User talk:Plumbago/Archive 9

My archive

Thanks for the notice; fixed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for uploading File:Gunfright 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for uploading File:Gunfright 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Gunfright 4.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:Gunfright 4.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Coupland

Just wanted to thank you for the great editing work you are doing on this article. Please keep it up! Bankbryan (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I'll try to keep going, though I'm getting to the stage where improvements require more structural changes to the article (IMHO). While the current (as of a few days ago) version has a lot wrong with it, I like parts of it, and when I looked back into the article's history to the last stable version (about 4-5 months ago), I found it to be something of a mess. Less OR perhaps, but really more like a collection of points than an article in large part. Anyway, neither the anon who's active on the talkpage (who keeps deleting the quality tags) nor the editor who originally created the basic structure I'm editing around now have chipped in yet, and things might get interesting if they do! Thanks again for your support. --PLUMBAGO 08:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Edit war on Douglas Coupland

What I would suggest is to file a Request for Page Protection and ask if this user has any proof of his claim. You may need to remind him that Wikipedia requires solid evidence for a posted piece of information.--Iner22 (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Blackwyche 1.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Blackwyche 1.png. 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Blackwyche 2.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Blackwyche 2.png. 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Blackwyche 3.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Blackwyche 3.png. 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Blackwyche 4.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Blackwyche 4.png. 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Douglas Coupland

Sorry for the delay; I'm going to post at the talk there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Actually, I've now escalated this to the Administrators' Noticeboard. Sorry for my impatience. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 12:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No impatience perceived. When the reverting keeps going sometimes you have to let the admins put a stop to it :-) JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noah's Ark FAR

I have nominated Noah's Ark 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. --Vassyana (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the Dim and Distant Past

Dear Plumbago,

I don't know if you recall, but you and I were once collaborators on the Half-Life pages here on Wikipedia, back in the days before I disappeared to pastures new and the 'Combine Overwiki' emerged unbeknownst to us. I'm just dropping you a line to say hello and that I hope all is going well in your life! Do let me know how you've been and I look forward to future collaborations :-) Rusty2005 (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rusty2005. Good to hear from you! I hope that your stint in Ghana went very well. Things here are fine, although I seem to find myself increasing drawn away from lighter articles like Half-Life these days. I still find time to edit them now and again though. Anyway, welcome back! --PLUMBAGO 13:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

God as the Devil

Hi Plumbago,

Please see the talk page discussion of your edit about Luther and Bayer in God as the Devil. Thanks.

-- WagePeace (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amused

Thanks for your note. I hadn't seen that wonderful rallying call, and thanks for bringing it to my attention. I am indeed amused. I did rather enjoy the Grayling review. I'm just waiting to see if our friend (or a suitable meatpuppet) has the nerve to try and delete it from the QoT article. I actually had some difficulty deciding which particular savage remarks to quote-mine from the Grayling review! I am also waiting to see how long before someone or other reinstates the guest-list from the book's launch party. Haven't seen the book myself. Would be interested in a glance, but not interested enough, frankly, to go out and buy it from Amazon. If I'm ever bored enough, I might file an AfD – now that would be fun! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be further amused by this choice misrepresentation of Grayling, but cheered by his putting-in of the boot. That said, all credit to our mutual friend for posting a link to this pasting on his blog — "thick-skinned" seems a woeful underestimate! Anyway, I'd be tempted to avoid an AfD unless he (or one of his meatpuppets) does something egregious. Unfortunately, this sort of canvassing is liable to lead to one of his acolytes (of which, judging from his name-dropping recent edits, they exist in high places!) taking on The Man (= evil atheist Wikipedia). Still, it's pretty handy that, like some James Bond villain, he makes his skullduggery so transparent. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 18:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, our mutual friend is really beginning to annoy me. He seems to be shamelessly insinuating his book into other articles, genetic determinism being the latest "beneficiary". WP:COI seems to apply to lesser mortals only. In unrelated news, I also note that he's even taken to defending his book in the review section of Amazon! Ho-hum. --PLUMBAGO 21:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-ha — you clocked it too. I was sufficiently annoyed that I thought I'd better sleep on it before doing anything. I see you've now taken care of business — thanks. --PLUMBAGO 08:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't sleep on it - and though it's a slight exaggeration to say that I spent the night worrying about having been over-hasty, I did wonder. But in the cold light of day I am even more certain that I was right. See Talk:Genetic determinism. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean_acidification

Hi. Can I draw your attention to User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Ocean_acidification wherein I raise an issue that puzzles me? Thanks, William M. Connolley (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noahs ark

Despite my recent edits to the talkpage of noahs ark, I really am a good, levelheaded, editor. I see cases like these though where the views of one "professional" make a large minority into a "fringe" theory. I'm not trying to discuss anything here, just explaining myself. This particular case really bothers me because I grew up in the church, and I don't know a single christian who thinks that noahs ark wasn't real. The fact that wikipedias policies are being used to support disparaging terms being used is why I'm being such a stick in the mud about this.

Anyway, I just wanted to assert that I'm not ussually so... IDK...noobish...Drew Smith W hat I've done 14:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to respond here too. As it happens, I sat through a Christians In Science seminar just last night in which literalist views were roundly assaulted and dismissed by a Christian speaker. And I personally know many Christians who don't take a literalist view of the Bible. Anyway, my view (admittedly as a scientist) is that in articles on topics that have a creationist aspect to them, such literalist viewpoints should be clearly presented as fringe (if that is the scientific consensus). It's not meant to be insulting to people, it's just so that readers are very clear on how these topics are viewed from an "evidence-based" standpoint. Also, while many Christians may believe in a particular earth history, there are plenty of other religions with completely incompatible alternative views.

Anyway, don't worry about appearing noobish here - I've been here for ages and I regularly feel like a total noob. Best regards, --PLUMBAGO 14:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the problem though. The majority of christians aren't scientists. They are normal people who, subscribe to whatever their preacher tells them. If the preacher tells them noah built a boat, then by god noah built a boat. It doesn't matter if the preacher thinks it was literal or not. But its the preachers and scientists who are represented by the scientific communities assessment of majorit vs minority vs fringe, thus making a majority seem much smaller than it really is. No one asked all the normal people who attend church whether they thought it actually happened. They only addressed the "smart" people, or the "important" people. Thus the problem. Again, just stating my observations, not suggesting changes or anything. I know the policies, and I know I'll never get it the way I want it.Drew Smith W hat I've done 14:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm getting back to this late. I don't that it's at all accurate to say that only "smart" or "important" people were "surveyed". When we say that we're giving weight to the scientific consensus, it's about what the scientific literature has to say on a topic and not about polling of individual scientists. This body of literature, while imperfect but constantly improving, is the best guide we have to objective facts about the world. To say that a view, such as creationism, is "fringe" is just to note that it does not appear much (or at all) in this body. Worse for creationism is that the scientific literature is stuffed full of evidence that flatly contradicts it (from subjects as diverse as astronomy, biology, geology and particle physics). The scientific papers which document this evidence never deal with creationism directly (they've got bigger fish to fry), but they inform how it should be viewed.

Anyway, when it comes to writing an encyclopaedia for the widest spectrum of readers (all faiths, all ideologies), does it make sense to present the nature of a topic as a democratic weighting of everyone's views, or does it make more sense to present a topic as weighted by objective evidence? I've perhaps phrased that it overly dramatic terms, but it's largely what this is about. Presenting the "scientific view" does not preclude an article from going on to note that a large fraction of [insert a religious group here] believe that it is literally true in defiance of the evidence. Furthermore, setting aside scientific evidence, just because a large fraction (or even all) of [insert a religious group here] believe something, it doesn't follow that this view should predominate - there are plenty of other religious groups out there with beliefs that are completely incompatible, and there are probably a lot more of them by the numbers (e.g. Christians of all flavours amount to less than a third of the world's human population).

Much as with the term "myth" (which I note is doing the rounds yet again), "fringe" needs to be understood in proper context. And I'd argue (and I believe that I'm supported by WP policy on this point) that this sort of clarity in our articles, with its proper weighting of viewpoints, is what's required for WP to be successful and most useful for the "whole of humankind" (to put a Star Trek spin on it). Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 09:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for Welcome

Thank you for the welcoming, and my reaction to your user page is that we are paired up pretty well, with, in particular, the first item on your list being, as far as urgency goes, number one. And there are other good examples in your list, too.Julzes (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and what do you know! Number nineteen! (I have an interest in Baha'i.)Julzes (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll register a prediction that whoever comes up with an Ocean Stocking Theory (OST, as in the skeleton) will win a Nobel in the same vein as Al Gore's.Julzes (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I will be looking for support, most likely, in a possible editorial conflict on mathematical coincidences after the turn of the month.Julzes (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Julzes. Thanks for visiting my talkpage. I hope you find Wikipedia a fun place to learn and contribute. I'm not a mathematician, but I can have a look at the page you mention. I may be able to help with it. Anyway, welcome again! --PLUMBAGO 20:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a very good time with it. Hope my other priorities don't get short-shrift, but worse could happen.Julzes (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Beale

Hi Plumbago, you may remember that you commented a few months ago about the recreation of Nicholas Beale after two AfDs. It has been recreated again, so I was wondering if you'd mind commenting here. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global map for pH

Hi, I've noticed you did the global maps for many of ocean parameters. I was wondering if you've considered building one for pH and putting it here Ph#Seawater (assuming the data's available). I'm thinking of expanding the section a little. cheers, Piyrwq (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually recently re-done all of my images making use of the WOA 2005. And I've actually done a pH one just as a matter of course. I'll see about uploading the lot next week. Thanks for the prompting! --PLUMBAGO 05:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greenfinger

Hi. You were involved in the first deletion debate on this article. It seems like the second deletion debate on this was decided rather against consensus. Which would point more to a redirect/transwiki, as was decided in the first debate. I think this should just be deleted without pandering to the feelings of its creator, too much of this has gone on already. New deletion proposal Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greenfinger_(3rd_nomination). Polargeo (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]