Thanks for uploading File:Prof Richard W Ziolkowski.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{ di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. B ( talk) 15:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Professor Sir John Pendry.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{ di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. B ( talk) 15:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I note that you are reverting some of my edits relating to categorisation. The edits I have been doing are made to improve WP for readers and to match what is the common style across WP. The categorisation guideline does not match what is actually being done by editors.

You may also be interested in Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#It is time to get the guideline to match the unwritten consensus. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 20:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Can we please discuss this? -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 02:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC) reply

These edits are not appropriate. The edits demonstrate a lack of familiarity with the topic. . I think that is pretty simple. These edits have cut a large awath so I can't see where I can discuss specifics without getting bogged down in protracted discusssion. I am not this only editor that has this opinion [1], [2].

Also it looks like you are focusing on articles and images that I work with. If that is the case then that is not appropriate. Also undoing my edits without familiarity with these topics as to where these belong is not appropriate. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 02:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I am familar enough with the topics. I would argue that your have insufficient experience with categorisation. Also, two edits out of the thousands out there does not constitute a consensus. Your edits are not in keeping the the vast majority of other pages on WP. Many edits on the other had are based on how the rest of WP is edited irrespective of outdated guidelines. I will carry on this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization (as internet access for me over the coming weeks allows). -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 03:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I never said anything about a consensus. It was neither implied nor stated. Vague asserstions to "vast majority of other pages" is not helpful. Furthermore, it is important to pay due regard to the established work of others, which I don't see at all. Finally, you have not addressed the issue of singling out articles that I have created, recently worked on, and images that I have uploaded. What have you to say about that? ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I am not wikistalking if that is what you are implying. I came across Category:Metamaterials, its subcats and pages while cleaning up Category:Physics. I found that Category:Metamaterials did not follow the unwritten convention that the vast majority that other WP pages follow. I then set about tidying it up. It appears that you have these on your watchlist and you made the assumption that I was targeting edits that you have done. Incidentally it is entirely appropriate to keep a close check on the edits of others. It is peer review and it is one of the things that makes WP a great thing.

BTW, I have replied to you message on my talk page here. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 03:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC) reply

User:Cpiral is leaving a wake of original research with questionable meaningfulness behind him, and the only cites he presents fail verification due to his having taken some form of *poetic* license with them. I am trying to avoid an edit war. He is now messing with the Time article, after destroying any semblance of sanity to the Metaphysics lede by adding impenetrable jargon of his own invention. What do you suggest as the easiest course of dealing with this: AN/I? 3rd party? RFC? -- JimWae ( talk) 18:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you for contacting me, Jim. I have been monitoring the Time article. Apparently I wasn't online for this current set of edits. I reccomend an RFC first and see how that goes. That seemed to start things well the last time. If this disagreeable editing behavior continues after that, then I reccomend ANI. With certain types of editing third party does not work well. One has to at least be willing to understand the need to adhere to guidelines and policies for a third party to work. I will look in on these arricles right away. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 02:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC) reply

— Cpiral Cpiral 18:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Steve, I assume that you didn't mean to label the tour company Intrepid Travel ecoterrorists as you did here ;) I've reverted the edit (sorry for the edit summary of 'vandal' - from looking at your recent edits it was obviously a typo). Cheers Nick-D ( talk) 05:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Yeah, sorry about that. It was a typo. I was using HotCat. Eccoterrorism and Ecotourism are very close together with that tool. Thanks for correcting my error, and thanks for letting me know. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 12:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC) reply

"Begs the question" does not mean "raises the question." It means "to presuppose what you are trying to prove." Lestrade ( talk) 03:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Lestrade reply

Thanks for the correction. It appears that I did use the phrase incorrectly and I did not know that was the actual definition. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi Steve: I noticed that you picked up on the redundancy of quoting that section from "Why Socialism?" in the Albert Einstein article. I went to the other article ( Albert Einstein's political views) and noticed that the same quote is repeated twice, once in the "Overview" section that you had improved, and once further down in the subheading "Socialism". Do you think that both are needed? I particularly like the Quote box method. That really sets apart the quote from the rest of the text. You can do what you like with that issue, if you think it is a problem. -- Skol fir ( talk) 14:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for pointing this out. I didn't reaiize the same quote is repeated twice. I will be glad to remove one of these. However, maybe you have a good idea of how to correct this situation. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 14:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I also noticed that references 13 and 56 are the same reference, as a consequence of the above repetition. My idea would be to leave out the quote in the Overview, but still use the reference (as a reference name tag so that it can be reused elsewhere where that reference is being applied). How is that? -- Skol fir ( talk) 15:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

IOW keep the paragraph as it is in the Overview (without the quote), and reuse ref. # 13 below instead of ref # 56. -- Skol fir ( talk) 15:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Sounds good to me. I am thinking that box quotation may need some sort of introduction, like the one in the overview, but I am not sure how to accomplish this. Any ideas? The paragraph below is what I am refering to:

In his article Why Socialism?,[13] published in 1949 in the Monthly Review, Einstein described a chaotic capitalist society, a source of evil to be overcome, as the "predatory phase of human development". In this article Einstein expressed both his support for socialism as a social and economic system, and (more indirectly) his distrust for the bureaucratic and authoritarian excesses of the Soviet Union:

Thanks. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 15:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

This is one idea (Wikicode follows):

In his article [[Why Socialism?]],<ref name=WhySoc>{{Cite web |url=http://monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php |title=Why Socialism? |author=Albert Einstein |publisher=''[[Monthly Review]]'' |date=May 1949}}</ref> published in 1949 in the ''Monthly Review'', Einstein described a chaotic [[capitalism|capitalist]] society, a source of evil to be overcome, as the "predatory phase of human development". In this article Einstein expressed both his support for socialism as a social and economic system, and (more indirectly) his distrust for the bureaucratic and authoritarian excesses of the Soviet Union (see quote below in [[#Socialism|Socialism]]).

That keeps the paragraph as is, with the note at the end to go to the Socialism section for the quote. The only problem is that if someone reads the Socialism section before the Overview, they will miss the relevance of the quote. In that case, we could add the following sentence to introduce the quote itself..."Einstein was in favor of socialism, but not the way it was being practised by the Soviet Union at the time, as illustrated by the following quote." -- Skol fir ( talk) 15:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

If you agree to the above suggestions, I'll make the changes. -- Skol fir ( talk) 15:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

As you can probably see I wasn't online or on Wikipedia for awhile. I think the above suggestions are a good idea. Please proceed -- and thanks for taking care of this. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC) reply

 Done -- Skol fir ( talk) 03:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 ( talk) 05:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi! Good work on removing some of the speculation from the IEEE article!

I think the references to Stallman and Bernstein's opinions should stay as they are very prominent figures in their fields. i.e. I think at least the original text ("A number of free software proponents, such as Richard Stallman and Daniel J. Bernstein, have criticized IEEE's copyright policy.") is unbiased and relevant.

Linking to their websites are not meant as wikipedia's support of their opinions, but as proof that they have these opinions. Maybe I'm misunderstanding WP:SPS, but I don't see how it applies.

Also have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2007_October_31#Inappropriate_critical_remarks_about_the_IEEE

janto ( talk) 01:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC) reply

The problem I have with Stallman and Bernstein's opinions is that the views are expressed are on their personal web page of their personal web site. It also obvious that they are beating the drum of a cause.

WP:NOTRS The views expressed are a promotion of their viewpoint in a venue lacking meaningful editorial oversight. These venues are "generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties."

WP:SPS ..."self-published media, such as ... personal websites... are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work... has previously been published by reliable third-party publications...if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so."

So, in other words, their opinions would be acceptable if the views were published in reliable third party publications. That is the point. Other media, such as a newspaper or magazine, need to report on their views. First hand opinion on personal websites is in contradiction to policies and guidelines. WP:V, WP:RS (fact checking, accuracy).

In contrast, the source and material that I have provided is much more balanced and says the same thing. Also it is a pubilcation that is reporting on this situation, and would be considered a reliable source.

These web pages as sources might be acceptable for their respective biographies -- to demonstrate their opinion on IEEE's practices. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC) reply

What about just including the sentence "A number of free software proponents, such as Richard Stallman and Daniel J. Bernstein, have criticized the IEEE's copyright policy." and possibly a quick NPOV summary of their criticisms? The current wording only lists some facts about the IEEE publishing model and makes it sound like nobody is actually critical of them.

On whether one should link to their websites: I agree that Stallman's website is promoting his opinion and can't be used as support for the validity of his criticism. Also I agree that "their opinions would be acceptable if the views were published in reliable third party publications". However I fail to see how someone else reporting on what his opinion might be, is more reliable than linking to his opinion directly.

Feel free to copy our conversation into the article's talk page. That way it will reach people that are interested. janto ( talk) 10:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your willlingness to discuss this rather than get into some sort of editing conflict. I have encountered editors who prefer an opposite approach.

I was thinking the same thing about copying this to the article's talk page. I guess we can continue this conversation there. ---- Steve Quinn ( talk) 11:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I see the latest "defense of MH" as another version of Godwin's law - with the "evil demon" changed to a certain unspecified "they" -- as may be expected since MH advocates are reluctant to remind anyone of Naziism-- JimWae ( talk) 21:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm going to try to drum up an RFC against user:Alan Liefting. He just removed Gerard K. O'Neill from Category:space colonization and then attempted to defend it, it doesn't seem to have been accidental; and he seems to have made another controversial edit since then.

Under the circumstances (he's obviously done this before several times) I think we need a community sanction against him removing categories (presumably at all). I noticed you commented about it on his talk page.

Would you be willing to second the RFC? Rememberway ( talk) 00:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC) reply

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Physics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 02:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Nature physics nov 2010.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 in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC) reply