Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Epipelagic (talk | contribs) at 04:06, 30 May 2013 (→FisheriesWiki: ~). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives
to Feb 2008 to Aug 2008 to Oct 2008 to Dec 2008 to Mar 2009 to Jun 2009 to Sep 2009 to Dec 2009 to Jun 2010 to Dec 2010 to Mar 2011 to Jun 2011 to Sep 2011 to Dec 2011 to Mar 2012 to Jun 2012 to Sep 2012 to Dec 2012

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		LOL Cynical and ironically funny. Axl ¤ 11:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. But there's no cynicism or irony here... just the sober facts. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hypocrite?

"Wasn't Malleus blocked for calling an admin a hypocrite?" Not as far as I know. I think you're probably thinking of the time he was blocked for calling somebody a sycophant. Bishonen | talk 06:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC).

Yes, you are right. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"Hypothetic nonsense"

Dear Epipelagic, I recently removed a note from the article Tide, stating thereby that it was "hypothetic nonsense". The note read: "Hypothetically, if the ocean were a constant depth, there were no land, and the Earth did not rotate, high water would occur as two bulges in the oceans' height, one facing the moon and the other facing away from the moon. There would also be smaller, superimposed bulges on the sides facing toward and away from the sun." Someone had already attached a remark "<!-- reference! -->" to this note, in fact asking for a reference in a very friendly way.

It is a very common misconception that the tides only affect the waters on our planet and the note about the hypothetical situation of a non-rotating earth only adds to this confusion. If the earth indeed would not rotate with respect to the moon (that is at least what is meant here by a non-rotating earth), then all off the earth would be deformed in such a way that there were two bulges, one directed towards the moon, the other one directed away from it. It is nonsense to speak of two bulges of ocean water. The tidal forces do not discriminate with respect to the matter upon which they act. A kilogram of sand grains is affected in exactly the same way as a kilogram of water is. Given enough time (which is the idea of a non-rotating earth), they would both deform in exactly the same way. And indeed this happens. It is not the effect of the tides but our earth has indeed a huge equatorial bulge, caused by it's rotation. And it's not just the oceans that react to the rotation but every particle in the earth. If not, we would have oceans of over 20 kilometers depth at the equator, and our polar regions would be totally drained of water.

There is no sensible reference where you can find justification for this rediculous hypothesis I removed. If you think there is one, show me! If you can't find one, then just be so kind as to undo your last edit to the article. Best regards, Wikiklaas (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wikiklaas, the footnote belongs there and is not nonsense. If anything should be expanded and incorporated in the main text of the article. It is not worded as well is it might be, which is perhaps why you found it confusing. It is normal in mathematical physics to start with simplified models that focus on the most significant or first order effects. Your talk about how the earth itself can deform entirely misses the point.

Whoever wrote the footnote starts with "Hypothetically...". I think that might have mislead you into thinking he was proposing a new hypothesis, which he was not. He is referring to a simplified underlying model of the earth, stripped down to the most relevant factors. This makes it easier to understand how the main events occur. His talk about the ocean being a constant depth and there being no land is also poorly worded. The very simplest model is where the earth can be regarded as composed of water alone, and does not rotate with respect to the moon. You are right in saying that "the Earth did not rotate" should mean that the earth did not rotate with respect to the moon. I think the footnote could be worded more like this:

"As a simplified model, if the earth were composed of water alone and did not rotate with respect to the moon, then high water would occur as two bulges in the oceans' height, one facing the moon and the other facing away from the moon."

The value of this is that it illustrates the important point that both tidal bulges are caused by the moons gravity gradient, and the outer bulge is not significantly affected by the rotation of the earth (which some text books claim). There will also be a slight equatorial bulge due to the slow, 28 day, rotation of the earth, but that is of small importance to tidal dynamics. The next simplest case would be for the earth to have a solid core which is rigid and non deformable. This is precisely the underlying model implicit in the diagram at the right, which is an image used in the tide article. A further step would be to start rotating the earth with respect to the moon, causing a phase shift in the bulges. And so on. Models like these lend themselves to mathematical or computer solutions, and at the same time explain the most obvious, or higher order effects. A further stage in modelling might be to allow the solid part of the earth to deform easily. That seems to be the issue which so bothered you above. If the solid part is allowed to deform easily enough, then it will no longer be solid, but will have become a liquid again, and we would be back to the model we started with. Allowing any of this underlying deformation does not change the essential tidal dynamics. Best regards. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Some sources:

• Tidal Misconceptions Donald E. Simanek. Retrieved 6 January 2013.
• Chabay RW and Sherwood BA (2011) Matter & Interactions Page 453, John Wiley. ISBN 9780470503478.
• Ramsey WL and Burckley RA (1965) Modern earth science, Page 61, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Morrison D and Owen TC (1996) The planetary system, Page 203, Addison-Wesley. ISBN 9780201554502.
• Hynek, Joseph Allen (Ed.) (1951) Astrophysics (symposium) Page 468, McGraw-Hill.
• The Planetary Report, 1998, Volumes 18-19, Page 96, Planetary Society, University of Virginia.

Hi Epipelagic, I heartily agree with the way you model the process here, starting off with a simple case. That however, is not what the note did. You are very right when you say that the note could be worded differently. I think it should, and in that case it should also state that it is a simple model, as you worded it above. I did not find the present note confusing. I found it misleading. Hypothetically, if the earth would not rotate with respect to the moon, we would not end up with two bulges of water, we would end up with an earth in the form of an ellipsoid. I'm convinced, by the way, that this build-up of a model, starting with a very simple case, should not be placed in a note, but should be a key part of the main text.

As you mention the equatorial bulge in your discussion: I did not mention the equatorial bulge as part of the tide (which it isn't) but to give an example of how water and "solid" earth react exactly the same to a disturbing force. If that's clear, then we'd better leave that topic and let not enter it into our discussion of the tide.

The picture you added, is a picture of a rotating earth with no friction and also not taking into account the maximum velocity of wave propagation, or celerity. It is often used as a very simple model to explain why many places on earth experience two high- and two low waters each 24 hours and 50 minutes. Therefore, it is necessary for the earth to rotate. It is thus not an illustration of the hypothetic non-rotating earth as mentioned in the note. For example in Donald Simanek's excellent page on tidal misconceptions, there is not a single model with a non-rotating earth, except for the one he critisises. Simanek also warns for the erroneous descriptions of the tide and tidal models that are given in many text books. I could not read the text of your second reference but as Simanek pointed out; the fact that there is a book making use of a model with a non-rotating earth is not proof that it is a good model. I think every model that adds to the confusion that water reacts to a disturbing force in a different way than the "solid" earth does, should be avoided in a text trying to explain the tidal phenomena. Wikiklaas (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

As I got no more reaction from you, I deleted the note a second time. Not only because it was misleading but also because it was cited at a place where it did not do any good, under Laplace's tidal equations. The note didn't clarify anything there. The paragraph "Forces" would be a place much better suited for introducing a simple model in the main text. Wikiklaas (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I was slow reacting because it is difficult to know how to respond to the ideas you raise, since they are just not correct. Such as the idea that tidal movements affected by the moon are just as important in the earth's crust as they are in the ocean itself. Or the idea that if the earth was entirely liquid and was shaped by tidal forces into an ellipse (prolate ellipsoid), then because no solid earth is present there can be no baseline shape or reference surface (such as the sphere the earth would take if no moon was present) from which tidal rises and falls may be measured. However, I do take the point that the footnote can further confuse readers with little background in physics. It would be best therefore to drop the footnote, or expand the matter properly in the text. Personally I think the matter should be expanded, since most text books gloss over these matters, just as the text in the article does. It would nice to see a more explicit explanation set out for why the bulge on the far side closely mirrors the bulge on the near side, and what happens to the axis of the bulge when the earth rotates relative to the moon. However I don't have energy to try and clear all this up at the moment, so we can just drop the matter. If you want a further opinion, Crowsnest would be a good person to ask. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not state the tidal movements of the earth's crust are just as important. I was talking of the shape the earth would take after "some time" long enough to reach equilibrium. But as a matter of fact the amplitude of the tidal movements in the earth's crust is indeed not much smaller than the tidal amplitude in the open oceans; it is at least in the same order of magnitude. The timing is different of course, as waves propagate much faster in the earth's crust than they do in water. See e.g. Earth tide on Misplaced Pages, and Earthtide Calculator from Universität Bern.

Tidal rises and falls are a consequence of the earth's rotation. There would be no tides if the earth did not rotate with respect to the moon. A baseline shape or reference surface, as you mention it, therefore has little meaning. There would of course be a tidal deformation but it would be constant (that is, if the distance between the earth and the moon would be constant too). I hope this is enough to stop you from remarking that my ideas are "just not correct". It would be quite easy for me to say the same of your ideas but that's no way to resolve a debate. Cheers, Wikiklaas (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Earth tides are almost an order of magnitude smaller than ocean tides, and have even less effect on the actual rise and fall of ocean tides along the coasts. Earth tides are what they are, not because the earth is solid, but because the liquid earth underlying the thin crust, is denser than water. Anyway, let's leave it there. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello

LOL :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Anthony. That's seriously reassuring, so I've put it on my user page. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice. Spread the good news. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

An invitation for you!

	Hello, Epipelagic. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shell growth in estuaries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rhombic (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) 11:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Social/structural change in Misplaced Pages

If you can add anything to this list it would be appreciated. I think we need to talk about a central repository for this splintered discussion. Perhaps a notice in Signpost? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

User Page

Per WP:UP#POLEMIC, I would appreciate it if you would remove that quote from you userpage. Since you've made it obvious you disagree with it, I can only assume it's meant to disparage me. While I stand by my words for problematic editors, you're using it out of context in bad faith. I don't object if you wish to do it like User:Dream Focus has, but I don't appreciate the intentional belittling of my opinion.--v/r - TP 23:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with your view, but I haven't disparaged or belittled anyone's views on the user page. One of those views belongs to Jehochman, whom I hold in high esteem. Perhaps you found the heading Reassurance from admins disparaging. I have replaced it with Admin views on blocking, which seems entirely neutral to me. Admin views on blocking are important and should be known to the wider community. I would have thought you would be delighted that your views are given a bit more oxygen. If you feel I am misrepresenting you in any way, please feel free to add (briefly) any context you believe is needed to my user page. Does that address your concerns? --Epipelagic (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Sort of. If you'll acknowledge that when I made those comments, Anthonyhcole hadn't made clear that the topic was inappropriate/bad blocks and he later clarified it to me, then I'm fine.--v/r - TP 01:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure I'll acknowledge that. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Shell growth in estuaries

Hello Epipelagic, I realized that you had asked me specifically what I thought of this new article. I think it's surprisingly great, even though, as you say, the scope is quite narrow (since I would guess that the great majority of exoskeletons in any marine habitat are chitinous) and also, as you say, focussing on estuaries is partially just a convenience, as that is where most of the research was done. At some point in the future I suppose the article will need to be greatly broadened in scope or maybe expanded and split into several articles.

I have tweaked the prose in a few places to make the meaning clearer. I also got the graphics lab to rotate the (beautiful) main image until the horizon was level. I was thinking about taking some of the individual images that you have in the gallery and placing them into the text next to where each species is mentioned? What do you think of that idea? Let me know if you think it looks OK like that (I added a couple as well) or is too messy. Invertzoo (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I don't believe that Monetaria annulus (or any true cowry species) can tolerate living in an estuarine environment; they like the clean rocky outer coast. Although I see that Trivia monacha (not a true cowry, in the family Triviidae) "may also live in estuaries". So... should I remove the mention of that species or should we change the wording a bit?

Thanks for pointing out this very good new article to me. Invertzoo (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I also see that one of the references mentions the specialized sea snails known as pteropods; the shelled ones (sea butterflies) are the Thecosomata, but I don't think this group is specifically mentioned in the text. They are planktonic denizens of the open water and have very thin delicate shells that have been shown to be very vulnerable to ocean acidification. However I don't think pteropods are a big presence in estuaries. Maybe this article was an essay that someone prepared in college or graduate school, and they a little bit shoe-horned some references into it that were not 100% relevant to estuaries. Invertzoo (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the reference to estuaries in the title should be removed. Then there aren't issues about which shellfish should be included. I still rather favour Growth of calcareous shells. There *should* be an article with that title! It leaves the article open to other issues such as factors other than temperature and salinity, how the shell growth actually occurs, and climate change concerns. And, as you say, if it get a bit long, subarticles can be spun off. I also think there might be a better hook for the dyk. What do you think?

I agree with what you are doing with the images. The image of the planktonic crustacean Hyperia macrocephala should probably be removed. I don't think it has a significant calcium in its shell. I put it there, partly as a place holder until a more appropriate image could be found, and partly just because I love the image. Your lovely image of Limacina helicina is a worthy replacement for a pelagic example, even though it is not a crustacean. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Epipelagic, I noticed your revert on the dyknom. It is the same person. The account was created right after the original post (six seconds to be exact). Also this edit confirms it. — Ganeshk (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ganeshk... I was starting to feel that Isthatfog was getting far too much credit here, but that's not the case at all. I nearly told him off for removing part of his own article, so I'm glad that's cleared up! --Epipelagic (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

If you really like the idea of it, maybe you could change the title to "Growth of calcareous shells". You are right that there is a great deal of promise of expansion in that subject name. We would have to change the intro radically and some of the other wording in the article. We could even have a subsection about estuaries in particular which could absorb some of the rather good estuary references. I was trying to think of a title like "Factors affecting the growth of calcareous shells" but it's too long I suppose? We do have paragraphs about shell growth in several articles already that are mollusk-related. Of course this article also contains info about fish bones and fish scales, what would we do about that? And... do we need to say "marine" somewhere in the title, because of course there are a huge number of land mollusks with calcareous shells, and also a pretty large number of freshwater mollusks with calcareous shells. Invertzoo (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You raise good points Invertzoo. I don't have strong views, so if you have a clear preference then go for it. As I see it there are pros and cons for whichever title you choose. There is already an article for fish scales, and fish anatomy is a place for fish bones. I'm just thinking that Growth of calcareous shells sounds like a useful article, waiting to be written, and that this article, for the most part, would provide a nucleus for such an article. Perhaps it could be expanded to cover all calcareous shells, including terrestrial and freshwater. There must be many common factors that could be brought out in the article. Or even better, why not use this to seed an even more general article called Calcareous shells. Potentially, many subarticles could be spun from this. I think that makes even more sense, and could be nicely complemented with another article, Chitinous shells. And yes, I think "Factors affecting the growth of calcareous shells is a bit long, though it could coexist as a subarticle. Anyway, these are just my thoughts. You and other gastropod people should decide what title you want, not me :) --Epipelagic (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

As a fisheries guy and the person who rescued the article from immediate oblivion, you are certainly every bit as welcome to weigh in on this as anyone else, if not more so. :) Invertzoo (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Stories Project - Love Dart Article

Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Misplaced Pages. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Misplaced Pages community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause and get involved with the open-source movement.

According to the edit history of the page, it looks like you were collaborating with user:invertzoo and user:snek01 to write the article for 'Love Dart'. This is such a curious article!

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Misplaced Pages. Ideally, I'd like to have a story that we could publish along with the other two users by Valentines Day this year.

Please let me know if you're inclined to be interviewed about your collaboration on this article.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I am taking part in this

Hello Epipelagic. Just wanted to say I am taking part in this video thing, and if you can bear to I would very much encourage you to agree to be interviewed too. The story of how the love dart article came into existence is a pretty great one, and it really does show that international co-editing works! Best, Invertzoo (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I've agreed to do that. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks Epipelagic. I wish we could have gotten Snek to take part, but apparently he told Victor he wouldn't. Invertzoo (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Shell growth in estuaries

On 17 January 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shell growth in estuaries, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that temperature and salinity variations produced by ocean tides and freshwater rivers in estuaries make them ideal habitats for studying how these factors affect the growth of shells? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shell growth in estuaries. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations in getting this to DYK Epipelagic! Invertzoo (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Donghak Peasant Revolution

What do you think about Donghak Peasant Revolution? Answer in User talk: Seonookim, please.--Seonookim (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply

No, that was not my intention. I just did not want the reader to be confused because of two sections with the same title. I can restore it if you would like to. I also would appreciate it if you gave me advice on aiding the Donghak Revolution article, or better, edit it yourself.--Seonookim (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Evolution of fish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fishbowl (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) 11:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Sardines

Hi Epipelagic. Looks like we are both wrong. According to the legends of the Japanese originals, whatever it is in Japanese has been translated as 1. sprat; Sardinella zunasi; 3. Mamakari; 4; big-eyed herring; etc. So, it is not even a sardine! ;-) Apologies for the very looooooooooooooong URLs!!! Well done on all your hard work on fishes! – Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Rui. I've collapsed your very long urls. I agree with you about the sauce. They were covered with noodles that had been dipped in sauce. However, I do not agree that the fish in the image cannot be described as sardines. Both sardine and sprat are flexible and almost interchangeable terms which can be applied to many small thunniform fish. The FAO/WHO Codex standard for canned sardines cites 21 species that, for commercial purposes can be called sardines including true sprats (Sprattus) and small herrings (Clupea ). Mamakari is a Japanese term for a small herring or sardine. You could also call the fish in the picture "sprats", since that is also an acceptable term for any small fish shaped like these are. The fish are definitely not big-eyed herrings, which are large fish, up to one metre long, and used for bait, not usually for eating. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The meaning of "near"

Hi Epipelagic. I need some help, and I am certain you would know - What is the meaning of "near" in names of species? A few examples:

• Bactrocera B. sp. nov. near paraxanthodes
• Species of fruit flies that are not economically important include Bactrocera anomala (Drew), B. calophylli (Perkins and May), B. gracilis (Drew), B. minuta (Drew), B. redunca (Drew), B. simulata (Malloch), B. sp. nov. near obscura, B. sp. nov. near paraxanthodes, and Dacus sp. nov.
• With the exception of B. sp. nov. near paraxanthodes, all of the non-economic species are attracted to Cue-lure. B. sp. nov. near paraxanthodes is like B. quadrisetosa in that it is not attracted to known male lures.
• B. calophylli was thought to be a species near B. calophylli, but further host surveys and taxonomic studies have now determined that it is in fact B. calophylli.

It would appear that is is always used with names of new species. The last example would indicate that it is nothing more than exactly "near", but I thought there might be more to it - like being the closest species or something along that vein. You help would be appreciated. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's a formal term, I suppose the writer just means "taxonomically close to". You could ask at WikiProject Insects whether it has some special meaning in connection with fruit flies. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Was this necessary…

…or helpful? I think not. AGK 20:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Please find more constructive and collegial things to do with your time AGK --Epipelagic (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Epipelagic, I am merely asking you to consider, privately, whether your remark was necessary (or whether I misunderstood you). Airing genuine grievances is intrinsic to being collegial; trolling your peers, on the other hand, is about as unconstructive as it is possible to be! I will leave you to your thoughts. AGK 21:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Those are abusive remarks AGK. I consider the DoW a friend and I addressed a comment to him on his talk page. I was trolling no one. You however, appear to be trolling me. Go and find something constructive to do, like writing an article. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages 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.

Fish anatomy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Esophageal, Tunica albuginea and Germinal epithelium

Actinopterygii (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Barbel

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages 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.

Evolution of fish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chimera

Filter feeder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Arcuate line

Plant physiology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Photoreceptor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Common names

Hi Epipelagic - thank you for your kind words: the common names debacle was indeed unfortunate. In retrospect I was not altogether blameless but, as I recall, my work was obliterated and the article more or less started off again from where it had left off. The material I added did need better referencing but I think there is much to be learned and said about common names that is omitted in the current article. I'm not sure i have the energy to go again on this but if you find anything worth resurrecting I could try and find better sources. Good to seee all the excellent work that you are doing - GTGranitethighs 23:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - February 2013

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter Volume IV, No. 2 – February 2013 For past newsletters click here

In This Issue Featured editorial: Time to make a Sweep by Hahc21. Project News: Several proposals are currently ongoin at the project, including two requests for comment. Good Articles of the Month: See which articles were picked this year of records: 282 articles passed in January! GA Task Forces: Some minor notes this month Member News: Member news Read this newsletter Single-page Unsubscribe Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 12 February 2012

You have a new message at CsDix's talk page.

You have a new message at CsDix's talk page.

You have a new message at CsDix's talk page.

Bio-star Barnstar

		The Bio-star
		Good expansion and interlinking of biology related articles. Sidelight12 01:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks --Epipelagic (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Your Placoderm Diagram

Shouldn't all of the orders end at the end of the Devonian? I've never heard of any ptyctodontids surviving into Early Carboniferous time.--Mr Fink 05:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mr Fink. That's some good work you have done on palaeontology articles down through the years. Yes, I think you are right. My initial concern was to faithfully present the data as Michael Benton presented it in Vertebrate Palaeontology 2005. The diagram is based on his chart on page 73. This clearly shows ptyctodontids surviving for a short period into the Carboniferous. I was tempted to treat this as an error, and adjust the chart. But then I noticed that Benton does the same again with another chart on page 35, and again shows the clear survival of a small number of placoderms into the Carboniferous. I used this as a basis for this chart. So now I don't think it is appropriate to adjust the charts without good reason. Benton doesn't seem to mention the matter in his text, but surely he wouldn't have done that unless he had good reason. I haven't made any assertions about the matter in the Misplaced Pages articles, but have merely said that the charts are based on Benton, which is true. I can't find any references to placoderms or ptyctodontids surviving beyond the Devonian, though page 7 here refers to Carboniferous records for placoderms as being potentially "reworked fossils". So what do you suggest? Maybe we could just comment in a footnote that Benton shows some survival into the Early Carboniferous, though this appears to be an error. Or do you think we should modify the chart, and put a footnote that it has been modified? Or ask Benton whether it was an error or not? --Epipelagic (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess to avoid synthesis, we should leave it as is, aside from mentioning that it was based on Benton's notes. But, one of us definetly should contact Benton to ask about those Carboniferous ptyctodonts. From what I've been able to glean of the matter, all "Carboniferous" placoderms have turned out to be either a) reworked fossils/zombie taxa, b) mistaken identification, or c) from strata later reappraised to be (Late) Devonian.--Mr Fink 18:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Pages 18–19 of Douglas Palmer's 1999 The Marshall Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals has a chart mapping out the evolution of the placoderm orders. It is very much aligned with Benton's chart, and shows the ptyctodontids as progressing clearly into the Carboniferous. However he doesn't mention his source. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, if that's the case, then I suspect that Palmer and Benton are using very out of date sources.--Mr Fink 03:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's a more recent source from the University of South Dakota claiming placoderms survived to the "end of Permian" (slide 9). On the other hand Janvier, in Early Vertebrates 1995, specifically excludes ptcytodonts on page 291 "A sudden extinction of the major placoderm taxa occurs, however, at the Fammennian-Carboniferous boundary. Although represented by a variety of taxa (antiarhs, arthrodires, ptcytodonts, and phyllolepids) up to the latest level of the Famennian, no placoderm survives into the Carboniferous." --Epipelagic (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to trust what Monsieur Janvier says, as he's a noted specialist of Paleozoic fishes, placoderms and agnathans in particular.--Mr Fink 04:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes of course. That's why I pointed to him. But the source to Janvier is the most dated of the lot, and Benton is not to be ignored either. Nelson in his Fishes of the World 2006 says there "is no clear evidence of placoderms surviving a major extinction event into the Lower Mississippian", and cites:

• Carr, R.K. 1995. Placoderm diversity and evolution. VIIth International Symposium: Studies on Early Vertebrates. Bulletin du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, 17: 85–125.
• Maisey, John G (1996) "Fossil Fishes: So Much Diversity, So Little Change". Natural History, 105 (6).

This is not the same as saying it didn't happen.

The Britannica article states that placoderms "existed throughout the Devonian Period (about 416 million to 359 million years ago), but only two species persisted into the succeeding Carboniferous Period."

This 2010 paper has a chart on page 473 clearly showing some placoderms as crossing the Devonian Carboniferous boundary. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I just find it frustrating that no one seems able to put names on who these Carboniferous placoderms were. That, and I would be more to accept the placoderms surviving into the Carboniferous if we were able to find literature more substantial than just tantalizing snippets and graphs.--Mr Fink 16:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I've relocated this thread to Talk:Placodermi, which seems a more appropriate place for it. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages 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.

Fish anatomy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Caeca

Osteichthyes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Operculum

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello there

I saw your comments at WP:VPP about the importance of content. So I thought you might be interested to see that the new version of the WP:5000 shows article rating statistics. And WP:TOPRED now shows what content might be most desired but is missing. Biosthmors (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, Epipelagic, Thanks for your response to my section merge request on Talk:Sustainable fishery &tc. My apologies for posting multiple comments, w/out a common link. I know how to do that with an article merge request, but was not sure how to best facilitate that with a section merge request. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, my apologies. I'm not doing very well getting it right, but will keep trying. I took your earlier response to heart & had (and have) no intention of making your responses seem unreasonable. I appreciate your further substantive reply. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages 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.

Lungfish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Posterior

Placodermi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Trichotomy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Coastal Forces of World War II for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Coastal Forces of World War II until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Northern pike, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spawn (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) 12:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Epipelagic - just to say that I accidentally removed the wrong reference. It was the one that was left I hadn 't found easy to access and It seemed to me that they were both referring to the same docs. in which case I don't see the point. ? thanks Iztwoz (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Dharmic writers

Category:Dharmic writers has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. Yworo (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of threatened sharks and rays, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mako and Ray (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) 12:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Re entry Baltic herring that simple redirects to Atlantic herring

Linneus classified [[Baltic herring[[ as a sub - species of Atlantic herring:

The entry Baltic herring redirects to Atlantic herring, but nothing mentioned there about the smaller Baltic herring.

Recent research has shown that there are few distinct genetic differences between the two: where genome differences have been found.

This was reported on in an article on Swedish Television's website: my translation here:

It is now scientifically proven that there IS a difference between herring (Swedish: sill) and Baltic herring (Swedish strömming). We were correct after all these years to differentiate between sill and strömming. There are small but distinct genetic differences, that are dependent on adaption to different environmental conditions, new Swedish research shows. For centuries we have differentiated between sill and strömming (herring and Baltic herring). If they are caught north of the Kalmar sound they are called strömming, otherwise they are called sill. Sill are larger and fatter than strömming, but despite this, no biologist has been able to prove that there is anything that differentiates them genetically.

Until now. Researchers at Uppsala and Stockholm's universities have proven that therre are a few - but - definiive - genetic differences.

- For about five percent of the genes we found very distinct differences, not only between sill' and strömming but also between different stocks of sill and strömming. (Atlantic and Baltic herring) Leif Andersson, professor in functional genomics at Uppsala university said.

Genetic adaption

According to Professor Andersson, these differences depend on genetic adaption to local environmental conditions. The prevailing conditions, such as salinity and temperature differences, have caused the fish to undergo genetic adaption so as to better survive in the Baltic, whose prevailing conditions differ from other waters.

But the results aso show that for the majority of both of the two varieties' genes, there are no differences whatsoever. According to Leif Andersson, this shows that Atlantic herring and Baltic herring (sill and strömming) are very closely related.

- Linné classed the Baltic herring as a sub-species of herring, and our results support that point of view. But the next step will be to test how well sill (Atlantic herring) can survive in the waters of the Baltic. If this proves not possible, perhaps one should reconsider whether strömming (Baltic herring) is not a completely different species in any case.

Conclusions of research may help to protect fish

Leif Andersson now hopes that the conclusions of his research can be used as a means to protect fish stocks in our Swedish seas.

- Hopefully, our conclusions will enable us to better appreciate the development of fish stocks in the Baltic and the North Sea, and in this way make a contribution to responsible custodianship of the incredible natural resource that sill' and strömming (herring and Baltic herring) provide.

Nils Pejryd

reporter Swedish Television/ Science

Regards RPSM (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, thanks. I'll get around to this matter in a few days. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

What are they doing?

Hello! I'd like to call on your expertise with fisheries and aquaculture to help me figure what kind of economic activity takes place in these photos. They are taken a year ago on the Anhai Bay, the tidal estuary of the Shijing River, near Shijing, Fujian, China. It looks like people are doing something similar to digging for clams; but they have invested a lot in stone walls dividing the tidal mudflats into rectangles, with little gates here and there for water flow. These structures can also be seen on Google Maps satellite view. The activity is not unique to this estuary; it can be seen, for example, in the Luoyang River estuary east of Quanzhou as well (satellite view), and probably all along the Fujian coast. Any idea what this can be? -- Vmenkov (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

No, sorry. I have no idea what they are doing. That's a lot of photos you have taken of those activities! --Epipelagic (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was a several miles' long seaside road, and I was really curious what all these structures-in-the-mud were all about... Since oysters are said to be prominent in Quanzhou's cuisine, I was guessing that this may be oyster cultivation, but, frankly, not much is seen above the mud (although in File:Anhai Bay - DSCF8875.JPG it looks like people are filling plastic bags with some stuff) to tell a non-expert what really goes on! -- Vmenkov (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. What puzzled me was that there was no visible structures - posts and strings with oysters stuck to them - visible above the mud, as e.g. on this series of pictures ( http://www.panoramio.com/photo/20681476 ), or in some photos in commons:Category:Oyster culture; but maybe it was just a different stage of the production cycle... -- Vmenkov (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

P.P.S. Actually, it turns that blood cockles Tegillarca granosa and razor clams Sinonovacula constricta (and maybe other species) are being farmed in that exactly area. (安海湾南岸滩涂养殖贝类死亡原因调查分析 (Analysis of the causes of death of farmed shellfish on the mudflats in the southern part of Anhai Bay)). So I'll be able to put the photos to good use somewhere, after all :-) -- Vmenkov (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of List of threatened sharks

Hello! Your submission of List of threatened sharks at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Gobōnobō 21:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

thanks for fixing my mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul.henningham (talk • contribs) 08:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for fixing mistake on shark finning — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul.henningham (talk • contribs) 08:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Early naval vessels of New Zealand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Māori (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) 09:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Nominations Request For Comment

A 'Request For Comment' for Good Article Nominations is currently being held. We are asking that you please take five to ten minutes to review all seven proposals that will affect Good Article Nominations if approved. Full details of each proposal can be found here. Please comment on each proposal (or as many as you can) here. At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support. If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread. Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal.

DYK for List of threatened sharks

On 20 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of threatened sharks, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the international trade in shark fins of five species of threatened sharks, such as the scalloped hammerhead, has come under international protection? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of threatened sharks. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

A kitten for you!

Sorry about the confusion about my semi-protection of Five Ws. I never meant to take sides in this dispute, nor to impune anybody. See my comments at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#As_to_my_motives. Thank you very much for alerting me about this discussion, especially since I was off-Wiki for the Easter weekend.

Bearian (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Phanerozoic eon

I added the noninclude code so it does not be seen in other articles. The template should link to other articles. It cannot be a dead end. So you undo your own edit. --24.218.110.195 (talk) 20:13 08 April 2013 (UTC) 5:13pm 04/01/2013 EDT.

Doctor fish image

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sockeye salmon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spawn (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) 14:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Concerning Removed Pictures

I removed the picture of Parahelicoprion from Helicoprion because it concerned a different genus. Plus, I believe that the picture is already featured in the corresponding genus page, anyhow. No hard feelings?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No that's fine. I realised what you had done was okay when I reverted my comment. In any case, you're perfectly entitled to delete pictures, I was just wanting to know why. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages 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.

List of threatened rays (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Vulnerable, Ray and WWF

Sarcopterygii (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Extant

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. I invite you to revert this edit not because it seems to be utterly pointless, or aggressive, both of which are true, but because it makes you look ridiculously childish and I think you're a better contributor than that, regardless of what side of an argument you're on. --Dweller (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind looking "ridiculously childish". It's hard to contribute in any authentic way on those boards without looking childish. But I don't understand why the remark seems to upset you so much. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it was the utter pointlessness of it. It hasn't upset me at all, I just thought that it wasn't worthy of you and all it was doing was further souring the already reeking atmosphere without any redeeming benefits. I just hoped that with the benefit of a moment of reflection, you might agree. I guessed wrong, I suppose. --Dweller (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I might have reverted, but TRM had already replied to the comment when you asked. Incidentally, I don't think the atmosphere was reeking, though one admin was very aggressive (not TRM). These are issues that need rational redress, and until admins are willing to do that content editors will continue to get upset. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't get your dichotomy of "admins" and "content editors". Both TRM and I are both admins and content editors. You don't rack up the amount of Featured material he has (I have a fair bit, but he has stacks more than me) without being a content editor. You ought to check out the confetti at the top of his user page - try this diff. --Dweller (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I already acknowledged that when I said "Yes of course some admins contribute content", and also acknowledged that TRM has made good contributions. My comments were somewhat tongue in cheek. Some of the most committed blocking admins are not content contributors, and I had in mind that CBM's most notable contributions these days seem to occur when he emerges every few week to block Alan again. Anyway, in an unguarded moment, I said some things that might have been reworded. The main point remains, that long term committed editors who on balance contribute usefully are being needlessly blocked to the detriment of both Misplaced Pages and the morale of other editors. There has to be a more skilful approach. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a long record of arguing (except in truly egregious circumstances, such as outing) against community bans and indef blocks for troublesome productive users and have mentored several back from such bans and blocks, so you're preaching to the converted.

However, Alan's difficulty is not a trivial one. Don't be misled by thinking it's about useful or not useful fiddling with technicalities in articles and categories. It's not that at all.

It's that he demonstrates repeatedly that he cares not a jot for the community, consensus and collegiate editing. That's fine if he's writing for Britannica, but it doesn't work here and is a serious issue. When confronted with opposition, he either ignores it completely, or dismisses it because he disagrees.

I'd be happy to try to help him work through the issue, but he so apparently doesn't care that there's no point. And while, like I said, I'll go out on a limb for productive editors, I'm no patron saint of hopeless causes. --Dweller (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Re ani

Just so we don't sidetrack it further, edit filters are easily broken like the blacklist by not doing the triggering act, whatever it may be. This includes spacing the urls or redirecting them through other sites or by creatively merging content. Its not difficult, but socking is perhaps the easiest way around most things. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah... thanks very much for that. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for List of threatened rays

On 25 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of threatened rays, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that sawfishes (pictured), a family of rays with a long rostrum resembling a saw, are threatened with extinction? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/List of threatened rays. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hey, List of threatened rays is an amazing article--thanks for posting it on the Main Page! I think it is good enough to make it to Good Article status; if you nominate it, let me know. Happy editing! ComputerJA (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you --Epipelagic (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Requesting inputs

Hi, I am an admin from other language wiki and since some time back I have been visiting Abuse filter talk page to have technical inputs wherever possible.

Since one user Arthur Rubin reported at Misplaced Pages talk:Edit filter , I happened to read one of the closed discussion.I am neither aware nor interested nor want to comment on merits of restrctions on particular user Alan. But I want to put a different perspective that will help me in technical improvement after discussion with you.

My personal perspective is outright opposition to "technological solution for sociological issue" is self contradicting and not a balanced view.Blocking an user or blocking a page also are in a way "technological solution for sociological issue" ; simmilleraly edit (abuse) filters basic concept and substantial part of its practical usage has been "technological solution for sociological issue". That does not mean we can engineer every aspect of human life through technology,actually this does not need a separate mention every one understands that.

What I am interested factually is in technological feasibility aspect.What I propose is

1)Like other user level/rights if at mediawiki software itself a separate level is available to distingush topically restricted user, then it will be easier to an edit filter to know in advance the given user name is to be checked for limited purposes so such an enhancement may help in saving on resources.(This need not be prerequisete or urgent but if available the better)

2)When user name comes first in list of syntax it reduces load on resources as rightly said by user Arthur Rubin

3)If variable added_lines is used effectively utilisation of resources is going to remain very minimum

4)The problem remains if a category is to be searched in a large/big size article, usage of variable "old_wikitext",This can be resource consuming. But here if we restrict the user from editing large size article (With help of variable old_size) and allow only to edit only small size article , it allows user to keep working on small size articles and we can restrict the said user from editing restricted category pages too (out of small size articles). Thus we save resources.

Besides we can file a bug to have facility/feature to searching an article from bottom to a certain limited length to search a category.So entire article will not get searched and hence save the resources.

I do have more suggestions to share on the subject but its better to move forward slowly. Please ,I am eagerly looking forward to your point of view and inputs on technological improvement aspect.

Thanks and warm regards

Mahitgar (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sure I'll engage. However, the thread you referred to on the English Misplaced Pages has made it clear that admins here prefer to humiliate editors with demands that they "bend to the will of the community", where "will of the community" = decisions made by admins and followers of the drama boards, like the one just linked to. This is a classic lose-lose scenario. Trying to help English Misplaced Pages admins grow up has never worked in the past. Many of them were schoolboys when they were appointed, and crazy as it may sound, they are appointed for life. There's a huge number of them now, and they action only decisions that suit them. There is no oversight. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello again Epipelagic ,

It's very nice to see your positive response and look forward to your inputs.

As I said earlier, since I was not following the issue earlier it would not be fair on my part to be judgemental. But if one looks at the discussion you were engaged in a neutral point of view; justifiably one will feel wiki culture is getting more and more democratised, so mob mentality wins against the reason and enshrined expected balance perspective vis a vis original values. like wikipedians are expected to avail offer maximum freedom.

What consensus is supposed to offer is deliberation and understanding and best possible inclusivity to opposite side view.When I compared two sentences of two users in discussion

1) We can't ban everyone! We need to also remember that his "violations" were actually improving things and the only reason he is being blocked is because he violated a sanction, not because he is doing any harm.

2) Your thoughts, while noble, don't actually address the issue of why he can't just follow his topic ban.

When you compare two things are being forgotten.a)Human beings are not made for rules but the rules are made for human beings wikipedia basic founding principle expects one to be flexible enough in this respect.b) So second argument is very much talking about punishment.To my knowledge wikipedia blocking does not permit punishment it calls to be preventive. and for being preventive a technological solution in edit filter ensures better level of freedom to both sides and could have been given a chance ? may be.

acknowledging only limited sides to solution that is X or Y and then rejecting both and not accepting there can be more sides to a solution z or abcd for that matter is very much a logical fallacy used with a predecided purpose.

So ? actually sociological issue on opposite end too :) Hope better sense prevails in times to comes.

Till then we can carry on with some positive steps. Would be waiting cross fingered to your inputs towards technology aspect.

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Well it's better to continue this at Abuse filter talk page and see if the technological issues can be cleaned up. While the English Misplaced Pages prefers moralising and punishment, other Wikipedias may prefer functionality. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your valuable inputs at Abuse filter talk page .

>>other Wikipedias may prefer functionality<<

Yes there are such wikis and admins which do prefer reason and functionality, if technically feasible.That is why I requested for inputs. We do have our own technical expertise, still taking inputs from various sides helps improve the things further and we can save time on reinvention of the wheel every time.

Thanks again and warm regards Mahitgar (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Pygmy pipehorses

Hello there! We've never met, but I believe we have an editor in common (Invertzoo). I was wondering if you could offer me your input about this recent happening. Also refer to my talk page for part of the discussion. Thank you for your time! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I commented here. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Renaming Begging behavior in birds

Hi Epipelagic. Thanks for your recent help in renaming Surface wave detection by animals. Another article has recently been posted which in my opinion would benefit from a similar more general title. Could you please cast your eyes over Begging behavior in birds. I feel it should be renamed Begging behaviour in animals. The article needs work in several areas, but getting the title right will be a start. Cheers. __DrChrissy (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

If you search Google Scholar on "begging behaviour"|"begging behavior", 88 of the the first 100 articles are about birds. Of the remaining 12 articles, five are about non bird taxa (ants , seals , meerkats , prairie voles , apes ) three about begging from humans by habituated animals (apes , foxes , otters ) and four on human begging. Overwhelmingly, the literature is about birds. I think a balanced approach would be to leave Begging behavior in birds as it is and start Begging behaviour in animals as a companion article. Alternatively, a section about begging in other animals could be added to the bird article. But I'm not necessarily convinced by my own arguments, and if you just want Begging behaviour in animals that would be fine too. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

how do you know about kayaks?

I'm no expert on kayaks, but I have almost got lost at sea because my anchor trolley ripped out from the side of my yak when the anchor was dragging along the bottom and caught on a rock. I think the reason we are clashing heads is because you are a sit-inside kayak fisherman & I'm a sit-on-top kayak fisherman. They are totally different from each other & both narratives deserve to belong. I fish on the flats (saltwater) and find banks to fish from and then mark them onto my gps. Banks are primitive sandbars which don't fully rise above sea level, but they offer 360 degrees of fishing & you never encounter another human being (or have to deal with them). I was wanting to upload a few pics of a kayak tethered to a on a saltwater bank (4 feet deep) and catching lane snapper in an adjacent shipping channel (which is strictly a deep water fish which can only be caught offshore). I'm not trying to domineer the article--just trying to be an advocate for an activity that I love. Tomato expert1 (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes you are right. I have mainly used sit-inside ocean kayaks for making long trips with camping equipment. If you have some good photos of someone fishing from a kayak, they would be good to add to the article (photos taken from a kayak are not so useful). --Epipelagic (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Good followup. I think I represent the typical attention-deficit hyperactivity kayaker. I fish saltwater and look for banks that are adjacent to deep holes. That way I can frequently enter/exit my kayak (dozens of times in a typical fishing trip) because I can't just stay in a claustrophobic sit-inside kayak. I feel too constricted. Anyways, I'll try to post some photos later. I took them with my camera phone so I will have to email them to myself then upload them to wikipedia. I wish there was a wikipedia way of instantly uploading my pictures from my phone to wikipedia commons similar to the way youtube allows a unique, hidden email upload ability for each account. (see here) Anyways, are you from NE, SE part of usa? And do you fish fresh or saltwater or both? Tomato expert1 (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I mainly kayak or use to kayak in the sea, from island to island or bay to bay along the coast of New Zealand, which has a coastline of 15 thousand kilometres compared to 20 thousand kilometres for the USA including Alaska. The west coast is treacherous, and the east coast is relatively sheltered. The south island can be cold. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse discussion on species articles

I was not trying to 'encourage' or 'discourage' the creation of articles for specific species… I was trying to explain a way to address the objections raised to the creation of the article. I was intentionally trying to avoid the actual argument about the 'notability' of the specific species, which is a topic for AfC, and point out that it would probably not get the same objections if the higher level article was better, and suggest how the author could 'fix' this.

I'm sorry if that was unclear in what I said. I actually personally think that both species merit their own article, however, the 'area' also needs work by an expert, as the linkages between the various taxa (order, family, genus) is unclear in those articles.

BTW, I see no way in which a redirected link from the species name to a section of the genus article is in any way objectionable, unless the section is so long it needs to be in a separate article. Specific articles about species are a good thing, but what I was suggesting makes WP more 'usable', which is what I was referring to by 'classification of knowledge'.

Revent (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree for the most part. The article is perfectly capable of standing on its own, but quite frankly it would've been a mess for avid readers if the incongruencies were not addressed. In any case, the user didn't take it very well (fter all, it would've been quite straightforward to get it fixed) and his lack of Misplaced Pages experience might've led him astray. As a sidenote, his anger was probably due in part to misunderstanding how AfC works. We're looking into ways to change that at the moment. Water under the bridge now :) FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I was trying to stay out of that argument, and just talk about 'how to do this in a WP-friendlier way'. Revent (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a tough one quite often. But I understood where you were coming from, editing discrepancies aside. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

(random to be talking here, but the first comment was specifically to Epi) IMO, Bio people are right to focus on 'content' in Biology articles. It's what they are interested in and know about. What's even more important tho, and this isn't a criticism, just a statement that someone should do it, is going though something like fishbase and making all the missing redirects. Much faster than creating stubs, and it lets people find the existing content.

For instance, the guy that wrote the pipefish article. If that redirect has been there, he probably would have fixed that article first. Revent (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well he has written the article now, and it is a very good article. I'm going to nominate it for a DYK. I can understand his irritation, and sometimes less input is better than more. The tricky bit is to know when to stand back a bit! --Epipelagic (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

(looks) Nice.... :)

I'm going to toss the navbar and Biology portal and such on. You're right, it is really good. Revent (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sigh...what he did was what I originally recommended. Anyway, glad he did it in the end. We all learnt something along the way. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• I can't figure out exactly how (where to put it in the code), but it would look a lot better if the toc could be moved to the right, next to the taxobox, with the 'genera' section flowed to it's left, hint hint Much less whitespace. :) Revent (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

What about now? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

(had to scroll, missed it at first) I was actually talking about the 'toc' itself...giving it a 'forced' location at the top, nested into the whitespace. That does look better, though. Revent (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I added a 'clear right' to the top of the text there (where you put the table)....when I adjusted to 100% zoom, I got a narrow column crunched in between the images... This way, it's just a whitespace that resizes, instead of the text. Thoughts? (zoom in and out a bit) Revent (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• (since this is where the conv ended up and it rambled) I've tweaked the layout a bit in my sandbox, and put a link to it in a new thread on the article talk page. 'Topical' location. :) Revent (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Fish ladder

Hello epipelagic! You have just removed a unique picture of salmon in a salmon ladder. Should we follow the practice you must also remove the image of the interior of a church, then it is not a church. It's your choice. I will not try to put the picture back. Have a good evening. Regards --Jarvin (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Jarvin, you have taken a nice photo of two fish, but it just doesn't illustrate anything about fish ladders. Your photo doesn't show the interior of a fish ladder, or the exterior of a fish ladder, or anything at all about a fish ladder. Instead, it shows two salmon which could be anywhere. You say the fish are inside a fish ladder, but there is nothing in the photo to indicate that. The fish could be inside a fish bowl in a church. That wouldn't make a good image to put in an article about churches. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Anatomical terms of location

What is your motive for changing the nice, tidy table back to the messy one that was there before? — Smjg (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Well that's begging the question, when you talk about your "nice, tidy table" and the "messy one" that was there before. Your coding is more simple and more tidy, but visually I prefer the original table, which is consistent with other tables in the article. On a widescreen, your table meanders the entire width of the screen. It is more difficult to read, is a boring uniform gray, and wastes space. I meant to come back and recode the original table (and other tables in the article) in a more straightforward way, remove the thick lines, adjust the colours so they are more subtle, and tweak the tables so the main body of the article text flows round them. But I forgot. However it is just a matter of preferences, and if that upsets you then you can leave it the way you prefer. Regards. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Hippocampinae

On 18 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hippocampinae, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that in some classification systems, the subfamily Hippocampinae includes several genera of pygmy pipehorses which look like seahorses but do not swim upright? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hippocampinae. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Hi Epipelagic, Nice touch including attractive and appropriate images in navigation boxes. An inspiration! Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Yum... thank you! --Epipelagic (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Holistic management

Hello, You made a post on talk page, then reversed it, then in comments asked a question. Curious if you are interested in helping me improve the article? Or was that a random drive by shooting? Redddbaron (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hardly

Re this. Hardly. Admins are only a small part of the problem. PumpkinSky talk 02:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Well that vulgar removal by Drmies, without acknowledgement even in the edit summary, shows just how far the system has ground into the mud. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

To me that looks more like an edit conflict - note the times. Unfortunate, but not vulgar or actually anything to do with adminship or admins. You could visit Bugzilla and try to suggest that they treat the various bugs and suggested improvements re edit conflict handling with a higher priority, but there isn't much point assuming badfaith of other editors. I'd suggest you just reinstate your edit with an edit summary of "assume that was lost to an edit conflict". As for what it shows about the system, well the devs would argue that we have lived with these edit conflict problems for years. Though I suspect if someone could be persuaded to measure it, the lost edits and the discord it generates, not least in annoyed and driven away newbies would justify a high priority to fix the various edit conflict bugzilla requests rather than the low priority that they are currently stalled by. ϢereSpielChequers 05:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that :) I'll check it out. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a relief, and a lesson on not jumping to conclusions. Things have not ground that far into the mud, but that bug needs fixing! --Epipelagic (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOOD Needs You!

Hi there Epipelagic! I've noticed you have yourself listed as a member of the Food and Drink Wikiproject. Unfortunately it looks like the project has been slowly sliding into inactivity except for a couple of people. That makes me a sad potato, and nobody likes a sad potato amirite?

If you'd like to turn my frown upside down, can you do two small things?

First off, go here and add {{Tick}} (Y) next to your name if you're still part of the project.

Second, go to the project talkpage and participate in a discussion about how to make the project more active, and how to go about making articles in our area of interest a lot better.

You don't want to make me cry, do you? Potatoes have a lot of eyes you know. So come on, join in! :)

— The Potato Hose 18:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Potato, I had unpleasant encounters with a user who seems to believe he owns the project, so I decided to work elsewhere for now. Perhaps that's happened to others, and is why the project has slid into inactivity. However, removing people who don't affirm they are currently part of the project, doesn't strike me as a good idea. It means you are removing records other users added which point to their past involvement with the project, sometimes even with details of what that involvement was. Some users might regard that as disrespectful and be less likely to return if things improve in the future. The more usual way projects keep inactive members from clogging the active list is to move users who have not made any edits on Misplaced Pages for, say, six months to an inactive list, with a note that if they return they are free to move their name back to the active list. Trying to exert too much control can backfire. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Epipelagic

May I send you an Email? Thank you, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Links Removed.

Hi.

Why did you remove my additions on the Spin Fishing Page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabastian130 (talk • contribs) 08:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed the three citations you added because (1) two of your citations were to other Misplaced Pages articles, which are not regarded as reliable sources, and (2) your third citation was a spam link. Regards. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

FisheriesWiki

Hi Epipelagic - regarding your message of 30.4 about my having entered enough links to the Fisheries Wiki and adding more might put me at risk of breaching the spirit of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines on promotion and the like, I first want to apologise for the delay in responding. But on the issue of adding links to FisheriesWiki where the article in question is about a fish species or group, I have noticed that most (all?) such articles have links to FishBase, and I was simply following the logic of that by adding FisheriesWiki links. FisheriesWiki is a site that is basically the same as FishBase - a global information system with contributions from scientists and managed by a non-profit, which in the case of FishBase (or SeaLifeBase, its sister site) is organised around marine and freshwater aquatic *species* whilst in FisheriesWiki the data is organised around the *places* (fisheries) where those species are exploited/caught. These sites are in close collaboration as well. Every FishBase and SeaLifeBase species article has a link to FisheriesWiki (in the 'Human uses' section), which will take the user to a list of all profiles on FisheriesWiki that deal with that same species (e.g., for Gadus morhua there are currently 64 profiles). And for every FisheriesWiki profile, there is a link on the profile ID page to the FishBase article on that profile's matching species. In sum, then, I do understand Wikiepedia policies on promotion but do not see in this instance how I was in danger of violating those policies, and so would like to continue to add external links to FisheriesWiki to Misplaced Pages articles where this is relevant/appropriate - such as articles on other aquatic species where information on a site devoted to human uses of that species would add considerable value for users. Your thoughts? --Jackwhalen-sfp (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

FisheriesWiki is an open, contributor-based platform based on a model that has a lot in common with Misplaced Pages itself. Misplaced Pages does not have the sort of quality controls that, say, a peer reviewed scientific journal or a reputable newspaper has. Consequently Misplaced Pages editors are not permitted to cite Misplaced Pages itself as a reliable source. For similar reasons, it seems to me that FisheriesWiki, however useful as a general resource on fisheries, cannot be used as a reliable source on Misplaced Pages. There are some important points of contrast between say FishBase and FisheriesWiki. FishBase is a massive, long established database with a reputation for reliability, controlled and monitored by high profile academic scientists such as Daniel Pauly. It is not funded, as far as I am aware, by any groups which have interests other than scientific ones. FisheriesWiki is a recent start up, and not been round long enough to consolidate a reputation for reliability. It is the product, as they say on their web site, of "an alliance of buyers, suppliers, and producers". There is clearly scope for local commercial and political influences on content within the wiki. So for these, and other reasons, I do not see how it would be appropriate to use FisheriesWiki as a reliable source on Misplaced Pages. You say that FishBase articles link to corresponding FisheriesWiki articles, but they link also to corresponding Misplaced Pages articles. So that doesn't further the argument for FisheriesWiki being a reliable source. Misplaced Pages may not be a reliable source, but it can be an excellent starting point to get a (maybe) reliable overview of how the land lies together with a list of reliable sources which can then be followed up. Similarly, it seems to me that FisheriesWiki can be a useful starting point for investigating a fishery, and may be a good place for for a Misplaced Pages editor setting out to develop an article on a fishery. For that reason, I didn't revert your entries when you added the wiki a few times as an external link.

Anyway, that is just a personal initial impression and not a Misplaced Pages position. I have referred the matter for further comment to the Reliable sources noticeboard. Regards. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)