User talk:Plumbago/Archive 6

Ultimate Play The Game barnstar
Hey, thanks a lot! I'd better get on with some of the other articles now... That's a brilliant looking barnstar by the way. :)  Mi re ma r e  17:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries. You've done a great job resurrecting the Ultimate page, and getting the various subpages tidied and updated.  And I'm glad you liked the barnstar itself!  Cheers, --Plumbago 22:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Talking of Ultimate and stuff, I wonder why there's no Wikiproject:ZX Spectrum, or Wikiproject:8-bit or something along those lines? There're loads of much more narrowly focused game-related Wikiprojects so it's kind of odd that there isn't one to take care of the 80's computer game articles. Do you think there would be enough support for one? I'm not sure as I've not been around here for very long. Cheers,  Mi re ma r e  23:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Galleries of fair use images
I have removed the gallery of fair use images from Knight Lore in accordance with criterion 8 of the non-free content criteria: "The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable." As such, these images are now orphaned and liable for deletion. Cheers --Pak21 10:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I saw this already.  Could you give guidance as to how many (if any) fair-use, non-free images can be used?  I appreciate that a gallery is too many, but the best way to describe computer games is through screenshots, so a more limited, non-zero number would make sense.  Any tips?  Cheers, --Plumbago 10:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Depends". I think it can reasonably be argued that one screenshot can be used on almost any computer game as it can be used to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot" (as required by criterion 8) by allowing readers to recognise the game. After that, I'd say there has to be a specific reason for including a specific screenshot in an article; for example, Half-Life 2 includes a screenshot of Freeman on a boat in the "Gameplay" section, but it is specifically commented on in the article that "Vehicles are a major gameplay addition". Hope this helps --Pak21 10:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Brilliant - thanks for replying. I'll reinstate one screenshot for Knight Lore (possibly two because of the whole werewulf thing), but I'll avoid a gallery.  Just out of interest, while I can appreciate that use of screenshots in a purely decorative way is a bad thing (i.e. uses up server space for little gain; could be seen as advertising; etc.), are there legal issues surrounding this too?  I notice that we seem to have a special permissions tag for screenshots from Ubisoft titles, suggesting that only some software developers are OK with us reproducing screenshots.  Have we been hassled on legal grounds, or is the restriction on screenshots more for the other reasons I've mentioned?  I'm sorry to be a pain with all these questions, but I'm not terribly au fait with the rules around computer games.  Cheers, --Plumbago 10:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The restrictions are due to our desire to create a free encyclopedia, with content that anyone can use for any purpose. As screenshots of computer games are generally copyrighted to the publisher of the game, this means the screenshots can be used only via fair use laws, which restricts what we can do with them. On the other hand, the English Wikipedia also recognises that a limited use of non-free content sometimes improve the encyclopedia, so allows limited use of non-free images, but does place some fairly strict requirements on the conditions under which they can be used, to ensure that we are not infringing on copyright law. Other Wikipedias, for instance the German Wikipedia, allow no use of non-free content at all, so it would not be possible to place screenshots on their at all. With respect to Ubisoft, I wasn't aware of that situation, but it appears that Ubisoft have very generously allowed free use of screenshots of their games. A similar situation would apply to screenshots of games licensed under the GPL (eg Tux Racer) or for games where the copyright holder has released the copyright (eg Rebelstar): for games in that situation, feel free to use as many screenshots as you like which improve the article. Cheers --Pak21 10:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How do I do then to add more than one screenshot? I would like to add like at least 14 screenshots showing Half Life weapons, but how can I get license? Should I contact Valve Corporation?

Proposed category renaming
Thought you might like to know that Category:Rareware stubs is up for renaming to Category:Microsoft videogame stubs (or some such). So all stubby Ultimate and Rare titles are proposed to be retroactively credited to the big M! The discussion is here: Stub types for deletion/Log/2007/July/16‎.  Mi re ma r e  19:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Punctual objection to evolution
I've already nominated it for deletion. The discussion is here if you wish to comment. I agree with you, it's badly written, unsourced OR.  Ornis   ( t )  10:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah.. beat me to it...  Ornis   ( t )  10:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No worries. I clocked that when I was looking around to clean-up after the article's editor.  It's an almost painfully bad article.  I didn't want to delete it out of hand until its editor had a chance to damn it further by trying to defend it.  That might just be me being sadistic though!  ;-)  --Plumbago 10:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well at least he hasn't tried to make an article about himself yet.  Ornis   ( t )  10:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Source for Knight Lore images
I'm working on making sure images aren't deleted for lack of fair use rationales, but the three images on that page lack the source for them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there. The two screenshot images originate, as I recall, from the Ultimate Wurlde website.  It's difficult to (legitimately) get hold of a copy of Ultimate's games for emulation and screenshots, so I contacted the owner of Ultimate Wurlde and got permission to use the screenshots that he had generated.  If there are concerns about having two screenshots from Knight Lore, I would suggest replacing the loading screen shot with appropriate box cover art.  I'm not sure about the fair-use nature of the Famicom image.  Is it not permissible as a box cover shot?  Let me know what you think.  Cheers, --Plumbago 07:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

d'Abrera
Replied on my page to your recent lead change. Not sure I agree with the sense of your simplification.--Filll 21:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Filll. I sort-of see what you mean - that previous books didn't have anti-evolution content, but more recent ones do.  I'm not at all wedded to the edit I made, so revert back if you like.  Cheers, --Plumbago 17:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Xen halflife 02 AYool.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Xen halflife 02 AYool.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Xen halflife 03 AYool.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Xen halflife 03 AYool.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Xen halflife 05 AYool.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Xen halflife 05 AYool.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Xen halflife 06 AYool.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Xen halflife 06 AYool.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Xen halflife 13 AYool.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Xen halflife 13 AYool.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Xen halflife 06 AYool.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Xen halflife 06 AYool.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Masks and men
More mask than man, perhaps! It is peaceful, though, isn't it? Snalwibma 16:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Maybe he'll turn around in the next photo - although I prefer the mystery.  Regarding the silence, from his blog (which makes for very interesting reading) it seems that he's been busy in RL recently, both with a family wedding and some new debate with his "ideologically-opposite" chum.  It's nice to not have to be constantly cleaning up after him though.  Still, I almost miss the fun to be had from tracking down and cleansing new articles that he's created to bolster dubious quotations.  ;-)  I wonder if he'll come back?  --Plumbago 11:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess you have the answer to that question... I think he resurfaced the same time as I did. After so much edit-warring, there seems to be a certain connection, a spiritual link between me and him. Actually, I had almost made peace with him before I left. I felt a bit sorry for him that Nicholas Beale was deleted. Now I'm pissed off at him again, in particular, I can't forgive what he did on the Derek Parfit page. That really wasn't necessary! I mean aaarhrhhhrh, I don't get it! --Merzul 13:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I have to admit, I've never seen you both in the same room at the same time ... ;-)  Anyway, I'm somewhat disappointed that he's back to his old tricks so soon after his return to WP — I too thought that we'd reached some sort of constructive equilibrium.  If anything, he appears to be getting more bolshie these days — somewhat presumptiously labelling all of his detractors as "atheists" as if (a) this were some sort of insult, or (b) this somehow revealed to the rest of the Wikipedia-editing world a nefarious cabal of evil-doers (though I've escaped this particular fate thusfar).  I suppose we're just doing to have to keep an eye on his edits from now on.  Checking his blog from time to time also gives a bit of a heads-up on future "conflict zones".  Anyway, thanks for dropping by.  I'll try to stay on top of the disputes as they come up!  Cheers, --Plumbago 17:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, whatever one thinks of his crusade on Wikipedia, this much must be given to him: his blog is genuinely interesting. I do wish they would complete that book of theirs, I might even buy it. Actually, if that book gets publishes, I'm sure much of it will end up on Wikipedia sooner or later. ;) --Merzul 18:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your thoughtful participation at the climate change denial article, good input and insight. A couple of proposals have been floated on the talk page to settle the content dispute over including the viewpoint that climate change denial is a form of denialism. Yeah, I know. Anyways, your comments would be appreciated if you can find the time again. In the meantime, Skål! Odd nature 20:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Blanking on sea water
Please do not blank the new section on the potential of cracking sea water to burn the hydrogen - Seawater, which is well cited, and mentioned as just claims. This is not revolutionary, there are claims of prior art. And frankly, you can do the same thing with : a 9V battery, two cups of sea water, two electrodes and a bit of blotting paper. Run the power through it (the 2 cups are to stop recombination, wet blotting paper provides a non metalic electrical connection). Though most H becomes Hypochloric acid, some is liberated - this experiment is often done by children. This is NOT about burning water - it is about liberating the hydrogen to burn that. That is NOT revolutionary, or even that new. It is still unclear (conflicting claims) whether the energy budget to liberate the H is greater than the output of the resultant combustion - the energy equation is the only part that could yield an extraordinary claim (free energy yada yada yada.) 24.7.91.244 12:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So, you're saying that we should have a special section in the seawater article describing, essentially, electrolysis, and connecting this process to some unverified free energy discovery? That would be what I meant by recentism in my edit summary.  Given that this ostensibly scientific "discovery" is not reported in a scientific journal (and is unlikely to ever be, judging from previous free energy claims), why should we take it seriously today?  Why not just wait the few short weeks it'll take for it to be verified and the world to have as much free energy as it'll ever need?  We're not here to report the credulous claims of newspapers.  Check out the guide to reliable sources (and note what it says about extraordinary claims).  Cheers, --Plumbago 13:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No one (serious) is talking about free energy - which would be an utterly extraordinary claim. Kanzius has stated that his experiments had a much higher energy budget than that that could have been harnessed from the combustion. And I do agree that it should be punted off to its own article, but leaving a one line summary and main article tag in its place on sea water. Though not electrolysis, it does have a similar result - and I would agree we can't have everything possible related to sea water there (physiology of a clown fish, how to build a mirror dinghy). But for now this is very significant news, and it's notability has yet to be determined, so I guess we are at the inclusionist vs delectionist stage. For now I would have to saw that the perfectly belivable news that certain RF energies may crack the H-O-H bonds in sea water as being very notable. Wiki doesn't practice a chill out time for the inclusion of new developments, it is dynamic and changes constantly. 24.7.91.244 13:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does practice a "chill out time" until things are notable. If you want to report on things which are making the news but which do not yet meet Wikipedia's notability guideline, this can be done at Wikinews. --Pak21 13:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Cell wall
The Cell wall article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 05:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Beware Northern Rock - hot news!
I see from a reliable source that the underlying cause of Northern Rock's financial troubles is that their chairman supports Richard Dawkins. Sorry - I haven't stopped laughing in the twenty minutes since I came across this, and I had to share it with someone. Snalwibma 07:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You couldn't actually make this up. I'm beginning to worry about our mutual friend's sanity now.  His anti-Dawkins mania seems to be whipping him into quite a fervour.  What next?  Dawkins implicated in Madeleine McCann disappearance; caught selfishly planting gene evidence; followed on by shamelessly spreading meme that devout, God-fearing parents involved; etc.  Oh dear.  Anyway, well spotted — that's got my day off to a great start!  :-)  --Plumbago 08:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Mercenary (computer game)
Yes. Looks good. All references help. Computer games aren't the easiest articles to find references for, but Mercenary was quite popular in its day. I've even played it myself :) -- Longhair\talk 11:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool. I'm glad you approve.  Anyway, if you haven't already tried the MDDClone port of Mercenary, etc., I'd recommend it.  Cheers, --Plumbago 13:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dominionism
As you participated in the prior TfD, I thought you would be interested that it has been proposed for deletion once again. You can find the discussion here. SkierRMH 02:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Upgrades at Half-Life page
Why have you removed my weapons upgrades in Half Life page, only lefting the crowbar? I intent to list all weapons there. Is that a copyright violation? I dont know United States law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leohenrique0908 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Leohenrique0908. It's been a while since I edited the Half-Life article, and the last time I removed information about weapons was back in February 2007 if I remember correctly.  When I did this, it was because there had already been a discussion about adding weapons trivia to the article, which had decided against it (this may still be on the talkpage).  Wikipedia is not a repository for absolutely every scrap of information about a topic.  Information should be carefully sifted so that only the most pertinent and encyclopaedic is included.  Furthermore, there are external fan sites that host this sort of information - we don't need to repeat it here.  Does this help explain?  Please drop me a note if not.  Cheers, --Plumbago 08:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I thought I should at least list all weapons. And I modify the weapons (I guess) in 11/02, 2007, not in February. Leohenrique0908 10:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we might be at cross-purposes here. My last edit to the Half-Life article was this one back in September.  I think someone else must have removed the material that you added to the article.  You might want to track this person down to find out why exactly.  My personal view is that lists of weapons are not among the most interesting aspects of FPS games, except where such weapons (e.g. Half-Life 2's gravity gun) represent a novel and significant part of the game.  Cheers, --Plumbago 08:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin?
Hi there, I'd like to nominate you as an admin. The tools are quite useful and I think you have more than enough experience. Have a read of Administrators and tell me what you think. All the best Tim Vickers 18:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Tim. Thanks very much for your note, and for your kind comments about my potential Adminship.  While I'm somewhat ambivalent about becoming an Admin (I don't think I'm the sort of user who needs the tools), I can't really complain if it makes me more useful to the project.  I'm rather pressed for time for the procedure at the moment though - just submitted one proposal, but have another on the go.  Perhaps in a couple of months?  Cheers, --Plumbago 16:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, just drop me a note, it won't take long in your case, you're very well qualified. Tim Vickers 17:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Image:AYool WOA surf O2.png
I can restore the picture at Commons. I would just need the information if it was your own work or not (than a source would be necessary) to remove the delete-template. - CecilK (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I can affirm that the deleted figure is my own creation.  You can see similar figures that I've created here.  I created them from data in the World Ocean Atlas climatology.  I spotted the missing oxygen figure today when I created a new and related figure.  Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Restored. -- CecilK (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your application
Dear Dr Plumbago, Thank you for your application for the position of Research Assistant at the Institute. As you will see if you read the details of the post, however, this is a position which requires a "strong background in the science and religion field". I am afraid, therefore, that you are doubly disqualified: first, as a biologist, you are clearly not a scientist; and second, the ocean cannot really be described as a field of any sort, least of all a religion field. I regret to inform you, therefore, that on this occasion we will not be shortlisting you. In essence, we are looking for someone who is willing to undertake the sort of scientific research in which the starting hypothesis is framed in terms of the desired conclusion, and we do not think you are suitable for this role. Snalwibma (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (ROTFL! Kudos.)


 * Awww, curses. And it sounded such a good post too.  After years of having to confront challenges to my ideas and to adapt/ditch them to fit the world, I quite fancied a job in which the exact reverse was true.  And I was quite relishing the chance to work deep in the quote mines, carefully selecting choice quotes from mankind's collected wisdom, refining them to remove impurities like context and nuance, before finally buffing and polishing them with McGrath's Finest to a fine (if superficial) sheen.  I even had hopes for the opportunity of work experience in the art of setting and presentation of choice quotes in a Vanity Publication.  Alas, it is not to be …  --Plumbago (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent discussion on talk:Evolution
Excellent use of the word "trawling". I'm trying very hard to assume good faith with that guy, but my patience is wearing thin. thx1138 (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that Snalwibma has pointed Thomasdid in the right direction. Sending them off to uncover material for a criticism section should give them something to do for an indeterminate period, and should allow you time to recover some of your ablated patience.  However, I guess we'll have to wait and see if Thomasdid takes the advice.  If not, I suspect we may require a troll warning, since Thomasdid is making a purely hypothetical argument rather than suggesting anything practical.  Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Warhol
I saw your removal of the link and your edit summary. I had been wondering about that edit. There are (in my opinion) far too many external links in that article. Do you have suggestions about pruning the list? Jeffpw (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's been a while since I last looked at the links, so your prompting is welcome. I've just removed a few rather weak links (one of which was just bizarre), but there are several biographical ones there that could probably be thinned to the best one or two.  Alternatively, potted biography links could be separated out in a subsection, or even used as in-line sources for pointed in the main text.  I'm reluctant to delete those that aren't rubbish, but as I keep saying "WP is not a link farm"!  Anyway, if you do spot any dubious links, just go ahead and delete them I reckon.  Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Auxospores
Well, for example, saying "In phycology" isn't really true. Auxospores are independent of the study of them, so I changed it to "In cetain species of algae...". Also, "play a role" is unilluminating, just state what they do. This is not my area of expertise, so I leave it up to you. Thanks for noticing the tag. Cyclone Ranger (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

FAR listing for Plate tectonics
Plate tectonics has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Proposal to split DDT into sub articles
There is a proposal to split DDT into several sub-articles. As someone who has contributed regulary to this article, your input would be appreciated. Yilloslime (t) 21:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Your Inescapable Tragedy
Hello, Plumbago.

Would you be kind enough to take a look at the comment I left on the tail end of the discussion page for TOTC? Could some mention of this possibly find its way into the "controversy" section of the article? Thanks! 76.103.124.111 (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think what you've written is definitely relevant to the article, and could probably be added to it. You'd have to think a bit about how best to phrase it to accurately and succinctly summarise it (not least as it would be easy to tick off libertarians), and it'd be good to be more certain about the sources.  I'd avoid making any addition too long, as large additions tend to make the article difficult to read and encourage article bloat.


 * Your mention of Hardin's later point about unmanaged commons (obvious in his original paper, but not obvious enough for many people) is a good one too. At present the article alludes to this but doesn't source it.  I believe it could be sourced to a short paper he published in Science to mark the 30th anniversary of his original paper.  I'm pretty sure that he said that then.


 * Anyway, I'd encourage you to be bold and edit the article. So long as material added is verifiable, notable and from reliable sources, it's the sort of thing we need.  As an aside, I'd also encourage you to create an account with Wikipedia.  There are several important advantages to doing so.  Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 11:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought I'd try the Tom Sawyer approach first but it doesn't seem as if you are going to whitewash that fence for me. Let me see if I can find that article in Science, and thanks for the tip! 76.103.124.111 (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Bible Codes - thanks for the source...
Appreciate the help!

riverguy42 (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's OK. It was pretty easy to track down - something I wouldn't have done if you hadn't flagged it up.  Cheers, --Plumbago (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Entombed 1.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Entombed 1.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Entombed 2.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Entombed 2.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Entombed 3.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Entombed 3.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Entombed 4.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Entombed 4.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Underwurlde 1.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Underwurlde 1.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Underwurlde 2.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Underwurlde 2.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Underwurlde 3.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Underwurlde 3.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Underwurlde 4.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Underwurlde 4.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Images

 * Hi Plumbago, thanks for letting me know. Having looked through WP:NONFREE it seems that there's a policy of "minimal usage", which as far as I can tell boils down to a single image to illustrate the game, and additional ones used only if absolutely necessary to illustrate something particularly important within the game. So I've replaced one image each for Underwurlde and Entombed for now. I've been meaning to do something with some of the Ultimate articles for ages, but never seem to get around to it... :) Cheers,  Mi re ma re  18:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Again...here's my response on your latest post to Bible Code (talk)
Just thought I'd repeat this here in case you want to take this 'offline'.

FYI, I have what I believe to be an 'advantage' over the "code controversialists" in that I have never read (studiously avoided) the Drosnin books. I had the good (???) fortune to come across Jeffrey Satinover's "Cracking the Bible Code" first, and thereby I could limit my immersion into the sensationalist media portrayal of the "mess". As such, I strongly recommend that anyone who wants to keep their head above the water in the Torah Codes start with three things: (1) WRR, (2) Satinover, and (3) MBBK (and cross refutations), preferably in that order. Satinover is a true subject matter expert, and while there are (in my estimation) no "purely objective" works out there, I feel confident in saying Satinover's works come closest. As Satinover says...the jury is still out.


 * Hi Plumbago! Yes, WRR was published by an admittedly and understandably skeptical (and I daresay, very uncomfortable) editor, as a "puzzle". Then, MBBK's paper was published by the same editor, (and, greeted enthusiastically with "Eureka!" and a big sigh of relief). Now, it is absolutely true that MBBK's refutations all rest solely on the hypothesis that WRR authors and contributors conspired to "cook the books", you will see this as soon as you read the MBBK paper. If there is ANY remaining doubt about this whatsoever, read the explicit allegation directly from MBBK co-author Maya Bar-Hillel, also in the links I just added. As you dig in, you will find that every subsequent refutation...(really, EVERY refutation) rests solely on the MBBK hypothesis of cheating, and that every instance of "similar codes within secular texts" that has been 'discovered' is based on using the "cheating" techniques that MBBK demonstrated. In other words, it is true that you can always find codes, in ANY text....IF you "cheat".riverguy42 (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also...you asked earlier about recent views of professional statisticians. FYI, there was a new paper published by Harold Gans in 2006. Gans was Senior Cryptologic Mathematician (expert codebreaker) for US DOD, and Gans was the first "professional statisticians" to review WRR. According to Gans, he was vehemently skeptical and was a "non-believing" Jew when he first saw (and began his attempt to refute) WRR. Gans designed his own experiments from the ground up, and (to his shocked disbelief) his independent tests wound up confirming WRR. Gans subsequently retired from DOD and converted to Orthodox Judaism. Now, as of today, I have not added Gans' recent paper to the article because I have yet to locate any refutation of it. Critics seem to have focused their efforts exclusively on (a) soothsayer journalist Drosnin, and (b) on the "New Testament Codies" which is too bad -- those "easy" targets are not serious reseachers. The latest work from Gans (and Robert Harelick) appears to be quite serious, Gans is probably among a small handful of guys who can claim to be truly and professionally qualified, both in subject matter and long years of professionally relevant work (at DOD) in the area, and his paper needs serious scrutiny! From what I can tell, Gans' three page paper and his research protocol appear to have been carefully and meticulously designed to rule out any MBBK-style cheating. Yet I now marvel at the fact that Gan's paper wasn't put in the article last year when it was presented, and the silence (of the critics) is deafening. riverguy42 (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Blackwyche 4.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Blackwyche 4.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Ariel ♥  Gold  19:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Zooplankton
As you profess to have written the zooplankton article whom else can one ask?

Zooplankton is widely accepted by geologist protagonists of the biogenic formation theory of petroleum and natural gas. You outline an extremely large range of organisms which belong to this class. Do you think that the reference to zooplankton as source of petroleum & natural gas ought to be a bit refined, that is to "single cell zooplankton" or is there a slightly more advanced lifeform which could have also contributed to these energy resources? LouisBB (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)