User talk:WriterHound

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, WriterHound, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  WLU 18:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Little context in Roller chopper

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Roller chopper, by Crunch13 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Roller chopper is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Roller chopper, 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. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Roller chopper itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headings

Hi,

I've noticed you're creating a lot of section headings in the pages you're editing. Note that according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#Capitalization, only the first word in a heading is capitalized unless the heading contains a proper noun.

WLU 12:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.
WriterHound 14:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] August 2007

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Tiptoety 06:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
WriterHound 06:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acacia karroo

Hi WriterHound - Unfortunately, the sources you are using do not reflect the true distributions of the plants at all, but merely show a highly confusing map of countries without distinguishing the range from additional non-relevant areas where the plant is only cultivated, not native. A much better source for ranges is USDA GRIN, and IUCN for those species they have so far published information for. The various maps should be corrected to show their true ranges. If you wish to show areas of cultivation in addition to the true range, that should be done in two different tones (e.g. dark green for range, light green for cultivation) so the true range can be clearly seen. - Thanks, MPF 08:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice to have the "native range" and non-native range in two different colors. Since many Acacia species are "invasive," successful in their new environments, there are probably large areas where they are growing in the wild, but not in the native range. I appreciate your input on this; it's nice to chat with you about it.
WriterHound 16:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Norepinephrine Molecule

To make the 3D models of molecules, I first used ChemSketch to create the molecule, copy-pasted it into Accelrys DS Visualizer, then took a screen shot of the 3D model, and edited and cropped that in GIMP. It was a lot of work, which is why I stopped making them when I got to college, I just don't have the time anymore... Sbrools (talk . contribs) 18:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks very much for the info.
WriterHound 19:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Better late than never

Thanks for sending me a message, unfortunately I was not logged in on that day (Sep. 10th) and I assume any action at this date would not fufill the request. Sorry. Never the less, thank you for contributing to wikipedia maintenance. Happy Editing! Arm 03:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chemistry structure drawings

Hi there

Thanks for your many images in the articles of amino acids.

Perhaps you might want to consider working on the pages at Chemistry_pages_needing_pictures as well? Since fixing images requires time, and that there are only so many man-hours which we can muster, it might be better to fix those articles without images, before improving those less-satisfactory images.

You might also want to pop by Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry, where you can find many other chemists. --Rifleman 82 08:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
WriterHound 15:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image addition

Hey, thanks for the excellent image of a Thunderegg! That article has been underillustrated for far too long! -Pete 22:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I found it over at Wikimedia Commons. There are also images listed under "geodes" and some other name.
Know any geologists? I'm trying to get a little info on some copper ore in Mexico.
WriterHound 21:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deuterium arc lamp update

Hello, I've just recently started editing on Wikipedia and I've started by expanding the stub on deuterium arc lamps. I've noticed you've made several contributions to the Halogen lamp page and I was wondering if you might be able to lend me some advice on things I might want to add, change, etc. Thanks

eggles37 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggles37 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Nice article!
When I'm adding to an article, I usually just look up some things about the subject and then paraphrase and reference the interesting things that I see. What's been done so far on the article looks pretty good to me. I would add more about the uses for that type of lamp, and see if there are some images on Wikimedia Commons that are relevant to the article (infrared spectrometry machine, physics related pictures, etc.) and can be put into it. It would be important in the text to first elaborate exactly how the light gets created and what the difference is to, for example, a regular incandescent or tungsten-halogen lamp. One could make an .svg illustration with InkScape showing how light is created inside the lamp.
If you have a digital camera, you can snap pictures yourself, upload them to Wikimedia Commons and put them in the article.
Hope this helps and happy editing!
WriterHound 04:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contryphan

Thanks for your helpful edits to contryphan. The graphic really was a nice addition! Boghog2 22:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome!
WriterHound 22:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acacia

Thanks for the heads up. I don't have a problem with the photo. If the Meadow Argus is a pest of Acacia, it should also be in the text of the pest section (properly cited of course) to tie it to the image. Cheers. ++Arx Fortis 22:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station

I saw you added the 22 cents per kWh fixed cost for generating electricity at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. It seems a bit high and I was wondering where you got the data from. Are you sure it's not supposed to be 2.2 cents per kWh? --cassini83 (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I took the fixed cost of the plant and divided it by the total number of kilowatt hours that the plant would produce over its lifetime. I'll post some details on here if you'd like.
WriterHound (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you took the fixed cost and divided by the total number of kilowatt hours the plant would produce in one year. That's wrong.

3.2 GW average = 28 billion kW-hr/year $5.9 billion construction cost = 0.2107 $/(kWh/year)

Fixed cost is a fair bit more complex than that. If we could get these figures that would be great, because one of the differentiators between nuclear and, to take the other extreme, gas turbines, is that nuclear has much lower incremental costs and higher fixed costs.

The amortized capital costs of the plant, assuming a 5% long-term capital cost, is

$5.9 billion construction cost * 5%/year = $295 million/year => 1.05 cents/kWh

But that's not the fixed cost. The fixed cost also includes most of the cost of maintenance and most of the people. The variable costs include the fuel, the marginal increase in maintenance due to full-power operation, and the extra people required to supervise the operating plant.

I'm going to take out your calculation, but I would really appreciate it if you could put it back in with better support. I'd rather not put in just the amortized capital cost of the plant, since by itself its probably misleading.

Iain McClatchie (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I did calculate it the way that I stated earlier, but when I get time, I'll redo it and post it here, so you can check it out. Yes, I should have really put how I calculated that into the notes, but it was, like I say, the way that I posted here earlier. I found out how many years the plant is licensed to operate overall before it has to be shut down. Then I found out how much electrical work it would produce (estimate) over its entire lifetime. I then divided the $5.9 billion by this number of kWh to get cents/kWh. When I get time to retrieve the numbers and the references, I'll post the calculation on the article discussion page before putting it into the article.
WriterHound (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Holodomor, pictures

Thanks for your note. I didn't put it as strongly in my comment in article talk, but censoring images based on perceived sensibilities is a poor editorial choice. The images of the Holocaust shown to schoolchildren put the lie to that approach to history. That said, there isn't unanimity among the sources the article is built upon that Holodomor was unequivocally intentional and solely directed at the Ukrainians, qualifying it as genocide. Yet the scope of Holodomor must be communicated. A single picture, as now, cannot do that no matter how many statistics are quoted in the article. I would pursue this as an effort to objectively portray the horrific scale of the tragedy. The jury may or may not be out on exactly how and why, but the human impact cannot and should not be denied. PētersV (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much as well.
If you would like, we and maybe a few others we invite could work on some things at User:WriterHound/Holodomor.
WriterHound (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bacteria vs Bacterium

FYI, "bacteria" can be both singular and plural, much like "data". See Merriam-Webster. So there's no need to change "bacteria" to "bacterium". –panda (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!
Quoted from the source you provided, "Bacteria is regularly a plural in scientific and pedagogical use." "Bacterium" is singular (comes from Latin) and "bacteria" is plural; any other use is fundamentally incorrect, so it is proper to correct it.
Cheers!
WriterHound (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
You didn't include the entire text (emphasis mine): "Bacteria is regularly a plural in scientific and pedagogical use; in speech and in journalism it is also used as a singular, and it is sometimes pluralized as bacterias" So bacteria is used both in the singular and plural form. –panda (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Oxford English Dictionary, "Bacteria, the plural form of bacterium, should always be used with the plural form of the verb: the bacteria causing salmonella are killed by thorough cooking, not the bacteria causing salmonella is killed by thorough cooking."
Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary:
"Main Entry: bac·te·ri·um
. . .
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ria"
Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary:
"bacteria
plural of bacterium"
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.:
"bac·te·ri·um
. . .
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. bac·te·ri·a"
Collins English Dictionary:
"bacteria
NOUN:PLURAL
, sing -rium a large group of microorganisms, many of which cause disease ⋄ bacterial adjective "
WriterHound (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
No one is questioning whether bacterium is singular and bacteria is plural. OTOH, bacteria is also used as the singular form, which M-W has verified. –panda (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Punctuation before footnote

Hi. You edited square Leg so that the punctuation was before the footnote, not after. I have never seen this in the scientific literature (perhaps Nature (journal) would be the judge?). I'll revert unless you can convince me otherwise.

Best wishes (insert smiley) Robinh 08:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi!
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. It looks like either method is officially O.K. within Wikipedia, so long as whichever method is used within the entire article: Wp:citations. If it's the case that scientific literature really does do things consistently like you say, then I agree with you. There's no reason that the punctuation can't go after the footnote and I tend to do things the way scientists do. Thanks for your input!
Cheers!
WriterHound 16:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Strange. It looks like, at least in the abstracts, the Journal Science seems to do it the other way. Like I said, either way is fine with me.
WriterHound 16:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

Hi WriterHound, welcome to WikiPpedia and thanks for your contributions. I have a few suggestions that could improve the quality of your edits.

  • Please do not add blank lines to change the article layout. You may move images up or down in the text or change their site. Only in extreme cases you could clear floats by using <br style="clear: both;">, <br style="clear: left"/>, or <br style="clear: right"/>. Always keep in mind that other users will use completely different screen sizes.

Keep up your good work, and contact me if you have questions :-) Сасусlе 18:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Indol-3-ylacetic acid.svg

Hi WriterHound, I have removed your IAA structure from the indolylacetic acid and plant hormone articles. The structure is incorrect and misses the indole-N1 hydrogen. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Structure drawing for the guidelines and detailed instructions for drawing proper chemical structures, diagrams, and reaction schemes. There is also a request page for chemical structures. Сасусlе 18:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cacycle,
It wasn't my drawing, but I'll fix it and replace the one that's in the articles, since that one has problems too with the double bond, plus the new one is .svg. Thanks for catching the problem. Apparently, some of the programs that render molecular structures from SMILES don't always put the hydrogen where it should be attached to the nitrogen.
WriterHound (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cut-and paste move

Hi there, I saw that you recently did a cut-and-paste move to the article Echinopsis scopulicola because the target article name already existed, so you couldn't move the article. Note that administrators can move articles in this situation. So if this happens in the future, please make a request for an admin to make the move at requested moves. Thanks. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
WriterHound (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Depression and natural therapies

An editor has nominated Depression and natural therapies, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Depression and natural therapies and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please check

Hi, would you please re-check the characters you added to Rauwolfia serpentina? In the Chinese herbology article both names have 4 characters, and in the new article, one has 4 characters and the other has 3. Badagnani (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I just copied over what was in the Chinese herbology article to Rauwolfia serpentina regarding the Chinese characters, so we'll have to take a look at that again. I've been creating some starting articles for the fundamental 50 herbs of Chinese herbology, since at least a couple dozen of these very useful plants and trees didn't have their own articles yet.
WriterHound (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you please check again? The Chinese herbology article has two sets of four characters, and the Rauwolfia serpentina article has a set of 4 and a set of 3. It's important that we're as accurate as possible (and, that when we make a mistake, we correct them). Thanks. Badagnani (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to check it.
WriterHound (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please fix it, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if you'd fix it, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I did fix it. I took it out of the Rauwolfia serpentina article, because I couldn't find any source to back up the name.
WriterHound (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I just now looked at your comment about the name that you replaced in there. If there are references, go ahead and find one and use the reference generator on my user page here to generate a reference and put it after the name. This should be easy enough.
Cheers!
WriterHound (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if you'd fix it. In the Chinese herbology article there are two sets of four characters, and in the Rauwolfia serpentina article, there is one set of three, and one set of four. A character was left out. It would be great if you'd put in the characters exactly as they are in the Chinese herbology article, thanks. Once this is fixed, we can get on to improving other things. Badagnani (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not my problem. If you want to fix it, you fix it.
WriterHound (talk) 21:37, 18 February 20ee08 (UTC)
Thank you for all of your great contributions to Wikipedia. I wish that I had more information about the question that you have, but I looked on Google and couldn't find very much on it.
WriterHound (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You removed the character (for what reason, I don't know), now please fix it, thanks. Then we can move on to improving the articles. Best, Badagnani (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Which article?
WriterHound (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cite tool

Click the "{Wikify}" link listed under each result. Verisimilus T 11:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quest (RE: safranal/crocin antidepressant study)

I'm just wondering if you have the full version of the study cited in the safranal and crocin articles, this ->[1], as it doesn't seem to be published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, rather some sort of magazine. It would be helpful if the full study was cited, because I'm thinking it might be defying WP:VER. --Mark PEA (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about that one study, but here's another (I just put it in the articles):[2]
The full article is available in the upper left of the page.
WriterHound (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a better reference.. It's odd because I specifically remember reading that study, and was sure I placed it into the saffron article, but obviously not. --Mark PEA (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rhodiola rosea

Thanks, this is a very good herb. Badagnani (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] image width

I wish you wouldn't keep putting the image width parameter into taxoboxes. You shouldn't over-rule users' thumb size preferences unless you have a compelling reason for doing so. If you want all these images to display at 250px, why not just set your own thumb size preference to 250px? Hesperian 22:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!
Thank you! Likewise!
WriterHound (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Welcome to WikiProject Plants!

Hi, and welcome to WikiProject Plants! Our scope includes any and all taxa of plants, botanists, and botany topics. We're glad to have you working with us on our project!

A few features that you might find helpful:

Here are some easy ways you can contribute:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page or the project at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Rkitko (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!
WriterHound (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plasmodium falciparum

Sorry if editing the article weblinks took a while. I'm also unclear about what the guidelines/(best practice?) is for links. Wouldn't hiding links make articles vulnerable to advertising, spam, and, a problem I've already encountered, dead links? I would think exposing link addresses would be good! I may try to research this myself, but it's not one of my priorities right now. ;) Chris (cuvtixo) Cuvtixo (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No need to research :-); you can find it here: Wikipedia:External_links#How to link.
Writing on here has been a learning experience for me, too, so don't worry about it.
WriterHound (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! But now, after reading the section, I have new issues with the article! One, is that the P----- article doesn't have a proper External Links section, with identification of web sites source address as recommended. Also, multiple links lead to different pictures (.jpgs) on the same site. Guideline seems to recommend one link per site (hopefully there is an index to pictures on the sites in question!) And, I don't agree with the "How to link guidelines" and I'm bringing up my issues with the policy on the discussion page. I think the External Links should be easier to see and edit, even if it does look a bit cluttered! I guess I'll focus on that and leave Plasm--- for others to work on. Cuvtixo (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It's true that the article could use better external links.
WriterHound (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acacia redirects

G'day mate,

I propose to delete the following redirects for the following reasons:

Acacia provincialis
You redirected this to Acacia retinodes citing ILDIS, but the Australian Plant Census considers it a distinct species, citing O'Leary, M.C. (2007) "Review of Acacia retinodes and closely related species, A. uncifolia and A. provincialis" (Leguminosae: Mimosoideae: sect. Phyllodineae). Journal of the Adelaide Botanic Gardens 21
Acacia longissima
You redirected this to Acacia retinodes citing ILDIS, but the APC considers it a distinct species, citing themselves, 2006.
Acacia ensifolia
You redirected this to Acacia falcata citing ILDIS, but the APC considers it a distinct species, citing themselves, 2006.
Acacia anceps
You redirected this to Acacia complanata citing ILDIS, but the APC considers it a distinct species, citing themselves, 2006.
Acacia minutifolia
You redirected this to Acacia karroo citing ILDIS, but the APC considers it a distinct species, citing themselves, 2006.
Acacia catechu var. sundra
You redirected this to Acacia chundra citing ILDIS, but the APC considers it a distinct species, citing Maslin, B.R., et al. (2001) Flora of Australia 11B
Acacia microcephala
You redirects this to Acacia tenuifolia citing ILDIS, but the APC considers it a distinct species, citing Maslin, B.R., et al. (2001) Flora of Australia 11B
Acacia paradoxa
Redirected to Acacia armata by IceCreamAntisocial without citation, but the APC considers it a distinct species, citing themselves, 2006.
Acacia lamprocarpa
Redirected to Acacia aulacocarpa by Ricardo Carneiro Pires without citation, but the APC considers it a distinct species, citing themselves, 2006.

Any comments before I go ahead? Hesperian 05:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi! That sounds fine to me. That's quite interesting that the APC considers those distinct species. I think it's great.
WriterHound (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Done, thanks. Hesperian 00:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acacia melanoxylon an entheogen?

Really? --JWB (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the article Acacia.
WriterHound (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dude... the creepy eyes thing has gotta stop

Its kinda gratuitous. Use the neutral uw- templates if you need to warn for vandalism, but going around after the fact and tagging the talk pages of blocked users with the eyes is a bit gratuitous, no? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you're right. I undid them. Sorry.
WriterHound (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acacia brunioides

Please expand thanks Franz Sanchez (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "destructive activity of bot"

Nope, all it did was made this edit, adding an uncat tag. Seems to me like you're looking for this edit made several weeks ago, which deleted a large chunk of text, and also the categories. (You've also edited the article in the meantime yourself, as it happens.) Alai (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...Yeah, sorry. Stinking vandals.
WriterHound (talk) 23:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)