User talk:Nbarth/Archive 2011

Archive 2005

←

Archive 2009

Archive 2010

Archive 2011

Archive 2012

Archive 2013

→

Archive 2015

WP:DERM:MA

We are always looking for more help with the dermatology task force, particularly with the ongoing Bolognia push in which we are making sure Wikipedia has an article on every cutaneous condition. With that being said, I wanted to know if you would be willing to help with the Bolognia push? I can e-mail you the login information if you like? There is still a lot of potential for new articles and redirects. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Core,

Thank you for the kind invitation, but I must decline – I have no expertise in dermatology, and any recent edits I may have made were just part of general editing, not any particular focus.

Good luck with the task force and push!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 04:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Digital transform

An editor appears to want an article written about the term digital transform. You have participated in improving the article integral transform, so I am guessing that you have a better idea than myself about how the term is used and whether it deserves an article. Feel free to offer your thoughts at Talk:Digital transform where a discussion is taking shape. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

racial descrimination

am uba emmanuel.date of birht-27th august 1984.am from Nigeria.i had applied for family sponsored visa to come to australia but was denied because of racail descrimination.i had gone to tribunal but do not know why delaying.i want you to intervene and appeal on this matter.i await reply..uba —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.17.249.32 (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikiproject:Chartalism proposal

Since you have contributed to the article on Chartalism, you might be interested to know that a proposal has been put forward for a Wikiproject on Chartalism, in case you want to support it or participate in the project.-The Gnome (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Gnome,

Thank you for your kind invitation, but I must decline.

While I’m interested in Chartalism, along with various other topics in economics, I do not currently have much time to devote to writing. Further, I have some doubts as to whether a project or group devoted to promoting a particular school of thought is productive – I’ve written some thoughts at the discussion page – perhaps we can discuss further there.

Thank you for taking the time to do this, and I hope that it can lead to WP being improved!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Inflationism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Inflationism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inflationism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. LK (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Kanji

Hi! I saw your latest edit on kanji. That 料 is not from 料理, but it means material or ingredient. See #2. And the usage of 料 in these words are the same as 香辛料. [1], [2], [3], [4] It would be grateful to correct the edit as I'm not sure I can do it correctly. Thank you, Oda Mari (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow! 早っ！感激。 Thank you and happy editing. Oda Mari (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

小田さん

手伝って下さって有り難う御座います。

小田さんが進んだようにページを直しました。

（例だけだって、意味は違ったが、文字こそ正しいから、そんなようにスペルを言えるでしょうね。）

（とにかく、直してしまいました。）

Dear Oda-san,

Thank you for informing me!

I have corrected the page as you have suggested.

(It was just an example – the meaning differed, but as the character itself is correct, isn’t it possible to give the spelling in that way?)

(Anyway, I did end up correcting it [as you indicated].)

ところで (By the way):

It would be grateful to correct the edit as I'm not sure I can do it correctly.

ちょっと間違っていますが。。。

I would be grateful if you could correct the edit, as I’m not sure I can do it correctly.

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

感激について

とんでもありません。汚して、したがって直すのも私の責任ですね。

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the character itself is correct. Thank you for pointing my mistake out. ああ、恥ずかしい。Careless of me! What was I thinking? I usually write the phrase correctly. If you have any question on ja, feel free to ask me. Best regards. Oda Mari (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

どうぞ宜しくお願い致します！

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Bible quote in paradox of thrift

Further information: Talk:Paradox of thrift § Bible quote

Regarding your edit [5], see my note on the Talk page [6]. It's not clear at all to me whether this passage was something Keynes (or Robertson before him) had noted, or whether any Bible scholars have noticed the parallels. It would be great if there were such context. Do you have any to offer? (Great contribution to the article otherwise, I have to say.) Yakushima (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Yakushima,

Thanks for the kind words, and for contacting me on my page!

The quote is right from one of the references, though I see that it wasn’t terribly well-referenced; I’ve elaborated on the talk page at Talk:Paradox of thrift#Bible quote – does this address your concerns?

…and thanks for your work on the page too!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Replied on the Talk page of the article with a possible interim compromise. (I'd really prefer to move on to the article's main problem -- a verbose Criticism section lacking adequate citations, and which may violate WP:UNDUE.) Yakushima (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Yakushima,

Thanks for the follow-up; I’ve had a go at incorporating your suggestions and references – hope it looks ok!

Regarding the Criticism section – I’ve had a go at rewriting it; it’s now not too long, I don’t think (20% of the article), but it does lack citations for the mainstream criticisms. These are pretty standard criticisms, AFAIK, and should probably be found in the standard textbooks (e.g., Mankiw, who has a neo-classical slant and probably mentions them), but I don’t have them to hand. Please feel free to rewrite further as you see fit!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice how you worked in the quote from Proverbs. The criticism section (both placement and text itself) looks better; but it's past midnight here in Tokyo, my eyes are pretty tired, so I probably won't pick any nits from it tonight. BTW, I just made a stub for paradox of toil; I'm not sure there's more than a stub's worth of material to work from, though. Yakushima (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Glad you like it!

There’s no rush – hope you get some sleep!

Your page for Paradox of toil looks fine – it’s a pretty new concept, and you’ve extensively referenced it; I’m not sure much more can be done with it for now. If it develops into a more significant part of economics, you’ve made a great foundation for further work to develop on!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Tulāsana for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tulāsana is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulāsana until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Factual addendum to above template notification: The AfD discussion concerns a total of 58 asana articles. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 03:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Access time

An article that you have been involved in editing, Access time , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. § Music Sorter § (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Famous wagers

Category:Famous wagers, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Nbarth/Archive 2011! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Mathematical theorems with German names

Category:Mathematical theorems with German names, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Sasha (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I am adding a few words just to make the message less automatic: there are 3 (seemingly unrelated) pages in the category. Sasha (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and cleanup Sasha – agree with your nomination (as per that page).

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks! Sasha (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Constancy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Permanence

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Surname extinction

Hi. I do not agree with you on surname extinction. See Talk:Galton–Watson process#Bad examples and Talk:Japanese name#Surname extinction?. --Nanshu (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Nanshu,

Thanks for bringing this up, and for contacting me here. I’ve looked into this, and you are correct that Korean and Vietnamese names are due primarily (or almost exclusively?) to starting with few names rather than the names dying out (due to lineage dying out), though Chinese names certainly have undergone surname extinction, and part of the diversity of Japanese names is due to their recent origin (but it’s more significantly due to a great number being created, in a large population).

I’ve re-written the articles to correct this (and added much-needed references); please feel free to continue the discussion there.

Thanks again for your attention!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Logatome

An article that you have been involved in editing, Logatome , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Allens (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Polygon/polytope density - merge articles and rename

Proposed at Talk:Polytope density — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)