User talk:Iamnotanorange2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Reticluar formation.

Well done for spotting that "s", probably a slip of the finger when I pressed <Alt>S to save changes. Your authorship of the article is preserved at [1] so there is no need to sign it. Indeed it is against policy to so Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Great article by the way. Rich Farmbrough 15:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:ARAS.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ARAS.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{gfdl}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairuse}}.) See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Arnie587 00:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reticular Formation

Hi it is was nothing personal at all I am helping to tag images on Wikipedia:Untagged_Images the message on your talk page was automated, I didn't do any vandalism AFAIK just added a nosource tag. Thanks Arnie587 23:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

sorry I couldn't write a personal message but there are 1000s of untagged images so there isnt really time to write personal messages for every image Thanks Arnie587 23:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] We are not Answers in Genesis!!!

Wikipedia = Neutral point of view

Answers in Genesis = religious fundie loons.

Dunc|☺ 21:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, some people confuse Wikipedia articles for the website of the organiation in question. It happens now and again. You may not have been doing this.
However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Your letters aren't encyclopedic.
AiG are so far gone that to quote Dobzhansky, "[they are] so hopelessly biased that no amount of evidence would impress [them]." Think of all the nutty mail that they must get just from their own supporters.
You would do science, Wikipedia and humanity a better service if you helped us out fighting the creationist POV-pushers around here, (they're fairly clueless about science but have a steely determination that only those who know the truth have), rather than posting your personal essays. There are other forums to do that if you want to vent (such as usenet). Dunc|☺ 21:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
If you think you're work's that great, then take it to talk:Answers in Genesis and achieve consensus on its inclusion (though I don't rate your chances). Dunc|☺ 21:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] eumetrate

You asked how to put those roots together to form the intended definition — honestly, it can't rightly be done. eu- isn't a root, it's just a prefix, and it means "well-", so with the stem of 'metre' you can only produce words meaning "well-measured" or "a good unit of measure" or "to give good proportions to".

If you want "at a distance" you probably want the prefix tele. I don't think any original Greek words combine 'tele-' with 'eu-' but in English there is of course televangelist (= one who brings good news from afar)

So there you have a couple of prefixes; but I can't help you with the actual root, as your use of the word so far has been somewhat inconsistent: for the most part you use it to mean "think well of" but you define it with "treat a person as a celebrity". —Muke Tever talk (la.wiktionary) 23:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

So basically you want a verb for "absence makes the heart grow fonder" ? —Muke Tever talk (la.wiktionary) 06:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
So "absence makes the heart grow fonder" is unsuitable, because you see it as pertaining only to lovers, but you have no trouble bringing in an actual lover in your suggestions involving Penelope. Hmkay.
Inventing words isn't easy, especially for languages such as English that already have wide user bases. It has to ring true: if you make it up from existing words or roots, its meaning needs to logically follow from those parts according to the word-formation rules of words that already exist, even the informal rules that produce words such as smog and brunch, which is why "eumeterate" rings false. If you make up a word from a cultural reference, it actually has to be a reference the average person would get, whether from being current events or popular views of history, thus boycott; that the view you are trying to import of Penelope is nowhere mentioned in our article on her is telling. If you make up a word out of whole cloth, which is the hardest of all, it still actually has to have some reminiscence of the thing it is meant to refer to. An example is blurb.
Further, beginning a word's life by publishing its definition is not generally going to convince anyone to adopt it, unless you happen to be in the business of publishing books of neologisms (e.g. sniglets). (This is why your word will not make it in Wiktionary—it isn't a dictionary of this kind of word.) The best hope is to actually use the word, from a position where many people will be able to see it; in addition, if the meaning of your word is not immediately intuitive, you will have to be accustomed to giving a parenthetical definition alongside it until it such time it were well-known enough to offset this. —Muke Tever talk (la.wiktionary) 04:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
As for "X is not a word", see prescription and description. As for hmkay in particular, I did some research, and the results are at wikt:m'kay. —Muke Tever talk (la.wiktionary) 22:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Thenuclei.jpg has been listed as a possibly unfree image

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Thenuclei.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

[edit] Image:Serotonergic.jpg has been listed as a possibly unfree image

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Serotonergic.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

[edit] Neptunism

Hi, Thanks for the contribution. I've got some suggestions though You wrote:

A single flood event would not account for the multiple geological levels with the organization of ascending complexity. The claim of a single flood is in stricter adherence to the bible than the creationism of Darwin's day called neptunism.

The first sentence is in need of a source. It may be obvious to you, but remember who's likely to be reading this page. Secondly you're making a statement of fact. This may be appropriate for a geology page, but on the AiG page we should assume that these facts are at least disputed (again however obvious you may perceive it to be).

So, I suggest wording along the lines of:

Geologists have now widely accepted Smtith's theory (Nature, 1923) that a single flood event could not account for the multiple geological levels with the organization of ascending complexity. The claim of a single flood is in stricter adherence to the bible than the creationism of Darwin's day called neptunism.

ThanksChristianjb 02:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Pitchdonut.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pitchdonut.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you can claim fair use use {{fairusein|article name}} or {{fairuse}}. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by going to "Your contributions" from your user page and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks so much. --Pak21 14:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for putting the source on that image; however, it still needs to have its copyright status tagged or it will be deleted. Cheers --Pak21 23:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

In the same vein, Image:PAG.jpg doesn't say where you got it from (an essential requirement to prove legitimate use). If you would take of this and any related images, that will save them from deletion. Stan 02:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

There's really only two things you need - who owns the copyright, and under what license we're using the picture. The ideal is to take pictures yourself and donate them. Conversely, very very few pictures you find on the net are legitimately available to use - US govt, pre-1923, but not much else. We're continually on the hunt for more sources of free images, check out Wikipedia:Public domain image resources for the ones we know about. Stan 06:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More reticsular formation...

Reference:

5) Krowicki, ZK and Hornby, PJ. Serotonin microinjected into the nucleus raphe obscurus increases intragastric pressure in the rat via a vagally mediated pathway. Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. Volume 265, Issue 1, pp. 468-476, 04/01/1993

Do you now if this is 4th Jan or 1st April? Rich Farmbrough 00:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

It's very difficult to get all the images we want without running into copyright problems. However it may be worth looking at the Gimp if you have simple diagrams you want to re-create (using the time honoured scientific "After Bloggs" attribution). Theres also a request for images page somewhere. Rich Farmbrough 18:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/a/m/User_talk%7EIamnotanorange2005_ad9c.html"