User talk:Dratman
Good catch!
Thanks for your fix to “Marginalism”! —SlamDiego←T 03:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
PTSD - removal of "post-traumatic stress syndrome"
This action looks impulsive to me. It's a member of a list of historical references, and actually is probably correct - was likely the precursor of the current "posttraumatic stress disorder". Regrettably, the original author of this sentence provided no citation, and I have none as well. So, I have to consider it unresolved, and more importantly unsupported at present. else I'd revert. Tom Cloyd (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the first words in that article were and are the subject's full name. Restating it in the second paragraph is a slight improvement, but it was no problem the way it was. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have written my comment more circumspectly, something like this: Beginning a first substantive paragraph with the pronoun "he" sounds somehow indefinite Dratman (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.
For established users such as yourself there is
Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of
Species boundaries
Hi, I noticed your change to the Species article with the edit summary "Species boundaries do not actually change as a result of increased scientific knowledge, but our understanding of them may be revised". The change itself seems neutral to me, but I would question your explanation if it might lead to you making changes elsewhere. Your summary seems to imply that species boundaries exist 'out there' and all that happens is that our understanding of where they are changes. A key part of our current understanding of the concept of 'species' is that there are no necessarily sharp boundaries, particularly during the process of speciation. To a large extent, therefore, species boundaries are just arbitrary divisions constructed by biologists, so it's accurate to say that species boundaries change with increased knowledge. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your thoughtful and illuminating comment. I was actually thinking about that question of species boundaries "out there" or "in here" (gesturing toward head) when I wrote the edit summary. I think it is a subtle dichotomy.
- Of course you are perfectly right that there are no species designations out in the world. In fact there are only individual organisms. No, wait, there are only individual cells. Oh, sorry, there are only individual molecules.
- You see the problem I am struggling with? There really sort of is 'something' out in the world. In the case of species, suppose a nascent species, isolated somehow over time, becomes a robust species. Here I am speaking solely of events out in the world. Something really did happen. Interbreeding, prevented over time at first by isolation, became impossible because of, say, changes to the chromosomes.
- Our descriptions should be able to distinguish between actual changes such as I have just described and changes which take place only in our human-created nomenclature. I was trying to make that distinction.
- I think it's similar to what philosophers sometimes call the 'heap paradox'. If you don't know it, it runs like this. Suppose there's a small pile of sand, definitely not large enough to be called a 'heap of sand' (as least in my dialect of English). I have a machine which adds sand to it, grain by grain. After a day, the pile is 6 ft (2 metres) high, and I'm happy to call it a 'heap'. But when did it become a heap? It's very tempting to say that at any point it either was a heap or it wasn't a heap. But this is wrong. There are piles of sand which are definitely not 'heaps' and there are piles of sand which definitely are 'heaps', but in between these clear extremes, the concept of a 'heap' is not precise.
- The same seems to me to apply to species. After sufficient time has elapsed, two populations with the same last common ancestor may be clearly two different species (consistent morphological differences, don't interbreed in the wild, can't interbreed under artificial conditions, etc.). Two populations which have only recently diverged may be clearly the same species (no consistent morphological differences, interbreed in the wild where they meet, etc.) In between these extremes, it's an arbitrary decision as to whether two populations are two species, two subspecies, two varieties, etc. There's no precise line 'out there': it's a continuum.
- There are two errors which can be made in 'heap paradox' situations. The first is to insist that something either is an 'X' or it isn't, so there must be a firm dividing line. The second is to say that because there isn't a firm dividing line, then the concept of an 'X' doesn't make sense. Both are errors.
- Now species are different from heaps in this way. Because we need to label organisms in order to study them, we sometimes have to decide whether or not a population is a distinct species; we can't just evade the question as we can with a pile of sand. So I would say that while the concept of distinct species is fine, we have to accept that in some real cases the dividing line is arbitrary, while in others it clearly is not.
- What sometimes happens is that evidence comes along which clarifies the decision. The Common Pipistrelle in Europe is a good example. It used to be thought to be one species; then machines capable of discriminating ultrasound became available and it was discovered that there were actually two. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)]
- Your point about the heap paradox is particularly relevant. While writing the edit summary we have been discussing, I noticed I was thinking like a mathematician, and I was questioning in my mind whether or not that style of thinking would be appropriate for an article about biology. A mathematician has no problem calling even one single grain of sand a "heap." In fact, it's even worse than that. A mathematician would say that NO grains of sand is a heap, "the empty heap."
- It is an odd fact that mathematicians tend to think of their totally made-up, absolutely unreal structures as somehow existing, if not "out in the world," at least outside of themselves. That is a kind of convention of thought, one which seems to make mathematical work easier to face. In fact, it seems that some of the very best mathematicians, those with the most powerful minds, are the ones most likely to say that numbers exist just as much as solid objects do.
- Yes, I find it interesting too. I've argued with mathematicians about this. Number theorists certainly seem to think this way: prime numbers, for example, are seen as 'out there' to be discovered. As for heaps, it depends on your field. There are non-Aristotelian logics which handle not(heap(X)) & not(not(heap(X)) being true... Fuzzy logic is not only for biologists! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
You're invited to the Philadelphia Wiknic!
This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area this Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 5 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together in the Azalea Garden, just behind the Philadelphia Museum of Art 39°58′05″N 75°10′59″W / 39.96801°N 75.183156°W
Take along your friends (
If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.
Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!
Smallbones (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Inverses are unique
Re: your edit to Function composition. I first edited Inverse function to reflect what I inferred from your edit (that inverses are not always unique), and then realised that we were probably wrong and the definition that has stood for the last 5 years(!) at Inverse function is probably correct. That says that inverses, when they exist, are always unique. In view of that (claimed) fact, there is no problem (and certainly no definedness problem) with applying an inverse function first, and an invertible function always commutes with its inverse. It's possible that you may be using the word "inverse" to mean what other people use the word "quasi-inverse" to mean. It's also possible that when I first learned this material in school twenty years ago, the word "inverse" was used in this not-necessarily-unique sense (my memory is not clear on this point).--greenrd (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your point and for your message. My objection to the original text was only that it seemed to imply that every function has an inverse.That is very far from true. For example, the function f(x) = x^2 does not have an inverse function, because for every "output" value, say 9, there could be two possible "input" values, either 3 or - 3. Perhaps my edit was hasty and insufficiently explained.Dratman (talk) 09:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Speed of sound, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Differentiation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Dead end
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the
Please comment on Template talk:Cleanup
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the
Please comment on Template talk:Citation/core
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the
Please comment on Template talk:Non-administrator observation
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Bot requests
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the
Please comment on Template talk:American cuisine
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the
Disambiguation link notification for September 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Minkowski addition, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vertex (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Inertial confinement fusion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High-Z (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 22:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 22:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spelling in Gwoyeu Romatzyh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rime (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
April 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to John Dalton may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- problems and questions on various subjects to [[The Ladies' Diary]] and the [[Gentleman's Diary]]) and in 1787 he began to keep a [[meteorology|meteorological]] [[diary]] in which, during the
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow
Disambiguation link notification for November 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carbon group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orbital. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Your user page
looks like a sandbox. Any plans to finish it?--Kopiersperre (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
June 2015
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- I see you have continued the edit warring despite warnings and have violated WP:AGF as well. Would you please consider self-reverting as an alternative to this being taken to the appropriate noticeboard? VQuakr (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)]
Can you monitor the news in your area (world news if so inclined) to see if there are any additional/new or continued stories that don't repeat what was already reported on this event (in the case of tie backs). Heyyouoverthere (talk) 05:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Disambiguation link notification for March 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Permutation notation
Hi, I just saw that five years ago you started a discussion about the ambiguity of permutation notation. I will probably have to bring that topic up again, because I fear that the current state of the article contains contradictions. But could you be so kind to throw a glance at User:Watchduck/sandbox first? Feel free to answer there and treat it like a talk page. Maybe I just have a knot in my head, and the article is perfect. :) Greetings, Watchduck (quack) 13:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
I wrote v:Permutation notation, which in detail compares left and right multiplication of permutations. Feel free to take a look at it, and to tell me if there is still ambiguity that I did not catch. Watchduck (quack) 23:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Dratman. Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Dratman. Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spectral rendering, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rendering. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Dratman. Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
References
Your submission at Articles for creation: Garry Owen (actor) (April 7)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Garry Owen (actor) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello, Dratman!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! EROS message 10:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
|
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Dratman. Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Dratman. Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Garry Owen (actor)
Hello, Dratman. It has been over six months since you last edited the
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
{{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
Important Notice
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in
For additional information, please see the
Doug Weller talk 18:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Reply to your message on my talk page
You're wrong. You edited Vaccine hesitancy which clearly says it's part of a series on Alternative and pseudo‑medicine, and Talk:Vaccine hesitancy says that the article is covered by the sanctions above, which apply to all anti-vax articles. As it says, it's a routine alert. Removing it has no affect on the fact that you've been alerted. Doug Weller talk 08:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Joan Chamorro
Hello, Dratman. It has been over six months since you last edited the
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
{{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Your draft article, User:Dratman/Anchorage-dependent
Hello, Dratman. It has been over six months since you last edited the
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
{{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia!
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Confusing sentence
The following sentence confuses me:
Among those who are referred to specialty clinics, other conditions like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) are more likely than in the broader population of persons with Tourette's.
I might perform a small edit to clarify what that means, but I'm not sure what I should do.
Would any editor care to help me understand what this sentence is trying to tell me about ADHD or OCD?
Thanks. Dratman (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
Disambiguation link notification for July 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)