User talk:Plumbago

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

- Welcome to Plumbago's talk page -
Although it would be easier to follow a discussion if I replied to messages left here on this page, I often reply on your page.
However, if I have posted on your talk page, I will be watching so you can reply there if you wish.



Hello, Plumbago, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:50, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

about File:Face on Mars with Inset.jpg[edit]

Hello Plumago, I bought an image at a public auction that is supposed to come from the nasa. But I was surprised to see on wikipedia that you were the author of the insert. The link : What do you think ? Thanks, Caroline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cydony (talkcontribs) 11:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cydony. Erm I can't remember what I've done with the images in the past — it's been a while since I've done much more than revert vandalism in the Cydonia article. I may well have handled the images you mention in the past, and I would have used NASA / ESA images at that time. But from what I can see, the particular image that you highlight looks like it was created by someone else. In any case, are you concerned that Wikipedia's licensing is being abused? That is, someone (your public auction) is selling something that they aren't allowed to. --PLUMBAGO 14:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Plumago. Yes, I try to understand where the print is coming from. I have some doubts on the fact that its comes from the nasa itself as it is indicated. The image seems to be a printing of the wikipedia photomontage. In fact, image I bought is exactly the same as this one : On the page, you are mentioned as the author of the insert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Ocean acidification[edit]

hi plumbago, thanks for being an editor... True the petition didn't go anywhere specifically, but the denial put EPA on the record that ocean acidification requires regulatory relief and that their programs, like the clean powerplant rule and the paris accords will provide that relief...all programs that are being walked back...the petitioners informed epa they would resubmit the petition if it became clear that epa actions would not in fact mitigate the problem,,, i will try again but this time adding more information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docdonn (talkcontribs)

Hi Docdonn. Sorry if my edit seemed a little abrupt. I shot a little from the hip there, as there is — as you note above — an interesting backstory here (and, hopefully, some useful future action). However, I judged that a failed effort to influence policy in one country (admittedly an important one) was too much detail for the page. To be sure, there's lots of information on the page that over-complicates the narrative on ocean acidification. If you'd still like to include this information, it seems like it could go in the subsection above on reducing CO2 emissions. And it could probably do with some framing that better explains why it is a significant addition — I certainly read it as a minor effort to try to alter policy (e.g. the page on the organisation bringing the petition doesn't mention it). Sorry, again, if I appeared a bit brusque — I need to remember to not bite new editors. Best regards, --PLUMBAGO 07:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Plumbago... clearly I'm new at this...I'll follow your suggestions and take another stab at it... best Docdonn (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Plumbago... I wanted some advice... if you're not the right person, I'd appreciate you pointing me in the right direction... I'd like to add a section to ocean acidification about how multiple stressors amplify the effects on marine life, e.g., ocean acidification, warming and deoxygenation create trophic mismatches, there's been a lot research in the last few years on this, not just meta-analysis but this year some interesting mesocosm studies in australia... do you think a section in ocean acidification is appropriate (as OA is more widely known) or do you think it needs its own article?Docdonn (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

In general, my view is to try not to fragment articles, especially when a "daughter" article is likely to be relatively short. I appreciate that there's a lot of work going on about this (my last read-up on it was this article), but that's true of just about every scientific topic, and I expect that the essence of it can be distilled down to a section here. So I'd suggest focusing on this, and on what the main messages from the meta-analyses and mesocosm studies are. Hope this helps, --PLUMBAGO 09:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you it does help ...I'll do an edit today... Docdonn (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2017 (UTC)