User talk:Plumbago/Archive 10

Orphaned non-free media (File:Xen halflife 08 AYool.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Xen halflife 08 AYool.jpg. 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. BJBot (talk) 05:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:AYool SEAWIFS annual.png

File:AYool SEAWIFS annual.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:AYool SEAWIFS annual.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:AYool SEAWIFS annual.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:AYool CFC-11 history.png is now available as Commons:File:AYool CFC-11 history.png. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:AYool CCl4 history.png is now available as Commons:File:AYool CCl4 history.png. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re Tragedy... in Mongolia

The information came from a report yesterdy(?) on National Public Radio in the US. They are running a series of reports from there. The reason for the sort of weasel words was that their report did not concentrate on ecological effects, but rather human dislocation caused by land grabbing by companies, disadvantaging small would-be miners. I figured someone would have a better source and could fill it in. How do you suggest getting this past the fact patrollers? ww (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ww. I reverted the text for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it was unsourced, although I have been able to find the story at NPR. Secondly, the source makes no reference to the Tragedy of the commons, so adding it to the article appears either original research or a synthesis. Finally, it's not obviously an example of the Tragedy of the commons. It's not as if the article needs another present-day example - there are so many. It would really need to be clearcut and a significant case for inclusion to my mind. Anyway, those were the reasons that I reverted. I should really have put something on the talkpage, but I got distracted elsewhere. Sorry. I hope this clarifies things though. --PLUMBAGO 21:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Young Earth creationism

Hello :)

Question @ Plumbago: What was the problem with identifying the source of the webpage as "evolutionist"? I was not meant to be demeaning, the cited webpage clearly states that evolution is what they are proponents for. "Regularly" seemed to be a stretch if not misrepresentational about "quote mining" since it was only cited once and is not mentioned anywhere else on the web or in any of the many evolution vs. creation works that I have read or studied. If there are other sources out there could you point them out.

Thanks for your time,

John —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.129.242 (talk • contribs)

Hi John.

First of all, there really are no such people as "evolutionists" (at least, not any more). This is just a term used by creationists (of whom, by contrast, there are very many) for any scientist who does not subscribe to their literalist interpretation of one particular book. The correct term is, of course, "scientists", since that's really what creationists are objecting to. I certainly don't take the term as a demeaning one, just one that has no currency outside of creationist forums. You certainly don't see scientists described as "evolutionists" at conferences or on name-badges for instance. While discussion continues within science on the details of evolution, the big picture stuff is all over. Evolution won. [*]

Regarding your objection to the use of "regularly", this is stated simply because "quote mining" is one which creationists have practised for years, and one which they show no sign of giving up on yet. This isn't to say that some creationists haven't learned to drop such a tendentious practice (see this link), but just that some haven't (see a recent example here). The source given for this statement in the article points you towards a talk.Origins project that was started to collate examples of such efforts, and to identify the original scientific material from which quotes were taken and misused. And there are other sources available over at the quote mining article as well.

Anyway, please follow up some of these links and you may perhaps see what I mean. My apologies for being less than helpful in my original edit summary.

Best regards, --PLUMBAGO 15:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[*] If you'll permit me to speculate for a moment, the reason for the use of the term "evolutionists" by creationists is to imply a false divide within science between "science-based-on-evolution" and "science-based-on-creationism". There quite simply is none of the latter, as evidenced by the thousands of papers published each year which (largely unwittingly and unknowingly) trample all over creationist ideas. Biology is not creationism's sole (or even worst) enemy: all fields from physics to chemistry to archaeology to geology to astronomy to agronomy are grounded on well-tested ideas and evidence that falsifies creationism. But by giving the impression (noticeably to the public rather than the scientific community) that there's separate science out there based either on evolution and creationism, creationists are mischievously trying to sow erroneous seeds of doubt. But, hey, that's just my POV.

File:HEV suit AYool.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:HEV suit AYool.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stained glass Gordon AYool.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Stained glass Gordon AYool.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article you commented on in the past is at AfD

I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. After being deleted then, it has been reposted and is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). Thank you, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not again. Oh ... [quick check] ... it's gone. Furthermore, I almost can't believe that the article's subject has yet again interceded on its behalf — I've yet to meet anyone else on WP as vainly obsessed with self-promotion. Anyway, thanks for the heads-up — I'll keep an eye out for further vanity-incursions by NBeale. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 07:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article you commented on in the past is at WP:COIN

It concerns suspected COI editing at Douglas Coupland. COIN thread here. Cheers, JN466 21:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Denialism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Denialism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

Walter Munk

Just wanted to drop by to thank you for keeping an eye out on the Walter Munk article. To be honest, I don't know anything about all this, so I'm wary with outright removing the material that has been added (except, of course, the obvious WP:NPOV violations), but I'll have a look at the other article and see what could/should be done. If you've got any insights/ideas, I'm wide open for them. Cheers, CP 05:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I just spotted the insertion of slightly dubious material that didn't appear to conform to my (normally unreliable) memory of events. Having poked around a bit more, it transpires that ATOC got a clean bill of health from the "whale lovers" charged with investigating it, and that it actually ran until 2006. There's a review article on it by Walter Munk and colleagues just this year ...

Dushaw, B.D., Worcester, P.F., Munk, W.H., et al. (2009). A decade of acoustic thermometry in the North Pacific Ocean. J. Geophys. Res. 114, C07021, doi:10.1029/2008JC005124.

Anyway, I'll post this over at the article's talkpage and see if the "Green Peace" editor returns to discuss. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 09:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Xen halflife 01 AYool.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Xen halflife 01 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 on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. JaGa^talk 17:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Resonance cascade AYool.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Resonance cascade 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 on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Mercenary pic 1.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mercenary pic 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. JaGa^talk 23:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Damocles pic 1.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Damocles pic 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. JaGa^talk 23:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Damocles pic 3.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Damocles pic 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. JaGa^talk 23:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Mercenary III pic 2.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mercenary III pic 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. JaGa^talk 23:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]