Archive #9 All messages from year 2010.
You added lines to explain that there is a distinction between alpha particles and helium nuclei. I always thought the two were interchangeable; do you have a source for this information? — SkyLined ( talk) 08:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the intro needs to be worked on some more; cosmic ray workers are sloppy and sometimes refer to fast He nuclei (10-12% of cosmic rays) as "alphas." But these cosmics will go through your body also, so it's really not the best idea to conflate them with the radioactive-decay particles that are stopped by your skin. I'll add some more about the confusion issue and the cosmic ray connection if you like, or you can. Suffice to say that using the term "alpha" carries a connotation that "helium nucleus" doesn't. S B H arris 12:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! — SkyLined ( talk) 19:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Sorry about the revert last night to your good faith edit. It was late and I intended to fix today. Anyway, Mellow has the hotel name as Ambos only, which I though strange, but Meyers has the full name so that's fine. In fact Hemingway only spent a month in the hotel, and as was his habit, he worked on the manuscript in various places. He spent a fair amount of time in Sun Valley, at the Sun Valley Lodge finishing the rough draft. In my view, this is all too much info for the biography article, but would be very good in the separate article about the novel. I submitted the article for peer review a few days ago, and am awaiting comments as far as splitting up the sections. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 15:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
BTW, if you have Hemingway on you list, would you mind adding your opinions to the great The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber debate (see the TALK page) S B H arris 20:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand the Macomber situation, but need to log off now! Have a look at the edit history to see what happened. I have the sources to verify your points. In my view your version is the better written one and should be reinstated and then sources added, and properly formatted to comply with wikipedia lit. formatting rules. Why this has to be done in seconds I don't understand, but I have other things to do at the moment, so am handing off back to you! Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 23:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
We had some debates and I find you a bit stubborn but also reasonable and knowledgeable. I think all three properties will be needed now.
First of all, have a look at the article Nuclide. Without deleting anything you wrote last time, I have added a 4th paragraph starting with “No matter how the IUPAC...”. Now I find the content of the article both correct and informative.
If you agree with me, then look at the article Isotope. It is a real mess! I was thinking about changing it, but nobody knows me in Wikiland and I think that the radical changes that should be made would upset people because they would think, someone had vandalized the page. The introductory part is just awful.
There are structural problems too. Most of the odd-even question should be best discussed in the Nuclide article (carefully rephrased). Also the chart of nuclides belongs there.
Maybe you can do something about that article. If you want to contact me, you'll find my e-mail address on my homepage at http://nagys.eu -- TheBFG ( talk) 20:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, nice to see the information you have added to the article. Maybe I'm jumping the gun on something that you're actively editing, but can I suggest that the current form of the lead overweights the gastrointestinal functions? The brain functions get far more attention in the literature, but the lead as written would give a naive reader the idea that the brain functions are a minor footnote to something whose most important role is in the gut. Regards, Looie496 ( talk) 16:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
(PS, can I also suggest that you archive your talk page? Looie496 ( talk) 16:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC))
It's hard to say how much of the LEAD should talk about the gut vs. CNS. I suppose it should reflect the article. Or, you could argue that since most of the serotonin neurons are in the gut, most of the article should be about non-CNS things. ;) The CNS gets lots of attention elsewhere, such as the SSRI articles, but where are the corresponding non-CNS things? They're almost all left to be swept up here, sort of like extra-CNS serotonin itself! Subconsciously, I was trying to get in some of the lesser known effects, like a serotonin DYK, and so on. But feel free to be BOLD and re-balance; I won't be offended. It truly is a matter of taste. All I'm sure of is that the LEDE/LEAD needs to be longer than it WAS. S B H arris 16:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi!
I was in the process of writing you a message to ask to check the Cuba section but didn't want to be presumptious. Thank you, thank you, thank you for your additions! I am very ready to be done with this article, but the improvement is noticeable. When I have time, later in the week, will tackle the writing style section. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 02:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
One notices all kinds of stylistic quirks, and I don't know how many have been properly "noticed" by critics. One thing is that H. doesn't always pay attention to proper paragraph breaking, and the effect is sometimes a little like whiplash, as he suddently changes course in the middle of a paragraph and you come out the other side with a totally different direction. His sentences are models of journalism, but his paragraphs not. I don't think anybody has really said this. I think he did some of it deliberately.
Another is that Hemingway's people always show their character on their faces. His evil people are almost always ugly (at least the men are). The sexually predatory Wilson and the officer in A Simple Enquiry are both badly and chronically sunburned. What does this mean? Can't be coincidence. S B H arris 02:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Dr Harris:
You make a good point about the constant change in prices. However price information gives the reader a ballpark feeling for the item involved. An accuracy of 50% where available is vastly better than no idea at all on price. Trojancowboy ( talk) 01:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Frank Stilwell, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Stilwell. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Niteshift36 ( talk) 23:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate that you authored the Stilwell article and are protective of it. I do not appreciate that you want to start making me the issue by questioning my motives for the nom or by your sarcasm. Please keep it about the issue. If you want to complain about me, put it on my talk page. Niteshift36 ( talk) 22:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Please, could You place the picture of "File:Schieffelin2.JPG" to Commons? Thank You! -- StromBer ( talk) 16:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Please find my point-by-point replies below:
I don't have a citation, just what I have learned through my years here at WP. As a general rule, parentheses *are* discouraged - but I don't think it's a "rule" per se. There are certainly other ways of writing what needs to be included without using parentheses - and I still believe they are to be avoided in WP. Of course, if you really don't agree that parentheses should be avoided, you could always ask a seasoned editor or administrator and get their opinion.
Well...I think it's really personal preference. Some editors are real strict about unreferenced statements being left in an article. I personally prefer putting a citation needed in place and will usually do so in order for time to be allowed to get a ref in place. In all honesty, I was probably having a bad day and rather than do what I should have (placing a cite needed tag), I just removed the statement.
(a) Boyer has a questionable reputation as a historian who isn't exactly known as a reliable source regarding Arizona and Earp history (I know that from having lived in Arizona for quite a while and having spoken with a number of state history experts), and (b) where's this reference from Boyer? Have you included it in the article previously? Or is this all original research?
Find-a-grave isn't considered a reliable source for WP articles.
Yes, it is. Since the only reference found for Behan's syphillis is his online death certificate, that's all we have to go on and refer to. Anything else would be original research.
I guess.
According to whom? A death certificate is an official record.
And without another reliable reference available, it's all speculation that means nothing in the scheme of editing the article.
More speculation (and seemingly, original research) that, without another reliable reference, means nothing in the scheme of editing the article. Of course, if you are able to come up with reliable references that meet WPs referencing guidelines, you're welcome to include any (or all) of it. -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 03:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Vitamin C/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 23:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.122.83.98 ( talk) 12:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
It looks like User:Kbrose is rapidly heading towards WP:3RR. Glider87 ( talk) 03:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Yep. S B H arris 03:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
File:IBM Zurich Press Release AFM Image Penacene Aug 2009.jpg is great, but is "all rights reserved" at flickr. Thus we may only use it as fair use, preferably for pentacene article, unless IBM releases the image with a "better" license. Materialscientist ( talk) 05:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Um, I am actually actually interested in use of heavier-than-lead ammunition, for the ballistic properties. There is a wide community on the Internet that has similar interests. I've seen tungston ammunition sold, but I haven't see any discussion about DU ammo for the public. Is it cost prohibitive? Is it banned under anti-armor-piercing rules? Is it banned under anti-incendiary rules? Is it banned under health restrictions? If it is not banned, is it sold to the public? And if the military uses it, why would the public also not get to use it? Since I don't have the answers to these questions, I posted on the "discussion" page. I don't see how bringing up these questions, which I honestly hold, and should be addressed in a complete article on the topic, is "trolling." 72.207.247.50 ( talk) 20:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you address this recent comment? We know Venturi is pushing his views, the issue is to actually fix that - WP element articles are quite visible. (Or maybe that anon just doesn't like Venturi) :-) Materialscientist ( talk) 03:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi SB! On 27 March you edited
Energy and added some new text to the article lead. Your new text included the following:
I don't doubt that your new text is entirely accurate, but I doubt the article lead is the place for information of this complexity. WP articles should begin at a simple level, and progress towards a more complex level. Make technical articles accessible is highly relevant on this matter.
Using the concept of entropy in the explanation of energy suggests that to understand energy one must also understand entropy. I would disagree with such a suggestion. Most people first learn about energy in their early teens, or earlier. The majority of people never learn about entropy, but if they do it is in their late teens, or later.
I would like to suggest that you return to Energy and re-work the article lead so that its information is accessible to young people and others who have no knowledge of entropy. It would be good for the article to retain the information about entropy, but for it to be moved further down the article where more complex ideas are properly located. Happy editing! Dolphin51 ( talk) 04:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
wow good job delete my thing but write and show trash all ovr ur page! what evs! :p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.18.70 ( talk) 02:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC) meanie :p 68.52.18.70 ( talk) 02:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
'You're that mouse with high vitamin D activity, how's that working out for you'
from [2].
I'll leave there - although there is a lot more I could say on the subject - I think what you're doing with D supplementation is harming you. How sure am I? Pretty sure. Overagainst ( talk) 18:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The article you quoted is mostly about low vitamin D. The stuff about high vitamin D and aging really has little evidence to support a very thin hypothesis. Children with too much D suffere "rapid aging"? What does THAT mean? They mature faster, or they get progeria? We're not told, and I'm skeptical. Prove it. Being a gerontologist, I've seen a lot of papers claiming "rapid aging" which was really toxicity at shamelessly high doses of something. There's a U-shaped curve for natural D level and later risk of prostate cancer? Okay, but it's one study which has never been repeated. Furthermore, there are lots of other cancers where the evidence is the more the better, so which effect wins out? It makes a difference. I'm most interested in a putative U-shaped correlation between D and total mortality, but that paper is not even on medline. Why isn't it in a peer reviewed journal? All in all, you leave me very little. S B H arris 19:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
As for "natural selection" and lower levels, remember that natural selection is working with severe constraints of trying to balance rickets (and perhaps other kinds of minor ill health from decreased immunity and later cancer and osteoporosis incidence) with freezing to death. Since the latter happens immediately and soon, and the other things happen later, or are more severe) I can well believe that nature might have shorted D to the mimimum while lightening skin to the max for the Nords and Irish as soon as they switched to aggriculture and didn't get D from their diets. That must have happened very recently (10,000 years or less) since aggriculture is a fairly recent invention. It's not an argument for letting your D levels fall as low as those populations do, under severe selective pressures from climate and diet. S B H arris 21:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I actually don't get much sun, and what I do, I get with sunblock. My high level may be an anomaly and definitely needs a retest. My oral dose of 4000 IU is well within the limit of what skin naturally synthesizes in sun and thus it seems very unlikely to me that it's toxic. If you wanted to argue that perhaps daily doses over 10,000 to 20,000 might be toxic you'd have a better argument, but the fact that skin production shuts down at that point (due to precursor all being used) only really suggests that the body has all it needs and more is NO BENEFIT, not that it's toxic. It's a little like the kidneys dumping vitamin C over concentrations of 1.5 mg/dL-- that doesn't imply that levels higher than that are necessarily bad for you, just that they are unlikely to be better for you. Yes, I'm sure that if you feed rats enough vitamin D you can calcify their arteries, but how much does it take, and what are their blood levels of the vitamin like? I'd be more impressed with epidemiology of human vitamin users or sun worshipers with calcified arteries. In this study: [14] dialysis patients with low D levels (and metabolites also) had MORE arterial calcification. I presume this is because their secondary hyperparathyroidism osteopenia overrode the D-supplementation they were getting, but who knows?
BTW, the median arteriosclerosis of the type caused by too much vitamin D doesn't look at all like the most common artery changes in aging, which in involve large arteries and are are also associated with atherosclerosis. Calcification of smaller arteries is surprisingly benign and it is NOT a good aging marker. Incidence rises with age, but it is rare. Can you even find me a paper associating it with sun exposure or D levels in humans, so that this is in any way relevant to the doses we're discussing? If the system is designed to cope well with an "abundance of supply" then I'm not likely to be in trouble. eh?
Naked mole rats are interesting, but so different from humans I have no idea what they mean. They must have mutations which allow them to get along without much D (though they still have the enzymes to use it if you give it to them). Their longevity is almost certainly due to their far lower body temperature and slowed metabolism (they're halfway to being reptiles metabolically!). Their D status is likely to be totally incidental. S B H arris 16:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
A U-shaped relation between serum 25(OH)D and risk, the optimum range is centred at the US average and risk increases from the proposed new minimum level of 32ng/mL.
Plasma vitamin D and mortality in older men: a community-based prospective cohort study
"A UCSD professor whose studies shed light on the link between vitamin D and cancer. He died Aug. 17 in La Jolla after a year-long battle with an undisclosed illness." Overagainst ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC).
There are at least three versions of the Have Gun - Will Travel opening sequence. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 19:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for the edits to Ernest Hemingway! The edit summary made me laugh - indeed I do seem to have forgotten how to use punctuation lately, but worse was the tense problem. Burned out last night before I got to the later parts of the article, and sometimes when I'm adding, I don't really read what I've written until later so as to be able to fix better. Anyway, finally I think this work is almost done, and wanted to thank you, again, for the help. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 01:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I have found a few colons in EH, but he uses them to indicate a time lapse, perhaps in places where the prudish editor would have blue penciled a sex scene. There's one of these in The Sun Also Rises that may stand for an episode of oral sex (!) between the inpotent Jake and the nymphomaniacal Brett. Or so suggests K.S.Lynn. And he may be right as there is lots of interesting circumstantial evidence: Jake Barnes is named from two (count 'em) two clear lesbian references among EH's circle in Paris. Talk about a guy living the Tantalus myth. But he does it with grace. ;).
I've been watching you work on the EH article and haven't done much as I've been waiting for you to "finish", but there are some other connections I'd like to add or change. For example, I notice that gone is fact that EH blew the entire top half of his head off. Which wouldn't be important, except that it's rather a suicide in the EH style: looking Death absolutely in the face and doing it with total abandon (who uses TWO shotgun cartriges at the same time??), and not some wimpy shoot-yourself-in-the-temple or the chest with a pistol thing. So it is characteristic. As also his not giving a damn what Mary would find. Hemingway in Spain two years before treated Mary with typical selfishness, so why should he change as he got crazy? EH could view women as objects, and he certain viewed bodies as objects. There's a reference to Alpine Idyll in the article, but the true "unnatural" part in that story is NOT the delay in getting the body out (that happens at about the right time) but the use of the dead wife as a lantern post in between. This all happens in one understated paragraph (compare Faulkner's A Rose For Emily). This may be one of EH's "why not?" stories, or it may be subliminal statement of his view on women, or it may simply be his comment on death, as in it turning the wife into "a statue" in A Farewell To Arms. The theme of death in EH is treated in two ways which underscore the anxiety and horror by simply never talking about them. In A Natural History of Death there is a deliberately taken lightly humorous tone. And in other stories, people facing death never talk of fear and the narator never mentions fear. Thus the unmentioned becomes the elephant in the room, and it's very effective. The iceberg style sometimes extends to omitting an emotion completely, so long as its clear that it must be there. This causes the reader to look harder for it. Like poor Barnes' feelings about his plight. S B H arris 18:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Some of these things need illustrations to really be described: "He also uses other cinematic techniques of "cutting" quickly from one scene to the next; or of "splicing" a scene into another. Hemingway's polysyndetonic sentence...uses conjunctions to juxtapose startling visions and images."
Consider the opening sentence of Black Ass at the Cross Roads:
We had reached the cross roads before noon and had shot a French civilian by mistake.
Your English teacher would surely have split it into two sentences and maybe two paragraphs. But splicing it into one sentence without any comma makes both phrases equal. Reaching the cross roads before noon is on par with shooting a French civilian by mistake. It's war and these things happen. In 16 words, not only has the writer established the tone of the story and set the scene, but also put in a hook which makes it completely impossible not to read the next sentence. It's all done as quickly as a jump into icewater. Not bad. S B H arris 05:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Lynn will eventually be a source later, as he has so much good material (though it's clear he does NOT like his subject).
Example: Philip Hope Percival the white hunter deserves a redlink (I originally had one), as he'll probably get a wiki (I may have to do it myself). Not only did he guide TR in 1909, but BOTH Hemingway Africa expeditions, including the 1954 one! That's a long career, and he's very famous (but he wasn't the model for hunter in MacComber). Redlinks are no disgrace; they are the buds from which Wikipedia grows.
Also, Nick Adams as author's alter ego in many stories needs some explaining. His first name is an Anglicized version of Nicanor (from Nicanor Villalta y Serris, a famous bullfighter). EH saw his first bullfight in early 1923, decided to worship this guy, and Bumby was born late in that year, and that's how Nicanor gets into HIS name. Nick Adams appears in stories only a short time later (The Doctor and the Doctor's Wife was written April, 1924 and is the first Nick Adams story I can find a submission date for. Some authors thinks the story Summer People, unpublished in author's lifetime, might be the first; obviously it is a bit too risque for the 1920's publication, and in any case was a somewhat thinnly disguised encounter or fantasy about Kate "Butstein" Smith, later Dos Pasos' wife.) Nick Adams' last name is an obvious reference to Genesis Adam, as Nick is perpetually eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and expulsion from Eden was always EH's metaphor for coming-of-age and manhood, dealing with death, finding out about sex, etc, etc. Indian Camp is just one of these stories. I think I mentioned The Last Good Country where Nick's older advisor tells him he likes Nick because Nick has "original sin." Nothing about this in the EH article at all, although many, many critics discuss it.
None of this needs to be done before the article is FA'd. Just so it's clear that FA articles are not frozen forever, as WP is never finished. The major task before FA is to get the errors out, not to get all the good stuff IN. S B H arris 19:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Looks okay, though it still disagrees with Lynn, who puts the skull fracture and CSF leak at the time of the Crash#2 and the clearly worse concusion, and EH headbutted his way out of an aircraft window to get out. I somehow doubt EH would have enjoyed the boat trip out from the falls after that Crash with that bad a head injury. Hadn't seen the True at First Light Wiki. Its two sources also disagree with Lynn about the 3rd degree arm/hand burns, which makes complete sense after falling into a fire. I'm scratching my head about the diagnosis of kidney and liver rupture "months later" in Venice. How the hell would the doctors know? There were no CTs and they didn't operate. But that's from an era of ancient medicine where I'm perhaps as clueless as a layman. I can tell you that a CSF leak is far more likely to be non-fatal and to fix itself than a liver rupture, thus less likely to apocryphal or wrong. THAT is more possible, though again hard(er) to diagnose in 1954. These days any water coming out of the nose or head is simply put on a diabetic test strip, and if it shows glucose of 2/3rds blood normal it's CSF! Otherwise something else (mucus from the nose). More of a guess in 1954 (perhaps shear volume of clear fluid from a higher head wound).
The cite in Lynn on the Berenson mention in EH's Nobel prize announcement remarks are on page 574. No cite is given, but the press conference was at the Finca (of course). Perhaps different reports. Lynn adds explanation, by way of a droll letter of EH to Lanham in his Selected Letters:
Between you and me I was thinking like this: Sandburg is an old man and he will appreciate it. Blickie's wife [Dineson] is a damn sight better writer than any Swede they ever gave it to and Blickie [Bror] is in Hell and he would be pleased if I spoke well of his wife. Berenson deserved it (no more than me) but I would have been happy to see him get it. Or any of the three.
Will look at the iceberg article. What I read in the EH article about that theory certainly seems a very good way to look at it to me. Another connection Lynn draws is EH writing in the way of certainly earlier "behavioralist" psych schools, in which the "scientific" view you already mention in the EH article is reduced to reporting exterior reactons, but not omnisciently reporting interior feelings of emotion. It's missed because EH often omniciently first-person reports his character's PHYSICAL feelings, like pain, swelling, etc. But the emotion still needs to be inferred, like watching your dog.
Lynn contains info on the writing of Bell Tolls, which happened between March 1, 1939 and July, 1940. It was started at Ambos-Mundos but soon moved to the Finca, as the somewhat fastidious Martha showed up and refused to have anything to do with stinky EH in his little hotel room. She soon found the Finca to rent and most of the novel was written there (they bought it only in Dec 1940.) EH did make a trip to the Sun Valley lodge in the fall of 1939, but how much work he did on BELL there is unclear. He was in the middle of leaving Pauline for Martha then, and Pauline actually walked out on him in Wyoming taking kids with, following which EH picked up Martha in Montana (she from St. Louis) and went to Sun Valley. They spent time together there before Martha left for Russia in Nov, and EH went alone back to Cuba (Jan, 1940) where Martha almost immediately arrived and they married. He finished the novel by the next July, working at the Finca. Some proofing the next month in Sun Valley again. I can't find evidence that ANY of it was written in Key West. Not only was Pauline there for some of this time (and EH was spending his time with Martha) but when he passed through Key West to pick up his Buick to drive Marth to St. Louis (and from there go himself to Wyoming), he only stopped long enough to do that, as Pauline was in Europe and EH hated to be alone (even when writing) anyway. S B H arris 21:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll use it. BTW, the photo of H and Gary Cooper "at Sun Valley"-- do you know exactly where this was taken? The photo says "Silver River," which I assume is the North Payette near Ketchum or Sun Valley, but can you i.d. the exact location? BTW, Lynn mentions the CSF also, but calls it "brain fluid." And yes, Lynn says that, but has a fair amount of snarky stuff to say about each individual work, where it exists. And the EH who comes through this bio is not very heroic. In fact, more or less a typically unpleasant mess of an alcoholic. But as with EH himself, you have to read between the lines of what did DID, and why Lynn says he did what he did. Example: the reason Martha was so pissed at EH when she got to Londo was that he'd tried to block her every way he could. He signed on with her magazine, which could send only one reporter to the front. When she got around that, he took an airplane saying women were not being taken (Gellhorn later found an actress went on the flight). After a dangerous Atlantic crossing aboard an explosives laden ship, she'd more or less had it by the time she got to London. S B H arris 00:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The story about Martha having to cross an ocean with subs still active, in a slow ship full of explosives, because EH refused her an aiplane seat? It's as much about EH as Martha. As also is his putting her photo in the toilet in the London hotel and blasting it many times with a gift German Luger, ruining much pumbing.
The photo on commons is pre-1923, and DOES have a public domain tag (check it out). All US pre-1923 photos (published then or not) have fallen out of copyright and are thus PD, as you see in the guidelines, and this is certainly a photo taken in Oak Park. The baby pic is a matter of aesthetics. To me the article looks like EH sprang from the Earth full grown like Athena from Zeus. Even Adolf Hiter's wiki-bio has a baby pic. It's fairly traditional to have some photo of pre-adulthood. If I had one of EH as a child rather than infant I would prefer that, but don't. S B H arris 13:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Pauline leaving him in Wyoming is p. 479 (this is the Harvard U Press paperback edition 1995 ISBN 0-674-38732-5). The Geneva Convention charges and his beating them are pp. 518-19. The article doesn't mention Pauline's death, but that's grim and telling. Gregory is arrested on drug charges in LA in 1951, and Pauline, desperate to help him, phones EH at the Finca to ask for any help he can think of. Whatever he tells her, sends her into fits of anger and crying (probably it's to let Gregory stew in his own juice or even get written off, ala I Guess Everything Reminds You of Something). Two hours later Pauline has terrible abdominal pain and collapses. She dies on the operating table hours later. When Greg finally gets out of the slammer and visits EH, EH kindly tells him his arrest has killed his mother. Greg never visits him again and they never see each other again. Years later after he has beat his problems and gone to medical school, Gregory gets the autopsy report. Pauline has died from a bleed into a pheochromocytoma. Emotional stress has caused a blood pressure spike from the tumor which has burst the vessel, and when the tumor secretions quit, her pressure drops to zero and she dies. Greg calls EH: now each blame the other for this. Ouch.
Have been thinking about the iceberg theory article and it's very good, the essence of what's interesting in EH writing. In The Old Man and the Sea for example, the skeleton of the great fish is just a skeleton and a triumph of the old man's will and fight, but it's also an unholy trophy of Death itself. And it parallels the old man becoming skeletal before the voyage and even more so, after. He will also soon die, all this helps make clear.
A story similar to Hills Like White Elephants (which you mention) is the little gem Cat in the Rain. Just two pages. On the surface it's a couple staying in a hotel in Spain and the husband not paying attention to his wife's vague unhappiness. She sees a tortoiseshell cat hiding under a table in the rain, and decides she badly wants a cat. She goes to find it but it's gone. The old man hotel-keeper finally sends the cat up with a maid. That's the part above the surface. Silly. Below the surface is the fact that the old hotel padrone is the only person who actually sees the wife. And below THAT is the reason for the distress he senses. WHICH IS NEVER MENTIONED. Not even hinted at. But if you have much life-experience (you probably have to be middle-aged or over, like the hotel-keeper), it's fairly obvious. But the reader must supply it ALL. S B H arris 02:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
It's been a couple years already, how much faster do you think patience will work in the future? It seems likely to me that if citations are eventually found, it will because a fire was lit under the original researcher by deleting her or his contribution. But in fact, I'm dubious that any nonprimary sources can be found that point out the stated errors in Heinlein's book, whether or not they are errors. Best wishes, Rich ( talk) 21:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you reverted several uses of the chem template recently, citing the reason as the super/subscripts not showing up in your reader. Maybe you'd like to raise the issue at Template talk:chem? I'm not sure what can be done... this template is widely used throughout the chemistry-related articles; it would be impractical to revert all of them to using <sub> and <sup> again. (Besides, it does make chemical formulae slightly more readable when editing.) Either we stop using the simultaneous super/subscript sub-template (which is what's causing your woes---since non-simultaneous super/subscripts are already rendered using <sub> and <sup> tags), or we find out how to make it work for your reader (and other browsers, for that matter). In any case, I think it would be more constructive to discuss this and figure out how to fix it, instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.— Tetracube ( talk) 17:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I've thought about it, and I've added a variation on the translation in the intro page. Take a look and tell me what you think. I think it will suit both our views on the topic. :) Andrzejbanas ( talk) 14:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Steve, I've been following the discussions on Photokeratitis (arc eye, etc.) and the merger is now complete. I saw your original objections to the HOW TO Treatment section and have finished some copyediting on the merged article. If you have a minute to spare, please take a look at the current article and let me know if you still have any problems. Happy editing! -- RexxS ( talk) 21:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your perceptive comments at talk:Irony. I'm not really sure one can reach a solid, crystal clear definition of irony - there are too many different shades of it and these days the word is used in a shorthand fashion that makes it even less precise - but I'm interested in it, both from a linguistic perspective and personally. And Albert Camus was no doubt a fan of irony too. He's one of the most bitingly understated of French writers. I put in a few more comments to explain my take on him. Strausszek ( talk) 01:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought I'd let you know it's been nominated as a FAC. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 02:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I moved your information from Lynn to the Macomber talkpage so it isn't lost or archived. It's material worth adding to the article. Also, here's the discussion about Eeep Eeep at AN. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 13:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
You did a really good editing job on this article. Thanks for following up after my addition to the introduction. Your edits have made this a much improved article. I was not expecting these results when I "generalized" the introduction. ---- Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) ( talk) 02:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs ( talk) 17:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
can hyperthyroidism be caused by mercury or metals poisoning of some kind, or taking to many pain medications,no family history of this is known. tina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teklund1963 ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sbharris. Thank you taking an interest in Nuclear force and working on a new Introduction. Any article on a scientific phenomenon needs to address both the what and the why. What is it, and why does it occur. With an article on a complex phenomenon like nuclear force I think it is sufficient for the Introduction to deal only with an explanation of what it is. Why it occurs is usually best left for later in the article.
Your new introduction mixes both what and why. The why is reliant on an understanding of quarks, mesons, gluons, nucleons and van der Waal’s forces. Your new introduction implies that someone wishing to obtain an elementary understanding of nuclear force must first obtain an understanding of quarks, mesons etc. I disagree with that implication because I believe nuclear force is more fundamental than quarks and mesons. Teenagers in basic chemistry class are introduced to nuclear force as a means of understanding the lost mass that is evident when noting that the isotopic mass of carbon-12 is exactly 12.0000 whereas the isotopic mass of all other elements and isotopes is not exactly the same as the number of constituent protons and neutrons. This is years, if not decades, before these teenagers need to comprehend quarks, mesons etc.
I suggest the Introduction to Nuclear force should address nothing more that what it is. Why it occurs should be left until later in the article. Could you do some more work on your Introduction to simplifly it in this way? Many thanks. Dolphin ( t) 03:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Sir,
While the lead is supposed to be a summary of the subject's life, it is not supposed to contain the complete biography of said subjects life. The lead exists to provide a brief overview of a person's life and achievements and his/her importance to history. If you will review the section in question you will see that the edited part contains a complete overly detailed history of Hemingway's life from birth to death which is more information than needed for a lead and less detailed than the information found in the biography section. It is merely a redundancy.
You are the ranking editor here and your decision will stand, but I would point out that no other article on an author has such a summary: see, Ezra Pound, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Pablo Neruda... for an example of this. Thank you for your time and correction.
-Cwill151 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwill151 ( talk • contribs) 02:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sbharris,
Thanks for reminding me about File:Manganese(II)-carbonate-sample.jpg.
I'll find some fresh MnCO3 in the lab and replace the image.
Cheers,
Ben ( talk) 23:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I suspect you may be partly right. I've cautioned the editor concerned, who appears to be inserting content and citations from a string of publications from a single publisher, UBM Medica, into numerous medical articles. While somewhat noissome, I don't think it seriously compromises the content, which can easily be sourced elsewhere in articles indexed on PubMed. I'd like to take a wait-and-see approach with the editor, as it could simply be that he has a bundled group of e-magazine subscriptions and is making a good-faith contribution with the sources he has available. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I know the topic is an interst of yours, so please lend your thoughts at Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald#Lead (again). I hope consensus can be reached without any chalkboard erasers being thrown. EEng ( talk) 15:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, thanks
![]() | This user helped promote Ernest Hemingway to featured article status. |
-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 14:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
For helping me to understand how the nuclear force color interaction occurs with complete, easy to understand points. You rock! ManishEarth Talk • Stalk 09:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC) |
hello,sir.please make sure to read the whole message.on the thing on your user page,about that people should contribute under their real name,i wish to respond.and as i do not,i would like to express that at the time,it seemed to be better to use a seperate username,but if i had my time back ant experience retained,i might add a relation to my real name.butwhat i would like to express to you is that while you actually give a good reason,i would like to politely point out that while it does not really bother me that much,the term "wikichicken" might offend some other,perhaps.i mean,"chicken" can be a bully term.not to say that this opinion should not be expressed,but it could be expressed more politely,and the red link does not provide a way for them to see that perhaps it is not so offensive.i am personally of the opinion that one can use any inoffensive username available,but if i completely agreed with you in the real name thing,and wished to express it on my user page,perhaps i might say the like of "i contribute under a real name and think others should do the same because..." or "...i strongly encourage others to do the same..." or something.well,cheers, Keserman ( talk) 13:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I've finished the animation, except I need some input on some finishing tweaks. Could you please see my post here: Talk:Nuclear_force#Animation_preview? ManishEarth Talk • Stalk 06:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to say but the original article only says that sentence (which is not too clear, why an incomplete anagram and what happened to the "an" is not mentioned), the reference is an old scan full of other definitions. I trust the definition because it is an odd spelling: if it where Greek it would be "rh[y|i]bose", it definitely is not latin and I doubt it can be from a foreign language (like Shikimic acid) as the inventor is German. If you want the file for other definitions, I can email it. -- Squidonius ( talk) 06:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Please check this thread and amend your edits on B(IV) state in Boron. Thanks. Materialscientist ( talk) 23:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I am reworking iodine, spurred by a claim (maybe from me) that iodine is required for all life, probably only big critters though. There is also a semi-myth that ocean water contains a lot of this stuff, as a percentage. You might take a look after a while.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 16:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC) I also rewrote the section on chemical compounds of boron. It was pretty good already, but hopefully you find the changes acceptable. I de-emphasized statements about "artificial" compounds and to some extent oxidation states and bonding formalisms. Modern treatments downplay such classifications, although they are simplifying for those unfamiliar with the area. It's the old problem in Wikipedia for technical articles, editors can explain and oversimplify or be rigorous and opaque. One issue is that the article aims to discuss the behavior of "boron, but pure boron is exceedingly rare. So statements about boron being this or that are almost impossible to state. If you have any ideas on how to handle this enigma, please comment here, and I will check back.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 17:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I have belatedly answered your comments of 27/Sept/09 in this talk section about the Nuclear structure which I appreciate and have been mulling over. I hope you will notice them at your earliest convenience and, if further interested give me an additional comment. I, like you am interested in this subject matter, and only wish that Dr Isaac Asimov were around to get his comments. I wrote him a letter about this before he died and, of course never heard anything back. But I would appreciate anything you have to comment about the matter. WFPM ( talk) 15:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC) And after reading the discussions on Dr Harold Urey in Talk:Deuterium, I can see that you already have a can of discussion worms to think about in that area. And you might read about Dr. Asimov's discussion about his activities. Cheers! WFPM ( talk) 21:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Concerning the structure of the 6C12 (Carbon) atom that we had in Nucleosynthesis I would like to add here that after I had finished building my models in 1984, I had occasion to read the article "Worlds within the Atom" in the National Geographic magazine (May 1985) which is a good and comprehensive subject matter discussion, but had what I considered a "Mickey Mouse" drawing of the nucleus of the carbon atom, such that I called up the editor of the article somewhere in down in Florida and asked him if that was the best he could do re the structure of the Carbon atom Nucleus. And his answer was that that was the best consensus that he could find! And since then a lot of water has run over the dam and scientific progress has been made, but as far as I can see, the consensus re the Carbon atom nucleus remains more or less the same, and in the meantime I have learned about the Janet Periodic Table and its lore and can't get away from its ability to display a logical scheme for a nucleon accumulation process with the same periods of accumulation of additional alpha particles plus connecting deuterons plus extra neutrons as per the series indications of the Janet table. And I imagine that you have maybe read the National Geographic article and wonder if you have developed a better concept of the Carbon atom nucleus. Because the picture has stuck with me, and I would be interested in any better understandable alternative. And thank you for your attention. WFPM ( talk) 14:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Re the Nuclide Charts and the map of the nuclides proposed modifications, I note that the accumulation of properly organized and accurate data into these records is important to their purpose of creating and extrapolating correct concepts. If you get the charts right, and with the logsecond halflifetime periods posted, then it becomes possible to create a "individual element stability profile chart" which graphically shows the nuclear stability characteristics of each of the elements. And I have made a set of these, involving a page for each 2 elements, with the oddZ in the top half and the evenZ in the bottom. They show an interesting profile of the logsecond halflifetimes of each of the elements, a comparison of adjacent even/odd element profiles, and evidently some errors in reported data, which should be challenged for accuracy purposes. If you're interested, I might be able to send you some of this info. WFPM ( talk) 12:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC) The charts also contain essentially the same data that femto put into his "isotopes of the elements", but in a graphics presentation manner such as to facilitate your minds ability to comprehend the implications of the information. I got my data from the CRC handbook. WFPM ( talk) 22:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Welcome, Steve, although I could have sworn you were a founder member. I'm afraid our WikiProject is not terribly active, but maybe you can inject a bit of life into it. Let me know if you want to do any collaborations - it would be nice to see a few more scuba-related articles getting the attention they deserve! -- RexxS ( talk) 02:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that it is absolutely delightful that a physician has the spare time to show an interest in Smokey Bear. Though we are disagreeing on an image, I'm pleased you're involved. My concern is not "political correctness" but rather a sense that the particular image is a jarring departure from the main topic of the article. I would not object to its inclusion in a more general article about publicity campaigns against forest fires. In this article, I sincerely believe that it places undue wartime propaganda weight on a mascot who, in his first wartime appearance in 1944, is depicted pouring a bucket of water on a campfire, rather than reporting a Japanese saboteur. On another matter, I see you're a scuba enthusiast. I helped expand Henry Way Kendall who sadly died in a diving accident. Regards . . . Cullen328 ( talk) 03:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I hope you know that I would never change a edit to the caesium article from you. But it took me a little by surprise that you wanted to give youtube videos as a prove. I simply had to do this bad wikihabit to cite some guidelines, I hope you did not go to mad about it. A text book is much better and I believe you that it reacts even with cold water. The statement that the reactivity of an element has to be considered by the point of view of the person writing the precautions section was the point I wanted to make to nergaal and smokefoot. And as a starting point I wanted to look at the fluorine and potassium article to get to a consolidated PSE wide way to call a element reactive, most reactive or non reactive.-- Stone ( talk) 19:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, come to think of it, you'd probably be okay briefly floating in a pool of cesium, to the extent your skin was really dry and you didn't get any in eyes, mouth or moist spots (then it would be horrible). Just don't throw me in the fluorine. S B H arris 01:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Bruhahahaha. Okay, now. Fool with some potassium in any way you like, then do the same with 0.1 g of cesium (you might as well plan several experiments, since once you open the stuff you'll have to use it all). I recommend reactions in ethanol (anhydrous = 200 proof, naturally), n-propanol, and n-butanol. Remember to pre-prepare the propanol and butanol with sodium so there is no water in them. Remember those goggles and a shield. Doing it out on the a large empty piece of asphalt of your lab parking lot where you can wash the entire site with a hose and spayer from a distance afterwards, is recommended. On cardboard in the middle of a lawn with lawn sprinklers also works well, as the alkali just soaks into the grass and is diluted away. S B H arris 04:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content without citing
verifiable and
reliable sources, as you did to
Robert A. Heinlein. Before making any potentially controversial
edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Yworo (
talk)
02:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Medical articles on Wikipedia are written based on the
best available evidence in a
consistent format. A list of resources to help you edit can be found
here. The
diberri tool will aid formatting the references for us in articles. All one needs to do is cut and paste the results. The
welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions feel free to drop me a note. Cheers
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
20:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey- You left a comment on my IP's talk page about the article on potassium iodide and SSKI. As far as the SSKI, I agree with everything you said, I never bothered to check what the actual density was. The one thing I think should be made clear in the article is that as opposed to making a solution of a set concentration (using a known weight of KI and volume of solvent), it is possible (especially in an emergency situation) to turn powdered KI into a solution of known concentration (depending on temp) simply by making sure you add more than enough KI to a certain amount of water. So I think there should be a distinction (regardless of concentration) between a pharmaceutically prepared solution of a certain concentration and a true saturated solution that can be made at home that has a pile of KI crystals sitting at the bottom of the container. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimethylaziridine ( talk • contribs) 01:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Dr. Harris. The edits you have just made, and are still making to Apollo 6 and Apollo program in re Apollo 6, have some incorrect information in them. This flight did not fly anywhere near the Moon (more than a two-day trip) and certainly not into lunar orbit, only into three Earth orbits, the last one very high to test the heat shield (the entire flight lasted less than 10 hours.) It also did not carry a real Lunar Module, only a "test article" for ballast (analogous to the "boilerplate" CSM), that still wasn't as heavy as the real thing. Also, Apollo 8's mission was not a repeat of it, and not in any way related to it (other than the next Saturn V flight could carry men.) Apollo 8's mission was invented as a result of a random, unrelated circumstance (the LM not being ready for a first manned Earth orbit practice mission, which the original Apollo 8 was intended to be.)
What sources are you using for your information? As a physician, I'm sure you appreciate the importance of making sure of one's facts when writing about technical subjects outside one's expertise. Thank you. JustinTime55 ( talk) 21:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm seeing this edit by an IP giving Bromine an atomic mass of 79.904. I have an old periodic table saying 79.909 +/-.002. Is that a serious difference? This IP also like to goof around so I don't mind reverting him if there's any doubt. Slightsmile ( talk) 01:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you have done a great number of contributions on this article.
However, I am not particularly confident that this line is true.
"In an example of this, a carbon-14 atom (the "parent") emits radiation (a beta particle, antineutrino, and a gamma ray) and transforms to a nitrogen-14 atom (the "daughter"). "
Carbon has a lower atomic mass than nitrogen. How is it possible that after the radioactive decay nitrogen is resultant from an element which is lower on the periodic table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meseaworthy ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've started this thread on the No Original Research Noticeboard. I imagine you may want to participate. Thanks. David in DC ( talk) 19:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
SB--
I understand that a blog is not a credible citation, but I linked to "Travels Without Charley" mainly because it is not an ordinary blog (it's more like a web site) and because it contains a copy of my Pittsburgh Post-Gazette newspaper article of Dec. 6 headlined "The fabulism of 'Travels With Charley.' "
Perhaps I should have linked directly to the original newspaper piece? Here it is:
"The Fabulism of 'Travels With Charley':
That article is a 2,000-word summary of what I found out about Steinbeck's 1960 "Charley" trip by doing two things:
-- Doing a great deal of research (journalists call it reporting) of existing Steinbeck material to create a time-and-place line of Steinbeck's actual trip (by reading biographies, reading letters Steinbeck wrote from the road during the fall of 1960, reading newspaper articles written in 1960 and reading the original "Charley" manuscript, which scholars apparently have not done in 48 years).
-- Then making a 43-day, 11,000 mile "fact-checking" drive-by journalism trip this fall that retraced as carefully as possible Steinbeck's 1960 route; I did real journalism along the way, took photos of places mentioned in the book and places that Steinbeck went but did not write about;
Xpaperboy (
talk)
03:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Are there really essential fatty acids or is this some sort of marketing ploy by health food vendors? I have been editing in that area and was surprised to read about them. I never ran into them in biochem classes. Thanks,-- Smokefoot ( talk) 23:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do to put in some general refs from academic nutrition books. There is some quackery out there (like pills that contain w-9 because olive oil is cheap) but most of the fish oil supplements are worth taking, actually, unless you eat cold water ocean fish regularly.
BTW, there is some evidence that that bad reputation of saturated fats are from experiments in which animals were fed only hydrogenated coconut oil for their fat source. hydrogenation destroys all essential fatty acids because it destroys all PUFAs. On such a diet, even DOGS get severe atherosclerosis, and they are species highly resistant to it (their HDLs are higher than their LDLs). So all this is quite fascinating-- some of we thought was bad effects of tropical ssturated fats, was from studies that accidentally caused EFA deficiency. S B H arris 23:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Archive #9 All messages from year 2010.
You added lines to explain that there is a distinction between alpha particles and helium nuclei. I always thought the two were interchangeable; do you have a source for this information? — SkyLined ( talk) 08:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the intro needs to be worked on some more; cosmic ray workers are sloppy and sometimes refer to fast He nuclei (10-12% of cosmic rays) as "alphas." But these cosmics will go through your body also, so it's really not the best idea to conflate them with the radioactive-decay particles that are stopped by your skin. I'll add some more about the confusion issue and the cosmic ray connection if you like, or you can. Suffice to say that using the term "alpha" carries a connotation that "helium nucleus" doesn't. S B H arris 12:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! — SkyLined ( talk) 19:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Sorry about the revert last night to your good faith edit. It was late and I intended to fix today. Anyway, Mellow has the hotel name as Ambos only, which I though strange, but Meyers has the full name so that's fine. In fact Hemingway only spent a month in the hotel, and as was his habit, he worked on the manuscript in various places. He spent a fair amount of time in Sun Valley, at the Sun Valley Lodge finishing the rough draft. In my view, this is all too much info for the biography article, but would be very good in the separate article about the novel. I submitted the article for peer review a few days ago, and am awaiting comments as far as splitting up the sections. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 15:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
BTW, if you have Hemingway on you list, would you mind adding your opinions to the great The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber debate (see the TALK page) S B H arris 20:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand the Macomber situation, but need to log off now! Have a look at the edit history to see what happened. I have the sources to verify your points. In my view your version is the better written one and should be reinstated and then sources added, and properly formatted to comply with wikipedia lit. formatting rules. Why this has to be done in seconds I don't understand, but I have other things to do at the moment, so am handing off back to you! Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 23:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
We had some debates and I find you a bit stubborn but also reasonable and knowledgeable. I think all three properties will be needed now.
First of all, have a look at the article Nuclide. Without deleting anything you wrote last time, I have added a 4th paragraph starting with “No matter how the IUPAC...”. Now I find the content of the article both correct and informative.
If you agree with me, then look at the article Isotope. It is a real mess! I was thinking about changing it, but nobody knows me in Wikiland and I think that the radical changes that should be made would upset people because they would think, someone had vandalized the page. The introductory part is just awful.
There are structural problems too. Most of the odd-even question should be best discussed in the Nuclide article (carefully rephrased). Also the chart of nuclides belongs there.
Maybe you can do something about that article. If you want to contact me, you'll find my e-mail address on my homepage at http://nagys.eu -- TheBFG ( talk) 20:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, nice to see the information you have added to the article. Maybe I'm jumping the gun on something that you're actively editing, but can I suggest that the current form of the lead overweights the gastrointestinal functions? The brain functions get far more attention in the literature, but the lead as written would give a naive reader the idea that the brain functions are a minor footnote to something whose most important role is in the gut. Regards, Looie496 ( talk) 16:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
(PS, can I also suggest that you archive your talk page? Looie496 ( talk) 16:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC))
It's hard to say how much of the LEAD should talk about the gut vs. CNS. I suppose it should reflect the article. Or, you could argue that since most of the serotonin neurons are in the gut, most of the article should be about non-CNS things. ;) The CNS gets lots of attention elsewhere, such as the SSRI articles, but where are the corresponding non-CNS things? They're almost all left to be swept up here, sort of like extra-CNS serotonin itself! Subconsciously, I was trying to get in some of the lesser known effects, like a serotonin DYK, and so on. But feel free to be BOLD and re-balance; I won't be offended. It truly is a matter of taste. All I'm sure of is that the LEDE/LEAD needs to be longer than it WAS. S B H arris 16:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi!
I was in the process of writing you a message to ask to check the Cuba section but didn't want to be presumptious. Thank you, thank you, thank you for your additions! I am very ready to be done with this article, but the improvement is noticeable. When I have time, later in the week, will tackle the writing style section. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 02:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
One notices all kinds of stylistic quirks, and I don't know how many have been properly "noticed" by critics. One thing is that H. doesn't always pay attention to proper paragraph breaking, and the effect is sometimes a little like whiplash, as he suddently changes course in the middle of a paragraph and you come out the other side with a totally different direction. His sentences are models of journalism, but his paragraphs not. I don't think anybody has really said this. I think he did some of it deliberately.
Another is that Hemingway's people always show their character on their faces. His evil people are almost always ugly (at least the men are). The sexually predatory Wilson and the officer in A Simple Enquiry are both badly and chronically sunburned. What does this mean? Can't be coincidence. S B H arris 02:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Dr Harris:
You make a good point about the constant change in prices. However price information gives the reader a ballpark feeling for the item involved. An accuracy of 50% where available is vastly better than no idea at all on price. Trojancowboy ( talk) 01:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Frank Stilwell, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Stilwell. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Niteshift36 ( talk) 23:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate that you authored the Stilwell article and are protective of it. I do not appreciate that you want to start making me the issue by questioning my motives for the nom or by your sarcasm. Please keep it about the issue. If you want to complain about me, put it on my talk page. Niteshift36 ( talk) 22:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Please, could You place the picture of "File:Schieffelin2.JPG" to Commons? Thank You! -- StromBer ( talk) 16:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Please find my point-by-point replies below:
I don't have a citation, just what I have learned through my years here at WP. As a general rule, parentheses *are* discouraged - but I don't think it's a "rule" per se. There are certainly other ways of writing what needs to be included without using parentheses - and I still believe they are to be avoided in WP. Of course, if you really don't agree that parentheses should be avoided, you could always ask a seasoned editor or administrator and get their opinion.
Well...I think it's really personal preference. Some editors are real strict about unreferenced statements being left in an article. I personally prefer putting a citation needed in place and will usually do so in order for time to be allowed to get a ref in place. In all honesty, I was probably having a bad day and rather than do what I should have (placing a cite needed tag), I just removed the statement.
(a) Boyer has a questionable reputation as a historian who isn't exactly known as a reliable source regarding Arizona and Earp history (I know that from having lived in Arizona for quite a while and having spoken with a number of state history experts), and (b) where's this reference from Boyer? Have you included it in the article previously? Or is this all original research?
Find-a-grave isn't considered a reliable source for WP articles.
Yes, it is. Since the only reference found for Behan's syphillis is his online death certificate, that's all we have to go on and refer to. Anything else would be original research.
I guess.
According to whom? A death certificate is an official record.
And without another reliable reference available, it's all speculation that means nothing in the scheme of editing the article.
More speculation (and seemingly, original research) that, without another reliable reference, means nothing in the scheme of editing the article. Of course, if you are able to come up with reliable references that meet WPs referencing guidelines, you're welcome to include any (or all) of it. -- SkagitRiverQueen ( talk) 03:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Vitamin C/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 23:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.122.83.98 ( talk) 12:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
It looks like User:Kbrose is rapidly heading towards WP:3RR. Glider87 ( talk) 03:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Yep. S B H arris 03:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
File:IBM Zurich Press Release AFM Image Penacene Aug 2009.jpg is great, but is "all rights reserved" at flickr. Thus we may only use it as fair use, preferably for pentacene article, unless IBM releases the image with a "better" license. Materialscientist ( talk) 05:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Um, I am actually actually interested in use of heavier-than-lead ammunition, for the ballistic properties. There is a wide community on the Internet that has similar interests. I've seen tungston ammunition sold, but I haven't see any discussion about DU ammo for the public. Is it cost prohibitive? Is it banned under anti-armor-piercing rules? Is it banned under anti-incendiary rules? Is it banned under health restrictions? If it is not banned, is it sold to the public? And if the military uses it, why would the public also not get to use it? Since I don't have the answers to these questions, I posted on the "discussion" page. I don't see how bringing up these questions, which I honestly hold, and should be addressed in a complete article on the topic, is "trolling." 72.207.247.50 ( talk) 20:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you address this recent comment? We know Venturi is pushing his views, the issue is to actually fix that - WP element articles are quite visible. (Or maybe that anon just doesn't like Venturi) :-) Materialscientist ( talk) 03:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi SB! On 27 March you edited
Energy and added some new text to the article lead. Your new text included the following:
I don't doubt that your new text is entirely accurate, but I doubt the article lead is the place for information of this complexity. WP articles should begin at a simple level, and progress towards a more complex level. Make technical articles accessible is highly relevant on this matter.
Using the concept of entropy in the explanation of energy suggests that to understand energy one must also understand entropy. I would disagree with such a suggestion. Most people first learn about energy in their early teens, or earlier. The majority of people never learn about entropy, but if they do it is in their late teens, or later.
I would like to suggest that you return to Energy and re-work the article lead so that its information is accessible to young people and others who have no knowledge of entropy. It would be good for the article to retain the information about entropy, but for it to be moved further down the article where more complex ideas are properly located. Happy editing! Dolphin51 ( talk) 04:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
wow good job delete my thing but write and show trash all ovr ur page! what evs! :p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.18.70 ( talk) 02:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC) meanie :p 68.52.18.70 ( talk) 02:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
'You're that mouse with high vitamin D activity, how's that working out for you'
from [2].
I'll leave there - although there is a lot more I could say on the subject - I think what you're doing with D supplementation is harming you. How sure am I? Pretty sure. Overagainst ( talk) 18:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
The article you quoted is mostly about low vitamin D. The stuff about high vitamin D and aging really has little evidence to support a very thin hypothesis. Children with too much D suffere "rapid aging"? What does THAT mean? They mature faster, or they get progeria? We're not told, and I'm skeptical. Prove it. Being a gerontologist, I've seen a lot of papers claiming "rapid aging" which was really toxicity at shamelessly high doses of something. There's a U-shaped curve for natural D level and later risk of prostate cancer? Okay, but it's one study which has never been repeated. Furthermore, there are lots of other cancers where the evidence is the more the better, so which effect wins out? It makes a difference. I'm most interested in a putative U-shaped correlation between D and total mortality, but that paper is not even on medline. Why isn't it in a peer reviewed journal? All in all, you leave me very little. S B H arris 19:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
As for "natural selection" and lower levels, remember that natural selection is working with severe constraints of trying to balance rickets (and perhaps other kinds of minor ill health from decreased immunity and later cancer and osteoporosis incidence) with freezing to death. Since the latter happens immediately and soon, and the other things happen later, or are more severe) I can well believe that nature might have shorted D to the mimimum while lightening skin to the max for the Nords and Irish as soon as they switched to aggriculture and didn't get D from their diets. That must have happened very recently (10,000 years or less) since aggriculture is a fairly recent invention. It's not an argument for letting your D levels fall as low as those populations do, under severe selective pressures from climate and diet. S B H arris 21:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I actually don't get much sun, and what I do, I get with sunblock. My high level may be an anomaly and definitely needs a retest. My oral dose of 4000 IU is well within the limit of what skin naturally synthesizes in sun and thus it seems very unlikely to me that it's toxic. If you wanted to argue that perhaps daily doses over 10,000 to 20,000 might be toxic you'd have a better argument, but the fact that skin production shuts down at that point (due to precursor all being used) only really suggests that the body has all it needs and more is NO BENEFIT, not that it's toxic. It's a little like the kidneys dumping vitamin C over concentrations of 1.5 mg/dL-- that doesn't imply that levels higher than that are necessarily bad for you, just that they are unlikely to be better for you. Yes, I'm sure that if you feed rats enough vitamin D you can calcify their arteries, but how much does it take, and what are their blood levels of the vitamin like? I'd be more impressed with epidemiology of human vitamin users or sun worshipers with calcified arteries. In this study: [14] dialysis patients with low D levels (and metabolites also) had MORE arterial calcification. I presume this is because their secondary hyperparathyroidism osteopenia overrode the D-supplementation they were getting, but who knows?
BTW, the median arteriosclerosis of the type caused by too much vitamin D doesn't look at all like the most common artery changes in aging, which in involve large arteries and are are also associated with atherosclerosis. Calcification of smaller arteries is surprisingly benign and it is NOT a good aging marker. Incidence rises with age, but it is rare. Can you even find me a paper associating it with sun exposure or D levels in humans, so that this is in any way relevant to the doses we're discussing? If the system is designed to cope well with an "abundance of supply" then I'm not likely to be in trouble. eh?
Naked mole rats are interesting, but so different from humans I have no idea what they mean. They must have mutations which allow them to get along without much D (though they still have the enzymes to use it if you give it to them). Their longevity is almost certainly due to their far lower body temperature and slowed metabolism (they're halfway to being reptiles metabolically!). Their D status is likely to be totally incidental. S B H arris 16:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
A U-shaped relation between serum 25(OH)D and risk, the optimum range is centred at the US average and risk increases from the proposed new minimum level of 32ng/mL.
Plasma vitamin D and mortality in older men: a community-based prospective cohort study
"A UCSD professor whose studies shed light on the link between vitamin D and cancer. He died Aug. 17 in La Jolla after a year-long battle with an undisclosed illness." Overagainst ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC).
There are at least three versions of the Have Gun - Will Travel opening sequence. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 19:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for the edits to Ernest Hemingway! The edit summary made me laugh - indeed I do seem to have forgotten how to use punctuation lately, but worse was the tense problem. Burned out last night before I got to the later parts of the article, and sometimes when I'm adding, I don't really read what I've written until later so as to be able to fix better. Anyway, finally I think this work is almost done, and wanted to thank you, again, for the help. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 01:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I have found a few colons in EH, but he uses them to indicate a time lapse, perhaps in places where the prudish editor would have blue penciled a sex scene. There's one of these in The Sun Also Rises that may stand for an episode of oral sex (!) between the inpotent Jake and the nymphomaniacal Brett. Or so suggests K.S.Lynn. And he may be right as there is lots of interesting circumstantial evidence: Jake Barnes is named from two (count 'em) two clear lesbian references among EH's circle in Paris. Talk about a guy living the Tantalus myth. But he does it with grace. ;).
I've been watching you work on the EH article and haven't done much as I've been waiting for you to "finish", but there are some other connections I'd like to add or change. For example, I notice that gone is fact that EH blew the entire top half of his head off. Which wouldn't be important, except that it's rather a suicide in the EH style: looking Death absolutely in the face and doing it with total abandon (who uses TWO shotgun cartriges at the same time??), and not some wimpy shoot-yourself-in-the-temple or the chest with a pistol thing. So it is characteristic. As also his not giving a damn what Mary would find. Hemingway in Spain two years before treated Mary with typical selfishness, so why should he change as he got crazy? EH could view women as objects, and he certain viewed bodies as objects. There's a reference to Alpine Idyll in the article, but the true "unnatural" part in that story is NOT the delay in getting the body out (that happens at about the right time) but the use of the dead wife as a lantern post in between. This all happens in one understated paragraph (compare Faulkner's A Rose For Emily). This may be one of EH's "why not?" stories, or it may be subliminal statement of his view on women, or it may simply be his comment on death, as in it turning the wife into "a statue" in A Farewell To Arms. The theme of death in EH is treated in two ways which underscore the anxiety and horror by simply never talking about them. In A Natural History of Death there is a deliberately taken lightly humorous tone. And in other stories, people facing death never talk of fear and the narator never mentions fear. Thus the unmentioned becomes the elephant in the room, and it's very effective. The iceberg style sometimes extends to omitting an emotion completely, so long as its clear that it must be there. This causes the reader to look harder for it. Like poor Barnes' feelings about his plight. S B H arris 18:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Some of these things need illustrations to really be described: "He also uses other cinematic techniques of "cutting" quickly from one scene to the next; or of "splicing" a scene into another. Hemingway's polysyndetonic sentence...uses conjunctions to juxtapose startling visions and images."
Consider the opening sentence of Black Ass at the Cross Roads:
We had reached the cross roads before noon and had shot a French civilian by mistake.
Your English teacher would surely have split it into two sentences and maybe two paragraphs. But splicing it into one sentence without any comma makes both phrases equal. Reaching the cross roads before noon is on par with shooting a French civilian by mistake. It's war and these things happen. In 16 words, not only has the writer established the tone of the story and set the scene, but also put in a hook which makes it completely impossible not to read the next sentence. It's all done as quickly as a jump into icewater. Not bad. S B H arris 05:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Lynn will eventually be a source later, as he has so much good material (though it's clear he does NOT like his subject).
Example: Philip Hope Percival the white hunter deserves a redlink (I originally had one), as he'll probably get a wiki (I may have to do it myself). Not only did he guide TR in 1909, but BOTH Hemingway Africa expeditions, including the 1954 one! That's a long career, and he's very famous (but he wasn't the model for hunter in MacComber). Redlinks are no disgrace; they are the buds from which Wikipedia grows.
Also, Nick Adams as author's alter ego in many stories needs some explaining. His first name is an Anglicized version of Nicanor (from Nicanor Villalta y Serris, a famous bullfighter). EH saw his first bullfight in early 1923, decided to worship this guy, and Bumby was born late in that year, and that's how Nicanor gets into HIS name. Nick Adams appears in stories only a short time later (The Doctor and the Doctor's Wife was written April, 1924 and is the first Nick Adams story I can find a submission date for. Some authors thinks the story Summer People, unpublished in author's lifetime, might be the first; obviously it is a bit too risque for the 1920's publication, and in any case was a somewhat thinnly disguised encounter or fantasy about Kate "Butstein" Smith, later Dos Pasos' wife.) Nick Adams' last name is an obvious reference to Genesis Adam, as Nick is perpetually eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and expulsion from Eden was always EH's metaphor for coming-of-age and manhood, dealing with death, finding out about sex, etc, etc. Indian Camp is just one of these stories. I think I mentioned The Last Good Country where Nick's older advisor tells him he likes Nick because Nick has "original sin." Nothing about this in the EH article at all, although many, many critics discuss it.
None of this needs to be done before the article is FA'd. Just so it's clear that FA articles are not frozen forever, as WP is never finished. The major task before FA is to get the errors out, not to get all the good stuff IN. S B H arris 19:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Looks okay, though it still disagrees with Lynn, who puts the skull fracture and CSF leak at the time of the Crash#2 and the clearly worse concusion, and EH headbutted his way out of an aircraft window to get out. I somehow doubt EH would have enjoyed the boat trip out from the falls after that Crash with that bad a head injury. Hadn't seen the True at First Light Wiki. Its two sources also disagree with Lynn about the 3rd degree arm/hand burns, which makes complete sense after falling into a fire. I'm scratching my head about the diagnosis of kidney and liver rupture "months later" in Venice. How the hell would the doctors know? There were no CTs and they didn't operate. But that's from an era of ancient medicine where I'm perhaps as clueless as a layman. I can tell you that a CSF leak is far more likely to be non-fatal and to fix itself than a liver rupture, thus less likely to apocryphal or wrong. THAT is more possible, though again hard(er) to diagnose in 1954. These days any water coming out of the nose or head is simply put on a diabetic test strip, and if it shows glucose of 2/3rds blood normal it's CSF! Otherwise something else (mucus from the nose). More of a guess in 1954 (perhaps shear volume of clear fluid from a higher head wound).
The cite in Lynn on the Berenson mention in EH's Nobel prize announcement remarks are on page 574. No cite is given, but the press conference was at the Finca (of course). Perhaps different reports. Lynn adds explanation, by way of a droll letter of EH to Lanham in his Selected Letters:
Between you and me I was thinking like this: Sandburg is an old man and he will appreciate it. Blickie's wife [Dineson] is a damn sight better writer than any Swede they ever gave it to and Blickie [Bror] is in Hell and he would be pleased if I spoke well of his wife. Berenson deserved it (no more than me) but I would have been happy to see him get it. Or any of the three.
Will look at the iceberg article. What I read in the EH article about that theory certainly seems a very good way to look at it to me. Another connection Lynn draws is EH writing in the way of certainly earlier "behavioralist" psych schools, in which the "scientific" view you already mention in the EH article is reduced to reporting exterior reactons, but not omnisciently reporting interior feelings of emotion. It's missed because EH often omniciently first-person reports his character's PHYSICAL feelings, like pain, swelling, etc. But the emotion still needs to be inferred, like watching your dog.
Lynn contains info on the writing of Bell Tolls, which happened between March 1, 1939 and July, 1940. It was started at Ambos-Mundos but soon moved to the Finca, as the somewhat fastidious Martha showed up and refused to have anything to do with stinky EH in his little hotel room. She soon found the Finca to rent and most of the novel was written there (they bought it only in Dec 1940.) EH did make a trip to the Sun Valley lodge in the fall of 1939, but how much work he did on BELL there is unclear. He was in the middle of leaving Pauline for Martha then, and Pauline actually walked out on him in Wyoming taking kids with, following which EH picked up Martha in Montana (she from St. Louis) and went to Sun Valley. They spent time together there before Martha left for Russia in Nov, and EH went alone back to Cuba (Jan, 1940) where Martha almost immediately arrived and they married. He finished the novel by the next July, working at the Finca. Some proofing the next month in Sun Valley again. I can't find evidence that ANY of it was written in Key West. Not only was Pauline there for some of this time (and EH was spending his time with Martha) but when he passed through Key West to pick up his Buick to drive Marth to St. Louis (and from there go himself to Wyoming), he only stopped long enough to do that, as Pauline was in Europe and EH hated to be alone (even when writing) anyway. S B H arris 21:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll use it. BTW, the photo of H and Gary Cooper "at Sun Valley"-- do you know exactly where this was taken? The photo says "Silver River," which I assume is the North Payette near Ketchum or Sun Valley, but can you i.d. the exact location? BTW, Lynn mentions the CSF also, but calls it "brain fluid." And yes, Lynn says that, but has a fair amount of snarky stuff to say about each individual work, where it exists. And the EH who comes through this bio is not very heroic. In fact, more or less a typically unpleasant mess of an alcoholic. But as with EH himself, you have to read between the lines of what did DID, and why Lynn says he did what he did. Example: the reason Martha was so pissed at EH when she got to Londo was that he'd tried to block her every way he could. He signed on with her magazine, which could send only one reporter to the front. When she got around that, he took an airplane saying women were not being taken (Gellhorn later found an actress went on the flight). After a dangerous Atlantic crossing aboard an explosives laden ship, she'd more or less had it by the time she got to London. S B H arris 00:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The story about Martha having to cross an ocean with subs still active, in a slow ship full of explosives, because EH refused her an aiplane seat? It's as much about EH as Martha. As also is his putting her photo in the toilet in the London hotel and blasting it many times with a gift German Luger, ruining much pumbing.
The photo on commons is pre-1923, and DOES have a public domain tag (check it out). All US pre-1923 photos (published then or not) have fallen out of copyright and are thus PD, as you see in the guidelines, and this is certainly a photo taken in Oak Park. The baby pic is a matter of aesthetics. To me the article looks like EH sprang from the Earth full grown like Athena from Zeus. Even Adolf Hiter's wiki-bio has a baby pic. It's fairly traditional to have some photo of pre-adulthood. If I had one of EH as a child rather than infant I would prefer that, but don't. S B H arris 13:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Pauline leaving him in Wyoming is p. 479 (this is the Harvard U Press paperback edition 1995 ISBN 0-674-38732-5). The Geneva Convention charges and his beating them are pp. 518-19. The article doesn't mention Pauline's death, but that's grim and telling. Gregory is arrested on drug charges in LA in 1951, and Pauline, desperate to help him, phones EH at the Finca to ask for any help he can think of. Whatever he tells her, sends her into fits of anger and crying (probably it's to let Gregory stew in his own juice or even get written off, ala I Guess Everything Reminds You of Something). Two hours later Pauline has terrible abdominal pain and collapses. She dies on the operating table hours later. When Greg finally gets out of the slammer and visits EH, EH kindly tells him his arrest has killed his mother. Greg never visits him again and they never see each other again. Years later after he has beat his problems and gone to medical school, Gregory gets the autopsy report. Pauline has died from a bleed into a pheochromocytoma. Emotional stress has caused a blood pressure spike from the tumor which has burst the vessel, and when the tumor secretions quit, her pressure drops to zero and she dies. Greg calls EH: now each blame the other for this. Ouch.
Have been thinking about the iceberg theory article and it's very good, the essence of what's interesting in EH writing. In The Old Man and the Sea for example, the skeleton of the great fish is just a skeleton and a triumph of the old man's will and fight, but it's also an unholy trophy of Death itself. And it parallels the old man becoming skeletal before the voyage and even more so, after. He will also soon die, all this helps make clear.
A story similar to Hills Like White Elephants (which you mention) is the little gem Cat in the Rain. Just two pages. On the surface it's a couple staying in a hotel in Spain and the husband not paying attention to his wife's vague unhappiness. She sees a tortoiseshell cat hiding under a table in the rain, and decides she badly wants a cat. She goes to find it but it's gone. The old man hotel-keeper finally sends the cat up with a maid. That's the part above the surface. Silly. Below the surface is the fact that the old hotel padrone is the only person who actually sees the wife. And below THAT is the reason for the distress he senses. WHICH IS NEVER MENTIONED. Not even hinted at. But if you have much life-experience (you probably have to be middle-aged or over, like the hotel-keeper), it's fairly obvious. But the reader must supply it ALL. S B H arris 02:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
It's been a couple years already, how much faster do you think patience will work in the future? It seems likely to me that if citations are eventually found, it will because a fire was lit under the original researcher by deleting her or his contribution. But in fact, I'm dubious that any nonprimary sources can be found that point out the stated errors in Heinlein's book, whether or not they are errors. Best wishes, Rich ( talk) 21:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you reverted several uses of the chem template recently, citing the reason as the super/subscripts not showing up in your reader. Maybe you'd like to raise the issue at Template talk:chem? I'm not sure what can be done... this template is widely used throughout the chemistry-related articles; it would be impractical to revert all of them to using <sub> and <sup> again. (Besides, it does make chemical formulae slightly more readable when editing.) Either we stop using the simultaneous super/subscript sub-template (which is what's causing your woes---since non-simultaneous super/subscripts are already rendered using <sub> and <sup> tags), or we find out how to make it work for your reader (and other browsers, for that matter). In any case, I think it would be more constructive to discuss this and figure out how to fix it, instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.— Tetracube ( talk) 17:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I've thought about it, and I've added a variation on the translation in the intro page. Take a look and tell me what you think. I think it will suit both our views on the topic. :) Andrzejbanas ( talk) 14:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Steve, I've been following the discussions on Photokeratitis (arc eye, etc.) and the merger is now complete. I saw your original objections to the HOW TO Treatment section and have finished some copyediting on the merged article. If you have a minute to spare, please take a look at the current article and let me know if you still have any problems. Happy editing! -- RexxS ( talk) 21:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your perceptive comments at talk:Irony. I'm not really sure one can reach a solid, crystal clear definition of irony - there are too many different shades of it and these days the word is used in a shorthand fashion that makes it even less precise - but I'm interested in it, both from a linguistic perspective and personally. And Albert Camus was no doubt a fan of irony too. He's one of the most bitingly understated of French writers. I put in a few more comments to explain my take on him. Strausszek ( talk) 01:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought I'd let you know it's been nominated as a FAC. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 02:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I moved your information from Lynn to the Macomber talkpage so it isn't lost or archived. It's material worth adding to the article. Also, here's the discussion about Eeep Eeep at AN. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 13:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
You did a really good editing job on this article. Thanks for following up after my addition to the introduction. Your edits have made this a much improved article. I was not expecting these results when I "generalized" the introduction. ---- Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) ( talk) 02:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs ( talk) 17:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
can hyperthyroidism be caused by mercury or metals poisoning of some kind, or taking to many pain medications,no family history of this is known. tina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teklund1963 ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sbharris. Thank you taking an interest in Nuclear force and working on a new Introduction. Any article on a scientific phenomenon needs to address both the what and the why. What is it, and why does it occur. With an article on a complex phenomenon like nuclear force I think it is sufficient for the Introduction to deal only with an explanation of what it is. Why it occurs is usually best left for later in the article.
Your new introduction mixes both what and why. The why is reliant on an understanding of quarks, mesons, gluons, nucleons and van der Waal’s forces. Your new introduction implies that someone wishing to obtain an elementary understanding of nuclear force must first obtain an understanding of quarks, mesons etc. I disagree with that implication because I believe nuclear force is more fundamental than quarks and mesons. Teenagers in basic chemistry class are introduced to nuclear force as a means of understanding the lost mass that is evident when noting that the isotopic mass of carbon-12 is exactly 12.0000 whereas the isotopic mass of all other elements and isotopes is not exactly the same as the number of constituent protons and neutrons. This is years, if not decades, before these teenagers need to comprehend quarks, mesons etc.
I suggest the Introduction to Nuclear force should address nothing more that what it is. Why it occurs should be left until later in the article. Could you do some more work on your Introduction to simplifly it in this way? Many thanks. Dolphin ( t) 03:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Sir,
While the lead is supposed to be a summary of the subject's life, it is not supposed to contain the complete biography of said subjects life. The lead exists to provide a brief overview of a person's life and achievements and his/her importance to history. If you will review the section in question you will see that the edited part contains a complete overly detailed history of Hemingway's life from birth to death which is more information than needed for a lead and less detailed than the information found in the biography section. It is merely a redundancy.
You are the ranking editor here and your decision will stand, but I would point out that no other article on an author has such a summary: see, Ezra Pound, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Pablo Neruda... for an example of this. Thank you for your time and correction.
-Cwill151 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwill151 ( talk • contribs) 02:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sbharris,
Thanks for reminding me about File:Manganese(II)-carbonate-sample.jpg.
I'll find some fresh MnCO3 in the lab and replace the image.
Cheers,
Ben ( talk) 23:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I suspect you may be partly right. I've cautioned the editor concerned, who appears to be inserting content and citations from a string of publications from a single publisher, UBM Medica, into numerous medical articles. While somewhat noissome, I don't think it seriously compromises the content, which can easily be sourced elsewhere in articles indexed on PubMed. I'd like to take a wait-and-see approach with the editor, as it could simply be that he has a bundled group of e-magazine subscriptions and is making a good-faith contribution with the sources he has available. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I know the topic is an interst of yours, so please lend your thoughts at Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald#Lead (again). I hope consensus can be reached without any chalkboard erasers being thrown. EEng ( talk) 15:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, thanks
![]() | This user helped promote Ernest Hemingway to featured article status. |
-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 14:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
For helping me to understand how the nuclear force color interaction occurs with complete, easy to understand points. You rock! ManishEarth Talk • Stalk 09:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC) |
hello,sir.please make sure to read the whole message.on the thing on your user page,about that people should contribute under their real name,i wish to respond.and as i do not,i would like to express that at the time,it seemed to be better to use a seperate username,but if i had my time back ant experience retained,i might add a relation to my real name.butwhat i would like to express to you is that while you actually give a good reason,i would like to politely point out that while it does not really bother me that much,the term "wikichicken" might offend some other,perhaps.i mean,"chicken" can be a bully term.not to say that this opinion should not be expressed,but it could be expressed more politely,and the red link does not provide a way for them to see that perhaps it is not so offensive.i am personally of the opinion that one can use any inoffensive username available,but if i completely agreed with you in the real name thing,and wished to express it on my user page,perhaps i might say the like of "i contribute under a real name and think others should do the same because..." or "...i strongly encourage others to do the same..." or something.well,cheers, Keserman ( talk) 13:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I've finished the animation, except I need some input on some finishing tweaks. Could you please see my post here: Talk:Nuclear_force#Animation_preview? ManishEarth Talk • Stalk 06:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to say but the original article only says that sentence (which is not too clear, why an incomplete anagram and what happened to the "an" is not mentioned), the reference is an old scan full of other definitions. I trust the definition because it is an odd spelling: if it where Greek it would be "rh[y|i]bose", it definitely is not latin and I doubt it can be from a foreign language (like Shikimic acid) as the inventor is German. If you want the file for other definitions, I can email it. -- Squidonius ( talk) 06:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Please check this thread and amend your edits on B(IV) state in Boron. Thanks. Materialscientist ( talk) 23:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I am reworking iodine, spurred by a claim (maybe from me) that iodine is required for all life, probably only big critters though. There is also a semi-myth that ocean water contains a lot of this stuff, as a percentage. You might take a look after a while.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 16:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC) I also rewrote the section on chemical compounds of boron. It was pretty good already, but hopefully you find the changes acceptable. I de-emphasized statements about "artificial" compounds and to some extent oxidation states and bonding formalisms. Modern treatments downplay such classifications, although they are simplifying for those unfamiliar with the area. It's the old problem in Wikipedia for technical articles, editors can explain and oversimplify or be rigorous and opaque. One issue is that the article aims to discuss the behavior of "boron, but pure boron is exceedingly rare. So statements about boron being this or that are almost impossible to state. If you have any ideas on how to handle this enigma, please comment here, and I will check back.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 17:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I have belatedly answered your comments of 27/Sept/09 in this talk section about the Nuclear structure which I appreciate and have been mulling over. I hope you will notice them at your earliest convenience and, if further interested give me an additional comment. I, like you am interested in this subject matter, and only wish that Dr Isaac Asimov were around to get his comments. I wrote him a letter about this before he died and, of course never heard anything back. But I would appreciate anything you have to comment about the matter. WFPM ( talk) 15:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC) And after reading the discussions on Dr Harold Urey in Talk:Deuterium, I can see that you already have a can of discussion worms to think about in that area. And you might read about Dr. Asimov's discussion about his activities. Cheers! WFPM ( talk) 21:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Concerning the structure of the 6C12 (Carbon) atom that we had in Nucleosynthesis I would like to add here that after I had finished building my models in 1984, I had occasion to read the article "Worlds within the Atom" in the National Geographic magazine (May 1985) which is a good and comprehensive subject matter discussion, but had what I considered a "Mickey Mouse" drawing of the nucleus of the carbon atom, such that I called up the editor of the article somewhere in down in Florida and asked him if that was the best he could do re the structure of the Carbon atom Nucleus. And his answer was that that was the best consensus that he could find! And since then a lot of water has run over the dam and scientific progress has been made, but as far as I can see, the consensus re the Carbon atom nucleus remains more or less the same, and in the meantime I have learned about the Janet Periodic Table and its lore and can't get away from its ability to display a logical scheme for a nucleon accumulation process with the same periods of accumulation of additional alpha particles plus connecting deuterons plus extra neutrons as per the series indications of the Janet table. And I imagine that you have maybe read the National Geographic article and wonder if you have developed a better concept of the Carbon atom nucleus. Because the picture has stuck with me, and I would be interested in any better understandable alternative. And thank you for your attention. WFPM ( talk) 14:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Re the Nuclide Charts and the map of the nuclides proposed modifications, I note that the accumulation of properly organized and accurate data into these records is important to their purpose of creating and extrapolating correct concepts. If you get the charts right, and with the logsecond halflifetime periods posted, then it becomes possible to create a "individual element stability profile chart" which graphically shows the nuclear stability characteristics of each of the elements. And I have made a set of these, involving a page for each 2 elements, with the oddZ in the top half and the evenZ in the bottom. They show an interesting profile of the logsecond halflifetimes of each of the elements, a comparison of adjacent even/odd element profiles, and evidently some errors in reported data, which should be challenged for accuracy purposes. If you're interested, I might be able to send you some of this info. WFPM ( talk) 12:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC) The charts also contain essentially the same data that femto put into his "isotopes of the elements", but in a graphics presentation manner such as to facilitate your minds ability to comprehend the implications of the information. I got my data from the CRC handbook. WFPM ( talk) 22:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Welcome, Steve, although I could have sworn you were a founder member. I'm afraid our WikiProject is not terribly active, but maybe you can inject a bit of life into it. Let me know if you want to do any collaborations - it would be nice to see a few more scuba-related articles getting the attention they deserve! -- RexxS ( talk) 02:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that it is absolutely delightful that a physician has the spare time to show an interest in Smokey Bear. Though we are disagreeing on an image, I'm pleased you're involved. My concern is not "political correctness" but rather a sense that the particular image is a jarring departure from the main topic of the article. I would not object to its inclusion in a more general article about publicity campaigns against forest fires. In this article, I sincerely believe that it places undue wartime propaganda weight on a mascot who, in his first wartime appearance in 1944, is depicted pouring a bucket of water on a campfire, rather than reporting a Japanese saboteur. On another matter, I see you're a scuba enthusiast. I helped expand Henry Way Kendall who sadly died in a diving accident. Regards . . . Cullen328 ( talk) 03:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I hope you know that I would never change a edit to the caesium article from you. But it took me a little by surprise that you wanted to give youtube videos as a prove. I simply had to do this bad wikihabit to cite some guidelines, I hope you did not go to mad about it. A text book is much better and I believe you that it reacts even with cold water. The statement that the reactivity of an element has to be considered by the point of view of the person writing the precautions section was the point I wanted to make to nergaal and smokefoot. And as a starting point I wanted to look at the fluorine and potassium article to get to a consolidated PSE wide way to call a element reactive, most reactive or non reactive.-- Stone ( talk) 19:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, come to think of it, you'd probably be okay briefly floating in a pool of cesium, to the extent your skin was really dry and you didn't get any in eyes, mouth or moist spots (then it would be horrible). Just don't throw me in the fluorine. S B H arris 01:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Bruhahahaha. Okay, now. Fool with some potassium in any way you like, then do the same with 0.1 g of cesium (you might as well plan several experiments, since once you open the stuff you'll have to use it all). I recommend reactions in ethanol (anhydrous = 200 proof, naturally), n-propanol, and n-butanol. Remember to pre-prepare the propanol and butanol with sodium so there is no water in them. Remember those goggles and a shield. Doing it out on the a large empty piece of asphalt of your lab parking lot where you can wash the entire site with a hose and spayer from a distance afterwards, is recommended. On cardboard in the middle of a lawn with lawn sprinklers also works well, as the alkali just soaks into the grass and is diluted away. S B H arris 04:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content without citing
verifiable and
reliable sources, as you did to
Robert A. Heinlein. Before making any potentially controversial
edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at
Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.
Yworo (
talk)
02:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Medical articles on Wikipedia are written based on the
best available evidence in a
consistent format. A list of resources to help you edit can be found
here. The
diberri tool will aid formatting the references for us in articles. All one needs to do is cut and paste the results. The
welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions feel free to drop me a note. Cheers
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
20:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Hey- You left a comment on my IP's talk page about the article on potassium iodide and SSKI. As far as the SSKI, I agree with everything you said, I never bothered to check what the actual density was. The one thing I think should be made clear in the article is that as opposed to making a solution of a set concentration (using a known weight of KI and volume of solvent), it is possible (especially in an emergency situation) to turn powdered KI into a solution of known concentration (depending on temp) simply by making sure you add more than enough KI to a certain amount of water. So I think there should be a distinction (regardless of concentration) between a pharmaceutically prepared solution of a certain concentration and a true saturated solution that can be made at home that has a pile of KI crystals sitting at the bottom of the container. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimethylaziridine ( talk • contribs) 01:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Dr. Harris. The edits you have just made, and are still making to Apollo 6 and Apollo program in re Apollo 6, have some incorrect information in them. This flight did not fly anywhere near the Moon (more than a two-day trip) and certainly not into lunar orbit, only into three Earth orbits, the last one very high to test the heat shield (the entire flight lasted less than 10 hours.) It also did not carry a real Lunar Module, only a "test article" for ballast (analogous to the "boilerplate" CSM), that still wasn't as heavy as the real thing. Also, Apollo 8's mission was not a repeat of it, and not in any way related to it (other than the next Saturn V flight could carry men.) Apollo 8's mission was invented as a result of a random, unrelated circumstance (the LM not being ready for a first manned Earth orbit practice mission, which the original Apollo 8 was intended to be.)
What sources are you using for your information? As a physician, I'm sure you appreciate the importance of making sure of one's facts when writing about technical subjects outside one's expertise. Thank you. JustinTime55 ( talk) 21:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm seeing this edit by an IP giving Bromine an atomic mass of 79.904. I have an old periodic table saying 79.909 +/-.002. Is that a serious difference? This IP also like to goof around so I don't mind reverting him if there's any doubt. Slightsmile ( talk) 01:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you have done a great number of contributions on this article.
However, I am not particularly confident that this line is true.
"In an example of this, a carbon-14 atom (the "parent") emits radiation (a beta particle, antineutrino, and a gamma ray) and transforms to a nitrogen-14 atom (the "daughter"). "
Carbon has a lower atomic mass than nitrogen. How is it possible that after the radioactive decay nitrogen is resultant from an element which is lower on the periodic table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meseaworthy ( talk • contribs) 17:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've started this thread on the No Original Research Noticeboard. I imagine you may want to participate. Thanks. David in DC ( talk) 19:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
SB--
I understand that a blog is not a credible citation, but I linked to "Travels Without Charley" mainly because it is not an ordinary blog (it's more like a web site) and because it contains a copy of my Pittsburgh Post-Gazette newspaper article of Dec. 6 headlined "The fabulism of 'Travels With Charley.' "
Perhaps I should have linked directly to the original newspaper piece? Here it is:
"The Fabulism of 'Travels With Charley':
That article is a 2,000-word summary of what I found out about Steinbeck's 1960 "Charley" trip by doing two things:
-- Doing a great deal of research (journalists call it reporting) of existing Steinbeck material to create a time-and-place line of Steinbeck's actual trip (by reading biographies, reading letters Steinbeck wrote from the road during the fall of 1960, reading newspaper articles written in 1960 and reading the original "Charley" manuscript, which scholars apparently have not done in 48 years).
-- Then making a 43-day, 11,000 mile "fact-checking" drive-by journalism trip this fall that retraced as carefully as possible Steinbeck's 1960 route; I did real journalism along the way, took photos of places mentioned in the book and places that Steinbeck went but did not write about;
Xpaperboy (
talk)
03:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Are there really essential fatty acids or is this some sort of marketing ploy by health food vendors? I have been editing in that area and was surprised to read about them. I never ran into them in biochem classes. Thanks,-- Smokefoot ( talk) 23:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do to put in some general refs from academic nutrition books. There is some quackery out there (like pills that contain w-9 because olive oil is cheap) but most of the fish oil supplements are worth taking, actually, unless you eat cold water ocean fish regularly.
BTW, there is some evidence that that bad reputation of saturated fats are from experiments in which animals were fed only hydrogenated coconut oil for their fat source. hydrogenation destroys all essential fatty acids because it destroys all PUFAs. On such a diet, even DOGS get severe atherosclerosis, and they are species highly resistant to it (their HDLs are higher than their LDLs). So all this is quite fascinating-- some of we thought was bad effects of tropical ssturated fats, was from studies that accidentally caused EFA deficiency. S B H arris 23:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)