User talk:Paulmcdonald

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Paulmcdonald! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 20:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

[edit] Copyright concerns

Hello, concerning your contribution, Napoleon Bonaparte Brown, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://browngrand.org/history.htm. As a copyright violation, Napoleon Bonaparte Brown appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Napoleon Bonaparte Brown has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Napoleon Bonaparte Brown. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Napoleon Bonaparte Brown, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia.

[edit] Please do not remove speedy deletion tags

Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself, as you did with Napoleon Bonaparte Brown. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:

1. Place {{hangon}} on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag(s).
2. Make your case on the article's talk page.

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. --NMChico24 17:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that above every blank new page there is a warning that unsourced articles may be deleted. However, in the spirit of good will, I'm posting to say that the sources do not make it clear why Mr Parry is notable enough for an article. The fact that he is a elementary school headteacher and scout does not at first glance appear to satisfy the criteria here. Unless that can be established, it is my view that the article shold be deleted again. Jimfbleak.talk.06:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ken "Pope" Parry

The article Ken "Pope" Parry has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. -- JLaTondre 16:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you re-read the WP:CSD page as there more than 12 criteria. In particular, db-bio is WP:CSD#Articles #7. Please do not play wikilayer as it's not beneficial to you in the long run. If you can show that the article subject is notable, please create a valid article that cites verifiable sources. Do not simply repost what you had as it will be deleted again. If you would like to protest the deletion, you may do so at deletion review, but you are not likely to get anywhere unless you can show notability which you haven't so far. -- JLaTondre 16:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There was nothing in that article which indicated that he had any notability outside of scouting. It would take *a lot* to get a scouter to meet our notability criteria. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Ken "Pope" Parry

Please see Editing Talk:Ken "Pope" Parry --Paul McDonald 16:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ken pope Parry

I recreated the article following your comments, it has since been deleted/protected again, but nothing to do with me. Jimfbleak.talk.08:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I should have thanked you for letting me know about the review. I won't contribute, I'm happy for others not involved so directly to decide on notability. Jimfbleak.talk.07:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerned Peer

Something needs to be done about this Jimfbleak guy. He's on some kind of deletion rampage. --Donahue2 23:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] May Louise Cowels

I can't find a page with this title in the deletion log. Jimfbleak.talk.08:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] speedy

I see that you too urge people to use speedy with care. I'ce made a suggestion that might help on the CSD talk p., and I'd like your comments, there or here. DGG 19:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Young earth

Ok I will bite. What is the evidence you see for a young earth?--Filll 21:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

OK fair enough. Do you not believe there is any evidence that refutes that? Do you believe all of what you have posted is correct? Does it bother you that 10,000 years would imply a start earlier than the Usher date of 4004 BC? --Filll 01:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What if someone found evidence or claimed to have evidence that the earth is older than that? Does that include just the earth or the Universe? Did God make the Universe to look old on purpose? Do you not trust radioactive dating? Racemic acid dating? Remnant magnetization dating? Sea floor spreading and plate tectonics? I guess you do not trust DNA-based dating techniques? You do not believe in DNA?--Filll 01:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... that's an almost "nasty evangelistic" response... like you're trying to cram your beliefs down my throat. Okay, I'll take some of those...

1. Sure, there's also probably some evidince that could be interpreted to refute the idea of a young earth. I could even be wrong.
2. I believe what I posted on your page to be correct, some or all could be incorrect.
3. No, it doesn't bother me that 10,000 years implies an earlier start of 4004 BC as the strict Biblical timeline implies because I also believe a global flood would mess up the data some... but that's bringing religion in to the discussion (remember, you brought it up, not me)
4. Lots of people have found evidence and claimed that the earth is older than 10,000 years.
5. Does it include the whole universe or just the earth? That's pretty much outside the scope of our "age of earth" discussion
6. Did God make the universe to look old on purpose? There you go, bringing up religion again! (probably, though)
7. Do I not trust radioactive dating? No, because it implies a steady-state of radioactive supply over time, and we just don't have enough data to effectively support that conjecture at this time. It might work... it might not.
8. Racemic acid dating? See above
9. Remnant magnetization dating? Also, see above and substitute "magnetic forces" for "radioactive supply"
10. DNA-based dating techniuqes? I'm not a biologist...
11. Do I believe in DNA? Sure. What's that got to do with the age of the earth?

Please only respond if you can keep from being belligerent.--Paul McDonald 01:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not mean to be belligerent. I am only trying to understand where you are coming from, how you think. If you dont mind, I would like to ask some more questions. I do not mean any disrespect:

• Do you go to church regularly?
• what religion were you raised in? Did you go to church regularly as a child?
• If the earth was made to look old, why does it matter that the coral reefs etc are no more than 10,000 years old and the trees are no more than 3000 years old?
• Given that well in excess of 95% of the 1.3 million scientists scientists in the US, and well over 99.9% of the well over 500,000 biologists and geologists in the US would disagree with your statements, how do you explain that? Are they all lying? Deluded? Confused? Crooks? Stupid? including several dozen Nobel Prize winners? What is wrong with them in your opinion?
• Given the fact that the US Supreme court has ruled that this kind of material that you put in your list cannot be taught as scientific facts in the classroom, what is wrong with the US Supreme court?
• Why would anyone ever bother to make the earth look old? To fool men? To tempt them? To test them?
• Do you think science has contributed anything of value to your life? Or do you think that the US should stop all science now and stop all technology. Let other countries do it, since it is all a waste of money and stupid? Or even worse, possibly evil and drawing men away from religion?
• What do you think of those of other faiths? Are they wrong? What should be done about them?
• I presume you believe in a young earth because of biblical teachings. Do you believe everything in the bible literally?
• Do you believe that there are no problems with interpreting the bible or deciding what version of the bible to use, or what translation to use?
• How much do you know about other religious faiths?

I hope I have not offended you with any of these questions. I am just trying to understand your point of view. I am sure you are a nice person and mean very well. --Filll 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul's Response: hmmm... lots of questions here. I won't take the time to answer all of them, because, well, they don't really apply to my Wikipedia contributions, I'm not 100% qualified to answer them, and they are outside the original request of information for evidince for a young earth. But, in interest of friendly communication, I'll address each one:

• Do you go to church regularly? Yes
• what religion were you raised in? Did you go to church regularly as a child? I was raised as a United Methodist and regularly attended church from childhood through high school.
• If the earth was made to look old, why does it matter that the coral reefs etc are no more than 10,000 years old and the trees are no more than 3000 years old? Well, the question was "what evidence do I see that points to a young earth" and I listed that information. I don't see how your question even applies...
• Given that well in excess of 95% of the 1.3 million scientists scientists in the US, and well over 99.9% of the well over 500,000 biologists and geologists in the US would disagree with your statements, how do you explain that? Are they all lying? Deluded? Confused? Crooks? Stupid? including several dozen Nobel Prize winners? What is wrong with them in your opinion? Back in the 1950's, a prominent advertisement stated "More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette!" Many doctors thought that tobacco, cocaine, and heroin were excellent for one's health. We know better now. And to think that all of science has hit everything spang-on 100% accurate is very close-minded. The history of science is filled with "decision-reversals" as new evidince and theories are brought. And, as you say (although I don't think your numbers are precise), 5% disagree.
• Given the fact that the US Supreme court has ruled that this kind of material that you put in your list cannot be taught as scientific facts in the classroom, what is wrong with the US Supreme court? Two points here: 1) The US Supreme Court has reversed its decision on many cases in the past. Some of them I agree with, some I do not--but regardless, the Court has been known to reverse its decisions from time to time. 2) The US Supreme Court ruled that we can't teach that the Mississippi River Delta is less than 10,000 years old? What material in my list has the court ruled on?
• Why would anyone ever bother to make the earth look old? To fool men? To tempt them? To test them? not sure
• Do you think science has contributed anything of value to your life? Or do you think that the US should stop all science now and stop all technology. Let other countries do it, since it is all a waste of money and stupid? Or even worse, possibly evil and drawing men away from religion? Lots of great things have come from science--from health care advances to the thermos bottle. I never said anything about stopping science--you just assumed that.
• What do you think of those of other faiths? Are they wrong? What should be done about them? Do I think other faiths are wrong? Yeah, at least for the most part. What should be done about them? Dunno. They should be free to practice their faith. But a lot of religions and faiths have a lot in common (don't lie, don't kill, etc) so a faith that doesn't match mine isn't 100% wrong. Not really enough room here to go into it in great detail, and I'm not a theology professor anyway...
• I presume you believe in a young earth because of biblical teachings. Do you believe everything in the bible literally? Sure. I don't understand it completely, and that takes serious study.
• Do you believe that there are no problems with interpreting the bible or deciding what version of the bible to use, or what translation to use? Oh, there are lots of problems--and they are outside the scope of this discussion.
• How much do you know about other religious faiths? Not as much as I know about my own, but I have studied some of the other world religions, at least generally. Not sure what this has to do with evidince for a young earth, though...

I don't plan to take the time to pursue this conversation much further in Wikipedia. If you have questions about young earth theories, I ask you to contact the organizations that regularly teach those theories--they will be in a much better place to answer these questions than I.

Peace!--Paul McDonald 04:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure I wont bug you. Dont worry.--Filll 04:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creationist Challenge

Hate to tell you, but most of those people you suggested fail the challenge badly. But thanks for the note. --Filll 01:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Kaufmann and Oard were a little shy in the credentials requested. But like I said... it was a start.--Paul McDonald 01:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul, Filll posted that challenge in (at least) three places, including on my talk page. I answered the challenge, and he has been unwilling or unable to refute my list and has not acknowledged that the challenge was successfully answered. You might be interested in reading the discussion for yourself. Philip J. Rayment 02:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 02:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smoked Meatloaf

My grandmother has been cooking meatloaf in the smoker for decades as has her family in general, how is this "a relatively new culinary favorite" that you are "widely accepted as the creator" of? Just wondering... Nashville Monkey 07:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the National Barbecue News http://www.barbecuenews.com/ about that. I would say that they are more of an authority than your grandmother.--Paul McDonald 15:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to be nitpicky but, if she has been cooking it for decades (of which 3 of them I have been eating it) I would say that the National Barbecue News is blowing smoke (no pun intended)and she would be an authority on the subject. But either way, it's not really that big an issue as I was just wondering. Good day Nashville Monkey 01:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe she's been cooking it wrong for all those years. Dunno. All I know is that a recognized authority in the BBQ universe has credited "moi!" with it! Don't like that? Your argument is with them.--Paul McDonald 05:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion criteria

We have two main methods of deletion:

Articles for deletion - Full discussion and debate for five days. Only when it does not meet a speedy deletion criterion.

Speedy deletion - Deletion immediately. If author contests it, they may be given time (half-an-hour or so) to update the article.

There is no in-between. We do not give vanity articles 48 hours to try to come up with something. We can't. We have no method for keeping track of them, and frankly we get thousands a day. If we don't clean them out immediately, they become totally unmanageable. They're barely manageable now. Fan-1967 15:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

ummm.... okay.... what are you talking about and why are you posting on my talk page? just curious...--Paul McDonald 19:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Because you had posted on the Talk pages of a couple articles that had speedy deletion tags, recommending we give the article 48 hours. It's just not an option. Fan-1967 19:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's not an option. I just didn't think it should have been flagged for speedy deletion. I voiced an opinion after that, is that okay with you?--Paul McDonald 19:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I was just clarifying. Fan-1967 19:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, then.--Paul McDonald 19:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A few caveats to avoid oversimplification

• AfD. Any appropriate WP criterion for deletion can be --and often is--given as the reason for an AfD, regardless of whether it might also meet the criteria for the more summary processes. To see this for yourself, check the current AfD debates at WP:AFD
• we also have prop -- proposed deletion, which automatically deletes if not objected to within 5 days. This, like speedy, is is used only for defined categories, including some of the categories which might also give cause for speedy. Prop can be stopped by anyone other than the author removing the tag and giving a reason. Opposed proposed deletions give rise to AfD debates if the deletor wishes to continue them.
• speedies can be stopped by anyone other than the author removing the tag and giving a reason. Opposed speedies give rise to AfD debates if the deletor wishes to continue them. The author, however, should give a reason, but not remove the tag. An admin, before actually making the deletion, is supposed to check for opposition from the author or anyone else.
• there is ongoing discussion about the proper use of speedy--see the talk page
• there is almost always discussion in AfD about the appropriateness of the criteria. Except in the most obvious cases, there are editors there both supporting and opposing.
• Any deletion can be contested by the process of Deletion Review.
• the term "vanity" is depreciated because of the unpleasant connotation.
• WP people often but not always disagree about both individual deletions and the appropriate criteria. Don't take anyone's individual word for it --not even mine (smile)-- but read the criteria, read the talk, go to the pages for the different processes, and observe. You'll learn even more by participating yourself. DGG 20:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] theatre

The change I made here was to delete the category on 'Buildings and structures'. I did this because the theatre is already in the 'Theatre' category, which is a subcategory of the 'Buildings and structures' category. I did not see a purpose served by having this 'double level categorization'. I did not examine all the rest of the categories this article had/has. In general, I read what the category structure already is and fix things that look out of place or create new subcategories when it seems a new logical grouping would help WP. Hope this helps. Thanks Hmains 06:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replace images

You deleted four images with the following statements:

1. "Image:Cdch.jpg" (replaceable fair use, 48 hours)
2. "Image:Motherhousegrass.jpg" (replaceable fair use, 7 days)
3. "Image:KS0801005a006.jpg" (replaceable fair use, 48 hours)
4. "Image:Pow8.jpg" (replaceable fair use, 7 days)

All four of these images met Wikipedia criteria for posting and were documented on the page as to why they met the criteria. You removed those images. So I have three questions:

1. What does "replacable fair use" mean exactly,
2. What was your purpose for removing the pictures?
3. Will you put them back?

--Paul McDonald 15:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfree images can only be used under our Fair Use criteria, the first of which is that a free alternative could not reasonably be created. Upon reviewing these images again it seems the last one is of a now non-existent buildings, but nonetheless had no rationale (WP:FUC#10). For the other three, any Wikipedian could go a take a photo of these and freely license them, it seems. If you want to upload the last one again, please read WP:FU to decide whether or not it would be suitable, and how to do it properly. Thanks, ed g2s • talk 19:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't really answer my questions... but you gave me rise to others: What exactly is an "unfree image" and why exactly do you not believe these images do not meet the critera when permission was obtained, the fair use policy was followed, and the descriptions were given?

I did some checking and it looks like you have a bot running to delete a load of images in a short period of time. Perhaps you should check the bot code.--Paul McDonald 06:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm not running a bot. To answer your questions explicitly:

1. An unfree image to which "a free alternative could not reasonably be created" as I stated.
2. They violate our policy (WP:FUC#1), which is in place to encourage people to create more free content wherever possible.
3. No.

An "unfree image" is one which is not free of copyright restrictions (free to modify, redistribute and sell without restriction). ed g2s • talk 10:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

So let me make sure I have this clear: I can't use the photos that I got permission to use and have to send someone else to take new photos and then get permission to use those instead? Why can't we just use the photos that we have permission to use in the first place?

Precisely how do the photos violate WP:FUC#1 in the first place? I've read it several times and I just don't see any violation.--Paul McDonald 02:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Permission to use on Wikipedia only" is not helpful to us. Images must be freely licensed, that is, permission must be granted to anyone to use them for any purpose (including commercial use and making derivatives works). The part of FUC#1 I am referring to is "if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken" - so if a Wikipedian went a took a photo of the building - (s)he could release it under a free license, and we could use it. ed g2s • talk 12:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think that we have permission to use these photos on Wikipedia only?--Paul McDonald 13:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC) --Paul McDonald 13:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Because you used them under Fair Use. If you got them freely licensed you should say so. One has to assume you have no rights to use an image at all until it is demonstrated otherwise. ed g2s • talk 15:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The license drop down box is a collection of shortcuts to commonly used licenses. Some images are allowed under fair use - however it also contains some "traps" - such as for buildings and living people - that automatically get marked for deletion. The reasoning is that if people get a "you can't upload that picture" warning they might pick a wrong license instead. Deleting images which we know are copyvios is much easier than detecting copyvios that have been labelled as "My work: GFDL licensed". As for uploading your own work, it's up to you which license you choose, although you are limited to ones which allow free redistribution and modification. I suggest also uploading to Wikimedia Commons so the images can be used across projects. The drop down box also gives some suggestions for licenses under "Your own work (best practises)". ed g2s • talk 19:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)