User talk:WolfmanSF

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

Leave a new message

Hi, can you make a comment about my new project Encyclopine.org[edit]

hi, Hi, can you make a comment about my new project Encyclopine.org?

Updated[edit]

Have updated with higher quality secondary sources the vitamin C and cataract bit. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doc James, I like your references and contribution, but do not agree with the deletion of the primary sources or removal of the heading, and will adjust accordingly. P.S. I'm pretty sure I heard you talk a few years ago when you visited UCSF. Regards, WolfmanSF (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
With respect to primary sources, we tend not to include them per WP:MEDRS. Inadequate vitamin C is an association with fairly decent evidence from the Cochrane review that it is not a direct cause (or at least replacement does not make a difference). Thus the more neutral vitamin C is the prefered heading IMO. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Please go to the cataract talk page. You're now flirting with edit warring with your reverts of these grammar errors and this should be discussed on the talk page if you're going to be insistent. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Vaquita[edit]

Gnome globe current event.svg On 6 February 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Vaquita, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Yogwi21 (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

TRAPPIST-1 habitable zone[edit]

Hi WolfmanSF, I added "clearly" because of this cited ref, which states: "Three of these planets are firmly located in the habitable zone, the area around the parent star where a rocky planet is most likely to have liquid water." Another article seems to imply that all seven planets could be within the habitable zone. Obviously the exact zone is debatable. Gillon et 2017 paper itself does not explicitly address what could be considered "habitable". Best, --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Robert, it would be most logical if there was a one-to-one correspondence between the possibility of surface liquid water and being situated within the habitable zone, but it isn't that simple, as the following quote from your second source indicates: "Any of the TRAPPIST-1 planets could have water on them, though the three in the habitable zone are more likely to have liquid water." For example, planets with very reflective atmospheres closer in than the habitable zone, or planets with very strong greenhouse effects outside the habitable zone, could still have liquid water. It's quite difficult to figure out if liquid water might actually be present, but pretty straightforward to figure out if a planet is in the currently defined habitable zone. I interpret the "firmly" remark from the first source as meaning that the planets aren't at the border of the zone, rather than implying that the zone's extent is uncertain. So, I think it best to remove "clearly" from the sentence because it could be misinterpreted. Regards, WolfmanSF (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for the explanation, and I think your point is well taken. I don't really have any serious problem with your edit. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Gillon et al 2017 also mention tidal heating for the planets outside the zone. Perhaps this is something that could be added to our article, since the Nature reviewers allowed them to include it in the paper. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Tidal heating (suggested as being possibly operative on h) is speculative at this point because we don't know its very well orbit yet. They also mention the possibility of a thick heat-retaining hydrogen atmosphere, which is also speculative. From my perspective, this could be mentioned in the article for h, but doesn't really need to be mentioned in the article on the TRAPPIST-1 system. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Verreaux's eagle[edit]

Hmm... I can only assume I somehow updated an older version of the article. (Sometimes, when trying to figure out what reference is missing, I look through old versions to see what's changed and when people request references — i.e. has the question been answered and the "needs reference" not removed.) Thanks for assuming good faith though! ;) MeegsC (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that solves that mystery, i guess. WolfmanSF (talk)

Operation Anthropoid[edit]

Thanks for your correction of my edit at Operation Anthropoid. I did not realize the person mentioned in the following sentence provided the information about Hitler suggesting to Himmler, which makes the active "send" more appropriate.68.40.122.133 (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Kepler-80[edit]

Hi Wolfman,

first off, thanks for your hard work on Wikipedia. I noticed you keep adding back resonances to the "orbital resonances article with absurdly large numbers. Could you please provide scientifically-sound references for these? In the referenced articles, I can't find the numbers 62:41, and my training as a scientist tells me those are doubtful. A true resonance usually is a ratio of small integers, and a large prime like 41 certainly looks weird in that light. I don't have the time to read the original papers right now, but this just doesn't look right (also see section on coincidences, in the very same article). So if you want these numbers in here, could you please link to a scientific article which explicitly reports them?

Marquenterre (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I have replied at Talk:Orbital resonance. The values do come from the MacDonald et al. (2016) paper, but a little simple algebra is needed to extract them. If this does not clarify things, we can discuss this further. By the way, "coincidences" are not true resonances, and at least in many cases are likely just due to random chance. Also, in reference to "absurdly large numbers", 121:118 mean motion resonances have been described for Saturn's moons Prometheus and Pandora. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

parthenogenesis and invasion[edit]

Dear WolfmanSF, I've just noted your changes in the article about parthenogenesis. It is very good you added this point: invasive asexual species are a major problem, and indeed it is sometimes only evident when introduced to a new area as parthenogenesis isn't always noted in the native range. I changed the article a bit, as several of the statements didn't quite fit with what was written in the cited papers or in the commonly accepted literature. For example, these introduced species do not switch to asexual reproduction when introduced; rather, their (partial) asexual reproduction allows them to invade a new area. Also in Nematus oligospilus the two-fold cost of sex wasn't shown; in fact, this has been shown in only very few species. I think the aphids are quite well known in this respect (many species are cyclical sexual/asexual in the native range and when introduced solely asexual, e.g. many species in Australia), so I added these. Do let me know if you would like me to explain things further. Best Pigmentkleur (talk) 10:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, your refinements to the paragraph have obscured the explanation for why parthenogenesis facilitates invasion. I think we should try to retain an explicit statement of the advantages, since they will not be obvious to all readers. Regards, WolfmanSF (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)