User talk:Guppyfinsoup/Archive-2007

Scientism
See my comment on the relevant talk page. I totally agree with your proposal if you can find reliable secondary sources. Metamagician3000 04:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hayek
Like I said, I'll not be adding Hayek, but I wanted to make a suggestion. I believe if there is support for him (and there is), and it's only the "principally.." business that gets in the way, then why not add him to the "Others" section until things resolve differently. I thought about making a change to the "principally" critera but with my recent edit-history it would be mistaken for some kind of attempt to 'promote' Rand. On my computer screen, every single name is visible without scrolling so that doesn't seem to be a list in dire need of trimming for space reasons. Best Wishes, Steve 23:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never liked the "disputed" category either - but it was the only workable compromise at the time. And, it isn't that different than the "Criticisms" section that many articles have.  I'll go put Hayek in.  Best Wishes, Steve 23:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep
If other people concur with the idea of deletion, you can't close the debate by withdrawing your nomination any more. See WP:CSK for details. Yours,  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ternary logic
Thanks for your message. The SQL stuff is a rewrite of what was already there, slightly expanded but no significant new content. I have no SQL reference books so I don't feel it sensible for me to do any more work there. My main motivation was my dislike of the 'special treatment' SQL was receiving in an article that has little to do with it!

As far as the electronics section, National Semiconductor's TTL data books describe tristate logic in detail, though I'm not going to be at home for probably quite a while and don't have relevant reference books here. In the meantime, I've filed a reference for a book I know covers the topic, although it may need slight amendment when practical. As for citations for statements I made such as "tristate is the only widespread system" - these will be hard to find in published material. If I do come across something though, I'll be sure to include it. As always, the article is now in my watch list ;) Cheers, Dan Pope 16:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

rfc
it seems a bit harsh, but as I have tried so many times to resolve this issue with him and all he does is start a revert war, it is probably best to have an intervention of sorts. --Buridan 20:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion
Note: This is not the same as a 'Request for comment' which requires 2 users to make.

Hi Simoes

I am currently troubled by the protecting (locking) of my Userpage by the admin known as JzG or Guy. I am seeking input from selected users that I have found to be analytical and have shown some interest in giving constructive feedback on disputes, and I would appreciate your constructive feedback as you are a user who likes to give third opinions.

I have outlined the history of the ordeal here (NB: There is a reasonably large bit of reading on this page, but one consolation is that it has been very well formatted and should be reasonably easy to read).

I respect that you may be too busy to participate, and if that's the case please just say so, and I will get someone else to comment.

Also note, that I am happy to award users that participate constructively and motivate their findings -- with a barnstar and a sincere thank-you. (but I won't appreciate willy-nilly contributions that show no effort to have read the article properly.

Your feedback is greatly appreciated

Rfwoolf 15:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Simoes. Note that another admin unprotected my userpage when I brought the same above request to him, but, he didn't even read that page I created, but he thought that my userpage shouldn't be censored like that (and didn't cite any wikipolicy).


 * So for now I am happier, and you no longer need to put any input on this matter.


 * However, if for some strange reason you do, I am still uncertain about whether or not Guy was abusing his admin privilages. So you may still like to read the page I created and give me back some feedback. That said, thanks anyways :)


 * Rfwoolf 07:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert vs. Edit
I noticed your edit for the Church article and thought you might benefit from reviewing the guideline on how to revert vandalism. --Ciphershort 21:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * After reviewing your edit, I noticed that it couldn't be a strict revert, because the change was not identical. I made my previous recommendation based on this fact.  Please take a look at the revert by EdC at 14:04, 23 January 2007.  Additionally, this user did a good job of annotating his revert.  I do however, appreciate the candor you showed when asking for clarification, on my initial recommendation. --Ciphershort 21:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

New Stub

 * Comment The List of articles related to quackery was a stand alone list without any references or organization. It was a long and unfocused list. Now, a new and different "shorter and more focused list" with verifiable references meets every aspect of the spirit of Wikipedia. The List of articles related to scientific skepticism as gone through a "massive remodeling". Everything has been categorized, organized, and well written. The is a newbie article that deserves a chance to sprout into a beautiful, masterpiece article.

It was a totally different article. Look at the history for the proof. Please tell me the next step to take. --QuackGuru 02:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Your ideas for the list are good. I hope you can edit and clean up the list. I will leave it up experienced editors to clean up the list further. Thanks. --QuackGuru 05:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The medicine section does not belong in that article. I created a new article for that specific topic. Acupuncture? Many things in the laundry list article need clean up. I am here to help. I will move slowly. Alternative medicine has its own article and stub now. The List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts‎ section under medicine does not belong there. Example: Acupunture is not pseudoscience. Skeptics may believe it is but it is an alternative treatment which has criticisms. Do you have any references for inclusion. If not the entire medicine section can be removed aggressively by any editor. Please supply the references for each membership or if not I have created a stub under alternative medicine where it does belong. References from reliable sources must demonstrate is it pseudosicence. I will take it one small step at a time. I thought it was an improvement to have a specific article for the medicine section. Example: Acupunture does not belong on the List of pseudosciences but the List of criticisms about alternative medicine its matches that article perfectly. We can work on building the new article and have a link in the List of pseudosciences. The new stub will be just fine! Thanks, --QuackGuru 23:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Your signature
Hey Simoes, I like your signature. I've been thinking about what I would do, but with my artistic talent it would probably end up looking pretty bad! I may steal yours one day when your not looking;) --Dematt 21:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Simoes, I found this while looking for PS lists on the National Academies website when I searched for "pseudoscience". It appears to be a position paper on indigenous knowledge but differentiates all the types of knowledge (PS, anti-science, indigenous, etc.)  I saw you have a an interest in philosophy of science and thought it might help categorize this stuff. --Dematt 13:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in your sig too! I've tried to experiment, but I can't figure out how to make it work with my Preferences. You can email me. -- Fyslee 20:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstanding In Communication!
I want to save acupuncture and the rest of the medcine section. I have started a new stub. Take a look at my recent contributions. Please! We can work together before this list is chopped up. The only remedy I can see for the medicine section is a new stub I created today. I will revert your edit to save the list. The medicine section is better off in its own article. Please go to List of criticisms about alternative medicine. I will put a link in the concepts article. Just click. Thanks. --QuackGuru 23:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I started a new stub specifically for the alternative medicine section. The entire section does not belong in the concepts article. The solution is the new article or remove the entire section. Did you see the List of criticisms about alternative medicine??? Thanks, --QuackGuru 00:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to work on both articles and add 100s of references and spend a lot of time on it but I have changed my mind. If you come to an agreement that the medicine section does not belong in the concepts article then I will start again. Since you think I make no sense what is the point. I will not repeat the mistake I have made in the past. I did a lot of work and all my work is gone from article space. I am not going to spend my time adding references and doing research and creating new articles when editors do not understand what I am doing. Let me know in the future when it is time to start the medicine stub and will have full support. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Thanks, --QuackGuru 00:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Proposed Solution*** Be careful of the new arrivals. I'm not understanding why the new arrivals to this talk page are resistant to the idea of getting to work on finding reliable sources for all the entries. The answer is simple. They want to merge the list into a project to essentially delete it. I propose a solution. Whatever is not pseudoscience can be saved! Instead of deleting, move it to a sandbox for a new article. Have two parallel articles. This might be the only solution to save the laundry list. I already have a great name that would work for the new article that would fit like a glove. If we let the new arrivals have there way the list will be chopped up in half and gone gone forever. My solution is to condense the list and then add the deleted material onto a new list to have two articles. I do not see any other way of saving this huge list. Whatever is determined not to be pseudosciences must be saved. We can work together to save the list. The only solution is this. This may be our only chance to save the laundry list. And, remember, be cautious of the new arrivals. Do you have any thoughts on saving the list. Will having two articles solve the problem. I have a new title that fits perfectly for a future article for the items that are not pseudosciences. Take a look at all the new arrivlas contributions including mine and decide for yourself to determine what are the true motivations. Think about it. Also, when the time is right I recommend a RFC for the list. Cheers, --QuackGuru 19:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I provided the references and there is a new discussion on the talk page. --QuackGuru 20:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, what do you think about my proposed solution?*** Chiro is a good example there should be two articles to save the entire list! --QuackGuru 20:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not discourage other editors to stop contributing to the article. That editor has knowledge of what belongs on the list. Please be polite. I could get references for the Mozart effect. I will ask your permission first. Can I add back the Mozart effect or not. --QuackGuru 21:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you think it would be a POV fork to create another article when everything would be referenced with reliable references. Adding references would make it NPOV. Thanks. --QuackGuru 23:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your comments toward me on the talk page were not polite. Please tell me what is your disagreement about the references that did not meet Wikipedia policy. The same editor has added another article called Papyromancy. Is that editor being disruptive too. I hope you will try to answer all my questions this time. Please explain what I did that was disruptive. Adding an article with references is normal. Please explain to me very specifically what were the unilateral changes and who told me to stop to edit this article. I added an article another aditor (RE) reverted another editor and I fixed and added references. What is unilatral about that. I was never told not to edit this article. Explain to me specifically what is disruptive by adding an article to the list with 3 references and fixing all the references in the article. Please explain. That would be helpful. Thanks. --QuackGuru 23:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
Simoes it is obvious you are a sockpuppet for a nerdy online shadowclan guild. Please find something else to do with your time. Waargboom 01:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
User Simoes is open sockpuppeteer, please refer to shadowclan and blake van leer Waargboom 03:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
Thanks again for your fine work on List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. Re pseudoscience, I replied on my talk page.. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 07:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely a step in the right direction. I'm not going to push the issue, but will certainly follow your lead and support your efforts.  I think you may have found a viable solution. It just may take some time for some to get used to. -- Dēmatt  (chat)  16:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Simoes, since some editors are being dense/inattentive regarding your "tiering" of sources, I'd suggest you resubmit a draft with the additional stuff. I don't agree with Fireplace's circular criterion of "if it's in the cat, put it on the list".  regards, Jim Butler(talk) 20:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Education as a field in Cognitive Science
The Cognitive Science major at UC Berkeley is actually offered by the Education department. Many students who major in Cog Sci at UCB focus significantly in education. I do, however agree with you that Education is not typically thought of as part of the interdisciplinary study of Cog Sci, and it is not appropriate to list it so prominently on the article. But just an FYI--it's not coming out of nowhere, and education-related matters might be appropriate in other areas of the article. Not that I currently have any to add. -Hurtstotouchfire 20:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

List revert
Simoes, why'd you delete that? Pseudoskepticism is a pseudoscientific way of looking at whatever one is skeptical about; it is thus a pseudoscientific way of thinking, which I would have though was close enough to a pseudoscientific concept. It is an umbrella for different pseudoscientific ideas. It is a pseudoscientific conceptual framework. Isn't that good enough?  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Got a cite for that? Simões ( talk/contribs ) 03:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your comments
Removing legitimate, standardized warnings and classifying them as "belligerent" is considered an incivility. You have made three reversions to the article List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts -- 3RR is a fixed and long-standing policy to prevent edit warring, which appears to be what you are engaged in on that article. -- LeflymanTalk 19:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing "misleading" in my edit summary; I removed "stock market" as a claimed pseudoscience item. I uncommented Ghost hunting as it has a legitimate citation, which perhaps you have failed to note: "Reality Check: Ghost Hunters and ‘Ghost Detectors’". Comments in articles are for just that, notes to editors about the article; there's no reason that actual content should be commented out-- if disputed, it should either be removed or brought to the Talk Page for discussion. Nor is one required to summarize every single individual edit one makes when making many minor edits at the same time, but I did so for you, which you again reverted.-- LeflymanTalk 20:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what 'concerns' you think I might have to raise on the article's Talk page. I made the edits I felt were appropriate to the article, as per WP:BOLD. You were the editor who reverted them -- thus the issue has been brought directly to you. To be honest, I'm not really interested enough in the topic to became embroiled in a discussion about it.-- LeflymanTalk 20:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC
Thanks, but I doubt that there will be any need for change, unless more links are added.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "I doubt that there will be any need for change"? --Minderbinder 12:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks
Comment on content not on the contributor. Please refrain from personal attacks.Davkal 01:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

List of pubs
As someone who has contributed to the talk page discussion on List of publications in philosophy and/or that article's previous deletion debate, I thought you might be interested in participating in its new nomination for deletion which can be found here. Thanks. - KSchutte 17:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Complex systems
Thank you for your contribution to the complex system article in the past. Currently there is a Call for Deletion for the associated Category:Complex systems covering this interdisplinary scientific field. If you would like to contribute to the discussion, you would be very welcome. Please do this soon if possible since the discussion period is very short. Thank you for your interest if you can contribute. Regards, Jonathan Bowen 14:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Closing a "Comments" Process
Would yu consider going to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Martinphi to resolve the process? Tom Butler 16:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom
I just wanted to let you know, a case has been requested at Requests for arbitration. Feel free to add yourself as an involved party, otherwise participate, or follow along if you're interested in it. --Minderbinder 14:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Paranormal
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy
Hello Simoes, apparently my knowledge of philosophy is terribly outdated. Thanks for all the information. Can you explain how did Hegelian and other European philosophies like existentialism (which some consider Kierkegaard to be the founder of) decline in current philosophical departments? I'm curious. WooyiTalk, Editor review 22:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR
You violated the Three Revert Rule on Daniel Dennett. I am an administrator but I will not block you because I, too, edited the page, along with two others. So I have reported you at Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR. Feel free to comment. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 00:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have assumed you were a new administrator were it not for the fact that such a misapplication of WP:3RR and failure to heed WP:BLP are normally signs of a new Wikipedian. Please be more careful next time. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 00:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, new administrator... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 00:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Is your account password compromised, or did you really just leave an edit summary on my talk page of "zomg lulz"? Simões ( talk/contribs ) 01:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, its called irony. Over your head.  Don't worry about it.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 01:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Job offer
Of that kind, which doesn't earn money, i.e. Wikipedia work.

I'd guess we never met before on Wikipedia, but I saw your arguing on the Paranormal ArbCom case.

In case you would like to do something (nearly) completely different and hopefully matching your interest and qualifications, I'd like to ask to have a look at some articles in physics which could use some philosophical perspective (because in real life the topics are also addressed by philosophers).

Unfortunately, more often than not, the philosophical perspective that actually gets inserted in sucg Wikipedia articles, is some editor's very own philosophy, or Capra's witnesses stuff and in relativity some Deutsche Physik.

I can't produce a full list suggestions now (and it wouldn't make much sense, while I don't know whether you're interested), but some examples:


 * Rietdijk-Putnam argument as an example of topics in relativity
 * Wigner's friend and a lot of other stuff in Category:Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

Pjacobi 17:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ch1930.jpg
Hello, Simoes. 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:Ch1930.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Simoes. 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 20:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Frankjackson.jpg
Hello, Simoes. 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:Frankjackson.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Simoes. 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 04:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR
I think it is really bad form of you to just remove my report. I really don't see what is "botched" about it. I have not provided seperate diffs because the reverts are all the same and I could not revert him again myself without putting myself in breach of the 3RR. 163.167.129.124 11:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Your continued reversion at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts
I posted a message to the talk page some time ago. 4 users other than you replied, of which 2 agreed with me and 2 did not assert an opinion. Your labeling my edit as 'disruptive' is harassment. Content disputes are supposed to be settled - preferably - by discussion and not merely reverting. The way, the truth, and the light 06:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In addition, your comments to me since the beginning of this issue have been borderline personal attacks. Instead of defending your revert, you speculate on my motives. The way, the truth, and the light 07:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're not going to reply further, I must assume that you don't have a case. The way, the truth, and the light 11:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Plantinga.jpg
Hello Simoes, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Plantinga.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Simoes. 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 05:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Another request
May you have a look at Articles for deletion/Physical phenomenon? User:Uncle G made a comment that the article could and should be saved by someone fluent in philosophy. --Pjacobi 17:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

merging of premise (mathematics)
i read you talk comment you left there in april. would you like to merge the articles premise (mathematics) with premise (argument)? i can't really do it coz i don't know much about philsophy. (though i can help with the logic aspects). --DesolateReality 02:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Paranormal Comment
Simoes, don't you think your statement, Your mom's a fucking bitch, was the wrong thing to say? Clearly, Shut your fucking face, uncle fucker would have made everyone seen the light. Ante lan  talk  22:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Dianetics and Homeopathy
I noticed that you removed these two items from the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, despite having sources backing up the label. Both of these also have at least one of these sources being a notable skeptic or skeptical association ( for Dianetics and for Homeopathy). Aside from this, both of these pass the duck test for pseudoscience with flying colors. Would you mind explaining to me why you feel they shouldn't be included? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 12:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Both are subcategorized already as pseudoscience by virtue of parent categories. Dianetics is categorized as scientology, the category itself which is categorized as pseudoscience. There is something similar for homeopathy. Consequently, both appear under subcategories of pseudoscience, and a direct pseudoscience tag is redundant. I think this is probably Simoes' rationale. Ante  lan  talk  15:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Invite


Gregbard 04:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Tesla
I know the quote is true because I read the book myself, plus I heard this quote just so many times before. But I understand that it might not have been sufficient to read "as Tesla said in his book..." (which was refenced in the article already before I even edited it), so the footnote now shows the exact title & publisher data. I hope this is now OK?! I also left my previously clarified data re. the country of birth - as I checked many other articles, it seems that when the person was born in the country that today has different name it is OK to say "born in what is today ..., then ...". Sounds good? --PGosta (Talk) 11:23PM, 11 July 2007 (EST)
 * The quote is not in the book. It's public domain and can be electronically searched by anyone. I have a hard copy, too. It really isn't there. Simões ( talk/contribs ) 04:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Paranormal
The above titled Arbitration Case has closed and the decision has been published at the linked location. and any other editor who is involved professionally or avocationally in the paranormal is cautioned regarding aggressive editing of articles which relate to the particular subjects they are involved with. is cautioned to extend good faith to Dradin if he edits and to avoid including disparaging material about Dean Radin on his user page. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 03:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Frankjackson.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Frankjackson.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, 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 the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
I appreciate the assistance with the Emerson article and removing cutlery! Nice to see someone make a positive change as opposed to vandalizing the page! Mike Searson 20:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Please comment
Your input would be appreciated: Requests for arbitration ScienceApologist 21:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

pick a journal ... any journal
Hi, could you pick an old journal for a future collaboration project; enter it under "Nominations for future CotW:" in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic_Journals. I see that you are very interested in Telsa; perhaps the journal "The Electrical Experimenter" would be a good choice? John Vandenberg 00:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Plantinga.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Plantinga.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use 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. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, 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 the fair use 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 fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use 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, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)