User talk:StevenJohnston
License tagging for Image:CausalSet180Geodesic.png[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:CausalSet180Geodesic.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Relativity[edit]
Hi there. I was wondering if you would be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Relativity. We need more experts ! Thanks. MP (talk•contribs) 20:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 |
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Star-sizes.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. SpencerT♦C 02:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
|
Re: Bibliography[edit]
I'm of the opinion that bibliography articles besides those that list the works of an author/group, i.e. those that are effectively spun-out "Further reading" sections, are improper in that they violate WP:NOTDIR and are prone to accumulating cruft. If you wish to prune them down and put them as Further reading on the Causal set theory article, I would also find that acceptable. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- I freely admit CMB was rather an edge case, but it would have required its own subsection in Causal sets Further reading, which would look rather odd. If you know an appropriate existing subsection for it, I don't object to moving it. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I never said that that individual page was crufty, only that such pages in general are prone to gathering cruft. Regarding precedent, I remind you that consensus can change and that it is quite likely these articles have not been scrutinized by many editors; furthermore, a significant segment of said category is made up of the type of bibliography I find unobjectionable. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, looking at the titles of the sources, it appeared a good many of them were not completely specific to causal sets and were appropriate to the articles they were moved to; although I readily concede I'm not a subject matter expert. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
To detail my objections:
- WP:NOT#OR "Primary (original) research" - the choice of which entries to include is somewhat arbitrary, especially when the bibliography is so lengthy
- WP:PROMOTION - "Self-promotion" - it's quite possible some of the entries were added by their own authors
- WP:NOTLINK "collections of external links" - if one construes "external links" broadly to mean references to external works, then that's all a bibliography is; IMO, Wikipedia shouldn't be a card catalog
- WP:NOTDIR "not a directory" (the section's very title) & specifically (#4) "Directories [...]" - a bibliography is a directory of related reading materials
- WP:INDISCRIMINATE "an indiscriminate collection of information" - when the bibliography entries are so great in number, the criteria becomes less well defined (i.e. how can these articles be considered 'select' when there are so darn many of them?)
These problems are significantly reduced when bibliographies are just "Further reading" sections of existing pages, as their length tends to be significantly curtailed and their selection criterion thus more elite; and some of the guidelines also cease to be applicable when a bibliography is not a separate page unto itself. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Perfectly fair compromise accepted. All applicable edits self-reverted. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you[edit]
Thank you so much for the lovely star-sizes artwork that was used as the picture of the day today. More than being a very informative and clear depiction, it is beautiful. I have printed up a copy and will display it in my 8 year old son's room. Thanks again. A Softer Answer (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
File:1000CausalSetPoints.png listed for deletion[edit]
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:1000CausalSetPoints.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
File:CausalAdvancedPropagatorPath.svg missing description details[edit]
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 01:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Notification of automated file description generation[edit]
Your upload of File:CausalRetardedPropagatorPath.svg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)