User talk:B89smith

Image copyright problem with Image:Hillatrium-250px.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Hillatrium-250px.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

As someone will undoubtedly come along to object to your edit, let me try to explain first. (As I've not edited that article I can just make the observation) Articles that are controversial attract a lot of attention. People feel very strongly about particulars. Not surprisingly, other people will feel the exact opposite. And many people somewhere in between. Thus we have talk pages where discussions can take place. And, perhaps more importantly, a record of old discussions exists (though sometimes you have to look for the 'archives' for older discussions).

And I'm sure it will not surprise you to realize that thhe point you objected to has been argued about, probably several times, and also quite recently. Please review the current talk page, and if possible the archives. Then you will be ready to argue your point in a discussion.

I will not revert your change on the basis that you did not discuss it first - I'm sure someone else will. Discussion is best - the talk pages are sometimes the more interesting parts of an article. Shenme 18:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To that let me add the reasons your change was removed. Personal speculation does not belong in articles. It is not enough for you to claim controversy. You must supply references, preferably in the form of citations to peer-reviewed science journals, demonstrating that evolution as a whole is controversial. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I further add, that part of one of your additions makes no sense at all. I am referring to you adding, "With the development of new technology such as the microscope, Darwin's Origin of Species containing his theory of Macro-evolution has received doubt from the scientific community. Science has seen that biological cells like the eukaryotic cell are far more complex than Darwin originally imagined."

The Microscope was invented as early as the 17th century (or perhaps easrlier) while Darwin was a 19th scientist. This is something that anyone with a basic understanding of the history of science must know. Errors like this do not add credibility to statements but make it appear like the addition of regurgitated and scientifically unsupported PoV. Candy 10:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Walogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Walogo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]