User talk:Thorwald
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note to all: I am completely open to any and all changes to my contributions. Of course, only if they improve my work ;-)
[edit] Maori Queen, "She Herself"
Hi Thorwald. I just wanted to clarify why I added the word herself to the sentence in Te Atairangikaahu article and why other contributors keep re-adding it after you specifically remove it.
The post does not automatically fall to the first-born (Te Atairangikaahu herself was a second child).
I can see at first glance why you might feel that the word "herself" is redundant, but I feel it is an important addition and disambiguator. The "herself" in this case helps indicate that Te Atairangikaahu is an example of the this particular method of sucession. Without the word "herself", the comment becomes less of an independent clause and leaves room for the reader to jump to the conclusion that Te Atairangikaahu's birth order itself is the reason why the succeeding birth orders are unimportant.
I would like to add "herself" back in to the sentence, but I want to wait for your response.
— Ke6jjj 17:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ke6jjj: Hi. Thanks for the explanation. I understand the point you are trying to make, however, there has got to be a better way of presenting this without something like this:
Te Atairangikaahu's own ascension is an example of this tradition as she herself was second-born
It is all too common for people to use phrases like, "I personally", "I myself", etc. These don't clarify anything and are painfully redundant (even worse, "two twins"). I suppose reflexive pronoun usage is a bit of a grey area in grammar. Maybe the following would sound better?
Te Atairangikaahu's own ascension is an example of this tradition as she was, herself, a second-born
—Thorwald 23:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Uilpata
Hi, Thorwald! I replaced Mount Uilpata with Mount Dzhimara, as the former is in fact the second highest point. If you have coordinates for Dzhimara, please feel free to add them. Thanks!--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 22:21, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Hi, Ezhiki. Sorry about that. I was wrong about Uilpata. I do not have the coordinates of Dzhimara, however, if I ever come across them I shall add them here. Thorwald 02:21, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Google worth
- 03:58, 17 Nov 2004 m Sergey Brin (Changed "$6 billion" to "USD 6 billion (10^9)")
- 03:57, 17 Nov 2004 m Larry Page (Changed "$6 billion" to "USD 6 billion (10^9)")
Why did you change this? I think when $ is written on its own it is pretty clearly USD, especially when in an article about people who own a US company. Is the added 10^9 to help distinguish between the American billion and British? Again it is clear from the context how much is meant.
- I agree it does look a little "bulky" and maybe an over-kill in trying to use npov and to internationalise the content. The 10^9 is to distinguish between the United States "billion" and British usage. Feel free to revert it back to how it was before. I just wish the United States would join the rest of the world in order to standardise things.
[edit] Fourier series
I don't think einx is better than einx when embedded in a line of text. When it is "displayed", like this:
then TeX is definitely better than html, but on my browser, at least, einx places the e distinctly below the line of text, which looks wrong. Michael Hardy 23:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Maxwell relations
Hello - I want to make some massive changes in the Maxwell relations page but I want to run it by you first, since you have worked on that page a lot. The Maxwell relationships are just the four equations numbered 1-4 that are now in the page. The other differential equations are not. I would like to rewrite the page to include just those four. The other differential equations deserve a separate page, that we could call perhaps "Thermodynamic equations". Paul Reiser 02:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Paul: Hello. Thank you for the questions and your interest in this article. When I took Physical Chemistry, my professor taught us that there were six Maxwell relationships. We even had to prove each of them as a homework problem (I have provided two of these proofs). I am completely open to any changes. However, I would like to keep the proofs in the article. We could put the other differential equations under a new article. Thorwald 05:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
According to my tome "Thermodynamics" by Randall and Lewis, Maxwells relations are derived from the differential definitions of thermodynamic potentials of which there are four main ones. (see thermodynamic potentials.) There may be others that could be defined, (see http://web.mit.edu/chemistry/alberty/part6.html) which would give rise to more Maxwell type relations, but the two proofs that you have are definitely not of this type. I really think that, since they are not Maxwell relations, they should be included in the new page, rather than the Maxwell relation page. Paul Reiser 12:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Image Tagging Image:A-B-Z-DNA Side View.png
 |
|
Thanks for uploading Image:A-B-Z-DNA Side View.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZsinjTalk 20:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I created both images in the Z-DNA article. I have fully released them into the public domain. Thorwald 16:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image Tagging for Image:A-B-Z-DNA_Top_View.png
Thanks for uploading Image:A-B-Z-DNA_Top_View.png. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.
If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 11:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Phylogenetics software
FYI, I noticed your list of computational phylogenetics software, which was pretty but redundant with the existing list phylogenetics software. So I swiped your formatting for the existing list and converted computational phylogenetics software to a redirect. Any objections? (Also, it's great to see more computational biology people around!) Opabinia regalis 08:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. I actually didn't realise there was that other article. It is nice having your list, as it has more entries. However, the reason I chose the title, "Computational Phylogentics Software" was that there seems to already be a trend for using this as a naming convention (e.g. Sequence alignment software). I actually prefer your title, as "computational ... software" seems somewhat redundant. Whatever we, and the Wikipedia community, choose is fine with me as long as we are consistent with it. (note: Yes. There are too few of us computational biologists. We should start our own sub-community, e.g. "Category:Wikipedians_who_are_computational_biologists".) --Thorwald 20:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, there hasn't been much activity in this area besides us, so I guess for these purposes we are "the community" :) Keeping the parallelism with sequence alignment software sounds to me like a need for the improvement of phylogenetics, which is not so great at the moment.
- Since I recently became more actively involved with Wikiproject Molecular and Cellular Biology, I had vague ideas about spawning a daughter project on computational biology, but I didn't think there'd be enough people participating to make it a worthwhile fork. (Maybe we do need a userbox to help collect us.) Opabinia regalis 03:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject Votes
 |
The Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject has recently opened two surveys that will help to decide the direction of the project. First, nominations are currently being accepted for the position of coordinator of the project. Second, votes and additional suggestions for the official title of that position are also being taken. As a member of the project, we hope that you'll drop by and voice your opinion. – ClockworkSoul 03:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC) |
[edit] This month's WP:MCB Article Improvement Drive article
– ClockworkSoul 21:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Computational phylogenetics peer review
Since you seem to be familiar with the subject, I wanted to let you know I've requested a peer review of the computational phylogenetics article here due to concerns about its accessibility or lack thereof. Any thoughts you have on the subject or edits to the article would be appreciated. Thanks! Opabinia regalis 04:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] One more vote for the coordinator of the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject
Since two of the three editors nominated for Coordinator of the MCB Wikiproject declined their nominations, one more vote has been posted: should the remaining nominee, ClockworkSoul, be named as the coordinator, or should nominations be reopened? Every opinion counts, so please vote! – ClockworkSoul 17:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject Newsletter
|
The project main page has gotten a facelift!
|
|---|
| When people visit the project, the very first thing that they see tends to be the project's main page, and with this in mind, the main page has been completely overhauled. To enhance readability the various "goals" sections have been merged, and a detailed "how you can help" section has been added. To increase accessibility for more established members, the links to any resources that were in the main body text have been moved onto the navigation bar on the right. Finally, the whole page has been nicely laid out and given a nice attractive look. |
|
New project feature: peer review
|
| I'm proud to announce the addition of out newest feature: peer review! The MCB peer review feature aims serve as a stepping stone to improve articles to featured article status by allowing editors to request the opinions of other members about articles that they might not otherwise see or contribute to. |
|
Project progress
|
|
The article worklist
|
| We’ve had quite a bit of progress on the worklist article in the past month. Not only has the list itself nearly doubled in size from 143 to 365 entries, but an amazing three articles have been advanced to FA status, thanks in great part to the efforts of our very own TimVickers! Remember, the state of the worklist is the closest thing we have to quantifying the progress of the project, so if you get the chance, please take a look at the list, pick a favorite article, and improve it! |
|
Collaboration of the Month
|
| Last month's Collaboration of the Month, cell nucleus, was a terrific success! In one month, the article went from a dismal stub to an A-class article. Many thanks to all of the collaborators who contributed, especially ShaiM, who took on the greatest part of the burden. This month's Collaboration of the Month, adenosine triphosphate, isn't getting nearly the attention of its predecessor, so if you can, please lend a hand! |
|
Finally...
|
| The project has a new coordinator, ClockworkSoul! The role - my role - of coordinator will be to harmonize the project's common efforts, in part by organizing the various tasks required to make the project run as smoothly and completely as possible. Many thanks to those who supported me and those participated in the selection process. |
|
If you wish to opt out of having the newsletter posted on your talk page in the future, you may add yourself to the opt out list
Newsletter concept and layout blatantly "borrowed" from the Esperanza newsletter. |
[edit] This month's winner is proteasome!
– ClockworkSoul 22:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A-, B- and Z-DNA Structures
What was the source for your A-, B- and Z-DNA structures? I would like to make an version with a white background... - Zephyris Talk 00:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
