User talk:Lee Wells

Human carrying capacity

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Human carrying capacity article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! -Will Beback 20:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copyright?

I fail to see what was copyrighted about those articles just because i referenced them, so one could tell where the information was from.

I will research this more.

According to this page, [1], the material is partly taken from INVESTING IN NATURAL CAPITAL: THE ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO SUSTAINABILITY published by The International Society for Ecological Economics and Island Press, 1994. The table appears to be copied from http://www.bemidjistate.edu/PeoplEnv/carrycap.html. -Will Beback 05:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

seems to me i was trying to do this:

For all practical purposes on Wikipedia, the public domain comprises copyright-free works: anyone can use them in any way and for whatever purpose, however, proper attribution of the author or the source of a work, even if it is in the public domain, is still required, lest the use become a case of plagiarism.

now if it's on the web isn't that public domain? especially on a schools website? http://www.bemidjistate.edu/PeoplEnv/carrycap.html contains no copywrite symbol (you know the c with the circle around it)

i thought this place was about making information easy to access, not making a term paper for your high school teacher. It's true everything on the web doesn't say it is copyleft (GNU's term). However in the real scientific community you have to give references. Tables that give reseachers names that don't carry a copyright symbol have always been assumed to be in the public domain as long as they are referenced.

more later....

For our policies on copygrights, please see Wikipedia:copyrights. Cheers, -Will Beback 18:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rockefeller report proposed for deletion

An article that you have been involved in editing, Rockefeller report, has been proposed for deletion. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never suggested that the article was vandalism; rather, it is unencyclopedic and copied from another content provider, namely NPG. I also have some reservations about the notability of the topic; thus, I have PRODed the article. If you disagree with its deletion, please try to improve the article to address these concerns. Once you believe you have addressed them, feel free to remove the PROD tag or contact me to remove it. If it is de-prodded, I may list it WP:AfD to gain community consensus either for or against its deletion, but I will not do that if my reservations about the article can be resolved. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FOH

Where did you get the example you put into the Virginia Abernethy? Is it from her one of her books? -Will Beback 00:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2001. Food Insecurity: When People Live With Hunger and Fear Starvation. The State of Food insecurity in the World 2001. Italy: FAO. the entire report is at: http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/003/y1500e/y1500e00.htm[reply]

now scroll down to tables: now click on it.

now read across the first row of data: you know there were it says 'Developing world' now see the line that says China.....

Now subtract China's information from the 'Developing World' information and you have my table.

Did I go too fast for you?

WikiProject Louisville

Greetings. I'm just dropping a line to all Louisville residents I can find to ask them to consider joining the new WikiProject Louisville. It has been determined there is a *lot* of work to do yet remaining for Louisville-related subjects, and therefore we would definitely appreciate your presence. If by chance you are unable to join us, that's all right, but if you can, please tell other Louisvillians about this worthy project. Thank you for your time! — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 00:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carrying capacity and an advocacy request

Hi, I've been asked to advocate for a user to prevent any for of conflict occurring in relation to Carrying Capacity. The user who I am advocating for feels that you may have, mistakenley, replied to crticisms added to the article in an overly argumentative tone - I'd like to empasisze that both myself and my advocee feel that you were acting solely to improve the article, and not in any way maliciously. We feel that this diff [2], with the response to criticism added by yourself and the removeal of the seperate section on criticisms may be an unintentional violation of WP:NPOV, and I recommed the reversion of your edits which caused that, and would ask you, and my advocee, to make sure that all additions to the article, past and present, are properly sourced per WP:V and WP:CITE. Part of WP:NPOV declares that all sides of an arguement should be represented fairly in an article, and in a neutral POV, so your response to criticism certainly has a plcae in the article, however I, feel that your addditions at the time were (probably mistakenly - it is easy to do) holding a strong POV. I'm inviting your comments as part of the "dispute resolution" WP:DR process (at the moment trying to avoid a dispute by seeking understanding between the two parties). Could you please offer your input to the process at my desk (in the section titled "Response from Lee Wells") - please remember to follow WP:AGF and WP:CIV - at this moment we are trying to avoid a dispute, by seeking a compromise before a problem escalates. Thanks for your understanding - M a rtinp23 08:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your input, and for helping to clean up the article. I've changed my recommendations based on your input and actions, which can be seen at my desk. I've just got to form a compromise between these and what my client would like. Thanks again --- M a rtinp23 22:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economics of global warming

Hi, i'm not against the inclusion of some reference to birth control in the section on mitigation of the effects of global warming, however, as I said in my edit comment, it should be properly referenced. The 'main' reason i think that is because of the political implications of birth control, for example far right politics in europe etc. We need to be sure that mainstream political and scientific thought is suggesting this as a major mitigation strategy, kind regards sbandrews 22:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I checked out the page you linked to, it says that overpopulation leads to global warming, the reference it gives for that is [3] which actually says nothing of the sort. But that is not the point, the point is that neither the page you linked to nor the references it contain suggest birth control as a method for mitigation of global warming. The reason they do not is that that would constitute eugenics, which would lead to an immediate loss of funding. You need to link to a primary reference,WP:Citing_sources, otherwise it is POV. kind regards, sbandrews 23:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thankyou for your reply (btw you can reply here if you wish, i have a watch on any page I edit). Skimming through the reference you provided, I find this quote as the closest to supporting your position, 'Professor John P. Holdren of the University of California has generated an "optimistic" scenario for solving the population- resource-environment predicament. This envisages population growth halted at 10 billion a century from now, and rich nations reducing their energy consumption to 3 kW a head. His population target is feasible with modest effort, and the reduction in energy consumption could be achieved with technologies already in hand—given the necessary political will—and would produce an increase in the quality of life.' ::Would you you agree? kind regards sbandrews 13:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]