User talk:NuclearWinner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, regarding your moving botulinum toxin to botulin toxin: Why did you move it? The former term is far mor often used and is also the scientifically correct one (the bacterium is called "Clostridium botulinum", not "Clostridium botulin") (see, for example, this search: [1]) If there were specific reasons, please tell me, else I'll move it back. Best regards, Kosebamse 18:28, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Having turned your anti-Semitism comment in Dorothy L Sayers more or less on its head, I consider it common courtesy to call your attention to the change. You may well consider that what I've done moves the emphasis too far to the other side of NPOV; but I urge any skeptic to compare the character of Sir Ruben Levy and his family with that of the American zillionaire in Whose Body -- or the American doctor in the Elopement story! There's certainly no Jew in her works as sinister as that SOB (which, alas, is more than I can say for Charles Williams).

I hope we can avoid an edit war here. In fact, I wouldn't mind an off-Wikipedia exchange on one or two matters related to this. BTW the most accessible documents at present on the Future of the Jews essay are available only in proceedings of the Dorothy L Sayers Society or the LordPeter mailing list on Yahoo. Not highly accessible, you might say, and I would agree. Dandrake 23:43, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Contents 1 VfD 2 Article Licensing 3 Unverified image 4 Just War 5 How to read a poem 6 Interesting fact about twin 7 Dorothy L. Sayers 8 Kudos

[edit] VfD

When you list a page on Articles for deletion you must say "Listed on Articles for deletion" on the page you are listing. Otherwise the page will not get deleted. --mav 23:54, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi,

Considering you have edited in the whales area in the past (great Bowhead Whale page I saw, I thought I would let you know that I have started a Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans. It is rather sketchy at the moment - any and all contributions welcome! Pete 23:22, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi. Re Bowhead Whale.

• The agreed convention with bird articles is to use capitals with a lower case redirect. Whilst I would accept that there is no agreement for cetaceans, in practice nearly all the other cetacean articles are capitalised, and it seemed odd for Bowhead to be almost the only one using American lower case style - you will note that the link to Killer Whale was changed by someone else, presumably for the same reason. My cetacean book also uses caps. However, there is no formal agreement, so if you want to revert, I won't reverse it, although obviously I can't speak for others.

(Apologies for butting in). The convention for birds was discussed in monumental detail (I believe on the mailing list in particular) and my feeling is that after that level of discussion surely the right decision was reached (although I am well aware of the dangers of decision by commitee!) and that that policy would transfer over to the cetaceans too. However given that Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans (plug, plug!) is still at a very fledging state this is not an open and shut case. For example I wrote Minke Whale and several times in the article wrote 'Minkes are...' rather than 'a Minke Whale is'. This was copyedited so that it was 'Minke Whale' everywhere... however in the cetacean literature writing 'Bowheads are...' or 'Blues are' is very common. Indeed this is the practice of the Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, a learned tome indeed, is to make the contraction. I think we should use it on wikipedia. Pete 19:20, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

• The Bowhead Whale is endangered globally. As a compromise, I'll change the reference to CITES, rather than list countries. You will agree that to say that it is classed as endangered in the US, Canada... is not particularly elegant.

jimfbleak 06:24, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

I see that you are interested in Sigmund Freud, as am I. Perhaps you could consider your recent reversions to this article. As you know, Wiki says that "In general a revert is the advised action to deal with vandalism." If work does not meet your approval, yet is not vandalism, you might want to consider editing it to improve it. I'm certainly looking forward to any improvements you may make. NuclearWinner

I deleted the quote because I felt it was trite and did not add much of value to the article. It didn't help that it was a somewhat unimpressive source (looked like it was just some easy to cut and paste criticism). Of course, criticism is allowed, but I think the current introduction contains enough and it's probably better to interprerse representative views on Freud's theories throughout the article. As far as the revert goes, I'm a big believer in Strunk & White: "delete unnecessary words" (that may be a paraphrase). In Wikipedia, I think sometimes the best edit option is deletion. I certainly did not mean to imply that your changes were vandalism, though. Daniel Quinlan

---

Please see my talk page for the language stuff. David.Monniaux 16:21, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Je viens juste de lire ton commentaire sur la page de David. Je souhaitais juste te dire bonjour en passant. Rien d'autre :-) Anthère

---

Hi from Adrian in England,
I don't what your reaction will be but I've removed your Accident Rating for Egyptair. I have no connection whatever with the airline but this rating does not appear in any other airline article so I think it's appearance here is too selective. If you disagree just put that bit back in, I won't mind.
Best Wishes,
Adrian Pingstone 19:16, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi -- in the AirTran article, your link points to "http://www.airsafetyonline.com/safetycenter/reportcard.shtml" which gives me an error that I'm not authorized to view the page.

Merci pour ton mot sur ma pge NuclearWinner. Oui, tu avais oublié de me répondre, mais ce n'est pas grave :-)
Mes intérêts...Wikipédia beaucoup. Avant. Probablement moins maintenant. Tu es le bienvenu pour nous rendre visite de temps en temps sur la wiki française :-) Anthère

---

I compressed your photo for you. BMP isn't exactly the best image format for the WWW. -- Tim Starling 04:01, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

The problem with BMP is that at best it's only compressed with RLE, which for photos is no better than uncompressed. Your photo was 300K, which would have taken about 1-1.5 minutes to download over a modem. Compressed with JPEG, it was about 9K, or 2-3 seconds download time. And I do have a photo displayed on my homepage [2] ;) -- Tim Starling 00:29, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Quoth:

1 I would like a better, clearer explanation of the change, and what the benefits would be. You're asking for a major change, and therefore IMO you have to make a compelling case.

If I can't make a clear enough case, I'm ok with you opting out. The links I've provided to additional information should help to explain it best. But if not, let me try anyway. Essentially you just agree to allow the use of your contributions with non-GFDL projects, but that doesn't change anything here at Wikipedia. That allows the use in using Wikipedia articles on various topics to creating travel brochures at WikiTravel. Obviously not every article would apply, but then again there may be other projects/magazine articles/books/etc. that use CC-by-sa as well that could use our articles if we didn't use the GFDL exclusively. It's somewhat about the ideology that all knowledge should be as free as possible AND that it should stay free. The GFDL can only do the latter because it restricts the free knowledge to the GFDL and no other copyleft license. (Same as CC-by-sa)

2 I'm uncomfortable with a process that seems to be endrunning a fundamental founding principle of Wikipedia, GFDL. I remember all the back and forth we had on the logo, for instance. Why not a similar, more formal, more open process for this major change?

The GFDL was the only choice when Wikipedia was founded, so they could not choose the simpler CC-by-sa. I personally discussed this with Jimbo Wales this weekend in NYC, and he supports my project, so long as I don't push for a Wikipedia fork. I'm also not trying to change Wikipedia's license, which will hopefully migrate to a much improved GFDL 2.0 (when it is created).

3 The claim of >90% agreement among the top 2000 users has not been substantiated. I would like to see a tabulation, name by name, so I could verify this claim.

I was gone this weekend in NYC for the Wikipedia Meetup, and in the meantime received hundreds of responses to my request for multi-licensing. As such I must tabulate the numbers before I can get you what you are looking for, but I would be more than happy to do so if you need me to. You should know that the number naturally changes. It could be more or less than that after hundreds more people responded. Also, the number does not include those users who do not respond to me. Only those that say "yes" or "no". But that could also be easily calculated as well, and I may just do that. So in however many days it takes me to catch up, if you are still "on the fence", I would be more than happy to give you the list, or to post it somewhere.

I'm not trying to be deceptive or coercive, but instead as open as possible. I'll happily field any other questions or probing you might have. My talk page and its archives have comments from hundreds of users who have chosen a wide variety of choices. Maybe that would be good enough for you. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 20:18, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

I have an update to the statistics at User:Rambot and the full list of users: User:Rambot/Progress. Check it so you can verify my claim and you can make your own judgement. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 18:42, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Unverified image

Hi! Thanks for uploading Image:Drez.jpg. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}}

if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}}

if you claim fair use, etc.) I feel like a bit of an idiot asking you to tag an image that is obviously of you, but with Wikipedia going upscale and all...

If you uploaded other images, please clarify copyright for them as well, otherwise the images will eventually be deleted.

Thanks, Denni☯ 01:39, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

[edit] Just War

I looked up Just War and my first thought was "Where's proportionality?". I've gone thru the history and it is clear that the contention that proportionality is an instrinsic part of the just war tradition is controversal. It is difficult for me to work out why this is so from the history so I'm putting this note here to ask if you can help me.. Dejvid 13:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I wasn't asking for an opinion on the just war but on why there had been an edit war over proportionality. It seems tho that since I added a fuller explanation of the implications of proportionality with sources that peace has broken out. Thanks again for taking the time to reply Dejvid 14:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How to read a poem

Hi: This article has just been moved to Poetry analysis so you may wish to change your user page to bypass the redirect. --Theo (Talk) 11:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting fact about twin

Hi, NuclearWinner,

In August 2003, you added the following fact to the Twin article:

Fewer than 20 families have been described with an inherited tendency towards monozygotic twinning. (People in these families have nearly a 50 percent chance of delivering monozygotic twins!) Some evidence suggests that the environment of the womb causes the zygote to split in most cases.

This seems very interesting, but unfortunately, this fact was not documented, and I have not been able to find any information about it (quite the opposite, in fact: most of the publications about monozygotic twins insist on the fact that the factors that cause the split are unknown). Do you have any information about this, or know of any place where we could look for more information ? My search in scientific litterature have not turned out anything interesting, but finding the right keywords for the search is hard. Many thanks ! Cheers, Schutz 22:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It is scary, indeed, to see how quickly a statement made on Wikipedia can be distributed around the world (I have seen a page where your statement was quoted, along with the sentence "I stand corrected"... hopefully it was right). I'd be really interested if we can find some more information on this topic; in the meantime, someone removed the statement following my comment. All the best, Schutz 07:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dorothy L. Sayers

Hi, I noticed that a previous edit to the Dorothy L. Sayers article mentioned an unpublished essay about her allged anti-Semitism. Since you seem familiar with the history of the essay, I was wondering if you access to it? I'm trying to find some quotes to substantiate or refute the claim that she herself was anti-Semitic. Thanks in advance. Sophy's Duckling 06:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos

		The Original Barnstar
		You edit so well that your contributions last for years in numerous Wikipedia articles. I'm recognizing you with a barnstar. --Officiallyover 08:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)