User talk:Smkolins/Archive 2

Baha'i Timeline

You said:

(using "H"e/"H"im is not proper syntax in an encyclopedia - there has been extensive work on all religions about forms of address)

May I ask that you kindly undo the changes as I have never heard of any such ridiculousness. Please show such a place on Wikipedia that says this. Furthermore it is a Manifestation of God

With respect, Rahimian 20:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

merger seems awkward

You said:

I know that meteoroids are the thing and meteors are an ephemeral phenomena caused by meteoroids - but everyone know meteors and wold be confused, I think, by searching for meteors and coming to a meteoroid page. Seems a bit coercive - I'd rather see the meteoroid redirected to the meteor page--Smkolins 04:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I originally merged the pages and I'm undecided on whether the main article should be meteor or meteoroid. If you want to swap one for the other be my guest. I'm easy. Rsduhamel 18:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Meteor

I don't see where the discussion is taking place? -- Jeff3000 04:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

immediately above this section. Again the question is how to do this....--Smkolins 21:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Only admins can make the move as both articles have histories. Place a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- Jeff3000 22:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Global dimming

I made a few corrections to your edits. Please check them to see if this is what you meant.Kgrr 16:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Bt and Nosema and CCD

The problem is that the Christian Science Monitor quote just doesn't add up. Even though it's sourced, it's so obviously wrong (to anyone actually researching the issue) that it would be inappropriate for us to present that quote in any way that could be interpreted as reliable. The CSM quote said "a disease - Colony Collapse Disorder - is working among mostly western US commercial beekeepers who are reporting losses of between 50 and 90 percent". There was a discussion just yesterday on BEE-L (a moderated discussion list of bee researchers, etc) trying to run some rough numbers to validate some of the numbers alleged in recent news reports. Apologies if I'm misremembering some of the exact numbers but the rough analysis went like this.

There are roughly 2.5 million commercially kept colonies in the US.

If 20% winter losses are considered normal (and many consider that a low estimate even in a good year - and significantly low considering last year's drought and it's affect on winter stores), that leaves 2.0 million hives entering this season

Almond pollination requires about 1.1 million colonies

There are no reports of dramatic shortages among almond pollinators. The prices for almond pollination are about where they were expected to be before anyone started talking about CCD

To achieve anything close to 50% losses, we would have had to lose essentially all non-migrated colonies. We know that is not true.

To have anything like the reported losses, we would expect an increase in orders for replacement packages, queens, nuc colonies, etc. No such increase has been reported by the major producers. Prices for packages and nucs are about where expected.

While a few beekeepers are reporting catastrophic losses, a few beekeepers go out of business every year. The allegation that this year's losses are the result of CCD (as opposed to other diseases or (mis-)management practices) is interesting speculation but so far remains unproven in the minds of many researchers following this case. The CCD article has been relatively careful to maintain that balance in the presentation of what is known and what is speculation. That's been difficult in the face of all the unsubstantiated reporting and known misquotes by the media but we've been trying. The problem in my opinion is that it's very difficult to maintain that balance when we're making side comments in other articles like the Diseases of the honeybee page. A "see also" link to the CCD page makes sense but I don't think the science substantiates more than that yet. Rossami (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

link of CCD to GMO and Nosema

Hi. Just to clarify; the "irresponsible" portion that I was referring to was not the article in the CSM. There is nothing wrong with that article. What was irresponsible was the EDITOR who inserted the phrase "Whether it is this Bt-genetic induced Nosema is uncertain, " and then tried to use the CSM article as support for this claim, when - in fact - the CSM article has nothing at all to do with Nosema, and is thus NOT appropriate for inclusion in the Diseases of the honey bee article, nor does it support a connection betwee these three things. So, (1) the citation did not support the claim it was being used as a citation for, and (2) it does not belong in the article in the first place, except possibly as it relates to CCD. Dyanega 18:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:DavidinVieques.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DavidinVieques.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 08:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Flora_feathers.jpg

I have tagged Image:Flora_feathers.jpg as {{replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. Rettetast 16:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Flora_grey.jpg

I have tagged Image:Flora_grey.jpg as {{replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. Rettetast 16:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Flora_grey.jpg

I have tagged Image:Flora_grey.jpg as {{replaceable fair use}}. If you wish to dispute this assertion, please add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}} to the image description page and a comment explaining your reasoning to the the image talk page. Rettetast 17:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Mac OS X and Wikipedia

I noticed you query from a while back regarding Wikipedia software for Mac OS X. If you are still interested, I would check out 1.) WikiGuard and Twinkle (which I highly recommend and use on a daily basis and also requires Mozilla Firefox). If you already found what you were looking for, I apologize for bothering you :-) — Curran _{(talk | contibs | random)} 00:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

twinkle on safari

FYI i just noticed your recent comment to AzaToth on Safari 3.0 and I would like to inform you that I have been testing and debugging twinkle on Safari 3.0 and he has already fixed a few things in the past 2 days that should improve it even further. ATM I have one major problem remaining which is with the 3 rollbacks in a diff. Azatoth has indicated that once he updates twinklefluff to work in the same style as the new twinklexfd.js that this might be fixed but that will take just a little bit longer. But most of the functionality should now work (XFD, warn, csd, last, since, since mine, revert to this revision). untested are arv, rpp and the sysop functionalities. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thomas L. Thompson

We received an email from a Mr. Thompson saying that it was a different Thompson. I understand you added the ref in good faith, but look at the math - It seems unlikely that Thompson could tell his fellow students students in 1957 at a graduate school that he was Baha'i, when in 1957 the subject of our article would have been only 18 years old. Furthermore, the article does not otherwise establish that he was ever at Vanderbilt Divinity: the linked curriculum vitae does not meniton it. Again, I have no doubt that your addition was in good faith, but the evidence points to the Thomas L. Thompson of our article, and the Thomas L. Thompson who converted to Baha'i, as being two separate people. --Golbez 15:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

OTRS is the system for Wikimedia support emails; it's where all the emails about "this article has been vandalized," "this article is incorrect," and "i'm going to sue you" go, as well as "i love your site" and also tons and tons of spam. The emails are private, I cannot reprint without permission. I could have just done it myself, without mentioning the email, citing the lack of mention in the curriculum vitae and the unlikelihood of an 18 year old being in a graduate school, but I chose to cite the email that led me to the article in the first place. The detail of the email is not terribly irrelevant I don't think, as I have outlined exactly what issues were brought up, and the supporting evidence I mentioned - the math and his curriculum vitae - were not mentioned in the email, I did that checking myself. The Thomas L. Thompson that we have an article on is very very unlikely to be the Thomas L. Thompson that told his classmates in 1957 that he had converted to Baha'i. --Golbez 16:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks for pointing out the category. --Golbez 16:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Wakeupfirstpage.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Wakeupfirstpage.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image 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. Calliopejen1 15:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Freak3cover-thething.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Freak3cover-thething.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 17:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)