Greetings,

My name is Timothy Schafer and I'm working for the Centre for Sustainable Community Development at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, BC, Canada.

I'm helping assemble the graphics for a book on development of sustainable communities. I was just looking at the image XXXXXXXXXXXx on page XXXX of XXXXXXXXXx, and wondering if:

a) Is it yours? If so, would you allow us to publish it in the book under conditions outlined below?

b) If it's not yours, whose is it, and who has permission to authorize its use in a publication? How might we get in touch with him/her?

c) What's the highest resolution version of this photo available? We need one at least 300 dpi at print size.

Some details about the project: Author is Mark Roseland. Read more about him here: http://www.sfu.ca/cscd/directory/mark-roseland/; http://www.rem.sfu.ca/people/roseland/ The book's working title is Toward Sustainable Communities: Solutions for Citizens and Their Governments. This is actually a fourth edition of the book Toward Sustainable Communities. It was first published in 1992; two revised editions have been published in 1998 and 2005 to favorable reviews. Here's a link to the last edition on Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=IVrrq4Zs2u8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Mark+Roseland&hl=en&src=bmrr&ei=DLb2TfO7KIr2tgPYuLTfBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA Subject: A compendium of "best practices" that citizens and local governments can initiate to promote sustainability at the community level, covering urban agriculture, recycling and waste management, transportation, land use and more. The book will be published in hard copy (up to 10,000 copies probably) and in a digital format. It will also be promoted on soon-to-be-established research network that links communities and local governments with research institutions. Conditions we'd need the owner of the photo to approve: We can use it in materials created to market the book. We can crop the photo as necessary to make it fit the book's layout. We'll credit you, along with all other photographers, on the book's photo credit page(s). We don't need copyright for the image; just permission to use it on the bases outlined above. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Timothy Schafer editor@thenelsondaily.com 66.244.246.8 (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome your input to the discussion related to the new public domain image of RSS and UAH global temperature anomaly data here: Satellite Temperature Measurements -- Update the Graphic. Thank you. SunSw0rd (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AF:82

Just before Archival, it seemed there was support for making this disallow those types of edits, can it please be changed to make it so?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that. I hear it is a beautiful place. Are you going to be around SF this weekend? I'm thinking of coming to the meetup Sunday. +sj+ 03:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, may I know which font you used in most of your graphs (which are outstanding, btw)? Thanks. By the way, we seem to be at the same career stage. I am just starting to write my thesis these days, but as usual wikipedia proves to be a good distraction... SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 00:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Edit filter#Filter Cleanup, a filter/filters which you were the last to edit is/are on the list of filters that I identified to disable. Please comment there if you do not want this/these filter/filters disabled. Prodego ^talk 18:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to wish you luck with your job hunting and all that. Hiding T 21:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to ask a question about some research I want to do. I want to search approximately 20 different terms in google and find out where the Wikipedia page for each term ranks compared to other online resources. Specifically, I would be looking at terms for dermatologic conditions. So, for example, with the following search [1] on my results screen Wikipedia is the first entry, followed by medscape. Can I use google trends/"Google Insights for Search" to accomplish this? Or is there some other way I can compare google results? ---kilbad (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a draft of a story about cite.php changes here, but any additional info/background/links to discussion etc would be great. Thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 19:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the article in signpost about the fix you pushe through for the references tag. Firstly, can I say thank you for taking this initiative and getting this change agreed and pushed through - I've not doubt it will result in a far better editing experience.

I'm thinking of a next stage to this: I imagine it would be fairly straigtforward to set up a bot that goes through existing articles and moves references to the bottom. What do you think? I don't have any bot experience so it's not something that I could do but would be interested in pushing this through? AndrewRT(Talk) 16:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A large-scale, bot-based conversion is an issue for the larger community to decide, but in any event, it is not something I plan to work on. Dragons flight (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a different thought. We should have the editor go ahead and put the first full reference directly in the text, then future references in the format <ref name = "foo"> (+ full ref info)</ref> for the first reference, then a re-used reference could have <ref name = "foo"|page = 15 />. Then the system would place in the references section the full reference, and following that would be a reference to the reference, similar to the Harvard style notation/reference system. Except it wouldn't require two edits (or two sections). The problem I'm trying to solve is that repeated references don't currently allow for page numbers when they're re-used, and that's what I'm looking to have changed. It's also less cumbersome than the {{Rp}} template, and would look better within the text. This solves a different problem than the changes that just got put through, but I thought you're a good person to ask, and I couldn't make the changes I'm thinking about anyway...

So does this all make sense? And is it do-able? Hires an editor (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the cite.php update! I've been wishing for exactly this for years. Good job! --Zvika (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Fake (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Climate Change Attribution.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Climate Change Attribution.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Climate Change Attribution.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Glacier Mass Balance Map.png is now available as Commons:File:Glacier Mass Balance Map.png. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Greenhouse Gas by Sector.png is now available as Commons:File:Greenhouse Gas by Sector.png. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Global Warming Map.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Global Warming Map.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really disagree with your addition of Template:Title disambig text to the See also section of Template:Str right/doc, but am not going to edit war over that. Please note that I have extensively updated the documentation page of Template:Title disambig text, which has also resulted in it becoming more like the documentation pages of Template:Str right and its related templates. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structurally, I think our goal should be to do what we can to help people find what they are looking for. Which is why I think it makes imminent sense to include that in the see also. I reverted so I could explain my reasoning in the log, but if you'd prefer to take it out and start a discussion / recruit a third opinion, I would not put it back again. I will thank you for the improved documentation. I noticed that the documentation across many of the string templates has been improved and I guess you are responsible for a significant chunk of that. So thanks. Keep up the good work. Dragons flight (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons flight: Your {{fmbox}} categorisation is causing a problem. See my message at Template talk:Fmbox#Category proposal.

--David Göthberg (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. Manning (talk) 08:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

Hi. Regarding Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Disambiguation_pages_are_not_articles. There would be a great potential use for a __NOTCONTENT__ tag. The "navigational pages" are currently being examined/discussed at User:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft. (It's an attempted summary of a years-long dispute that has spanned dozens of pages and threads, examining whether "navigational pages" are welcome in mainspace or not. It's stemming from some editors being very displeased with the "Outlines" (formerly "Basic topic lists") project, but I believe the root issue is this wider one.)

So far that page is really short and concise (but densely packed). I'm trying to get admin Karanacs uptodate on all the overlapping issues, and am expecting some replies from her there in the next few days (see User_talk:Karanacs#Outline_bump). We're still trying to find ways to look at the situation, in order to make possible solutions clearer (a new namespace, or new guideline, or ?). Then we intended on taking our thoughts to a wider venue (VP or RfC or etc). But your idea might be the cleanest/ideal solution.

(Feel free to reply here, there, or other. I'm replying here instead of the VP thread, to avoid having a sudden influx of overopinionated/underinformed editors arrive at the RfC draft ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's OK. Don't bother yourselves too much about unblocking that library IP. I was at the library earlier today. Am back home now. Thanks for your help and attention. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to implement a feature in two templates that you protected: see Template_talk:Str_index and Template_talk:Str_sub. These templates end up using {{FormattingError}} in some cases, which puts the page in Category:Pages_with_incorrect_formatting_templates_use. It is common and not incorrect for example pages to show these errors, so FormattingError has an argument called "nocategory" that can be set to "true" to prevent categorization, while retaining the error message. There are a number of pages that are currently in this category that should not be, for this reason. I've made all edits that I could to fix this, but I need to access these two templates as well. Can you un-protect them so I can do this, or make the changes yourself?     — SkyLined (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, this has been resolved.     — SkyLined (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Vacuum cannot be proper vacuum. There must be a medium to hold the dark energy and there exists an isometric medium consisting of photons which are holding the dark energy as photons are the smallest elementary particle in term of energy as well as mass.

If we cannot create a perfect vacuum, then we cannot conclude that an electro magnetic radiation can propagate without a medium.

A photon cannot be mass less. Its rest mass is assumed to be zero as it is so small that it cannot be weighed. Its momentum can be observed as it is not so negligible.

A photon cannot travel from the source of an electro magnetic radiation to another to carry out the energy. Photons only transfer the energy from one point to another as per the basic rule of the transverse wave as an electro magnetic wave is a special kind of transverse wave.

Vibration is the only way to transfer energy from one point to another. Different mode of vibration produces different kind of energy. So if we try to construct the T.O.E. equation, then we have to find out the equation of different mode of vibrations.

A string is hypothetical as we cannot explain that by which matter it is made of. What there exists in any elementary particle to produce the mass, charge etc. is a medium of high dense photons. The photons absorb energy from different rays of different frequencies. As there exists a magnetic moment in every elementary particle, the photons cannot escape from the particles. The continuous energy state change (as it absorbs energy from a ray having a definite frequency or of its multiple integral) of the photons produces a definite mode of vibration. As a result the mass and charges (in some cases) of the particles are produced.

A black hole is continuously expanding and the proper vacuum only exists in the active gravitational field of it because the gravity of a black hole is so intense that it attracts even the particles of negligible masses, like photons.

The Big Bang is a cyclic process and it could occur from any black hole irrespective of its size or energy. The time period can be different but any black hole can end up with a Big Bang.

I, Soumya Roy, to whom you've answered before, am definite to prove all those things stated above. But I cannot do it alone without your help because of insufficient equipments and proper laboratory. I'm definite if we prove all those things no one can stop us from winning the Nobel. These things cannot be proved yet because no one has ever think these in this point of view. Please try to help me. Contact me in this number : +919800706005/+919804741988. Please contact me as early as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.162.85 (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The photon mass hypothesis of Nthng is imp (talk · contribs) is discussed at User talk:Dbfirs#Thank_you_for_your_reply.   — Jeff G.  ツ 17:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Why did you replace the deleted/moved conversation about file formats from the Science desk today?

Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, I didn't intentionally. As per the comment in [2] I was trying to section edit. Not sure what happened. Dragons flight (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He want to archive his talk page :). I thank that he deleted his talk page. Sorry for the mistakes. --Diegusjaimes complaints 23:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing at the Misc. Ref Desk an excellent response about historical Muslim thought. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yesterday I became enmeshed in an argument about the use of the alternative source referencing system here [3] and here [4]. To cut a long story short an editor took exception to the use of the recently enabled process which was agreed here [5]. I think it is a much more preferable system personally, although I can see the point of view of other editors. However, the reason for writing to you is to ask whether the relevant part of WP:FN should be amended to present the new alternative? As you can see, the other editor involved took exception because he felt it was employing a reference format style that is not currently in use on Wikipedia and not documented in a guideline or policy. Documenting it in the style guide would prevent any similar misunderstanding in the future as well as promoting its use. Regards Leaky Caldron 13:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I just wanted to let you know that I removed a thread in which you participated, and in doing so I specifically commented on your response in my Talk page comment here. I want to emphasize that I have great respect for you as an editor - I'm only concerned about the edit. -- Scray (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For sterling service on the date of 10 November 2009, In fixing a glaring problem (while other editors were apparently too busy 'bitch slapping' each other) to wit, Fixing 'cite errors' on an extremely High Profile article, "Fort Hood Shooting", I Hereby award you this COOKIE.

--220.101.28.25 (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You said this:

"The first 9 hours of the 2008 fundraiser (0:00 to 9:00 UTC) had 682 donors raising $19022 (max donation $200). The first 9 hours of this fundraiser (5:00 to 14:00 UTC) has had approximately 515 donors raising $23300 (max donation $3000). It is too early to be drawing strong conclusions, but the very early averages are similar."

a) Can I quote this in the signpost? b) can you run the numbers for me for the first day of the relaunch, starting Thursday evening? I don't know if there's an easy way to get the stats; I only know about the contribution feed (is that what you were using)? thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 04:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

never mind, I found the numbers! thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 04:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Muhammad#What happened to filter 131?

I thought this filter was active; it was working well at one point. But recently editors have come by and deleted images from the Muhammad article. Does the filter need some tuning? ~Amatulić (talk) 06:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert,

I see you undid my edit, so I'm interested to know how I've misinterpreted. The sentence is: "The increasing measured fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 100 years implies that the level of equilibrium between sources and sinks of CO2 is rising."

That doesn't make sense to me. I read it as "the system is equilibrating," but we know the opposite to be true: the atmosphere/ocean system is being driven further from equilibrium, continuously. The sentence only makes sense to me if we substitute "disequilibrium" -- because sinks are failing to keep up with sources, due to the new human-caused carbon flux.

Alternately, you could say that "level of equilibrium is falling," but that's rather confusing.

Good page otherwise!

Jim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrett808 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon dioxide in the Earth system is partitioned between the atmosphere, the biosphere, and the oceans. As the associated section of the article states, the natural fluxes between these reservoirs are much larger than the annual human emissions. Hence the amount of carbon in the atmosphere exists in quasi-equilibrium with the sources and sinks in the other parts of the Earth system. In order for carbon dioxide to accumulate in the atmosphere (the smallest of the three reservoirs) implies that the level at which sources and sinks are balanced must have risen. Humans are responsible for adjusting that balance by adding additional sources, but the issue is more complicated than simply saying that we burned 8 GtC and therefore the atmosphere has 8 GtC more CO2.

Or put more succinctly, higher CO2 in the atmosphere means that concentration of CO2 required such that sources and sinks would balance (i.e. the equilibrium level) must have increased. Since the existing phrasing was confusing to you, perhaps you can suggest an alternative wording that would capture the same content? Dragons flight (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, thanks for the reply. I honestly thought that was a typo! I see what you mean now -- the sinks (until recently) have offset the human input, which is to say that the fluxes into the sinks have increased with the anthropogenic forcing. (I say "until recently," because we have new evidence that the ocean sink is starting to fail.) My original thought was that if the system were in equilibrium, atmospheric CO2 would not be increasing.

I'm not sure how this could be phrased more clearly. To be in equilibium, the sum of the fluxes must be zero, and if I understand you correctly, you want to say that the magnitudes of complementary fluxes are larger ("rising equilibrium level"), but still sum to zero. Maybe it could say, "The increasing measured fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 100 years implies that the system of sources and sinks is equilibrating at a higher level of atmospheric CO2." Not sure that's clearer.

My other source of confusion was conflating the flux equilibrium with the radiative equilibrium with space. This is where the system is clearly in disequilibrium -- even if all anthropogenic sources stopped emitting today, we'd still have a couple of centuries of warming "in the pipeline" until thermodynamic equilibrium is reached. It might be worth a sentence or two to distinguish these two concepts.

Anyhoo, thanks for the clarification, and thanks for the great Global Warming Art! Do you have any plans to update those beautiful graphs with more recent data? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrett808 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your e-mail. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This [6] let me know. There are some powerful tools now like WikiTrust (see http://wikitrust.soe.ucsc.edu/) which could combine with your kind of thing in an interesting way. We are still toying with spliting the Schools Wikipedia website off from the DVD version and if it could work together it might be worth a look--BozMo talk 21:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, when someone accuses me of vandalism for posting information they don't like, that's ok. When I point out that it's censorship like found in 1940's Nazi Germany, you accuse ME of making a personal attack? The problem with BOTH of you is that you put politics ahead of truth, and you are PRECISELY the reason why Wikipedia has ZERO credibility on any topic that has an impact on politics -- because of you and all of the others in the Politically Correct mafia who go around with a campaign of intimidating anyone who doesn't toe the party line. It's a crock of shit, and you know it. Akulkis (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That data was from September though. :) Mr.Z-man graciously reran the query, so here's the new data for you: [7]. I'd love to have you back to help keep the filters under control. It's been quite a job without you at times. Prodego ^talk 21:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hurricane Intensity Shift.png. 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 "file" 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 "File" 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. ZooFari 06:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because their duplicates. Special:Import would normally take care of this automatically, but I don't want the January 2005 revision from Nost.Wikipedia in the page history. Graham87 10:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can you have a look here:

• commons:Commons:Graphics village pump#GIF scaling (animated and non-animated) still not working --Timeshifter (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You left a note about Andys lawsuit against the Wikimedia foundation on the discussion page of "his" article. Send him some flowers (or chocolate, if he likes this more) last year during the fund raising campaign, a german 3rd class politian filed a law suite against wikiepdia.de - the best publicity ever for WP - donations rocketed in Germany. The topic is already in a major german journal [8]. By the way: good luck with your thesis. --Hagen Graebner (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice your comments at the discussion on drawings of people. Would you care to comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rama. It would be extremely useful to have comment from Wikipedians with a good understanding of the Wikipedia policy.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, and PS :-) ... bugzilla:22041 is about thumbnails, but issue is with file's themselves. (Of course, I'm probably not describing this right ... and solving one will probably find the other ... anyway ...

Someone followed up with me this way:

Excuse my following up on your talk page after marking resolved in Village pump (Technical), but just making sure I've done all I can do. LoL Cheers. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 00:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• PPS Finally read your user page note: www.globalwarmingart.com. Excellent. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 00:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dragons flight. You have new messages at Viriditas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I never thanked for your condolence note last year, but I appreciate it more than I can possibly express. All the best, in friendship. Guettarda (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dragons flight,

Following from the discussion on citations at the Village pump, I played a little with Cite.php extention. As you may have got from that discussion I am greatly in favour of templated citations. Others expressed a (great) dislike for them for a number of quite fair reasons, particularly the slowness of pulling in many templates and the manner in which they break-up text when used in line.

During that discussion I floated the idea of modifying Cite.php to do the templating of citations instead of transcluding a template. My suggestion was that they could be done like this:

• <ref first="John" last="Murphy" title="Quisque Quis Orci Magna" publisher="Printing House Press" location="London" year="2009" page="55" isbn="978-3-16-148410-0" />

Doing so would eliminate the slowness caused by trancluding the current cite templates. Using your WP:LDR addition would address the issue of breaking-up of text when used in line.

I've made up a working example of Cite.php that accepts these kind of attributes and creates a rudimentary templated citation from them. It doesn't break current way of doing things.

I'm not sure of how to float the suggestion of integrating this idea into Cite.php. (Clearly the template is too rudimentary as yet to be actually integrated - and there would need to be consensus about what the citation style would be.) Should I contact User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason? Since we had some brief contact during the discussion at the Village Pump I thought I would ask you first.

Regards, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest. Avar is no longer maintaining it, and I am probably a better contact anyway at this point. Short answer? There is not a chance in hell that developers will allow the Cite extension to dictate reference formatting. The current system is flexible for a reason since Cite needs to support many different WMF and non-WMF sites. And in general everything in Mediawiki favors giving more control over content to the user and less to developers. There are alternative proposals for greatly speeding up the rendering time of citations that won't change behavior, so I wouldn't worry about that. It will be fixed eventually. But if people want to reform the styles, they really should be working on standardizing the templates.

In terms of what might be possible though, I have contemplated for some time allowing ref to pass parameters. In other words, have:

<ref name="bob" pages="99-102">{{cite journal| ...}}</ref>

be the same as

<ref name="bob">{{cite journal| ...| pages="99-102"}}</ref>

If that is designed so that things like <ref name="bob" pages="657" /> and <ref name="bob" pages="42-65" /> can render separately then it could address the main outstanding use case. In a post of on the board you asked about having the software fill in details based on partial references (e.g. ISBN numbers). That is probably possible too though I think other things would have to happen first. Dragons flight (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I just missed this. I just opened a bug on it. That the citation style would have to be easily definable was something that I was aware of. I don't think that would be insurmountable.

Thanks anyway, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demo

Dragons flight,

On the back of feedback on the Cent page to do with citation styles, I implemented a demo of the enhancements I proposed for Cite.php. It takes in suggestions received from others including yourself.

The changes to Cite.php are relatively small (a new hook, one main new method and a few methods copied from the Spamblocklist extension). The definitions for citations are defined on-wiki (at MediaWiki:Citation styles). That page is read once per article and only if necessary. The bulk of the parsing is done directly in PHP. The style definitions I used on the demo site use the parser functions for some logic but on the whole it is "dumb" and based on string replacement in PHP.

From the demo, the new method produces less HTML and is substantially quicker to generate templated citations compared to transcluded templates. The HTML it produces is identical in size to a "plain text" reference version (I have not implemented COinS data on the demo site) and - to the eye at least - appears to be as quick to load as the plain text version. I suspect if it was actually timed that it be a slightly slower but to my eye it is not noticable.

The demo site is here. If you could take a look at it and drop any comments you have on my talk page, I would be grateful. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if you would ever get AFDSUM up and running again? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What serendipity. I just came to your page to check if it's working again. I'm sure you're tired of being asked all the time. Failing that, maybe you could explain how to run it to someone? ¨¨ victor falk 11:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am unlikely to take the time to revive this at any time soon. Dragons flight (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dragons Flight. Could you update "Instrumental Temperature Record.png" to include 2008 and 2009 (if available)? Thank you, Awickert (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It already includes 2008. I'll get around to adding 2009 at some point in the net couple weeks. Dragons flight (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - you're right, I misread it, Awickert (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert! First, congrats on your PhD! That's quite an accomplishment. Not to increase the pressure, but we now have a butt-ugly NASA original in global warming, and yours are sooo much better! ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[9]. So what is status now? Work-life starting? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, ditto, congratulations! Awickert (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. Right now I'm taking some personal time to relax and figure out what comes next. I've decided to look primarily outside of academia for jobs and and have a couple offers on the table but haven't made a decision. Mostly I'm thinking that after umpteen years of school, it makes sense for me to take a month off or so.  :-) Dragons flight (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Template:NPOV-because (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Template:POV-because (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Global warming, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 03:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I was monitoring WT:RD as I always do, during the very interesting discussion on how wonderful the RD's are, I saw what looks to me like a definite copyvio reproducing a subtantial portion of the work, and responded accordingly. Then I read a few more comments and see now that you consider it fair-use. I'm not on that side of the playing-field (possibly being a hard-liner on the topic of copyvio :) so I took the wobbly option of collapsing it. I realize your POV may differ and I won't get all bent out of shape if you revert this, though I'm concerned about the "substantial reproduction of the work". Looks like it's all spiralling out of control anyway, I'll have to send out for extra popcorn to watch this all play out. ;) Franamax (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tfd-inline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be useful to show a 'rate of change' plot. One where the vertical axis is in `deg/year' and the horizontal axis is `year' (logarithmic). It is this which will emphasise the drastic events of recent times, since the dramatic change in temperature in such a short period of time is unprecedented. Perhaps Dragons flight could create this plot?? Mjspe1 (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to create a few plots. Where can I access the geologic temperature record raw data? Mjspe1 (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not try to check the individual image pages - DF usually leaves links to the repositories of the data on them. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either I found a bug when using #tag:ref as a LDR, or my brain is shot. Please look at User:Gadget850/SandboxA. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are several bugs related to ref stacking / #tag. This is largely a side effect of the fact the original Cite code was designed under the assumption that ref stacking would always generate an error. That and the out-of-order parser evaluation rules for #tag are a giant pain. Dragons flight (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought I was doing something wrong at first. Is there already a bug report on this issue? Out-of-order parser evaluation explains some of the oddities I was seeing. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is one regarding ref stacking somewhere. Your specific example is new to me, but the underlying problem is the same. Dragons flight (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bug? Although that implies that is should work with #tag:references, but that construct is used in {{reflist}} ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Short Instrumental Temperature Record.png seems to have had its last data update in early 2007 with data only going up to 2006. Have you abandoned this aspect of your temperature graphs project? TMLutas (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have plans to update it. In fact, a couple months ago I started preparing updates for many of the temperature images, including that one, but then some other aspects of life intervened and I have been super busy. I hope to role out updates for 10-15 images by April 15 or so. Dragons flight (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you would also consider releasing them under slightly less restrictive licensing. As it stands, the graphs are a bit difficult to reuse outside of Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you appear to be one of the contributors to this article, I thought I would point you to this proposal. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you could supply versions of your 1,000 & 2,000 year "spaghetti graphs" without the instrumental record?

I was just looking at these, and these would be nice to have because:

• at present, the charts are somewhat "apples vs. oranges" -- ie, proxy vs. instrumental.
• there's some reason to suspect the "value added" instrumental record is biased warm, as you are probably aware -- see, forex, Peter Webster's interesting comments on the CRU data here, and Ross McKitrick's disquieting essay on his UHI work here.

Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC), professional geologist, amateur climatologist, & long-time admirer of your charts! Bump, 6/3/10. Bump-2, 7/17/10, Bump-3, 11/1/10[reply]

Hi,
I mentioned your name at WP:VPT#Israel's article. Was it also you who pondered turning the citation templates into a MediaWiki extension?
Cheers, Amalthea 15:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please review Template:Bug and give me a sanity check. Thanks. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a thread here: Wikipedia_talk:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Unilateral_modification_of_active_sanction. I think it would be better to gain consensus for such a modification. It may well be that consensus exists. But if we modify that way based on principle, there are other sanctions that may need modification as well. So I invite you to discuss this. ++Lar: t/c 22:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was following the consensus that I feel already existed from the ANI discussion, as I explained in my posting at ANI. Dragons flight (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that's appropriate, the way to go is seek consensus at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement, which I have put forward at AN/I. ++Lar: t/c 23:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, ANI is the audience with a larger number of experienced and uninvolved participants. While one also could have sought consensus at GSCC, I'd say that ANI is actually the more authoritative forum in cases such as this. Since the issue has already been discussed there, I see no reason to try and move it back within GSCC. Dragons flight (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, ANI is the audience with a larger number of inexperienced and non admin participants. Seeking consensus at GSCC is the right thing to do. I suggest you do so. Because, with respect, I don't see the consensus at ANI that you claim to. It may well be that consensus exists, but so far you haven't shown it. ++Lar: t/c 11:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a request for modification of the prior sanction at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#William_M._Connolley_comment_editing_restriction_modification. ++Lar: t/c 18:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons Flight Have you a paper to explain how your Global warming art correlation of global T data by Lisiecki and Raymo with the Milankovich data by Qinn et al ,was validated.? How were the data indexed ? Thanks ≈≈≈≈ Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.208.34 (talk) 07:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate your input and feedback regarding my proposed proposed remedy/enforcement found here. Thanks. Minor4th 17:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope I can reach you on this page without destroying anything. You plot the figure "65_Myr_Climate_Change.png‎" for the WIKI-article "Geologic temperature record". The data source are the paper from Zachos et al 2001. I know this paper and I download already the delta 18O dataset from Zachos hompage. Now I would like to compute the paleotempratures (for the ice-free time slot) from the delta 18O data, but I don't know how. Which equation you used to calclate the tempratures. Thanks a lot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.76.77.214 (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--BorgQueen (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In graphs accredited to you, Dragons flight, the average temperature from between 1961 and 1990 is apparently used to set the comparison zero point. Please tell me what the global average temperature between this time period was used in constructing your graphs.130.56.89.139 (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 10:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're the bestest ever. Kiss kiss bang bang. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccarlst (talk • contribs) 05:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should talk about getting an avocado tree.

Ccarlst (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took the above as taunting from a sock. Before I wrote this, I was going to revert myself given their other contributions, but I see you beat me to it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no. That would be taunting from my girlfriend. Dragons flight (talk) 06:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that explains things, though, like I said, I'm sorry.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to erase this circa 2009 discussion. Agree, if so you may also erase it...Morbas (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dragons flight. Check your email – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Editnotices. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Editnotices redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji 01:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was reorganized, with a decent chunk of information about the UAH satellite temperature dataset transferred to its own article, which is primarily what was eliminated from the STM article. Another subarticle was created by another editor (starting with STM's original content) which is attempting to focus more on the microwave imagers that measure atmospheric temperatures. For now, it looks like a POV wp:content fork, though that is bound to change over time. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Template:Str find is being discussed at bugzilla:6455#c92. Your input would be welcome.   — Jeff G.  ツ 03:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dragons flight, I'm writing to everyone who commented (for or against) on the last deletion debate regarding the Keeplocal image template. This has been proposed for deletion again, and your input would be welcome. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_20#Template:KeepLocal. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dragons flight!

Many years ago, you argued for a move from Nemesis (hypothetical star) to Nemesis (star). The matter of a move back came up, first in the context of a move from Tyche (planet) to Tyche (hypothetical planet). All of us who (until now) have expressed opinions are in favour of the longer names. Whether or not you still think the shorter (but IMHO misleading) names are better, you are of course very welcome to participate in Talk:Nemesis (star)#Requested move 2011 and Talk:Tyche (planet)#Requested move, respectively.

Best, JoergenB (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dragons flight, it's that time of year again. If you have the time could you update "Instrumental Temperature Record.png" to include the data from 2010? Thanks, Mikenorton (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rohde at the BEST project

Robert Rohde, a young physicist who left Berkeley with a PhD last year, does most of the hard work. He has written software that trawls public databases, themselves the product of years of painstaking work, for global temperature records. These are compiled, de-duplicated and merged into one huge historical temperature record. The data, by all accounts, are a mess. There are 16 separate datasets in 14 different formats and they overlap, but not completely. Muller likens Rohde's achievement to Hercules's enormous task of cleaning the Augean stables.

The wealth of data Rohde has collected so far – and some dates back to the 1700s – makes for what Muller believes is the most complete historical record of land temperatures ever compiled. It will, of itself, Muller claims, be a priceless resource for anyone who wishes to study climate change. So far, Rohde has gathered records from 39,340 individual stations worldwide.

Cool. Have fun! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dragons flight. On the global warming talk page the topic of why the trend is calculated from 1982 came up. I've read your note as to why and will update the talk accordingly. However, if you do make a new version of the graphs (please do they are invaluable) can I appeal for the longest possible period to be included. While I see your point about the greater discrepancy between sat and surface data early on, UAH and RSS include those years in their data and their trend calculations. While excluding those years may add to the accuracy, it can inadvertently give the impression of bias. --IanOfNorwich (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please have a look at the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature wikipage and make edits, comments and/or suggestions? And would you have any suitable photos or illustrations from the BEST project to dress up the article? Such as photos of yourself & Dr. Muller? Is the BEST logo available as CC? Or any of the graphs in the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Analysis pdf? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was looking through the wikitech archives and I noticed a thread you started back in Jan 2009 about a Revision history edit compressor. My understanding was that this would present diffs with only the relevant sections (not sure if that's a correct understanding), allowing diffs to load quicker. I was more interested in the paragraph where you discussed filtering the history to determine the major edits and the major contributors. I've been interested in coming up with a history filtering tool to screen out vandalism and minor tweaks, and also potentially filtering edits where references are added or removed. I'd also like to update the watchlist to show the number of edits which occurred that day. My programming skills are fairly limited (worked with C++, Java, VBA, and a little PHP and Javascript) but I'm trying to read up on Wikipedia hacking. Do you have any comment on the feasibility of these programs? I have to admit I don't really understand your code - I'd have a better idea if I could step through it, but I probably should start by looking at the code that generates diffs to begin with. I'm not sure I really understand why your compressor is necessary to do that sort of filtering. II | (t - c) 20:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert,

Do you still have the scripts you used for the WP:AFD 100 days summary? I'm interested in using these for my research on AfD discussions. I'd love to get any code you're willing to share! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment you left, and I agree. See rest of my reply User_talk:NewsAndEventsGuy —Preceding undated comment added 20:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I spent some time on Bitard, could you have look and comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitard? Thanks, --Anneyh (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert. In case you are not watching the page, I have left a request for the project here. I hope this was the right place to ask - if not I would welcome your suggestions. Regards, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This concerns the Graphs You created showing

the Solar radiation spectrum [[10]]

and the Radiation Transmitted by the Atmosphere [[11]].

The Solar temperature cited for both of these graphs is below the Effective Temperature cited on the NASA website. (5504°C or 5777K)

Looks like a Celsius/Kelvin mix-up ...but I'm far from an expert on this matter.

I have created 2004–2011 Time 100 lists. I understand that several of these have been previously deleted. I have been pointed in the direction of Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 February 4 as an explanation. As I understand this page it derives from a legal ruling that "lists of items that are created entirely or primarily as a result of editorial opinion are subject to copyright protection". I have found that the above lists are a hybrid of polling data and editorial opinion. I am not sure if this was known before and whether the word "primarily" still applies.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A list is subject to copyright protection if the author(s) used creativity in the selection or arrangement of its elements. A typical test for "creativity" in this context is whether or not a different author given the same background information and process would necessarily arrive at the same selection and arrangement. For example, a list of facts (e.g. US states by population) is not creative, because anyone given the same facts ought to generate the same list. On the other hand, a list of the author's personal favorite foods would be considered creative since any two authors are unlikely to arrive at the same list. There are some complicated cases. For example, lists based purely on polling results are considered non-creative, since two authors looking at the same polling data would form the same list, even though the thing being polled may be subjective (e.g. favorite foods).

In general though, if subjective editorial judgment was used in such a way that different authors would be expected to construct different lists even given the same information, then the resulting list is usually subject to copyright protection. So, in the Time context, if it is polling plus editorial judgment, then that probably amounts to a work that is ultimately subjective and subject to copyright protection. On the other hand, if the list had been based purely on polling, it would generally be exempt from copyright protection. Dragons flight (talk) 07:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a scoring system where based on all polling info and all editors opinions a numerical score was determined, does the fact that any publisher could use a different scoring system mean it is subjective? I don't know of any such scoring system, but I think this will be my first major page recreation "loss" and sort of grasping at straws.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do AFI's 100 Years...100 Stars and all the related lists fare under this rule.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NoCommons has been nominated for merging with Template:Keep local. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. I understand that you haven't edited the template in a very long time, but no-one else seems particularly attached to it. NYKevin @031, i.e. 23:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This pinball game is very popular and common, and is likely to have been reviewed, so I removed your prod. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sent to AFD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Simpsons_(pinball). Dragons flight (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Minor barnstar
	Thanks for spotting out a problem. Thanks Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on glowing coverage in the NYTimes Dot Earth Blog. Nathan ^T 20:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dragons flight (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Dragons flight! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Hello I am Naveed Ahmed, Doctor student at the Chiba University Japan. I am using your graph http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png for one of my presentation, purely for academic purpose. As I came to know that this image is free to use, I think permission is not required, however, please accept my sincere regards and gratitude for creating this image. Thank you very much. With my best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.180.254.220 (talk) 12:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Just a notice: A category you created is up for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_November_21#Category:Shortcuts_that_are_English_words. Cheers. -- œ^™ 18:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Truecomp has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 10:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dragons flight, thanks for your answer to my question on the Science desk. I'm hoping you can at least read my clarification of the point, because I believe your reply was based on misunderstanding what I was saying, and I am keen to learn from your knowledge. I have taken the step of posting on your talk page, which I do very rarely, because I've had to insert my reply in the middle of the thread, and it might get missed, and also because you clearly know the area well. It's great to have academics here, and if you need my assistance on any general matter, don't hesitate to ask. IBE (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I often use your graph of CO2 levels measured at Mauna Loa [[12]] as reasonable proof that "climate is warming" and "humanity needs to do something about it". But this graph appears to end in 2008. The published measurement for November 2011 is 390.31 ppm. If you can find the time, would you please update this graph? Thanks in advance Neilrieck (talk) 12:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NoCommons has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my comments on the Verifiability talk page? Please don't do so again. Sheesh!(olive (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for explaining. No worries!(olive (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (5th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I recently came across your charts on Editing Frequency over Time, including from bots. I am doing a research project on Wikipedia bots, and the data in these charts is great...thank you for your work there. The data seems to end in September 2008, so I'm wondering if you have any more current data to fill in the months between then and now...or if this is a script that you ran (which I'm guessing), I'm hoping you might run it again and update the chart. Finally, I'm wondering exactly where you grabbed the data from? Thank you in advance for any help that you can provide! UOJComm (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your comments a while back on CA-PD template and thought you'd be a good person to help. I'm trying to find a map of the election districts for the City of Oakland, CA. Image is on a govt website here. Does copyright apply? (Same question for the official govt portraits of notable individual). Advice most welcome. --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dragons flight,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dragons flight,

is it possible to update this Editing_frequency table??? It's a little bit outdated. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_frequency/Article_space_bots

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz.herbach (talk • contribs) 17:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DF, you have been a wiki-hero of mine for much longer than our recent interaction suggests. I just want you to know that. you're an NOTCENSORED wikipedian who has come through a LOT of complex cases with great authority. I just want you to know that-- when I'm on the wrong side of you, I generally suspect I'm on the wrong side of Wikipedia.

Thank you for all you do here. I have no idea what kind of a human being you are, but I have substantial memory of times where you've stood up for what is "right" on wikipedia.

When you edit/parially revert my edits, I feel happy that there is someone competent to supervise me. I wouldn't feel as comfortable contributing to Wikipedia if I didn't know that people like you would clean up after me. Thank you for the work you do. --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to update the info at User:Dragons flight/Log analysis? I am especially interested in deletion trends. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this nice new bar-chart you prepared some time ago, I think we had consensus (here) to change the head text to "Significant contributions by humans" (or something similar).

Could you make this change when you get a chance? I would, but don't know how :-[ TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

because "File:Climate science opinion2.png" is awesome. I feel like Wikipedia needs wayyy more custom graphics.Tesseract2(talk) 16:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DF temperature has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, members of the Vandalism Studies Project! As some of us are quite new with the Vandalism Studies project, it would make sense for us to re-read some of the past studies, as well as studies outside the project. Please do so if you have a chance, just so we can get into the groove of things. We're planning on attempting to salvage the Obama study (or possibly simply convert it to a new Romney study), as well as hopefully begin our third study this November. If you have any ideas for Study 3, please suggest them! If you have any questions please post them on the project talk page. Thanks, and happy editing - we can't wait to begin working on the project! --Dan653 (talk) and Theopolisme _{:)[reply]
11:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
If you would like to stop receiving Vandalism Studies newsletters, please remove your name from the member list.}

Hello, Dragons flight. You have new messages at Template_talk:Str_sub.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

	The Technical Barnstar
	For all your work on Lua templates. :-) Eloquence* 01:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dragons flight. You have new messages at Module talk:Citation/CS1.
Message added 10:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

	The Technical Barnstar
	I've only just noticed that {{cite book}}, etc, were all Lua-ified last month - well done for your hard work on getting these updated! Andrew Gray (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

local cfg = require( 'Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration/sandbox' );

Hello, Dragons flight. You have new messages at Module talk:Citation/CS1.
Message added 18:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Dragons flight. You have new messages at Module_talk:Citation/CS1.
Message added 16:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

	The Technical Barnstar
	For your VisualEditor bug reports, and the debugging thereof; they're much appreciated :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fenton Communications is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

	The Original Barnstar
	WIKI I LOVE YOU FOR KNOWLDGE DONER AND PROFESIONALLY OPSORVER FOR ALL TECHNICAL USERS. Qureshi2014 (talk) 07:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For helping n exploration into an under-reported aspect of LGBT culture. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 High gravity on A, low gravity on B.

 :*Synchro0 : 00h00 on the two glocks.
 :*Synchro1 : 01h00 on glock A 00h59 on B.
 :*Synchro2 : sunrise, 02h00 on A 01h58 on B.
 :*Synchro3 : sunset, 06h00 on A 05h54 on B.

 The referential was A, now lets with B:
 :*Synchro0 : 00h00 on the two glocks.
 :*Synchro1 : 01h01 on glock A 01h00 on B.
 :*Synchro2 : sunrise, 02h02 on A 02h00 on B.
 :*Synchro3 : sunset, 06h06 on A 06h00 on B.

 B has to compare data with A at 6h00 for A. It means 5h54 for B

Thanks for uploading File:Risks and Impacts of Global Warming.png. 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 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).

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		You probably deserve an email barnstar, but I like spinny objects, so thanks for the help. μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"clear the head"
Thank you, veteran editor devoting your life to earth sciences, climatology and related areas, on scientific background, for custom graphics, for starting Religious cosmology ("creating the hopes of stopping the religion edit wars"), for creating modules including one that intentionally does nothing, for "clear the head", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (23 June 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]