User talk:Tillman

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Trinity explosion2.jpeg, 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. MER-C 09:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. And well done yourself on finding that bigger version and getting it up there. It did amazingly well. --jjron (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading some interesting historic images! If you haven't already, I suggest you check out Wikimedia Commons. For free licensed images (such as old public domain/US government images, etc) you can upload them directly there. Why? They will then be availible not only here on the English language Wikipedia, but also for Wikipedias in other languages, other Wikimedia projects, etc-- and putting them into any article here on the English language Wikipedia is still just as easy; do exactly the same as if it was uploaded here. Commons also has categories and galleries, allowing useful images to be found in multiple ways. Check it out, and let me know if I can be of help. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 06:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree! It saves a lot of effort having to reload them! Philly jawn (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, guys. I'm now uploading all new PD images to Commons -- Pete Tillman (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just called up his daughter and asked her for information. I did that for about a dozen people so far. Its a lot easier than combing though archives to get a day and place of birth. Once you have the info its easier to confirm with a Google search, no one has refused to talk yet. I can't even get my own family members to cooperate on family history, so its nice when others do it. Have you ever cold called someone? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Thanks for your additions to the mining articles. I have never been to Planchas de Plata myself. A friend and I made a half-hearted stab at it years ago, but we could not find our way over the dirt roads from Nogales. It would be fun to see it. Plazak (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Trinity explosion2.jpeg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 26, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-11-26. howcheng {chat} 06:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting the new image in George Harrison. I had a look at what else you have done, and see that you have been responsible for tracking down and uploading some fine images. I would second the comment above that many of the images you upload would be useful at Commons, and that it would be helpful to upload new images there, and to seriously consider moving some of your existing 'pedia images over there. Though on Commons the images must be free use - usable by everyone, so more care needs to be exercised on what is allowable. Anyway - keep up the good work!

I've given you a Wiki award which you may display on your user page! SilkTork *^YES! 14:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've given you rollback. Remember only to use it for blatant vandalism, and revert manually when the edit is in good faith. You can test it out here. I also suggest you warn vandals with vandal warning templates. If you have any questions, please ask. Cheers, bibliomaniac15 02:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, kudos to you for all the images added! I confess that I haven't really figured out WikiCommons - it's not as user-friendly as Wikipedia proper. I know low-rez images of art can be used as non-free fair use images, but haven't quite figured out the rules, so I stick to photos I've taken of public art or art in museums that allow photography. Michael Kabotie's passing is just shocking, since he was so active beforehand. Now that I think about it, there's a John Hoover sculpture that I have access too. Have a good evening! -Uyvsdi (talk) 07:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Regarding the Annie Antone image, as long as the image is low-rez (i.e. no one could replicate her design based on a photograph), I believe it would be regarded as your photograph of a 3-D art form. I'd suggest uploading the file at Wikimedia Commons. The photograph would be "entirely your own work." For permission you could put it into public domain by typing in: "{ { pd-self } }" (without the spaces). For anything before 1923, I enter "{ { pd-old } }" (also without the spaces) for the permission. Hope this helps! The Heard would be a good spot to photo more artists. Cheers, Uyvsdi (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Thanks for the tips. Too bad I'm such a rotten photographer. Usually, if I don't forget the camera entirely, the batteries have gone dead.

Lo-res, eh? Well, I could use the phone-cam! Too bad I have absolutely no clue as to how to export fotos from the phone....

Hmm. Actually, this computer has a webcam, which actually is (sort of) easy to use. I could try that for in-house art fotos. Hmm² --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Curator Barnstar
		Thanks for locating all these historical images and writing fair use rationale for them as well! Uyvsdi (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Hi Mr. Tillman, This is Robin Brekhus, The manager of the Gadsden for 22 years and I'm in a social networking class and checked out the Hotel on Wikipedia,(I didn't even know we were on there!), and I can't thank you enough for adding the photos and links to the Gadsden! It is wonderful. Once again, THANKS! If you're ever back in Douglas, stop in and I'll buy you a drink! Robin Brekhus robin@hotelgadsden.com

And all the great contributions I see you have made. :) Unomi (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Thank You Barnstar
		Thanks for being the first person to award The Geology Barnstar. It's the first barnstar I've made, and I was nervous about it. Gyrobo (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As u r the only one of the Wikiprojekt Geology with a mineral name (Tillmannsite (Ag₃Hg)(V,As)O₄), I thought u might want to create the article :D cheers --Chris.urs-o (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! New one to me... Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Been following your work on the more contentious Wikipedia pages concerning climate change. Hope to run into you as I get more active! Amazed how you manage to seem to keep your cool in some of those discussions...

Shadowy Sorcerer (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! We once had a kitten much like this one.

As for CC, you do need a cool head -- and thick skin -- to get involved. And I wasn't so good at keeping my cool early on. If you do get involved, sit on any "hot" reply or post overnight! Good luck, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was missing any way to verify the license, but (I think) Calliopejen took care of it. Kelly ^hi! 04:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pete, have you checked out this article? This seems to fall within your field of expertise, so perhaps you might look it over? Best, -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Belated response. New record-- 10 years? Anyway, I made a couple of cosmetic changes. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete,

Thanks for offering to help with the rewrite of this section.

I don't have an email address for you, so this is the only way I could see to communicate.

I've set up a working template for the "science journalism" rewrite. You can see it here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Science_journalism/draft_rewrite

Once it's all done, we can move it over to the main entry page.

David

DLC (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest in the Sublette, Colorado article. Since the place is listed in GNIS, I added data from GNIS to the article. See U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Sublette, Colorado GNIS is usually the best way to confirm data on a community or other geographic feature in the United States. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking! --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pete for your support.

Way back I concluded that we weren't going to get anything but a picture of Climate Science with bias in all the details on every page, here at WP. I concluded that WP:NOR, essential as it is for most encyclopedic issues, works unfairly against material at the "fringe" as the truth in Climate Science has now become, thanks to the 1990s politicization of the science. Now I also realize that the equally important WP:N discriminates unfairly against those of the "old guard" in climate science who, having learned proper scientific method, saw the corruption the IPCC brought, and spoke out because their consciences directed them to. For what happens to such as Jaworowski? Their energy which had previously been directed to advances at the forefront of their field in which they were top, is sidetracked and no longer available for quite so much orthodox work. Then their outspoken pieces earn them adverse reputation where previously they had been lauded. Apostasy is the most unforgiveable of all crimes, so they have to spend even more energy in defending themselves from attacks and misrepresentations springing up on all sides. And if that is not enough, in Climate Science they are suddenly grossly outnumbered by the incoming wave of New Climateers, who have all been accepted on the condition of subscribing to AGW or CAGW.

Thus, I have to conclude that for Climate Science, WP:N cannot, simply cannot work as it should. But things are even worse. The existence of this unfairness not being recognized generally, means that a vicious circle is reinforced. Certain "old school" experts with integrity like Jaworowski fail the "notability" sham test. So they pass into oblivion here, or thorough condemnation where, especially if they are dead, they cannot defend themselves. People read Wikipedia and although it's not meant to be the last word in scientific accuracy, people take it on that way anyway. What Connolley et al did years ago has influenced the way other editors here look at climate science, even when those editors believe they are being neutral and fair.

WP:NOR and WP:N were developed with the best of intentions. But the path to Hell is paved with such. I'm just using Athene's shield - mere Awareness - to look at this Medusa. IMHO. Lucy Skywalker (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete

Thanks for your nice note on the talk page of my sandbox bio of Tim Ball. I've only just seen it. I cannot cope with the newspeak required here in the Climate Science area, it drains my useful energy, and my recent experiences have firmly driven me back to developing Climate Wiki where I and other climate skeptics can be the gatekeepers. If you would like to help, email me there. I've uploaded Tim Ball's bio there, but I still need to install templates to make it fully functional - help would be welcome! Lucy Skywalker (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the slow reply -- I'm moving, and just got an internet hookup at the new place (El Guique, very rural NM}. I've started some notes and such for Tim Ball at User:Tillman/Tim Ball and that Talk page -- feel free to add or modify. I'll stop in at your new place later. Also see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lucy Skywalker/Timothy Ball. Ugh.

Sorry (but not surprised) that you've had such an unpleasant experience here. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've suggested to User talk:Kaitlynob that they contact you regarding their earlier History of the atmosphere article submission which is now in your user space. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Tillman. You recently edited Sikhote-Alin meteorite to increase the size of the images in its gallery. Scanning the first page of your recent contributions it seems you do this quite often. I personally find it unhelpful and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#How_to_place_an_image suggests one shouldn't, the better approach if one prefers larger thumbs being to set an appropriate default size in user preferences. So... just wondering what your rational is? -Arb. (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as you probably know, galleries sometimes become contentious for various reasons.

However, the image size issue is due to an (apparently) unfixable software bug, that prevents the <:gallery> template from scaling -- it's fixed at 100px, which I and others find too small for most uses in articles. The normal image-size default is 180-220px, so I usually set it around there.

There's an alternative gallery template that does scale: see Template:gallery & Template:Image gallery . In practice, though , these see little use.

Thanks for your interest, HTH. I'm happy if you want to try something else at the meteorite page. I'll try to remember to save a copy of this note, as this is a topic that comes up now & then. Best for 2013, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like there's history. Would you point me at the discussion and at the reference for the "unfixable bug". Thanks; a quick search fails to find either. -Arb. (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's a couple of previous discussions:

• Gallery image sizes, confirming the software problem
• Another size discussion

What I can't find is the original technical discussion with someone else who'd looked into the software problem. But you can readily confirm the problem, by changing your preferences on a test gallery. Size will stay at 100 px -- <:gallery> doesn't scale. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting links. I too have ageing eyes which I deal with by running my browser (Chrome) at 150% zoom. Without your changes galleries are fine; four or more images easily fit across the screen. With your changes there's room for only two.

What I'm doing is a fairly standard accessibility approach for the visually impaired; your changes are breaking it. You do a lot of good work. This is not one of your better ideas. Please drop it. If it's really a big deal for you then focus your efforts on getting the "bug" fixed (have you reported it?); I'd support you on that. -Arb. (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've reported the bug at least twice -- too bad I can't find that correspondence. It seemed hopeless to fix. I tried the alternate templates I mentioned above, but they have drawbacks too.

Please change the meteorite article to your taste -- though hopefully not back to 100px squinters! I don't think your Zoom browser idea will catch on -- unless the user also prefers Large Type books <G> And I don't really think it's realistic to ask others to format articles for that technique. Best for 2013, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the new image. I didn't think I would ever find one for this significant geological feature. There is also this but I'm not sure if it's a Coronation sill. I might get around to the Franklin Large Igneous Province article sometime for a rewrite/expansion. Volcanoguy 22:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I dropped a note of thanks to Mike Beauregard, the photographer and a Nunavut geologist, asking him to take a look at the article, as my knowledge of high-arctic geology is near-nil. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to get an image of the Natkusiak flood basalts on Victoria Island. Volcanoguy 03:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tillman, I found your name on the list of participants at WikiProject Environment/Climate Change task force and was wondering if you had a few minutes to look at a draft I've prepared for an article that falls under the scope of this task force: The Climate Reality Project

I've rewritten this article on behalf of The Climate Reality Project and for that reason will avoid all direct edits to the article. I have instead placed my revised draft in my user space for editors to review.

I left a more detailed note on the Talk page that explains several issues with the current version I have aimed to address. I've also proposed merging in the two articles on the organizations that joined to form The Climate Reality Project.

I hope reaching out to you on your Talk page is OK. I've tried posting at several WikiProjects and with an editor who was previously involved in editing the page, but haven't had much success yet. If you know of someone who might be interested in reviewing this, or a WikiProject I might have overlooked, please let me know. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't make external images appear by just adding a link, and in any case it would in most cases by copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean: Template External Media is intended to link to external images, especially when there isn't a free image available -- and a link isn't a copyvio. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "Copyright infringing material should also not be linked to." = see WP:COPYVIO and WP:ELNEVER. I've had to revert you until you can show that it is copyright free. There's probably a reason why we don't have an image on Commons. The other issue is that I don't know how we can add an image of a reconstruction that isn't pov. See for instance [1] and this image[2]. Sorry Pete. The skull would be ok if we could find one. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pete - History proves that projecting oil production years in the future is such a chancy exercise that it is almost guaranteed to be inaccurate. It should be taken for what it is: an educated best guess. That being the case, I doubt that postponing incorporation into Wikipedia of conclusions of a publicly available document will add much to the readers' knowledge. But you have a valid point, and I'll reverse my edit pending the final, so that we can include all the assumptions and caveats. I have no strong feelings one way or the other. Cheers. Plazak (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We don't have deadlines, after all. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The important guideline is WP:REDNOT. See also's as I stated in my edit should not be red. If you think that those features deserve articles, it would be acceptable to include red links in the running text for a notable article that has not yet been written. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-Uyvsdi (talk) 15:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Those are some amazing photos! Smm201`0 (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like them. It's mostly what I do here -- the most fun, anyway. The contentious stuff is a lot like work.... Ok, it is work. Best for 2014, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your nice photograph on Schoepite-Curite-Uraninite-214949. Sorry for not having answered earlier due to lack of time. Cheers, Shinkolobwe (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so very much for making all of those photos available on the Pulaski Skyway Talk page. They are quite impressive for both the Skyway and the Manhattan skyline. The one photo that you had uploaded and inserted on that Talk page is now included in the article.

I would appreciate if you could upload your other recommended photo, [3], and post it on that Talk page so I can insert in the Skyway article. Thanks. Wondering55 (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Railroad_yards_in_Kearney,_New_Jersey.jpg Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I have added that beautiful picture to the Pulaski Skyway article. Wondering55 (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tillman. I tried to organize Hydraulic fracturing and related articles in more logical way to avoid overlappings and POVFORK. It mainly means that I tried to summarize the Environmental section of Hydraulic fracturing while more specific information was moved to Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing and Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. I would like to ask you to take a look of the summarized section and make more summarizing, if necessary, or restored information which you think should be in this umbrella article. However, even more important to make a cleanup of Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing and Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. They are loaded with information, but it needs extensive cleanup and copyediting (and checking sources to discover potential original research) to make them decent articles. There are still some overlappings between these two articles. I hope you could help with this. Beagel (talk) 18:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm swamped at the moment, but it's on my to-do list. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A copuple of citations that you may find useful:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303908804579564082072318084

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/377972/abuse-climate-scientists-forces-one-their-own-resign-skeptic-group-after-week-reminds

--Guy Macon (talk) 07:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking the records for this one.

I went to http://www.copyright.gov/ and found a notice that records prior to 1978 are only available in their physical card catalog. So, how did you search this 1956 copyright? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The renewal should be made approximately 28 years after publication. 1956+28 = 1984, which is after 1978, so the online catalogue is the place where to search. For older pictures, you need to use the physical card catalogue or the printed annual books. The printed annual books have been scanned and are available here. When checking the printed books, remember to check several years as the renewal sometimes doesn't appear in the book for the 28th year but in the book for the 27th year (and possibly also the book for the 29th year – I'm not sure exactly how many years you need to check). For renewals around 1978, you may need to consult both the online catalogue and the printed books to cover all years. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Pete Tillman (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain the copyright status of text content copied from Flicker pages. I've removed your recent addition to Sar-i Sang as it was basically a copy/paste of text from James St. John's lapis lazuli Flicker page. I don't know how Flicker views copyright stuff, but direct copy/paste seems problematic. Additionally, it seems Flicker pages would fail as WP:RS's. Has St. John written the mine stuff in some other published form? Vsmith (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vsmith: SFAIK the caption text of Flickr posts is covered by the same license as the photo: CC-A in this case. But it wouldn't hurt to ask the author, so I will.

I've put up a lot of St. John's photos, and corresponded with him about some. Basically these are his photos and notes for the courses he teaches at OSU. He's certainly knowledgeable: OSU home page; also see his CV (scroll down). His account of the Sar-e-Sang lapis mines matches what I've read over the years -- I'm something of a lapis fan myself, and my wife is a huge lapis-jewelery fan.... So, a formal ref would be better, but life is short, and this was at hand. I partic. liked his closing quote of the Brit Lieutenant's warning! Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the reply from St. John, in an email dated today, 09/01/14:

All of my write-ups are my words, synthesized from the literature, or in the case of personally-collected specimens, my observations and experience.

I do considerable "label research" and it's not feasible for me to keep track of every reference from which I get info. There are exceptions - I cite literature at the bottom of some of my write-ups.

In terms of the lapis write-up, that was a very early posting to the 1st version of my geology website. I have little to no memory about the specific pieces of literature from which info. came.

My write-ups are intended to be educational - I want them to be used by anyone, anywhere, for any reason. I'll put something to this effect on my profile page.

So, we're good re the license, and I think he's a RS. Thoughts? --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. I would consider St. John to be a reliable source, however kinda doubt that a post on Flicker would get past a WP:RS discussion. Was hoping he had published the description/geology elsewhere. Also, a copy/paste of his words seems wrong - would need a rewrite based on his content. Vsmith (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Since he's licensed his writeup for reuse, why not use it? I probably edited it a bit, but don't recall. My volunteer time is limited, & I doubt I could do better than he did ;-].

Likely you're right re a WP:RS, but if someone objects, I'd just drop it. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tillman, thank-you for your assistance writing the description of the new Category:Climate change skeptics (scientists), which split from the Category:Climate change skeptics; see discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 20#Category:Climate change skeptics. It's good to have another editor's thoughts on something this important; I like your improvement. I see you removed a link to climate change denial; I believe that link is important; can we not work it in somehow? Also, can you please help with the description to the other new category: Category:Climate change skeptics (politicians)? Note that I am going to keep the original category and use it instead of the "other" category after all. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have gone ahead and made those changes. Prhartcom (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your notes, and for the work you're doing to clean up the contentious Climate change skeptics cat. I agree with your basic idea of splitting off the scientists, and I have no problem with splitting off politicians.

I definitely have problems with the idea of labeling climate-change skeptical scientists as deniers, as you appeared to be doing by pipelining a link to the CC denial page. I (and many others) think that calling someone a "climate change denier" is pejorative. The origin of the term is by analogy to Holocaust denial, and is IB credited to Ellen Goodman: [4]. So this is a nasty thing to call someone, and your proposal would not survive WP:BLP review, imo.

So I hope you will reconsider your apparent wish to apply this pejorative to living people, even indirectly. Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank-you, I honestly never considered that, and had been holding off for a few hours waiting to hear back from you before restoring that link to the category descriptions. My intention is just to be helpful to our readers, providing them links to existing high-quality articles. Of course I'm not pipelining the link, climate change denial is the actual name of the article; apparently it has no problem with the term. I don't want to remove the link to a article that could help provide a reader context, just because of one person's "imo". Curious, I went to that article's Talk page and, sure enough, there was a discussion there regarding the issue you raise. Would you like to take a look and see what you think, then reply back here? I am still reading it through. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was hoping that was what was going on.

At Talk:Climate change denial you will see there have been four attempts to delete the page; it is contentious (to say the least) but here to stay. Mostly political (sfaict) and I generally stay far, far away :-] Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thnx for the copyedit. Serten II (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Lots more to do.... Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lots more to do is true, but you took the first step. I mentioned you at the DYK nomination of the article, see Template:Did_you_know_nominations/IPCC_consensus. Serten II (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding all the photos to the Hugo Award pages! --PresN 06:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. It's been some years since we have communicated, but I see your edits often, and I'm always glad to have someone doing good solid work on natural resource articles, especially with all the ill-informed edits some of these articles attract. Keep up the good work. Plazak (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for the kind words! And for all of your good work for the project. Best for 2015, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 January 2 for a deletion nomination for File:TijerasCO,church.jpg. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw the pic of Charlie Jane Anders and Annalee Newitz that you recently added to their articles (and the one on io9). They're not thrilled with how that particular photo looks, and at my suggestion they dug up a better-looking one on Flickr (properly licensed, of course). I think file:Charlie Jane Anders and Annalee Newitz 2011.jpg is a better picture as it shows them more ... together (as opposed to the other one, which could just as well be two strangers standing near each other). Also, in this one, Anders looks less... well, less gobsmacked. I hope you agree.

Thanks. DS (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Fine with me. I note the red cups remain the same... Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In an edit you made to the Palmyra Atoll article on 2014-09-25, you replaced a satellite image with an angled aerial image.

I don't want to get into an edit war or anything, but can I ask why?

The aerial photo is great and adds to the article, but it's not orthographically projected and doesn't show the content in the same manner.

Most similar articles have both, and the article didn't have many images to begin with, so I guess I'm not sure why you had a preference to remove the satellite image entirely.

I am biased as I did add the satellite image, but it was the best available from USGS/NASA archives at the time. I can understand if you felt the aerial imagery was more suited for the article box, but why remove the orthographic satellite image entirely?

Thanks.

Разрывные (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added the satfoto back in. Also retired a nondescript airstrip foto. If you feel it's really needed, put it back. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. The airstrip photo is also on Palmyra (Cooper) Airport so I think that's a non-issue. Разрывные (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you liked me mentioning that California is unique in having no taxes on oil production, here's another interesting fact: Hydraulic fracturing has been used on wells in California since the 1950s, and last year a quarter of the wells that were drilled were fracked. The state laws do not mention hydraulic fracturing, nor are there any specific regulations governing it, despite the fact that it is a routine procedure there. In fact, the California government doesn't even count the number of wells which have been fracked, so there are no official statistics on it. Compared to Alberta, or even Texas, California's oil industry is much more loosely regulated and not taxed at all, although the California government doesn't really like to talk about it and prefers to criticize other governments instead. Yes, the California oil industry does have considerable influence with the California government, but it's all done under the table.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 05:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed few images from view in the Fillmore and Western Railway article April 2013. The article had a gallery cleanup message. Is it okay to make the images appear in the article again? TheGGoose (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the images that used to be in the gallery were put into the text, a better practice. So I'm not sure what your question is? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk)

I'm talking about three images taken off from the article from an edit I had done in April 8, 2013. They show a turntable. Do they deserve to be seen in the article again? TheGGoose (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I knew nothing of the line, prior to my one edit there... Put 'em back & I'll take a look? --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was four images. I just restored them to the article — they are the last four images in descending order, but they extend down beyond the External Links section. The images could be moved to different parts of the article. TheGGoose (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. I took out the older Thomas the Tank foto, and took out the last 2 turntable fotos as overkill. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a nice new (at least new-ish to me) template for talk page refs {{reflist talk}} Guettarda (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've created Category:Members of JASON and did a little populating, in case you want to pick it up. --The Cunctator (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of your edits did something funny to the SPPI ref; I am on mobile and can't easily fix it myself, but perhaps you could. Best, JBL (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked, but couldn't find it. Didn't see anything obviously broken. Sorry! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. Vsmith (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Pete Tillman (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete, a note to say I've undone an IP edit proposing socking, which isn't a good move. dave souza, talk 08:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say sorry to hear of the real life difficulties you've been having lately, hope everything works out. While we've disagreed about weight in climate change articles, you've generally been amicable, and I've admired the work you've done in other topic areas. All the best, dave souza, talk 08:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete, like Dave souza I hope everything works out for you and your wife. Unlike Dave souza I've admired the work you've done in the specific area of climate change; you'll be missed by a lot of people. In the WP:AE it was shown how Mann jess had forced in a negative description and then over and over reverted the many editors who tried to restore according to sources (including four reverts in one day on what is supposed to be a 1RR), and how JzG had used "swivel-eyed loon" to describe Monckton -- but administrators only looked at you. It's a good thing for Wikipedia that Watts's followers don't see the real horrors that go on, I see some are still peddling the myth that William Connolley is the problem source. I like to hope, though, that you'll actually enjoy now a long vacation from the nags and threats and put-downs. I know you shouldn't reply to that because of the ban; it's just my attempt to, like Dave souza again, wish you: "All the best". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, 5 years have passed since this unpleasant episode. I really should ask to have this reversed. Since I'm one of the few skeptical (former) regulars who actually knows something about the science! Thanks for your kind remarks. Cheers -- Pete Tillman (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you removing the image of me taken by Cat Sparks. It is not that that image was unflattering, but that I dislike pictures taken of me at all, and strongly object to the invasion of privacy, so they all end up being unflattering because I have been photographed while I objected but was too polite to shove my hand in the camera's face. As I'm a writer and not a person who lives by her image, I hope that Wikipedia can respect this point of view, and not put up yet another picture of me. I also strongly object being shoved into nationality and sex ghettos. I am not a Women this-or-that, but a this-or-that, and am also an internationalist, not a nationalist, and even with that, I have mixed nationality as I have lived in many places and have mixed background. So far, these objections have been not only ignored but indignantly steamrollered by what looks to me like very undemocratic cliques. I see that you, Mr. Tillman, have tried at all times to bring the best quality information to Wikipedia, so I hope that this note to you is taken in the respect I mean to communicate to you. Finally, I hope I've done this correctly. I've never done this before. Falinquin (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC) (Anna Tambour) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falinquin (talk • contribs) 06:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Tillman, thinking further about your active editing and your interest in policy, I thought that maybe you would be interested in this issue. Although I spoke personally in my previous note to you, I always thought of this as a broad issue, and one of paramount importance, if Wikipedia is to truly be worthy of the confidence placed in it. If someone wants to find, for instance, Novelists, that is diced up into many different cuts. Take Jeffrey Ford. In his entry, he is listed as: "20th-century novelists" and "21st-century American novelists" but is left out in the Wikipedia entry List of American novelists".

In trying to talk to other editors, I've given many examples in the Anna Tambour talk site in Wikipedia that show how taking someone out of a general list for the purpose of often quite limiting and often misleading hypercategorisation--while still having general lists--only serves to make people with agendas happy while doing nothing for scholars and people just wanting to look up, say, Food Writers, a reasonable enough desire, seeing that that is how people think of the category, and that there is a Guild of Food Writers. Myrtle Allen scores. She gets (in her categories) "Food writer" while Sophie Grigson must make do with "English Food Writers" and on this page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Food_writers it's pot luck who get in. Seeing that there are food writers who write about food all over the world, this becomes a mess quite quickly. With someone like Claudia Roden, these minicategorisations are truly ludicrous, and frankly, insulting. She is co-chair with Paul Levy of the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery; a leader of the study of food as part of culture and history; and has written a number of groundbreaking books, yet she earns "Women cookbook writers" and is totally excluded in "Cookbook writers" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cookbook_writers She is truly an internationalist, based in the UK, but to categorise her as is done in her entry "English food writers" is ludicrous.

There are many other people who by this mania for ghettoising categorisation, miss where they shpuld be, in broader categories where people really want to look. There is another reason too, why I hope that you might spearhead a real soulsearching amongst editors about this. Wikipedia should be a place that people can find and discover. By shoving people and who knows what else into smaller and smaller disparate boxes, discovery becomes more and more impossible. Please bring back broad categories and end this nationalisation and sexual discrimination, however well intended.124.149.244.6 (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC) Falinquin (Anna Tambour) 124.149.244.6 (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, see Discussion in Dodge PW article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.43.70.17 (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tillman. I noticed you added an image for the Franklin dike swarm. Would you do me a favor and ask Mike on flickr if he has taken any pics of the Franklin LIP flood basalts? I know they exist on Victoria Island as part of the Natkusiak Formation. There are also the Coppermine River basalts of the Mackenzie LIP. It would be great to get more pics of these LIPs on Commons to use in their articles. Volcanoguy 07:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask, but those might be out of his area.... You've looked in, eg Flickr & google advanced image searches, for free stuff? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tillman, this is a violation of your topic ban from climate change. Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon are both well known for their involvement in climate change denial, and additionally, your edit to remove mention of Soon's funding from the fossil fuel industry also overlaps with that topic. Editing Coal Oil Point seep field is also testing the bounds of the TB, at a minimum. I'm not posting to AE, or requesting action (though another editor may), but I wanted to point out that stepping over the bounds of your sanctions would be ill-advised. Otherwise, I hope you've been doing well.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My edit had nothing to do with climate. NPOV for BLP. Thanks for your interest. --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The passage you edited reads: "Baliunas contends that findings of human influence on climate change are motivated by financial considerations... She does not address the countervailing financial considerations of the energy companies that fund some of her collaborators, including Willie Soon who received over $1,000,000 from petroleum and coal interests since 2001." Your edit is absolutely a clear violation, and I'm concerned there may be similar violations in the future if you think this falls outside the purview of your sanctions. We can ask at AE if you would feel more comfortable with another opinion, but I was assuming that wouldn't be necessary, and a friendly reminder would suffice.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have mooted this discussion by reverting the edit. I disagree with your reasoning, both there and (especially) here. Your " friendly reminder ", coming from the complainant & instigator of the topic ban, is, well, *interesting*. Could there be a COI in your complaint? Perhaps I shd take a friendly interest in your edits, as well. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tillman, I created an essay regarding the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement on Meta and I am now looking for ideas regarding the project. I saw that you're interested in sustainability, so I'd love to hear your comments and maybe even have your support! Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have better eyes than me. I haven't found it. Maybe you know where to look. I've never been told before that's it's irrelevant that an in-line citation doesn't support the content. Perhaps better to cite the map? Gab4gab (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tillman. One of this article's external links seems to have been added by you in 2009. This is stated to be the author's introduction, and it goes to a website, http://www.hackvan.com, which is no longer on line. The article is now in the middle of an FA nomination, which could interest you, but I am writing to see if you mind if I remove the non-working external link. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ed, replaced with archived text. I'll take a look at the nom too. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating the link at The Left Hand of Darkness, but shouldn't we be wary of copyright? EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think it would be Fair use? It's just a link to existing material, WP:EL. But if you think it's a problem, take it out. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be tempted to replace it with http://www.penguin.com/ajax/books/excerpt/9780441007318 since it is on a publisher's web site. It's hard to argue that the copy Penguin provides is done without permission. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Go for it! Cheers -- Pete Tillman (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Heiro 18:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{help me}}

Please help me with... OTRS permission for this image, File:SPI - Castle Dome.jpg. The owner gave permission to use it on Tue, Dec 23, 2008, see File talk:SPI - Castle Dome.jpg

It's a vague sort of permission, but looks OK to keep it as Fair Use. I no longer have the original email.

Pete Tillman (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Such as statement would not gain an OTRS ticket - way too vague. We do not have "permission to use on Wikipedia" type license, we have CC-BY-SA-4.0 at the most strict. That is any use anywhere, including commercial. You could go for fair-use. You would need one copyright tag from Category:Wikipedia non-free file copyright tags, plus for each article that the image is used - a WP:FURG - of course remove the cc banner. Size should be down to 364x274 pixels to fit the non-free guideline of <100000 pixels. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 15:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Non-free_with_permission would apply here. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Year's Best Science Fiction- Fourth cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. It looks like this FU image already has one of the standard boilerplate FU rationales, and we certainly already have hundreds of FU bookcovers in use. Help? Pete Tillman (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tillman. Non-free use on Wikipedia is not automatic and each use of a non-free file is required to meet all 10 non-free content criteria listed in WP:NFCCP. One of these criterion (more specifically one part of one of these criterion) is WP:NFCC#10c, which states that a separate specific non-free use rationale is required for each use of a non-free file. This rationale is supposed to clearly show how the particular use of the file satisfies these criteria. File:Year's Best Science Fiction- Fourth cover.jpg did have a rationale for Alan Gutierrez, but I did not think that the use of that file in that particular article complied with WP:NFCCP, so I tagged it with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} for review. The notification you see above was simply to let you know about that. Another editor named George Ho subsequently reviewed the template, apparently agreed with my assessment, and decided to removed the file from the Guitierrez article.

Generally, non-free cover art (e.g., book covers, cd covers, album covers, dvd covers, etc.) is allowed to be uploaded as non-free content per item 1 of WP:NFCI, but such usage is almost always only considered acceptable when the file is used as the primary means of identification of the work in question in a stand-alone article about the work itself as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3. Non-free use in other articles requires much stronger justification in order to be considered acceptable. There has to be a really strong contexutal connection between article content and image in order to satisfy WP:NFCC#8, and this typically means that the cover art itself is the subject of sourced commentary within the article. Basically, simply wanting the reader to see the book cover is not enough; the cover art needs to improve the reader's understanding to such a significant degree that not seeing it would be detrimental to that understanding. If that's not the case, which was not the case in the Guitierrez article in my opinion, a link to the stand-alone article about the work represented by the cover art is preferred per item 6 of WP:NFC#UUI (WP:NFCC#3).

George Ho is an experienced editor and evaluates lots of files, so I think he's correct in his assessment. You can if you want, start a discussion about the file's non-free use at WP:FFD and explain why you feel it should be re-added to the Gutierrez article. Perhaps you will be able to establish a consensus for the file's use in the article. Be advised, however, that Wikipedia's policy regarding non-free use is purposely intended to be nore restrictive than the US concept of "fair use" and that it is the responsibility (per WP:NFCCE) of the person wanting to use a non-free image to show how it satisfies relevant Wikipedia policy. All a boilerplate rationale does is prevent a file from being deleted per WP:F6; it does not mean that the particular non-free use complies with relevant policy. While it's true that there are lots of non-free files being used on Wikipedia, many of these have been inappropriately added by editors who are either (1) unaware of the relevant policy, or (2) are aware of the policy, but simply don't care. So, WP:OTHERIMAGE is not really considered an acceptable justification for non-free use. What you are going to need to do is specifically explain how the use of this particular file in the Guitierrez article satisfies all the aforementioned non-free content criteria.

I hope I answered your question and did not confuse you with too many details. You can ask others for feedback at WP:MCQ if you like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still, Marchjuly, I think a one-on-one discussion with an uploader is more essential than just simply tagging it. I've done it before, and it's more productive. In fact, that builds more trust between editors. Here's the guide: Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion#Mass nominations... Well, that's for mass deletions. --George Ho (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, best to discuss before tagging a file for (speedy) deletion. If an uploader doesn't mind a file being removed from all articles, you can tag it with {{db-g7}}. --George Ho (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still, George Ho, I tagged the file and posted a notification here on Tillman's user talk page to give them an opportunity to discuss it's non-free use. I engaged in that discusion when asked to on my user talk page. I neither removed the file from the article nor its corresponding non-free use rationale from the file's page, but felt that should be left up to an administrator. You, on the other hand, simply removed the file and its corresponding rationale with any attempt at discussion at all, unless I missed your "one-on-one" attempt at discussion with Tillman explaining why you removed the file. You did leave a short edit sum each time, but there was not much detail and not even a link to the relevant policy you were basing your removal on. I agree that discusison is more productive, so it's strange that you did not follow your own advice and instead simply decided to remove the file. Before preaching to others, you should try and do a better job practicing what you want to preach. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply soon at your talk page. George Ho (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hi, Tillman. Sorry for not explaining why I removed the image from one article. In general, there have been limits on using non-free images. Instead, free images have been encouraged. Nevertheless, in this case, the image truly identifies the work in question because a free substitute would not represent the image well, but the image is unnecessary to appear in the "Alan Gutierrez" article. The image should have help readers' understanding of the author himself per WP:NFCC#8, but it doesn't. There have been discussions about handling non-free content, especially at WT:NFC. George Ho (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)][reply]

Thanks for the explanation. Yeah, I had no clue what was going on. Maybe I'll see what else I can find for Alan Gutierrez. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia entry on the Gadsden Hotel and the Website of the Gadsden hotel both erroneously attribute the breathtaking 42 foot stained glass mural to Tiffany. Research clearly establishes the falsity of that statement. Research clearly and unequivocally prove that the windows were designed, constructed and installed by Ralph Baker of El Paso, Texas during the reconstruction of the hotel after it burned to the ground in 1929.

"The creation of the Gadsden Hotel windows by Ralph Baker is known by his surviving descendants in El Paso, Texas, but the public at large has come to be deceived by the Tiffany myth. The genetics, family history, education, training, experience, the memories of his family and the large body of BAKER’S work and the notoriety and publications which his work attracted, prove that he was the artist who created and installed the Gadsden Hotel windows. Documents that evidence that Tiffany had anything to do with these windows cannot be found. The facts are conclusive that RALPH BAKER was the artist who created these Masterpieces. It is long past time that the erroneous and widely persistent myth that Tiffany created the Gadsden Hotel windows be exposed:"71.195.244.192 (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I offer the research proving the foregoing in a double spaced 14 page treatise. My purpose is to establish the truth about the artist who created these windows during the reconstruction of the hotel after the fire that burned it to the ground in 1929.

I offer my treatise that contains the research to any editor who would like to help publish the truth.

James . Cowley 801-424-1518 japhi@comcast.net

Hello: Please note that a request for enforcing a discretionary sanction against you has been filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Tillman. Thank you, --HidariMigi (talk)

• I emailed this admin with a polite request to reconsider this block on Sept. 27. No reply. Block expires in a couple day, but YA slap in the face, it seems to me. --Pete Tillman (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without speaking to the merits of the case (which I haven't looked at), I've always assumed that posting an unblock request on-site is more likely to be successful. First, other admins can take it up if the blocking admin isn't available for whatever IRL reason. Second, you get a broader range of opinions -- usually it takes only one admin to say "yes," so casting a wide net improves your chances. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Boris. Block has expired (or is about to). I was annoyed that the blocking admin hadn't bothered to answer his email. He finally did, after seeing the ping above. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

I think I will speak to [my opinions of] the merits of both cases: the original topic ban (ref'd above), and the 2-yr later block, expiring today. The first topic ban amounted to a star-chamber show trial, instigated by a remarkably vexatious editor, who has since (IB) left the project. This was part of a largely-successful effort to drive out editors skeptical of the manufactured "97% consensus" on climate change. The upshot was, I was punished with a permanent WP:topic ban on climate & all related topics, appealable after awhile. Well, fuck that. Life is too short. I know of no other editors in the Wiki Climate Wars who got such a drastic penalty. Far too maddening & time-consuming to battle the religious intensity of the climate activists here. And they are legion.

As it happens, I'm a working geologist (OK, retired now) with a MS degree in geochemistry, and a career-long interest in paleoclimates. So I'm technically qualified to speak on a number of aspects of climate change. So I can assure non-scientists that you can't get 97% of any bunch of real scientists to agree on anything more controversial than whether the sun will come up tomorrow.

In the current case, I had the temerity to revert an obvious smear on the BLP of respected Canadian academic Ross McKitrick, by yet another vexatious "climate-activist" editor, who was far more interested in labeling Prof. McKitrick as a "Climate Denier" than making any substantial contributions to the project.

Please note, I'm not claiming to have made no errors in my own edits, which is why I haven't appealed the topic ban. But it pisses me off to waste time on crap like this. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC), Professional geologist, advanced-amateur paleoclimatologist[reply]

Hello Pete Tillman: As an **amateur** geologist, I ended up at the Monterey Formation page, which was largely about oil production. I added the type locality, and would like to add a small general "Geology" section about the environment the Monterey was laid down in (shallow and less-shallow seas, I believe, but I'll find some reliable references) and its stratigraphic components. In line with that, it seems like it might be worth putting all the content about oil production under an "Oil Production" section.

I also think the Oil Production section could be cleaned and organized a bit; e.g., the location of specific Monterey-based oil fields is spread out over 2 or 3 different places in the text, rather than being together. I think I could rewrite the article so all the current information remained, but it was both better organized and a bit more concise. However, since it looks like you wrote a lot of it, I'd certainly prefer to have you be OK with the idea.

Finney1234 (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Like most WP pages, this one grew higgledy-piggledy, and it would be great to get it more organized & add new material. I don't see a link to the "MARS: Monterey & related sediments" project at Cal State Long Beach. And nothing has come of all those enthusiastic (and/or scary) forecasts of unconventional oil from the Monterey source beds. There's also some good material in http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/iroh.19610460229/abstract

The Sea off Southern California. A Modern Habitat of Petroleum -- 1960, but still some good info. I'll take a look when you're done, and/or pitch in (maybe). Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk).

Hi, hope you're well, and hope you don't mind that I occasionally look what you're up to. So I noticed your work on Karapinar. But I believe that the city that's known for rugs is a different place: Karapınar. That Turkish letter "ı" can cause mixups. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Peter. I'll correct accordingly. Yes, I have no clue re Turkish orthography! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Arizona Geological Survey has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I'm not sure a $900,000 state office is notable. It doesn't get much press, as a WP:BEFORE will show. It would be WP:UNDUE to merge and redirect to Arizona.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rhadow (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the prod as it is a valid article and, as most, it needs improvement. Vsmith (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You're listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geology/Participants; I'm not sure the best place to post but our article on the Shahara desert is woefully poor on all geological aspects - desertification, hydrogeology, economic geology, deep earth history/geo-history of the area. Almost nothing on any of them.

I'm not sure who to ask, but maybe you can help get some relevant content added to the article? It doesn't need to be much, but we really should say something.

• Relevant talk page post

Thanks FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Nikumaroro shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

It's your picture, and it has a decidedly pro-TIGHAR slant. Earhart is not the main focus of the article about the island. It is your burden to get consensus on the talk page, and that hasn't happened yet. Glrx (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty rich, coming from the actual edit-warrior. And you are just weird on your anti-Earheart theory business. I'd never previously heard about either this island, or that theory. WTH's TIGHAR, anyway?

It's not my picture, it's NASA's picture. I doubt you'll get far if you try to take this to a formal complaint, but feel free. In fact, I rather hope you do.... Go for it.!--Pete Tillman (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. Nice when someone notices.... Cheers -- Pete Tillman (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - Perhaps not to late to say Happy 2019! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 2115 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thx again, Gerda. Much appreciated! Cheers, --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tillman,

You are currently noted as a participant of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force. With much of the activity in this task force about ten years ago, I think it's time for a revival. Global warming is getting a lot of attention in the media now and it's therefore important our articles are up-to-date, accurate and neutral.

I've updated the task force page and the to do list and invite you to have a look at the page again, add something to the TO DO list or start collaborating by improving one of our many articles. If climate change has lost your interest, feel free to remove your name from the participants list.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the very interesting and the very pretty pictures. Some of the pictures of people I just stared at, wondering, what is the story here? You gave me food for thought.

Suzra (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Cheers -- Pete Tillman (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to indicate that something is not supported by the reference given then it's better to use Template:Failed verification. The instructions are straightforward. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There'a also Template:Request quotation which is useful if you can't find something but aren't sure it isn't there. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I might try again. Souza is usually reasonable -- but if the cite lists a pdf, & the pdf has no mention of Curry or her blog -- obvious verification problem!

Technically, I'm still BANNED from CC area, from an absurd Star Chamber "trial" during the Climate Wars of five years ago. I've never had the energy to try to get that removed. The "activists" ran off a lot of good editors then! --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit [5] is a violation of your topic ban, which as far as I can tell remains in force. These too. A topic ban applies to all namespaces. Guy (help!) 23:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Nazi propaganda - Give me four years’ time - 1937.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. buidhe 01:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Ophir, Colorado has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Meteor Crater Museum.jpeg. 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I started a section on you on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you, Hob fake name. See below for a Christmas Message especially for YOU.--Pete Tillman (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an exceptionally stupid and vengeful reblock, by the same foolish, ignorant group of "climate activists" who have made the Wiki 'Climate Science' pages almost science-free. Bah. May Santa put sacks of soft, dirty COAL in all of your Christmas stockings! --Pete Tillman (talk) 06:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Well, see above. Not that this was any of your doing! Dipshits. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for adding the images. I would upload more images, but I have difficulties finding the date of first publication, which is necessary to determine their copyright status. I don't have access to a library where this information could be found. Do you? Regards, Yann (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I just went for Weston photos that we already have as Commons files, mostly PD because of age. I hope you pursue (and find) more PD Weston photos. Have you tried the family websites in Carmel? There's one for his (deceased) son Brett, and another for his daughter, who does somewhat similar photos, some quite good. Another possibility is the Getty Center's photo collxn -- I think we have a couple of theirs already.

And, if you are a Weston fan, make sure you read his wife and best model's bio, Charis. Wonderful book, stunningly beautiful woman. She is also deceased, If memory serves. I can't recommend her book too highly.Here's a Charis preview: http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2012/photographs-n08885/lot.7.html (click to enlarge). Wow. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:SanJuanPotters.jpeg. 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I ws annoyed at not receiving this notice until AFTER the image had already been deleted!

I'd already restored it to the article once, and still think it's a helpful photo. Well, hell with it. Gone now. But thoughtless editing. Assume good faith! --Pete Tillman (talk) 05:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

wizzito | say hello! 00:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Three years!

Happy New Year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And all the best for 2022 to you! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cirripedia has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 1234 kb of .rar files (is this dangerous?) 00:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

jps (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:2CEs, SD Fwy.jpg. 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —howcheng {chat} 21:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This photo is currently in use at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_405_(California)#History

SFAICT, it's been in use there for years. Please don't delete it. Pete Tillman (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I came to your user page after seeing that you had edited the article on Kevin Trenberth. I am currently working with him: he's sent me comments to improve the article effects of climate change (see that talk page) and also effects of climate change on the water cycle. This is work in progress. I saw on your user page: "After some unpleasant experiences here, mostly to do with the hyper-politicized Climate Change articles at Wikipedia, I am less active here than formerly. Too bad, since I actually know something about that topic." I'd like to invite you to come back to the climate change topics. It is less politicized nowadays and we're a pleasant bunch of people, although far too few! I work on this project and am always looking for additional experts/editors. EMsmile (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a bit of good news. Unfortunately, I'm still formally blanket-banned from contributing to climate topics, and the ban is still being enforced, so I'd have to apply to have it lifted. The most recent block from this was in December 2020, listed upthread here. So, I'm not available now! But thanks for the kind words. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 07:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i happened to find my way to your 2008 page User:Tillman/Camp Bird Mine because its mention of "Thomas F. Walsh" went to a disambiguation page, and I'm trying to sort out whether it was the Camp Bird mine discoverer and very rich person, or a different Thomas F. Walsh (Thomas Walsh (Colorado architect), an architect in Denver), who was a substantial donor to Civic Center Park in Denver. I don't suppose you have any idea/suggestion.

And I happen to be in southwest Colorado and interested in Camp Bird Mine etc, then I wondered if all the content in that draft was incorporated into the existing Camp Bird Mine article. Eventually i see that it was you who created the mainspace article with, apparently, a copy of your draft, yay! (It totally doesn't matter at all, but you could redirect your draft to the mainspace article, like how a redirect would be left behind when a user draft is moved rather than copied to mainspace. I have a lot of such redirects left behind in my user space.)

Anyhow, thank you for creating and developing that Camp Bird Mine article, and your other contributions.

Further i see your mention of previously editing in climate change topic area, but leaving due to it being very politicized. I myself also chose to try to avoid contentious editing by focusing mostly on historic sites, esp. places listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, e.g. articles within National Register of Historic Places listings in Colorado. Wouldn't think that NRHPs would be controversial, but there turned out to be lots of unpleasantness nonetheless. :( Now I am involved in climate change area (volunteer work outside Wikipedia) and might possibly edit relatedly in Wikipedia. I wonder how long ago was your experience and what it might be like now. (Oh, now I see other discussion above. 20:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC))

Thanks again for what you do, glad to see you still involved 14 years later. --Doncram (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You wouldn't happen to be able to get a few of the missing pics for National Register of Historic Places listings in Monterey County, California, or for NRHPs in other CA counties, would you? --Doncram (talk) 20:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. Yes, just thinking about getting involved with the Wiki climate pages again gives me the willies!

I'll try to add some of the pics you requested, as time & energy permit. I've added quite a few NRHP & related photos over the years. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re Thomas F. Walsh: his wikibio is here, Thomas Walsh (miner). Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasis on "warm" as it's -33 Celsius while I write this. I extend (pick one): Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Best of 2023. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And same to you! Time marches on . . .

Wow, 33 C! Austral summer?

Some heat sounds good, in an endless series of mid-50sF wet winter days. We can use the rain, but it gets dreary! Pete Tillman (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, -33 as in "minus 33 boreal winter" but it's warmed since. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. My bad! Glad it's warmed a bit! Pete Tillman (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Four years!

Happy new year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And best for 2023 to you! Pete Tillman (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that this [6] is a violation of your topic ban Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2015#Climate change which seems to still be in force? Even from your comment it's clear you're referring to the subject's views on climate change. I wouldn't rely on WP:BANEX for this since this seems to unclear as a BLP violation. Nil Einne (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under the sub-heading "Attacks on the mine" the current text starts "Violent ambushes near the Grasberg mine have occurred as early as August 2002". . .

But text earlier in the article says "In 1977 the rebel group Free Papua Movement attacked the mine. The group dynamited the main slurry pipe, which caused tens of millions of dollars in damage, and attacked the mine facilities. The Indonesian military reacted harshly, killing at least 800 people."

Shouldn't the 1977 attack be mentioned as an attack? I would hope more than 800 deaths at hands of the government would not be deemed less important than the three in 2002.

Regards the article "Trans-Papua Highway", have you ever watched "The Ugly American" which illustrates even sixty years ago there were concerns about the possible military use of certain kinds of road projects. And besides the December 2018 attack, in April 2018 Kompas TV aired a report from the TNI road project including footage of a TPN-PB member delivering a letter asking the TNI to stop building the road alleging it is upsetting local villagers, to which the TNI officer explains on camera that Jakarta responds by sending more TNI for "sweeping operations". 203.164.254.118 (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Pete Tillman (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tillman. I noticed what appears to be an objective, clear-cut copyright violation in this 2020 edit which you published in the article Tetraclita rubescens. You correctly cite to UCSC, so it's apparent you weren't trying to hide anything, but may have instead just misunderstood how copyright and plagiarism work. The Wayback Machine confirms furthermore that this edit was published after this material was present on UCSC's website, and I see nothing on their website about a license permitting redistribution and permitting no attribution (this would still be plagiarism, just not necessarily a copyright violation, if that were the case). I would ask if you haven't already in the four years since then to read WP:COPYVIO, and moreover, if you can remember any other time you've done something like this, I would like to know about it so I can go about cleaning it up, which I would have no problem whatsoever doing on your behalf. Cheers, TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks lke you've already cleaned this up. At this remove, I have no idea why I thought this was OK. I see that it is copyright to UCSC. My bad. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tillman: All good. All I was wondering is if this possibly happened at other articles that would also need to be cleaned up, but it seems like this was just a bizarre one-off. Not here to admonish or anything; I'm just glad it could be noticed and fixed. I might even sit down and try getting this article back to around where it was previously, but I might also not since there's presently a whole other completely unrelated copyright thing going on with another editor that might turn into a WP:CCI. Hope your day is going well. :) All the best, TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I'm normally very careful with copyrighted stuff. But we all can make a mistake! Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Meteorite has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open access paper. I'll provide evidence & restore. WIP; interesting stuff! For us meteorite nerds. Pete Tillman (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]