Well, about No One Lives Forever. I don't know where I've read that NOLF has been published in the year 2000/01, but I'm quite sure that I've read this. Morris Munroe 16:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah! Sorry, I didn't see beyond the obvious mistake. You're right, you don't remove a useful image just because it has a spelling mistake. — Largo Plazo 12:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your effort on the Plankton image on O'Neill Sea Odyssey's page! I fixed the problem on the previous imgage. Dhaifley 23:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I would be surprised (pleasantly) to see the use of 14C reported (positively) past 40Ky. Dan Watts 21:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Plumbago,
Thanks for reading the scientific CoP entry in the Wikipedia scientific community section. Thanks for catching the mis-attribution of the Snyder & de Souza Briggs citation: That correction has been effected.
Thanks also for inviting a collegial dialogue on the merits of this material, especially with regard to its potential OR content.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no original research (OR) dimensions in the scientific CoPs contribution, other than the synthesis of sometimes poorly-connected references in the literature on the topic.
For example, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) has recently acknowledged the validity of the scientific communities of practice approach in measuring the net 'value' of NIH-sponsored scientific research discoveries -- through the launching of the new NIH Office of Behavioral & Social Science Research initiative (please see the NIH "Healthier Lives Through Behavioral & Social Sciences Research" Report for an example of their thinking in this regard{ [5] } ).
Many credible elements of the American academic scientific community are also insisting upon an early educational exposure of students to basic scientific communities of practice principles. Examples of ongoing research in this promising area of early childhood education in scientific CoP principles include Northwestern University’s “Bootstrapping a Community of Practice: Learning Science by Doing Projects in a High School Classroom Program” [6].
In addition, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has recently become even more strident in this regard, insisting that the scientific community must actively pursue the creation of more-useful communities of practice in science & technology on a global scale [7]: This new scientific CoP focus by the National Academy of Science falls under its high-priority Science & Technology for Sustainability (STS) Program [8].
I have added these details to the referenced citation, to lessen the chance that other readers might gain the same mis-impression that you did.
I hope that these improvements are satisfactory to you. If you have any further concerns, or if you want to see additional citations of scientific communities of practice references at the ‘Scientific community’ location, please feel free to let me know.
Sincerely, Stevenson-Perez 20:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)stevenson-perez Stevenson-Perez 20:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this is an example of closing your mind to what creationists actually say, because I didn't mention any conspiracy theory and creationists don't claim that there's a conspiracy. And they are most definitely not opposed to reality. You've made up your own mind about what creationism is instead of actually finding out what it is from the source. And you appear to have contradicted yourself. You claim that it is inherently unscientific, yet admit that centuries ago it was legitimate! If it is inherently unscientific, how could it ever have been legitimate? The rest is little more than a pathetic attempt to malign creationism with your unsubstantiated opinions. Philip J. Rayment 14:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Evolution#Social and religious controversy wasn't exactly minor, as you cut an entire sentence. (It was probably a good one, though.) Minor edits are ones that are superficial and could never be disputed. Remember many people ignore edits marked minor but might be interested in a sentence that is entirely cut. Gnixon 16:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I took the liberty to move your image Image:AYool GLODAP del pH.png to Commons to make it available to other language versions of Wikipedia. I hope this is ok with you, and that I haven't done any mistake in the process. You can find the image at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:AYool_GLODAP_del_pH.png . Best wishes, Hardern 16:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Plumbago! While writing the German version of Ocean acidification, I came across some puzzling different numbers. Since you already have some knowledge of this topic, would you mind having a look at my question regarding different numbers for preindustrial and present-day pH levels? Thanks! Hardern 15:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Plumbago, I noticed you were an oceanographer while looking through the unfortunately small Wikipedian biologists category, and I think you may be able to help with a query I have about two articles. The deep sea and aphotic zone articles seem to cover basically the exact same material, and I'm not sure how they should be distinguished or if it would be better to merge them together. What do you think should be done? Drop me a note on my talk page if you like. Thanks, Richard001 11:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
Further to your note on my talk page about moving images to Commons, I currently do not have a Commons account, so I simply tag the images. If an image is an orphan, ie not in use, I made a decision if it should be nominated for deletion or if others would find a use I tag for transfer to Commons. If you say that the two images tagged are obsolete, you as the author of the images can speedy nominate them for deletion. Apply the tag {{ db-author}} to the image page and remove the move to commons tag. Also, in your edit summary indicate the name of the file that replaces the image. In regards to moving the currect images to Commons, I suggest applying the move to commons tag and someone will come along (eventually) and move it. Anything else, please let me know.-- User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 13:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Jclerman 17:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, many thanks for catching and reverting the vandalism on my user page! Much Appreciated! Andy talk 16:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Plumbago. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image ( Image:Metrocop GScott.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Plumbago/Archive 2. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 06:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Plumbago. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image ( Image:Xen thumper AYool.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Plumbago/Archive 2. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 11:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Plumbago. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image ( Image:Alien Controller 4 AYool.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Plumbago/Archive 2. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 03:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Plumbago. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image ( Image:Antlion thumper GScott.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Plumbago/Archive 2. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 03:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed you edited the Bo Schembechler page because of the "mighty and beloved" reference. I also for a while changed it, but an anon user kept changing it back and we actually had a discussion about it on the talk page. It would be great if you could weigh in, I gave up on the RV because I had no other support. Thanks for upholding Wikipedias standards! --Scotsworth 05:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:Knight lore 2.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ( ESkog)( Talk) 12:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Plumbago. Temporary note. I am trying to figure out how to communicate with you, having received your message about my editing. Also trying to figure out how to follow your recommendation to explain reason for changes. Not greatly succeeding in either respect.
Recolonisation theory is a major departure from the other creationist theories. It does not hold that fossils are the remains of animals buried in the flood, or reject radioisotope dating per se, or believe that any originally created rocks exist to be dated, or that the universe/Earth are < 10,000 years old. It acknowledges that evolution characterises much of the fossil record, but argues that some of the gaps in the record are still real and represent the boundaries between created kinds. Etc! Is this enough to show that the theory is more than just a slight variation on existing ideas?
Part of my edit was designed to improve the impartiality and factual accuracy of the article. For example, it was wrongly suggesting that conventional creationists believe in fixity of species, and devoted most of its characterisation of ID to controversies in the courtrooms. The article should be aiming to provide neutral information rather than making creationists out to be even more irrational than they actually are, or speculating about ID's alleged hidden agenda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fastnet ( talk • contribs).
Thanks. While I won't be that happy if you revert my contributions, I acknowledge that the above is helpful advice and will endeavour to follow it. By the way, another issue I had with the article was its repetitive emphasis on creationism's taking a 'literal' approach to Genesis. There's no problem with once or twice. After a while, though, drawing attention to this began to make the POV of the author rather too apparent. -- Fastnet 16:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Plumbago, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image ( Image:Nova prospekt GScott.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Plumbago/Archive 2. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 02:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the messages. I should point out that I only noticed it and commented on the talk page because of your tip-off. Meanwhile, someone else deleted the lot. The pattern seems to be that I make the conciliatory noises and reasoned comments, and leave it to others to wield the axe. Funny thing is, I didn't come to wikipedia to edit articles about creationism or religion or any other crackpot theories, just to tidy up here and there on some biology articles, and to make the odd contribution about the english language. If wikipedia has taught me one thing, though, it's that there are an awful lot of crackpots out there, and some of them seem to have plenty of time on their hands! Snalwibma 12:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Excellent idea. Go for it. Invite biological comment. While you're at it, it might be a good idea also to ask for some comments on the lead section of the article. There is a suggestion on the talk page from Steinsky ("In biology, epigenetics is the study of all heritable and potentially reversible changes...") which seems a lot better than what is there at present - but I don't feel confident enough of my knowledge of the subject to paste it in myself. In essence, I am completely out of my depth! I describe myself here and there as "a biologist" but I'm not really, and I certainly don't properly understand epigenetics. I'm just certain it's not really what our friend wants to turn it into. I see his editorial work as a hijacking of the page for ulterior motives, but I feel unable to do much myself other than ask what I hope are pertinent questions and point out the more ludicrous misrepresentations, non-sequiturs and distortions. Snalwibma 14:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I followed TimVickers' lead and just went ahead and edited the article. (And I agree with his edits.) I erased the other Evolution section, it sounded rambling, off topic, and had no references. Apologies if you see any material in that you wish to salvage. Madeleine 03:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I went ahead and deleted the paragraphs and gave reasons on the talk page. It renders the section nonsensical for now, sorry. I'll be happy to help fix it into something sensible in the future. Madeleine 17:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I've just resurrected the Ultimate Play The Game article due to the Rare article it was merged with a while back being entirely devoid of anything relevant. I noticed that you've done a fair bit of work on the Ultimate games, so thought I'd point out the new article in the hope that you might like to contribute. I've done my best to start it off but don't really write a good article. :) Cheers. Miremare 21:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I have to say I was a bit horrified that the company that provided most of my earliest gaming memories didn't even have it's own article! And it seemed a bit wrong that there was hardly a mention in Rare; seemed a little like shoving a formerly favourite grandparent into a home, sweeping them under the carpet just because there are kids around now. Miremare 11:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, Plumbago. I was wondering if you had time to comment on this nomination? The FAC page is here. Thsnks. TimVickers 18:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, Plumbago. I was wondering if you have finished reviewing this article? If you have come to a decision, the FAC candidacy page is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Evolution. Thanks! TimVickers 14:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for all your work! TimVickers 15:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pentagram 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 '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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Flood geology. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a
consensus among editors. --
216.125.49.252 17:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Plumbago, do you have a source for the Ultimate game images? The peer review suggested that this should be added... Cheers, Miremare 01:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, about No One Lives Forever. I don't know where I've read that NOLF has been published in the year 2000/01, but I'm quite sure that I've read this. Morris Munroe 16:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah! Sorry, I didn't see beyond the obvious mistake. You're right, you don't remove a useful image just because it has a spelling mistake. — Largo Plazo 12:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your effort on the Plankton image on O'Neill Sea Odyssey's page! I fixed the problem on the previous imgage. Dhaifley 23:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I would be surprised (pleasantly) to see the use of 14C reported (positively) past 40Ky. Dan Watts 21:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Plumbago,
Thanks for reading the scientific CoP entry in the Wikipedia scientific community section. Thanks for catching the mis-attribution of the Snyder & de Souza Briggs citation: That correction has been effected.
Thanks also for inviting a collegial dialogue on the merits of this material, especially with regard to its potential OR content.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no original research (OR) dimensions in the scientific CoPs contribution, other than the synthesis of sometimes poorly-connected references in the literature on the topic.
For example, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) has recently acknowledged the validity of the scientific communities of practice approach in measuring the net 'value' of NIH-sponsored scientific research discoveries -- through the launching of the new NIH Office of Behavioral & Social Science Research initiative (please see the NIH "Healthier Lives Through Behavioral & Social Sciences Research" Report for an example of their thinking in this regard{ [5] } ).
Many credible elements of the American academic scientific community are also insisting upon an early educational exposure of students to basic scientific communities of practice principles. Examples of ongoing research in this promising area of early childhood education in scientific CoP principles include Northwestern University’s “Bootstrapping a Community of Practice: Learning Science by Doing Projects in a High School Classroom Program” [6].
In addition, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has recently become even more strident in this regard, insisting that the scientific community must actively pursue the creation of more-useful communities of practice in science & technology on a global scale [7]: This new scientific CoP focus by the National Academy of Science falls under its high-priority Science & Technology for Sustainability (STS) Program [8].
I have added these details to the referenced citation, to lessen the chance that other readers might gain the same mis-impression that you did.
I hope that these improvements are satisfactory to you. If you have any further concerns, or if you want to see additional citations of scientific communities of practice references at the ‘Scientific community’ location, please feel free to let me know.
Sincerely, Stevenson-Perez 20:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)stevenson-perez Stevenson-Perez 20:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps this is an example of closing your mind to what creationists actually say, because I didn't mention any conspiracy theory and creationists don't claim that there's a conspiracy. And they are most definitely not opposed to reality. You've made up your own mind about what creationism is instead of actually finding out what it is from the source. And you appear to have contradicted yourself. You claim that it is inherently unscientific, yet admit that centuries ago it was legitimate! If it is inherently unscientific, how could it ever have been legitimate? The rest is little more than a pathetic attempt to malign creationism with your unsubstantiated opinions. Philip J. Rayment 14:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Evolution#Social and religious controversy wasn't exactly minor, as you cut an entire sentence. (It was probably a good one, though.) Minor edits are ones that are superficial and could never be disputed. Remember many people ignore edits marked minor but might be interested in a sentence that is entirely cut. Gnixon 16:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I took the liberty to move your image Image:AYool GLODAP del pH.png to Commons to make it available to other language versions of Wikipedia. I hope this is ok with you, and that I haven't done any mistake in the process. You can find the image at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:AYool_GLODAP_del_pH.png . Best wishes, Hardern 16:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Plumbago! While writing the German version of Ocean acidification, I came across some puzzling different numbers. Since you already have some knowledge of this topic, would you mind having a look at my question regarding different numbers for preindustrial and present-day pH levels? Thanks! Hardern 15:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Plumbago, I noticed you were an oceanographer while looking through the unfortunately small Wikipedian biologists category, and I think you may be able to help with a query I have about two articles. The deep sea and aphotic zone articles seem to cover basically the exact same material, and I'm not sure how they should be distinguished or if it would be better to merge them together. What do you think should be done? Drop me a note on my talk page if you like. Thanks, Richard001 11:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
Further to your note on my talk page about moving images to Commons, I currently do not have a Commons account, so I simply tag the images. If an image is an orphan, ie not in use, I made a decision if it should be nominated for deletion or if others would find a use I tag for transfer to Commons. If you say that the two images tagged are obsolete, you as the author of the images can speedy nominate them for deletion. Apply the tag {{ db-author}} to the image page and remove the move to commons tag. Also, in your edit summary indicate the name of the file that replaces the image. In regards to moving the currect images to Commons, I suggest applying the move to commons tag and someone will come along (eventually) and move it. Anything else, please let me know.-- User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 13:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Jclerman 17:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, many thanks for catching and reverting the vandalism on my user page! Much Appreciated! Andy talk 16:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Plumbago. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image ( Image:Metrocop GScott.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Plumbago/Archive 2. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 06:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Plumbago. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image ( Image:Xen thumper AYool.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Plumbago/Archive 2. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 11:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Plumbago. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image ( Image:Alien Controller 4 AYool.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Plumbago/Archive 2. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 03:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Plumbago. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image ( Image:Antlion thumper GScott.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Plumbago/Archive 2. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 03:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I noticed you edited the Bo Schembechler page because of the "mighty and beloved" reference. I also for a while changed it, but an anon user kept changing it back and we actually had a discussion about it on the talk page. It would be great if you could weigh in, I gave up on the RV because I had no other support. Thanks for upholding Wikipedias standards! --Scotsworth 05:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:Knight lore 2.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ( ESkog)( Talk) 12:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Plumbago. Temporary note. I am trying to figure out how to communicate with you, having received your message about my editing. Also trying to figure out how to follow your recommendation to explain reason for changes. Not greatly succeeding in either respect.
Recolonisation theory is a major departure from the other creationist theories. It does not hold that fossils are the remains of animals buried in the flood, or reject radioisotope dating per se, or believe that any originally created rocks exist to be dated, or that the universe/Earth are < 10,000 years old. It acknowledges that evolution characterises much of the fossil record, but argues that some of the gaps in the record are still real and represent the boundaries between created kinds. Etc! Is this enough to show that the theory is more than just a slight variation on existing ideas?
Part of my edit was designed to improve the impartiality and factual accuracy of the article. For example, it was wrongly suggesting that conventional creationists believe in fixity of species, and devoted most of its characterisation of ID to controversies in the courtrooms. The article should be aiming to provide neutral information rather than making creationists out to be even more irrational than they actually are, or speculating about ID's alleged hidden agenda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fastnet ( talk • contribs).
Thanks. While I won't be that happy if you revert my contributions, I acknowledge that the above is helpful advice and will endeavour to follow it. By the way, another issue I had with the article was its repetitive emphasis on creationism's taking a 'literal' approach to Genesis. There's no problem with once or twice. After a while, though, drawing attention to this began to make the POV of the author rather too apparent. -- Fastnet 16:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Plumbago, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image ( Image:Nova prospekt GScott.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Plumbago/Archive 2. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 02:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the messages. I should point out that I only noticed it and commented on the talk page because of your tip-off. Meanwhile, someone else deleted the lot. The pattern seems to be that I make the conciliatory noises and reasoned comments, and leave it to others to wield the axe. Funny thing is, I didn't come to wikipedia to edit articles about creationism or religion or any other crackpot theories, just to tidy up here and there on some biology articles, and to make the odd contribution about the english language. If wikipedia has taught me one thing, though, it's that there are an awful lot of crackpots out there, and some of them seem to have plenty of time on their hands! Snalwibma 12:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Excellent idea. Go for it. Invite biological comment. While you're at it, it might be a good idea also to ask for some comments on the lead section of the article. There is a suggestion on the talk page from Steinsky ("In biology, epigenetics is the study of all heritable and potentially reversible changes...") which seems a lot better than what is there at present - but I don't feel confident enough of my knowledge of the subject to paste it in myself. In essence, I am completely out of my depth! I describe myself here and there as "a biologist" but I'm not really, and I certainly don't properly understand epigenetics. I'm just certain it's not really what our friend wants to turn it into. I see his editorial work as a hijacking of the page for ulterior motives, but I feel unable to do much myself other than ask what I hope are pertinent questions and point out the more ludicrous misrepresentations, non-sequiturs and distortions. Snalwibma 14:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I followed TimVickers' lead and just went ahead and edited the article. (And I agree with his edits.) I erased the other Evolution section, it sounded rambling, off topic, and had no references. Apologies if you see any material in that you wish to salvage. Madeleine 03:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I went ahead and deleted the paragraphs and gave reasons on the talk page. It renders the section nonsensical for now, sorry. I'll be happy to help fix it into something sensible in the future. Madeleine 17:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I've just resurrected the Ultimate Play The Game article due to the Rare article it was merged with a while back being entirely devoid of anything relevant. I noticed that you've done a fair bit of work on the Ultimate games, so thought I'd point out the new article in the hope that you might like to contribute. I've done my best to start it off but don't really write a good article. :) Cheers. Miremare 21:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I have to say I was a bit horrified that the company that provided most of my earliest gaming memories didn't even have it's own article! And it seemed a bit wrong that there was hardly a mention in Rare; seemed a little like shoving a formerly favourite grandparent into a home, sweeping them under the carpet just because there are kids around now. Miremare 11:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, Plumbago. I was wondering if you had time to comment on this nomination? The FAC page is here. Thsnks. TimVickers 18:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, Plumbago. I was wondering if you have finished reviewing this article? If you have come to a decision, the FAC candidacy page is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Evolution. Thanks! TimVickers 14:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem, thanks for all your work! TimVickers 15:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Pentagram 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 '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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Flood geology. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a
consensus among editors. --
216.125.49.252 17:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Plumbago, do you have a source for the Ultimate game images? The peer review suggested that this should be added... Cheers, Miremare 01:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)