Jump to content

User talk:Plumbago/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arthrops make up 80% of all known species

[edit]

Hi Plumbago. Maybe we would could state that arthropos make up 80% of all known animal species, as I believe this to be a less misleading number. I belive that this quote may originate from biologists who are working on animals and is meant for an audience in the same field This source (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119036844/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0) estimates between 5-10 million species of arthropods, but I think the number of known species is around the one million mark. The total number of all species on the earth is likely to be well over 100 million. Let me know what you think. Regards 122.148.123.76 (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think "known species" is a good way to describe things – it's also the most accurate. Since most extant species are as yet undescribed, it would be technically incorrect to describe the situation otherwise. Thanks for pointing this out. Are you OK to make the relevant changes to the article? Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 14:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OA article

[edit]

Hey Plumbago, just a heads up that an editor has been making very strange edits to the OA article, adding a lot of material on acid rain (specifically sulfur dioxide) being the major contributor to changes in ocean carbon chemistry. This seems like total nonsense to me, and I reverted his edits. You are more of an expert on this subject though, so a. I wanted to give you a heads up; and b. on the off chance that there is any merit in some of his claims (I suspect that the role of SO2 would be marginal at best), you are better qualified than I to address them. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arjuna. Thanks for the heads-up, and for tidying up the article. You're right to do so - OA is primarily a CO2-related phenomena. I'd expect SO2 to have some minor role, but I can't think of any paper that evaluates this relative to CO2. Anyway, I've dropped the editor a message on their talkpage, and that'll hopefully clear things up (or inflame them - it's difficult to judge which!). Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 09:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe Theory Ground Rules

[edit]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Fringe Theory Ground Rules 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—

Thanks,--Swood100 (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving me the chance to reply to it, but it looks like this has been declined already. However, hopefully the input from editors there has helped clarify things for you. --PLUMBAGO 08:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


LACK OF NEUTRALITY

[edit]

there are parts of this Evolution article that state opinions as facts, that are really actually things in dispute.   The wording is biased and not neutral in certain areas.   But stated dogmatically.   It seems that there is much bias going on here.   And slanting.   The phrase in one part of the article was simply an opinion but was stated as fact.   No real objectivity.   "However, these ideas contradict Darwin's own views," is really a matter of interpretation and it's actually just an OPINION.   And it shows bias and lack of fair objectivity.   Many believe that the views of Social Darwinism DON'T "contradict" many of Darwin's own views.  

So I made the statement MORE OBJECTIVE....saying that "however, the consensus among most evolutionists today is that these ideas contradict Darwin's own views".  

Or "the majority of scientists and philosophers".   Where is the "Creationism" smuggled in with that?   What was stated is simply a neutral fact.   The MAJORITY is true.   But there ARE some scientists and philosophers who view Social Darwinism as simply a logical outgrowth of Darwinism in general.   Ever read "The Descent of Man" where Darwin spoke of "Savage Races being eliminated by ADVANCED RACES"?   Darwin's own words.   And Darwin's view that "Caucasians were advanced over Asians and Africans."   I'm sorry that those things irk you, but they happen to EXIST.  

But I do NOT want blatant Creationism smuggled in anywhere.   And to say that that's what I did is NONSENSE.   I simply added "majority" cuz that's what it is, and makes it more neutral and honest.   Phrasing it THAT way is no longer an opinion, but an objective fact.   But saying dogmatically and assertively "these ideas contradict Darwin's views" and giving the impression that EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST believes that is MORE OF AN OPINION THAN AN ACTUAL NEUTRAL STATEMENT OF FACT.   There was NO good reason to arrogantly "revert" that.   What did I put in that was technically not true?   You're gonna say that ALL "scientists and philosophers" feel this way?   Every single one, everywhere?   Ever?   If you think that, you're simply objectively provably mistaken.   So you simply REVERTED A FACTUAL STATEMENT.   It's the "majority".   Get over it.   So?

the fact that you and other editors throw a fit when a more rounded-out honest thing is inserted somewhere speaks volumes.   It speaks volumes about just how bad this Evolution article actually is in its biased tone, and the suppressive neurotic editors wanting to squash anything that smells of honest objectivity. Sweetpoet (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your addition of "majority of" because it gives WP:UNDUE weight to that tiny minority of scientists who dispute evolution. I'd add that not only is this a vanishingly small minority (who are addressed elsewhere in this article, and extensively in other articles), they do not publish their dissenting "ideas" in conventional scientific journals. So, for proper coverage of this scientific and technical topic I judge your edit to violate WP:UNDUE. You may wish to consult the talkpage archives, as this issue has come up before. Repeatedly.
In passing, I did not "throw a fit". That would probably involve me posting a long and randomly capitalised comment on your talkpage. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it says clearly in WP:UNDUE "articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views;" it says "not as much"...but what's actually going on here (lol) is "NOT AT ALL".   And it's very snide and convenient of you to dismiss the "tiny minority".   (And they're NOT "vanishing", by the way......the list grows all the time.....so we're not talking about what you biasedly WANT to be true, or those you consider "not reputable" simply cuz they doubt Darwinism with its inconsistencies, holes, and problems. (double face-palm).   By the way, the thing said also "philosophers".   Trust me.....there are MANY MORE "philosophers" that know about Social Darwinism.   The point is that the line in the article gives the impression that it's every single "scientist" or "philosopher" that (conveniently) thinks that Darwin's "views" have no bearing on what Stalin or Hitler did, with Eugenics, and "Social Darwinism."   But I did not even put any of that in there.   I hardly put anything there.   And what I put in IS TECHNICALLY NOT INACCURATE.  I mean, GOODNESS....you're acting as if I threw in something so blatant and horrendous in there.   I WOULD BE AGAINST THAT TOO.  
If I saw some Creationist or Young Earther inserting garbage on this article, I would be the first to remove it.   It's called neutrality.   and not suppressing in toto the "minority" view.   But this is not even a "minority view".   It's just a SIMPLE FACT that it's the "majority" of scientists (meaning the "general consensus") that think and maintain that Darwin's views do not and should not lead to malicious "Social Darwinism" or harmful practices.   I was NOT trying to inject blatant (sighs) "Creationism" into an EVOLUTION ENCYCLOPEDIC ARTICLE.   I'm NOT like that.   peace out.....Sweetpoet (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Looks like I owe you an apology. Sorry - I mistook the direction of your edits. I clearly had my "creationist blinkers" on. However, I still don't see that we need to qualify as you suggest, but I can be persuaded otherwise. What sort of sources did you have in mind? Do any modern writers actually say (in a reliable source) that evolution justifies "social inequality, sexism, racism, and imperialism"? If it's only one or two people, I still think WP:UNDUE applies — one can always find someone out there with some anachronistic view or other. In passing, the portion that you mention above about Darwin's views comes before your insertion and makes a separate point. Anyway, apologies for my earlier misunderstanding. --PLUMBAGO 13:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your input on upcoming ANI posting regarding Talk:Genesis creation myth would be appriciated

[edit]

I've been working on this ANI posting to try and put an end to the round and round discussion of "Creation Myth" and it's usage. I plan on posting it later today. If you have anything to add or any comments please feel free to add them at the above link. Nefariousski (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your table, I tried the same thing on JSTOR. There were 2152 hits for "creation myth" verses 1592 hits for "creation story". Combined with a small survey of works that are in the same class as Wikipedia (reference works I guess) to see how they refer to the creation myth in Genesis, well, I have yet to find one that uses the term story as the primary identifier so I'm yet to be convinced that story belongs in the article title instead of myth. For instance, I trawled Oxford's reference works and Encyclopedia Britannica and posted the results on the article's talk page. Ben (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one. I didn't think of JSTOR (what kind of researcher am I?!?). I think the numbers your trawl comes up with, being larger, are likely to be much more representative than those I found. That said, I think having a range of such objective assessments of the academic literature is the best (only?) way to allay the concerns of editors who don't like "myth". I wonder if such a compilation of information could be prepared as a resource for the next time this myth/story/narrative/account/etc. issue raises its head? Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the only place I can think of putting such a resource would be in FAQ's. Not that there is anything wrong with that, it just means that space will be a little limited for something that has the potential to get huge. Although, there is the whole Talk:0.999... "arguments page" precedent. I would just hate to have to monitor it. Cheers, Ben (talk) 12:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. In which case, I'm all out of ideas!  :-) Pointing people to policy and archived discussions, and repeatedly arguing with them doesn't seem to cut much ice however. Never-ending war seems a likely outcome. Great. --PLUMBAGO 13:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Richard Lindzen

[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Richard Lindzen, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 17:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. Not really sure what this means for me, but I'll probably just steer clear of Richard Lindzen for the time being. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 17:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't worry about it. The notification is a requirement of the probation, and if you don't do anything crazy there's nothing to worry about. --TS 18:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


File source problem with File:RLampitt Pelagra recovery.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:RLampitt Pelagra recovery.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


File permission problem with File:RLampitt Pelagra recovery.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:RLampitt Pelagra recovery.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

[edit]

I have nominated Half-Life 2 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Vaypertrail (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Hardin

[edit]

Thanks for adding the source. --JanDeFietser (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 17:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acidification

[edit]

I just noticed the article on Ocean acidification and was curious about something. Would it be true to say that what applies to the acidification of saltwater would also be true for freshwater. There is currently no article on Freshwater acidification. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 08:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent point. Off the top of my head, I'd expect things to be quite different because of the ambient pH of freshwater bodies, though I'd struggle to say how much different and in what ways. A quick check of ISI WoK turns up a few papers on the subject ...
  • Weber, Anna K.; Pirow, Ralph (2009). Physiological responses of Daphnia pulex to acid stress. BMC Physiol. 9, doi:10.1186/1472-6793-9-9.
  • Petrin, Z.; Englund, G.; Malmqvist, B. (2008). Contrasting effects of anthropogenic and natural acidity in streams: a meta-analysis. Proc. Roy. Soc. B 275, 1143-1148.
However, most of the freshwater literature on acidification deals with the issue of acidification via anthropogenic sulphate aerosols rather than by anthropogenic CO2. Nonetheless, there are probably others concerning CO2 that I missed. I can have a look when I've time next, but if you can spare a few minutes, a Google trawl might be worth the effort. Anyway, thanks for pointing this out. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 09:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't really know much about ocean acidification nor where to start on freshwater. I suppose I was more curious than anything else. It came about because Arctic char are vulnerable to Acidification, which was a redirect to Ocean acidification, but they are also lake dwelling fish. Acidification is now a redirect because there is also Soil acidification. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 11:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeys in space

[edit]

Thank you for editing the Monkeys in Space page. I am new here and have not gotten used to checking on my edits and reverting maliciously edited pages back. I was wondering if you could tell me a little about the (+##) or (-##) I get next to my edits. For example, this edit has a (-285) number on my page. Is this reflective of anything I need to be doing? I have looked for a talk page for this but cannot find it. Can you point me to a right direction?

Nzohoury (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I've understood you correctly, the numbers that you're referring to are the number of characters added, "(+X)", or removed, "(-X)", by an edit. It's a rough and ready guide to the nature of a change made by an editor. Of course, if you move words around to change grammar or fix spelling errors X can take on a value of 0. It doesn't mean zero change, just that the net effect of an edit has not changed the total number of characters in an article. Since vandals both add and remove material, it's not as straightforward as using this number to spot them. From my own experience, vandals are typically (but not exclusively) IP users (i.e. not logged in users) and typically do not leave an edit summary. Anyway, I hope that this information help. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 09:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. You have answered my questions perfectly. --Nzohoury (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can I get in touch with you?

[edit]

Hello! I'm trying hard to make nice matlab maps of the world ocean atlas data, and I'm really stuck. Yours are magnificent, so I was hoping for some communication with you. Sincerely Norwegian biologist Lars Polkaprikk (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the left of the main article space there's an area labelled as the "toolbox". Inside this there's an option to "e-mail this user". If you use this, you'll be able to reach me directly. Drop me a line! Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 13:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luboš Motl

[edit]

Earlier this year, you posted comments on this article's talk page suggesting that the subject may not be notable enough for a Wikipedia biography. I agree with this assessment, and have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luboš Motl (3rd nomination). Robofish (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis creation narrative

[edit]

Hi plumbago. I read his talk page comments before removing. He mentions the title, and there is already a tag up for the title. In fact that tag covers the title and/or the entry content already as well. I wonder if Cush actually read the current tag before dramatically adding another one to the entry. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Face on Mars

[edit]
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, File:Face on Mars with Inset.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Makeemlighter (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Ross

[edit]

You reverted an edit I made concerning critics of Hugh Ross. I made that edit after pointing out on the discussion page that the support reference for Eugenie Scott did not mention Hugh Ross at all. Therefore, it should not be considered evidence of her being critical of Ross.

Sorry, I hadn't spotted anything on the talk page. It's always a good idea to use an edit summary, especially when you're removing sources. If you don't, as in this case, overzealous editors, such as me, are liable to suspect vandalism. Anyway, apologies again. --PLUMBAGO 21:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over categorization

[edit]

Diatom is a subcategory of Algae. If you click on the category link for the category diatom, you will see that it is in the Categories: Heterokonts and Algae. You don't make everything part of every category, just the most specific category, then the broader categories it belongs to are included up the chain.

The algae are a mess, and part of the difficulty of sorting the mess is locating it amongst the mess that includes everything being in multiple levels of categories. Diatoms is a subcategory of algae, already; it doesn't require being categorized in its category and its category's category, the first takes care of the latter.

Please undo your reversions. You can read about categorization here: Wikipedia:Categorization_FAQ and here: Wikipedia:Categorization

--184.99.172.218 (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Thanks for putting me right. I've reverted my reversions. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 07:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that all of my current uncats are appropriate, so, it wouldn't hurt for you to monitor them and think about them a bit, especially with the high level categories.
Any chance you feel such high levels of remorse for your, um, bad act, that you would be willing to help with the clean-up? --184.99.172.218 (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pH 10 = [H+] *10-10; pH 5 = [H+] * 10-5.

[edit]

Having read your comments back to -say- 2006, please see my addition to ocean acidification - talk - and see what might transpire... ~ Betaclamp (talk) 06:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Betaclamp. I've replied over at the talkpage. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 08:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Dragonskulle title.png

[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Dragonskulle title.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fasham

[edit]

Re this edit - why not English? He was born in England; the article implies he spent most of his time in England; and I see nothing to suggest Scots/Welsh/Irish descent. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not British? He was born in Britain.  :-) It's largely just a unionist (small "u") preference that I have. Unless someone is positively identified with a particular UK region (e.g. a nationalist; or pre-union) I prefer descriptions as "British" (not least so that the separate country categories actually serve a purpose). Partly, I guess, because though I'm actually Scottish, I self-describe as British. Anyway, I'm not especially wedded to it. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 08:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hey, I just noticed your comment on the talkpage, about the source for the copyright material and to see if there was something that could be saved. The source was http://www.contemporarywriters.com/authors/?p=auth17 and unfortunately nothing could be saved. The page is revision deleted now, but if I remember correctly Ivankinsman copied material from this site for every section of the article. In such a case there is really nothing to do but revert everything, for those sections were a derivative work (and thus a wp:copyright violation). Yoenit (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:CLAWhypothesisgraphi 0001.svg

[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:CLAWhypothesisgraphi 0001.svg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Blackwyche title.png

[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Blackwyche title.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CHON, CHNOPS, etc.

[edit]

Hi Plumbago. You may want to take a look at CHON, an article the redirect for CHNOPS you created goes to. I have added a citation for CHNOPS, and made a comment on the Talk page. More editor input would be appreciated. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointers. I'm only dropping into Wikipedia sporadically at present, so probably won't be able to help much, but I'll try to help if I can. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Lunar jetman 1.gif

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lunar jetman 1.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Lunar jetman 2.gif

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lunar jetman 2.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Lunar jetman 3.gif

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lunar jetman 3.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer

[edit]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Acalamari 11:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Flip-screen

[edit]

The article Flip-screen has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Despite my good faith searches, I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for the term "flip screen" or "flick screen" as it relates to video games. The topic is therefore not notable per WP:N.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DustFormsWords (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

flip page OR

[edit]
Hello, Plumbago. You have new messages at Nczempin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Roger Scruton

[edit]

Hi Plumbago, I've posted an RfC at Talk:Roger Scruton—see here—to ask whether the neutrality tag should remain on the article. There are a number of issues in dispute; if you could comment even on just one of them, or your overall impression of the article's balance, that would be very helpful. I'm leaving this note because you've edited the article or talk page, but if you have no interest in commenting, please feel free to ignore the request. Cheers, SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Pit Worm AYool.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pit Worm AYool.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Imhotep cover.png

[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Imhotep cover.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Defamed By Wikipedia

[edit]

I no longer attempt to work through Wikipedia talk pages or Wikipedia in general regarding the malicious and defamatory material which left-wing Wikipedia editors, acting out of ideological bias and their own personal agendas, have repeatedly inserted into my Wikipedia entry. I attempted to use the Wikipedia mediation and arbitration procedures, as prescribed, and to date I have not received one single reply from anyone in authority at Wikipedia. Every attempt I have made to use Wikipedia's formal complaints procedure has been simply ignored and my comments taken off line (as this comment probably will be.) FIVE YEARS of discussion was blown away in this manner, I presume because I was making my case against the entry in too persuasive a manner and the Wiki-kooks were becoming embarrassed.

I use multiple accounts, yes, because Wikipedia has responded to my repeated attempts to get them to remove malicious and defamatory material from my entry with silence and with censorship. They say that the greatest compliment one man can pay to another is to attempt to silence him by force. I could do with fewer such compliments from Wikipedia.

These days I carry on my efforts to counter the false, malicious and defamatory material from my entry in a forum which (so far) Wikipedia and the rest of the left has failed to silence. Check out

[Website address deleted; automatically identified as blacklisted]

-Harold A. Covington — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.244.42 (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:RLampitt Pelagra recovery.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:RLampitt Pelagra recovery.jpg, which you've sourced to INSUFFICIENT OTRS OVER 1 MONTH OLD. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Underwurlde title.gif

[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Underwurlde title.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Sublimed for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Sublimed is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sublimed until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  Sandstein  21:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Trans am 1.gif)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Trans am 1.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Trans am 2.gif)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Trans am 2.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Trans am 3.gif)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Trans am 3.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Werewulf Barnstar.png, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:Werewulf Barnstar.png appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Werewulf Barnstar.png has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. -- Trevj (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, File:Werewulf Barnstar.png, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:Werewulf Barnstar.png appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. File:Werewulf Barnstar.png has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While contributions are appreciated, Wikipedia must require all contributors to understand and comply with its copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. -- Trevj (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - this one was meant to be File:Sabreman Barnstar 1.png. -- Trevj (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Cookie 1.gif)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Cookie 1.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Cookie 2.gif)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Cookie 2.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Cookie 3.gif)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Cookie 3.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Shepherd (scientist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pembroke College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Shepherd (scientist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Institute of Oceanography (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of automated file description generation

[edit]

Your upload of File:AYool CFC-113 history.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Velella, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asexual. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaia Hypothesis

[edit]

Thanks for your work on the Gaia hypothesis article. I've been using the article to work on Gaia.Wiki, a new project that is still finding its identity. If you are interested in the Gaia hypothesis in general, please consider joining us there? We're nice :-) In the meantime, I'm going to see if I can help on the Gaia hypothesis article here, though I find the prospect a bit intimidating. Cheers BrandonCsSanders (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brandon. Thanks for your message - and glad to have been able to help a little over at the Gaia hypothesis article. I'd like to be able to help over at your Gaia Wiki, but I'm overcommitted just about everywhere. Also, I must admit that I've kind-of "lost the faith" in Gaia down the years. Years ago, I thought it was a plausible mechanism for keeping the Earth's climate (well, its temperature) on an even keel, but I'm a lot less convinced these days, and really wouldn't rule out Earth just being "lucky" (i.e. the anthropic principle; as my colleague Toby Tyrrell's recent book concludes). That said, the age of extrasolar planets is upon us, and I'm reasonably hopeful that we'll be able to make a more definitive judgement on a sample size greater than 1 within a few decades. Also, while we're still far off the mark at the moment, it's possible that something like Gaia might one day pop out our Earth system models as some sort of emergent phenomenon. But given that living systems haven't really been good caretakers across the history of the Earth, I'm not confident, and I'm couching my arguments for preserving biodiversity, etc., in different ways these days. Good luck with the Wiki! Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 08:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Alien 8 title.gif

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Alien 8 title.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Atic atac title.gif

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Atic atac title.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Knight lore title.gif

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Knight lore title.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Atic atac 4.gif

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Atic atac 4.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Sabre wulf title.gif

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sabre wulf title.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Cyberun 2.gif

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cyberun 2.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Cyberun 3.gif

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cyberun 3.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Cyberun 4.gif

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cyberun 4.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mycoplankton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terradactyl (talk • contribs) 04:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ESS editing

[edit]

Plumbago, on Talk:Earth system science Robert McClenon requested that we refrain from "controversial" editing of the ESS article until the dispute resolution is resolved. After the dispute resolution was filed, but before he posted this request, I had been making some edits to the lead section of the article, but staying away from the disputed section. Then, when Robert posted his request, I refrained from further editing (thought I made one of no consequence by accident, which I reverted). I see that you are now making some substantial edits. Perhaps these are an attempt at compromise? I'm not sure, but I don't know how the edits will be received, given that the dispute has not been officially resolved. So, I say these things in an attempt to be helpful. You can, of course, do what you want. Thank you, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I should probably stay away. I just didn't want to leave something I'd started dangling. Especially as Terradactyl drew attention to my halfway edits. I'll steer clear for a bit until the dispute resolution is complete. I must admit, though I've been here a long time, I've not really been involved in disputes before, so wasn't quite sure of the protocol. Still, I could have done what I keep telling Terradactyl to do and read stuff! Thanks for pulling me up on this. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 11:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a DRAFT for the RfC mentioned on the recent DR/N case

[edit]

I am creating a page on my userspace's sandbox to discuss the creation of an RfC and its wording to settle the dispute filed at the DR/N here, since there seemed to be 3 out 4 (5?) editors that agreed to using an RfC to settle the contested changes. The draft page can be found at User:Drcrazy102/sandbox/Draft_RfC_for_Earth_System_Science. Please do not comment on the RfC on this talkpage, comment on the Discussion section on the Sandbox page. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Lovelock

[edit]

Why do you think that link to 'Lovelock' song is spam? Popular culture reference is not important? Please, do not hesitate to delete it from polish Wikipedia as well: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.156.123.199 (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC) BTW: of course I didn't put it there :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.156.123.199 (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have completly no interest in any of it (e.g. wasting time convincing someone I don't know), but what do you think about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%22In_popular_culture%22_content ? That it shouldn't be part of any article? Go ahead, there's plenty to fix, start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#In_popular_culture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.156.123.199 (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Nightshade title.gif

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Nightshade title.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dawkins

[edit]

I noticed that you help to improve this article over the years via X!'s editcount tool. I have worked on the citations over the past few months and I am nearing the end of what else I can see to do to improve it. Please consider nominating this article for Featured Article status or at least for another peer review. Thanks.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flood myth

[edit]

Hi Plumbago, thanks, you're right to revert the recent edit at this article while there is a discussion going on about it. However, you will also see from that discussion that the Biblical text is not cut and dried and IMHO is a therefore a bad example to use. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Balance of nature

[edit]

Have you seen this article? I'm no biologist, but I wonder if it has the right balance. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giving it a quick once-over, yes, it is a bit odd. Referring to the "balance of nature" as a theory, for instance, seems rather perverse. I'll try to have a go at editing it when I have time. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 07:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that, depending on the circumstances, a balance "theory" might be appropriate, but in others, one out of equilibrium, or, as the article indicates, chaotic, might be appropriate. So, my concern would be the tendency in the article to paint everything with one broad brush. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns about the article's take on the subject are that: 1. it presents the "balance of nature" as a scientific theory rather a scientific / popular concept about what nature "does" (the latter is obviously my conception of the term); 2. it is ambiguous about what should be understood about "equilibrium"; 3. it is pretty poorly sourced; 4. it implies that chaos is oppositional to a "balance of nature", completely overlooking the fact that a state of chaos can itself be an equilibrium. On which point, the nature of biological diversity and foodweb connectivity means that simple cycles of species balance are broadly excluded, but that does not mean that nature (whatever that is!) is - at large - out of "balance". In part, this is a question of time and space scales that are also completely overlooked in the article (e.g. averaged over an area of a particular size for a particular period of time, a dynamic balance is "attained"). Finally, the article seems to set the concept up as something that's been "disproved" but this feels like a strawman argument. Anyway, I've argued myself into not knowing where to start with it! --PLUMBAGO 13:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Underwurlde title.gif

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Underwurlde title.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Life at Earth.

[edit]

In my opinion, the Earth article gives very little attention to life on Earth. Mostly what is discussed are the physical aspects of our planet. Do you have an opinion on this? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, there could be a biogeochemistry subsection in the "Physical characteristics" section. In part to draw the reader's attention to the role that the Earth's biota plays in the dynamics of the hydrosphere, atmosphere and surface (i.e. since the biota significantly distinguishes the Earth's physical state from that of other Sol system planets). The atmosphere subsection already contains a brief acknowledgement of this. I guess this could include stuff around biogeochemical cycles of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, etc., plus examples of where the Earth's physical state has been significantly modified by the biota. For instance, the atmospheric composition, land erosion and soil formation, seafloor sediments, etc. As these would be large-scale, geological time type things, there would be no need to get into the details of living systems, and everything could be ascribed to the non-descript "biota". But perhaps this isn't what you have in mind. --PLUMBAGO 08:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Plumbago. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Sabre wulf 4.gif

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sabre wulf 4.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Heffernan

[edit]

Hi there, old friend! I'd like to re-open the discussion surrounding the "Creationism" section on Virginia Heffernan's Wiki page. It's my strong opinion (as a devotee and follower of her work) that that one piece hardly defines her career, but it eats up about a third of her page. Can you talk through this with me? I'd be so grateful. bsnyd 15:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briannasnyder83 (talk • contribs)

Hi again. Yes, a third is a lot. However, it is one of the more remarkable aspects of her, and certainly garnered a lot of attention (without which I would never have come across her). And what she says on the subject is interesting too - she appears not to be a traditional science-denying creationist, for instance. So I'm still of the view that it needs to be retained, but I'm open to trimming. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 18:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How would you feel about changing the header, then, to "Criticism," if not "Controversy"? I think her own definition of that term is much more complex than the way most people understand it. You're right she's not a science-denying creationist and is a vocal anti-Trump (and anti-Devos) denouncer. In her book (which I just finished, which is why I'm back on here :) ), she devotes a long chapter to the experience of suffering the blowback from that column and she talks at length about her philosophy studies at Harvard and UVa and how they informed her relationship to religion and God. There's more clarity there than could or should ever try to be conveyed in a Wiki page, but I'd just like to advocate on her behalf -- I know you discovered her based on this controversy, but if you look at her whole body of work I think you'd understand this column is not quite so remarkable. However, THAT SAID, I hear your points and understand them. So would you be amenable to shortening this section to just one graph (the first one that ends with Carl Zimmer), which acknowledges the controversy and links to the column, and then adding a sentence pointing to more elaborate criticism, citing Moynihan and the Guardian response only in footnotes? Forgive this long text. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briannasnyder83 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited F-ratio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Respiration. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Plumbago/Archive_11&oldid=1144089454"