User talk:Chaldor

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Chaldor}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contrib) 08:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chaldor (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Non-human primate

An article that you have been involved in editing, Non-human primate, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-human primate. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? UtherSRG (talk) 08:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Caged monkeys.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Caged monkeys.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry about the above notice, you got it automatically after I removed the image from Primate. I think it is a replaceable fair use image because another image that's just as useful could be obtained. Don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need anything, I'm always glad to help. Peace, delldot talk 21:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RoHS image

For reference purposes, image in question is this: Image:2004april-hot-dip-limit-large.jpg. Chaldor (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chaldor. I noticed your elimination of a weasel word on the RoHS page - thanks. I took a look at the source page for this image and it appears it may be copyrighted: "This material is presented to ensure timely dissemination of scholarly and technical work. For technical references posted herein, copyright and all rights therein are retained by authors or by other copyright holders. All persons copying this information are expected to adhere to the terms and constraints invoked by each author's copyright. In most cases, these works may not be reposted without the explicit permission of the copyright holder."

Should we remove it? Prosecreator (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prosecreator. You bring up an interesting point. I did a little digging on the site to see if I could find the author of the figure, but didn't find anything useful. There is definitely material on the site that is from journals, and that material appears well referenced. There is this discussion at the top of their photo gallery that seems to imply that the pictures they are showing are of their own work, in which case the image would presumably fall under public domain. I think there is reason to believe this image might be a product of the team at Goddard and not a pull from literature. For the time being, I have flagged the image with Template:Non-free unsure. Since it is not clear, if you are up for it, I would suggest you email one of the NASA folk at the bottom of the photo of the month page per the WP:COPYREQ guidelines to see if we can't get an OTRS ticket submitted for this image (and possibly even many of the other photos on that site). If we can get a NASA official to state that these were taken by the Goddard team, then we should have public domain access to the images, much like we do for many of the space photos that NASA releases. Chaldor (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chaldor. I'm thinking we should wait and see if the uploader chimes in and provides the necessary information in response to your flag. I'm guessing it's not a copyright issue, but if we don't see a response I can try an email contacting the Goddard people. Hopefully they'll remember, it's from 2004. :) Prosecreator (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red blood cells and oxygen

Hello, you added a "clarify" to the sentence

In humans, most of the carbon dioxide is held in solution in the blood plasma as bicarbonate and is not carried by the hemoglobin of the erythrocytes; the same is true for less than 2% of the oxygen.

I wonder how to clarify it or what is unclear about it. There are two claims:

most of the carbon dioxide is held in the blood plasma (and not by the erythrocytes' hemoglobin)
less than 2% of the oxygen is held in the blood plasma (and not by the erythrocytes' hemoglobin, which holds more than 98% of the oxygen)

Should we make two sentences out of that? Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was the oxygen bit that seemed unclear. I think it would make a lot more sense if there's a sentence talking about partial pressure, dissolved oxygen, etc. Otherwise I think the reader is getting a lot of technical information pummeled their way without an easy way of clicking around to find out exatly what's being discussed. This is why I added the bit about bicarb. Oxygen doesn't have an equivalent form that we can wikilink to, so perhaps a separate sentence(s) discussing partial pressure, dissolved oxygen, and carrying capacity of total hemoglobin might be warranted. Chaldor (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nephrology

I've noticed that you've been editing nephrology related articles -- from your contributions. We have a place where the nephrology minded people hang out: WikiProject Nephrology -- WP:nephro or WP:RENAL or WP:KIDNEY. It is often quiet there-- but you'll find other people that edit nephrology related articles. I look forward to more of your edits. Nephron T|C 13:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDrugSearch.com

You wrote:

Blatant advertising. Could have been CSD'd.

That's what I thought too, and I nominated it. Was declined as not spam without further comment. Go figger. Bongomatic (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes people are just in a hurry I suppose. Another reason having afd around is a good thing. Chaldor (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osteitis Fibrosa Cystica

I know it's a bit... after the fact, perhaps... but thank you for your generous offer for help on the OFC discussion page. I've been wrapped up in a myriad of things, and the Wiki's been on the backburner, but I just made a whirlwind of edits to the article. If you have the time, is there any way you could run through the mess I've made and offer any suggestions? Strombollii (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ORS sachet pour

Hi Chaldor,
why didn't you upload the high-res and full-image version of File:Ors sachet pour.png? --Túrelio (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that I had uploaded the high resolution version of this image. Was that not the case? I cropped it and used the specific part that I needed for the article. You're welcome to add the full image if you think it is valuable as well. I was looking for a picture of an ORS sachet. Chaldor (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oral rehydration therapy

hey chaldor, you don't control the history of Oral rehydration therapy, nor the definition. you need to learn to accept your limitations. you'll be happier in life.

by the way, the section is about HISTORY. The history of the development of the diarrhea treatment you love so much. The section is not saying that gatorade is oral rehydration therapy, it is just a portion of the history that led to the development of oral rehydration therapy. just like the info about Sushruta and coconut milk. or are you going to delete that too?

and by the way, why do you think you're in charge?

ort

hey chaldor, read the discussion section of ort before you starting shouting vandalism. i have a new little message for you, explaining why you are wrong. you should read it before i revert your reverts. so do you consider yourself some sort of ort tyrant?

even more ort, for chaldor

hey chaldor, i fixed the history section so now even you can understand it. it now has subsections so you can see how ort treatment was actually developed. can you accept that?

hey chandor, do you know what vandalism means?

Does this sound like vandalism to you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VAND#NOT

Stubbornness Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such. See also Tendentious editing

If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.

Based on the fact that you can't understand what is vandalism and what isn't, is it safe to assume that you don't understand the history of ORT?

hey chandor, do you know what vandalism means?

Does this sound like vandalism to you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VAND#NOT

Stubbornness. Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable—you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such. See also Tendentious editing

Based on the fact that you can't understand what is vandalism and what isn't, is it safe to assume that you don't understand the history of ORT? we're going to have to get an administrator, won't we? I know you put in a lot of hard, well-meaning work into this topic, but you don't own it.

ort - just in time for the weekend

chaldor, the information i added was extensively referenced. and they are hardly "controversial claims." Amatulic, i would invite to actually read it before you jump in. the section you keep deleting doesn't claim that gatoraid is ort. the subtitle of the section is "Glucose and sodium solutions and treatment of dehydration." this provides historical context to the treatment of dehydration using sucrose/sodium solutions. sucrose/sodium solutions solutions were then used to treat diarrhea, which what ort is. that is in the next section. the subtitles should make it easy for even you to understand. so, it'll go back in. it seems that you just don't think it's fits in with your idea of the "history of ort." but that's just your idea of history. history isn't just what's in chaldor's head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.170.124.78 (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]