User talk:Wilke: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:14, 10 March 2005

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name on talk pages with ~~~~

Davodd 00:08, Jan 1, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Claus, welcome back to wikipedia, sorry to hear of Nupedia's demise. I helped port some of your old articles across before they disappeared into the ether. Good to see another biologist get involved, particularly in evolutionary issues. I've also been working on some articles in population genetics, looking forward to working with you. Cheers, --Lexor 02:42, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I was initially skeptical about the wikipedia idea, but it looks like it is really working. And the fact that I don't have to produce a finished article, but can help out here and there whenever I have time, makes it much easier to contribute. --Wilke

Agreed, I think Nupedia was sunk by the relatively high barrier to entry. It's nice to be able to help out here and there. Having said that, it would be nice if there were some features that could be added on top of wikipedia to enable some sort of peer review, or least user-review system, that would be less awkward than the old Nupedia one, but a little more sophisticated than the current ad-hoc list of pages. Something like a page ranking system. Some people have already talked about this as part of Wikipedia 1.0, see also User:Jimbo Wales/Pushing To 1.0. Some kind of review process would help Wikipedia achieve a bit more academic respectability, although I should note that some users don't view this as a desirable goal.

I was wondering about the articles that were moved: Would it be Ok to remove the note that states where they came from? In particular the note for the fitness landscape article is very awkward. Since I am the original copyright holder, I should have the right to donate these articles directly to wikipedia. But I didn't want to do this without hearing somebody else's opinion first. --Wilke

That's the boilerplate I took from Wikipedia:Nupedia and Wikipedia, the GFDL requires us to cite the original author and include a link, but if you hold copyright already, hmm, that's a bit of grey area. I suggest posting a question at the Wikipedia:Village pump. --Lexor 03:22, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Evolutionary biology

Hi Claus, welcome back again, I took a month wikiholiday myself recently. Thought you might be interested in joining the above WikiProject, we could do with some help. Cheers -Lexor|Talk 23:37, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Edgeworth

Hello. I'm glad to see your Edgeworth series article; it is quite interesting. (Maybe I'll add something on Edgeworth himself if I get around to it.) Michael Hardy 00:06, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation

Hi mate, we need to categorise the biology articles. Discuss at wikiproject evolution, please. Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:16, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Images

Replied in Talk:Images in Wikipedia Theon 04:47, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Virus Classification: Potexvirus and Pomovirus genera misplaced

Hello Claus. I have, respectfully, taken the liberty to reverse your Nov 17, 2004 removal of my edit of an item in the Virus Classification article. Please see the full note in the discussion section to that article. Basically, these two genera belong under (+)ssRNA viruses not dsDNA viruses. Genus Potexvirus is a Flexiviridae member and the Genus Pomovirus is an unassigned genus. The ICTV reference websites are noted in the discussion. I am new to Wikipedia and thought I'd start my trial editing run in a subject in which I do have a little knowledge; i.e., Plant Virology - my profession for the last 23 years. Thanks for the opportunity to edit. --ViralQuest 23:52, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Ok. I guess I didn't check carefully enough before I reverted your edit. Thanks for following up on this. Wilke 19:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Deleting Image:Gaussian-pdf.png

I put Image:Gaussian-pdf.png up for WP:IFD since I obsoleted it with Image:Normal distribtion pdf.png. Cburnett 03:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In principle, I wouldn't mind, but the figure you propose has a number of regressions: 1. The axis tick labels are too small, and the font is ugly. 2. There are no axis labels. 3. In the legend, you use "mu" and "var" instead of the Greek letters mu and sigma. 4. The lines cannot be distinguished by a person who is color blind. Wilke 18:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:54, 10 March 2005 edit Cburnett (talk \| contribs) Administrators 30,660 edits m Wrong link ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:14, 10 March 2005 edit undo Wilke (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 642 edits →Deleting [[:Image:Gaussian-pdf.png]] Next edit →
Line 63:		Line 63:

	I put [[:Image:Gaussian-pdf.png]] up for [[WP:IFD]] since I obsoleted it with [[:Image:Normal distribtion pdf.png]]. [[User:Cburnett\|Cburnett]] 03:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)		I put [[:Image:Gaussian-pdf.png]] up for [[WP:IFD]] since I obsoleted it with [[:Image:Normal distribtion pdf.png]]. [[User:Cburnett\|Cburnett]] 03:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
			:In principle, I wouldn't mind, but the figure you propose has a number of regressions: 1. The axis tick labels are too small, and the font is ugly. 2. There are no axis labels. 3. In the legend, you use "mu" and "var" instead of the Greek letters mu and sigma. 4. The lines cannot be distinguished by a person who is color blind. [[User:Wilke\|Wilke]] 18:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)