User talk:Raeky/Archives/2009/July

SVGified logo

You are invited to participate in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#PNG better than SVG if the logo is copyrighted ?. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 16:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:N&i-butane.png

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:N&i-butane.png. 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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thought I put the PD tag on that ages ago. That image was uploaded eons ago. Fixed. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Evolution

Those edits you reverted were not vandalism, they may have been unsourced and not particularly helpful, but I don't think they were ill-intentioned. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ, his edit basically said evolution, at least the common creationist "macro" part was impossible. Typical creationist propaganda. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think these were very useful, so I'm not going to replace them, but I think you're misinterpreting what they wrote. My interpretation of this is that they are saying that the present form of a species determines (in part) its future evolution. This is probably true, but isn't something I think the article needs to discuss. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The evolutionary potential and future direction of all species is based on their present genotype and pheontype, even if phenomena like symbiosis may open up for new possibilities. What is biologically possible for a species, like insects with lungs and an inner skeleton, could be evolutionary very unlikely or impossible.

I bolded the highly problematic creationist propaganda sentence for you, and the reason I tagged it as vandalism. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I commented on the talk page of the article concerned. The use of the word "macro" would certainly indicate creationist propaganda. But I do think Hiporoo made a valid point in saying that the ToE predicts that we don't expect certain creatures that have properties that are all over the "tree of life" to exist. Indeed they don't and that is a prediction the ToE makes. Bacteria didn't produce whales and the two are far apart in the phylogenic tree. If they weren't the ToE would be in trouble. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Kinetic Theory

Any progress on the Mott & Jones images ?? Curious.....-- logger9 (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)