Work continues on further templates. - Roy Boy 800 03:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I considered both your a&b points, and didn't dismiss either of them out of hand (reasoning on article talk page) I think. I think, if the application of r/K were not against my POV --and still as widely discussed as JPR's work is-- that I'd think it was notable enough to be mentioned here. b) well, I donno, I thought David Suzuki was wrong to not debate JPR on the merits of his work. I think it's better discredited than ignored, but that's just my belief, and I can see how sane & reasonable people might disagree. I can e-mail you a pdf of the review if you like. Pete.Hurd 14:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Silly question - is this a real photo? Just wondering if you computer rendered it. It doesn't really matter, I'm just curious. Stevage 19:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the same user you left message here [1]. Glad we got that cleared. But there's this Mistress Selina Kyle who thinks she knows a thing or two about Taiwan but is utterly clueless and quick to label people. She's likely to revert the change again in the future. BlueShirts 23:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
You're probably not the person to ask this, but I found you in the Biologist Wikipedians Category. I've totally revamped the page, basing it structurally on Entomology, and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look and maybe cleaning it up/ giving feedback/correcting typos/whatever neccesary. I would appreciate it. Thanx! СПУТНИК ССС Р 04:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks so much for pointing it out! I do not mind when others edit my userpage & have now added a comment saying so. Have a great day... Mikkerpikker ... 11:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
You recently warned 85.12.99.227 twice regarding vandalism to Meaning of life. I've reviewed the edits, and while they are indeed strongly non-NPOV, they do not seem to be simple vandalism. As the user's edit history seem to be showing clear improvement over the past few days, I've taked the drastic step of blanking the warnings on their talk page and replacing them with {{ welcomenpov}}. Rest assured, however, that I'm watching their talk page, and will block them if they start vandalizing again. If you see any more vandalism or other questionable edits from this IP, please do add the appropriate warnings to the page. But I do feel that this user deserves at least a chance for a new start. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 18:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
This media may be deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading Image:Egge and Aksnes 1992 plot.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{ GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then 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. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 04:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Stan. Thanks for spotting this. I've fixed it up. It's a graph I drew myself but I obviously forgot to fix the source info when I uploaded it. Apologies. Cheers, -- Plumbago 08:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Heya Plumbago :)
I put in that North Sea link in the Baltic Sea article, without logging in (I sometimes fix up links or typos without bothering to log in)... I had a look for another link in the paragraph, but I must have missed it.
cheers - Rohan
Bird of paradox 09:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if you were aware of this, but it might be of interest to you. Guettarda 19:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The quoque section should stay in Starlight Problem. Its a stupid, ridiculous argument that highlights a lot of whats wrong with creationist attitudes, but they do use the argument. JoshuaZ 05:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Just dropping by to let you know the following image have been updated, if you don't mind:
Thanks in advance. ╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ 19:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC) ╫
I made a comment to your vote at Talk:Creation according to Genesis#Proposing split. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 11:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if a knowledgeable person could straighten out, separate or combine the topics of Anoxic basins, Anoxic sea water, Hypoxic sea water and Dead zone (ecology). I have made this suggestion to you and to User:Piyrwq. Bejnar 22:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thanks for your constructive and accurate comment. i have amended the text to take into account your correct assertion that the inorganic material is the important part for biota records. feel free to edit this passage further as you see fit. you may want to check out an article i created today called bay mud which speaks to diatoms and other issues of certaine estuarine environments. maybe you can add some more UK or worldwide perspective which it sorely lacks/ i could only find a small amount about Bristol Bay (not a proper wiki link for the UK bay). cheers Covalent 12:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Good work on the conversion, that must have been a lot of work. Enough work to scare me off anyways! Piyrwq 00:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. -- Cyde↔Weys 17:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, it does sound somewhat dubious, and I have no idea where I originally read it. I might scrap it.— Pengo 11:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Re our discussion there, you might drop by Bernard Haisch- Journal of Scientific Exploration- Stochastic electrodynamics and B. Roy Frieden- Extreme physical information to see some context. In trying to mollify someone like Haisch, it might be useful to move all the specific theories in Category:Pseudoscience and Category:Protoscience to Category:Fringe science. Or if not, I could sure use some help persauding someone like Haisch that whether he likes it or not, simply because so many knowledgeable observers consider his stuff to be non-mainstream is reason enough for WP to note this fact.--- CH 05:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Your recent edit [2] to this article seems incorrect. Rather than revert (I could be wrong!) I thought that you could explain to me why you think that warm water is more buoyant than cold and that fresh water is more buoyant than salt water. My reason for thinking the opposite is that warm water is less dense than cold and fresh water is less dense than salty thus making them less buoyant. Am I/we having a semantic problem? -- hydnjo talk 14:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Right, "libertarian socialist" may be more appropriate in that specific concept. However, there have been certain parties who have been insisting on using "anarcho-socialist" to refer to all anarchism which isn't anarcho-capitalism (ie. about 99% of anarchism). That usage is a neologism, and I was trying to correct that. Apologies for any inconvenience caused. -- infinity 0 11:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Anarcho-socialism is a very seldom-used phrase (around 17,600 hits on google compared to millions for anarchism). That is what I meant by neologism - it's simply not the proper, common term for it. -- infinity 0 11:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Check out the edits of rexthestrange. I rv once, don't believe that this discussion belongs on the namespace article and I believe that we had arrived at a good balance. Doc 15:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity; is it only christians that are interested in the anomaly or are there others? To my knowledge, the story of Noah's Ark is present in other religions too. DeliDumrul 15:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Work continues on further templates. - Roy Boy 800 03:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I considered both your a&b points, and didn't dismiss either of them out of hand (reasoning on article talk page) I think. I think, if the application of r/K were not against my POV --and still as widely discussed as JPR's work is-- that I'd think it was notable enough to be mentioned here. b) well, I donno, I thought David Suzuki was wrong to not debate JPR on the merits of his work. I think it's better discredited than ignored, but that's just my belief, and I can see how sane & reasonable people might disagree. I can e-mail you a pdf of the review if you like. Pete.Hurd 14:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Silly question - is this a real photo? Just wondering if you computer rendered it. It doesn't really matter, I'm just curious. Stevage 19:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the same user you left message here [1]. Glad we got that cleared. But there's this Mistress Selina Kyle who thinks she knows a thing or two about Taiwan but is utterly clueless and quick to label people. She's likely to revert the change again in the future. BlueShirts 23:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
You're probably not the person to ask this, but I found you in the Biologist Wikipedians Category. I've totally revamped the page, basing it structurally on Entomology, and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look and maybe cleaning it up/ giving feedback/correcting typos/whatever neccesary. I would appreciate it. Thanx! СПУТНИК ССС Р 04:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, thanks so much for pointing it out! I do not mind when others edit my userpage & have now added a comment saying so. Have a great day... Mikkerpikker ... 11:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
You recently warned 85.12.99.227 twice regarding vandalism to Meaning of life. I've reviewed the edits, and while they are indeed strongly non-NPOV, they do not seem to be simple vandalism. As the user's edit history seem to be showing clear improvement over the past few days, I've taked the drastic step of blanking the warnings on their talk page and replacing them with {{ welcomenpov}}. Rest assured, however, that I'm watching their talk page, and will block them if they start vandalizing again. If you see any more vandalism or other questionable edits from this IP, please do add the appropriate warnings to the page. But I do feel that this user deserves at least a chance for a new start. — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 18:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
![]() |
This media may be deleted.
|
Thanks for uploading Image:Egge and Aksnes 1992 plot.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{ GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then 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. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 04:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Stan. Thanks for spotting this. I've fixed it up. It's a graph I drew myself but I obviously forgot to fix the source info when I uploaded it. Apologies. Cheers, -- Plumbago 08:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Heya Plumbago :)
I put in that North Sea link in the Baltic Sea article, without logging in (I sometimes fix up links or typos without bothering to log in)... I had a look for another link in the paragraph, but I must have missed it.
cheers - Rohan
Bird of paradox 09:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if you were aware of this, but it might be of interest to you. Guettarda 19:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The quoque section should stay in Starlight Problem. Its a stupid, ridiculous argument that highlights a lot of whats wrong with creationist attitudes, but they do use the argument. JoshuaZ 05:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Just dropping by to let you know the following image have been updated, if you don't mind:
Thanks in advance. ╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ 19:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC) ╫
I made a comment to your vote at Talk:Creation according to Genesis#Proposing split. ems (not to be confused with the nonexistant pre-dating account by the same name) 11:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice if a knowledgeable person could straighten out, separate or combine the topics of Anoxic basins, Anoxic sea water, Hypoxic sea water and Dead zone (ecology). I have made this suggestion to you and to User:Piyrwq. Bejnar 22:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thanks for your constructive and accurate comment. i have amended the text to take into account your correct assertion that the inorganic material is the important part for biota records. feel free to edit this passage further as you see fit. you may want to check out an article i created today called bay mud which speaks to diatoms and other issues of certaine estuarine environments. maybe you can add some more UK or worldwide perspective which it sorely lacks/ i could only find a small amount about Bristol Bay (not a proper wiki link for the UK bay). cheers Covalent 12:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Good work on the conversion, that must have been a lot of work. Enough work to scare me off anyways! Piyrwq 00:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. -- Cyde↔Weys 17:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, it does sound somewhat dubious, and I have no idea where I originally read it. I might scrap it.— Pengo 11:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Re our discussion there, you might drop by Bernard Haisch- Journal of Scientific Exploration- Stochastic electrodynamics and B. Roy Frieden- Extreme physical information to see some context. In trying to mollify someone like Haisch, it might be useful to move all the specific theories in Category:Pseudoscience and Category:Protoscience to Category:Fringe science. Or if not, I could sure use some help persauding someone like Haisch that whether he likes it or not, simply because so many knowledgeable observers consider his stuff to be non-mainstream is reason enough for WP to note this fact.--- CH 05:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Your recent edit [2] to this article seems incorrect. Rather than revert (I could be wrong!) I thought that you could explain to me why you think that warm water is more buoyant than cold and that fresh water is more buoyant than salt water. My reason for thinking the opposite is that warm water is less dense than cold and fresh water is less dense than salty thus making them less buoyant. Am I/we having a semantic problem? -- hydnjo talk 14:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Right, "libertarian socialist" may be more appropriate in that specific concept. However, there have been certain parties who have been insisting on using "anarcho-socialist" to refer to all anarchism which isn't anarcho-capitalism (ie. about 99% of anarchism). That usage is a neologism, and I was trying to correct that. Apologies for any inconvenience caused. -- infinity 0 11:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Anarcho-socialism is a very seldom-used phrase (around 17,600 hits on google compared to millions for anarchism). That is what I meant by neologism - it's simply not the proper, common term for it. -- infinity 0 11:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Check out the edits of rexthestrange. I rv once, don't believe that this discussion belongs on the namespace article and I believe that we had arrived at a good balance. Doc 15:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity; is it only christians that are interested in the anomaly or are there others? To my knowledge, the story of Noah's Ark is present in other religions too. DeliDumrul 15:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)