User talk:Rolf h nelson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Existential risks[edit]

Your writing, about a month ago:

Wolfdog, should the article on human extinction be renamed to "existential risk"? I would argue no, because "human extinction" is less jargon-y. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you here, but I wonder why "existential risk" doesn't at least redirect to "human extinction." Instead, why does it redirect to the article Risks to civilization, humans, and planet Earth which also uses the bolded phrase "existential risk" in the lead? I assume the answer is because no one can agree on what exactly an existential risk is, or whose "existence" is the one at risk (civilization's, all of humanity's, all of the planet's??); therefore, an existential risk might be broader (or narrower) than just human extinction. Wolfdog (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Existential risk is definitely more narrow than "risks to civilization". Bostrom defines it as a little bit broader than human extinction, but it practice all the literature and press coverage seems to focus on human extinction. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Would you say that Bostrom is basically our main source here and, if so, should we start seriously considering "Global catastrophic risks," which we can then define largely in his terms? Wolfdog (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Probably. Everything's relative, I can't judge whether Bostrom et al's Global Catastrophic Risks carries more or less WP:WEIGHT than another source unless you give me a specific source to compare it to. I can only say that *of the sources I'm aware of*, Bostrom et al seems to carry the most WP:WEIGHT in the extremely niche academic field of "categorizing enormous risks", and so I'm proposing using that same *terminology* for the title of the article. Definition is trickier than choosing terminology, but while we are unfortunately limited to one title, we can happily present any number of definitions in the article. Bostrom et al begins:

"The term ‘global catastrophic risk’ lacks a sharp definition. We use it to refer, loosely, to a risk that might have the potential to inflict serious damage to human well-being on a global scale. On this definition, an immensely diverse collection of events could constitute global catastrophes: potential candidates range from volcanic eruptions to pandemic infections, nuclear accidents to worldwide tyrannies, out-of-control scientific experiments to climatic changes, and cosmic hazards to economic collapse."

If other sources are obviously talking about the same rough concept (for example, "risks to civilization"), but use different definitions, that should be noted in the article. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

With regard to the "Risks to civilization..." page, it appears that the mandatory time frame has ended for the move survey, so that we are now permitted to follow through with "closing" the move request; however Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions says that people participating in the move survey can't close requested moves. That seems like a bit of a catch-22. Wolfdog (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG Sorry you are feeling frustrated with the Ghouta article. Contentious subjects are always difficult; your time is of course yours but the correct path forward is to call out tendentious edits as such, and escalate if the author of those edits is consistently pushing POV. Not an unstressful path, unfortunately. Whether or not you decide to continue editing the article, best of luck in your endeavors! VQuakr (talk) 01:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Rolf h nelson. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Non-free content review.
Message added 20:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Feel free to join the discussion; it looks like USChick failed to notify you that they nominated this file for deletion. VQuakr (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Kluge (book) was accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Kluge (book), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Gigs (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Your Revert on cold fusion[edit]

FYI: Talk:Cold_fusion#Biased_language --Bernd.Brincken (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Improvement to article on mulivitamins[edit]

Thank you for your improvement to my recent edit of the article on Multivitamins. I am happier with your wording than mine. As you had noted, I cited this National Health Service source for advice on taking vitamin supplements during pregnancy. I think you agreed that it was an adequate source for a warning against supplementing vitamin A intake during pregnancy. But I think you did not see it as advice against the general multivitamin supplements that are the topic of the article. On the contrary, i felt that it did also warn against general multivitamin supplements. It is my understanding that multivitamins usually (perhaps almost always) contain vitamin A (though probably in limited doses). The NHS article included this sentence:

Do not take vitamin A supplements, or any supplements containing vitamin A (retinol), as too much could harm your baby.

This is a clear warning against any supplement containing vitamin A. I thought that would include most formulations of a general multivitamin. If that last sentence is generally correct, then the NHS article does warn against the general multivitamin. I am not an expert and defer this to your judgement. I am aware that Wikipedia's intellectual aim is only to report the content of reliable sources, but there could be a moral or ethical obligation here too, if a general multivitamin is dangerous to a pregnant woman and her baby. I am not in a position to evaluate that. Thanks again from ChrisJBenson (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC).

Talk page stalker here. Just as an FYI, per WP:Medical disclaimer the WMF makes very clear that any medical information on this site is provided without warranty. We obviously want our information to be thorough and accurate, but ultimately this site will never be a replacement for professional medical advice. VQuakr (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Followup here: Talk:Multivitamin#Prenatal_vitamin_recommendations Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Your Revert on Cryonics[edit]

Hello. Could you explain why you (and previous user Bgwhite) have reversed my edits to the Cryonics entry? I've never edited a wikipedia entry so may not fully understand etiquette/rules. But I am trying to ensure that the important role played by Lawrence Jensen in the early formulation and publicity of cryonics is included in its history (as Alcor does in its own accounting).132.198.112.180 (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Your edit [1] mangled the Whetstine Guardian reference by replacing a large chunk of valid text inside the reference with "AKDHASHDKGAKDKAKD". Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit guidelines[edit]

Hey hello, I was reading this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fleischmann-Pons_experiment

You've accused me of ignoring consensus. I assure you I have not. The thing is, consensus doesn't overrule the edit guidelines. We have notability guidelines and we have a manual of style that describes how and when to make article spin outs. I have followed these guidelines to the letter. Consensus doesn't come into it, either a topic is notable or it isn't.

Hope this helps, good luck editing. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

[2] is a clear and valid consensus for no split. As there is no rule mandating a split in this situation, and as the arguments not to split were valid, I would classify this as you ignoring consensus and being disruptive. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Rolf h nelson. You have new messages at Jab843's talk page.
Message added 14:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jab843 (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Are you the sci fi author Rolf Nelson? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope, no relation. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 08:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Multiverse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Green (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) 09:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Multiverse[edit]

Hi I wanted to thank you for all your help at Multiverse and clarify that I don't mean to imply you were trying to "censor" anyone... I just think the best argument should always be put forward and in this case, the conclusion really is necessary to "bring it home" for the lay reader (and me). Also, the puns (like the "What is going on here?" line) help show how playfully both "sides" tend to approach the controversy.—Machine Elf 1735 15:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The IP editor is a troll who has switched sides when it suited it. It is best not to feed it. I resolved the address to a university town in Texas, not sure how you got NJ; and anyway PW is in NY. Bhny (talk) 15:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

My bad, I agree there's no evidence the IP is woit. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

DRN[edit]

I replied to your message at the WP:DRN talk page. Cheers!-- KeithbobTalk 20:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cryonics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic (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) 09:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Distance measure[edit]

Hi, I just noticed that you wanted a citation for the "3 km northeast of the police academy" statement i included on the Syria chemical weapons program page. I don't have any RS saying that, but it can easily be measured here: (http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.158684&lon=37.015257&z=15&m=b&gz=0;370110511;361546995;0;0;285386;134086&show=/19456848/Khan-al-Asal-district). The impact point (https://www.google.com/maps/preview?ll=36.167222,37.039167&q=loc:36.167222,37.039167&hl=en&t=h&z=13) is marked in the final UN report (Figure 3.2, page 29). Regards. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

My first thought then is that if other sources don't bother ascribing any relevence to how far away it was from a given landmark, we shouldn't either per WP:UNDUE. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe or maybe they just didn't know at the time the article was written. FYI, the location of the liberated police academy can be verified from this video. Warning: Disturbing images. Cheers, Erlbaeko (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Kind of WP:ORish, and it seems a bit excessive level of detail for this page. But, I don't object strongly anymore; if you re-add it with a comment explaining how you calculated the number we'll see if the other editors let it stay in. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree that it may be too detailed for the page. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Typical convention for RfC[edit]

I checked WP:RFC. I see nothing of what you talk about. Sure a common way is to have a survey section and a discussion section, and in that case you vote in he survey section, but... when there are no such sections...--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC) ...oh, and sorry for removing the added "vote" that you put in on your own comment. That was an accidental oversight. As it was your comment, I should not have removed that ...just like how you had no right to add the "votes" to the comments of others.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

That's true, there's no rule, it's just the convention I've always seen is to format the RfC comments in a way that makes it easier to determine who the participants are and what their initial argument is. It seemed to me logical that in the absence of distinct and marked sections, it's more helpful to have it serve as both a survey and a discussion section. I'm fine with you changing it back; I didn't conceive at the time that anyone would object to the reformatting, but clearly I was wrong. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 09:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gout[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gout. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leonard Susskind, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Relativity (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) 09:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Cosmic Inflation[edit]

I am quoting from the textbook of Barbara Ryden "Introduction To Cosmology", page 206:

"Not only is inflation very effective at driving down the number density of magnetic monopoles, it is also effective at driving down the number density of every other type of particle, including photons."

According to the textbook, at the end of inflation, photon number density becomes negligible. It is only after reheating, the photon number density grows backup. Do you have any source for your counter remark that photon aren't negligible at the end of inflation? Thanks for your information.--老陳 (talk) 06:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:UK Independence Party[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:UK Independence Party. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cem Özdemir[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cem Özdemir. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Friendly artificial intelligence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Yorker. 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) 08:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Singularitarianism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Horgan. 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) 09:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pascal's mugging, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quadrillion. 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) 09:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Resources[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Resources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)