User talk:Plumbago/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Lake Vida

Thanks Plumbago... I appreciate the research assistance. I'm finding things slowly but I'm digging up interesting stuff (did you know Antarctica has its own domain name .aq? Can't be used for the article, but I'll add that to the --Plumbago 16:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)bank of useless information I know). I'll slowly enrich the text aiming for a new paragraph per day.

One thing you can help with is the editing. I stink at it under the best circumstances, and after a 12 hour work day, 1.5 hours in the gym, not much brain power is left for spelling & grammar.  :-) Revmachine21 13:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I just finished up the geology section and I'm not terribly happy with it. Could you take a quick look and let me know what you think? If you think it sucks, I'll take a 2nd stab. Revmachine21 13:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. I've had a quick look and my main comment would be that there are a number of lists there that seem somewhat unrelated to Lake Vida itself. While an overview of the kinds of geological features around the lake seems reasonable to me, the names, etc. of specific features seem less useful. Unfortunately that would truncate the geology section somewhat, but it sounds like we have only limited data to work from. Another comment, in the infobox I'd replace "undeterminable" with "unknown" or "undefined". At the moment it sounds like it's not possible, in principle, to work out the depth of the lake. Also, I think the economy section could probably be filled in ("none").
I've tried to track down any information about this chap Kite, but can't find any appropriate references to meteorites, Antarctica or the surname Kite on the Web of Knowledge (a UK science publications resource, like PubMed). He might be finding meteorites while doing other research though I suppose. I have, however, tracked down a 360° panorama from Lake Vida's Met. Station. It's quite good actually, and I've added it to the reference section. Regarding which, the Reference section needs to be linked into the article a bit better at present (use of <ref>, etc.).
Anyway, sorry if it sounds like I'm just giving you tasks! I'll try to work on it a bit myself, but I may not have the time. Cheers, --Plumbago 16:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
No worries! You've kind of validated a general unhappiness I had with the info I put together under the geology section last night at 11PM. I will give a think to how to rework it. Regarding the "Undeterminable" comment, I didn't use "Unknown" or "Undefined" for a specific reason. The high salinity actually prevents measurement of depth using sonor. Something I ought to mention maybe in the Hydrology section? I found reference to Mr. Kite during my research. Was only a sentence or two, but definitely there, if memory serves, I've got it linked under the reference section. Will double check tonight. Anyway, that's in an upcoming section and I will flesh this detail out in future versions. Good find on the panorama shot. Onto the references section, I know a bit of a mess. Was planning to tackle that when I complete the other sections. Never actually set this up before in previous wiki articles (I know, bad form and all) and need to figure it out. When I get farther along I will give a shout for a courtesy edit.
Thanks so much. Revmachine21 00:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Plumbago, hand is a bit better, official diagnosis, tendonitis of the mouse hand, rest, and ice treatments. I'm going to take it easier for a while longer. Noticed the reorganization of the article, still maintains the same information content, so no complaints from my side. My mind has been spinning over the improvement options and will be back soon. Revmachine21 13:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Revmachine21. Sorry to hear about your hand. It's worth watching out for these things, so take it easy. I've had repetitive strain injury in the past and although I'm now much better, I've never really fully recovered (and one of my officemates is still using voice-recognition software more than 5 years after suffering). In my case, my desk arrangement was mostly to blame, and a visit from our ergonomics expert helped. Hopefully it won't come to that for you. Get well soon anyway.
Regarding Lake Vida, the text about food caches in the hydrology section was bugging me but I couldn't see anywhere else to put it. So I thought creating a proper introduction section would be a good place; it also stops the introductory paragraph from being too long (my POV on many other articles). I tried to word it so that it didn't repeat your text in the new introduction, but feel free to tighten it up when you get back to editing. Cheers, --Plumbago 14:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the Geography Barnstar! What a nice treat. Didn't know there were such awards out there. Hand is doing a little better, but I'm going to continue the rest session for a little while longer while I plan the next sections for Lake Vida. Revmachine21 01:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you deserved it given the work you put in (which I'm hoping wasn't responsible for your hand!). It's been fun helping you get the page into shape - not least because it's not a subject I was au fait with, so I had to learn something. Regarding Barnstars, there's a page somewhere which explains their function in WP, together with a list of templates. Good luck getting over the tendonitis, but do watch out in case it is RSI. Best regards, --Plumbago 06:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cookie break

An award to acknowledge your extensive and detailed grasp of the utterly irrelevant  :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 13:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
An award to acknowledge your extensive and detailed grasp of the utterly irrelevant  :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 13:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding to my userpage. Feel free to add a quote of your own, and enjoy the cookie. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 13:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the new quote, it's a classic! Remember "...dogs and cats living together; real Wrath-of-God type stuff."? :) --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 15:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thankyou!

Hi Plumbago, thankyou for your message, very kind of you! I'm glad I've graduated but it feels odd now as my whole life has been school and now it's over! I'll certainly sneak in as much Half Life as I can in Ghana, but I think in the meantime I'll have to leave Black Mesa and all its associated jauntiness in your more than capable hands  :-) Rusty2005 13:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User Page Edit

Thanks for catching the typo! :) Bo-Lingua 17:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saying creation is psuedoscience is POV, quit that:

Psuedscience- noun: an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions Labeling YEC psuedoscience is saying that the assumptions it is based on are incorrect.

Science Assumption
YEC science The Bible is the innereant word of God who created the universe as described in Genesis
evoultion The universe can be explained without God

So calling either psuedoscience is denying one of those, obviously POV. Jphl 11:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, you totally don't get it. Creationism is not just pseudoscience because of its assumptions. It's pseudoscience because its methodology is completely back to front. As I've said before (and will doubtless say again and again), "here is the answer, let's find some evidence to support it". This is absolutely, emphatically, insanely not science. Hence pseudoscience. --Plumbago 15:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's examine your view:
    Creation is psuedoscience, "that's my answers, let's argue to support it."
    Argueing to support thoeries is how a truth is revealed. Argue , then people may look at all points of the arguement to determine who is correct. That's the way the court system works. That's the way debates in front of audiences or televised work.

What you're failing to understand from my courtroom analogy (which may well have been a dreadful mistake), is that "the evidence" is all of the scientific observations we've accrued over centuries. What creationism presents is a tiny subset of that which coincides with a particular reading of a particular holy book. What science (= evolutionists in your book) presents is necessarily all of it. We can't ignore irritating bits of data when they don't fit into the bigger picture. Meanwhile, that's creationism's modus operandi. And when creationism isn't out cherry-picking from observations, it's attacking those bits of science that it perceives as an immediate threat (usually missing all those areas, cosmology, geology, etc. that, while less headline-grabbing, are even more at odds with it). --Plumbago 17:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • And again methodology does not make something psuedoscience, being based on fallicious assumptions does: Therefore, in Wikipedia, you can't be POV and assert that the assumption that the Bible is the true is fallicious. Though I guess you may say so in a talk page-but not in the main Wikipedia.--Jphl 17:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As you're clearly a creationist, I suppose I should defer to you on the subject of pseudoscience, being closer to it and all that. But it's frankly ridiculous to suggest that it's only assumptions matter in the definition of a pseudoscience (as if that would help creationism anyway!). Science proceeds in a logical fashion generating hypotheses from observations, testing these with more observations, and only retaining those that survive the process (though they may be canned at the next iteration). If an endeavor doesn't follow this approach (and, let's face it, creationism doesn't come close), it's not science. It might not be pseudoscience, but whatever it is, it's placed itself way outside the scientific method. That this something's assumptions might also be rubbish certainly won't help. --Plumbago 17:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, while this is fun and all, we're clearly going to have to agree to disagree. But I (and others) will continue to revert POV edits on creationism pages. The Wikipedia's rules on pseudoscience are pretty clear on how to represent it, and to distinguish it from the scientific community's view whenever it steps into the arena of science. --Plumbago 17:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah Well, it has been fun, and I suppose I'm going to have to learn to deal with people who will atack me as a creationist instead of remaining on topic dealing with creation. And what you say abot creationists not using the scientific method is a sweeping generalization, though I will admit that there are many who don't use science properly, and the general creationist cummunity whas not done enough about them. So here the arguement ends. May God (the Creator) bless you.† --Jphl 17:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jphl. I know we've called quits, but I'd just like to add that it's really not being a creationist that I have a problem with. My objection lies purely with attempts to dress creationism up as science. I'm afraid that it really isn't science at all, and that's why it has no presence in the research literature. Regarding creationists doing science, yes, there are probably plenty, but they're certainly not publishing creationist work, they're publishing proper science. That they can hold science and creationism in their heads at the same time is very interesting, but it doesn't improve the lot of creationism in scientific circles. --Plumbago 15:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Though I want to continue one thing: the disputed line at the end of the first paragraph:
"and that scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution or geological uniformitarianism either does not exist or is wrongly interpreted."
I would like to point that this is more NPOV:
"and that scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution or geological uniformitarianism is wrongly interpreted."

Do you agree on that and allow me to change it? Because creationists don't say it's non-existant; they say it's wrongly interpretted (at least that is AiG's view; which although I recognize your reasoning to disapprove of as "professional and scientific" is major for YECs). Would you just revert that if I changed it? If so, why? --Jphl 18:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I accept your change. Some creationists would say that such evidence "does not exist", but it seems more reasonable to me to characterise the creationist position as suggesting science "wrongly interprets" evidence. Creationists (and here I'm generalising terribly) accept that fossils exist, but rather than seeing their stratigraphic ordering as representing the passage of time, instead suggest it represents how fast animals could run away from the Flood. So interpretation is the key. --Plumbago 15:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why you can't say "There is no support for a 'young Earth' theory in professional science journals or among professional science organizations."

Answers In Genesis is a professional science organization (whether or not you consider it psuedoscience. And Answers is a professional science journal. Jphl 11:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

AiG is emphatically not a professional science organisation. The creationism it supports is science turned on its head - "here is the answer, now let's find some evidence to support it". It's a thoroughly disreputable and non-scientific way of conducting research. What would you think of a court case in which only the evidence that supported one side was presented to the jury? That's what creationist organisations like AiG do. Whether it's evidence from cosmology, geology or biology, they present only the material that fits their literalist interpretation of the Bible, and discount the rest - which, so that we're clear, is almost all of the evidence. Sure, they've got some clever people working for them, even qualified scientists, but that obscures their utterly non-scientific methods. If I was God, I'd be ashamed of their disingenuous tricks to frame their creationism (and let's not forget that there are lots of creationist mythologies out there) as science. --Plumbago 11:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether or not you believe in creationism:
  1. AiG does science with "qualified scientists" even if you don't believe in the results
  2. People are paid, which is the definition of professional
  3. Therefore AiG fits the definition of a professional science organization.
  • Also AiG doesn't not deny other evidences- it debates with evolutionists about what those evidences support. Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence if you think about it. They both see the same fossil of some animal. An evolutionist says, "Hey, this must have slowly fossilized over a long time." A creationist says, "Hey, a fossil of an animal quickly buried in Noah's Flood and fossilized." The arguements are over the meaning of the fossil.
  • And evolutionists do the same: start with evolution as their base and choose interpretations to match that.
  • And their are many problems with evolution that until evolutionists can come up with a reasonable theory, are swept under the rug. Such as the whirlpool galaxy/winding up dilema problem, which has been unresolvable for 50 yrs.
  • In case you didn't notice, that's almost the way courts work. Each side presents only its supporting theories and findings. So creationists present what they can towards creation, and so with evolutionists. If you says that creationist should also demonstrate to support evolution, then you'd have to be fair in the debate and have evolutionists supporting creation.
--Jphl 14:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous, the payment of people who happen to have science degrees does not make something a professional science organization. For one thng, actual science organizations don't make people sign statements of belief. To be blunt, Jphl, you clearly have no real understanding of how science works, you make the same tired creationist confusion between evolution and all science that you don't like, you make the claim that somehow scientists start with preconceived notions, ignoring that an old earth and evolution were accepted in the 19th century by scientists who were initially YECs precisely because the evidence pointed that way. When you have something new to say, say it, but don't waste our time. JoshuaZ 14:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No, the payment of people who happen to have science degrees does not make something a professional science organization, but it does make it professional (professional-> noun: the body of people in a learned occupation;
Sounds like AiG to me: body of people check, learned occupation [science] check).
Learned? Please. If by "learned" you mean prostituting your talent to disingenuous ends, well, maybe learned after all. But that's hardly a worthy end, and it doesn't make it scientific. --Plumbago 15:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • And yes, in the 19th century, there was not enough of the science found today and used against evolution, such as the whirlpool galaxy problem just mentioned.
This is brilliant. You introduce galaxies as "evidence" against evolution, then (obliviously) make the very next point ...
  • you make the same tired creationist confusion between evolution and all science that you don't like-what does that mean?
... you can't make stuff like this up. You creationists are priceless. If you didn't exist, we'd have to make you up to amuse ourselves. --Plumbago 15:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • And would you say that a young man/woman entering into science does not come with the idea already set in his mind that evolution is true: perhaps from years of having it drilled into his/her mind by public schools and colleges.


[edit] Mary Midgley

Dunno if this is the right place to communicate with you.

It's as good a place as any.

I've been too busy to do anything about it, but your last edit to the Midgley/Dawkins entry weakens the article.

OK. But I don't quite see why this edit in particular weakens the article. I replaced "indignantly" (somewhat POV) with "consequently", and removed a statement that was essentially repeated in the quote from Midgley that followed.

I'd like to revert it. The previous version explains more about her motivation, and I feel your change is intended to frame her regrets as a withdrawal of her criticism. She emphatically does not withdraw them, and I feel that particularly in an article about her it would be best that this section should at least reflect an understanding of the critique she is making, rather than being a veiled defence of Dawkins coming - I have to say this - from a failure to understand the not-very-difficult points she is making. I realise you still believe that she misunderstood Dawkins - I'd like to think I can make the time to help with that if you're sufficiently interested, but life is busy..

I can't see why removing duplicate material and just letting Midgley speak for herself has this result. She's clearly not withdrawing her criticism - to me anyway. I don't think that the text I removed made this any clearer.
Regarding "not-very-difficult" points, I have tried repeatedly to find out what these are on the talk page. From your remarks there I gather that you interpret her assault on TSG as stemming from Dawkins' application of the language of emotion to unconscious biological entities, and the extension of this by him to drawing rather strong conclusions about the actual emotional nature of organisms. Is this the "not-very-difficult" point I'm misunderstanding? If not, what exactly is it? I could reply on the basis of this interpretation of my apparent misunderstanding, but I've already done this on the talk page, so I won't waste your time here.
If you can improve the section on her critique of Dawkins so that it actually makes sense, then great! Philosophy, like science, is supposed to be transparent and logical, so I'm sure that this is possible. I await enlightenment. Cheers, --Plumbago 16:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I should have added that it's not a problem if our discussion and improvements to the Midgley article take place over an extended period of time. So please don't feel obliged to reply quickly - we can pick this back up whenever you (and I, for that matter) can make the time. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retrogaming

Since this is as good a place as any to contact you, just wanted to say I've been following with interest your edits at Mercenary game series... because I am the MDDClone author. I don't read these pages too often, but it would be good to catch an e-mail from you at some point... cheers, mddclone at hotmail dot com 29 August 2006

Hi there MDDClone! Thanks for dropping by. I do hope that you approve of my edits to the Mercenary page. Mostly tweaks of late, but I did write larger portions in the dim and distant past. As it happens, I've been in contact about the Wikipedia article before - via The Mercenary Site and its bulletin board. I think Simon there responded. Anyway, my mail's down at the moment (don't ask), but I'll try to drop you a note at some point. Cheers, --Plumbago 17:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I am really grateful that you have put so much effort in to creating the Wiki page - this is after all why I have invested several years of my spare time in creating MDDClone. Looking forward to hearing more from you! The MDDClone author - 30 August 2006.

[edit] Dread Pirate Roberts

How is a reference to the real pirate Bartholomew Roberts duplicate info? --Invisifan 17:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Immediately above the point where you inserted your item it directly referenced Roberts - hence duplicate. --Plumbago 21:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Ouch. Okay I'm going blind ... though perhaps it might be more visible as a point in Trivia ... oh well --Invisifan 22:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
No worries. In fact, I think your text in the trivia section was a much better place for it, so I'll restore it. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your comments...

...on the Cambrian Explosion. You prompted me to make some adjustments and at long last heave the whole thing on to the main page!  :-D I'll add references soon.

Graham

Grahbudd 13:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Graham. Thanks for your efforts on this. Your text is so much better than what was there before. I originally intended to tackle the page myself, but it's really not my area, and I'd probably have wound up just tweaking what was already there. It was something of a relief when I saw that you'd already written an alternative on the talk page. Anyway, I've just had a go tweaking the paragraphing of the text and wikilinking (you know, the hard bits!). I'll have a read through at some point and see if I can expand it anywhere (unlikely). One thing I note the page could do with is some figures. There are a few animals linked in the article, but only ones like Hallucigenia have anything approaching an image we could use here. If you've any appropriate images yourself (especially if they've been used in papers that could be cited), I think they'd help illustrate the topic. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Half-Life 2 External Link

Thanks for the explanation - I appreciate the feedback and the reasoning - fair enough.

Heermance

Cool. I think it might be worth adding the link to Wallace Breen's page though. There's more of a connection there. Cheers, --Plumbago 15:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] help!

I want to make an article on "structuralism" in the sense of the biological school of thought - e.g. see the link from the Adolf Seilacher article, but need to disambiguate it from the literary etc use of the word. I have no idea how to do this despite studying the rules for a bit. Could you possibly help??

Many thanks

Graham Grahbudd 22:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Graham,
I've just adjusted the link on the page to [[structuralism (biology)|structuralism]], so click on that to start your article (or here). I'd have created it myself, but couldn't think of anything to write on the subject. Give me a shout if you have any further trouble. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Having now gone through your Cambrian explosion page to wikilink it, I just wanted to say (again) that it's a really good intro to the subject. So much better than the original. Nice work.

Hi again:

Many thanks again for your help and kind words. I've now scribbled some babble on the topic, and hope to return to it more later!

G

[edit] Andy Warhol

Thank you for the speedy answer -- was deleted. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed 15:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Good. Thanks for picking this up and sorting it out. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
We have a new unregistered editor removing that AW was gay from both text and categories. I rv once and he has now rv back to his version. No other edits on Wikipedia. Doc ♬ talk 20:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Doc. It looks like someone's beaten me to this. I'll keep an eye out though next time I'm on. Actually, when I editcounted myself recently I found that Andy Warhol is one of my most edited pages. Not, that is, because I've added much (any?) content, but because I'm forever reverting vandalism there! Anyway, thanks again for the heads-up. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] impact factor

Hi, this is Eric (EPIDING), please see my message i left for you on my USERTALK site. Thanks.

a rat it surely is. thanks for the help. but its not a rat as a blog, its a rat as plagiarism of a commercial database. I'd be glad to explain further why these links are wrong-- wrong, in the sense that theft is wrong. DGG 05:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi DGG. Thanks for your note. It looks from Epiding's talk page that this has been resolved to some degree. As it happens, my initial complaint was about the replacement of one dodgy source of impact factors by another, so you might want to check out the other source as well. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinking dates

Hi. You noted in an edit summary that "you're not convinced that dates like this should be linked at all". Making dates into links to articles like November 8 and 2005 is only a secondary effect. The main reason is that the MediaWiki software recognises paired links like "[[8 November]] [[2005]]" and transforms them according to user-settable date preferences. See WP:DATE#Dates_containing_a_month_and_a_day. It's <understatement level=strong>not the most elegant approach</understatement>, but it does solve the date format problem (d/m/y vis m/d/y). Cheers, CWC(talk) 14:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah-ha. That would explain lots. In which case, I'll re-edit my own dates to fit. Thanks for pointing this out! Cheers, --Plumbago 15:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


http://www.gatago.com/sci/chem/19211735.html

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/a058676cfb4b700f/1cc8edca62010b2b?lnk=gst

[edit] r/K selection

Hey Plumbago, I note that the J. Philippe Rushton page has recently been edited to remove much of the discussion of his theores per se, the discussion of r vs K selection in humans seems to have been largely purged. It's mention appears only in quotes by critics of his work. It could be argued that, absent any discussion of r vs. K on that page, that there's little point in linking to it. I assume someone will create a new page on his theory, and move the purged material there (along with the unending debates) then it would be a no-brainer to link to that page. Just a thought. Pete.Hurd 18:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pete. I see what you mean about the Rushton article. Regarding r/K, while it's mostly gone from the article, it does still appear in the (delightful) quote from Barash. In fact, it should probably be linked from there, or text added to explain what Barash is referring to. Whether we still need the link from r/K to Rushton is perhaps still debatable, but I've thrown in the towel on removing reference to him there. If another page ressurrects his material on r/K, the r/K article would probably better link to there. Cheers, --Plumbago 11:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WOCE

No problem :D - SpLoT 09:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Hammond Hess

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Harry Hammond Hess, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Lithpiperpilot 15:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, It was this that I was reverting.

He had 20 childern with 20 different women. His first childs named was Jesus so their for he is GOD.

That was by an IP user, and the warning must have accidentaly gone on your talk page. sorry, and have a good day Lithpiperpilot 16:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries. As I'd visited the page yesterday, I was pretty confused! Sorted out now. Cheers, --Plumbago 16:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
That's good. I'm using VandalProof2, and there are still some bugs in the system. Thanks again for letting me know. Lithpiperpilot 18:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theistic evolution critique

Thanks for editing out the strong POV that had been anonymously slipped in there. You may have noticed that in the Talk I'd foreshadowed editing the first paragraph of the 'Response to Critique' in order to remove a certain awkwardness of expression and to clarify what I took previous editors to be wanting to say (some, notably Leinad, had explicitly expressed their intended meaning in the Talk). At the same time, I hope I've lowered the polemical temperature a notch more.

But please feel free to tell me it's only my own POV! ~ Jmc 07:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I've just noticed that you had earlier reverted from the same anon's 'atheistic' to my deliberately chosen 'non-theistic' - deliberately, for precisely the reason you identified. Thanks again! ~ Jmc 07:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Glad to help. --Plumbago 08:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campbell's Soup Cans

I have created a separate Campbell's Soup Cans page. You seem to be knowledgeable and interested in Andy Warhol. You are welcome to make any revisions on my page. I have begun work on my second Series (Haystacks (Monet)). I have noticed other prominent series paintings such as Sunflowers (series of paintings) I was wondering if there is a category for Series Paintings. I am also wondering if the term series is a serious enough art term to deserve mention on the Series dab page and possibly its own article. I am an art hack who has never studied formally. I have never painted. I attend about 3-5 exhibits a year though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) .

I wouldn't go so far as to say I was knowledgeable, but I'm certainly a fan (as you can probably tell from my doctored userpage photograph). It's a good page you've done on the Campbell's Soup Cans, and if I think I can improve it, I'll give it a go. Regarding your comments about art series, I think it probably is worth an article, and possibly a category. Aside from the two examples you've cited (plus Campbell's Soup Cans), another that occurs to me is The Scream (although the series consists of fewer paintings). I guess one thing to watch out for though is that some artists paint a "series" of studies aimed towards a final work. That, to me, seems a little different from a proper series, although I guess the division can be blurred. For example, I recently went to an exhibition of works by John Constable (who I usually dismiss as too twee), where several of his iconic works were presented alongside the studies he made towards the final version (some sketches, some watercolors, some oils). To be honest, I found many of these "studies" more interesting and aesthetically-pleasing than the finished works! Anyway, just something to watch out for it you do create an article/category. I'll try to help if I can. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of a reference at J. Philippe Rushton

Hello, just to answer your question, the discussion in question can be found at [1]. Please keep in mind that users: BenGibson, 24.250.138.71 and 24.250.141.84 are in all evidence one and the same person.--Ramdrake 18:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

Hi Plumbago. As far as I can see 16 of your last 25 contributions have been reverts. Might be useful to be more constructive. Just a thought. NBeale 11:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. That's called vandalism watch. Cheers, --Plumbago 11:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I see in spite of your stellar contributions, your even demeanor, and your RC patrolling, you are not an administrator. Would you consider standing if you were nominated? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
(Pile on. We need more admins named after plant genera!) Guettarda 22:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua and Guettarda, thank you very much for your kind words. I'd not really thought about it before but, since you asked, I've now had a good think about it, and have poked around some of the appropriate pages over at WP:ADMIN. Reading some of those, I'm not confident enough yet that I'd make a good admin. My RC patrolling has confined itself to only those articles I've contributed (however slightly) to, and looking over my recent editing, I fear a predilection for confronting creationists. Contributing is fine, and I enjoy that, but so far my admin-related experience has been on a rather circumspect, need-to-know basis.
I guess that some of the experience I feel I lack would naturally sort itself out "on-the-job", but watching the work of admins such as yourselves from the sidelines, I feel that there's still some way for me to go before I'd be happy to serve WP this way. As an aside, although it may not be obvious, I'm actually trying to decrease my time spent on WP (but increase my creation of articles). It's a (very) nice distraction from my post-doc work, but I need to time-manage myself better.
Anyway, thanks again for your comments - it is (as ever) very pleasing to have one's efforts noticed. I certainly don't want to rule being an admin out in the future, but I don't feel the time is right now. Cheers, --Plumbago 16:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review of bacteria

Hi there. I'd value your input on this article. Thank you. TimVickers 05:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I'm offline for a few days, but back on later next week. One little thing I've spotted already is the conflation of morphology and associations in a single section. Not an obvious one that. The latter would fit better in a section on ecology; possibly one that slides into evolution (re: endosymbionts). Anyway, it does look good, and FA status isn't outside its grasp to my mind. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, this has been re-arranged. This article is now a Featured Article candidate, the nomination page is (here). Thank you. TimVickers 04:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viscountery

Regarding your recent edits to the article on the Viscount, I would like to direct you to my recent discussion with User:Brain. DS 18:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I've certainly no objection to the deletion of the Private Eye material on homosexuality - it was a rather weak source. My earlier edits were really to restore other material that was deleted without explanation. Anyway, thanks for keeping me up to date! Cheers, --Plumbago 21:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)