User talk:Plumpurple

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Geronimo20 (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Please add sources
Hi Plumpurple. Thank you for your addition about Native Americans to the history of fishing. Can you fill it out with a timeline&mdash;are you referring to 100 years ago or 10,000 years ago? Did they invent nets and hooks and line tackle or did these ideas come from earlier from somewhere else? And can you please provide a source, since additions like this that are not appropriately sourced have little encyclopaedic value, and may have to be removed. Thanks. --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Plumpurple (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What you have done is great. Thanks :o) --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the kind words! Its nice to know these plant articles actually get read by someone. --NoahElhardt (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Howdy Plumpurple, Ecology pages
I had to look up C2H5OH. It made me smile, then hiccup. Soooo cool that you are working on the eco pages too, such as Habitat destruction that I tried to polish up too. For the life, Stele xoearth.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greentopia (talk • contribs) 03:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

responsible use of tags...
Did you read the McClatchy article about Niam Kuchi before you tagged his article with cn? Geo Swan (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The tag simply calls for the proper cite by the SENTENCE that calls for citation. I didn't produce the text in question, so that it is not up to me to cite it. Plumpurple (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of GiftCardLab.com
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article GiftCardLab.com, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Non-notable, spammy web-content with long history.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Call me Bubba (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My minor edit to this article was simply formatting. I would hope the page is deleted. Plumpurple (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Woodfern Sentence in the Ohlone Article
Dear Plumpurple. I just moved your new sentence in the Ohlone article about woodfern as shampoo over into the discussion section. I hope you will take a look at my comments, then consider whether or not to put it back in the article.Middle Fork (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation in History of Fishing
Hi, Plumpurple. I have another tiny criticism (in addition to my picky point regarding plant shampoos among the Ohlone), and hope you will take it in the spirit of collegeality. I feel that your statement that North American Indians fished with hooks and nets between 10,000 and 3,000 years ago is not adequately backed up with a citation. You wrote:


 * In the time epoch 10,000 to 3000 years before present, Native Americans were known to engage in fishing with nets and with hook and line tackle; in addition, some tribes are known to have used plant toxins to induce torpor in stream fish to enable their capture.

That citation is a web page called "The Megalithic Portal" which does not, in-and-of-itself, offer a scholarly argument for the cited statement. However, it does reference three articles that I did check. Mikkelsen et al. (2000) does not seem to offer the proof. Nor does Terry Jones (1993). I wonder if your information comes from Chester King (1991). If it does, could you change your citation to that work, and perhaps add the page numbers (which I believe are a combination of pages 80-83 [for Earl Period fishing] and 28 [for dating the Early Period]. If your basis is King (1991), it seems to me that the evidence for fish gorges goes back only 7,500 years, and net fishing is not directly discussed. Maybe I am wrong, and maybe you have other scholarly references. I hope you will put them in the article.

Mark Lloyd
Mark Lloyd has been scrubbed down to a stub, what do you think of thatBachcell (talk)

By the way, articles with which I am becoming associated need lots of work, too. Working together on the details, we will help bring this whole enterprise forward :-)Middle Fork (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to add stuff to the Mark Lloyd article, as you indicated on the discussion page, use the Wall Street Journal's coverage.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125262959925001745.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Brandon said this about the WSJ article: "The WSJ article (which the Fox News article echoes) is a reliable source, you should try proposing an addition based on that. However, be mindful of undue weight. A section dedicated to controversy would not be appropriate for a the sourcing provided." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.159.98.183 (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I put up a Seton Motley page, of course nominated for speedy deletion because a guy that's been on the #1 cable news talk show isn't notable.Bachcell (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seton_Motley

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of David Harmer for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Harmer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/David Harmer until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)