User talk:Epipelagic/Archive 2009

Hi Geronimo, Would you take a look at this rather nice-looking fish. here it is. I was asked about it by Mbz1 (talk). She (Mila) took the image at an aquarium in the San Francisco Academy of Sciences, but does not know where the fish was from, other than that. I told her I am pretty useless on ID-ing most fishes. Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

On 3 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fishing industry in the United States, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

On January 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fishing industry in Russia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The underlying problem is that the new editor doesn't seem to understand that you may use copyrighted material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. A lot of what is there was merely rephrasing the copyrighted material. That said: I'm delighted to AGF and restore it to a sandbox, User:Geronimo20/Western, for you to work on. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. It's better than the original. Fbarw (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Bottom feeder (disambiguation), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bottom feeder (disambiguation). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. neon white talk 00:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Geronimo - Thanks for the note. I would have missed that one. I left the contributor a welcome message. I hope he comes on board.

So far the New Year is going well. We've had a lot more snow in Montana than normal, but other than a few weeks of really cold, below zero weather, things have been pretty pleasant and most of the local rivers are free of significant ice. Am on the road for a couple of weeks, but should get in some nymphing in February if things stay moderate. Hope you are taking advantage of the warm New Zealand summer.--Mike Cline (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I have made some changes to the project home pages, I hope you like them, if not you may revert them. Please feel free to ask any questions. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 22:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to Ian Plimer's presentation. It was very good. The ocean and coral reef stuff was excellent. Don't be discouraged by the wikipedia point of view - they are reporting a consensus, not investigating the science.

BTW, the 22 yr cycle is explained as river flow variations on slide 51.

You might also find Roy Spencer interesting. Q Science (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for the Rainbow Star and eversomuch more for the spontaneous tears of joy it returned: they are so sublimely reptillian. Guenther: the article is not worthy of such a man and I am not worthy to be placed in such company. Noting your knowledge and interest area, would you have any source information for the tides of time from the Norse that entered its way into the English (to help progress Wyrd)? Could you direct me to someone or to an appropriate forum to progress the code for stats on my UserPage? I can't figure out how to drive it and I followed the instructions.
Blessings in blood: blót
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I know! I did a good number of the other Asian ones. It is a huge agricultural country and given the political situation and likely way out of date past information that exists haven't started it yet. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Great job on the Fishing industry in China article and the others BTW. Its such a shame with Burma because of the political situtation. I'm amazed you managed to write that on China but as far as I am aware the only web information that exists on Burma is pretty dated. It may be worth starting it but it will never adequately cover agriculture in the whole country which would seemingly cover over 90% of its land area. I'll see what I can find on it anyway. Th reason I haven't now is because of the size of Burma and that it is likely to be a poor coverage of it. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I;ve created a stub on Agriculture in Burma anyway. I can't remember if there was an LOC case study on it which of course is PD material. Yep I was right Burma is one of the few countries not covered, not surprised to be honest. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah I'm not American either but I have done a lot of work getting the Library of Congress content onto here. Its a good source, especially for 1980s-early 1990s but of course shouldn't be used primarily as I have done in many places where the articles didn't exist. The directory is at here. May have some useful information on fishing for some countries in the late 80s, early 90s era which you could probably intergrate with other sources. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Coffee production in El Salvador was started primarily from LOC just minutes ago. In many places it is very useful. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and explanation of what you do. Comparative biomass is an important concept and I intend to further investigate "wet" or "dry" weight. Human weight calculation = 100 pounds x 6,500.000.000 x 1 ton/2,000pounds = 325,000.000 tons. I am not sure how you come up with 30 lbs of "dry" biomass weight. Shoefly (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I refer to your discussion with William M. Connolley. First Climate Change is based on a 'cocktail of different factors, besides active greenhouse gasses (Carbondioxide and others) from volcanic ashes, man made sulfur emmissions, and solar influence. Regarding the last decades, the power of consensus is with man made carbon dioxide as the main (not only) contender - among others -, as to be seen from the first diagram. NO reasonable scientist will dispute a basic Co2 role. The court is still out wether the weight of the different factors is adequate.

A statement like - geologist see large time scales and dont go for decades - is basically right. However for any geologist the concept of Uniformitarianism (science) applies - one should be able to explain the past with the present and vice vers. Thats exactly whats been done. Given the third diagram ist either have the cake or eat it. Frome the geological record, there is no clear evidence that Carbon dioxide was always the main driver of climate. Climate Change in Phanerozoikum (the last 450 Million years) doesnt fit with the main curves for athmospheric Carbon dioxide, there is a sort of of decoupling. A possible and quite interesting explanation is a 'Correlation between variations in cosmic ray flux (CRF) and change in sea temperatur Cosmic Rays taking the lead on climate. Wether this is applicable for todays climate, allowing for an additional curve in figure 1 is still under - major - dispute, Henrik Svensmark being one of the pioneers with a lot of arrows in his back. But you should take into account that significant research in that field is going on, among others at CERN.

There is as well a sort of bitterness of climate modellers, which had been allowed to play big egoshooter games on real big servers and travel first class with Al Gore and Angela Merkel and now seeing their beaver furs swimming away, stolen by old fashioned geologists partially using methods and concepts going back to the 18 century. Revenge can be so sweet. Lets call it a turf battle.

Basically I assume the future will lead to a more differentiated approach with more curves in figure one and man made climate change will be less dramatized. All the best --Polentario (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

PS.: Have a look on Tim Patterson, he's in climate change and fishery, think you will like his approach. BR --Polentario (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comment on the talk page regarding the biome template. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:49, 28 Jan 2009 (UTC)

Hey resident fishing expert. I've started an article on Fishing industry in the Maldives. I wondered if you expand it? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That would be wonderful, I can give you a hand at least getting the articles off to a start class. I'd like to see a full coverage of world fishing industries on here. Well at the moment I just have some info on markets to add to Fishing industry in the Maldives. Needs some statistic tables though on production etc. If you could dig up those that would be great. I'll nominate it for a DYK anyway. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

My god you've done an awesome job with that. Your work in this field really is quite something. Don't worry I'll ask my good friend to move it to the correct date and find a different DYK. SHouldn't feel any pressure over it. Thanks Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

On February 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fishing vessel, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Kudos to you, sir! Fishing vessel is an excellent article! --Kralizec! (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

On February 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fishing industry in the Maldives, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Vajrakin, did u hav somethin 2 do with the "Spontaneous manifestation of magical buttons" and new whizzbang editing functions on my login? No notes, no instructions, no nuffin, they just appeared EFFORTLESSLY? Whomever is responsible, please thank them sincerely.
:~D
Beauford
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh i worked it out, i was using a different computer with a different browser with plugins, my browser of choice has been Opera but I have been having problems with it not displaying certain buttons and functionality, my new browser of choice is Firefox...that's where all the new buttons had appeared from :-)

sorry to interrupt if I did

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note. If you search for any images under Flickr Creative Commons 2.0 Attribution and Flickr Creative Commons 2.0 Attribution Share-Alike they may be uploaded and be compatible but you must ensure you follow the same format each time in uploading and add the correct author, source and date and place etc. Other than this you can make a flickr account like I have and start asking permission to use peoples images or ask them to change specific licenses on images which you may require so they can be uploaded. This isn't always successful but I've made a lot of good agreements this way. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If you email me a message I can send you my "prototype" I send when asking to use images. I copy and paste it every time and adjust it slightly whenever I have a request, saves time. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've got your email, will post my form to you later. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

On March 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Naval drifter, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: "Slabbing" seems like a form of jigging. " Actually it is a form of jigging, but quite different from the kind of fishing discussed in the "jigging" article. The term "slabbing" is more precise, not sure it's used much in other parts of the world. If you're thinking that whole paragraph would be better as a section in jigging, I'd probably agree. thanks. Dusty.crockett (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect "slabbing" is a regional term, fishermen on other forums don't use it, just my local board (check it out if you get a chance). We always think of "jigging" as a method of presentation, and "slabbing" as jigging with a slab. I think the term slab was invented by Lake Texoma striper guides but that's just a suspicion. I'll move my bit over there, but being in Texas, I know nothing about ice fishing -- I could do some research, but maybe an actual ice fisherman will be along soon........ Dusty.crockett (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I can commit the amount of time to reach DYK status -- I'll give it a try, though. Starting next week sometime? Dusty.crockett (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"Jigging" as I understand it, is defined by a vertical method of presentation, rather than by the nomenclature of the bait being used; you can "jig" a rattle trap, spinnerbait or spoon, and you can chuck & wind a jig. In planning to organize and expand the jigging page, I see that there are many fishing lures represented in Category:Fishing equipment. I noticed that you moved the page from "Jig (fishing)" to "Jigging" but it occurs to me that the "Jig" article might itself be needed. Ideas? Dusty.crockett (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

On March 5, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aquaculture in New Zealand, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Keep up the good work! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Geronimo20, I have found your page via a contribution on the talk page of User:Orlady and was interested in your contributions after I have read your comments there. I have looked at some of your articles and must congratulate you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Great work! But this is not the main reason why I contact you.

I appreciate your stance against groups of people on Wikipedia (and elsewhere) to pursue a common course in secrecy. I found the "there is no cabal" userbox on your user page and I use it on my user page now, too. I like the straightforwardness of the message and I absolutely identify myself with and share the concept of openness at Wikipedia. It seems that sometimes there is a lot going on under the blanket of secrecy at Wikipedia. The concept of secrecy on Wikipedia, in my opinion, has many disadvantages and an advantage only for the ones involved in the cabals. Wikipedia policies and article content can be influenced without much input by other editors, the secret clubs have the advantage of securing votes and influence decisions in cases of controversy as they can provide a bunch of votes at a time, by activation of all members of the secret club. A single editor with his or her opinion stands alone against a secret group of editors, aggregating their "votes" to outnumber any reasonable discussion at an early stage. It seems, though, that these groups miss the main point of "consensus". By quite some (not so smart) Wikipedians, consensus is mistaken as the outcome of a simple vote but it is far from that. Consensus is the outcome of a group discussion, not determined by the most votes but by the quality of arguments. That is what they miss.

In my humble opinion, this system of secret clubs is not a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a bias is produced that can get out of control easily, especially if some admins and users vote for their own to get their own people in positions at Wikipedia. I am German and there is the word "Vetternwirtschaft" in that language, it is translated "cousin's economy" (or so), it means that if you own a business and have some task to source-out you would rather give the business to your cousin, instead of picking the best person to accomplish the task. Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view, or their contents are going to be cut short. The same should be the case with editors and - especially - administrators, if they are not neutral, they should be cut off. Recently, in the soon-to-come-up admin discussion for Orlady, I found that the vote page already had two support votes before the nomination had even started. (It still has not started) Wow, if you are the member of a cabal, you can be assured that you have votes in favor of you once the voting starts. No problem there until I added my (at that time) neutral opinon on top of the two support votes. I was informed that the voting has not yet started ... wow, support votes by secret club members are OK but negative or neutral opinions have to wait until the "real" voting starts. Well, to satisfy my criticism, the two supporters removed their votes and I removed mine also after that. Now I have to reformulate that stuff again in a few days.

Anyway, in the case of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Orlady‎ in this recent light of premature support votes I have changed my position from neutral to oppose and I am going to address my concerns at that discussion. This is because the communication skills of the user in question lack the quality to qualify for the post as an admin. I have pointed out several deficiencies in the communication on her talk page. Maybe the seed falls on fertile grounds but even if so, it should take some time until they grow and prosper, if they do ... At the time, the user in question seems to overestimate her capabilities in the field of communication. I have looked through the conversations of you and Orlady and I found the exact pattern you are complaining about: from the top, arrogant use of language that could make you feel insignificant in the shadow of her self declared wisdom. Your communication in the controversy does not lack anything, you keep calm and try to explain your concerns and where you felt hurt without handing out insults, instead of insisting on your point like a spoilt child who threatens to call the big brother. Very likely, there is a pretty insignificant person behind this username, who did not accomplish much in life and found her niche to "be someone" in the anonymity of Wikipedia. Who knows?! Who cares?!

Hey, if you like to respond, please feel free to add your words to my talkpage. I like all the good stuff and all the bad stuff brought out into the open. This is the only way that Wikipedia is going to work. Open and available for everyone to read and to add their two cents to it. Take care, doxTxob \ ^talk 06:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

On March 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article French Pass, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I think you convinced Awadewit you'd fixed the opening graf, but now she understandably wants to be able to see all the sources. Is there a way you could do this? (I also would have not used "plagiarism", since that implies an intent to deceive, unless the entire article is copy-pasted with no effort to reformat or rewrite (You'd be surprised, though, how many people think that's OK). Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you that you read this website about plagiarism. This (which, by the way, I did not write), is not a copyright violation, because it is from a document that is in the public domain. Public domain texts can be plagiarized, but we cannot violate their copyright, since they are no longer protected. Awadewit (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Geronimo-

I understand your concerns and your desire to keep Wikipedia spam free, and I agree that spurious placements of links, etc. are distracting and detract from the overall value of the system.

That said, we are a company of scientists, researchers and programmers that have been exceedingly active in the marine research field for decades. Our products were developed to help our colleagues and ourselves advance our research and they have been very successful in doing so.

If you consider the sharing of methods and capabilities in the form of case studies to be spam, I respectfully disagree with you. Scientific methods developed, shared and applied are key to the overall advancement of our understanding of our precious marine resources.

In respect of your feelings, I will refrain from posting links to these case studies in areas where they are inappropriate. I would ask you in return to honestly consider the positive effects of using social media to communicate and share scientific methods, processes and tools.

Cheers,

Bradjuhasz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC).

Hi Geronimo,

I honestly don't understand why you would choose to be so insulting since you really don't know me or my company. And while I know the world is full of people and companies who misrepresent themselves, we are not among that group.

If you have any interest in learning more about us and our history, I invite you to take a look at our corporate website: www.myriax.com.

Cheers,

Bradjuhasz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC).

FYI, Bradjuhasz's domains are now blacklisted due to persistent spamming in spite of requests to stop. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Got a little careless -- thanks for catching it. Sorry bout that. Dusty.crockett (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to alarm you Geronimo, but over at WikiProject Gastropods we are dealing with a massively widespread CopyVio problem created by User:Graham Bould. Our page for this is here: [1]

I notice that GB also started, or contributed to, a fair number of articles on Fish (of New Zealand and Australia mostly I think). I have only looked at a few of those very quickly and the ones I did see fortunately did not have much text, and were mostly long species lists and so on. Nevertheless, you may want to check and see what you have that was started by GB or has major contributions by him. Check it against whatever reference he gave for the possibility of copying. Good luck! Invertzoo (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I also wanted to ask you, do you by any chance have a copy of the Powell book: Powell A W B, New Zealand Mollusca, William Collins Publishers Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand 1979 ISBN 0-00-216906-1. Over at our clean up efforts, only one of us has access to that book, and that for us was the main source of the copyvios. Invertzoo (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I hate to drag you into the mollusk clean-up efforts, but... if the book is easy to get, we might want to ask you questions based on it when our other editor who has access to the book is not available. But the first priority is for you to go ahead and check any fish articles that were started by GB (or ones where GB made large contributions) to make sure we don't need to widen the copyvio alert. All best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, If you do get hold of a copy of the big 1979 Powell book, do let us know, as I will ask you to check a few things in it. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding refs to this article. I didn't mean to stomp on your edits but until you added refs they were unsupported. Bob98133 (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that if a link links to an unrelated article, it shouldn't be there. If the link title is "Regional fishing", it shouldn't link to "Fishing in Alabama". Why? Because "Regional fishing" is not covered in "Fishing in Alabama". Also, please stop being tyrannical and reverting edits that you specifically don't like. See WP:OWN. PotentialDanger (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Geronimo, I am looking at some more gastropod articles. Could you look under the gastropod genus Caecum to see if some or all of this is copied:

"The shells have discoidal nuclear whorls that are shed soon after the adult stage commences, which is in the form of a simple slightly curved tube, now sealed off above by a blunt rounded septum. The aperture is circular and so is the tight fitting operculum. The animal grazes upon filmy organic deposits, and moves about jerkily by advancing the foot and then dragging the shell in a series of short steps."

Thanks G, all the best from Invertzoo (talk) 23:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

For the gastropod genus Cylichna, is this from Powell? "The shells are ovate to cylindrical, with a sunken spire, a long aperture, and a simple columella, often with a weak single fold."

Best, Invertzoo (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Geronimo. From my limited perspective it seems to be the case (as I think I said at the beginning of this unpleasant discovery), that every article that GB started contains copyvio. In the case of the gastropods at any rate, it is the description section that is the usual offender. I think I will just go through and remove that section in all the gastropod articles I can find that he started, the ones that were not flagged before as they were not in Project Gastropod and also were not in Category molluscs of New Zealand. Unfortunately he also started a lot of gastropod family articles too, those I will have to check for through the genus articles. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you can try to look up this: Powelliphanta "Augustus"... GB claims to have used Powell on this but it seems the species was not discovered until after Powell's book came out so that doesn't make any sense. Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

And I am wondering if this sounds too much like Powell or not? It could be under Keyhole limpet in Powell or perhaps under a Powell section on Fissurellidae:

"Keyhole limpets somewhat resemble true limpets because of their simple conical shells, but in reality they are not closely related to true limpets, which are in the clade Patellogastropoda."

"For respiration, the shells of fissurellids have an apical perforation, marginal slit, notch, or internal groove. This allows a direct exit of exhalant water currents from the mantle cavity. In addition, keyhole limpets differ in several other ways both internally and externally from true limpets."

Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Here I am again. Would you check Powell under Cancellariidae please? Does it say:

"The shells are mainly clathrate sculptured and have a rather simple aperture, the anterior canal being represented by a weak sinus at the end of a columellar twist. The columella has three or four plaits that may be very strong or weak. Cancellarids are carnivorous."

And a question about the family Trimusculidae. Is some or all of this in Powell?

"The shells of these snails are somewhat limpet-like, but they are not at all closely related to the true limpets. They are air-breathing pulmonates, and can be distinguished from the true limpets by the presence of an internal lateral groove on the right side along with an interruption of the internal muscle scar ring. These shell features corresponds to the positioning of pulmonary orifice. These distinguishing shell characters are not as noticeable as they are in the shells of the Siphonariidae."

Thanks so much, Invertzoo (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's me once again. I am now on the gastropod family Bursidae. I think you said that Powell does not have family descriptions, so I suppose that the info might be under the genus Bursa (or under the species Bursa bubo lissostoma or Bursa verrucosa.)

"Species in this family occur in tropical oceans, including the Indo-Pacific, the Caribbean Sea and other marginal warm seas."

"The anterior and posterior canals are well developed. The varices are often in two continuous series, one down each side of the shell. A periostracum is usually absent."

"The radula is distinctive, the central tooth being saddle-shaped, with long basal limbs, each bearing a cusp-like spur upon its face."

Bursa: "The shells are moderate to very large, often very thick and solid. The operculum is thick and horny, and the nucleus varies from mediolateral to terminal."

Bursa bubo lissostoma "Distribution: This subspecies is endemic to the Indo-Pacific oceans. "Habitat: This frog shell is found from low water to depths up to 180 m. "Shell description: The shell is large with long, pointed peripheral tubercles, and a dilated outer lip. The apertural callus is pinkish, with a rim of bright orange-red just within the aperture."

Thanks so much Gerononimo.... Invertzoo (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for looking all of these up, I really appreciate it. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't say in the edit summary, but it seems like a violation of WP:EL[2] If you disagree, let's discuss on fishing page talk. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is the image necessary? Just curious... Feel free to respond on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking into this further, I can see why you added it back in. But, I think it would help if you expanded the article to include more information about their relationship. Viriditas (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have apologized to Nihil novi. I would like to apologize to you as well, and I hope we can work on Ed Ricketts together in the future. Viriditas (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful message! :) Viriditas (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Here is my situation: the Sunday after next (the 19th April) I will be going away on vacation/fieldwork for 3 weeks, and will not be online during that time. From today until the 19th, I will keep working on fixing up suspected copyvio mollusk articles, but most of the time now I can guess pretty well which ones have copyvio, and which parts are the copyvio sections.

Thus, if you want to take the Powell book back now and then maybe get it out again after May 9th when I return, that would be one reasonable possibility. I could simply tag on my list which articles (a minority) I would like to check with the book, and then hopefully do that after I return (once I am back in gear again which takes me a few days.) How does that sound?

Invertzoo (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks Geronimo, that sounds like a plan. Invertzoo (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think your comments on Orlady's Talk page explaining why you would oppose her admin nomination would be appropriate to share in the RfA, FYI, now open. doncram (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, you didn't notice, but your link was never removed, but it was moved to the "External link" section where it's more appropriate. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As I tried to explain above, the only reason I undid the change again without discussing it on the article's talk page was because I didn't think you realized that the link was, in fact, still in the article. Anyway, I've now opened up discussion on the article talk page rather than through edit summaries or on your talk page. On a sidenote, I accidentally hit the "rollback" button on your edit yesterday, so I rollbacked my own revert, since that's not the purpose of using that function. I apologize on any confusion that might have caused. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you plan giving your reasoning for using your link as a reference? If not, I plan on moving it back to the "External link" section. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

On April 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fishing tackle, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the library books are due back in two days time, on Tuesday. If you still need them, let me know and I'll try to renew them for another two weeks.-gadfium 01:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

What talk page are you talking about?--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Looks good. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Resident Mario (talk · contribs) is getting ready to nominate Loihi Seamount for FAC. I have concerns about some of the material in the article. Would it be possible to request your help in this matter? I was wondering if you could run Copyscape Premium on this article. If not, that's ok, maybe you can help out in some other way since you are knowledgeable in this area. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) Viriditas (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been reverted it. I think she should know more about Wikipedia, and if she want to try test she can use the sandbox. Sorry. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For all the work you've done in helping with the massive copyright cleanup efforts at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Subpage for organizing CopyVio Cleanup. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not that we're finished. :) But your valiant efforts there have been noticed and appreciated. I have been highly impressed with the way Wikipedians have pulled together to address this problem and with your individual contributions. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article American shad fishing, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Apprently a collection of the best fishing spots - would appear to violate WP:NOTGUIDE

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. CultureDrone (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. That edit summary on the page probably came across as rude. I wasn't trying to "harass" you, either. Anyway, I'll see what I can find to help add to the article - if I'm going to delete something, it would only be fair to add something in its place, as well. Radiant chains (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Rather than dumping my endnotes files, I just added one on superintensive recycle water treatment and one for hetrotrophic recycle systems (where you grow decomposers on the fish manure along with algae and get the whole mass of material recycled back into the fish -- clever, but an energy burner with high oxygen demand with low capital cost. Also goes under the name of ODAS (organic detrital algal soup).

Almost all other system are in between these two extremes.

Dallas Weaver —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deweaver (talk • contribs) 21:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hiya. Whilst I appreciate you're trying to clean up the article, my concern - and the reason I PRODded it, was that the article reads less like an article about the fish per se, and more like a list of the best places to go fishing for it....which to me violates WP:NOT. CultureDrone (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Fast response :-) As long as you're intending to clean it up, thats great - how about tagging it as underconstruction to avoid me (or other over-zealous editors) trying to delete it in the meantime ? CultureDrone (talk) 07:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Geronimo,

I'll certainly give it a go!

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

On April 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mahi-mahi fishing, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

∗ \ / (⁂) 12:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

On April 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fishing village, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:IG: "if, due to its content, a gallery would only lend itself to a title along the lines of "Gallery" or "Images of [insert article title]", as opposed to a more descriptive title, the gallery should either be revamped or moved to the Commons."

Rename the gallery to something more descriptive and useful, then. Gary King (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the original long article. It was a cut and paste from another article I wrote and the reference system does not make any sense for wiki (Lightner et al. 1999b????). I am trying to make my text more wiki friendly and refer to internet sources that are easily searcheable. I don't want to justify all my edits as this is a non controversial topic and I am simply cleaning up my original text. Some highly technical stuff isn't relevant to the wiki audience and has been removed. Please let me finish cleaning up my article. I will try to be done tonight. You can edit for grammar and English if you wish but I am very knowledgeable about this topic and I am doing a good job. Thank you. I am not familiar with all wiki functions so I am taking this window to communicate with you. Ferts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferts (talk • contribs) 21:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There seem to be very few articles on aquatic animal health. I have the scientific base but lack the editing and writing capabilities. Is there any possibilities/interest for collaboration? I found no entries on the following topic: Bacterial kidney disease Infectious pancreatic necrosis pancreas disease of salmonids fish furonculosis Enteric redmouth ..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferts (talk • contribs) 01:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the note Geronimo. I will attempt to do all the remaining odds and ends of mollusk copyvio clean-up over the next few weeks. Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

On May 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aquaculture of salmon, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Please add a reference to Shoaling and schooling for the "synchronized" definition of school
2. Please discuss any change to the dab page used as an example in the dab guidelines before making the change, as requested in the comments of the page. Ignoring that is disruptive.

Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, this is just another case of an editor not reading or understanding the requests in pages. And, of course, I only reverted your edit once; other editors reverted it before. Instead of working within the guidelines (WP:BRD), you opt to skirt close to WP:CIVIL. The disruptive note was not lightly; your edits were disrupting another project, and I made you aware of it. Remember you're in a group here, and not everyone is going to agree with you. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(Answering a question from the splintered conversation): Let's just summarize with WP:BRD. You made a change to School (disambiguation), it was reverted (threetimes now, when you should have stopped at one). If you feel the change should be made, discuss it on Talk:School (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		I'm presenting you this barnstar for your great work in expanding Shoaling and schooling. It's always great to find a comprehensive, well written scientific article on wikipedia. Keep up the good work! Smartse (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you --Geronimo20 (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

On May 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shoaling and schooling, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

		The 25 DYK Medal
		I noticed you had 25 DYKs on the List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs, but you didn't have the award, so I gave it to you. mynameincOttoman project 15:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Geronimo, I wanted to ask about the land snail genus Powelliphanta and one species. I got stuck on these because I can't guess how much of them was copied verbatim from Powell. Can you maybe help me a bit with these two?

• Powelliphanta "Augustus" -- ??? I need some help with this one, can't make out if GB put copyvio info into this or not. Invertzoo (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Powelliphanta

Thanks so much! Invertzoo (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

On May 31, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Puretic power block, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

HI Geronimo, if you still have Powell, could you look at the WP article Hydatina and see if the text under "Species" is copied from that source?

Thanks so much, Invertzoo (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on all this stuff. I really appreciate it. Invertzoo (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Invertzoo (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

About italic titles for articles about taxa at the level of genus and below. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Re your message: Well, I just made the same mistake you did. =) We both read the block log incorrectly. I blocked him for a year on June 17, 2008. Amazingly, the IP is active 20 hours after the block was lifted. I thought something was wrong with the block, didn't notice the year difference either, so I reapplied the block for another year. So... the IP is back to being blocked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

On June 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Villy Christensen, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

On June 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mincarlo (trawler), which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Jamie^☆S93 08:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of your edits before, and man you do a good job all over the place. But, in the silver carp section on sport fishing, you deleted the following text: "In some areas, it is also legal to use "snagging gear" in which large, weighted treble hooks are jerked through the water, to snag the fish. In the United States, silver carp are also popular targets for bowfishermen; they are shot both from the water and from the air. In the latter case, boats are used to scare the fish and entice them to jump, and the fish are shot from the air when the fish jump." This is all absolutely true. Why did you delete it? Perhaps you did not consider it sporting? Doesn't seem like that opinion should count in this case, because the text is factual. Don't believe it or think it needs a cite? Not sure how to cite the "shooting from the air" thing without linking to a commercial site or three that take guided aerial bowfishing trips. I guess the snagging part could be solved by linking to state regs somewhere. Anyway, I'm inclined to undo the edit. Carptracker (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for taking the trouble of collecting all my DYKs on one page! I don't think I ever would've bothered to do that on my own. -- Yzx (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem on the inadvertent deletion. All good.Carptracker (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not empty categories out of process as you appear to have done with Category:Traditional fishing villages. These moves need to be discussed at WP:CFD. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You should not empty a category without first discussing it at WP:CFD. You should not tag categories that were emptied out with process for speedy deletion since it is not a valid speedy reason. One of the reasons for the discussion is to determine if there is consensus, individuals users can not determine if a merge/move/rename/deletion is not controversial. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Greetings again fishing expert! I've started Fishing industry in Turkmenistan, given its location on the Capsian sea, should be an interesting one. Reckon you can expand it? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Some good sources are

• http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/FI-CP_TM/en
• http://www.caspianenvironment.org/itcamp/turkmen3.htm
• http://www.illegal-fishing.info/sub_approach.php?country_title=Turkmenistan

Hi Geronimo, Do you fancy putting together some sort of article for a pretty tuna baitfish species from Papua New Guinea? There is a lot of info about it here: [4]

I am asking you because Mila (User:Mbz1) uploaded a picture she took of a school of them that enveloped her when she was diving off Papua New Guinea. She says she head them coming before she actually saw them, and then all of a sudden she was in the middle of the school. You can see what she said about them on her talk page: [5]. Mila asked me if I wanted to do an article on this species, but I am not very good on fish, so what do you think? Best to you as always, Invertzoo (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Please checkout the swarm article talk page. I commented on your recent rearrangement of the order and distinction between different swarms. Thanks, Dr. Dan (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Geronimo,

In two weeks' time am going to be on a panel at the first Wiki-Conference New York. I'm going to be talking mostly about Project Gastropods. I wanted to ask you, you probably know more about how to find out info on a project. Do you know how to find out how many articles are currently in a project? Any other ideas you can think of that might help, please let me know, I would be delighted to hear any suggestions. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Geronimo. The panel is supposedly loosely entitled "Barnraising and cross-wiki collaborations". However, there are 4 of us, one other person is talking on starting a WikiProject, and another is talking on the stages of a WikiProject's life. I am planning to talk about how our project has been progressing and evolving. As you might imagine, in the last 2 years the project has made quite startling progress in number and quality and importance of the articles, although we have also run into several major speed bumps along the way, which I can briefly discuss. Yes, I am planning to put together a PowerPoint, really only because I suspect people routinely expect some kind of visual display and might be bored without it. I guess I was really asking if you know how to scare up some statistics about a project. Any kind of suggestion from you is welcome though, because I very much respect your intelligence as well as your PR sense. Best Invertzoo (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I am still asleep somewhat, not having had breakfast yet. I just now saw your reply and Gadfium's about the statistics. That's a great help yes. I knew that existed, but I had somewhat forgotten about it and would not have remembered how to find it. Many thanks! Invertzoo (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

HI, me again. Can I ask where exactly you found the template with all the statistics about Project Gastropods? I know I have seen it before, but I just don't remember where. I figure I can use an updated version for this week (probably) by the end of the week. Thanks! Invertzoo (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Traditional fishing boats 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! Giants27 (c|s) 13:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

On July 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Traditional fishing boats, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not use the peacock term "mighty" and agree it should be deleted. Regarding the issue of kosher: I wavered between totally deleting the reference, as most fish do not have a "kosher" section in their wikipage. However, since this one does, it is important to make clear that the fish is "felt to be" kosher because of "fins and scales." All kosher judgments are just that judgements (sp?) and few issues are completely black and white. Thus you should either completely delete the kosher reference, or include fins and scales (it is not fins alone that determine kosher, it is both, thus it reads very silly to only say "fins=kosher" DUCY?. As I am not an admin, I don't want to get in an edit war with you that I would lose. I am merely stating the facts and leave it up to you. I could (not) care less but just want to educate you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.233.110 (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

agree w/your comments cheers and enjoy tuna —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.233.110 (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much Geronimo for the link to the template. I also wanted to ask: do you have any idea if it is possible to get statistics as to how many gastropod project articles there were 2 years ago? Thanks so much once again, Invertzoo (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated Category:Fishing history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:History of fishing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

On July 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Types of fish, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a word to say that I loved your article. Hopefully you will take it onto GA and FA status one day. Seth Whales (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You certainly qualify as an honorary member of WikiProject Gastropods, because you have helped us so much in many different ways over the past 2 years, so here's an award:

		A piece of Jimbo's star
		For the hard work that Geronimo has put into helping make WikiProject Gastropods as great as it is, I award him a nice-sized chunk of the barnstar that Jimbo gave us on July 25 2009. This piece has a diamond in it! Invertzoo (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Geronimo. Do you happen to know if I can just put a PDF file of the slide show onto a subpage of my userpage? Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much Geronimo, a pdf of the slide show is here: [6]

On July 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pelagic fish, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.

BorgQueen (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

		The Honorary Membership
		For services to WikiProject Gastropods above and beyond the call of duty, I award you Geronimo this Honorary Lifetime Membership. Congratulations! Invertzoo (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well Geronimo, you already lived up to it, which is why you were awarded it. No further effort is required. You have been extremely helpful to us both directly and indirectly. Actually, if you look at the list of Participants here: [7], you will see that currently the only other lifetime honorary member is Jimbo, so you are in good company. I salute you. Invertzoo (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask you Geronimo, I don't understand something about the quality rating scale. [8] How is it that an article can get an "A" rating without first getting a "good article rating"? Right now we only have B articles. Should all of our B articles go through GA before reaching A or not? I am confused by this. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC) You know, because it says "Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class" but our User:JoJan thought they all had to go from B to GA and then to A... Invertzoo (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You see, I gave the article Socorro springsnail an A last week, but then I downgraded it to a B because I thought, oh maybe I can't do that. Invertzoo (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.157.173 (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.218.157.173 (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

i will add it back. --88.218.157.173 (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, it is straightforward, but it does not explain, why it is. --88.218.157.173 (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

they also used sharpened stones. did the primitive spears not penetrate the prey as effectively? is that what you are saying? --88.218.157.173 (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

so? --88.218.157.173 (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

all right. --88.218.157.173 (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is your reply to me and my subsequent comments:

Like you, I think the A-class versus GA issue is obscure, and not at all well set out in guidelines such as here, here, here and here. Anyway, for what it is worth, here is my take. It boils down to how your project is going to handle quality control for its best articles. You don't have to assess an article at all before nominating it for FA. However, unless you really know what you are doing, you should first submit the article for FA peer review or put it through the GA peer review process. On the other hand, you can classify an article as A-grade youself, without going through any quality control process external to your project.

Yes that's what I figured, my take was the same as your take. Invertzoo (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The main difference between A and GA class articles, as I understand them, is that GA-class articles need to undergo a review process external to your project, whereas A-class don't, and can be assessed by anyone. A-class articles are usually assessed by project members, who tend to have more focus on content, while GA-class are assessed by outside editors with more focus on style. Projects don't usually move articles through both GA and A levels on the way to FA, and in practice, GA has largely replaced A-class.

OK, that makes sense. That is what it looks like when you read the descriptions of the classes. A appears to be on the way to becoming vestigial. Invertzoo (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

However, the policy you adopt towards assessment is, to some degree, a matter for each project to decide. For example, you might decide to use A-class, but require such articles to go through a peer review within the project. The huge Military History project find A-class articles useful, and still use them (partially to take pressure off the external review processes). It is a matter of utility and assuring adequate quality control.

Makes sense. Invertzoo (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There are some talk page discussions here, here and here. Fishing and Fisheries needs to start working articles up the quality ladder as well, so it will be interesting to see how we go! I think, for small projects like ours, forget about A class, but work articles up to GA before submitting them for FA. --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that is what I would like to do too if other project members agree. Invertzoo (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A couple more useful links are here and here. Notice Wikipedia has 6986 GA-class articles altogether, and only 470 A-class articles, underlining that A-class articles are pretty much out of fashion. --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Great! Many thanks for that masterly analysis! I also wanted to say, your writing is always very clear and pleasing, I admire your transparent prose style. Invertzoo (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I received a message :

User talk:117.194.228.138 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Intertidal ecology, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Geronimo20 (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

---

I did not edit that page, ever. In fact this is the first time I saw that page. I've no idea why I received this message. wiki must be going crazy !!

117.194.228.138 (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As one of the three original authors of love dart, you may want to take a look at the GA review of it which is on its talk page currently. Thanks and best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I am ashamed to say that even after 2 years here I still don't really understand how to do references properly; I get confused. Also, I can't quite understand how exactly I should go about fixing up the charts that Michal (Snek) originally made, in the way that the reviewer recommends they should be changed. That would be item "NEEDS WORK FIVE".

The NEEDS WORK TWO and AND NEEDS WORK THREE are both now relying on a new ref, a New Scientist article. I don't know if I have done the refs OK on those or not.

Also have you any ideas about the problem mentioned in NEEDS WORK FOUR: the cupid image?

Best wishes and many, many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. About the positioning of the references in those NEEDS WORK FIVE charts, although you fixed nearly all of it, the reviewer says:

"These two entries: Helix pomatia and Zonitoides nitidus and excavatus still need attention. Diderot's dreams (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)"

Thanks for any more help you can give. Invertzoo (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The years bit was a reference to newly fledged birds, which don't breed for a few years and are apparently aloft for the whole time until they do. But yes, adults stay aloft only until the breeding season. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation. Yes... somewhere. You see, there was an age when citation were good but not essential for every statement. As memory serves it was Sibley's book of avian behaviour [9] I think my copy is in.... Britain? Maybe Hawaii. It's not here anyway. More's the pity. The perils of moving too much for work. Anyways, I wasn't really expecting you to move it back on my account (I mean, I'm only an admin with six FAs under my belt). It was more a kind of Hey, look, I wrote that and it was actually true only I can't quite prove it right at this exact moment although when I get all my books back I will, but in the meantime ,maybe you'd get a kick out of knowing that it is true and the guy that wrote it isn't crazy or impressionable. Yet. Anyways, as soon as I can prove it I will put it back. Cheers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask you: what piece of code did you used to get the Gastropods assessment table [10] to appear on my talk page? I want to put it on the Project main page. Many thanks! Invertzoo (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah thank you, thank you, for the educational note, Geronimo, "Transclusions", ah, that's a $5 word! Invertzoo (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that might be very useful! I will hang onto your post and talk to you about it when I am a bit less busy, Even more thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, could you make taxonomy tree for Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005), please? Just for main clades, we will see how it will look like. This overview on that page is not very clear. For example everything below clade Heterobranchia belongs to clade Heterobranchia. I will continuously check the tree. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Very good!

Mistakes to be corrected:

• add Basal taxa that are certainly Gastropoda (as one of main clades, see taxobox in Gastropoda article)
• move Pulmonata as a subclade of Heterobranchia (yes, there was this mistake in various places in wiki) (see taxobox in Heterobranchia article - it is correct there)
• remove accidentally added Cephalaspidea and Thecosomata from lower part of cladogram. Just these two names are added twice.

Typographic details (to be easily readable):

• remove label "Taxonomy of the Gastropoda"
• remove explanations (it can be directly in the article)
• (remove "Gastropoda" to save some place if necessary )
• I have set default size of the font.
• If it could help, then there is no need to recognize clades, informal groups and groups and fossil (exclusivelly fossil of these are 3 of them.)

--Snek01 (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Now its all right. Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's fantastically useful for us and for readers too! Thanks so much both Geronimo and Snek! Invertzoo (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Geronimo for noticing that, and showing me the other version, you are very kind. What I did was to add in a miniature version of the original list, but with some of the indenting below Heterobranchia corrected on it. I think some people will prefer to look at the cladogram, and others will prefer to read the list. I think they are both good in different ways. clades, groups and informal groups Best wishes to you as always, Invertzoo (talk) 23:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

On August 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Aquaculture in China, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 20:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

On August 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fish diseases and parasites, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 02:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing, Geronimo20. I do have an account, but I don't always log in. When I do, my username is SEIBasaurus. I am a retired rocket engineer, living on the "space coast" of Florida, where I have fished for many years and wrote the fishing/boating handbook for my club, the Florida Sportfishing Association. I would appreciate any help I can get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.104.154 (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have just discovered the little (talk) thing after a username but I am not sure exactly how to use it so I have blundered around to this "new section" bit. I wanted to add to your comments about 68.41... As you said the IP has made comments about you. I share that distinction. On the talk page of 'eco-terrorism' this IP warns on the 8 August 2009: "Certain editors (like Tranquillity Base) seem to be on a mission to clean up Sea Shepherds image on Wikipedia. Please do not let these edits remove pertinent information such as how the FBI defines eco-terrosim by using Sea Shepherd violence as an example. It's in the article now but keeps getting removed. Same problem on the Sea Shepherds main page which get white washed from time to time as well." You said that 68.41.. is "essentially a single issue anon with obvious POV issues", and I agree. Tranquillity Base (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. How does one send messages? As in 'you have new messages from last change' or similar... Tranquillity Base (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC).

Dear Geronimo20,

I am writing to you regarding the wikipedia article on Adi Da Samraj. I am appreciative of Adi Da's work and I have been trying to help in creating an article on him that conforms to wikipedia standards. However, user Tao2911, who I noticed you recently warned with vandalism, has been a major disruption in numerous editors efforts to not only create a neutral article, but to even maintain it's neutrality for more than 24 hours. On Tao2911's talk page, I noticed that he has been warned several times in the past year regarding this specific article, and most recently by you.

I simply want to create an article on Adi Da that is neutral and informative, and we have found Tao2911 to be a constant disruption to this. It seems that he is only interested in pushing his own biases into this article, and at this point, has made it nearly impossible for this article to achieve the neutrality, consistency, and straightforwardness a wikipedia article should have. I and I notice another editor KarlKaiser have been trying to do this. If you take a look, in less than a single 24 hour period, Tao2911 has made a total of 15 edits since your warning, some minor, and many reverting entire sections.

I've noticed in studying the edit history of this article that nearly every editor who has tried to make it conform to wikipedia standards has come up against Tao2911 and his disruptive tactics. At this point, I simply do not know what to do.

Can you help us?NeesheePandit (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I only reverted to a previous hard-won, multiple editor consensual version; I stated my reasons for doing so and requested that further changes be discussed, and address my concerns. This did not happen - my reversion was reversed, twice, by editors new to the page, with no explanation or addressing of my concerns in Talk. I then also made further edits to accommodate other editors concerns. I don't think that you are perceiving the situation clearly, or fairly. Not do I think that my being blocked is warranted, nor possible considering the circumstances. Tao2911 (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Geronimo, thanks for your welcome to wiki. But thanks also for your orientating me to how to edit. Appreciate it!Jason Riverdale (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Geronimo, thanks for all your help. I don't understand what is meant by:

This file is missing evidence of permission. It has an author and source, but there is no proof that the author of the image or its subject (in the case of artwork) agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide evidence of permission by either providing a link to a site with an explicit grant of permission that complies with the licensing policy or by forwarding email communication granting permission to [email protected].

If Devanagari108 does not respond in the next 24 hours I will call the Dawn Horse Press (their number is on their site) and inquire what they sent. Also maybe one more picture of a book of Adi da can be added.173.16.189.83 ([[User talk:173.16.189.83|talk]]) 00:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Geronimo,

I was wondering what is happening with re-submitting the Adi Da article for GA status. The last word was you were going to re-submit. Has that happened? Is there just a long wait for review?

Thanks for your update. Jason Riverdale (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Geronimo.... and I see there is considerable backlog... much more editors needed!173.16.191.171 (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I am confused as to where specifically I "register" for the mediation. I sent a letter but where do I indicate I want to participate. ThanksJason Riverdale (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, go ahead. Lothar the Terrible 11:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Admin renaming of images has been enabled again at en.Wikipedia. Do you still want me to move the guitar image to File:Stingray guitar.jpg for you?-gadfium 20:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. File:Stingray.jpg is now the image on the commons.-gadfium 20:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the the last sentence of the controversy section you'll see that it isn't supported by any of the three sources, which all relate to a single abortion rally. Soxwon (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please weigh in on this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adi_Da&action=history

Goethean's final warning to him was as such: If you continue to remove well-sourced content from Adi Da, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — goethean ॐ 00:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Jason Riverdale (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Geronimo, Thank you for your response and helping clarify the wiki policy. You all have a difficult job on your hands! I do understand that wiki is meant to have all sides weigh in on any given article. I do notice however that on the "other side of the fence" there is a strong tendency to insert very negative, derogatory and bias language to paint their point of view. Language and word choices do show bias and tend to lead the reader in a certain directions. For example "Messianic Proclamation" is the key issue with one of the editors whoi has strong feelings about Adi Da. He is obviously very negative on Adi Da. Why is it not ok to change the wording or heading here to "Adi Da's Proclamation of Divinity" as done by a pro Da editor.It states a fact that the non Da supporter intended and wanted the reader know this about Adi Da but without heavy bias. It is then up to the reader to decide what they feel about itby reading the content and references in that section. Creating controversy is not the issue. But adding language that is very bias and meant to attack or defame an individual to me should be addressed here as well. Does this make sense to you?Jason Riverdale (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

On September 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Demersal fish, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 05:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Geronimo,

Would you take a look at the Adi Da article and see if any more references need to be cleaned up, and do a final review? I think we are getting ready to start the nomination process!--Devanagari108 (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Geronimo, hope you are doing well. If I could pick your brains again, I just wanted to ask you if you know how I could ascertain how many subpages are currently in existence, and what they are, from the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods? I happened upon one just now that I didn't know existed. I want to put a list of them on the main page there, and delete any that are out of date or no longer relevant. Thanks a million, you are always so helpful. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, it's nice to "see" you again. Invertzoo (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Pain in fish and crustaceans 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! Materialscientist (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The recent article about barium sulfate nets was peer reviewed. You can't question the results in the BOF. You've had 15 years to test the nets and haven't. Bunningfan (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for wikifying and improving this article. I'm about as familiar with fishing as I am with knitting, so it was a very pleasant surprise to check back in and see that someone had improved it so quickly. Well done. AniMate^draw 07:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If there was a bait and tackle barnstar, I'd likely give it to you. Sometimes Wikipedia doesn't work. Sometimes it does. Thanks again for making it work. AniMate^draw 08:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

On September 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pain in fish, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 12:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Geronimo,

Thanks to Snek we have a portal now [11]. I have thought for a while that it would be great if we had the capability to just pull up a random article out of our nearly 6,000 articles in the Project. Do you happen to know how we could put that together? Best wishes to you and many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Geronimo,

It seems that things have changed in the last few weeks with this article. I made edits and so have others, post consensus. I invited Tao to participate again in pointing out specifics of what he felt was not balanced in the article, but he gave a rather uncivil reply, so I am not sure what to do. I have asked all other editors to speak up and point out anything that could be balanced in terms of content, and so far no one has said anything, and there does not seem to be dispute amongst other editors.

I don't know what the steps are now in proceeding to GA Status. I am hoping you can help to clarify what we can do now, and what needs to be changed, etc. I am unsure and looking for your guidance here. I hope that we can still proceed with GA Status, as the content has not changed much at all since consensus, although there have been disputes. I have tried my best to remain civil and work with all editors here with real intention of creating balance and accepting criticism if I posted anything that was not NPOV. Much of this has been fixed as a result. I am aware that part of obtaining GA Status is that edits are not constantly being made and editors are not in dispute. Either way, I would like to get your input on this. Much appreciated.--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds good. We will wait a few days then. Thanks for your earlier message too. Looks like the GA Review happened faster than expected. And yes, sometimes assuming good faith is an ego-transcending practice in and of itself!--Devanagari108 (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Things are looking rather stable. Perhaps you could go ahead do some final cleanup on the reference formatting? Seems okay to go ahead and re-submit after that. What do you think?--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Geronimo, Seems that there has been a consensus and agreement on the Adi Da article. How about re-submitting it for GA review. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Riverdale (talk • contribs) 15:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not contesting the close of the thread I started there, since the abusive postings to my talk page have stopped, which was my primary goal. However, I would like to note two errors you made in your closing statements to the thread: (1) "Anyway, Kwamikagami ... has not responded here since his block expired," That is not true. He actually posted two of his three abusive comments here after his Wiktionary block expired. (2) You labelled me as "block happy", by comparing numbers of blocks. For a fair comparison, please tally the total number of blocks made on WP in the past 3.5 years then divide the total by 50, which is the approximate number of Wiktionary administrators. Then consider that not all Wiktionary admins patrol edits and not all are even active. Blocks on Wiktionary are performed by a very small group of people, so the total per person is much higher there than here. My blocks made on WP number less than 30. I would appreciate a correction of these errors to the closed thread.

You also imply that activities on another (non-WP) project are excuse and grounds for any action here, even if that action violates WP policies. That is a dangerous precedent to set. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing Wikipedia with Wiktionary. Kwami may have a long editing history here, but not on wiktionary. He may be an administrator here, but he is not an administrator on Wiktionary. He may be familiar with policy and procedure here, but he is not familiar with policy and procedure on Wiktionary. Kwami's actions on Wiktionary seriously violated community practice, and other admins correctly pointed this out to him. Kwami has tried this before on Wiktionary, and has before been told that the content he changed had been accepted by vote. He has no defense for continuing to push his own view over the consensus of the Wiktionary community. He has no defense foe abusive language. I do not understand why you continue to defend his misbehavior.

Did you read my responses on to Kwami on my talk page? I opened a fair dialogue, and received abuse for it. I also asked him to keep Wiktionary issues on Wiktionary, and again received abuse. Under the circumstances, would you have conituned making an attempt to listen, if all that was being said was abusive?

I am sorry that you feel that the relationship between MW projects must be antagonistic. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop reverting these links. There is already relevant discussion of the links taking place at AN. You should input there if you have something to say about them but changing them while discussion is underway is disruptive. ThemFromSpace 04:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I second this request. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC).

Me too. This edit has edit summary "restore to a little sanity" and restores an external link into the middle of an article. If the linked material is useful, it should be used as a reference, not dumped into the body. Johnuniq (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you really signing off from this page? It's no fun at all, but it is important and there are some principles at stake that need your support.--Travelplanner (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Geronimo, I have actually just submitted a paper for publication on sustainability - so I am definitely interested in the topic. I am working on Ecology right now and busy writing grant applications. However, I have looked at the sustainability page and have it listed in my next wikipedia project. Thanks for contacting me. Curious to know what you think of the Conservation Biology page?Thompsma (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

HI Geronimo, Greetings and I hope you are doing OK. If I may say so I feel that you are very intelligent indeed, an excellent writer, and I think you have a very good PR sense, and because I value your input very much, I wanted to ask you a basic question: what do you think a portal is supposed to be for? I have never been clear on this, and can't find much about it in the guidelines. I mean is it for general readers? Is it for editors? For both? Is it partly an advertisement for the subject matter? Of course I assume that being a "portal" it is supposed to be a place where you (as a reader) "enter" the subject, and which helps direct you to where you might need to go within the subject, right? Many thanks for any opinions you might have on these questions, best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Geronimo, I just wanted to say thanks for the fabulous analysis you did for me on the subject of portals! It was very helpful indeed and you answered questions I did not even know that I had! You rule! Best, Invertzoo (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:Fishing industry requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. RL0919 (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Geronimo20, Skip is driving us all batty, but Protonk is a good guy. He's got exams right now. Please be nice to him. It would be great if you could slightly reword your message on his talk page? Please? Thanks, LK (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that last post back on ANI wasn't really great. But his behavior before that was just reflecting someone really busy and hassled in IRL you know. LK (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this ANI still open? Looks like it. I would have put in my two cents before but wanted to get in mediation which looks like it's died. His misbehavior on Representative money is my complaint, total POV misuse of sources, deleting WP:RS info in favor of WP:OR, etc. I would like to deal with it before trying to fix up article again. Unless he's changed his ways, of course :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The An/I sunk by Protonk is well dead, but you could still add your two cents to the current An/I. It's all grist to the mill. Skip has left a trail of discouraged editors in his wake, and I can't see anything short of arbitration working (if that works?) :/ --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I threw my two cents into both of them. Oi! Oi! Oi! 04:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey G20,	thanks for the
table tweak!	Eric talk 23:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice thought Geronimo - we'll get there! Granitethighs 07:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Skipsievert and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, The Four Deuces (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		You are a great asset to the project. We need more editors like you... -- Johnfos (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I wouldn't object to receiving another barnstar. :-) Sunray (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have much to do. A marvelous spring, summer and fall of fly fishing here in Montana and Wyoming is comming to an end. Wikipedia will now take on much more of my time until the river thaw in March. May it be constructive.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Another nice thought ... So what do I do? I return just to ask a favour. Do you know how nav bars work? I've tried coding and setting up a footer nav bar in an article I am working on called History of botany. If you go there you will see the mess I've got myself into ... any ideas what I'm doing wrong? Granitethighs 02:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again ... Granitethighs 03:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

On November 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sea louse, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 07:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Geronimo, I think you should look at this edit and reconsider your words. Calling attention to my behaviour is a bit over the top: I don't need to be chided by you (I'm married, and my wife can take care of any chiding). Also, while it is entirely possible to construe non-constructive edits as vandalism, it is not mandatory to do so, and WP:AGF in fact urges you to look at the glass as half-full. Finally, calling me overzealous, that's just bullshit. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The WP:DRAMA at User_talk:Quahog10 astounds me. All edits warned about were clear WP:VANDALISM. Is something going on here behind the surface that I should know about?Self answered: WP:DRAMA - who needs it? My talk page is turning in to a WP:BATTLEGROUND by an editor who reverted our warnings and is issuing me lectures on why the edits in question (all of them) were constructive. Sheesh. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, and don't forget the administrator who denied your request that the "vandal" editor be blocked. Why don't you ask User:NuclearWarfare for an explanation? Go for it! Drmies (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, so what? People report vandalism at WP:AIV all day long, and the number of "false positives" declined is non-zero. It is not a badge of shame, just part of the process - which is why there's a WP:AIV in the first place. By the way, do you intend to follow me around WP and post angry diatribes everywhere I go? And here's a more interesting question - are you even someone with the ability to block someone in the first place (I won't bother to look). If not - why is this issue of such deep and abiding concern to you? Why are you even looking at WP:AIV at my actions (and this editor's warnings), and causing such disruption? Why did you threaten me with (oh me, oh my!) such terrible consequences if I restored my warnings, yet did no such thing to this poor editor (where you continue your WP:BAITing). Methinks you doth protest overmuch (paraphrasing, I'm afraid). I'm now more amused than bothered - thanks for reminding me of usenet performance artists! Try to not to worry about the small things, and things will look much brighter. My sincerest best wishes for you, may tomorrow (if not sooner) look happier. I encourage the editor who's page this is on to hat or delete all of these comments, and we'll sanely WP:DNFTT. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you guys take this argument somewhere else please. --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Closed issue. Sorry for the intrusion. Feel free to delete, hat, change all e's to o's, or whatever is most fun. Ta --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Population dynamics topics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Thank you for working as a group to improve on Sustainability and to ensure people with fringe POVs do not get away with it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Very nice article. Thank you for creating it. --Lime82 (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being a .. robot and not explaining my DYK rejection of that article (user:Art LaPella is much better in that). I was amazed the article didn't exist and appreciate your work in improving it, but, we have to follow the rules (No1) which say, in paraphrasing, that the old content copied from other articles has to be expanded 5-fold to be eligible for DYK (there is a co-rule supporting that which I can dig out). Note that eligibility for DYK nomination is quite different from eligibility for WP. There is no any slight to you, and no big deal in having a DYK rejected by formal criteria (happens every now and then). Best wishes. Materialscientist (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed it because it was in "ref" section. It did look like someone made an error while editing and forgot to delete it. I don't have problem with that content in elsewhere but it still lack source citation. Vapour (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much Geronimo for getting us (the gastropod project) on the list for popular pages updates! That will be very useful and very interesting! Best, Invertzoo (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

For the voice of support. Yes, I've been blocked for trying to get 5000 badly written bot articles deleted. It's amazing how easy it is to gain adminship with not useful contributions whatsoever.

I'm tired of the deletionist attack the scientists as the easy way to score deletion points attitude of en.wiki google-pawns. It's not fun editing anymore. That's why people leave: administrators who power monger like little children abandoned, deletionists who could never get a pokeman card deleted but shout "h-index" without knowledge at AfD.

I don't know. It's not worth it. Editors are abandoning wikipedia like there's no tomorrow because en.wiki has created a disgusting and rude culture with no future. Who wants to claim affiliation with this crap? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clean-up on the Uwe Kils article, you and a lot of other editors. Takes more work to improve an article than to score a quick ego boost for deleting it. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I see you disagreed with a couple of edits I made in reverting additions by 199.1.202.252 (talk · contribs). I'm curious about your reasoning. Nearly all of the recent contributions from this IP address were links to articles from one specific journal. In my experience, this behavior is typically linkspamming in order to increase the visibility of a publication. How do you interpret the contributions? - Eureka Lott 00:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

If you think the addition of the links improves those articles, that's great. I have no problem with that. However, I fear you're being too generous in ascribing the user's motives. While not all of the IP's contributions are links to that journal, the pattern of inserting links goes back over a year. A quick whois lookup shows that the IP address belongs to Cambridge Scientific Abstracts (csa.com), and the journal's contact page lists the same address. It looks like a pretty clear case of spamming to me. I think the warning needs to go back on the IP's talk page. - Eureka Lott 15:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree fully with Eureka. I see a clear fixation on spamming links to ejournal.nbii.org going back over a year, and I gave the user a 4im warning. Note that the user consistently adds "references" which do not reference anything in the article at all. ThemFromSpace 03:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's important to remember that the spam is not the sole indiscretion in this instance. It's also a conflict of interest. While the contributor may have been acting in good faith, the additions did not improve the project. If this behavior was condoned, we'd have an encyclopedia clogged with marginally-relevant links. I'm not familiar with the example you mentioned, but if users ignore repeated warnings and continue to violate guidelines, administrators have little choice but to apply a block. - Eureka Lott 14:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

On December 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fisheries and climate change, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

All the very best to you Geronimo, and thanks for all your help during this year, Invertzoo (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Geronimo. I copied the majority of the freshwater aquarium list from a fishkeeping magazine with supplements from my own knowledge, the freshwater pond one was just a compilation of species I'd got from websites and books, and the marine aquarium one was purely from websites. However, I am a real newbie to Wikipedia, and I don't really know how to add a citation, I clicked the link in your comment, but I still don't understand. Thanks for the notification. -- Jay942942 (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. I have added the references in, the magazine is a well-known one. One of the websites I've added in (the first one) is more a personal website as someone is talking of how they created a coldwater setup but there are very few sources around for coldwater marine setups. -- Jay942942 (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you please explain your rationale for deleting external links, or directing away from a relevant video, on Sea louse and Aquaculture of salmon. Thanks. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think I explained it concisely in the edit comment. Particularly in the aquaculture article, the external links are dominated (100%) by links to interest groups opposed to aquaculture. None of these are reliable sources nor do they represent a WP:NPOV. In my opinion, they all violate WP:External links and should be deleted and replaced with properly sourced in-line references in the article. Such an action would be, I suspect, quite controversial. Instead, I did minor copy-editing to make the links more concise. The only links I deleted were two links to pages inside the http://www.watershed-watch.org/ website. Since Watershed Watch is a single issue organization, linking directly to the home page seemed more concise and equally (if not more) useful. Pburka (talk) 14:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah thanks Geronimo! I gave the sparkly egg thingie to my cat, who is enjoying rolling it around and chewing on it, and as for your mitre thingie, I am currently using it as a footrest. When the weather warms up I will definitely try it as a whelk trap, good idea! We just had this blizzard and I am recovering from a sinus flare-up, other than that all is well. Hope you too are good. Invertzoo (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi - never came to thank you for the Bio-star! I pulled back from wiki for a while, but have been active again. This time I put the Ecology page together. Hope to return to conservation biology to trim, re-organize, and follow up on editorial feedback. Feel free to come and check Ecology out - it was bare bones when I started. Once again - thanks!Thompsma (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message earlier this month. I haven't quit as such, I just haven't really felt like doing any editing for a while. I think this is because I've stopped being a student after a hundred billion years and got a fulltime job and now a) I can't edit Wikipedia while avoiding doing what I'm supposed to be doing during the day, and b) Wikipedia now feels a bit too much like work to be relaxing in the evenings and weekends. Hopefully I will be back at some point; I haven't gone off Wikipedia or made a conscious decision to leave or anything like that. Anyway, it's nice to know I'm missed. :)

And now I've been gone so long the interface has changed... --Helenalex (talk) 10:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

---

This 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.

Archive 2005

←

Archive 2007

Archive 2008

Archive 2009