User talk:Nowimnthing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Indiana Alert posted:

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Nowimnthing, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Sophia 21:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Information science

Hi, do you know how closely the "information science" as descibed in information science and the "information science" in library science are related? Cheers, —Ruud 14:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


I would support the suggested merge between Informatics and Information science to help clear this up. Informatics/Information science basically has more to do with IT/computer science. There is a bit of overlap esp when you get into human/computer interaction. The information science wing of Library science has made it even more confusing as those are studies coming from Library science but dealing more with IT issues. For example you can get either a MLS (Master of Library Science) or a MIS (Master of Information Science) from the same school of Library and Information Science. The MIS usually just focuses more on computer/tech classes while the MLS focuses on more traditional library classes. That being said there is a separate School of Informatics where you can get a MS in a sub-discipline so there is some distinction there. Hope that helps. Nowimnthing 14:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User wife

Hi, I notice that you are using Template:User wife, which has been moved to User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/User wife. The link currently being used on your page is a cross-namespace redirect and will probably not last. It may be advisable to change the link. Thanks. —Mira 05:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution: "is believed to" vs. "may"

I'm an open-minded skeptic of speciation claims. I'd be honored if you could provide me a citation or two about speciation having been observed in the lab. Folks I argue with claim that it hasn't. Lou Sander 16:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC) (Former 10-year public library trustee)


Sure, our article on Speciation has a few, though I will admit it is a bit bare. More are found [1], [2] and [3]. Nowimnthing 20:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC) copied to 2 talk pages


Interesting. I read a bunch of it, and if it's true, it seems as though there HAVE been cases of species being created. It also seems that almost all of them have been (for want of a better word) "intelligently designed." But that doesn't account for the wildflowers.
I wonder why, when important people assert that there haven't been any new species, the response is either like hornets disturbed, or Sunnis vs. Shiites, or (at least as I've seen it) something like "oh, we have jillions of examples." Maybe they should pick a few good ones and stick with them, so doubters can try to strike them down (Piltdown wildflowers?). Thanks again for the citations. Lou Sander 21:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Young Adult Science Fiction Title

Regarding the question you'd posted on the Humanities Ref Desk a week or two ago ... User:Bmk came up with the "The Forgotten Door" by Alexander Key, and that is most definitely the book that I recall reading. I think I'll check my own local library to see if they have a copy of it. --LarryMac 16:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fossil record

Hello Nowimnthing, I'm Aeon from the Mediation Cabal. Wing Nut has requested Mediation in order to settle disputes over Fossil record. Please respond back to me if you are willing to talk this out in Mediation. The Mediation Cabal is informal so there is nothing to lose. Aeon Insane Ward 04:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure either if the article is about to be merged then this problem would become moot. I will inform Wing Nut. Thanks. Aeon Insane Ward 13:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution

Again, I am not trying to debate the merits of the IC argument. I am simply saying that according to WP:NPOV, we should at least present the viewpoint. —Aiden 16:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The article on evolution is primarily an article about science not an article on creation beliefs. As such creationism is not relevent. The social effects of the theory are relevent and are mentioned in the article. Barnaby dawson 17:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fossils

Dear Nowimnthing: You clearly watch and contribute to the fossils page. I took the afternoon off to work on it, but expended time instead on the religion issue. FYI, my playground for fossils is a sandbox where things will begin to materialize. Please feel free to play there too. Perhaps later we can move the sandbox for others to dabble in.Likearock 21:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German Library Reference Service

Hi! de:Wikipedia:Bibliotheksrecherche has excellent offers (from patrons, not librarians!) but nearly no customers. Should questions concerning English library materials posed on the Reference Desk or would it make sense to establish an own page? Greetings from Germany --Historiograf 03:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello, and Could You Please Help Me?

Hello. I am the one who contributed the bit about Origin of Light. I'm sorry that I do not know what vanity press is. I am also sorry to hear that you had such a nasty experience with an author from Publish America! Let me assure you that I will not fight with you. Thank you for answering my question about vanity press. I am not self published with Publish America, I didn ot pay them, but they paid me to publish my book. I hope that this helps you o answer my query. Thanks! ~S

[edit] Fair use

See criteria 3 and 8 in particular, articles should use the least amount of fair use material possible. Taking 5 images of the same thing from the Smithsonian isn't fair and in the manner in which they were used in the articles didn't add anything more than one image.--Peta 13:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That is rubbish, you can provide people with the necessary information by inlcuding a single image and including a link to the webpage from where you took the images. We are trying to build a free content encyclopedia, non-commercial use is not useful for people that resue wikipedia material, fair use is not free use. Please don't upload more images than are necessary.--Peta 23:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Your only point it that you want to have all the pictures. Including them all is not fair.--Peta 00:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] creationism article

Thanks for your concern. If you believe my additions were inappropriate, uncyclopaedic or plain false then I will not resubmit them. Looking at your user boxes I’ll assume you’re not doing this purely on an anti-scientific/pro-religious basis. Can I ask what the specific inadequacies of my additions to the article where though? Where they really such a “mess”? The term mess does seem unreasonable, but the last time I made such minor and trivial changes to an article related to religion they were deemed (by one single user at least) to be rubbish! Guess you’re not as passionate as him. Thanks. Miller 19:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Marxism-Leninism and Communism where inspired by evolution? OK, I understand what you mean now. I still don’t really understand what I did wrong though. (I can’t see your account name on the history of the article though) Miller 19:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Human evolution fossils"

...just doesn't sound right, does it? If you really wanted to, you could make it "List of fossils of human evolution". However, arguments from genetics suggest that none of the fossils we find are likely to be direct ancestors of modern humans, so if you really are going to be picky, you could say that the fossils, when alive, did not significantly contribute to human evolution anyway. What's the way out? "List of hominin fossils"? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the award

See, it pays of contributing to this site while at work (all my edits are done while my reactions are incubating).--Roland Deschain 17:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested moves Rhodesian man

You recently removed the move tag for that page, I guess I was the only person interested in the page move. I still think it needs to be done. It would be a move over a redirect but the redirect has some history so I need an admin to help. Can you do that or should I go back to the Requested moves page? Again the requested move is old name Rhodesian Man to new name Homo rhodesiensis in order to make it consistent with all the other species pages (Rhodesian Man refers to a specific fossil while the page is about the species.) I am working on creating pages for several fossils and that info will eventually end up there. Thanks Nowimnthing 14:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened to that move request. An anon tagged the talk page eight months ago and then added the entry to WP:RM but it was lost somehow. Apparently no one took it seriously and removed it from WP:RM and then left the move tag there. I found it going through crusty forgotten move tags. Yes, please do add the move request again if you want - it just slipped through the cracks somehow. (I've removed dozens or hundreds of abandoned move tags lately so it's not unheard of) —Wknight94 (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/o/w/User_talk%7ENowimnthing_cbe4.html"