User talk:Arkuat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: archive and other talk page

Contents

[edit] Re: History of Earth

Arkuat, I appreciate the praise. I have really enjoyed working on the article, although it’s certainly been a challenge. Interestingly, it was History of the world that helped stimulate me to write this article (see Talk:History of the world#Page title). I’ve always enjoyed “big picture”–type matters, which is why I like History of the world so much. To me, though covering human history wasn’t enough—I wanted something to tie the planet’s whole history together, to give a sense of the time scale involved, and to show how physics, astronomy, chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and history all work together (and to a lesser extent, a bit of geology, anthropology, and so on). We’ve amassed so much knowledge and become so specialized that I think it has become quite easy to be unable to grasp the whole picture. Anyway I’m so glad you liked it. If you have anything to add or can improve its accuracy, please feel free to pitch in. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] history of biology project

My pleasure. Supposedly, I'm a historian of biology in training. I just haven't done much editing in that area, probably because other topics have been the focus of discussion on WP lately. I'm glad there will be someone else trying to organize history of science stuff. If you make a project banner for talk pages (to replace {{HistSci}}, where relevant), one of these might be a good image for it:

Happy editing--ragesoss 04:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

What kind of articles should we create? I'm eager to help the project. I've made a biology portal and project on hungarian wiki. I'm the organizer of this topic on that wiki. Tell me what are your plans, and we can get into work... :) NCurse 10:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Galactic astronomy
Middle Paleolithic
Friends General Conference
Nasir al-Din Tusi
Crust (geology)
Centaurus (journal)
Swarthmoor Hall
Decans
Zuz (coin)
Kenneth Taylor
Kaza
Sobeslav I of Bohemia
Redaction
Charles Mawhood
Alexandre Koyré
Microlith
Azoic Age
Creator deity
Battle of Ostia
Cleanup
John Howard Yoder
John 21
Lost division
Merge
Polkovnik
GKO
History of technology
Add Sources
Astor Place Riot
Psalm 151
Astrosociobiology
Wikify
Shlomo Moussaieff
Chico, California
Constructivist epistemology
Expand
Mother of the Nation
2nd millennium BC
Islamic medicine

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 22:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] history of biology collaboration

 The current History of Science Collaboration of the Month is Louis Pasteur.

--ragesoss 17:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] history of biology

arkuat, I'd love to have your thoughts on history of biology overall. I've done all I think I can without some serious critiques and suggestions from other knowledgeable people. It's on peer review and WP:GAC.--ragesoss 06:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I saw that you recently added some useful material to astronomy. However, you did not add references to accompany the information. In the future, could you please add references? See Wikipedia:References. Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 20:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "New" material on Astronomy lacking references

(copied over from User_talk:Dr. Submillimeter to provide context)

I brought this material over from the old Astrophysics article (still available in history). This material had not been referenced there either, but I didn't feel that the lack of references was reason for expunging this information entirely from Wikipedia, which is what happened when Astrophysics was replaced by a redirect to Astronomy --arkuat (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Professional astronomy experience

Do you have any professional astronomy experience? Given the discussion at Talk:Astrophysics, this would be useful to know. Dr. Submillimeter 08:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to consult Wikipedia:References yourself. There, it says clearly that all material that is challenged or that is likely to be challenged needs a reference. The material that I moved from the former Astrophysics page to Astronomy was neither challenged, nor is it likely to be challenged. As for the rest, I can't imagine how this could prove useful, since I am no longer pursuing the discussion at Talk:Astrophysics. --arkuat (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Astronomy versus Astrophysics

Please join the discussion here. WilliamKF (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to my post on the ref desk

I am referrring to this edit. Firstly, it would be more usual to drop a polite note on the persons talk page if you think they have got something wrong procedurally rather than take them to task on the ref desk. Secondly, I am sure you are an experienced enough editor to know that it is against etiquette to edit other peoples posts, however wrong they are. And thirdly, I might be mistaken, but I believe I actually had used the correct indentation. If you had read the post carefully instead of jumping in with both feet you would have realised that I was replying to Shrinken1 rather than the OP. I therefore indented once from Shrinken1s post. Is this not correct? SpinningSpark 07:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I was stupidly imposing an older style of indentation which (now that I look at the current version of WP:Talk, WP:TP, and related pages) I see is no longer being recommended. Please pardon me, I won't make these kinds of edits again. arkuat (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Apology graciously accepted, and if I can, I would like to withdraw the unpleasant tone of my first post. SpinningSpark 23:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Egg (biology) and Ovum merge

Hi Arkuat,

I noticed that you have suggested that Egg (biology) and Ovum be merged. It seems, however, that you have accidentally recommended two opposite merges: one from Ovum to Egg, the other from Egg to Ovum. Which do you feel needs to be merged into the other? When you have determined this, you may want to start a discussion on the discussion page linked by the merge notification. That way, you will communicate why the merge should take place and other users won't remove the tags unnecessarily.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right! Thank you for pointing out my mistake. I've changed it to suggest merging ovum into egg, and started the relevant threads on the two talk-pages. arkuat (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thinking about Mergism

After I found myself actively advocating a large and complicated merge which would be well worth doing (see above), but which would involve an amount of editing work that I myself quail at, I started reinvestigating Mergism. I was appalled to find that that article had been redirected to one discussing the inclusionist vs. deletionist debate. The discussion of mergism, apparently, has gone entirely meta, and you can find the manifesto here at the meta:Association of Mergist Wikipedians --arkuat (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)