User talk:Kevin Baas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Kevin baas)
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Archives are made when this page gets way too long,
but not past the oldest active/recently active discussion.

/workspace

Talk:Archaea#ambiguous_sentence[edit]

Hi there, I've reworded that paragraph a bit. Is it any clearer? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You should have left it ...[edit]

[1]. I actually think that your point was stronger with the other link as it was more on target. Read what the other link actually says.  :) --GoRight (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Atheism[edit]

Hey Baas. I'm impressed by your style of arguement and the tenacity with which you've approached the Atheism lede debate. I wonder though if at this point we're flogging a dead horse. I think we're working against three editors who are fairly committed to their position. I'm guessing the best we can hope for at this point is to insist the (clarify) tag remains, and hope that other editors who can see sense will weigh in on the subject. NickCT (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Old souls[edit]

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for your reply. I hope you don't mind that I've copied it into the Atheism talk page in context in order to ask people to clarify their positions a little more.

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Good2 color crop.jpg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thank you for uploading File:Good2 color crop.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Kevin Baas. You have new messages at WT:COMP.
Message added 05:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for your comment at WP:RSN[edit]

[2].

I have some hope that this message may start to be getting through. A year ago, it was impossible, even though there were, by that time, ten secondary source reviews published in mainstream publications. They were all being rejected because the authors were "fringe," purely, or, if they didn't know anything about the author, the journal was weak, didn't matter what their review board looked like. It would also be alleged that these were minor journals, but that was already falling apart. Sure, Naturwissenschaften hadn't published a review, but it was publishing papers that relied upon prior work published all over the place.

And there was a complete absence of negative reviews, and the publishers, by that time, included the American Chemical Society, Elsevier (I just realized that Kozima's book was published by Elsevier, this was mainstream academic publishing, in 2006), and more. I never used Kozima because it is very expensive and I couldn't get access to it.... But I did get the ACS LENR Sourcebook, which is full of reviews of the field. And, of course, Storms (2007) was published by World Scientific, no lightweight publisher. I found a brief very positive review published by Frontiers of Physics in China, published by Higher Education Press, which is one of the largest academic publishers in the world, and which is allied with and codistributed by Springer-Verlag. That we don't have an article on HEP is astonishing, in one way, and not surprising in another. It was all rejected as being of "low quality," while raw synthesis was routinely used in the article on the skeptical side, or very weak and old sources.

The recent review at Naturwissenschaften means a lot to me, personally. I was asked by Dr. Storms to review a previous paper he'd written, not knowing where he was going to submit it, it was on heat/helium specifically. I gave him my comments. Then he told me that he'd submitted to NW and that they had asked him to write a more comprehensive review of the field. So the editors were soliciting this, this isn't some submission that just managed to squeak past peer review. And he gave me a draft, and I again commented on it, and I can recognize some of my language in the final product. And he gave me credit. That may seem minor or silly, but this means that my name is mentioned in the same journal that Einstein published in. I've discussed CF extensively with Dr. Storms, of course, especially about Takahashi's TSC theory. Let me tell you, Dr. Storms is not about to accept some CF theory without very strong evidence, and he gives all the expected contrary arguments. The idea that "CFers" are naive fools just doesn't match what I've met. I've met Schwartz and Hagelstein now, and I was invited to visit McKubre -- Jed Rothwell wrote me that he was jealous about that, apparently McKubre doesn't extend this very often.

And, of course, I'm also now truly COI, because I put several thousand dollars into buying equipment and materials to make kits to replicate the SPAWAR work with neutrons. The untold story is that a Wikipedia editor, a scientist, gave and loaned me thousands of dollars to help with this. That editor stays away from CF, precisely because of the toxic atmosphere that existed there. And I wasn't the cause of that, as I think you know. So I very much appreciate your support.

We have to be very careful not to make this into a personality problem, we need to keep our eyes on the goal: an improved article, or probably set of articles, presenting all that is found in reliable source, with the science depending on peer-reviewed reliable secondary sources, and balanced according to the weight of publication. As you know, there are some who are not going to like that, we can probably predict! But they aren't really the problem, the real problem is inertia and sometimes flawed Wikipedia decision-making processes. --Abd (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2010

Convenience links[edit]

The arguments being made on this at Talk:Cold fusion have been considered in depth and rejected, most particularly at Talk:Martin Fleischmann. Absolutely, the links are not necessary. That's a red herring. Do they improve the utility of the article? Are there sufficient reasons to think of the site as hosting massive copyvio to justify some blanket exclusion? We have reliable source -- see the recent Storms paper on Naturwissenschaften, for example, that recommend lenr-canr.org as a place to find copies of conference papers -- which are generally not otherwise available. One of the links removed, I believe, was to a Fleischmann conference paper. It's Fleischmann's recollections of what he was looking for, and an earlier version was accepted, after extensive debate, at Martin Fleischmann, and a later version is cited currently in the article. There is no doubt but that this source is hosted with permission, the copyright would be with the author, in fact.

These are all phony arguments, you can tell because they raised them one after another, quickly. Take it out because of reason A. When that's countered, take it out because of reason B. When that is countered, there is reason C. And this has been going on for a long time, and every time it was considered in depth, with neutral editors participating, the decision came down to use the links. I'm not sure that will still happen, and I'm not about to try. It's not worth it. There isn't enough support to move the article toward neutrality, with the science being based on the gold standard, recent coverage in peer-reviewed secondary sources. They will claim UNDUE violation, if this is followed. What they don't realize is that there is no recent skeptical review of the field, under peer-review. One will have to go back almost twenty years for that! There are sixteen revew papers published under peer-review in mainstream journals, not counting JSE, which deliberately covers subjects considered neglected by the mainstrea. It's still peer-reviewed, which is why Britz included it, but I didn't count in in my survey on Wikiversity of Recent sources. 16 reviews on one side. None on the other side. And ... tell me again, which side is "fringe"?

They will claim that the recent source contradicts older source. That's synthesis, based on shallow understanding.

There is media source calling cold fusion fringe, and tertiary source, fairly recent, still, calling it pathological science, but a specific coverage of the "pathological science" and "cold fusion" connection was published under peer review in 2002, which is probably stronger than anything on the other side. Goodstein, cited as supposedly supporting the "pathological science" side, actually considers aspects of both the acceptance and rejection to be pathological -- which is the same with Bauer, the 2002 source. I covered this on Talk:Cold fusion, in the section SA collapsed.

I'm out of here, it's way too much work for too little result. Thanks for your efforts, but it's not been enough. --Abd (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

you forget that when reason c is countered ones goes back to reason a again. there should be a name for that. "the indefinite law of transitivity" or "circuitously self-forgetting logic" or something.
from my experience wikipedia has a strong bias towards pseudoskepticism. esp. given obstinate psuedoskeptical editors like kirk and science apologist who are allowed to run rampant on wikipedia while people who are guided more by reason are sternly punished on questionable justification for minor things. and then your average person / editor isn't going to look to in depth to the details and probably doesn't have a very scientifically / logically disciplined mind, anyways. and lacking in-depth knowledge of the stuff, they seem to take a conservative stance by default. so you get what you get. and i don't think that's going to change. so i've kind of learned to live with it. science will go on. meanwhile, pseudoskeptics will continue to be allowed to run rampant on wikipedia, keeping it decades behind. it's a sad state, surely. but fortunately it's not too important. real work will continue to go on in the labs. that's what counts. there will always be the bible-thumpers. but all the bible-thumping in the world can't stop scientific and technological progress. Kevin Baastalk 20:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
...and one day they'll wake up in world that they can't understand. so they'll start postulating some extra-wordly power to explain it, and they'll prostelytize to each other for comfort, and... oh, wait... that's already happened, hasn't it? Kevin Baastalk 20:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
All of the arguments being brought up on Talk:Cold fusion over the convenience links have been brought up time and time again. At Martin Fleischmann I ran a process to develop consensus, and it did develop, and it still is sticking, in spite of occasional efforts to remove the link. I don't know why Beetstra is flogging a dead horse. On meta, I made a brief request which should have been adequate; but then JzG started ranting about me, and an admin indicated a readiness to accept the previous "reasons" for keeping it blacklisted, so I needed to address those reasons in detail, again, even though that had mostly been done before. Then Beetstra asked a new question, about the copyright status of preprints, so, again, I provided links to show major publishers who allow authors to put up preprints. The argument that, then, all this could go to WikiSource is preposterous. We'd have to get permission! The authors have the right to put up preprints, to permit it, but that is not a release into the public domain or under one of our licenses.
Part of the issue with Beetstra is over the use of the blacklist for other than spam. This is actual practice, but ArbComm has *roughly* disapproved of it. Not specifically, but they disapproved of usage for "content control." Which could include allegations of copyvio.
"Not spammed" is a winning argument with the general community, but Beetstra and possibly some blacklist admins strongly dislike it, considering it wikilawyering or violation of WP:BURO. i.e., a reduction of the scope of their power. I was, at meta, preparing for the possibility that this would need to go to RfC, which Beetstra headed off by delisting. Fine with me!
It is ironic that the successful request at meta was cited by the admin who just banned me from cold fusion, under discretionary sanctions, as an example of my bad behavior. I think I understand it, and that this thinking is rampant does not bode well for Wikipedia's future. Fortunately, discretionary sanctions are about the articles, it appears I am still permitted to discuss this on the talk pages of consenting users.... I did ask, and got no answer....
It is contrary to consensus at this point to assert copyvio at lenr-canr.org without specific evidence of it. The argument about copying from the journal is based on one page that's been cited where the publisher logo was present. Jed explained that page to me. Basically, an aged and highly reputable author sends Jed the page and says that it's fine to put it up. Jed does not want to second-guess the author and ask for a true preprint (who knows how the author got that copy? ...) So he put it up. I assume that he sent the publisher a request, but his experience is that most such requests are simply ignored. He's completely covered legally. And so is Wikipedia. Technically, the author may have violated the license, but that's really between the author and the publisher and they, too, aren't going to make a big fuss over the difference. Jed has written that he has recieved occasional take-down notices, and he promptly takes the page down. There is no risk to Wikipedia and no violation of WP:EL unless we know that we are linking to a violation. There have been attempts to change this to require proof of permission, which is utterly and completely impractical. As has been pointed out, anyone who suspects a page is copyvio is free to write the publisher and ask. And what happens if they get no answer, as is the most likely outcome?
And that page is a drastic exception to the norm on lenr-canr.org. How many links were taken out? By the way, at that point I'd only restored the links that had been whitelisted. There are many more.
Some get this confused with our actual hosting of copyvio. By policy, we need permission to host copyrighted material. In this case, it is very clear that copyvio has been asserted as Yet Another Excuse to exclude "fringe" material. It's similar with the removal of the Wikiversity link. It's a bit like denying a See Also link on the argument that the linked article is biased. Okay, if it is biased, fix it! But the difference with Wikiversity is that there are no restrictions on specific pages being "biased." They can be. It's the overall content and presentation that must be neutral there. And if only one side of some controversy shows up, the other side can't complain that their POV is unrepresented!
I tried to get participation there, before putting up that interwiki link. Ignored or refused.
Why are convenience links important? Well, the more eyes on the sources, the better the article. I've seen a source behind a paywall be misrepresented, in a high-interest, high-traffic article, for more than a year. Obviously, nobody went to a library except the original writer who had misrepresented it! Besides, being able to read the sources directly and easily helps readers comprehend the subject more deeply. --Abd (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
yeah i pretty much agree with you, esp. on why the links are important. but as regards copyvio, well as you said he's had a few take down notices, and from my experience wikipedia is really anal about copyvio (and for good reason - they're licensing it gfdl which means they have to cover not only their own butts, but everyone who uses their content's butts.), i've even had a possible copyvio notice put on my profile pic. i took the picture! did i ask myself for permission? did i give it? what if i didn't? am i then to sue myself? so point being that does seem like a reasonable argument. i don't know the policy details and all that, but in any case it's a lot better than the bla bla bla i've been getting so far so they at least deserve a little acknowledgement for that. and in any case i'm more than happy to shift my focus to the proposed explanations sections, where its seems there is a lot of progress that can be made on the article (there is certainly much room for improvement). Kevin Baastalk 16:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Friendly reminder[edit]

Information.svg Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Fox News Channel for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

i am aware of the policy. it is generally considered good form in discussions, esp. ones that can get stressful, to occasionally make a small light-hearted quip to lighten the mood. all the better if it is relevant to the facts and issues being discussed. Kevin Baastalk 14:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I am sure you are aware of the policy; hence the word "reminder". On a controversial topic, please be careful that your "light-hearted quips" are not perceived as aggressive, dismissive, or disparaging, or they could have the opposite effect. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Fractional diff.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Fractional diff.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. This animation is licensed as Public Domain. This is my work, but I resign from my copyrights. You do not need to attribute it to me, do whetever you want with animation or code. Witek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.156.82.207 (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Spoilage.jpg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Spoilage.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 10:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity[edit]

From Fox News Channel page: sorry, i watched a few minutes of that video. in short, it's a crock of sh**. it's more egregiously fallacious and opinionated than the people here who want to misrepresent it and add their own synthesis and analysis that's directly contrary to the information contained in the report. and it is the worst example of blatent bias i've seen in nearly a decade. it is just downright disturbing, and i wish you hadn't shown me it. I'm kind of curious on what you considered so outlandish? Yes I agree, his reasoning is shaky (basing his argument on ad hominems, a single Harvard study, and CBO's fallibility) but he did raise one or two decent points. What makes this so bad? Soxwon (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I was about to leave a comment based on that very comment. I put the video up there. It's clear from what he said that he didn't watch a second of the video and said that comment in order, most likely, to discredit the video. Lee doesn't use ad hominems in the video. Where were they? And he didn't base his stuff on one study, he just used one study. The video was already more than 20 minutes long. PokeHomsar (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)\

I am referring to the section that he watched (and sorry, my mistake, discrediting WSJ economists for ties would actually be Guilt by Association), and honestly having watched it, I was skeptical of the section on the economy and jobs. Soxwon (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
pokehomsar, if your reasoning abilities are anything like the person in the youtube video, i can totally understand why you concluded that i didn't watch a second of the video even after i told you quite explicitly theat i watched a few minutes of it and proceeded to give a rather scathing opinion of what i saw of it.
soxwon, maybe it had a few decent points, but i didn't watch the whole thing so i don't know. but one logical error or fallacy is enough to destroy an entire argument, and he just kept making one after the other after the other and they were all quite egregious and it was really starting to disgust me. so i had to turn it off. maybe if i watched the whole thing i might have seen a decent point or two, but certainly not enough to redeem the caricature of illogic and just plain making things up that i saw in just the first few minutes. i have a low tolerance for that kind of stuff. Kevin Baastalk 03:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Ohio recount2.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ohio recount2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 23:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Fractional diff.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Fractional diff.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Fractional diff.gif[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Fractional diff.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance tags[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove files for deletion notices or possibly unfree files notices from pages, or remove other people's comments the discussions. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

sorry, i thought one was supposed to remove the notice when it was no longer applicable. and in this case it's plainly obvious. i have not removed anyone's comments and i resent the implication. Kevin Baastalk 14:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey[edit]

Have you come across the work of George Lakoff? Based on this section of your user page, I suspect it may interest you. Might as well jump right into his Philoshophy In the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought even though it is one of those books that makes you feel good when you cease to smite yourself on the forehead with it. Careful, it is massive enough to bring on a superficial hematoma. They used to say the main tool of a linguist was a lot of shoe boxes, filled with index cards. I get the sense that he has plenty of that kind of thing available to back up what he says, which seems solidly empirical.

Really. just dropped by to say hi, and thanks for your continued efforts here. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Fox News Channel controversies[edit]

Might be trouble brewing in there. In particular the Maryland study seems to become subject to gaming again.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Gaaahh!!! Thanks for the notice. Kevin Baastalk 22:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

edit References to Pseudoscience Should Be Moved to Historical Footnotes[edit]

Query to the scientific community:

To the Directors of Physics Departments,

LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and Widom Larson Theory, aka Condensed Matter Nuclear, historically misnamed "Cold Fusion"

  1. Is this science or pathological science?
  2. Do you offer a class in this discipline? If so, please provide information.
  3. Are you developing a curriculum of this science? If so, when will you offer it?
  4. What peer review journals do you source in this field?

Kevin, P>S>

  1. Any suggestions before I move forward with this?
  2. Is this direction of query able to yield opinions the Wikipedia forum on Cold Fusion may value?

Thank you for your time,

Gregory Goble --Gregory Goble (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

i formated your wikitext for you. use #'s for numbered lists. re:"Is this science or pathological science?". pathological science IS science, so the "or" conjunction is inappropriate there. also, nobody can give an absolute answer on that question, so the question is really what they consider it. One might instead phrase that "Do you consider this psuedoscience or real science? If real science, do you consider it pathological science?"
Also then there's the question of whether personal correspondances would be considered usable information sources for the article. For validating copyright issues and the like, it's usually accepted. But as for article content, you'd have to satisfy the WP:V and WP:RS policies. Beyond that, it'd have to satisfy notabilty WP:N, which is a common topic of debate for content. other relevant policies are WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. A lot of reading, no doubt, but that about covers the core content policies. So in regard to "Is this direction of query able to yield opinions the Wikipedia forum on Cold Fusion may value?" that would depend primarily on its ability to yield WP:V, WP:RS & WP:N material.
Hope that helps! Kevin Baastalk 17:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
having said that, it's a controversial article and some editors have strong opinions/bias that affect their judgement, so consensus, npov, and accuracy are more difficult to achieve. Kevin Baastalk 18:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


Thanks, Just read the cold fusion section on your talk page. Made me a bit perturbed. Then I realized you had learned to accept Wiki dysfunction and your reflections on the impotant thing is that research in the labs and science still goes on, progress is being made. I remember my great Aunt, who till her death in the 90's would still argue that they had faked going to the moon. She would have loved to be a Wiki Editor on that subject. Luckily there are better encyclopedias than Wikipedia. Sadly Wikipedia is slowly making them go broke. Be well, be good, and thanks for the useful suggestions. I'll carry this tourch for awhile and pass it on when weary.--Gregory Goble (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Ohio reg mult.jpg missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Ohio reg mult.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Ohio vote mult.jpg missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Ohio vote mult.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Ohio machine problems.jpg missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Ohio machine problems.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Av sample kb1.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Cuykb spoiled.gif[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Cuykb spoiled.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)