence is upon the subject of the article, but the point is made clear that the RAN did not have a Coastal Forces division (assuming that this is accurate). Hope this helps in some way. Cheers. 4962:

Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this

4719:

election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your

2951:

Hope you are doing well. The editor I have spoken to you about before, Mila, has added some underwater images she took in Kona, in the Hawaiian islands. She asked me what kind of fish this might be, but I have no idea. Do you have any idea? Many thanks,

4453:

messed up the formatting, so I thought you should know. In addition, the "Addendum" section seems a tad unencyclopedic. Could you figure out a way to incorporate the quote, or better yet, a summary of the quote within the text somehow? Thanks a bunch!

4935: 4660: 1335: 2062:

or not it should be in the article because you obvioulsy take a lot of ownership in this page and have an issue with me. I could construe you as edit warring because you have no grounds to say that I am missrepresenting fisherMAN in the article. (

308:, or you can self-nominate. Requests for adminship can be a bruising process (not that I have any specific concerns for you), and I would suggest that if you are interested then you pick a week when you have ample spare time to answer questions.- 5454:

If the editor is creating problems in the article, the problematic edits can be reverted then discussed on the article talk page, and the problems with the user can be reported at various venues after giving warnings on the user talk page.

928:

Hi Epipelagic, Thanks for your help at Adi Da. I followed your advice and participated in an agreement of no editing without consensus there. In the past week I have spent many hours on the talk page doing something near 100 entries there

1392:

else needs fixing, but please let me know if you see anything amiss, or please go ahead and fix things yourself if they are simple and fast to do. I intend to try for a DYK with this so I want to try to make it look decent. Many thanks,

3248:. 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. 1672: 5421: 5230: 4169: 3082:

of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank

2735:

Epipelagic, you appear to be using Twinkle to engage in an edit war over the use of an image, further inappropriate use of twinkle may result in you being blacklisted or blocked. I have also rolledback your warnings posted by TW at

2711:

2296:

1822:

837:

149:

3123:

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes

3732:

response. But he doesn't quite ever go far enough to justify an RfC, so the only way I've found to deal with him is to pretend that he doesn't exist; it's far too frustrating trying to make intransigent boneheads see sense.

3857:

characterized by non-judgmental description, problem orientation, spontaneity, empathy, equality, and provisionalism. Their 'defensive' opposites are evaluation, control, strategy, neutrality, superiority, and certainty."

3744:

Please do whatever you can w respect to John I will support it. I feel like my hands are tied as far as editing. I wouldn't be surprised if he blocked me indefinitely for imaginary infractions weeks after the fact.

426: 3467:

Hi there. Just to say thanks for your efforts with the plankton template. Although I've been staring at it for months now, I didn't really pay attention and properly notice it until today. Anyway, nice work. Cheers,

440:

If you are in doubt about the source, I suggest you simply use the "contact me" email address on the alleged plagerized source and query me as to whether thhis material has been authorized for contribution to Knowledge.

2340:

Hi Epipelagic. I wonder if you could do me a favor if you are not too busy. There is a brand new user, a scientist who lives in NYC not far from me, and who I am sure will become an excellent editor. His user name is

789:

was already placed as the sub-family under which the true-minnows are included by someone else, I assure you I did not come up with an obscure category just for the page, I just created the already listed page.

5076:. Still, I left your reference to Grimsby as a peace offering. When you then removed it yourself it was reinstated by a certain tenacious editor. This editor was responsible for inserting the section on the 580:

of this be changed from "Reeef Fish" to "Coral Reef Fish". The term "reef fish" is also widely applied (by ichthyologists at least) to temperate rocky reef fishes such as those that inhabit kelp forests.

2971:

I saw them a lot very deep inside those corals. They were not moving, so I assume they were nocturnal. Sometimes there were two or three inside the same coral. Do you know what kind of fish it is? Thank

2069: 1811: 5671:(This discussion seems like a good way for me to learn a lot about how things are done on Knowledge, by the way. But if you would rather I leave well enough alone just let me know, I am fine with that.) 2492:

manner to protect the project for any reason. If I had purposely chosen to punish, you're right, the argument would be different - however, I don't care how many times you suggest otherwise, I was not

283:

The DFG offered to send a certificate directly to WIKIPEDIA. Can You please give me an address. I also wrote to the Consulate to give you prove of the EB-1 visa but they are always slow. Happy New Year

2623:

So you're not going to apologise are you, and you can't resist the patronising touch, can you? Perhaps you are normally a good administrator... why not return to that and try to keep it up? Cheers. --

1727:) 04:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I am referring to the page on fish migration which lists the "five species of Pacific salmon" as examples of anadromous fish. I added the Cherry salmon, you removed it... 826: 138: 5662:

I'm not sure I made myself clear on the spin issue though. I'm not sure I know the right way to say it, so I will explain what I think I know to you, and see if you find a nice short way to say it.

4783: 3180:"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Knowledge article due to copyright issues..." 1305:

RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--

1067:

I assumed you would respond promptly with puffery. Knowledge is not a toy for you to play with. However, the issue's not important enough to waste more time on, so you can collect your shout. --

5601:

was changed to read "The ring of air as well as the nearby water spins poloidally as it travels through the water, much like a flexible bracelet might spin when it is rolled off a person's arm

4864: 4825: 4508: 2285: 3332: 1705: 5375: 3898: 1406:

Your criticisms are very welcome. I was looking to hear that kind of thing, so thank you. If I can't make a case for him being notable enough then the article is not worthwhile. Many thanks,

434:

Exactly what do you mean? Whose copyright did I violate? That is original material that I wrote and first published in 1994. I am the sole copyright owner of all the material contributed.

5909: 5184: 4920: 4837: 4821: 4163: 4089: 3480: 475: 5925: 5914: 5399: 4589: 4550: 2700: 1818: 1038: 145: 5978: 5208: 4882: 4829: 3071: 833: 59: 5383: 4902: 4833: 4721: 4645: 4562: 4546: 3978: 3940: 3561: 3522: 1686: 5391: 5192: 2707: 2292: 2105: 1835: 5200: 4607: 4554: 4484: 4036: 3952: 3936: 3617: 3534: 3518: 3150: 1045:

not accusing you of it, though reverting edits purely because you like it isn't reasonable. Thirdly, before you reinstate the image, I ask you to justify its use on the template.

850: 793:

Revert my re-directs back to the page, a word of notice thought- those pages directing to the Minnows page would show up back in the list of disambiguation pages requiring links

162: 4947: 4627: 4558: 3078: 5072:, including a picture gallery. The article is not about individual trawlers, and even if it were there would be many trawlers with at least as great a claim to be there as the 4672: 3998: 3944: 3579: 3526: 2309: 1682: 1298: 796:

and someone else will make similar changes. You can help by re-directing the pages away from the Disambiguation page. I regret any inconvenience in the mean time. Thank you.--

705: 4068: 4689: 4503: 4018: 3948: 3648: 3599: 3530: 2078: 2071: 1716:

The cherry or seema salmon (Oncorhynchus masou) is a salmon of the western Pacific. It is anadromous. How was including it in the list of Pacific salmon not constructive?

3211: 2724: 3120:, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted. 3113: 3106: 3095: 2653:

You are invited to Auckland Meetup 5 on the afternoon of Sunday 9th May 2010 at Esquires Cafe, Ground Floor, Auckland Central City Library, Lorne St, Auckland. Please see

1365:

Christopher Parham, bless his heart, seems to have in-built genes against any form of change at all. It's very annoying. He pops up all over the place to resist progress.

1328: 361: 5936: 1690: 3828:

Please do not leave Knowledge, Epipelagic. You are a superb contributor. I am in awe of the excellent articles you write, and so many of them, all of such high quality.

3167: 719:

Hi there, thank you. It's the 3rd time I try to insert some links and nothing. I just wanted to thank you. Shall I try again or shall I wait for some instructions?

2576:

Okay, you have succeeded in diverting this discussion from your own talk page, where it belongs, by suppressing comment there. I have, of course, carefully read the "

2577: 976:

Would you be willing to add your opinion as to our behavior at Adi Da and also any ideas as far as how to resolve our dispute? It would be very much appreciated.

4681: 1728: 1720: 5522:. At the time time tags were put in, they were justified. The tags prompted people to make improvements. I think you are right that they are no longer needed. 2839:

screen readers, and occurs because MediaWiki finishes the HTML list when it encounters a line break. If you need the spacing between list items, add "<br/: -->

2271:

is wonderful. Much thanks for improving/replacing my attempt at collating the links in a template (which I've now prod'd for deletion). Have a good weekend :) --

965:] Tao then says the editors are agreeing with him, that he made the changes for me, and that he can work with people , but he's sick of repeating himself to me, 4751: 3884:

Hello, Epipelagic. I've just come across this article, which you created years ago. It's still unreferenced, but I know nothing about him. Can you help? Thanks,

1736: 3850:

Hi John, because it seems to relate directly to our recent conversation, I thought you might be interested to read this very brief Knowledge Signpost news piece

376: 689: 4705: 3145: 3158:

Enjoyed working with you, but as you can see from the following exchange posted on the "coral reef fish" talk page, I will choose to spend my time elsewhere.

3104: 2599:...why not keep it up? I hope that this is my last post on your talkpage - Neelix can contact me on my talkpage, by e-mail, or however they wish. Cheers. ( 967:] Instead of addressing the issues raised, Tao2911 propagandizes, and generally discusses the subject of the article and continues accusations of vandalism, 2476:

If you want to discuss rationally, do so. Attacks, and hiding threads in the middle of a talkpage are not rational discussion. My actions were clearly an

526:

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

4352: 2757:, the point is dont go it alone, dont use TW do do manual reverts because its not vandalism, its a content issue as the picture is related to the article. 2037: 1622: 1061: 5929: 2938: 1471:, you've made some (I feel) rather harsh and unjustified claims in your edit summaries and your comments. Simply put, we're not a link farm, and there is 1435: 1277: 5417: 5226: 4931: 4716: 4656: 4229: 4220:

referring to the Royal Navy, as the article is about or should be about the Royal Australian Navy‎. I will seek some feedback from Wiki experts. Regards

4214: 4048: 3628: 2370: 2322: 2002: 1678: 1518: 1036: 431:

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.

3065: 5839:

I genuinely did not – and cannot – see how it would be possible to add a section anywhere other than the bottom of the page accidentally; that is all.

5739: 5717: 5644: 4747: 4306: 3816: 2891: 192: 5897: 5875: 5856: 5828: 5093: 4993:

If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks •

2920: 4735: 4478: 3457: 1969: 1420: 1026: 1003: 5433: 4293:

did not have a Coastal Forces division, it has nevertheless operated a number of small coastal defence craft similar to those that were used by the

3230: 3020: 3005: 2961: 2422: 2411: 1347: 5620: 4693: 4682: 3684: 3348: 2764: 2632: 2618: 2589: 2559: 2530: 2335: 1711: 1094: 1076: 985: 820: 218: 5788: 5242: 5119: 4769:

page as I once did at Adi Da. Biased editors with admin support bullying opposition with specious arguments. I wonder if you'd mind taking a look?

3285: 2049: 2017: 636: 602: 539: 5467: 4394: 4275: 4257: 4184: 3433: 2516: 2120: 770: 757: 741: 723: 4494:

thought are spot-on; then again, that's a working example of human nature. Why can't life be as simple as it seems to be for the oceanic fauna?

3872: 5299: 4151: 3790: 3441: 3222: 3159: 594: 463: 448: 272: 3893: 2981: 1907: 4697: 4375: 3316: 2897: 2784: 2670: 1807: 1314: 1232: 933:] , an argument that took me several hours to put together, Tao2911 went ahead and without consensus made substantial changes to the article 701: 4439: 4236: 2321:

challenging a rather sweeping claim about bowfin. I wonder if you wouldn't mind showing me where I wrote about longline fishing. Thanks.

1681:

selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up

778: 749: 731: 188: 5339: 4336: 2280: 420: 2192: 1334:

Thanks in advance for your review and feel free to make any editorial changes you think would enhance the essay. Please provide comments

5355: 5164: 5002: 4427: 4332: 4097: 3618:

LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour

2943: 1415: 1401: 1151: 5311: 3429: 405: 5305: 5148: 2396: 1996: 1951: 1556: 1457: 1322: 3842: 1261: 5534: 4710: 4328: 3303: 2443:

Saw your edit and removal to my talkpage ... I did want to ask if you had actually read the full reasoning, both in the block notice

2385: 2330: 939:] I felt this meant that our agreement was off and that we were now being bold. I then tried to make edits for more neutral language 4145: 3177:) does not conform to the established guidelines for adding external links? These guidelines state (Under "What should be linked"): 682: 5812: 5439: 3721: 2880: 2864: 2851: 2824: 1530: 693: 496: 5758:. Best to just sign up before January 1st, then drop out if it is not to your liking, because there are no late sign-ups allowed. 4463: 3837: 2911:

date are actually helping to improve the Knowledge project. Please let me know if I can ever be of assistance to you in some way.

2873: 2005:

elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.

1551: 5583: 5080:

in the first place. So you can see that if this editor has his way, then the article will become increasingly unbalanced, as the

4421: 3739: 3660: 3475: 2648: 4416: 4209: 3048: 2863:

Thank you for formatting the references section, but was there reason for the see also section that linked back to the article?

356: 341: 5363: 5172: 4811: 4536: 4141: 3926: 3877: 3562:

Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank

3508: 2229:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 2159:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 1874:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 1774:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 1589:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 1189:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 994:

off on it in order to hold the page hostage with his POV alert label (been here before.) Come on over if you are bored. Cheers.

951:] . I was then, or course reverted, accused of vandalism on the talk page with a whole section titled "David Starr vandalism" 931:] in order to make polite, clear and concise statements regarding my concerns over NPOV. Once my concerns were clarified here: 923: 889:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 181: 174: 132: 5730:

Yes, well done. I think your diagram covers it nicely. Are you satisfied with that, or do you want more detail in the text? --

5143: 3386:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 2747: 1667: 5334: 5054: 3434: 3402: