User talk:Epipelagic

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		I was tempted to block you for butting in on a conversation between admins... but instead I thought I'd give you this barnstar instead because this made me laugh as I love a good bit of sarcasm. It's good to see that it's not only Brits who can use it! SmartSE (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geeze... how embarrassing. Better to just block me. Why a bloody barnstar for that! What makes you think there was any sarcasm in that purely factual account? --Epipelagic (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits and safguarding of the page. I have since checked the G Welbourne name on the previous skippers section and seen that it is indeed spelt Welbourn; a typo on my part when originally writing the article. I'll correct this - Daft I'd have made a mistake with him as I see he sailed with my late Grandfather! Hope you're well, Regards, D Ornsby Dornsby (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a reason (tangential) for wanting to learn about the fishes of the Guzman basin. Can you help? Also what's an administrator? Is that like...a moderator, on this...eh...forum? TCO (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't know anything about the fishes of the Guzman basin. There are the usual online sources, like here and here, though really there is not a lot there.

That is a very naughty question you asked, about administrators. You must know by now that it is better for content editors to not think about such matters. It is enough to know that... well we really shouldn't even utter the name... that it is the elect you are referring to, the Wikipedia overlords, a nobility which is appointed for life. Most of them do good work on various administrative tasks, such as blocking vandals, moderating deletion debates and dealing with spammers. But having knowledge of what it takes to be a competent content editor is not a requirement for an administrator, in fact it seems to be an obstacle. If you wish to become one of the elect yourself, you should make your move soon. Otherwise you are in danger of becoming overqualified.

But then, for some reason, which totally escapes me, they are also given powers to block legitimate content editors. In the minds of some administrators, content editor = vandal. There is a small but very damaging group of administrators who resent content editors who write better content than they can, and try to block them on the flimsiest of grounds whenever they can. I suppose it's just human nature, but it's mean and destructive. If a content editor tries to defend themselves, perhaps by stating something quite factual about the administrator's behaviour, they can block you for "incivility" or "a personal attack", which is their arcane code for "something I didn't want to hear". You then have a block record they will never erase, which follows and brands you, so other administrators and administrator wantabees can see at a glance that your thoughts are impure. Administrators can do this with impunity, they are not normally held responsible.

Administrators of this ilk tend to operate a set of linked delusional beliefs, such as "no editor is indispensable", "content editors are always replaceable", "there is an endless pool of quality editors falling over themselves to write for Wikipedia", "we don't need content editors now because Wikipedia is basically written", "all we need now are administrators to tidy thing up". There is no vision at all for the quality of the project. I've lost count now of the number of key scholars and scientists I've seen driven off Wikipedia by administrative buffoons. These people are not replaceable. Many of the world's best qualified editors willing to work with Wikipedia may well have already made their attempt, and will never return.

The administrative set up is very provoking, and the longer you edit the more unpleasant it seems to become. If you want to stay on here as a content editor, then the longer you stay, the more you come under the notice of the more predatory administrators, the more likely you are to have a growing block record, and the more saintly you must become. It is a systematic method of negative conditioning devised, perhaps unwittingly, by the administrative corps, as a regimen of escalating punishment for contributing well to Wikipedia. It is perhaps close to point where blocks are becoming badges of honour for content editors, a sign that they are the responsible editors, who contribute the content that needs to be contributed and don't shirk saying the things that need to be said.--Epipelagic (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wow. Very cool response. Thanks for typing so much (serious). I was going to ask Newyorkbrad "who the fuck are you? I never see you in FA or even in dasharguments at MOStalk or just editing around anywhere, but everyone acts like you are some Prince Charming." Maybe I will wait, for now.

2. On the Guzman, I am (no kidding) in touch with a 100 yo scientist, the most famous living American herpetologist (perhaps most famous ever) and have somehow hatched a science idea that is a worthy addition wrt a species that has over 2000 papers. In fact, the most published turtle species ever. The fish thing is the tangential connection. All of this coming from jerking around on teh Wiki.

3. You are really smart and funny. I like you!TCO (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a serious note, "There is no vision at all for the quality of the project." is the biggest issue. There is a trajic lack of any perspective on what makes a good book, journal article, magazine, newspaper, or even webpage design. Just blows me away to see the amount of time spent on Rodhullandemu or whatever his name is, but then the lack of any benchmarking or thought on what the status of the content is by de facto leadership. (founder, arbcom, board, etc.)TCO (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That great outpouring of energy for Rodhullandemu had nothing to do with the integrity of the project. It was just other administrators horrified to think they could be could be desopped for jerking content editors around. Some administrators think that is what they are there for. Desopping itself is very rare, and when it happens it is usually because the administrator was jerking other administrators around. The "de facto leadership" has no centre, there is no central intelligence operating in Wikipedia. That is perhaps, at the same time, its biggest strength and its biggest weakness. It's another topic.

Btw, don't harass Newyorkbrad. At the final reckoning, the content entered by the content editors is everything, and there will be no vanishing trace of anything else including administrator egos. But to get there many things have to be held together, and Newyorkbrad contributes valiantly in those areas. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't dick with him. Still, what I reall admire are the Volokhs.TCO (talk) 07:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Epipelagic (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need to generate a lot of turtle GA/FA content by 01APR. Do you think you could write up a GA on some turtle subject? Please? How about turtle fishing? Or Green sea turtleTCO (talk) 07:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No! Sorry, but I've got at least 150 other articles I want to write, and I know nothing about turtles. I really don't understand these fuckwits who think Wikipedia is almost written! There's hardly anything on marine biology! Or just about any other area you look at for that matter. But if you start an article on turtle fishing and hang in there, then I'll hang in there with you. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Green sea turtle is almost done man. It just needs reading Ernst and going over it to see where we miss something and fill it in. Not looking for FA, just GA. And a turtle in the ocean is practically marine biology.TCO (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just start with some copy editing. BEfore you know it you will do some content reorg. Than ref formattting. Then the next thing you know you're looking up new content. Then...you're done with the article. Just come on, take that first drag. I can get you hooked. TCO (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turtle excluder device

Enough fishing related?TCO (talk) 05:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I've already written half of that, and don't want to develop it further right now. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about a review for state reptile over at FLC? (It's a light easy article...the only tension is trying to explain stuff for the nonUSAians without bogging things down for the USAians, I'm hoping that I managaged it.) In exchange, I promise not to tease the moderators for at least 24 hours. TCO (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No really TOC. These reptile pages seem to be getting plenty of attention, but there are huge areas in marine biology that have nothing written about them. But you are doing a good job yourself! --Epipelagic (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, man! I know it's work to do a good review, but it's less work than content creation from a blank slate. I may not be here much longer before I get repermabanned (I'm really a 3 month newbie, first Wiki experience was all escalating bans). Let's do some content together. I won't misbehave too much and bring you down in my dramah. I promise. Seriously, this stuff is pretty tangential to marin bio (sea turtles, animals in general). Plus it's a light article (not bio intensive). Do you want me to beg? Pleeeeeze. Pleeeeeze. Oh.....pleeeeeze! TCO (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...and IANAMB, but I have seen some wierd shit in the marine world (deep sea monsters, strange barnacle sucker things, flying fish dying on the deck). quid pro quo? I'll do something for you? TCO (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing like walking down the deck and having some sea lion almost decapitate you, as it jumps across a wide deck from pen to pen. TCO (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Lernaeocera branchialis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! -- Zoeperkoe (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your inputs would be appreciated on this:
User:Staticd/Physoclists & User:Staticd/Physostomes Currently I have set the pages Physostome & Physoclisti to redirect to Swim_bladder#Structure_and_function. Do they deserve a separate page?
Pro: linking / searching for these term should bring some thing immedeately relevant (there were a few dangling links to it). May be of taxonomic importance?
Con: Articles likely to remain stubs for a long time.

CC to User:Mokele.

thanks for your time. Staticd (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think they could make reasonable, and quite interesting standalone articles. They can certainly be developed past stubs. You could develop the articles further in your sandboxes, and then submit them for DYKs. Do you want to develop the articles by yourself, or would you like to develop them jointly with me? --Epipelagic (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response. I moved the two pages into the mainspace. Any help will be welcome and count me in if you see anything that needs to be done :) .(Ill be working on a few other articles for now).Staticd (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any policy that backs up your edit which I and others perceive to be a disruptive edit? Warnings to readers are most important now than ever as it gets the most attention now. Passionless -Talk 22:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On10 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lernaeocera branchialis, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a young Lernaeocera branchialis is an ectoparasitic crustacean on the gills of a flounderorlumpsucker, and it moves on to codorrelated fishes after it has matured and mated (infested gills of a whiting pictured)? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Hi Epipelagic, thank you for what you've done today. It was brave of you, and it was nice of you because I know you do not like the article. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're one very brave lady yourself! --Epipelagic (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be brave if you reviewed state reptile for FA. Also, I didn't know Mbz wuz a gurl. I would have been nicer.TCO (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dick with it...and fix it...and support it. Was some work to research it.TCO (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking pretty good to me. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are still some refs to go in, but pretty mechanical, now. Just got get srunched up and do it.TCO (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate it, and your comments. My involved with Wikipedia is minimal now, though I do some anonymous edits still. I just found the dickwickery (great word!) just too much.

Cheers, Neale

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Fish processing

On21 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fish processing, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that there is evidence that humans have been processing fish since the early Holocene? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Epipelagic. You have new messages at La Pianista's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Biopreservation

On26 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Biopreservation, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that biopreservation is a benign ecological approach to food preservation which is gaining increasing attention? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks from the DYK Project and Victuallers (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

Invertzoo has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Yummy pie for Epipelagic, a nice person! To spread more WikiLove, install the WikiLove user script.

Well thank you very much. Most yummy. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hurdle technology

On30 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hurdle technology, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that hurdle technology is a technique where pathogens in a food product are subjected to "hurdles" designed to inhibit or kill them? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your thoughtful comments on Talk:Sustainability regarding File:Nested sustainability-v2.gif ... see Talk:Individual and political action on climate change and wp:tea

See wp:tea. 166.137.141.189 (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If of interest see Wikipedia talk:A nice cup of tea and a sit down "Talk" also, as User:Arthur Rubin has been deleting comments on others Talk Pages: User talk:OhanaUnited and User talk:Granitethighs (see View History). 99.181.128.253 (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't like the way you are doing things. I've refactored your disorganised heading. Are your messages the socks of one person, or are you more than one person? Why do you keep changing your IP address? Why are you going round "thanking" everyone? If you want to talk, create an account, and do things in a more upfront way. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User talk:64.25.27.130

Epipelagic, excuse me if I am violating some wikipedia rule by posting on your talk page.

OK, fair enough, I will create an account- after my JetBlue flight!  ; ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.25.27.130 (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Epipelagic, now you can talk to me or send messages if you want. This is my new user account.Liberation3 (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bait ball

Hey Epipelagic, please consider nominating this for GA review. It is a fine piece of work--thanks for writing it. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bait ball

On8 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bait ball, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that some whales "lunge feed" on bait balls (pictured), an extreme method of feeding which has been called the largest biomechanical event on Earth? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia New Zealand

User:Brian has done some of the initial legwork to get this set up. There is a website at http://nz.wikimedia.org/ but it hasn't been maintained for a long time. There's a still older page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_New_Zealand and there's a mailing list at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedianz-l which was last used in 2008. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/nz/5/5c/Wmnzproposal.pdf might also be of interest.-gadfium 03:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfA reform

To be quite frank, your negative comments around the board about admins and/or adminship are in bad faith and there's a limit to how far our Wikipedia 'AGF' mantra carries towards such postings. Continue editing where you will, but if you have nothing pleasant to say, at least please stay away from projects you are not interested in contributing to in a constructive manner. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is a very strange comment. I have offered thoroughly constructive solutions to the current problems, such as unbundling the current set of administrator facilities, and setting up a special procedure for administrators who have the right to block established editors. I would have though it was people like yourself who are avoiding constructive solutions by dismissing such suggestions, and instead just tinkering with the current structure. Your message above appears to be a warning. Are you telling me that I am now in peril unless I become silent? --Epipelagic (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung did the right thing. You might well see a perennial problem, and I have always said I agree with part of what concern you. But what you wrote today was purely disruptive; basically slamming an attempt at constructive progress just to air your grievance. Seeing Kudpung's message above as a threat highlights the problem with your approach and outlook here, in what universe is it a threat. There is no way you could become "in peril" because you've been asked to not comment if you won't be constructive. Of course, if you did become "in peril" that proves your point, doesn't it. The foundations of a Straw man exists there somewhere. No, it is just a polite request to either be constructive or leave the page in peace.

Take this as an example; what if I came to an article you were writing and said "wow, this article is a farce. The writing is crappy and you shouldn't bother trying to improve it". This is basically the stone you threw in the faces of people who have been working hard on the RFA reform page. It's simply rude and, for someone trying to promote a collegial atmosphere, somewhat ironic.

Whatever anyone says in reply to you, you seem to become the victim. Please do consider reflecting carefully on why people are responding so negatively to your approach; I don't think it is because you are assaulting the bastion of adminship .

As I said to someone the other day; I don't see this drastic abuse of admin privileges that certain individuals keep bringing up. What I do see is a clique of admins who don't view the role as "just a tool" and have lost sight of the fact that we are all just editors with different specialities. I also see a clique of self-styled content editors who appear to have a victim complex, on some idea that they are under threat of blocking at every second (a problem I've not yet seen demonstrated). I also see lots of admins and content editors who get on with it, and work together in a collegial manner every single day. Both of the cliques appear to think of themselves as superior to the other group, and to any other editor. Both cliques appear unable to see the irony of this.

So, yes, something might need to be done. But all I have seen you do so far is re-hash stuff that has already failed (perhaps because of the resistance of the cliques), and use that as an opportunity to pit the cliques (and others) against each other, deride constructive attempts to improve things etc. etc. As I suggested to that other individual when we discussed the matter; why not go present evidence of a perennial problem, suggest a workable and constructive solution. That no one seems to do so every time I ask them is... well... frustrating.

The final comment I have is this: reflect carefully on this message and consider this - is everyone against you, or are you part of the problem too? --Errant ^(chat!) 10:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are editing in good faith Errant, and doing your best. I suppose, for me, it has been seeing some simply too shocking examples of admin bullying, and wanting to find a way to work towards an environment where stuff like that is less likely to happen. As far as Kudpung goes, when he says "there's a limit to how far our Wikipedia 'AGF' mantra carries towards such postings", he/she is being very regal with that "our" and is clearly implying a threat. Anyway, I see you have just closed ranks with Kudpung, retracted your thread and mocked my reply. So I accept I am outnumbered, and there is not much that can be done. It is disheartening. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not mocking, being critical. Please do take the chance to reflect. As both a content editor and an admin I've seen the dark sides of both :) Look; I understand you see a serious problem. Imagine me clueless (I am, because I don't quite see it) and demonstrate it to me. That is all I ask :) --Errant ^(chat!) 11:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upbundling and unbundling are both potential solutions to RFA, but both ideas have flaws that need resolving before they are likely to get consensus. They certainly aren't the only potential solutions to RFA, but if you have ideas as to how we can resolve those flaws I'd be very keen to discuss them with you on the talkpage of User:WereSpielChequers/RFA reform. As for admin bullying, have you made a complaint and if necessary escalated it to Arbcom? ϢereSpielChequers 11:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've redacted the threads myself as being unproductive. The RfA "reform" process is broken beyond repair. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Self-propelled particles

On20 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Self-propelled particles, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the concept of self-propelled particles can explain why flocking birds (pictured) suddenly change direction for no apparent reason, or abruptly switch from a flying state to a landing state? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Can I help?

First off ... your "push to talk" above is either inspired or theft :) Second ... can I help with copyediting any of your articles that are headed into GAN or A-class review? I see you're not feeling well, and I'd like to do something. - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damn... you've unmasked me as a thief! I'm feeling fine Dank, but I much appreciate your offer to help with GAN if your offer still stands. I would like to do some GA work, and some hand holding at the beginning would be great. I have already approached another editor about taking a recent article to GA. It is a clearly defined topic, with reasonable sources and good images. It needs further expansion before it would be ready. But other articles might be better candidates. I would appreciate your thoughts? --Epipelagic (talk) 08:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'm doing some copyediting now. British English, right? ("artefact"). I generally don't do images, but you'll want some commas where you have semicolons. "As might be expected for a settlement preoccupied with the sea, the occupation density was much higher ...": Why? "fifteenth century": I have no problem with that, but we're usually going with "15th". "were the central figures in the village at the top of the social hierarchy.": possibly redundant, I'd consider losing "central figures". - Dank (push to talk) 12:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, British English. I've copied the relevant bits of the above to the talk page of the article, which seems a better place to proceed. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earth elevation-area graph

Hello! The source for my graph was NOAA's ETOPO2 database: [1]. There is now a more detailed ETOPO1 available, but the graph would not noticeably change as a result. Let me know if you have any other questions! Citynoise (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sparrow's Nest Merge

Ah, sorry about that! As I've said over on the talk page it wasn't done deliberately, more as a way of trying to rationalise a bunch of Lowestoft related articles created by less constructive editors over the years. I'd be happy to work with you, or others, on developing something for HMS Europa/Sparrow's Nest. I hope I've managed to retain something about the place in the Lowestoft article as it stands. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't feel bad, I don't doubt your genuineness. I would put energy into redressing Sparrow's Nest, except there are so many other areas. If remaining veterans of Sparrow's Nest held their hands up I'd put the energy in. HMS Europa/Sparrow's Nest is definitely notable enough for an interesting article in its own right, and the guys that could really flesh the details out are dying as we type. But, you know, stuff just drops into oblivion... --Epipelagic (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Walraversijde

On28 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Walraversijde, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Walraversijde, the site of a reconstructed medieval fishing village, is the most studied archaeological site of its type in Europe? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal

		The 50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		Wow! Great work on so many new fishes, fishing and related biology articles... You have put 50 newly created and expanded articles in front of the public via the "Did you know" section of the Main page. Congratulations! Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Marine habitats

On28 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marine habitats, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the umbrella mouth gulper (pictured) lives in deep sea marine habitats where it swallows fish much larger than itself? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I appreciated your comment at Less Heard's talk page last week. Since you seemed to have an opinion on the matter, I thought you might want to know about this RfA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2. Lvklock (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News

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.

--Snek01 (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek vs content editors

Hello. I'm not quite clear why you feel that Sarek of Vulcan's admin style is bad for content editors. Can you point me to something specific? Kenatipo ^speak! 17:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to reflame this issue. But you can see yourself if you look at SoV's blocks of well established content editors here, and the associated discussions on ANI where the validity of these blocks were challenged. SoV does not seem to think it's an admin role to create a more workable environment for nonadmin editors, trying to defuse rather than inflame situations. Nor does he seem to think highly committed content editors should be blocked only as a last resort. At one point it seemed like he was trying to block as many such editors as he could, as though he was collecting feathers for his hat. This creates a fraught and threatening environment for editors. If admins continue down this path, content editors will start regarding blocks as honourable battle wounds they must endure if they are to do a good job, and start placing records of such blocks amongst their awards. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without the names of the individual editors, this would take a long, long time to research. What I seemed to notice looking at the list of Sarek's blocks is that editors that Sarek blocked 18 months ago for 24 hours or a week are blocked today! I guess they didn't learn their lesson. I also fail to see why a committed content editor with tens of thousands of edits would ever engage in behavior that would get him blocked. Hasn't he played the game long enough to know what the rules are? Anyway, thank you for the time you took in responding. Kenatipo ^speak! 03:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Theoretical ecology

On13 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Theoretical ecology, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that mathematical models developed in theoretical ecology show that complex food webs (pictured) tend to be unstable? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Another article contributed, thanks Victuallers (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re: jrtayloriv

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

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted User Talk after User:Arthur Rubin deletion, of interest?

If of continued interest, User:Arthur Rubin (Arthur Rubin) continues to hide other's Talk, this time on User Talk:Zodon ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zodon&diff=429845197&oldid=429841834 ) ... on March 30th 2011 it was User talk:Granitethighs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Granitethighs&diff=prev&oldid=421531277 ) and User talk:OhanaUnited ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OhanaUnited&diff=421531280&oldid=421528249 ). These are related to Sustainability (and associated topics). 99.181.147.187 (talk) 08:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If of interest, more ... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Large_Cities_Climate_Leadership_Group&diff=432283159&oldid=432278426 99.181.140.6 (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

Message from Serketan

Hi Epipelagic. As I don't know where to reply to you, I'll just reply here to your comment on undoing my changes to the swarm intelligence article. Please note that obvious content doesn't need citations. Note there are no citations for the other systems listed as exhibiting swarm intelligence. Read the definition of swarm intelligence and you'll see the brain obviously satisfies it. Please tell me if there is something I'm missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serketan (talk • contribs) 02:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your nice reply and for explaining to me why the other examples are cited.

I still think brains are obviously an example of swarm intelligence, but I can understand it's not obvious to anybody.

Here are some of my reasons: It is true there are different parts to the brain and some parts have some "centralized control". However, even these emerge from local behavior. Moreover, within a part of the brain, (which still typically contains many more agents than the other examples listed) there is no such centralized control or design. The behavior is clearly collective, and neurons self-organize, for example via Hebbian learning. Each neuron is a simple agent, which interacts only locally with 1000 to 10000 of its neighbors (compared to the 100000000000 neurons in the whole brain, that's very local indeed). The rules according to which they behave are quite simple too. There is certainly a lot of randomness in their behavior. And any individual neuron is not aware of the global intelligent behavior of the brain.

We know for sure that only a tiny fraction of the brain network is specified in advance, as the genome can only contain that many bits of information (See Geoffrey Hinton's work for more insights). So the rest self organizes during learning and brain development, which happens through local interactions.

Finally, see:

Johnson, Steven (2001). Emergence: the Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software. New York: Scribner

http://www.kinephoria.com/assets/swarm-intelligence.pdf

or just do your own (Google) search on brains and swarm intelligence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serketan (talk • contribs) 13:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your thorough response and for being patient with me! I didn't know swarm intelligence is about moving agents (is it mentioned in the article?). It is true that neurons don't move too much once they have found their place in the network, even though they can migrate before that. What do you think about embryo-genesis, is that an example of swarm intelligence? Serketan (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]