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

[edit] Transunion "edit"

This edit seems highly inappropriate as the section needed rewritten to NPOV, NOT completely deleted which removed more then 90% of all material in the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TransUnion&diff=next&oldid=141272698 Alexkraegen (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


[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

Thank you for fixing my typo! not sure how that happened :) MarkAnthonyBoyle 00:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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:

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}}

GFDL Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. Subject to disclaimers.

if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}}#REDIRECTTemplate:Non-free restricted use
This page is a soft redirect.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)

[edit] Sunnyvale, California

I'm glad you are participating on the Crime section edits. I have invited User:Southsanjose and User:SunnyvalePublicSafety to discuss. Could you review my edit on it[[3]] which were undid by this(these) users? I would like to resolve the dispute. I believe that I address the issues regarding citation and relevancy. Clearly, statements such as "most Latinos that are born in Northern California generally become Norteño's" are completely false." Thanks, TeamX 07:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Spam in Talk:Preserved treescapes

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Talk:Preserved treescapes, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Talk:Preserved treescapes is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:Preserved treescapes, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 17:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings

In attempting to provide references to the article on Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings, I googled "Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings Biography" and the first page on the list is almost word-for-word the Wikipedia article. You can see it here. The biblio.com article is not cited or dated. I'd like to improve the article using references, so I need to know if you copied the biography from this site, or biblio.com copied it from yours. Thanks. --Moni3 17:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Sorry. I see the site actually cites it took it from Wikipedia. Thanks. --Moni3 17:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

[edit] Good job!

Hi there NuclearWinner. While I applaud your efforts in removing inappropriate content, when you notify a user, like you did with User:XamdiWala, that notice should go on their talk page, not their user page. Please can you move the notice you put? Thanks!  — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 23:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Freud

Thanks for your support on that. Looks like I'm in danger of getting into an edit war with RS1900. Not sure on the best approachMarkAnthonyBoyle 03:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


After some considerable thought I've come to the conclusion that the problems with the Freud and Lacan articles are that they are written by enthusiasts (read believers). I've had a look at your suggestion about Christianity and also at the Encyclopeadia Brittanica entries on these two. My thinking is, that while it might be nice to include some pithy quotes like these:

Filip Buekens of Tilburg University has made several studies of Lacan's work and concluded "on the basis of a careful analysis of texts of Lacan, his followers (‘Orthodox Lacanians’) and his interpreters in France and elsewhere (‘Interpreters’), that what they claim and defend is based on fallacious arguments, equivocations, intellectual bluff-poker and a consistent abuse of concepts from other sciences. The result is an intellectual charade."34"Lacan is a philosophical charlatan, and not just because he tried to turn a pseudo-science (psychoanalysis) into a ‘science of the subject’."5. Professor R.C. Tallis claims that he was a psychopath who, "listened to no truths other than those which confirmed his own hypotheses...he projected not only his own theories on madness in women but also his own fantasies and family obsessions". "His lunatic legacy also lives on in places remote from those in which he damaged his patients, colleagues, mistresses, wives, children, publishers, editors, and opponents—in departments of literature whose inmates are even now trying to, or pretending to, make sense of his utterly unfounded, gnomic teachings and inflicting them on baffled students."6

These quotes really cheered me up! Tell it like it is!!

The real problem is a tendency to hagiography, as you so rightly point out. Maybe a better approach would be to edit the articles so that they read "Freud contended", instead of "Freud discovered", or "Freudians think", instead of "Freud has shown", with the occasional "this idea has provoked much controversy, such as..." etc. Not as much fun perhaps, but probably more in line with what an encyclopeadia should be. What do you think?MarkAnthonyBoyle 05:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been putting in a bit of time here here. Not finished yet, interested to see what you thinkMarkAnthonyBoyle 00:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sigmund Freud

Hello ma'am! How are you? I am RS1900. Ma'am, you studied at MIT and Stanford University. You are smart. Ma'am, let me ask you a question: Why are you against Sigmund Freud? Crews and Webster are not psychologists and their comments are clearly misguided. I want to know your views on Sigmund Freud. Please reply on my talk page. All the best! RS1900 03:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Adverse inference

Adverse inference, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Adverse inference satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adverse inference and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Adverse inference during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.  superβεεcat  18:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A little advice please

I wonder if you might give me some advice on a matter? There has been a recent RfC on an editor with whom I have had some problems. The person making the charges certainly does not seem blameless, and the RfC may well be vindictive. However, I have seen some evidence on other occasions that the complaints brought against said editor are justified to some degree. I've only recently started making any serious contributions on contentious issues, even though I have been "dormant" editor for some time. I've copped a bit of robust and not entirely unjustifed criticism over that, and I take it on board. The policy on RfC seems to be that you only get involved if you have had dealings in that particular case, which I have not. Should I put in my 2 cents worth as an "outside view", or would I be better just staying right out of it? Your advice would be appreciated. Thank You

MarkAnthonyBoyle 13:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
My general advice to Wikipedians is to focus ON the articles and OFF the personalities. Wikipedia gets better, faster, that way. I've never been involved in a RfC and didn't even know what it was until I looked it up just now. I don't know the details of your controversy, but unless it's something unusually compelling, and you have a unique ability to participate that others do not have, I'd recommend you to spend your time in researching and editing articles rather than getting tangled up in an RfC. I've felt "attacked" on Wikipedia - several times over the years - and I've always been glad to stay civil, take a break from editing, explain my reasoning with reference to Wiki guidelines, and then get back to work. The less you engage with irritable people, generally the less trouble you have with them. I've received several explicit invitations over the years, via my talk page, to engage in "debate" or even edit wars, and I always turn the requests down. Never have regretted that in the slightest. NuclearWinner 16:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Good advice!! thanksMarkAnthonyBoyle 23:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clothing serenidipity

When I suggested that you propose clothing for the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive, I had no idea it happened to have been already proposed there; pure serendipity.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rosanna Carter

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Rosanna Carter, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rosanna Carter

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Rosanna Carter, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: "Inflammatory" information on Phil McGraw

"Why not just give her exact age? That way the reader is better informed. NuclearWinner (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)"

I agree. See my statements User talk:Wikeye#Inflammatory information on Phil McGraw. Ward3001 (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Freud

Not at all! Why he is on my watchlist I can't imagine though. Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Peter Swales (historian)

A tag has been placed on Peter Swales (historian) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Victao lopes (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC for Kenneth Fisher

Thanks for you comments on Kenneth Fisher. If you check User talk:Berzon you can see the history of the link removals and reasoning. The user appears to have self-authored an unverifiable product review and seems to be airing personal grievances. Like you, I prefer WP not become product review site or a battleground. Keep up the good work.Netsumdisc (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)