User talk:Plumbago/Archive 5

NOLF

Well, about No One Lives Forever. I don't know where I've read that NOLF has been published in the year 2000/01, but I'm quite sure that I've read this. Morris Munroe 16:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. While the year may well have been published this way somewhere, the infobox contains a full date for NOLF's publication. To this end, I figured it best to use this unless we've got good reason to favour another date. Among other things, the game obviously was released on a particular day of a particular year (and not midnight on 31 December!), so being equivocal about the date seems misplaced to me. Cheers, --Plumbago 16:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you a Wikipedian from Fox Interfact? Morris Munroe 18:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Erm, no. I think my userpage should clear that one up!  ;) Cheers, --Plumbago 22:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've sent you a mail. Have you received it? Morris Munroe 14:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Got it. I replied to it via e-mail. Did that work? Cheers, --Plumbago 08:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it did. I've also received your mail and I replied. Morris Munroe 15:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I've played NOLF again just a few minutes ago. Morris Munroe 20:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I spoke to my brother the other day. Apparently my copy of NOLF is now doing the rounds with his friends. Though which ones he couldn't remember. Don't hold your breath waiting for me to start multiplayering NOLF! Sorry. --Plumbago 09:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Morris Munroe 17:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Greenland image

Ah! Sorry, I didn't see beyond the obvious mistake. You're right, you don't remove a useful image just because it has a spelling mistake. —Largo Plazo 12:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I'm embarrassed that I didn't spot the typo in the removed figure's caption! Cheers, --Plumbago 12:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Thank you for your effort on the Plankton image on O'Neill Sea Odyssey's page! I fixed the problem on the previous imgage. Dhaifley 23:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Flood Geology

I would be surprised (pleasantly) to see the use of 14C reported (positively) past 40Ky. Dan Watts 21:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dan. As I'm sure you're well aware, ¹⁴C is a ubiquitous decay tracer used to age recent (in the geological sense) material, whether it's sedimentary, living/non-living organic or even as trapped gas. A quick search using the Web of Science finds that, since the beginning of this year alone, 190 scientific papers have been published that make some use of it (or, at least, mention it in their keywords/abstract). Now, most (90%) of these are using ¹⁴C as a detectable radioisotope for process studies (e.g. tracking the fate of radiolabelled material), but there are papers on lake sediments, the Clovis people, the solar cycle, cave painting, Quaternary temperature on the Great Plains, the paleoceanography of Svalbard, the cranial morphology of early Europeans, ice sheet age reconstruction, etc. These papers all use ¹⁴C for determining age, though they combine it with other, independent (or semi-independent) methods to validate the ages they find (e.g. other radioisotopes, volcanic eruptions, etc.). And that's all just from the first few months of this year (and, to be honest, I got bored and stopped looking after the first 60 or 70 papers).

Now, I presume you're going to give me some clever answer as to why I should treat all of this work with a massive pinch of salt. Something about severe and systemic methodological flaws, or perhaps some conspiracy theory about the scientific brotherhood stifling discussion and burying bad results obtained using ¹⁴C? I could try to pre-empt and out-guess your response (I've seen enough failed "assaults" on ¹⁴C over the years), but I'm going to take the armchair approach this time, and afford you the opportunity to surprise me. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Having now looked carefully at the references you've cited over at Flood Geology, I note that the Lowe (1989) reference is actually questioning the use of coal as a ¹⁴C-free source material because of contamination (i.e. a 14C "background" limits maximum determinable age). The other reference, Beck et al. (1998), is also discussing limitations of ¹⁴C in the context of recent samples (Petroglyphs), and concludes that:

"If a sample submitted for radiocarbon dating is found to contain two types of carbonaceous materials, each with a different radiocarbon age, then an analysis of the bulk mixture will not yield a reliable radiocarbon age. An apparent age can be determined, but this apparent age has no true age significance. Clearly, in these cases the bulk radiocarbon ages are ambiguous, and do not represent the true ages of the samples."

So, neither of your cites have anything to do with using ¹⁴C to date geologically old material, certainly not in the way that you've suggested in the added text. So I'm hacking it out again. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So the fact that using ¹⁴C dating of "geologically old" coal will yield an 'age' of 40,000-60,000 years should not be included? Why? Dan Watts 13:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As the very references you cited state, there are issues with contamination (Lowe, 1989) and sample heterogeneity (Beck et al., 1998). Neither of these references for a second suggest that these findings are significant for the ages of the samples they examine. They are indicating problems that can occur when using¹⁴C; they certainly weren't suggesting a revolution in the ages of rocks. Furthermore, your addition of them in the text was completely unclear; it wasn't even obvious that they were being used to cast doubt on ¹⁴C (which I presume they were; I couldn't discern any other purpose). Hence my hacking them out: inappropriate use (some might misread as "disingenuous") of sources for an unexplained purpose. Cheers, --Plumbago 13:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I was showing that one can get different ages with different methods. Should these references then go in the carbon-14 page?

• Aerts-Bijma, A.T., Meijer, H.A.J., and van der Plicht, J., AMS Sample Handling in Groningen, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B, 123(1997), pp. 221-225 show marble, anthracite, graphite, and fossil CO₂ with measurable ¹⁴C.

• Arnold, M., Bard, E., Maurice, P., and Duplessy, J.C., ¹⁴C Dating with the Gif-sur-Yvette Tandetron Accelerator: Status Report, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B, 29(1987), pp. 120-123 report foraminifera and graphite with measurable ¹⁴C.

• Beukens, R.P., High-Precision Intercomparison at Isotrace, Radiocarbon, 32(1990), pp. 335-339 reports shells, calcite and fossil wood with measurable ¹⁴C.

• Beukens, R.P., Radiocarbon Accelerator Mass Spectrometry: Background, Precision, and Accuracy, Radiocarbon After Four Decades: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Taylor, R.E., Long, A., and Kra, R.S., Editors, 1992, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 230-239 show anthracite, natural gas and marble with measurable ¹⁴C.

• Bird, M.I., Ayliffe, L.K., Fifield, L.K., Turney, C.S.M., Cresswell, R.G., Barrows, T.T., and David, B., Radiocarbon Dating of “Old” Charcoal Using a Wet Oxidation, Stepped-Combustion Procedure, Radiocarbon, 41:2(1999), pp. 127-140 discuss a "radiocarbon barrier" at ~40,000 years and report Ceylon graphite with measurable ¹⁴C..

• Bonani, G., Hofmann, H.-J., Morenzoni, E., Nessi, M., Suter, M., and Wölffi, W., The ETH/SIN Dating Facility: A Status Report, Radiocarbon 28(1986), pp. 246-255 report Finland graphite with measurable ¹⁴C.

• Gillespie, R., and Hedges, R.E.M., Laboratory Contamination in Radiocarbon Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B, 5(1984), pp. 294-296 report on cracked petroleum with measurable ¹⁴C.

• Grootes, P.M., Stuiver, M., Farwell, G.W., Leach, D.D., and Schmidt, F.H., Radiocarbon Dating with the University of Washington Accelerator Mass Spectrometry System, Radiocarbon, 28(1986), pp. 237-245 report anthracite, CO₂ and graphite with measurable ¹⁴C.

• Gulliksen, S., and Thomsen, M.S., Estimation of Background Contamination Levels for Gas Counting and AMS Target Preparation in Trondheim, Radiocarbon, 34(1992), pp. 312-317 report marble, foraminifera, calcite and natural gas with measurable ¹⁴C.

• Gurfinkel, D.M., An Assessment of Laboratory Contamination at the Isotrace Radiocarbon Facility, Radiocarbon, 29(1987), pp. 335-346 report CaC₂ (from coal) and graphite with measurable ¹⁴C.

• Kirner, D.L., Taylor, R.E, and Southon, J.R., Reduction in Backgrounds of Microsamples for AMS ¹⁴C Dating, Radiocarbon, 37(1995), pp. 697-704 report graphite with measurable ¹⁴C.

• Kitagawa, H., Masuzawa, T., Makamura, T., and Matsumoto, E., A Batch Preparation Method for Graphite Targets with Low Background for AMS ¹⁴C Measurements, Radiocarbon, 35(1993), pp. 295-300 report bituminous coal with measurable ¹⁴C.

• Nadeau, M.-J., Grootes, P.M., Voelker, A., Bruhn, F., Duhr, A., and Oriwall, A., Carbonate ¹⁴C Background: Does It Have Multiple Personalities?, Radiocarbon, 43:2A(2001), pp. 169-176 report foraminifera and multiple shells with measurable ¹⁴C.

• Nakai, N., Nakamura, T., Kimura, M., Sakase, T., Sato, S., and Sakai, A., Accelerator Mass Spectroscopy of ¹⁴C at Nagoya University, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B, 5(1984), pp. 171-174 report old graphite with measurable ¹⁴C.

• Nelson, D.E., Vogel, J.S., Southon, J.R., and Brown, T.A., Accelerator Radiocarbon Dating at SFU, Radiocarbon, 28(1986), pp. 215-222 show anthracite with measurable ¹⁴C.

• Schleicher, M., Grootes, P.M., Nadeau, M.-J., and Schoon, A., The Carbonate ¹⁴C Background and Its Components at the Leibniz AMS Facility, Radiocarbon, 40(1998), pp. 85-93 show foraminifera (treated and untreated), coal and marble with measurable ¹⁴C.

• Schmidt, F.H., Balsley, D.R., and Leach, D.D., Early Expectations of AMS: Greater Ages and Tiny Fractions. One Failure? — One Success, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B, 29(1987), pp. 97-99 show marble, anthracite coal and many graphite samples with measurable ¹⁴C.

• Terrasi, F., Campajola, L., Brondi, A., Cipriano, M., D'Onofrio, A., Fioretto, E., Romano, M., Azzi, C., Bella, F., and Tuniz, C., AMS at the TTT-3 Tandem Accelerator in Naples, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B, 52(1990), pp. 259-262 show coke with measurable ¹⁴C.

• Van der Borg, K., Alderliesten, C., de Jong, A.F.M., van den Brink, A., de Haas, A.P., Kersemaekers, H.J.H., and Raaymakers, J.E.M.J., Precision and Mass Fractionation in ¹⁴C Analysis with AMS, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B, 123(1997), pp. 97-101 show marble and graphite with measurable ¹⁴C.

• Vogel, J.S., Nelson, D.E., and Southon, J.R., ¹⁴C Background Levels in an Accelerator Mass Spectrometry System, Radiocarbon, 29(1987), pp. 323-333 show anthracite, calcite and graphite with measurable ¹⁴C, and by their investigation, show that ¹⁴C appears to be intrinsic to the Pennsylvania anthracite measured.

Cheers! Dan Watts 14:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think that some of these would be useful on the Carbon-14 or Radiocarbon dating pages (only "some" because of space considerations; all of the ones I've looked at seem reasonable cites to me). Similarly to the other references you cited, they illustrate difficulties in estimating age with ¹⁴C (or provide methodologies for improving age estimates), so are almost certainly worth raising where ¹⁴C dating is discussed. To return to Flood Geology, however, ¹⁴C was mentioned there in the context of ages far in excess of anything ¹⁴C would be used for (of order 10,000 half-lives; 10 half-lives is typically the limit). As many of the references above testify to, samples with these sorts of ages can be easily contaminated with ¹⁴C, and so give ages far younger than other methods would suggest. Anyway, unless I've missed something, none of the references cited suggest that apparently ancient rocks are really young. And so they would be misleadingly out of place in the Flood Geology article. Cheers, --Plumbago 15:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So, only "reasonable" results should be reported? Would you expect any of the references cited to "suggest that apparently ancient rocks are really young"? If someone's mind is made up on the age of a sample, don't bother them with facts? It appears that ¹⁴C where it shouldn't be must be ignored. Oh well, I tried. Dan Watts 15:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, because these really are irrelevant. I don't know how much actual science you do, but scientists find anomolous data all the time. The issue that matters is not the anomalies but the overall trend. Again, so not only are most of these papers irrelevant since they don't say what you think they say, but even if they did say what you thought they said they wouldn't matter much. JoshuaZ 16:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Joshua, do I understand you to mean that these papers don't say that there is a floor on ¹⁴C measurements (the equivalent of ~40-60 Kyears)? And if they DID say that, it doesn't matter? O.K., I won't try to discuss this with you again. Dan Watts 17:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What? None of them say that because it simply wouldn't be true. The "floor" is dependent on the substance being measured, the level of background radatian, the sample size and various other things. While for many things this ends up being that range, it isn't true universally and I would be highly surprised if any of the papers said so. JoshuaZ 18:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

March 14, 2007 Note to ‘Plumbago’, RE: The scientific communities of practice contribution to Wikipedia's ‘Scientific Community’

Dear Plumbago,

Thanks for reading the scientific CoP entry in the Wikipedia scientific community section. Thanks for catching the mis-attribution of the Snyder & de Souza Briggs citation: That correction has been effected.

Thanks also for inviting a collegial dialogue on the merits of this material, especially with regard to its potential OR content.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no original research (OR) dimensions in the scientific CoPs contribution, other than the synthesis of sometimes poorly-connected references in the literature on the topic.

For example, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) has recently acknowledged the validity of the scientific communities of practice approach in measuring the net 'value' of NIH-sponsored scientific research discoveries -- through the launching of the new NIH Office of Behavioral & Social Science Research initiative (please see the NIH "Healthier Lives Through Behavioral & Social Sciences Research" Report for an example of their thinking in this regard{ [5] } ).

Many credible elements of the American academic scientific community are also insisting upon an early educational exposure of students to basic scientific communities of practice principles. Examples of ongoing research in this promising area of early childhood education in scientific CoP principles include Northwestern University’s “Bootstrapping a Community of Practice: Learning Science by Doing Projects in a High School Classroom Program” [6].

In addition, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has recently become even more strident in this regard, insisting that the scientific community must actively pursue the creation of more-useful communities of practice in science & technology on a global scale [7]: This new scientific CoP focus by the National Academy of Science falls under its high-priority Science & Technology for Sustainability (STS) Program [8].

I have added these details to the referenced citation, to lessen the chance that other readers might gain the same mis-impression that you did.

I hope that these improvements are satisfactory to you. If you have any further concerns, or if you want to see additional citations of scientific communities of practice references at the ‘Scientific community’ location, please feel free to let me know.

Sincerely, Stevenson-Perez 20:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)stevenson-perezStevenson-Perez 20:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at User_talk:Stevenson-Perez#Your_contributions. -- TedFrank 20:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Kangaroos

Perhaps this is an example of closing your mind to what creationists actually say, because I didn't mention any conspiracy theory and creationists don't claim that there's a conspiracy. And they are most definitely not opposed to reality. You've made up your own mind about what creationism is instead of actually finding out what it is from the source. And you appear to have contradicted yourself. You claim that it is inherently unscientific, yet admit that centuries ago it was legitimate! If it is inherently unscientific, how could it ever have been legitimate? The rest is little more than a pathetic attempt to malign creationism with your unsubstantiated opinions. Philip J. Rayment 14:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies about the conspiracy theory jibe; I was getting ahead of myself there. Having had similar discussions many times, I was presumptiously jumping "ahead" of you (i.e. why do creationists need their own scientific journals?). Anyways, ...

Over the years I've read reams of creationist material. Most of it, admittedly, is from books and websites rather than from creationist journals, so it might not quite represent the cutting-edge paradigms of creationist research. However, I've never come across any idea in there that's paused thought for more than a second or two, although some creationist ideas are actually quite charming in their naïveté (e.g. the fossil record being a product of running speed). What I primarily object to is the wilful misreading and misrepresentation of scientific evidence to suit what, in the end, is just one reading of just one religious text. It's the sort of behaviour befitting a lawyer trying to free their woefully-guilty client, but it has no place in the advancement of science.

My point about creationism looking legitimate several centuries ago only puts it in with the likes of ideas such as the flat Earth and the sun orbiting the Earth. When any idea has been as comprehensively demolished as creationism has been, it's quite simply intellectually dishonest to keep reanimating the corpse and pretending that it's still a contender. Invalidated scientific ideas are rightly cast onto the scrap heap, and while a rare few do recover and are rehabilitated (usually with extensive modification), the majority serve, at best, as useful historical footnotes. That latter-day creationism is "inherently unscientific" lies less with its ideas (trashed as they are) than with the manner in which they are "pursued" (by, at times, more or less dishonest means).

Finally, as for my maligning of creationism, I prefer leaving that to the experts: creationists. I doubt I could ever do as good a hatchet job on their ideas as they do themselves by elucidating them. --Plumbago 18:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits

Your recent edit to Evolution#Social and religious controversy wasn't exactly minor, as you cut an entire sentence. (It was probably a good one, though.) Minor edits are ones that are superficial and could never be disputed. Remember many people ignore edits marked minor but might be interested in a sentence that is entirely cut. Gnixon 16:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry about that. I must have ticked the "minor edit" box on automatic pilot. I think my description was probably more helpful on that score. Anyway, I'll try not to do that again. I think I must have unconsciously equated the change (= highlight and delete entire sentence) with a simple, and hence minor, edit. Regarding the edit itself, the sentence seemed like it had been inserted after the surrounding text. It certainly broke up the flow of the text, leaving words like "their" dangling without their subject. It was also dubiously vague, and referred to "many arguments against evolution" without the when's, where's and who's, etc. Anyway, thanks for picking me up on that. Just me being unfocused. Cheers, --Plumbago 17:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No big deal. I just sort of did a double-take when I saw it (and it caught my attention because it caused an edit conflict for me). The sentence had been there for awhile, but I recently merged two paragraphs and was probably a little careless. I agree it was pretty pointless in the current version and disrupted the flow. Gnixon 17:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved image to Commons

Hi, I took the liberty to move your image Image:AYool GLODAP del pH.png to Commons to make it available to other language versions of Wikipedia. I hope this is ok with you, and that I haven't done any mistake in the process. You can find the image at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:AYool_GLODAP_del_pH.png . Best wishes, Hardern 16:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I don't know much (anything?) about the Commons, so I've not moved anything there myself before. I've actually got a whole lot more images that might be appropriate for it. If you navigate to here you can find some more. Mostly similar sorts of stuff. Anyway, feel free to move more if you think it's appropriate. Cheers, --Plumbago 16:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. As an aside, my images are all PNG files. I understand there's a movement to convert all Wikipedia graphics to SVG. Do you know anything about this? It's just that my images are actually EPS files that I've converted into PNG. I've still got the EPS files but have no way of converting them to SVG. Anyway, you might not know about this, but I thought I'd best ask. Cheers, --Plumbago 16:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Great that you don't mind the relocation! I learned about Commons when I tried to integrate pictures from here in the German Wikipedia and became confused that some were appearing there, but that for others it did not seem to work. It took me quite a while to find out that when an image is uploaded at Commons, it can then be used by any Wikimedia project.

As for the SVG standard, I have no idea. Probably you could ask that question in the Wikipedia:Chat ? Hardern 19:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Plumbago! While writing the German version of Ocean acidification, I came across some puzzling different numbers. Since you already have some knowledge of this topic, would you mind having a look at my question regarding different numbers for preindustrial and present-day pH levels? Thanks! Hardern 15:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hardern. I've replied over at ocean acidification, but there's no harm in cutting-and-pasting here I suppose. --Plumbago 15:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Good question. I think it probably has to do with the different definitions people use of pH. It's not something I'm an expert on (not least because I don't want to know any more about carbonate chemistry!), but as I understand it, there are (at least) three different pH scales in use today. The free scale (sometimes denoted pH_F), the total scale (sometimes denoted pH_T) and the seawater scale (sometimes denoted pH_SWS). Having just consulted a textbook on the subject (Zeebe & Wolf-Gladrow, 2001, CO₂ in seawater: equilibrium, kinetics, isotopes, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands) it transpires that these are ~0.1 units apart (with pH_F being ~0.1 units greater than pH_T and pH_SWS). I guess that Jacobson (2005) is using the free scale while your NSF document is using the seawater scale (at least, that's what Figure 1-1's caption implies; though it uses the pH_T notation). However, I say this with only a very limited grasp of carbonate chemistry (just enough for me to get by on), so please feel free to consult wider. It's certainly annoying that pH turns out not to be as simple as the definition in its article suggests! Anyway, hope this helps. Cheers, --Plumbago 15:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Two comments: First about the different pH-scales: I think it is important to point out, if an "unusual" pH-scale is used and to present all data in this particular scale. And the scales are not directly comparable since they have different definitions.

My other question is addressing the data source of the graphs. Where and how have the pH-values been measured 300 years ago? Or are they predictions based on the output of a model? What are the error ranges of the projections? -- ghw 13:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree about making it clear which scale's being used - especially since the difference between the scales is about the same magnitude as the current change in pH caused by anthropogenic CO₂ (which, at least, they'd agree on). I'll see what I can do about that - I'm sure I can get hold of the cited reference used to describe the pH change. The scales themselves are not really "unusual" pH scales - all three are in use in oceanography (the total and seawater scale are occasionally conflated as they differ only very slightly). They're unusual only insofar as they're less familiar definitions of pH to non-oceanographers - which, admittedly, is most of the world's population!  ;-) As regards intercomparison of the scales, they are directly comparable so long as one has the correct information about sulphate (and fluoride for the seawater scale). The equations in the pH article should make that clear, though perhaps a direct statement on the point would be better. However, given that we're probably talking about global averages, converting these would be problematic - probably best to try to keep the article's cites to papers using the same scale (total/seawater?).

Regarding pre-industrial ocean pH, that's primarily based on a dataset called GLODAP, augmented with standard ocean temperature and salinity data from the World Ocean Atlas. The GLODAP dataset is actually composed of recent measurements of oceanic DIC and alkalinity, from which anthropogenic CO₂ is deconvoluted using a technique known as C* (or C-star). This technique uses information about biogeochemistry and CO₂ surface disequilibium together with other ocean tracers such as carbon-14, CFC-11 and CFC-12 (which indicate water mass age) to try to separate out "natural" CO₂ from that added during the anthropogenic transient. It's not an entirely straightforward procedure, and does of course have associated errors. The technique is gradually being refined to improve it but its results (c.f. GLODAP) are generally supported by independent predictions made by dynamic models. Anyway, although I created the figures from these datasets, I'm probably not the best person to discuss their errors. However, I realise that the ancillary information could be beefed up somewhat, and the GLODAP article would certainly benefit from a more comprehensive description of how the ocean's pre-industrial state was derived. Actually, this paragraph has more information on that score than the GLODAP article!

Thanks very much for going through the additions. And your suggestions are very helpful. I'll try to implement them in the appropriate articles, but please hassle me again if any changes I make don't help. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Next question: is this CO3+ derived from surface carbonate-measurements or is it derived from sediments (in that case we have an integration of the water column above (ignoring any horizontal flow))?

And to the pH of "thick" solutions: i would suggest to use activities of all species instead of different pH scales, because only activities can provide correct results (and in this case ionic strengths are not a "problem" any more).

If the 1700 Values are the result from model simulations, they are just projections over 300 years into the past and the reality may have been completely different. In this particular case no one will ever know and no one will ever be able to prove it, because the H+Theory has been developed in 1923 and pH measurements are available since a couple of decades - to my personal scientific opinion it is very crude to draw a graph from such an model-output over this timespan. -- ghw 18:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The concentration of CO₃^2- can determined from an understanding of the carbonate chemistry system and a combination of measurements of any two of the following properties: pH, pCO₂, alkalinity or tCO₂ (see Richard Zeebe's csys package). One doesn't need to actually measure CO₃^2- (although by measuring it one can calculate other unmeasured carbonate system properties). Sediments don't come into it at all (and certainly not for surface values in the open ocean), although if one is interested in the complete carbon system and in geological time periods, then sediments start becoming an important consideration. I'm not sure I understand how horizonal flow comes into it; the calculations are based on ambient concentrations in the water column, and the dataset resolution is 1 degree horizontally, and no less than 10 m vertically (and much more than this near most of the seafloor).

Regarding activities of "thick" (?) solutions, you might well be right - I can only report on what's done in practice as I'm no chemist. If you have access to an academic library, I'd suggest consulting Zeebe & Wolf-Gladrow (2001) to answer your question. It's a one-stop-shop for the carbonate system.

The 1700 values are estimates based on a mathematical technique that deconvolutes anthro from natural DIC. I've added cites to the technique in the appropriate articles. To my mind, it's not really a model (I always think of dynamic, time-evolving systems when I read the word "model"), but I suppose it could be described that way. What I meant above was that models (in my sense) have generally agreed with the data-based deconvolution of anthro DIC. That is, these models have independently come to (generally) agree with the 3D distribution of anthro DIC calculated by the GLODAP project.

Anyway, I used these estimates of 1700 DIC together with the carbonate chemistry module provided by Zeebe (weblink above) to further esimate 1700 pH and CO₃^2-. I don't take the outcome of all this terribly seriously (there are too many holes in present day measurements for starters), but I'd be astonished if the estimates were far off of the mark. While I may have introduced small errors by the specifics of my calculations, they are grounded in boring, mainstream science.

Anyway, I hope that helps somewhat. Apologies for taking a bit to get back to you - I thought I'd better adjust the various articles first. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Deep sea vs. aphotic zone

Hi Plumbago, I noticed you were an oceanographer while looking through the unfortunately small Wikipedian biologists category, and I think you may be able to help with a query I have about two articles. The deep sea and aphotic zone articles seem to cover basically the exact same material, and I'm not sure how they should be distinguished or if it would be better to merge them together. What do you think should be done? Drop me a note on my talk page if you like. Thanks, Richard001 11:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Hi Richard001. Thanks for spotting this - it does look like it's time to do a merge here. I'd suggest merging the content from Aphotic zone into the Deep sea article, as the former is really rather short (and is unlikely to be expanded). A photic zone article makes sense, but the aphotic zone covers too diverse a volume of ocean to be characterised solely by reference to its photon flux density. If you fancy having a go yourself please do, but if you've not done this sort of thing before I'm happy to show you how (though it's really easy; see here). Cheers, --Plumbago 08:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I now realise that the above is a bit opaque. What I meant by it was that you might like to instigate merge proceeedings, not necessarily do the merge yourself. I'd be very surprised if anyone objected, but it's probably worth going through the procedure properly just in case. Cheers, --Plumbago 15:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Carhenge photos

Further to your note on my talk page about moving images to Commons, I currently do not have a Commons account, so I simply tag the images. If an image is an orphan, ie not in use, I made a decision if it should be nominated for deletion or if others would find a use I tag for transfer to Commons. If you say that the two images tagged are obsolete, you as the author of the images can speedy nominate them for deletion. Apply the tag {{db-author}} to the image page and remove the move to commons tag. Also, in your edit summary indicate the name of the file that replaces the image. In regards to moving the currect images to Commons, I suggest applying the move to commons tag and someone will come along (eventually) and move it. Anything else, please let me know.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 13:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Radiocarbon dating

• 1. Thanks for reverting vandalism(s).
• 2. Thanks for your comments about the controversies.
• 3. I invented the term Fomenkism following your comment in the talk page, and inserted a paragraph in the articles about (a) Fomenko, and (b) his Chronology. Feel free to expand it, correct it, etc:

• See radiocarbon dating#carbon reservoir for a discussion of his unproven conclusions that Archaeological, dendrochronological, paleographical and carbon methods of dating of ancient sources and artifacts are both non-exact and contradictory, therefore there is not a single piece of firm written evidence or artifact that could be reliably and independently dated earlier than the XI century.

• 4. OK about archiving but I'll first will have to learn how to do it ;-)
• Do you know what originated the current Fomenkism epidemics? Has he been on talk shows?

Jclerman 17:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for replying so fast. No probs about the vandalism - I think everyone has to pitch in with that. Occasionally (*very* occasionally) it's actually amusing. I'll have a look at your "Fomenkism" bit. It sounds very necessary given some of the comments over at radiocarbon dating. I've no idea what's triggered the recent epidemic. You've intrigued me though - I'll see what Google trawls up. As for the archive, I'm happy to sort that out - I just wanted to check with you first. I'll probably get onto it tomorrow (it's Friday!). Cheers, --Plumbago 18:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I think you might have made a couple of mistakes creating archive files. I've tried to revert these and rebuild the archives. See what you think. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I was starting to try to archive by topic. There was already a messed up archive page by Axel Berger. Many times, when a new old fossil is reported in the news, I predict creationist questions and objections, but I couldn't find a connection to the "Fomenko eruption". I'm surprised that now that everybody is talking about climate change, no comments about calibration curves appeared. Cheers and thanks for archiving. Jclerman 10:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

vandalism on my user page

Hey, many thanks for catching and reverting the vandalism on my user page! Much Appreciated! Andy^talk 16:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries - I just spotted it by chance when I was passing through. It looks like the editor involved had gone to the trouble of creating a registered ID just to get around your anonymous editor prohibitions. Quite flattering really I suppose.  ;-) Cheers, --Plumbago 16:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Metrocop GScott.jpg

Hello, Plumbago. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Metrocop GScott.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Plumbago/Archive 2. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Xen thumper AYool.jpg

Hello, Plumbago. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Xen thumper AYool.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Plumbago/Archive 2. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 11:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Alien Controller 4 AYool.jpg

Hello, Plumbago. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Alien Controller 4 AYool.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Plumbago/Archive 2. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 03:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Antlion thumper GScott.jpg

Hello, Plumbago. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Antlion thumper GScott.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Plumbago/Archive 2. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 03:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Bo Schembechler NPOV

Hey, I noticed you edited the Bo Schembechler page because of the "mighty and beloved" reference. I also for a while changed it, but an anon user kept changing it back and we actually had a discussion about it on the talk page. It would be great if you could weigh in, I gave up on the RV because I had no other support. Thanks for upholding Wikipedias standards! --Scotsworth 05:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries. It's so flagrantly a POV statement that it just had to go. Were it a quote from the deceased coach, then it could possibly be used, but only if they really were his "last words" to his team. Anyway, I'll visit the talk page and make a comment. Cheers, --Plumbago 07:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Knight lore 2.gif

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Knight lore 2.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Creationism

Hi Plumbago. Temporary note. I am trying to figure out how to communicate with you, having received your message about my editing. Also trying to figure out how to follow your recommendation to explain reason for changes. Not greatly succeeding in either respect.

Recolonisation theory is a major departure from the other creationist theories. It does not hold that fossils are the remains of animals buried in the flood, or reject radioisotope dating per se, or believe that any originally created rocks exist to be dated, or that the universe/Earth are < 10,000 years old. It acknowledges that evolution characterises much of the fossil record, but argues that some of the gaps in the record are still real and represent the boundaries between created kinds. Etc! Is this enough to show that the theory is more than just a slight variation on existing ideas?

Part of my edit was designed to improve the impartiality and factual accuracy of the article. For example, it was wrongly suggesting that conventional creationists believe in fixity of species, and devoted most of its characterisation of ID to controversies in the courtrooms. The article should be aiming to provide neutral information rather than making creationists out to be even more irrational than they actually are, or speculating about ID's alleged hidden agenda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fastnet (talk • contribs).

Hi Fastnet. Thanks for responding. Here is fine, by the way. I'd have spotted if you'd replied at your own talk page too though. This, incidentally, is the primary way in which editors communicate on Wikipedia. You can use e-mail if needs be, but usually doing it this way via talk pages (either user or article) works best. When you do leave a post, you need to put four tildes (~~~~) after your text to identify yourself (alternatively, there's a button immediately above the edit window for doing this; it's the tenth one from the left - it looks like a funny squiggle). I've retrospectively signed your post above.

Regarding your edits over at Creationism, firstly, when you make an edit, it's a very good idea to give some sort of explanation in the Edit summary box immediately beneath the edit window. Leaving a blank edit summary is frowned up as it makes it difficult for other editors to understand the nature of your edits. If the edit is a short one, this is less of a problem, but it's still better to write something.

On the specifics of your edits, you may find that your changes are reverted. There is no article on Recolonisation theory at the moment, so summarising it in the more general Creationism article may be seen as getting ahead of yourself. It's crucial that you first establish the notability of the theory, and setting up a fully referenced article on the subject would be a good start. I should warn you, however, that some people may not be convinced that Recolonisation theory is anything more than a variant on other already described versions of creationism. I remain to be convinced one way or the other, but be aware that its notability will almost certainly be questioned (creationism, as you may have noticed, is a rather hot topic, with frequent disagreements).

All that said, an important part of Wikipedia is being bold. You should by all means create articles that you think are necessary, but it's also important that they conform to Wikipedia's notability, neutral and style criteria. This goes more for articles in heavily contested topics such as creationism, so don't be surprised if you find yourself defending your corner fairly heavily.

I hope that the above information is useful to you. Please feel free to contact me again here if you have any further questions. I should add that, as a professional scientist, I tend to take the opposing view to creationism, but I'm happy to help with (and clean up) articles even on topics I don't believe in. Anyway, I hope that you enjoy using and editing Wikipedia. Best regards, --Plumbago 12:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. While I won't be that happy if you revert my contributions, I acknowledge that the above is helpful advice and will endeavour to follow it. By the way, another issue I had with the article was its repetitive emphasis on creationism's taking a 'literal' approach to Genesis. There's no problem with once or twice. After a while, though, drawing attention to this began to make the POV of the author rather too apparent. --Fastnet 16:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Nova prospekt GScott.jpg

Hello Plumbago, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Nova prospekt GScott.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Plumbago/Archive 2. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Recolonisation theory

Thanks for the messages. I should point out that I only noticed it and commented on the talk page because of your tip-off. Meanwhile, someone else deleted the lot. The pattern seems to be that I make the conciliatory noises and reasoned comments, and leave it to others to wield the axe. Funny thing is, I didn't come to wikipedia to edit articles about creationism or religion or any other crackpot theories, just to tidy up here and there on some biology articles, and to make the odd contribution about the english language. If wikipedia has taught me one thing, though, it's that there are an awful lot of crackpots out there, and some of them seem to have plenty of time on their hands! Snalwibma 12:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Epigenetics

Excellent idea. Go for it. Invite biological comment. While you're at it, it might be a good idea also to ask for some comments on the lead section of the article. There is a suggestion on the talk page from Steinsky ("In biology, epigenetics is the study of all heritable and potentially reversible changes...") which seems a lot better than what is there at present - but I don't feel confident enough of my knowledge of the subject to paste it in myself. In essence, I am completely out of my depth! I describe myself here and there as "a biologist" but I'm not really, and I certainly don't properly understand epigenetics. I'm just certain it's not really what our friend wants to turn it into. I see his editorial work as a hijacking of the page for ulterior motives, but I feel unable to do much myself other than ask what I hope are pertinent questions and point out the more ludicrous misrepresentations, non-sequiturs and distortions. Snalwibma 14:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Addendum: I have been on the verge of adding something like the following to Talk:Epigenetics for the last couple of days, but I'm not sure it would be helpful. So please excuse me for using your talk page for venting the spleen!
  I want to raise a serious concern about this article. One editor (NBeale) has commented elsewhere that epigenetics is 'a fundamental refutation of the "Selfish Gene" nonsense', and that in the light of this he is ‘putting in some effort on Epigenetics in WikiPedia’. This frank acknowledgment of a POV-pushing agenda means that I find it difficult to assume good faith in his edits. It seems to me that this article is being hijacked in an attempt to prove some point. Furthermore, that point (whatever it is, exactly) seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding both of epigenetics and of the straw-man version of "the selfish gene" that this editor is setting out to refute. Wikipedia is not about refuting things and pushing your world view. It is an encyclopedia. And a scientific encyclopedia article about a technical subject is degraded by the inclusion of elementary philosophising about its “implications”, based on a misunderstanding of what the subject of the article means and an attempt to “refute” what is at best a gross schoolboy-howler oversimplification of one “side” in arguments about the nature of inheritance.
  - Or should I go ahead and paste it there? Snalwibma 14:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Snalwibma. Good shout with the above. It covers my own misgivings pretty well too. It might be an idea to go ahead and add it, but I'd be tempted to wait and see if anything happens after I contact biologists (which I'll do in a minute). Not least so that we don't bias people's reactions from the get-go. Anyway, back to those biologists ... --Plumbago 18:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I've left a few notes for people I've worked alongside before, and I've put a more general note on the evolution talk page. Hopefully that'll bring some more genetically-informed people over to epigenetics. Cheers, --Plumbago 19:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I followed TimVickers' lead and just went ahead and edited the article. (And I agree with his edits.) I erased the other Evolution section, it sounded rambling, off topic, and had no references. Apologies if you see any material in that you wish to salvage. Madeleine 03:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Madeleine. Thank you very much for dropping in. I have very little experience in genetics so your expertise is very welcome. I'd certainly go along with the edits by yourself and Tim, but they seem to have already been reverted, at least partially. Persistence is probably the name of the game here, knowing the tenacity of the "philosophical" editor.  ;) Anyway, thanks again for taking the time. If you ever think I can return the favour, please ask. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... I just saw. I don't want to get into a one-on-one revert war so I'm not going to restore my edits. I did leave a response on the talk page. I think others need to get involved -- if others (eg. you) choose to revert his reversion of my and TimVickers' changes, that would make this is a one-against-consensus issue. Madeleine 10:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

PS - Personally, I'd be in favor of deleting both paragraphs he's made there, not just the one I previously deleted. That stuff is all extremely POV, vague claims of "philosophical" importance rather than well-defined scientific statements. Madeleine 11:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and deleted the paragraphs and gave reasons on the talk page. It renders the section nonsensical for now, sorry. I'll be happy to help fix it into something sensible in the future. Madeleine 17:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Play The Game

Hi there. I've just resurrected the Ultimate Play The Game article due to the Rare article it was merged with a while back being entirely devoid of anything relevant. I noticed that you've done a fair bit of work on the Ultimate games, so thought I'd point out the new article in the hope that you might like to contribute. I've done my best to start it off but don't really write a good article. :) Cheers. Miremare 21:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there Miremare. I'm pleased to hear that you're resurrecting the Ultimate article. Given that Ultimate played a pivotal role in the history of 8 bit gaming (at least in the UK), I always thought it could do with one. Although Rare is its evolutionary descendant, it's a different beast, and deserves an article on its own merits (which are considerable). Anyway, what you've got there now looks good, much better than what was there before the redirect (of which, I had a hand in it). I'll try to give you help when I can - I'm taking time away from WP at the moment, but will undoubtedly return at some point soon. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I was a bit horrified that the company that provided most of my earliest gaming memories didn't even have it's own article! And it seemed a bit wrong that there was hardly a mention in Rare; seemed a little like shoving a formerly favourite grandparent into a home, sweeping them under the carpet just because there are kids around now. Miremare 11:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Evolution FAC

Hi there, Plumbago. I was wondering if you had time to comment on this nomination? The FAC page is here. Thsnks. TimVickers 18:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi TimVickers. I'm looking through the page and adding thoughts here. I'm not sure if I should edit my comments in at the moment. I've yet to read the FAC page properly. Cheers, --Plumbago 19:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, Plumbago. I was wondering if you have finished reviewing this article? If you have come to a decision, the FAC candidacy page is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Evolution. Thanks! TimVickers 14:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi TimVickers. I'm finished unless there's something else you need me to look at. You did a great job balancing my comments against the need for the article to remain coherent and to avoid naval-gazing. To this end, I've Supported its candidacy. Thanks again for taking all that time to brush the article up. Cheers, --Plumbago 15:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for all your work! TimVickers 15:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Pentagram 1.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Pentagram 1.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

3rr

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Flood geology. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --216.125.49.252 17:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, how we laughed. --Plumbago 17:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Remember to assume good faith. I have every much of a right to edit this encyclopedia as you do. --216.125.49.252 17:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I do assume good faith, but I was responding (along with Silly rabbit) to a succession of edits by yourself that were both flagrantly POV and completely unexplained. Both of us tried to address this in our edit summaries and with vandalism notices on your talk page. Unsuccessfully as it happens. As a sidenote, in the context of the POV you were trying to introduce, you may like to consider my edit history. I am avowedly anti-creationist, but I follow Wikipedia's guidelines (or, at least, attempt to do so) not because I have to, but because they are crucial for the success of the project. --Plumbago 21:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyhow, in this instance it appears I've bitten a newcomer, and I apologise. I'm afraid that I, and others, interpreted your edits as exactly the sort of vandalism that pages like Flood geology routinely attract (although it's more often creationist rather than anti-creationist vandalism there). That said, I could have been a lot more careful in my "defence" of the article. I certainly didn't help things by antagonising you with reversions. For that you have my sincere apologies.

I understand from elsewhere that you're new to the project, and that my actions may have disuaded you from returning. That really would be unfortunate - editing the WP is almost always a better experience that the one you had yesterday. I'm afraid that visiting articles on pseudoscience is emphatically not the best place to start if you want to get a feel for the positive aspects of the project. I, for instance, have gained a lot from editing articles on my home turf, oceanography. And, as a professional scientist, I find the need write clearly and comprehensively on topics a great benefit. Having to straighten something out on the page that you've only half-thought-through in your head is a great discipline.

Anyway, I'm sorry again to have gotten you off on the wrong foot. Please come back and try again, but please also read the guidelines on WP:NPOV and WP:ES. You might find the essay WP:SPOV interesting too (re: pseudoscience). Cheers, --Plumbago 08:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you have to apologize. The edits were not acceptable at Flood geology. Certainly, the redirect to Creation science was outside of the bounds of good editing. I don't like crazy Creationist POV Warriors, whom I can treat with contempt. But Science POV warriors need to follow the same rules. Moreover, there were no edit summaries to help us see what was happening. Assuming good faith can only be used if there is a return of good faith--I didn't see it. By the way, your link at the 3rr sent me to a carnivorous plant (now I know the meaning of your name...LOL). I corrected it.Orangemarlin 17:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Orangemarlin. You're probably right - I'm just a bit concerned that someone's first (and possibly last by the sounds of things) experience of WP is of me reverting them repeatedly. Still, as you point out, they were adding some rather stern POV material. And this is a grown-up place after all. Anyway, thanks again for your support at the 3RR. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Image source

Hi Plumbago, do you have a source for the Ultimate game images? The peer review suggested that this should be added... Cheers, Miremare 01:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Miremare. I had trouble trying to emulate them, so gave up in the end. Instead, I got permission from the owner of UltimateWurlde to reproduce some of his shots. It's far from an ideal source, but it was all I could do at the time. Ideally, ones generated specifically for WP would be best. Anyway, I hope that answers your question. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)