User talk:Epipelagic

; Archives
	to Feb 2008; to Aug 2008; to Oct 2008; to Dec 2008; to Mar 2009; to Jun 2009; to Sep 2009; to Dec 2009;

Happy New Year

Dear Geronimo,

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

I wish you a Happy New Year, everything good for your family, your loved ones and yourself, peace and joy for all the people of the world. I also wish a joyful and peaceful expansion for Wikipedia, may it bring helpful, generous, and peaceful information to everyone in the world.
All the very best from Invertzoo (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 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) 03:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Epipelagic. You have new messages at The Thing That Should Not Be's talk page.
Message added 08:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

You also have new messages at WP:CHU The Thing _{Editor Review} 08:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Rename

You logged in under your old name; that may affect the reattribution, I'm not sure :( -- Avi (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know; get a hold of a developer, I guess. Sorry :( -- Avi (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Kils

The DFG offered to send a certificate directly to WIKIPEDIA. Can You please give me an address. I also wrote to the Consulate to give you prove of the EB-1 visa but they are always slow. Happy New Year Uwe Kils 16:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin?

Are you interested in becoming an administrator? I'd be proud to nominate you at Requests for adminship, or you can self-nominate. Requests for adminship can be a bruising process (not that I have any specific concerns for you), and I would suggest that if you are interested then you pick a week when you have ample spare time to answer questions.-gadfium 19:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why plural?

Why is the article title plural in this case, when Wikipedia:Manual of Style requires singular titles? This doesn't clearly fall within one of the exceptions. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It looks as if most of the links to that article are from a template. I've fixed the template accordingly and it may take 24 hours or so for the correction to appear when you click on "what links here". After that it will be possible to ascertain which links still need to get fixed. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mailing address Heisenberg Fellowship Professor Kils

Thank you, Epipelagic. We need a papermail address - this is like an examination in school Uwe Kils 13:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hypophthalmichthys

I don't think that Category:Hypophthalmichthys is a nonsensical one. There are many categories which contain 3-4 pages. Explain me why you think that Category:Hypophthalmichthys is a nonsensical one? --Amit6 (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Amit6 (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of my contribution to the article "reef fish" yesterday

Re: Your message to me of today (see below) regarding my contribution to the article "reef fish" which you removed due to alleged copyright violation.

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

How stupid would it be for me to plagerise a source and then provide active links back to the actual plagerised sources?

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

Sincerely

William Alevizon, Ph.D. (aka 20cean7)2ocean7 (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ocean7 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clairvoyance is not accepted as a valid tool when dealing with Wikipedia copyright issues. Even when you tell us that you are William Alevizon, that still needs to be verified, since from our end, we need to make sure you are not being misrepresented by an impersonator. Even if you verify who you are, it still alters nothing, since both the book and the web site you cited display copyright notices. There has been no formal permission from you to use that text, and without that, leaving the text in place would leave Wikipedia formally in breach of copyright law. Looking at it from another another angle, the text was removed precisely to make sure that your own copyright interests were protected.

If you want to give Wikipedia permission to directly use content from your book, you should read WP:Donating copyrighted materials. You will then need to contact permissions-en@wikimedia.org for text for an article on the English Wikipedia, or another English Wikimedia site. Then an WP:OTRS ticket number will be granted.

However you should be aware that this will mean that content from your book can also be directly used outside Wikipedia, so you will in effect, release your book into the public domain. It also means that any content from the book can be further changed by Wikipedia editors. In this case, the content you contributed will definitely be changed. I was, as it happens, poised to expand this article anyway. So for now I will, shortly, restore the content and citations you contributed, but the text will be paraphrased so it no longer violates copyright. This means that there is not really much point in you relinquishing your copyright interest.

It would be great if you would like to participate in the further expansion of the article. I will, in any case, nominate it in a few days time for a joint DYK, so it appears on the front page of Wikipedia (you will receive credit for that). --Epipelagic (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

As for ccontributing further to this project, count me in as this is my field of expertise.

As a start, I would like to add 4 or 5 general referrences that would be of use to persons interested in coral reef fishes of specific geographic regions (i.e., Red Sea, South Pacific, Hawaii, etc.), I also would strongly suggest (if it would not "step on" another article in Wikipedia) that the name of this be changed from "Reeef Fish" to "Coral Reef Fish". The term "reef fish" is also widely applied (by ichthyologists at least) to temperate rocky reef fishes such as those that inhabit kelp forests.

Regards 2ocean7 (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's great, you are most warmly welcome. I have started a discussion about renaming the article on its talk page. Also, you might like to have a look at Coral reef. I am currently rewriting and expanding this article, and it could sure do with another hand, particularly from someone who really knows the subject. Corals are not my speciality area, and working on them alone gets tedious when I hit areas of uncertainty. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reattribution

Yes, thank you for letting me know :) -- Avi (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Noticeboard

[[1]] - Could you please address? Much appreciated. Wipkipkedia (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have moved the user's question to my talk so feel free to respond there. —DoRD (?) (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAO Country Profiles: Thanks

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

Again, THANKS--MontseBL (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref. Your Answer on 3rd February- Yes, you are right, the first impression is not very clear, but as you says regarding fisheries and agriculture sector the information is very rich and full of FAO self studies. If you agree with that I can do the link directly to one of this sections better that to the “General information” page instead. Please let me know.--MontseBL (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's do a thing, in the Spanish Wikipedia there's a section called "Country of the week". If you agree with that I will do a link to that Country, I will look into the characteristics and do the link to the most apropriate sector. Then, you editors decide what to do, to keep it or leave it. Is that ok with you?--MontseBL (talk) 11:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

blockquote> OK then. Let's try. Thanks:-)--MontseBL (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minnows

Hi Epi, I redirected the page in the effort to fix disambiguation links, the page was listed automatically in the list, I did not go looking for it. Second, I created the page for Leuciscinae when I noticed that the majority of Minnows - " True Minnows " belonged to that particular genus. Leuciscinae was already placed as the sub-family under which the true-minnows are included by someone else, I assure you I did not come up with an obscure category just for the page, I just created the already listed page.

Taxonomically they are Cyprinidae, I posted a reference and an external link in case you want to verify, I saw most of the individual pages for true minnows are stubs and decided to point it to the sub-family they are all included in. Your objection has been noted, As per your instructions I will Revert my re-directs back to the page, a word of notice thought- those pages directing to the Minnows page would show up back in the list of disambiguation pages requiring links [2] and someone else will make similar changes. You can help by re-directing the pages away from the Disambiguation page. I regret any inconvenience in the mean time. Thank you.--Theo10011 (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All my edits for Minnows have been Reverted.--Theo10011 (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 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) 03:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Coral reef fish

On February 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Coral reef 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, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

David Starr Re: help at Adi Da

Hi Epipelagic, Thanks for your help at Adi Da. I followed your advice and participated in an agreement of no editing without consensus there. In the past week I have spent many hours on the talk page doing something near 100 entries there [[3]] in order to make polite, clear and concise statements regarding my concerns over NPOV. Once my concerns were clarified here: [[4]] , an argument that took me several hours to put together, Tao2911 went ahead and without consensus made substantial changes to the article [[5]] adding in his summaries that they were per me, but they weren't. I tried a revert [[6]] but was undone by Goethean [[7]] I felt this meant that our agreement was off and that we were now being bold. I then tried to make edits for more neutral language [[8]] , [[9]] , [[10]] , [[11]] , [[12]] , with a discussion at Talk much like Tao2911 did with his edits, [[13]] . I was then, or course reverted, accused of vandalism on the talk page with a whole section titled "David Starr vandalism" [[14]] threatened with being reported to admin [[15]] I plea for consensus [[16]] other editors agree with me [[17]] [[18]] [[19]] Tao disagrees [[20]] Tao then says the editors are agreeing with him, that he made the changes for me, and that he can work with people , but he's sick of repeating himself to me, [[21]] Instead of addressing the issues raised, Tao2911 propagandizes, and generally discusses the subject of the article and continues accusations of vandalism, [[22]] And then this bit of uncivil commentary [[23]] At this point, after many many hours over the past week of trying to edit the article I am frustrated and feel totally abused. I have yet to be able to make a single edit to the article without invoking an edit war from Tao2911. I feel that Tao2911 is a tenditious editor who is bullying and taking ownership of the article. He pretends to want consensus at times, but will not allow me to edit. Period. He himself though has basically edited at will over the past week without consensus. [[24]] I feel that I am making a good-faith gesture to bring neutrality into some fairly biased additions and have the consensus of other editors. I also feel that I have been as fair as can be expected in the face of insults, threats, and accusations by Tao2911.

Would you be willing to add your opinion as to our behavior at Adi Da and also any ideas as far as how to resolve our dispute? It would be very much appreciated. David Starr 1 (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I also came over to try to get you back involved in Adi Da. Of course I could make some case here with 42 links for my sad abused self, but you can go to the talk page and catch up. Needless to say I disagree with Starr's characterization. I've requested mediation, but Starr is refusing to sign off on it in order to hold the page hostage with his POV alert label (been here before.) Come on over if you are bored. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi E, just wanted to say thanks for helping over at Adi Da, very much agreed with what you had to say in the more thoughts pop down, very clever. I think you might have an essay there. I have been thinking this week how Wiki is just like playing a game, as in a board game or a video game. Of course you do have to wear the hat. Wikilawyering? Guilty as charged. Thanks again. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image at Template:Fishing techniques topics

First off, spare me your arrogance of pretending to know who I might be – you don't; and I don't know the person you're referring to personally. I merely seem to concur with other users who don't think the image is appropriate there. Secondly, as a precaution, don't act like you're [WP:OWN|owning] the template. I'm not accusing you of it, though reverting edits purely because you like it isn't reasonable. Thirdly, before you reinstate the image, I ask you to justify its use on the template.

The argument of it not adding much to the template is valid, though other templates use purely illustrative templates as well. Other than that, the image is pretty limited, showing specifically an angler, which is too specific for a broad template on fishing in general. I wouldn't have a problem if it was used on a template just referring to angling (except for the next point…). It may not be an argument that the cartoon image is pretty ugly, but it also feels very much out of place when compared to the other fishing templates, which use real-life images of fisher(wo)men or fishing vessels. Your image doesn't fit into the subject.

Please partake in discussion before just reverting the edit again. You may want to look for more suited images as well. Don Cuan (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed you would respond promptly with puffery. Wikipedia is not a toy for you to play with. However, the issue's not important enough to waste more time on, so you can collect your shout. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure talking to you. Have a nice day :) Don Cuan (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phosphorous / phosphorus

Hi Epipelagic,

you reverted my change to coral reef on the grounds that I had changed British English to American English, but I don't believe I did. I have never heard of phosphorous being a British spelling of phosphorus, and the phosphorus article doesn't mention it (compare the aluminium, caesium, sulfur articles, all of which talk about the Brit/Yank differences). However, phosphorous is a real word, but it's an adjective rather than a noun, meaning "containing trivalent phosphorus". --Trovatore (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Overexploitation

On February 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Overexploitation, 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, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Calmer Waters 06:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civility issues

This edit to Sustainability is in extreme violation of wikipedia's policy for civility. I feel that the concerns I voiced about the content you proposed to add the the article were legitimate. The type of comments you made are not only against policy but highly inappropriate and do not contribute to the collaborative process of writing an encyclopedia. Please apologize. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please moderate your language, and address the issue. I am trying to reflect as accurately as I can the concerns you seem to advocate. If the comment, in any way at all, misrepresents your position, then please correct the matter where it belongs, on the article talk page. I have no idea what I am meant to apologize for, but please accept my apology if you feel offended. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your RfA Support

Epipelagic - Thank for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments on user essay

Epipelagic aka Geronimo20 - I’ve just completed drafting my first WP essay in my user space: Creating A Better List. As of yet it is not linked anywhere except through the {{Essay}} template. My ultimate objective is to move this essay to the project space, but at this point, that is premature without some feedback from fellow editors. As such I would appreciate your opinion on the essay, especially on two points. 1) Have I made any statements contradictory to WP policy or guidelines? 2) Are there additional examples that could be included to demonstrate my points more effectively?

Thanks in advance for your review and feel free to make any editorial changes you think would enhance the essay. Please provide comments here, as I am asking several editors to comment and would like to keep them all in the same place--Mike Cline (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FN

Hi, I don't know whether it's that organised against common sense. The issue was first noticed at WT:MOS, which has recommended the after-punctuation method for some time, in contradiction to FN. I went and changed FN boldly so that it's consistent with the MoS, and met resistance. I think the small superscript argument is strongest, since publications that use the before-punctuation system are invariably (like Nature) those that use normal font, normal position ref tags.

Christopher Parham, bless his heart, seems to have in-built genes against any form of change at all. It's very annoying. He pops up all over the place to resist progress. Tony (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A new article Poul Lange

Hi Epipelagic, I wonder, if you have a spare moment, would you look over a new article, a BLP I Just created? This guy is a designer so it's outside your and my areas of expertise, but I do trust your judgement. The refs are a bit of a mess; I am not so good on formatting those. I don't know what else needs fixing, but please let me know if you see anything amiss, or please go ahead and fix things yourself if they are simple and fast to do. I intend to try for a DYK with this so I want to try to make it look decent. Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your criticisms are very welcome. I was looking to hear that kind of thing, so thank you. If I can't make a case for him being notable enough then the article is not worthwhile. Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bioeroders etc. on the coral reef article

I note your rv, which is fine, but a few points. 1. Yes, it needs to be sourced. 2. I think it needs to be reworded, since I work on related subjects and it doesn't even make logical sense to me. 3. It's grammatically incorrect (I think - because as I said, it doesn't logically compute - should be functionS (?). And finally, 4. Does this really need to go in the introductory paragraph? While it may be an important point, the intro generally should only have the most important information about the subject, with details that follow in the body. Cheers Arjuna (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bassmaster(s) Classic

I'm aware of the issue involved. Both article titles existed previously, with the one without the "s" redirecting to the other. When I was covering this year's Classic for my newspaper, I realized that the official style of the title is without the "s," but our article had it with the "s" with the proper title redirecting. Since I couldn't use the good ol' Move button, I did the manual method, with the intent to go back later and get an admin to fix the edit history. As I am not an admin, I can't do it myself, sorry. I have fixed all the Wikilinks from other articles, except those on talk pages and such. I think the title of the tournament may have originally been with an "s", but when ESPN took over the tournament they may have changed it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links

With respect to the EL at Biodiversity, you've made some (I feel) rather harsh and unjustified claims in your edit summaries and your comments. Simply put, we're not a link farm, and there is no obligation to include every link that exists. If you feel strongly about a link, by all means make a case for it based on its suitability under the external links guideline. However, please note that this particular link was added without any explanation whatsoever, by an editor whose only edit was to add said link. We certainly do not keep ELs in articles simply because someone happens to have posted them; there is no "free pass", and the onus is on editors to justify why a link deserves to be included, not the opposite. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fishing trawler

You reverted an incorrect image, it was explained the vessel is NOT Danish and she is NOT a freezer trawler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttonbanger (talk • contribs) 03:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brief thank you

Thank you for your welcoming words. I just created my userpage so you may see my fields of interest.Scarabaeoid (talk) 16:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Tyranny of small decisions

On February 27, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tyranny of small decisions, 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, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Cod

Sorry for deleting. I was editing the article Mullet and noticed the picture of a cod. I didn't realize it was a template. --Buster7 (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bottle trap

Hello Epipelagic. Could you have a look at Bottle_trap and provide me with some comments? Thanks.Scarabaeoid (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

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 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Salmon, anadromous Pacific salmon

The cherry or seema salmon (Oncorhynchus masou) is a salmon of the western Pacific. It is anadromous. How was including it in the list of Pacific salmon not constructive? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_salmon Kilgore Rosewater (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I am referring to the page on fish migration which lists the "five species of Pacific salmon" as examples of anadromous fish. I added the Cherry salmon, you removed it... Kilgore Rosewater (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Coastal fish

On March 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Coastal 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, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 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) 22:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Trophic level

On March 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trophic level, 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, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Wow, I was just checking out the work you have been doing at the Sustainable fisheries and I am very impressed, thanks for doing such great work. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --Epipelagic (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poul Lange

Thanks Epipelagic. Anyway I am glad it worked. Invertzoo (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with Deletion of photo

First you delete the picture of a fisherman first you said it wasn't recreational and now you are saying something different. It is not self promoting becuase who would promote themself with a picture of a bowfin. This picture is more representative of a recreational fisherman than any other picture that is up there. Please do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Clarence (talk • contribs) 04:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just Postin Back

Wow Wikipedia is not a place for dishing it out talking about that photo being a beefcake picture of me. You have no idea who I am so you should not make assumptions. I do believe it contributes something to the article and I will discuss in the fisherman forum we will let the others decide wether or not it should be in the article because you obvioulsy take a lot of ownership in this page and have an issue with me. I could construe you as edit warring because you have no grounds to say that I am missrepresenting fisherMAN in the article. (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2010 (UMD)