User talk:Hillbrand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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

[edit] 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) -- BRIAN0918  15:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Synergetics

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

[edit] Single-slit diffraction

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

[edit] 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 {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/l/User_talk%7EHillbrand_0a61.html"