This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Dear Epipelagic,

Our vision for Wikipedia is one of beauty, natural symmetry and light.

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 Wikipedia; may our encyclopedia make information and education available, without charge, to everyone in the world.
All the very best from Invertzoo (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --Epipelagic (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Epipelagic. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.8.38 ([[User talk:124.168.8.3 8|talk]]) 01:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. How do we deal with this? I can understand your suggestion about not feeding the Troll, but does this mean we need to have our names linked with totally spurious accusations and defamatory comments? __DrChrissy (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we just have to develop thick skins to edit here over the long haul. I just posted the following somewhere else... "It's a serious weakness in the governance of Wikipedia. It's horrifying that you have been subjected to such uncomprehending crassness and grandstanding. Administrators seem to prefer leaving content builders floundering around in muck like that when it occurs, rather than get involved themselves. By hey... it's out there and sometimes we can't avoid it, and the Wikipedia governance seems beyond remedy. We can only develop a sense of humour around it. It's real only if we take it seriously." Many administrators get a lot of abuse from trolls, and it's understandable they are reluctant to get further involved when trolls attack content builders.

I don't think most experienced editors take such accusations seriously. The IP hopper can't even string a coherent sentence together. A troll like that is out to generate drama and cause distress, probably the only power she experiences in life. Let her distress you and let her know you are distressed, and in her claustrophobic world view she has "won". Perhaps she's sad rather than mad or bad. The editors here who actually build the encyclopedia and work near the articles you write know your real calibre. What else counts here? --Epipelagic (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hai! Epipelagic How are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bheem26 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hai! Epipelagic how are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bheem26 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Very well, thank you. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Epipelagic, I'm not sure if my explanation over at Eel satisfied you, but either way you may be interested in a discussion I started on the general topic of how we categorize taxa: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Categorizing taxa vs. common names. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for doing what I was too lazy to do myself. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coho_salmon&diff=next&oldid=589650975 71.95.144.191 (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diversity of fish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Angler (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) 13:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, as you reverted most of my changes in this template, I've put my questions and arguments in two sections on Template talk:Seafood. Please check both. --Off-shell (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Biomagnification, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury (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) 09:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Epipelagic, nice to meet you! I'm sorry that I deleted some content on the Blue Mackerel page without explaining why. The reason I deleted "Japanese mackerel" was because it sounded unclear; it could sound like Japanese Spanish mackerel or Japanese horse mackerel (they are all different). I thought that it would be better to delete "Japanese mackerel" on the page in order to help readers easily clarify and understand the species. Hope this helps you understand why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.219.193.111 (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Epipelagic, I am sorry you found my edits to Neritic zone inappropriate; this is just to let you know I have reacted there. PJTraill (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Epilagic please help for starting a topic for editting . The teenagers are now carzy about mobiles please help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bheem26 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I went to my doctor yesterday, and he thought I might be suffering from something called 'antipathy for all that is admin'. It must be true, because at StarBucks last week when the nice lady asked if I wanted room left in my cup for cream, she got all puzzled-looking when I exclaimed back: "Admins all suck!" Perhaps there's a rehabilitation clinic I can check into, I dunno, I'm waking up some mornings sceaming "De-sysop the bastards!" and don't really know why. Meanwhile my doctor is checking if my affliction might be better diagnosed as a form of Tourettes, or even something else he called 'a false dichotomy' -- which seems yuckier still, since I think that involves stomach surgery or something. (At least it's not a brain cloud, which is terminal.) Hope your day went brighter. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC) p.s. Happy New Year 2014!

I received a message by a user Epipelagic (obviously you) about my change of the page Surströmming. It was done in October 2013 but due to my working schedule I have received it today. You changed my addition to said article where I've added that the Surströmming brine has also been spread in the garden. You were simply wrong by removing "garden". Years ago I read the verdict where I saw that the brine was spread in the garden on 26.12.1981. When I made the change to the German Wikipedia I found a source on a German judicial blog, and when I searched now I didn't find it anymore. Since I cannot offer a source right now I will not add that change ("garden") again at this moment but I will come back if I stumble upon a source on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.218.62.130 (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a crashingly trivial addition, and I don't know why I bothered to revert it. But the reason I reverted was because your addition was not mentioned in the source provided. By all means reinstate your addition if you think it really matters, but note in passing that blogs, even German judicial blogs, are not always regarded as reliable sources. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the Sawfish article, you replaced a very clear image with a very, very, very blurry one that does not even show the whole fish. I'm very curious as to why you choose this, perhaps I'm missing something? Mattximus (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree your alternate picture is sharper. However, the key point about the sawfish is that is a benthic ray with a spectacular rostrum shaped like a chain saw. The image you are suggesting has the fish swimming in open water, though it is not pelagic and open water is not its usual habitat. The rostrum is side on and its structure is barely evident. Further the lateral view of the fish emphasises its shark-like features, and de-emphasises its ray-like features. The original picture has much more immediate impact for a viewer who is unfamiliar with the sawfish. It presents a clear view of the nature of the rostrum, the fish is lying in its usual habitat, flat on the seafloor, and the ray-like nature of the pectoral fins is evident. For contrast, there is another sawshark in the background presenting a side view. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:

• This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
• Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
• The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
• An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.

Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.

More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.

I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!

--Dom497

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

fish
Thank you for quality articles on marine life and ecosystems, such as Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences and list of threatened sharks, and for the image of "tidy the remnants of productive content builders", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you – --Epipelagic (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! When I noticed my pictures wasn't posted thought maybe I hadn't saved it so I changed the picture once again - that was before receiving your message. I removed logo from photo. Thanks again. AquaticweedharvesterAquaticweedharvester (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding CYl7EPTEMA777's recent edits and block threats regarding "Talking bird"-named articles. The thread is User:CYl7EPTEMA777, blocking threats, and disruptive edits on Talking bird and related articles. Thank you. —Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I've started a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Block review. Your input there would be appreciated. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• I saw your comments relating to how admins seem to block all reform efforts that affect them. This has been my experience here as well and its disconcerting; however: we should never forget that non-admins out number admins 100 to 1, so why is it so difficult to organize enough non-admin editors so that we can institute changes that they disagree with? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Epipelagic. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Identification of aging in fish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pike (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I recently added my admittedly somewhat long-winded two cents, twice, on the Talk page of Seahorses at Seahorses#Medicine, in a recently begun long running discussion. I will probably not add anything more, but the discussion does not seem to be reaching an elegant consensus. I've searched for an active member of Wikipedia's Biology project, specifically on Marine Life, and found you. I don't know if you want to take the time to read the exchange that continues to this minute and suggest a resolution, but I believe you could be helpful. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Great change of image on Animal consciousness! Who will ever forget that!__DrChrissy (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I was expecting to get flak! --Epipelagic (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not from me! You are probably aware that one way of memorising information is to make it as fanciful or unrealistic as possible. Who will ever forget the image of an elephant looking at its reflection in a dressing table mirror? Sure it has a lighter side, but it is more informative than a dog looking into a mirror. It has my vote!__DrChrissy (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Do you think there is any merit in splitting Mirror test into two articles, i.e. Mirror test and Mirror test (animals). I feel there needs to be research on animals that have been tested and failed (I'm willing to do this), but also omitting some confusing information from humans.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm unsure. I don't think there would be a difficulty with a worthwhile article about the mirror test and animals. The problem might be more with an article about the mirror test and humans. There is perhaps enough research material on humans out there, but much of that might belong more appropriately in the article on self-awareness. Still, I'll support the split if that's what you decide. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. I agree with you about the amount of information relating to humans and non-human animals - although the understanding of mirrors seems to be a recognised area in child development (not my area at all!). I think I will open it up on the talk page to see what others think - there may be someone willing to expand the page for humans.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Do you recall leaving a note on my talk page on April 8 about edits being made to sustainability articles? Your note led to ongoing discussions at Talk:Sustainable development#This article has multiple issues. Now the other editor has made a complaint at ANI. You never told me what your concerns were. That might be helpful to know. Weigh in at ANI if you like. Sunray (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on my editor review page. I was interested to follow up the links you gave showing that Fram has "form" and that the attacks on me are not unique. Quite comforting really. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Epipelagic. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Firstly, I just wanted to say thank you for the feedback you gave me on my Wikipedia article. I originally found those sources through the Marine Biology page and therefore assumed that they were reliable. However, once I took a second look after your comment I realized that I had more reliable sources to use that had the same information. I just wanted to let you know that I changed most of the citations from those sources but I was wondering if you had any recommendations for other reliable sources I could use, particularly ones that focus on the very early studies of marine life or the more recent technologies that have come out. I was also wondering how you consolidated the citations in the reference section because I added more citations and I wasn't sure exactly how you did that but I wanted to keep the page consistent. Thanks again! Sarakpal (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Although I would agree with a good deal of what you said, in fairness not all of us are just playground bullies. Like the design of this page btw. Cheers, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh Jim, please don't read personal criticism (which is not there) into my comments. I was referring more to systemic problems within the community and the admin system than problems with individuals. The systemic failures are as much my failures as any other individuals. Several admins, and most particularly yourself, have responded as well as any individual admin could be expected to respond in the Cwmhiraeth review. In fairness to myself, I nowhere implied that all admins were bullies. Nor did I imply anywhere that that no admins were content builders. Still some admins periodically insist I do believe that, and attack me as a way of avoiding the actual issues. Some admins, and you are an example, are most excellent content builders. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for backing me up at my editor review and elsewhere. I guess every content creator sometimes makes mistakes and as you pointed out, no effort was made at my review to assess whether the level of errors in my articles was higher than average. In particular, the finding of so-called "random" articles with "shock-horror" faults by people actively looking for errors was quite damaging to my reputation, and I'll admit that some of the faults were definitely not good.

As a result of the review I am receiving instruction from InvertZoo. I have written a linked pair of articles which are currently in my userspace. One is about a flounder and InvertZoo thought you might like to check it before it goes live. (The other is about the octopus that mimics it and is here). If you do have a look, you could comment on the talk page where we are keeping notes. Thanking you in advance. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, my revert was incorrect. I thought I was correcting a prose error, rather than a scientific error. I've been in a WP:GOCE editing mode lately. Esoxid^{talk•contribs} 02:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I've partially reverted your surely well-intentioned and certainly helpful edit to On Bullshit. I believe that the work is copyright (and conventionally so, not copyleft). There doesn't seem to be an indication on the website to which you linked that the PDF was there with the explicit permission of the copyright holder. (If I missed such a notice, please draw my attention to it.) As long as the legitimacy of the link is unclear, "WP:COPYLINK" rules against linking to it.

(I was already aware that copies existed on the web. A long time ago, when I was young and carefree, I linked from the article to a different copy. Later I thought better of it and removed the link.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, glad to see you're still with us! I was wondering if you could expand this very important port article? The fish market alone should probably have its own article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, glad to see you're still with us! I was wondering if you could expand this very important port article? The fish market alone should probably have its own article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm not sure why you reverted my changes to the section on structured population of the article Theoretical ecology, as I think that what I had written was more accurate. Indeed, there is nothing "general" about the Leslie model when it comes to structure population dynamics. What about stage-classified models? What about integral projection models? What about continuous time and discrete population structure models? What about continuous time and continuous population structure models? These ought to be mentioned.

Written as it is, this section gives the impression that Leslie models are all there is to study structured population dynamics (and I think that writting "general form" just before the only equation in a section with this title is a terrible idea).

Admittedly, my modification wasn't very good and this section needs to be rewritten from scratch. But in the meantime, I think it was better to leave something emphasizing on the discrete-time, discrete population structure of the model, rather than call it general.

Best,

Malparti (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I reverted because it is a general discrete form. The most casual glance at the equation indicates it is discrete, and a reader who needs that pointed out is hardly likely to follow much else in the article. Continuous time and continuous population structure models are referenced earlier in the section on Population ecology. An article like theoretical ecology is just an overview, an article whose main value is largely in delineating the scope of the topic and pointing to relevant associated articles on Wikipedia. It is inappropriate in such an article to go into excessive detail. I reverted in the interest of keeping things simple. If you find that upsetting please reinstate your edit.

There are definite gaps in Wikipedia in these areas, and stage-classified and integral projection models may well be examples. If you think you are a person well equipped to write such articles then I urge you to write them. I'm happy to support you if you want support doing that. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I see your point, though I'm not convinced that the current solution is better. However, this is a point of detail so we should focus the real problem. I think that in an article like theoretical ecology, a section named "structured population growth" should:

• Start by pointing out that population structure does exist. Any reader will be familiar with the fact that most vital rates are age-dependent, but then it should be noted that for many species size is more relevant. Finally, spatial structured should also be mentioned.
• Then, it should be explained why, in some cases, it is crucial to take population structure into account
• Finally, a very brief overview of the main kind of models (at the very least, the McKendrick - von Foerster model, matrix population models, integral projection models and compartment models). However, the models should not be detailed. Rather, there should be links to dedicated articles for each of these.

I also think that structured populations deserve an article of their own, to which this section should link.

Finally, I'm not very happy with the current structure of the section on Population ecology. Exponential and logistic growth are very important, both for introducing the subject and for historical reasons. But the structuring is probably not the best ("exponential growth", "logistic growth" and "structured population" -- the topic covered are disproportionate, and it gives the impression that the lack of population structure is the only limitation to the logistic model). The article Population ecology is very incomplete too, and more generally, Wikipedia (or at least en.wikipedia) is not very good for population ecology. The fact that there are several articles on related topics (eg: population ecology, population model, population dynamics) with some overlap and no precise delimitation of the topics must be confusing for the casual reader.

I am not particularly well equipped to write these articles (I am not an expert in these topics and I'm not a native speaker), but I think I could write a first draft, although I probably wouldn't have time to start working on that before one month. I will then keep you informed.

Best,

Malparti (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

I wanted to explain a little more about Category Tree's. I am sorry for undoing your edit. That is the first time trying undo. I thought I would get more space to explain. I should have written you first, and asked you to undo it, I think.

Only recently have I started using Template:Category tree. You can use it at a top level, like the general category, fish, to show all the categories below fish. Clicking on the arrows opens up a new level of detail. Or you can start at the level of an individual species of fish, and show the categories going up, the parents of a page. The more I use it, the more I find it an easier way to navigate than by clicking through page after page of category files.

I think it is useful at the bottom of general category articles like Fish, but I moved it to the top of the Category:Fish page, where it offers an alternative way to navigate all the child categories of fish.

One of the problems with category pages (whether seen through category trees or category pages) is that they do not form a coherent hierarchy of terms. Look at the fish category tree and you will see it is rather disorganized. I think we will need to be able to edit and organize the entire category tree for a subject (rather than relying on editors to properly categorize each individual page from the bottom up). I do not know the answer, but I am working on the problem. Maybe editors could select from an existing category tree, with options to add new nodes in the tree.

Thank you for your patience and understanding. I am just trying to make it easier for visitors to get around.

RC711 (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The image at the following link is labeled shortnose sturgeon but it's actually a young lake sturgeon. [1] The snout of a shortnose sturgeon doesn't turn up, rather it is fat and round, and turns down if there's any turn at all. We had the image removed once, but it's back. When you Google "images of shortnose sturgeon" it sticks out like a sore thumb. Your input would be appreciated. AtsmeWills☯ talk 04:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --LT910001 (talk) 05:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the deletion was warranted, have added specific comments on the talk page. I'll leave it to you to either delete it, or clean it up. :-)

HI. Sorry if you think I went too quickly. I'd be glad to discuss specifics about those edits, for instance your trimming of the quotation is fine. Unfortunately another user has reverted Fishing vessel, fishing trawler, History of fishing. With regard to the first one, [2] is a substantial improvement, in terms of layout, breakup of content into sections, chronological reorder and the addition of important info on the Brixham trawler, the advent of steam, and so on. Much of this material was written by myself. It then makes sense to update the fishing trawler article with that information.

The History of fishing article was initially a bit of a mess. There were sections on very marginal issues, like Chinese Americans (?), Trepanging; a section on herring without text, some totally empty sections, a fishing reel section outside of a section on fly fishing and some other issues. My edit here created a section on modern commercial fishing development, streamlined the section on recreational fishing and created a better layout. Thank you for your time.Noodleki (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I am going to revert your edit just now - please don't re-revert. Sitush or whoever it was in that bar-fight wrongly formatted his comment as though it referred to mine, which it didn't, and it is now stranded in the middle of a set of exchanges where it doesn't belong. Johnbod (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Then you should have retained the chronological order and changed the indentation, instead of trying to push yourself forward by masking the current exchange. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No. He should have put his reply under what he was replying to, not what was formatted by * as a new comment. You are a fool if if you think I was trying to "push myself forward" - the bar fight bit will clearly get more readers than people actually trying to discuss the question. And by the way I had no idea what your "Yuk" was supposed to convey, not that I care. Johnbod (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, the ugly way you push yourself forward makes that very clear. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A glacial lake being needed with the sockeye is a tale that was told to me on the Olympic peninsula. In the fall, the year before, I saw spawning salmon about thirty miles from the Pacific above lake Quinault. They were in a stream that could be walked and looked diseased. The gravel was flaking there skin off in thin layered patches. One could see the red flesh where the final layer was translucent. However, they were quite vigorous.

When the anticipated first springer, what they call their blueback, is caught in Toholah it is heralded. Steelhead and coho run in all the rivers but the sockeye only run in the Quinault.

I was told the story in the presence of the friend that was with me when I saw the spawn. He smokes fish for a living and said that they were sockeye. There are two parts about the story that I did not include and I do not believe. The first is that they stop eating when they hit fresh water. Physics dictates that they need energy to stay in the lake. The slope of the valley is about 72 degrees and it is in a rain forest. Since I read in Wikipedia they are gill feeders, my conclusion now is that these marvelous fish consume the protein in the ice which is provided on a continuous basis by the summer melt. The second is that the lake on the north side of the Olympics is dead forever to the sockeye.

Alesander (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Alesander. The problem is that anecdotal reports, however interesting or plausible, are not a basis for adding information to Wikipedia articles. The core policy is that the information must be verifiable, which in practice means that it must be supported by reliable sources. Normally salmon cease eating when they start their run, and you may find salmon run interesting. Regards --Epipelagic (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC) Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.

Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!

TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.

If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.

At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.

As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!

Sent by Dom497--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Animal consciousness, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Eccles. 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) 09:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you also interest yourself in freshwater sciences and limnology? At UW-M, we've got the world's first (or so I am informed) school of freshwater sciences; but I'm wondering if anybody else has heard of it, and if so what the reputation is among those interested in the field. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for taking so long to reply Mike, I somehow missed this. I have no idea what reputation the UW-M school of freshwater sciences has. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fish fin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Siphon (biology). 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) 09:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok its me not interested - a reply like that as obtuse - suggests it is not worth it. thanks for the reply though satusuro 23:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• That confirms it then. You have nothing to say about Maritime history because it appears that was just a pretext. But you do appear to have a very questionable ulterior motive. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Not at all, in fact if you check things carefully, I do have an interest in maritime history, having created the Australian maritime history project, and worked to see shipwrecks not being swallowed up by ships - your offering a suggestion that I had any interest in any ulterior motives is the problem, if you can see it as such.

Also the response suggests, by alluding to something that is not even mentioned, that the logic goes to the when you have stopped beating your wife logic. Assumption of something other than what actually is.

Pity, as seeing your extensive maritime area editing, it would have been interesting, but as you are alluding to something totally different, that is why I am not interested in discussing it with you, as who in normal editing, even know what you are alluding to? satusuro 00:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

If you don't know what I am alluding to then I have clearly got the wrong end of the stick. Please accept my apologies, which I offer without reservation. May we start again then? I would be very interested in what you have to say about maritime history. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The socratic paradox might be of some help to you when it comes to allusion. You were dealing with the known (on your part) and making the (unknown) something which to me may be known in one sense, but not known on another. The unknown unknown is what you are dealing with. As for maritime history - the case for reform is long and drawn out, and as for whatever reason you want it on wiki and above the line, it will be some time before I further any further comment. Please do not expect further responses in the short term as the material that i would propose to be part of an argument about maritime history are in a university library I dont have rights in. In the fullness of time - a response might take some. satusuro 05:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Well then... I shall look forward to the long and drawn out case for reform blossoming in the fullness of time :) --Epipelagic (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Dont hold your breath - and your use of the term stick reminds me of what wikipedia was like in the first years - [3]] - I can imagine any chance of real reform in the maritime history area is about zilch in reality, due to the prevalent 'strength' of various other projects' claims to be the purveyors of dead horses in perpetuity.satusuro 06:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Well until I know what your case is I can't comment. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup WikiProject Good articles is holding a new competition, the GA Cup, from October 1, 2014 - March 28, 2015. The Cup will be based on reviewing Good article nominations; for each review, points will be awarded with bonuses for older nominations, longer articles and comprehensive reviews. All participants will start off in one group and the highest scoring participants will go through to the second round. At the moment six rounds are planned, but this may change based on participant numbers. Some of you may ask: what is the purpose for a competition of this type? Currently, there is a backlog of about 500 unreviewed Good article nominations, almost an all time high. It is our hope that we can decrease the backlog in a fun way, through friendly competition. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors! Sign-ups will be open until October 15, 2014 so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the four judges. Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC) To receive future GA Cup newsletter, please add your name to our mailing list.

I see you've run into the same problems with a certain editor that several others have had with them. I suspect that this mess needs to go to ANI, sooner rather than later. Guettarda (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. That editor accumulated this block history in just 16 months for similar behaviour on the German Wiki. I don't see any glimmer of a collegiate approach towards other editors. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Goodness. Start talking content. Its still possible to improve WP articles, some - as in the tragedy of the commons - are not based on current scientific sources at all. Serten (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC) As long as you try to ignore the "wealth of the commons" and its renewed interest in the scientific community, compare A Collection of 73 essays that describe the enormous potential of the commons in conceptualizing and building a better future, you just disrupt necessary and source based improvements of an article that deals with the very essence of wikipedia - the digital common - and insteadt you parrot state of 1968 neomalthusian gibberish of the likes of Hardin. Times are a changing, darling. Serten (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't expressed any views apart from the view that you need to get a degree of consensus before making the changes you want. You could save yourself a lot of time by omitting your attacks claiming I hold views you just made up all by yourself. The only sources you have mentioned in discussion so far have been confined to a minor German historian Joachim Radkau, to a German tax accountant Hans Carl von Carlowitz, and to an American political economist Elinor Ostrom. Where are the high scientific credentials you keep claiming, sweetheart. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Contrary to your claims, sweetheart, I have provided various further sources and I never quoted Hans Carl von Carlowitz in that article. You cannot ask for consensus as long as you deny factual evidence, Epipelagic. No consensus at all will allow you to restore Phlogiston or Aether theories in actual physics articles, same the Hardin bullshit doesnt stand any scrutiny. Elinor Ostrom got a nobel prize on her work on commons. Youre claiming she was introduced by me, she was already quoted before I edited in the article, she alone is enough to get rid of Hardin in the intro. Joachim Radkau is THE specialist in the field of environmental history, the book quoted about nature and power got the Bentley Book Prize. Radkaus point about Hardin being an ignoramus which didnt know anything about real commons is confirmed and quoted from The Nature of Mediterranean Europe: An Ecological History, by Alfred Thomas Grove, Oliver Rackham, Yale University Press, 2003, p. 88. Thats said, youre Flogging a Dead Horse. Serten (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't read what I actually write. You seem to skim over the top and then reply to irrelevant fantasies of your own making. In any case, if this is meant to be an attempt at justifying the mess you are making of those articles, then your efforts belong on the talk pages there... not here. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You defend Hardin, a friend of the bell curve and planned genocide as means of population control, denier of food aid in large famines and strong neomalthusian eugenist. Seems you have a problem with mainstream science. Does Wikipedia have to care about your offensive way of pushing POV of fringe topics and positions? Serten (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

There you go again. Your fantasy has nothing to do with me or my views. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I just went to the Project anatomy page to make some comments about the scope of the project (in support of your arguement) but someone appears to have very abruptly closed the discussion. I am confused - where has the discussion moved to please?__DrChrissy (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: Sorry, there is a user there who keeps disruptively closing the discussion. It's open now. If he closes it again, would you mind reopening it. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy to do that.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Those guys are bloody hard work!__DrChrissy (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure are... :) --Epipelagic (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems like you have made progress! Well done.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hardly... narrow escape. We're much better out of there! --Epipelagic (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw! I have started adding hat-notes to redirect to non-human animal articles on articles that are human based - see Stereotypy.__DrChrissy (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like to open a dialog between yourself and I to discuss the back and forth editing, (removal) of cites going back to 2008. In 2008 I contributed a new, never published article under Fishing Techniques, (Remote Control Fishing- Rc Fishing). I am a hobbyist, a fisherman, and my experience with this subject can be compared to how Henry Ford Contributed to the current state of Automobiles. I hold a few patents, (on Rc Fishing) and brought a Rc Fishing Product to market. I have a personal wealth of knowledge and experience on the subject and I have even been credited with appearances on National TV, (Fishing Shows), with my invention for Rc Fishing, I am passionate about it. In contributing my article, here on Wiki or anywhere else I am aware of spam for the purpose of promoting, (there is a time and a place for it). Citing references, I tried to cite a website and a blog that I created on the subject of fishing with remote control boats. I am not naïve when it comes to spam and the fine line and when citing a reference sometimes people interpret certain links as spam. I believe your contribution on Wiki is a passion of yours and spam is a constant threat to unbiased research and information. Maybe I misinterpreted the reasoning behind citing references here on Wiki, but my article and the cites were innocent. You originally deleted my cites and I chocked it up to an overzealous user here on Wiki and reposted the cites. I took into consideration the possibility that that the cites could be interpreted as spam, and narrowed the cites to just one, (Remotecontrolfishingboats.com), a blog with a wealth of information about rc fishing. On the subject of citing authority references, as I mentioned earlier a citation referencing a blog was the latest addition to the article after a reference to a website was deleted by you. The problem we are aware of is that these days it is difficult to find a website that in some way or fashion is not promoting something. Maybe I missed something, I do not understand how we may cite a real reference when the reference website may contain ads, which like I said it is hard to find a website these days that does not. Your diligence in keeping Wiki clean is admirable. After giving you some background on myself and my intentions I'd like to create a dialog with you on how to reconsider at least my reference to ^[1][2], (a blog). Upon discussing spam I would also bring to your attention the other recent edit to the article, another contributor and cited a new reference. The new reference appears to link,, (spam) to a website that is an obvious, a more blatant, link. ^[3] I am not sure why you have not seen the new citation yet and deleted it as you have to mine. My link is to a blog that doesn't directly sell anything....the new link is to a "Retail Website", I do not get it, am I missing something? I can live with you deleting my link(s), mainly because of respect for your authority, (your dedication) to Wiki, I have posted one article. I'll add though, that in the interest of knowledge and information my contribution was totally innocent, a genuine attempt to contribute to a great knowledgebase here. In closing, is there room for any link(s), (citations) in the article I wrote? Or has the subject of Rc Fishing become too commercialized for any links to be considered unbiased? Arlinbenz (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Epipelagic, it's clear you feel passionately about including animal anatomy and fair enough, I hope we can work together to improve the encyclopedia. I don't know if you know about the 'rater' tool, but this is what CFCF and I use (and why I left no edit summary). It allows you to make rapid edits to article assessment and can be enabled on the preferences tabs. We currently use a small 'in-project' classification described here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anatomy#Project_assessment. The purpose of this classification is not for articles, but for members of the project, and specifically collaborations and wikipedia education projects. Articles relating to animal anatomy can be classified as 'animal', with the benefit being that there's a simple in-project classification that can give a list of all 'animal anatomy'-related articles to new and interested members, hopefully a number who will not join us. Using this system we've previously collaborated with physiologists and pathologists (giving us pictures of cellular anatomy). --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not at all...I'm not "passionate" about animal anatomy. I just find users that passionately want to exclude animal anatomy, as though it doesn't matter, arrogant and obnoxious. However, thank you for the information you have provided, and here's hoping the project can drop the war footing and we can collaborate constructively. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Before I make any changes, I wanted to know why you recently changed the gar image in the taxobox? The reason I included an actual picture instead of an illustration is explained in the GA review of the American paddlefish (which just passed the first 1st FA reviewer with a "support"). The following was noted by the initial GA reviewer (4th bulleted comment): The image layout of the article could probably use some work. Why a painting and not a photo in the infobox, for example? Talk:American_paddlefish#GA_Review. I agree that an actual image is much better, especially if it's going to be a deal breaker for achieving GA, and possibly FA. Your thoughts? Atsme☯^Consult 14:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Oops. It's just a preference. Personally I prefer an illustration as the primary image if it is well done, accurate and clearer than the photo. It looks better visually and I don't really see the downside. But then other people prefer a photo, and feel it is somehow "more real" even if it is cluttered and less clear than the illustration. I didn't remove the photo... it's still there under the illustration. I added the illustration because I thought you might have missed it, and also because I thought it might have been a good starting point if you wanted an illustration you could add labels to.

You are the primary writer of the article, and matters such as this should be wholly at your discretion. If the illustration is not your personal preference and/or if your reviewer dislikes illustrations then just revert. I did look on the gar talk page and found that the matter was not discussed there :) --Epipelagic (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I prefer clean color photos if available. I also used a photo in the bowfin taxobox for a similar reason, but can't remember who suggested it initially. Bowfin should be queuing up for DYK pretty soon now. Anyway, after I get through the FAC reviews for paddlefish, I want to nominate bowfin for FA. First I will open it up to Peer review. In the interim, I signed up for the GA Cup, so my spare time is about to become pretty scarce. Atsme☯^Consult 21:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd be interested in helping set up an animal anatomy project. I don't know that much about anatomy, but probably more about avian anatomy than any other active Wikipedians… While I'm not usually comfortable with people talking about the attitudes of users involved in a discussion as you've done with WikiProject Anatomy, it would be impossible to ignore the arrogance (or something) involved, so you were right to do so. Indeed, I'm worried that leaving the scope and name of the existing project as is will mean that an animal anatomy project will cause confusion, and moving on from a confrontational footing won't necessarily happen. Beside the whole problem of non-human anatomy being marginalised in broad-concept articles… Cheers, —innotata 03:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I have about the same take as you. I would like to see at least one more editor supporting the project before proceeding. I've asked DrChrissy if she is still interested. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I am willing to be involved in this project. However, we simply must be honest with each other here - despite the rather feminine user name, I am male, not female...  ;-)__DrChrissy (talk) 10:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Dang... I assumed that was your first name. Most editors involved in animal articles on Wikipedia seem to be women. There's a hirsute indication of my gender here :) Anyway that's great. I'm off to sleep now, but I'll set up a project page tomorrow if one of you haven't already. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for making the proposal at the human anatomy project. I participate in WikiProject Medicine and have some understanding of the community there. Please consider setting up a task force at WikiProject Anatomy rather than making an entirely new WikiProject. One of the hardest parts of setting up a WikiProject is finding a community, as many issues which arise can be answered by any interested Wikipedia and not just someone interested in a niche field. WikiProject Medicine is one of the most popular projects on Wikipedia and it has a core community of not more than 30 people after being one of the oldest and most successful WikiProjects. If this is what amazing success looks like, then imagine in advance how many people you can expect to have after a few years in your project if it is successful as any other.

While I hope you find even more participants and more success than other projects, please consider the good invitation you got to set up a task force and combine your community with the aching WikiProject Anatomy, which itself needs more community members. I want to see you all succeed in what you are doing so that medicine, veterinary medicine, anatomy, animal anatomy, pharmacology, and animal pharmacology all have enough support for themselves and are interconnected to each other. If I can show you any precedent to help guide your course of action then please ask. I want you to be supported in what you do. Thanks DrChrissy and Innotata for your support in this also. Nice to meet you all - I wrote to epipelagic first only because this user made the initial proposal. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind concern Bluerasberry, but as you point out WikiProject Anatomy belongs to the good people of WikiProject Medicine, who already have their work cut out for them. They should be allowed to get on with it without the interference of an unrelated task force. A project dealing with animal anatomy will not be as helpless and alone as you seem to fear, since it will be a wanted child with many parent projects under the umbrella of WikiProject Animals. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I hope I am not intruding your personal talk page with this, but I have had a couple of thoughts about the new anatomy project. The first is the title of the project. I have long hated the way that the term "animal" is used on WP instead of "non-human animal" (as if humans are NOT animals). I would like to suggest that the new project is called "Non-human animal anatomy" or perhaps "Anatomy (non-human animal). I appreciate this is rather cumbersome, but it would be great to feel that there is a little light at the end of the tunnel. The second thought I had was on the design of the article page. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds is a little unusual in that it uses tabs, but I actually found this very easy to navigate. Perhaps we should consider this format?__DrChrissy (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with a tabs format providing Innotata is also happy. "Non-human animal anatomy" or "Anatomy (non-human animal)" could be regarded as cumbersome. What about - "Non-human anatomy", which also opens the scope to plant anatomy as well as some relevant cellular anatomy? --Epipelagic (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we have the project be a task force under WikiProject Animals, at least for now, given what people are interested in and what we're trying to improve. Page layout doesn't matter. The main point in starting a new project, apart from having a grouping of users interested in a topic, is to have all the technical tools like WMF Tools cleanup listings more easily accessible. —innotata 20:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@innotata. I got the feeling from the discussion at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy Talk page that any idea of a work force for non-human animal articles was unwelcome by at least one member and there was potential for member/s entrenched in that project to become disruptive. The language was totally at odds from what I would expect from a collegiate approach to improving Wikipedia. I understand what you are saying, but it seems that others simply want to rate all non-human information as second-class. I find this unacceptable and support a project that seeks to redress the balance. @Epipelagic"Non-human anatomy" is fine by me.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a significant change in the game plan Innotata. If animal anatomy articles are to be just part of a task force within WikiProject Animals then they will not be separately tagged. A task force will not have the flexibility of a project in it's own right, and it will be more difficult to isolate and maintain animal anatomy issues on their own merits. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, whatever. This is going to be a mess any way though, as long as the larger problem remains. —innotata 01:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, I don't see why it has to be a mess. Can you clarify whether you want to set up the project, or whether you want a talk force within WikiProject Animals? Or are you okay with either? --Epipelagic (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm okay with either; I'm just not happy with this situation. —innotata 16:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Innotata: You mean the ownership situation generated by the medical project? I'm sure that, if we leave them alone to get on with their own thing, they will be respectful and not interfere. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: I'm close to launching the project, except I am running into difficulties calling it "Non-human anatomy". There is a widely accepted position in academia and on the web generally, not just on Wikipedia, that the term "animal" defaults to mean "non-human animal". On Google Scholar, the term "animal anatomy" occurs over 10,000 times usually in non-human contexts, while the term "non-human anatomy" occurs only 35 times. To be well defined a project called "Non-human anatomy" would need "Category:Non-human anatomy". I doubt we would be allowed to create a category defined as a negative. I'm sympathetic to your wish to "redress the balance". But right now it is difficult enough trying to set up the project given the ownership issues of the medical project. Would it be okay to launch the project as "Animal anatomy", and then open the issue of an alternate name once the project is secure and is on a sound footing? Anyway, just between you and me, if we call it "Animal anatomy", we can regard it as including human anatomy, and we can then marginalize human anatomy on the grounds that the medical project already caters to it. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, start it as "animal anatomy", for those reasons. —innotata 00:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I agree too. Perhaps in the statement of the scope of the project we can draw attention to this concern?__DrChrissy (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well the project has cast its lines and is under way! You can get there using the shortcut WP:ANAN. Feel free to add yourself as a founding member and help steer the thing. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks great! Congratulations on the birth. Your choice of images is superb. I have just added a searchable database to the "Resources" section and left a couple of questions about this on the talk page to get discussion going.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• As one whose magnum opus was Snake scales External morphology of Lepidoptera, I say this is a long required WikiProject as those who chose to contribute to anatomy articles are a great minority with very specific concerns not easily addressed in other parent WikiProjects. Kudos to you guys. I've already signed up as huge number of pages on my watchlist have been added by Epipelagic. AshLin (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Epipelagic. You have new messages at DASonnenfeld's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Well, it does have the word 'pelagic'. Article Dogtooth tuna twice says it is 'pelagic' and once says it is 'non-pelagic'. Since I've never been able to open my eyes underwater, I'm hoping you can open my eyes in the article. Trivial, but maddening in a way - a self-contradictory article - surely the first? Shenme (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah... but I'm not a full-blown pelagic, only a half-baked epipelagic. You could ask User:Pelagic. The article is sort of right both ways, though it could be worded better. Dogtooth tuna spend most of their time cruising around coral reefs, which are too shallow to be regarded as truly pelagic. On the other hand, they are also an oceanodromous species which migrate at times across oceans. At that point they are clearly behaving as pelagic fish. You might like to reword the article so it is less confusing :) --Epipelagic (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I saw that you started to leave some comments on my talk page and, although I realize that you changed your mind and deleted them, I did read what you had started to say, and I would like to reply. Please understand, I actually am interested in that page, as I have a strong personal interest in fish. And I also have a very positive opinion of the work you have done on that page, making it an extraordinarily interesting and informative one. Consequently, I feel very badly that you considered the edits I made to be unhelpful, and I want to assure you that I was, in fact, actually trying to be helpful. There should not be spaces before inline citations, so it is correct, the way that Wikipedia formats things (WP:CITEFOOT), to delete those spaces. And as for periods in image captions, WP:CAPFRAG, last bullet point, indicates that periods are to be used when the caption is (or contains) a complete sentence, as opposed to when the caption is a sentence fragment. That is exactly what I did. I only added periods after complete sentences, and did not add them after sentence fragments. My edits were correct, and all editors are entitled to edit any page. I believe that I improved the page (in a very minor way), and I certainly had no intention of upsetting you. Again, I greatly admire the work you did at that page and at related ones. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you reverted me at a point when I was feeling down at the way editors who try to build content are being pushed around and pilloried on Wikipedia by people who aren't here to build content, and I displaced that pissed off feeling onto you... completely wrong person, completely wrong place. Sorry. Please continue as before... I'll feel bad now if you don't! --Epipelagic (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! No hard feelings at all. We all have days like that. Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Well done both for sorting that out - I was getting a bit worried watching from the sidelines having so much respect for the both of you and seeing it going tits up!. Group hug!  ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrChrissy (talk • contribs) 21:58, October 21, 2014‎

As it happens, I just came upon what I think might have been one of the editors who got pushed around, and I see where the frustration could be coming from. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that you've just been elected to the growing band of those banned from Jimbo's talk page.[4]

• Can't you just feel the love coming from there ... - Sitush (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  No. Can't see much thoughtfulness, kindness or forgiveness either, nor a great deal of "moral ambitiousness". Jimbo really has to learn to walk the talk. Eric Corbett 16:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd always heard it as "walk the walk". ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, it's a hopeless task trying to fight for a better Wikipedia. He said he banned me (without right of reply) for "misrepresenting" his views. I would have though that if he felt "misrepresented" he would have clarified the matter. I might slightly exaggerate issues to highlight and tease out absurdities, but "misrepresentation" is definitely not my intention. Or is the real sin to articulate issues? I also feel "misrepresented". --Epipelagic (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The cardinal sin is to hit the nail squarely on the head. Not least when the nail is the one on the finger Jimbo uses for pointing at people he wants thrown off the island. Writegeist (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Obviously I'm at the top of Jimbo's Top Ten, but I wonder who the other nine might be? Eric Corbett 23:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hush now, I'm basking in the thoughtfulness and loving kindness streaming from Jimbo and his new elect. Why write content when we can have that? --Epipelagic (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I wonder who the other nine might be? That is in fact a big part of the point. He is so gutless that he will not name names and seems to hope that others will do that dirty work for him. I'm not qualified to read his mind or mental state but I'd wager that Bish, Giano and probably myself are among the ten. If I am indeed among that number then I'm loud and proud. I'd rather be associated with people like them than, say, Patrol forty/Mr Urge/whoever it is. The man needs to put up or shut up. And I do predict a block soon - it won't stick but it might just burst the bubble. Laurels wither, you know, and he has been relying on his for a very long time. - Sitush (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be fun if one day we woke up to find that Jimbo was blocked and I wasn't? It could happen, it really could. Eric Corbett 00:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oh knock it off, y'all. It took me years to even realize he had a talk page; we can all do without it. It's what some folks call a "spin-free zone", with the added benefit that it's much more a black hole than anything else: things go in and rarely come out. Really, who cares. I do hope that I run into him one day, and we'll have a beer and talk about things. He's buying, of course: I like to think that I've helped his project along a little bit, as you boys and girls have. And I hope to do the same with you all, though I imagine with some of you I can have a more relaxed chat. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• You mean well, Drmies. But this man is spreading poison and he seems to refuse to abide by the standards expected of the rest of us. - Sitush (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  I agree. He is the root of the poison. Eric Corbett 01:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe my naivete makes me get along with lots of people, though I have the feeling it's wearing thin these days. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Y'all are cordially invited to vent at Wikipediocracy, which is a swell place to do that. Carrite (talk) 05:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd imagine Mr Wales is thinking of 5 worst ordinary users, and the 5 worst administrators who are enabling them. You obviously can't remove one set without dealing with the other at the same time. Once that's done, the second tier disruptive users will fall into line, or be easily dealt with by the remaining administrators, unencumbered by the bad apples. Who will win? Who knows. Sad that it's apparently had to come to this, but appeals to reason and the common good clearly aren't working. I actually think the fork idea would be much faster, and generate much less bad publicity, than a counter-insurgency using executive powers. I don't see any issue with the trademark at all, it's not like it's the disruptive users who actually own it, is it? Patrol forty (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh... is that what Mr Wales has in mind. Then why is Mr Wales attacking some of the best content builders and some of the best administrators? --Epipelagic (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

He's not attacking them, he's merely speaking some apparently extremely uncomfortable truths. Such as the fact that no amount of great content building by habitually abusive users makes up for the content lost thanks to their abuse, and enabling them is a failure of governance. His own words put it better than I can though - "My concern is for the principle at stake: do we allow abusive editors to insult and belittle people, if their content contributions are good enough? My position is this: we should not because that's a false bargain. Such editors cause great harm to the content of the encyclopedia by driving away good contributors and newbies not just through their own insults, but through the general decline in community good will that they bring about" (11:12, 18 October 2014). It's a well thought out and extremely compelling argument. If it had any real holes in it, they would have been exposed long before now by those who feel attacked by him saying it. Instead though, their only response has been to attack him. It's not so much a case of shooting the messenger, more like shooting your own commander-in-chief. Patrol forty (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The premisses you have set out are patently false. It might sound good to the uninitiated, but those of us who have been here and seen what actually goes on in the hurly-burly of content development know that the truth is far more complex and far less clear-cut than you and Mr Wales would have it. It is a view that has great demagogic appeal to casual net-workers who arrive here and want to push their own agendas, to do with things like gender inequality and what they personally consider is acceptable behaviour. If you stayed here and did some serious content work yourself over a period of a couple of years, you would almost certainly develop a different view from the one you have now. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that claim made before. The only thing that was patently obvious was that the people making it had made no actual effort to survey all the people they claim to be speaking for. It's a view shared by quite a small amount of people on the face of it, if the estimates of there being a few thousand hardcore writers are accurate. Take MONGOs 'evidence' at the GGTF case for example, which invoked the list of all the people who wrote the most Featured Articles. Looking down that list of names, it becomes quite obvious that the people who are attacking Mr Wales for not knowing what it's 'really like' for content builders, are in reality only a tiny fraction of what are apparently Wikipedia's best writers, if they even appear there at all. As far as 'evidence' goes, it merely shows that those who seek to normalise being abusive as a necessary part of 'building the encyclopedia' are but a small proportion of those who are actually doing it (if that list is an accurate way to even measure that). If I stayed around, I don't think my attitude would change at all. You're either capable of treating everybody with respect, or you aren't. Hence why Mr Wales feels those who aren't, should find (or should have chosen) another hobby, one that better fits their personality. Wikipedia has, as far as I can tall, always been a hobby where volunteers have always been expected to treat everybody with respect, especially those they personally don't think deserve it. It's not a bug, it's a feature. Granted, momentary lapses due to mental fatigue can happen, but they should be rare (extremely rare for admins), and always apologised for and deeply regretted afterwards. Yet I see the reverse in those who seek to argue this case, and very little recognition of these principles in the administrators who are seeking to advocate for it. I suspect that all 10 of the people Mr Wales has in mind, either had these qualities right from the very start, or time has only slightly increased their influence on their behaviour. Patrol forty (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Mr Wales seems to be lashing out at any users he decides are getting in his way. He has himself made abusive personal attacks, calling editors toxic and questioning their honour. His attacks don't necessarily have anything to do with whether the editors are abusive. All too often the worst incivility we see comes from righteous people trying to get other people punished and banned. It's a fraught road to go down, where avenging knights become the perpetrators, the perpetrators become the victims, and people who were neither become both. And mere bystanders become victims as well. Who is going to be savaged in the coming purge you are so happily anticipating? I doubt whether genuinely abusive people will be purged. My guess is that the victims will mainly be the more articulate users who try and stand up for content builders and basic decency. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

They are not "truths". He has never provided any evidence, despite numerous requests. Lack of evidence, for example, is the only reason why I don't call you a sock: that makes me honest and Jimbo, well, at best lacking in honour. - Sitush (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

He's provided it, people just choose to interpret it a different way. That their interpretation agrees with their view, is entirely unsurprising, since their view is that Mr Wales is wrong. Patrol forty (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Diff, please. - Sitush (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The cycle was repeated several times - pick any one of the recent sections at his talk page and you'll see people making demands to see the 'evidence', then you'll see it being provided, then you'll see the responses, which usually went something like 'you proved my point then' or 'so it doesn't exist then' or some other variant. It was all quite tedious really. Patrol forty (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have come here, Patrol forty, with some agenda to clean up some preconceived mess here, about which you have already made up your mind (or had your mind made up for you). I invite you instead to stand back for a bit and ask yourself whether you are really seeing things as they are. As I said above, it is not the simple, clear-cut issue you believe it to be (or have been lead to believe). Dr. Blofeld set some of the complexities out in some detail. I saw no evidence that Mr Wales even read what Dr. Blofeld said, let alone considered them thoughtfully and responded to them. He went a step further in my case, banning me from his talk page, not because I was uncivil but because I raised issues he seemed to have difficulty in clarifying. Sitush has asked you for the evidence you say was supplied by Mr Wales. You can do that or you can't. Your last reply suggests that you can't. Now that is what is really tedious. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. I first came here to argue the case for deleting that helicopter crash article. At that time, the biggest issue I believe Wikipedia had, was having rules like EVENT which were simply being blatantly ignored. It was only later that I discovered Mr Wales talk page, which well and truly opened my eyes. I'm thankful I did, as I really don't think I could be persuaded to donate my time or effort to write articles in this environment, where Wikipedia could probably be prosecuted under the Trades Descriptions Act if it was a UK company. Blofeld said a lot, but it was largely just variations on a few fallacious themes - that he was out of order describing Eric's contributions as "alleged", that he had no right talking about Eric if he didn't understand how difficult it was to be Eric, that he had no business discussing Eric unless he immediately solved all other problems on Wikipedia, plus a few others I've probably forgotten. Mr Wales probably didn't bother responding as his arguments were indeed fallacious, often being constructed from deliberate misrepresentations/misinterpretations. One example is the use of "alleged", the reason for which has been repeatedly given by Mr Wales (it refers to the false bargain mentioned above). Blofeld decided to ignore this, and go on very long rants about how this was proof Mr Wales was supposedly unaware that Eric is held to be a good writer and has written a lot. I've no issue with Mr Wales ignoring feedback that's framed like that, because to even respond he would have to agree to having said/thought/claimed things he clearly never has done. He's a busy guy, he can't be expected to deal with everybody who acts like that. This seems to be the same reason he banned you too. Patrol forty (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

In short, to summarize your argument, we should ban editors who disagree with Mr Wales, particularly if they want to argue about it. This will have a chilling effect on the rest of the community, who will then not disagree with Mr Wales, but will agree that kindness and compassion is now in their hearts. Is that it... have it got that correct? --Epipelagic (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you know full well my answer is going to be no. One of the reasons Mr Wales is bringing this issue up, is precisely because nobody is being banned (from Wikipedia). But you know that. Is there any reason to continue this charade? I only came here to make a comment about the 10 users anyway, and of course, now the fact I am engaging you in conversation is being used against me by Dennis. Apparently this counts as me using Wikipedia as a social network. And you think you're being persecuted? I've never been more convinced that Mr Wales is either going to take some kind of nuclear option to fix this version of Wikipedia, or fork the content and reboot the governance model. I simply cannot see how this will resolve itself in any other way, not when administrators like Dennis can be so open about how they operate to their own set of rules, which are so divorced from the actual rules this site has. Patrol forty (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

... and I am still waiting for a diff from Patrol forty, who is increasingly seeming to be a member of the cult. - Sitush (talk) 00:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Clearly you didn't even bother to even try to look, but I suppose I'll have to indulge you anyway, lest this become a meme. Even though I know it's not going to make a blind bit of difference, never let it be said that Patrol Forty doesn't provide diffs, that's just not how he rolls. Actually I can't be bothered to post the actual diffs, but Mr Wales' comment at 21:24, 14 October 2014 was a direct reply to Eric demanding evidence for the misogyny claim. You will see that it was provided by Mr Wales. The issue is that he disputes whether or not it backs up the claim. Just as I said. This cycle repeats itself several times over subsequent days, on both that and other claims. If you care to read them, you'll be pointed to all sorts of evidence in all sorts of places. I've yet to see any instance where a claim made about what Eric does/doesn't do, that was not backed up by evidence some point, I've only ever seen disputes over what that evidence purportedly shows. What I have seen though, is Eric make many many seriously damaging accusations about Mr Wales and other users, none of which were backed up by any evidence that I saw. Yet I've yet to see Eric being advised by any administrator that doing this is against Wikipedia policy, indeed I've seen several giving him encouragement and sympathy. Patrol forty (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not need to look because I've been following this for ages. There are no diffs where Jimbo provides evidence to support his allegations. You're talking bollocks and I think you know it. - Sitush (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Didn't I already make it clear that I already knew you were going to say this? I was almost word perfect. I only indulged you so you wouldn't keep claiming I don't provide diffs, but it appears while I was doing that, you decided you wanted to go in an entirely different direction. Patrol forty (talk) 01:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Epipelagic, you'll notice that I have blocked Patrol forty. In reviewing their contributions I came across several of your comments on Jimbo's talk page, some of them made after he had asked you not to post there anymore. I'm not taking a position on who's right or wrong, but I do ask that you respect his wishes and refrain from posting there. I also suggest that if you choose to communicate with him elsewhere that you temper your comments...you're more likely to get a better response that way IMO...but that's up to you. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@Adjwilley: If you examine the comments I made on Jimbo's talk page you will find that, while they occurred further down the page, their date stamps show that they were made long before Jimbo posted his comment. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right, my apologies. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It's quite amusing that User:Knowledgekid87 things I'm the one doing the "childish mudslinging". What he fails to see is that I'm one of the few people here actually trying to get the foundation to wake up and take more responsibility in reducing site conflict and than means questioning Jimbo's current position in the way that HJ did and recognising that he is also very much part of the problem in how things pan out. As Epi said, my words had a lot of truth to them and I did an awful lot more than saying that Jimbo should respect content contributors. Basically it was unless you can practice what you preach then just be quiet. My banner basically says "Fine. Incivility is not tolerated. Deal with it, make it universally so, and that goes beyond the odd sweary attack and says, let's actually focus on the encyclopedia instead". ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned this talk page at ANI - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Patrol_forty. - Sitush (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

		The Bio-star
		For your dedicated and laborious addition of articles to WikiProject Animal anatomy, I award you this Bio-star. Wear it with pride. - AshLin (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --Epipelagic (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scolopidia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antenna. 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) 11:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I just noticed that on Fish reproduction you added the box for the WP Animal Anatomy project. The button for the Animal Anatomy Portal in that box shows up as a red link. Not sure how to change this myself so I thought I would let you know. By the way, nice editing on Fish reproduction.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The portal is red linked because it hasn't been written yet. I don't think there's any great hurry, but at some stage one of us could start it. That's good stuff yourself, and on Pregnancy (fish). --Epipelagic (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Incase you missed the edit you just reverted I was attempting to replace a known dead link with an active version of the paper. while my initial attempts to edit in failed the final attempt was completed.

I have gone ahead and completely replaced the dead link now.

So unless you have a personal bias for not allowing said paper to be accessible and present I suggest we conclude this matter now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwavenhobble (talk • contribs) 23:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

That's fine :) --Epipelagic (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Identification of aging in fish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Opercula. 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) 11:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

A nice bunny being given to you, and maybe not for the first or last time. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Anna. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how to do references within an article (that article used a means very different than I do, anyway), but I provided a reputable source for the rock-throwing in my comment. I actually took that source directly from the main "Fallujah" page, which states such. - unsigned comment by Dupreem (talk · contribs)

I didn't notice the link you provided in your edit summary until after I reverted. There is a better reference to Human Rights Watch at the end of the following sentence. You can look at the source code there to see how it was done. However, it remains that the rock throwing was a separate incident which occurred in an earlier demonstration, and not during the demonstration that was fired upon. When you make comments on talk pages please sign your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your username and the date. Regards. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I have nominated Marine shrimp farming for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Geronimo, you kindly wrote "Thank you for your contribution to McKenzie River dory. Can you provide inline citations, which include the relevant page numbers to the reference you added? --Geronimo20 (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)" Sorry to take forever but, Yes! I finally got to it and did what needed to be done! Thanks Geronimo20! RRFWTommartin (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Well that's a blast from the past. Well done! --Epipelagic (talk) 10:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.