User talk:Stevenwmccrary58

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome 2 Archive of User Talk:Steven McCrary 3 Mediation: Computer Science 4 In re 3RR 5 template web reference 6 Jehovahs Witnesses/Sockpuppets 7 Vote 8 Jim Hightower 9 Hightower Book 10 Jim Hightower superdelegate vote 11 Baseball on Wikicities 12 Mediation 13 Regarding tired light 14 I-76E 15 JWs 16 edits of others comments 17 cucumber 18 Are you there? / Tired light 19 your input might be appreciated 20 Mediation on Computer Science 21 RE: A request for arbitration over Tommstein 22 Tired Light Mediation result due? 23 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein 24 Threading 25 Your email problems? - Tired light 26 tired light 27 Babe Ruth 28 Sorbitol image 29 User 206.253.95.5 Vandalizing 30 Request Help 31 ContiE has impersonated me on other wikis 32 Tired light / some help 33 tired light case 34 Co-production of society and technology 35 Wikipedia Research Survey Request 36 technology and society merges 37 If you are Still Around 38 New baseball article improvement drive 39 Inclusion of physical sciences in Template:Natural sciences-footer 40 Science and technology 41 Fluid Dynamics Project

[edit] Welcome

<>Who?¿? 21:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archive of User Talk:Steven McCrary

Archive 01--from July 05 through Christmas 05

[edit] Mediation: Computer Science

This comment is meant to be informal to hopefully correct a concern before we begin. You mentioned that my used sources are spurious. In good faith, I am totally confused by your comment. Do you mean to state that I conterfieted sources? That is a common assumption over the word spurious. I hope you meant to say that the sources are not harmonuous with generally expected x, y, and z methods. If not, I feel like my many-many hours of time taken to track down sources are waisted.

The general assumption I have on wikipedia is that expertise is welcome, but it doesn't relieve anybody of the need to cite sources. When my expertise is questioned, I have taken the time to find sources if I don't already have them. Sometimes, it seems every bit of added information is questioned and sources are requested. Well, I have gone as far as to only judge if to directly use entire content or not rather than to incorporate expertise or reflect on other content. It appears some people target users as far as a psychopathic style to pressure a point. Wikipedia is still globally young, and I predict it will play a major factor in mediation between different cultures.

I'm glad you stated your viewpoint of what you initially agree with for a definition of CS. — Dzonatas 13:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In re 3RR

I last reverted the Jim Hightower article eight days ago. I hardly think I'm in any danger of violating the rule a week later. -12.217.121.245 21:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] template web reference

Hi Steven. Think I'll let you work now there. Looks fine. At Template talk:Book reference/regression tests I have done larger set of tests for book reference (no dev branch yet there). Maybe this could inspire you for web reference. Drop me a note if I can help with anything. Happy template hacking! Adrian Buehlmann 21:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jehovahs Witnesses/Sockpuppets

From the sockpuppet check done by Kelly Martin Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#Sockpuppet_check I think it is now clear that most, if not all, of the sockpuppets/impersonators were actually Retcon. It is hard to tell with the anonymous IP editors: many are almost certainly controlled by regular registered editors given the nature of the edits. CarbonCopy (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to express my appreciation for your fairness and even temper in dealing with POV editors within the Jehovah's Witnesses articles. The antagonizing and instigating that goes on within the discussion pages seriously detracts from the goal of producing an NPOV set of articles, and it is taking editors not affiliated with Jehovah's Witnesses to be able to call them on their manners and unfair editing. Witnesses who tried were repeatedly bombarded with rude, uncivil, insulting and denegrating responses, and any effort to obtain an NPOV edit was shot back with accusations of attempting to decieve (the world, I guess). Again, thank you. - CobaltBlueTony 04:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

Steve, If you are intrested please vote here- Vaikunda ^{(<.^.>)} Raja

[edit] Jim Hightower

Hello,

I don't check the bio page of Jim Hightower often, so I didn't realize you had responded regarding Mediation. The person "edit warring" with me keeps putting up factually incorrect information. Looking at Jim's book, that the person keeps citing, there is no mention of Hightower casting his superdelegate vote for Jerry Brown. Hightower has stated to me that he cast his superdelegate vote for Presiden Clinton, because Cinton was the Democratic nominee. I'm happy to discuss this further with user 12.217.121.245 or with you. posted 16:23, January 4, 2006 by Laura74, please sign your posts. Thanks.

[edit] Hightower Book

I can't give you a scanned picture, because I don't own a scanner, but I can give you the following information. The line is in There's Nothing In the Middle of the Road But Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos by Jim Hightower, ISBN 0-06-092949, chapter 1, subsection "Vernon Jordan's Dream," page 41. The exact quote is, in reference to his activities at the 1992 Democratic National Convention, "I had supported Senator Tom Harkin's failed bid for the nomination, then moved to Jerry Brown when Harkin bailed out." -12.217.121.245 23:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Hightower superdelegate vote

Thanks for your help. I've gone through the section on the 92 Dem Convention, and nowhere does it say the superdelegate vote was cast for Brown. HIs book doesn't mention who his superdelegate vote was cast for, but Jim says he cast it for Bill Clinton because Clinton was the Dem nominee. I can post the entire text of the section on the 1992 Democratic convention, if you think its necessary. ~Laura74~

[edit] Baseball on Wikicities

Hello Stevenwmccrary58, Googie Man here and I want to ask you something as a fellow baseball fan on Wikipedia. Jimbo and Angela have made a new webstie called Wikicities. This link in particular will take you to the baseball Wikicity. As you'll see it's similar to Wikipedia, but my hope is this will allow baseball fans to do more and different things, like reporting on games, in depth statistics, create mulitple pages for pictures, and whatever else baseball fans care to create. You've done great work on Wikipedia and I was hoping you could help get this baseball Wikicity off the ground. Please let me know what you think either at my talk page, or you can email me at terry@wikia.com. Thanks! Googie Man^(Talk), 16:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Mediation

I gather you are working on the case Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/4_01_2006_tired_light ? You forgot to mark the case in the case list, I've made the comment for you. Please change it if you are not working on the case. --Fasten 21:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer to pass the case to me, but my interest in cosmology is restricted to science fiction. --Fasten 10:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding tired light

Reponse from ScienceApologist regarding User:Harald's answer:

1. 1. . . . did you say you read the Zwicky article? And yet you have no independent source? --ScienceApologist 07:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
   2. There are no "standard old proposed scattering mechanisms". Tired light does not deal with scattering except in some fantasy world of Marmet and others drawing tremendous comparisons from their work to the years between the wars. --ScienceApologist 07:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
   3. "ScienceApostel" -- this seems like he isn't exactly "writing for the enemy". I'm not sure what his "negative" comments ammount to. I certainly don't know what is "negative" or what is "positive". But I do know what tired light is. --ScienceApologist 07:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
   4. Marmet's proposal is absolutely rejected by the scientific community. Scattering is not a source for the cosmological redshift. End of story. (Not only that, but Marmet's scattering is also not tired light.)--ScienceApologist 07:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
   5. I don't believev this response at all. If this were the case then he would not base his definition of tired light on the article itself. --ScienceApologist 07:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Reponse from ScienceApologist regarding User:Iantresman's answer:

1. 1. I find it very problematic that Ian will list sources he doesn't read. He is very fond of making laudry lists of articles that contain key-words he is interested in writing about. These practices lead me to believe he is not a competent editor in many cases. --ScienceApologist 21:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
   2. Ian's claim that lack of scattering implies lack of tired light effects clearly shows he doesn't have familiarity with the material he is trying to write about. He gets very upset when I refer to his lack of expertise, claiming that it represents personal attacks. However, his advocacy often crosses the line between adding information and POV-pushing. --ScienceApologist 21:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
   3. Ian's anti-science attitude doesn't make sense when writing articles about scientific subjects. Tired light is a scientific subject, so it makes little sense to give undue weight to those who write incorrect or misleading missives that are unscientific and include the in the scientific article. We can keep the views opposed to science on the pages devoted to explaining such views when they are notable. Ian wants to see them included on other pages too, a clear violation of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. --ScienceApologist 21:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
   4. Ian's view of what constitutes a minority view is wrong. Minority views are minority views because they are held by a minority of people who know about the subject. --ScienceApologist 21:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
   5. Ned Wright's criticisms are based on peer reviewed work. This is a secondary source, to be sure, but to claim that such is "not being peer reviewed" is highly problematic and an example of a type of advocacy relating to an anti-science mentality. Ian's inability to judge which sources are of high quality and which ones are not makes his contributions often very problematic. --ScienceApologist 21:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I-76E

Hmm... his leaving came so unexpectedly... we've started discussions about the routebox on the WP talk page, but they seemed to be in a deadlock now. The problem is deciding what to do with Browse State Highways and the Junctions list... so I'd say keep it open for a week or so, but it's up to you. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JWs

Ok, I'll keep slogging at it, and see if we can resolve their problem like this, otherwise from the amount of mediation they seem to be needing a more formal process might suit them better. - FrancisTyers 20:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edits of others comments

I have a thought, and I hope you will take it under advisement, and not personally. I do respect your position and qualifications in the academic field, and appreciate more than you know your efforts to bring this series of articles under the academic tone Wikipedia strives to uphold. Steve, while I agree with the spirit of your edits of others' comments that contain insulting, uncivil, or otherwise hostile tones, even of JW editors, I think it is wise to leave the comment as is, and remind or reprimand the user with specific quotes containing the inappropriate tone. This will keep everyone in line without giving the impression that you are overstepping Wikipedia policy in editing others' comments, which is generally considered inappropriate. I would hate for your tireless and noble-minded efforts to be diluted by accusations that are pelted upon anyone who dares cross certain editors working in this project. - CobaltBlueTony 17:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

edit - It might be too late. - CobaltBlueTony 17:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It is too late, I have said my protest, and I am not alone. What is happening is a disgrace, and I have never seen such kind of manipulation before on Wikipedia in a Talk page. What next? The history pages are all zapped out of existence? After that book burning? Next what, jail for owning a Bible? I thought we were progressing, but I was sadly too optimistic. Central 18:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Cobaltbluetony and Central, I am trying to follow some of the suggestions on Wikipedia:Civility especially those under the subsection on Rephrasing disputants comments. My intent is to keep the tone civil and on topic on the Mediation page. The notes that remain in the Mediation text points the users to deleted text, so if they still want to read it, they can go to the history.

I do not favor, nor does the Mediation Cabal, admonitions, so I try to avoid those.

I am taking a little liberty here, since it is mediation, albeit informal. Your protest is so noted.

I do not have the authority, not do I want the authority, to "zap" history. It is all still there.

Thanks,

SteveMc 18:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cucumber

Thanks for that cucumber award, by the way. It made me smile and feel appreciated. Cuccumbers give me gas, so just ignore that faint odor; it's nothing, please move along with the rest of the tour. - CobaltBlueTony 17:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are you there? / Tired light

Hi Steve, we are waiting for your suggestions on Tired light... At the moment the article is transformed into a stub, because ScienceApologist has a different opinion about what it means, and we haven't yet found peer reviewed articles that define the term. But I'm afraid that when we do find such, the problems won't be over. Especially the recent discussion about that on the Discussion page is enlightening. Thanks, Harald88 23:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

In reference to that article Tired light, I moved the text that was more of a comment to the talk page. Hope this is helpful. - CobaltBlueTony 05:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

IMO that was not helpful at all; and although it's not too bad now, the article still pretends to be a true stub and still incites people to just type away instead of consulting the Talk page.

Steve, IMO it is not standard practice to stub a disputed article, and in view of the Cabal mediation, don't you think that it's better to present the full article that ScienceApologist disputes, with a "Disputeabout|Topic of dispute" tag? (please comment on the Talk page). BTW I will do that now. Harald88 10:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steve, I guess that you are not up to the task... Right? Harald88 22:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Harald, I left a response on your talk page (just now) about my slow responses; sorry. Regarding disputing a stub, I do not believe that is against Wikipedia policy that I can remember. I have seen disputes handled both by moving the disputed content to the talk page, and by placing a disputed tag on the main page with the dispute text. Right now, I think the article is fine as is. It presents the main definition of tired light, until the editors get something to add, I would not put it on the main page. MHO. SteveMc 05:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steve, it now, as usual, provides ScienceApostel's own version of it; while it did present the usual definition as well as ScienceApostel's uncorroborated definition which I included for him, awaiting corroboration, but which he deleted so that you would not see it -- and that trick worked, as so often. See my comments there. Harald88 07:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your input might be appreciated

Hi Steve - I'm not sure if you are aware that a request for Arbitration has been filed regarding several of the editors involved in the Jehovah's Witnesses mediation you have been doing. As you have an outside, independent viewpoint in dealing with all of the personalities involved, and as this mediation is still in progess (and making progress it seemed, slow and tortured as it's been), I think the Arbitration Committee would benefit from hearing whatever comments you may wish to make, as they are deciding now whether to accept the case for Arbitration. Thanks, --Krich (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was the Arbitration request I was speaking of. It was filed against Tommstein, and most of the players in your mediation are listed as parties and have written statements. It seemed a bit premature to me, didn't reflect that all parties involved are often uncivil to each other, and that Tommstein contributes a lot of good information and reasoning to the articles (along with the heat). But I'm washing my hands of further involvement in this potential ArbCom matter - Tommstein's response to the statement I left really makes me wish I hadn't bothered. Thanks, --Krich (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Good call. I thought about that after I left the initial notice to you, and then assumed you would likely not comment. BTW, kudos on the mediation work you have been doing - you've shown incredible patience and stick-to-it-iveness in a real mess of a situation, and some progress has been made thanks to your efforts. --Krich (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation on Computer Science

Hi Steve, thanks for your effort on mediation. — Dzonatas 11:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I too, would like to request your assistance on this page. —Ruud 13:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: A request for arbitration over Tommstein

Steve, I know you're a busy guy, but I thought I would bring this to your attention in case you missed it in the blur that is life: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Tommstein. I thought you might want to recuse yourself so that your mediation might continue without perception of prejudice, even though your name isn't specifically mentioned by Duffer. If, however you can think of any other admins and/or arbitors who would like to chime in, it would help speed up the process, as we only have two votes. Thanks again for all your patience and tireless assistance! - CobaltBlueTony 02:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tired Light Mediation result due?

Just wondering when, the mediation case on Tired Light gets a final decision? --Iantresman 17:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It is pending... but look at the tired light discussion page, and you'll see that things are going downhill. I now think of starting a WP:RFC because of another editor's actions. The choice is between article-RfC or user-RfC, and it's a bit of both. But for user RfC I should wait for a third person to get active involved in the discussion with the other editor... Harald88 17:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tommstein/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Mackensen (talk) 03:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Threading

I tried to reorganize to avoid the appearance of threading. --ScienceApologist 19:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your email problems? - Tired light

Hi Steve, I tried to send you the papers that I have on Tired light (Zwicky, Marmet&Reber etc.), as well as info how to get some papers directly; but the first email bounced, and you didn't reply my next email. Meanwhile you did thank someone for Zwicky's paper. What's happening? Is one of your emails defect or not in use anymore? Harald88 08:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

See my reply; in short, it may help to point out that I did not ask mediation on a scientific issue. Thanks so far! Harald88 14:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tired light

Hello Steven -- saw that you asked for some input on tired light. I'm actually a postdoc in cosmology, so may be able to help.

Very briefly -- the mediation is very long! -- here are some thoughts:

1. tired light and "intrinsic redshifts" to explain the high redshifts seen in e.g. quasars: these are pretty much "dead" and extreme fringe. I wouldn't call it pseudoscience, but the number of active cosmologists who advocate these theories is very, very close to nil (as far as I can remember, there haven't been any papers advocating, or even discussing, either, in 2005, and there are perhaps 40 papers a day published in astrophysics/cosmology.)
2. plasma cosmology has a few hardcore adherents, but in general does not receive support from the mainstream, and, again, the mainstream doesn't feel the need to address it any more.
3. I saw Zwicky's name mentioned. Zwicky was a huge genius, very smart guy. He also was the first to invent dark matter, and perhaps the first to invent (or at least point the way to) dark energy, as well as gravitational lensing and a whole host of things. So one should be careful when describing Zwicky as an advocate of tired light, since he said a huge number of contradictory things and is in many ways the creator of the mainstream as well as a contributor to ideas that have fallen (way) out of fashion. (He may also have later renounced his support of tired light, so check that.)
4. both tired light and plasma cosmology (as well as intrinsic redshifts) may possibly be internally consistent, but they clash with such oceans and oceans of data from other parts of astrophysics and cosmology that they are just in big trouble and everyone other than the hardcore adherents (which includes some people outside of academia) just ignores it. (This is in contrast to MOND, a theory that has lots of problems, but that is still treated with respect, if also a conviction that it is probably wrong, by the general scientific community.)

Hope that helps. Any particular questions? Sdedeo (tips) 20:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It's nice to see Simon here helping along. I remember him as one of the most competent teaching assistants from when I was an undergrad. --ScienceApologist

Great! Of course popularity has little to do with science, and we know that few people are interested (and publish) on "tired light"; thus any references to that article are welcome. Harald88 02:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Babe Ruth

I'm posting this message on you Talk Page either because you've contributed to the article Babe Ruth, or because you've edited other baseball or sports related articles. I've recently completed a revision of this article at Babe Ruth/rewrite. If you have the time, I'd appreciated it if you'd compare the articles and leave any feedback you might have on the rewrite discussion page. I'd like to reach a consensus before makeing major changes to the main article. Thanks for your help. --djrobgordon 20:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorbitol image

Why did you change the file extension of the image? Do you remember? Probably not - it was more than 5 months ago. Was it because of the download problems? -- Boris 20:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User 206.253.95.5 Vandalizing

I belive you issued a last warning on vandalism to this user on 12/16/05. S/he justvandalized Battle of Normandy with an obscene statement that has been reverted by another editor. Just thought you'd want to know. DMorpheus 20:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request Help

Steve, will you don't feel difficult Can you help me by bringing to my knowledge any users who can translate the Ayyavazhi article to other world major Languages. - Vaikunda Raja 19:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ContiE has impersonated me on other wikis

Hi, I'm in a potentially awkward position with an Administrator. I have read the Wiki pages on dispute resolution but I'm still not sure how to proceed.

The Admin ContiE has a personal grudge against me for reasons I do not fully understand. He has been this way since I began frequenting wikipedia.

I have done work improving the furvert article. He has basically gone on a crusade against any edit I make. He controls every furry category article and several others ruthlessly. He is an iron fist and bans anyone he edit wars with. I had uploaded pictures and he deleted them with no talking. He seems to believe I am every person he has had an edit war against. He is always using personal attacks, calling me troll without reason. I uploaded them again and he voted them for deleted, but to his surprise the person who runs the images, thank you Nv8200p, found they were acceptable once I tagged them properly. Just recently he removed both the images without himself discussing it in the talk page (unless he was the same person who discussed only one) with the edit here [1] Then ContiE assumed bad faith, added his constant insult of troll in the talk page. It appears on a completed different wiki, a comedy one in all things, somebody else stole my username and I believe this was Conti himself and uploaded them. ContiE showed it as his reason. While vandalism like his, I would revert and mention it, he would ban me permanently if I undid his edit. That is why I am asking admins for help. He holds a couple of accounts on wikipedia and I think they are administrators so I have to be careful who I tell about this. Arights 07:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tired light / some help

Many years ago I was a mathematician, so I don't know that much more cosmology than your average Carl Sagan fan. OTOH I read the article on Tired Light and it all seemed to make sense. What did you want help on. So I'm willing to try (if you think there is any point). If not then lets cross it off.

[edit] tired light case

Hi. I've got a background in astrophysics and will take a look at the tired light case. -- Joebeone (Talk) 15:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Co-production of society and technology

Something non-important for when you return - did you finish the merger that you noted you'd started on Co-production of society and technology? I've looked at the articles and it looks like the material may have been incorporated, but it isn't entirely obvious (I'm far from knowledgable on the subject). If it's finsihed can we redirect now? Kcordina ^Talk 10:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Research Survey Request

Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 00:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
PARC User Interface Research Group

[edit] technology and society merges

please provide arguments for your suggested technology and society merges, so that they can be discussed. without arguments for the merges, they should be removed from the pages. --Buridan 18:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

it probably should be left at least until the related merges are worked out.--Buridan 18:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

why? we can pick up the discussion on the other pages.SteveMc

I have provided arguments, there is no need to repeat them. SteveMc 18:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you are Still Around

I see you are only taking a limited number of cases within the Cabal, but if you could look into what is happening on the George W. Bush talk page under the section title "Deletion of Inappropriate Statements" we could use a neutral point of view. Thanks. AuburnPilot 17:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I think we'll be able to finally put this issue behind us all. (I hope) AuburnPilot 02:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New baseball article improvement drive

Greetings fellow WikiProject Baseball member! Just a quick note: there is now an article improvement drive just for baseball-related articles at WP:BBAID. Please take a look and vote on an article or add one of your own. Once an article has been agreed upon, feel free to stop by and lend a hand in getting it to featured article status. Hope you can participate! —Wknight94 (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of physical sciences in Template:Natural sciences-footer

I've raised the question of whether physical science is suitable for the template on its talk page but haven't had any replies so far. I decided to look at the page history and noticed you were the editor who added it, so I thought I'd refer you to the question here. Do you feel it belongs with the others? I find it too meta-level myself, since it's more a grouping of other sciences already listed on the template, and isn't an academic disipline in itself. Let me know what you think. Richard001 05:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science and technology

I have noticed the work that you have put into the technology page (and also your frustration with the article's current direction). I hope you might make a visit to the Science and technology article and share your thoughts. The page is being considered for deletion, but I think it is a worth while topic & one that could serve to de-clutter Technology. Cheers -- MCG 15:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fluid Dynamics Project

I have created {{Fluid}} and the relevant categories. Can anyone come up with an image to use and can we start tagging articles. I think this will (hopefully) mean that if people move into this section (or away from it) it will be easier to keep track of what has been done and what needs to be done. Is this a good idea, have you any feedback? Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 23:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)