User talk:Hillbrand

Comments from A ghost
Good job on the rewrite of the paragraph of the Multiverse (science) in Intelligent design. Thanks!--ghost 18:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Creation Science versus Scientific Creationism
Hello,

The article Creation Science focuses on the ideology of creation science in contradistinction to mainstream science. It deals very little with specific theories that have evolved out of the discipline.

Furthermore, the correction when you consider two articles redundant is to Merge them, not to arbitrarily choose one to obliterate. The timbre of the two articles are quite different (and each is rather long as it is).

Phantym

I've just had to revert scientific creationism to being a redirect. If the page if reverted again by Phantym I suggest we nominate it for VfD. I think its heavily POV text and although I would prefer it as a redirect so that portions can be NPOVed and incorporated into creation science I think that the page ought to be VfDed if Phantym will keep reverting it. User:Barnaby dawson


 * What is POV about stating the experimental work of creation scientists and then summarizing criticism against hte work by the mainstream community? If you wish to see POV, go look at some old articles by Bensaccount or Joshuaschroeder in Creation Science.

Scientific Creationism
Hello,

Thank you for your comments on my talk page. I think you are right [and I find your comments much more reasonable than the invective Joshuaschroeder sends forth on a regular basis]. The article I posted in Scientific Creationism [which is a mix of a previous article and some of my own writing] is probably not encyclopediac in its presentation [I disagree about the allegations of its being POV, but that is irrelevant].

I think the idea of trying to merge part of that article with the other one and developing important facets of the one I posted makes a lot of sense, and I thank you for suggesting it.

Please understand that my posting the article was largely due to the terrible state of affairs that Creation Science was in just a month ago. I think I had just read it after one of Bensaccount's vandalistic reverts and felt the need for a completely different type of article.

More recently, Creation Science is much, much better, so long as Joshuaschroeder does not spread his original and POV commentary everywhere.

Phantym

String theory
See the addition by User:Anville at the bottom of Talk:String theory. Is this a valid test unique to string theory? (just reply there) -- BRIAN 0918  15:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Healthy Forests Initiative
Thanks for the helpful comments. When I saw no groups supporting the bill listed I thought there must be a few! I've made some more changes, on which I welcome any comments. Also, I see that your are (or recently were) reading the Gulag Archipelago. May I recommend One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, if you have not already read it. A quick, but powerful, read. Best. Rkevins82 05:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Synergetics
May I draw your attention to this article, now in AfD at Articles for deletion/Synergetics, thanks. Alf melmac 20:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Single-slit diffraction
Your equations of 19 Feb. 2005 in Diffraction seem to have some problems. See the talk there. Dicklyon 04:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Wforddoolittle1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Wforddoolittle1.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. 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 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 any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok  ☠  20:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:BayStarLogo.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:BayStarLogo.png. 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 08:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Guyana10Dollars-Front.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Guyana10Dollars-Front.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

File:DiffractionPlanes.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DiffractionPlanes.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Hanging Panga Fish.jpg


The file File:Hanging Panga Fish.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphan image, insufficient source information to confirm licensing"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ★ Bigr   Tex  19:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)