- 1 Barnstar!
- 2 Good job
- 3 December 2008 newsletter for Saskatchewan
- 4 Harris, Saskatchewan
- 5 Bumble Bee
- 6 Reisman
- 7 Notification of WP:AN/EW report
- 8 Dr Reisman
- 9 Thanks...
- 10 The article Know thyself
- 11 DYK for Expedition to Lapland
- 12 Eulipotyphla
- 13 Depleted Uranium
- 14 Pardon me, sir. May I ask you a question?
- 15 Disambiguation link notification
- 16 Tritium
- 17 RELAP5-3D
- 18 Talkback
- 19 Grossman
- 20 Disambiguation link notification for September 24
- 21 Orphaned non-free media (File:All-Atomic Comics 05-crop.jpg)
- 22 A barnstar for you!
- 23 Template:Actinides vs fission products
- 24 Thanks
- 25 Pandora's Promise
|The Original Barnstar|
|I award Limulus a barnstar for maintaining an NPOV policy, being open-minded and helpful, and working tirelessly to be an extraordinary contributor to Wikipedia. --Ubiq 04:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)|
For you to put wherever you want, if you want it. Thanks for going the extra mile to improve the Anderson Cooper article (and other articles) as much as you have. Best. --Ubiq 04:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Why thank you! :-) -- Limulus 06:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
An image which you have recently uploaded into wikimedia commons has been chosen for the December 2008 newsletter for Saskatchewan. Thank you for your contributions to wikipedia and wikimedia. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 21:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I popped into wikimedia commons, and re-categorised the images you have uploaded. You took some awesome pictures. I started a new category for the Harris pictures named Harris Saskatchewan so all the photos of the placename could be together. Also, in this way the commons category can be added to the wikipedia article as well. Then I added the subject categories ie museum, grain elevator, train, water tower, etc, etc to the individual photos as well, so they could be easy to find by place or subject. This is a nice big category to help find subjects for your photos in wikimedia commons Category:Buildings in Canada Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 21:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent edit on the Bumble bee, but especially on the info I put into the Etymology section - makes much better reading now you've jigged it around a bit.--hydeblake (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- Fixing the article (e.g. putting refs where they should actually go) is not edit warring; I see for example that you removed part of "Images of children, crime and violence" asking "what do Reagan & Regnery have to do with this?" It has to do with the "social conservatives" part that's mentioned and Regnery is mentioned further in also: "Initially, Reisman was targeted by some as a proxy to attack Regnery." Regarding your edits, other than shuffling sections around, did you have a specific concern? -- Limulus (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Also, by my count, I don't think I'm more than two for today. Not that I want to get to three; let's work together please. If you have more than a few questions about how the article is written, please add them to the talk page for the article. -- Limulus (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Adding Reagan is SYNTHY. Lionel (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 03:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)
...for your contribution to the article Carl Linnaeus! Chrisrus (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC) Especially recently when you helped me! I hope you will choose to help with the Monstroso stuff as well. Chrisrus (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome :) I will try to make a point to look at that soon. -- Limulus (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
The article Know thyself
Looking at pictures of pages by Linnaeus, I noticed that he used the term "nosce te ipsum" to define the taxon "Homo," so I searched the phrase on Wikipedia, which as you can see if you click here: nosce te ipsum, links to the article know thyself, although the article itself could be more helpful in explaining what he meant when he said it there in that particular text. He seems to me to have been using it differently than elsewhere, maybe inviting the reader to look away from the paper and instead to look to him/herself to define the term.
- From what I understand, anyone who studied Latin (as Linnaeus had) would recognize that as a famous quote. We do link it in the Linnaeus article BTW, from the letter to Gmelin. ("It does not please [you] that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha, perhaps because of the term 'with human form', but man learns to know himself.") -- Limulus (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but one could employ the phrase for various purposes, according to the article. Don't you think that the term is used differently in the two cases you mention? I mean, when he placed it in the box as opposed to when he used it in the letter. In the letter, it does seem to mean something like "but man learns to know himself", but in the box it seems more like "you the reader may simply know yourself". To your knowledge, how have experts translated that taxobox? Chrisrus (talk) 03:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding "sed homo noscit se ipsum" from the letter, you should see the talk.origins ref; to quote the discussion from 2005:
The thing is, there's a very familiar phrase "homo nosce te ipsum", traditionally rendered "Man, know thyself", said to be the words written over the entrance to the Delphic Oracle (alternatively the Pythian Oracle, or sometimes attributed to Socrates. The Greek is "gnothi seauton". Sort of the Greek/Roman equivalent of one of those sayings we all know that might have been said by Mark Twain or Groucho Marx or possibly George Bernard Shaw). I think "homo noscit se ipsum" would have been instantly recognized as a clever verbal echo of "homo nosce te ipsum" to Linnaeus' correspondent. Take a look at footnote seven to the letter's text at  for evidence that the letter's editors also see an echo of "nosce te ipsum" here, and for a reference, unfortunately in Swedish, to a discussion of "know thyself" as a criterion for separating genera.
In either case, as the question "What does it mean to be human?" is one of the most important as can be imagined, I think that it's a glaring omission that Linnaeus as notable user of "nosce te ipsum" when he define Homo not only does not have a subsection there, but is not even included in the notable other users section. I would like to remedy the situation but first I thought of you and wondered if you might not be the ideal person to do so. So here I am writing this now in the hopes of interesting you into adding Linneaus's "Homo nosce te ipsum" to the list there of the most important usages of this term.
- Totally agree that it should be mentioned in that article, in the "Later usage" section. I will add it right now. -- Limulus (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, didn't he once say "I am Homo sapiens"?
- I thought I'd seen it on Wikipedia somewhere, maybe when we were doing the invalid taxa and you had listed several references for me to look at. Either that or I was searching Google Scholar and it wasn't Wikipedia. It was like "Homo sapiens ego sum." But actually, if you haven't seen it that makes me think I must have dreamed it or something, because you seem very familiar with this stuff. Also I tried Googling it and gave up quickly when I didn't find it.
And that because of this, when the rule was made that each taxon have an existant Holotype, someone said that it would be the body of Linnaeus, because the location of his body is known and would theoretically be available for study (not that this will ever happen, but they wanted to be consistant with the rule).
- From the lede: "In 1959, Carl Linnaeus was designated as the lectotype for Homo sapiens, which means that following the nomenclatural rules, Homo sapiens was validly defined as the animal species to which Linnaeus belonged."
- I don't know that that's the most appropriate article to include it in (please note Wikipedia:Main article fixation which specifically mentions the Human article as one that gets too much stuff put into it that should actually go into sub-articles). The Homo article might be a better place for it if you want to put a mention of it somewhere. In fact, I will add it as a footnote where the article mentions him. -- Limulus (talk) 07:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
If so, to my mind at least, this fact is among the many important facts about not only Linnaeus but about the species Homo sapiens. If you agree, and if we can cite it properly, would you be interested in finding the proper place(s) for this information on Wikipedia? I was thinking the article about him, that about the species, and/or maybe the article Holotype.
DYK for Expedition to Lapland
|On 27 July 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Expedition to Lapland, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in his expedition to Lapland, Sweden, Carl Linnaeus (pictured) found at least 100 previously unidentified plants? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.|
Hi, I had to revert your changes to Insectivora and Eulipotyphla, since cut-and-paste moves like the one you did are not okay because they violate Wikipedia's license. Instead, use the "move" button or open a requested move.
However, I think it'd be better to have separate articles on Eulipotyphla and Insectivora. We don't need articles on every name, but Insectivora is a concept that is so historically significant as well as distinct from the current clade Eulipotyphla that it's probably useful to cover them separately. On a related note, Wikipedia should really stop using MSW 3's orders Erinaceomorpha and Soricomorpha, since no one really uses them and it's clear that Soricomorpha is paraphyletic. I haven't gotten around to doing that, and it probably requires some discussion at WT:MAMMAL.
Pardon me, sir. May I ask you a question?
- Hi again! ^_^ One has to be careful here, as we are not latin/greek experts, and try to find a reference; see wikt:pardos, wikt:pardo & wikt:pardus. It can mean "brown" or "greyish-brown" as in Pardo, BUT it would seem more likely in the case of felines that it derives from panther, e.g. note 'leopard' is a compund word: Felis_pardus#Etymology "In antiquity, a leopard was believed to be a hybrid of a lion and a panther, as is reflected in its name, which is a Greek compound of λέων leōn (lion) and πάρδος pardos (male panther)." Hope that helps! -- Limulus (talk) 09:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited The Pest (1917 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aka (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.
Thanks for looking at the tritium article. I appreciate your concern about old research, but old research does not necessarily go out of date just because it is old. The biological half-life of radioactive elements seems likely to remain fairly constant for long spans of time. You are welcome to locate and cite more recent studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpritikin (talk • contribs) 08:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- Your edit also changed the text to say "The NRC claims that [HTO has short bio. half life] Actual studies have found..." Implying that NRC is lying or has never seen this research in the 40 yrs since it was done. As such, it's POV. -- Limulus (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Limulus, I appreciate the attention to accuracy, but RELAP5-3D has been used to develop and model nearly every modern reactor.
- How can that be? Its article (which you started less than a week ago!) says that "Initial release July 6, 1997"; "nearly every modern reactor" was developed before that!
- Consider Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (1965-9) which certainly did not use this software in its development, but had a RELAP5-3D link added anyway. Additionally, even if that were true, while the software is notable enough for its own article, adding it indiscriminately would be like adding links to Vulcanization or Octane to the See also of every model of car article. -- Limulus (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- When the code was split, it was renamed "RELAP5-3D." But the history of the code goes much further back, and this is briefly explained in the history section of the article. By the early 80s, it was at version 5, and before that, it didn't even run on PCs. The molten-salt reactor was actually a joint-effort across the Department of Energy complex. It's a helpful link, in my opinion. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- For example, here is a paper from 1968: "RELAP 2- A digital program for reactor blowdown and power excursion analysis (Digital program for reactor blowdown and power excursion analysis). KV MOORE, WH RETTIG 1968. 22 Nuclear Engineering(AH). 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
- Are you confusing the [attribution needed] tag with the  tag? Just a question, seeing your edits at Pokhran-II. Regards, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 23:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks for fixing that! I also learned something new :) -- Limulus (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thorium-based nuclear power, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fallback (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.
Orphaned non-free media (File:All-Atomic Comics 05-crop.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:All-Atomic Comics 05-crop.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for uploading the image and arguing for its inclusion. It adds important historical perspective to the article on peak uranium. Plazak (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Original Barnstar|
|For your recent artistic articles, particularly Center for Maine Contemporary Art, I award you this barnstar :). I have also given you the 'autopatrolled' user right to signify the excellence of your writing. Keep up the good work! Ironholds (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)|
Template:Actinides vs fission products
Thanks, Limulus, for your recent topical articles on nuclear issues. I've been trying to help where I can, but am generally happy to defer to your judgement on formatting etc. Remove the lone EL, if you like, until we can find a better position for that material. regards, Johnfos (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the references again and left the reasons at both my talk page and the article page. I have copied our conversation from my talk page to the article page as well and I suggest we make take any further discussion about this topic there. Thanks. --Daffydavid (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)