User talk:Nick81

Hi there! I wanted to just welcome you to Wikipedia. I saw you have been editing a number of essays on the history and philosophy of science, a subject quite dear to my heart. Are you a student? In any event, welcome! If you have any questions, I'd be happy to help out, if I can. --Fastfission 02:37, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I'm a grad student just trying to get on record some of these things I know a bit about. I hope you approve of HPS article. It started as a list of academic departments but I'm hoping to turn it into a survey of the field. I just have to try to draw the line with Sc Studies.

Haha, well, one does their best. At one point I had started to write a more comprehensive history of HST but I got sidetracked and never came back to it. You can take a look at what I started at User:Fastfission/HST. If you're interested in working on it I can send you the Dennis article -- it's the best article on the field itself (in the USA, anyways) that I've seen, and I have a scanned copy of it. Let me know. --Fastfission 05:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (character of Rome) Merger

Why do you want to merge a fictional character with the real thing? - SGCommand

Moyes

I agree - it was written as a puff piece. I've given the article a reworking in an attempt to make it more neutral. Any thoughts? Rebecca 03:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolay - Nicholas

I would like to know where you research the "Nicholas" variations. Why the Nicolay variation is not in the list? Best regards. AN

Spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia

It isn't a public office, sure, but it's a reasonably high-profile position. It gives a good description of their role (as opposed to the more formal role of say, the First Lady of the US), and gives a useful list of who they've all been.

I would really disagree that they're not prominent in their own right, too - everyone since Pattie Menzies in 1949 (with the exception of Bettina Gorton) has been really quite well-known both during and after their husbands' time as Prime Minister. The lack of articles for Sonia McMahon and Tamie Fraser is more that they've been overlooked than any reflection on their notability. I - and I dare say numerous others - would also find it quite interesting to have articles about some of the earlier ones, although they might not have had quite the profile of the later ones. Rebecca (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bienvenue chez les Ch'tis

Thanks for reverting Bienvenue chez les Ch'tis to the original version. However you wrote ch'tis as sh'tis in the English translations. I don't understand. The pronunciation is like the ch in English and there are far more English results for ch'tis (320 000) than sh'tis (665) - most of which aren't even about the film. Could you please explain? Chris DHDR 12:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Spencer's parents

Hi there,

I've recently started a discussion to attempt to reach a consensus on Jesse Spencer's parents and how they should, or should not, be included in his article. As a recent contributor to the article on this issue, I'd welcome your opinion. Feel free to add it at Talk:Jesse Spencer#Parents. Thanks! --Ged UK (talk) 09:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cuvier and Catastrophism

Hi there,

I'd like to try to come to terms with you about your recent replacement of my deletion of reference to Cuvier as "the most influential proponent of catastrophism in geology in the early 19th century." While I realize that he did assert that catastrophes had occurred in the geological past, I would say that "the most influential proponent of catastrophism in geology in the early 19th century" was the English bible-thumper William Buckland. As the Wikipedia page on catastrophism points out, Buckland "frequently cited Cuvier's work even though Cuvier had proposed an inundation of limited geographic extent and extended duration, and Buckland, to be consistent with the biblical account, was advocating a universal flood of short duration." Cuvier scrupulously limited himself to discussion of natural phenomena. So I think it would be unfair to lump him intellectually with the likes of Buckland. Many historians would say that Cuvier was the greatest naturalist of his era. So perhaps you would find it satisfactory if I wrote up a paragraph explaining the above and then removed the comment in the introductory paragraph about his being the most influential proponent of catastrophism? I'll check back here on your page to see how you respond. Thanks. Koolokamba (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An explanation of that sort would be perfect. As an intellectual historian I was a little worried that you didn't want him lumped with modern pseudo-scientists just because he was a good scientist himself. We shouldn't assume that there has never been a reasonable form of catastrophism. But you seem to understand Cuvier's position so I'm sure it won't be hard for you to explain how his ideas were distorted by the English Bible-thumpers. Nick (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks. I'll take care of it as soon as I get a chance -- sometime in the next couple of days. 65.81.6.58 (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

19th century etiquette refernces

Dear Sir, Please be reasonable. If you are not able to find a reference from at least the latter half of the 20th century, you can't claim that the "American" style is bad manners in an etiquette article. Etiquette from the 1800s may still be in effect, but you need to find a reference that confirms that it is still considered valid today. Njsustain (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was just the first thing I could find; Google books is not very helpful. That was my attempt to be reasonable and not resort to Original Research, which is very hard because outside North America, everyone knows that it's unacceptable to put down your knife and use your fork in your right hand. I'm currently looking for something newer but just as explicit; I'll let you know as soon as I find something recent enough to make you happy. You must understand, it's had to find up-to-date sources for what's common knowledge. Nick (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That last sentence is a cop out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.136.155 (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Micmacs à tire-larigot

I wanted to discuss the move: I couldn't locate the policy on this, but this is the English Wikipedia, so I thought it was best to use the Anglo name in the article title, unless the film was never released into English-speaking markets... Thoughts? --Lexein (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we were talking about an English translation of the title, I might agree with you. (Even then it's better not to, e.g. Bienvenue chez les Ch'tis was released under different names but is sensibly listed under the original.)

But what we're actually talking about is a truncated name that the American distributor preferred. Maybe it is better for commercial purposes but it's less encyclopaedic. If we use just "Micmacs", we have to add "(film)" because Micmacs are a native Canadian nation. Surely you agree that adding the rest of the real title is more elegant than parenthetical words? Nick (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, about elegance, both titles have to be mentioned in the film article lead paragraph, and a disambiguation tag belongs in both the film and nation articles anyways. I merely thought EN WP policy/convention should be considered. Similar example: Besson's film Nikita was renamed "La femme Nikita" in very few markets, but that was the article's name for the longest time, and was so entrenched in U.S. review sources that it took way too long to resolve the article's name sensibly. Conversely if "Micmacs" was so-named in most English-speaking markets, then the article should be named "Micmacs (film)", since that's how reviewers will have documented it. WP:TRUTH. Let it sit for a bit. --Lexein (talk) 01:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NCF#Foreign-language_films answers the question, so user Kollision has moved it back. --Lexein (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yahya ibn Adi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Topics (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) 20:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edme Mentelle, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages French and Dauphin (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) 11:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Geneviève Thiroux d'Arconville, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Littleton (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) 11:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Dear Nick81, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially your recent creation of Guillaume Kornmann. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Nick81. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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)[reply]

Fair Use in Australia discussion

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Nick81. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Guillaume Kornmann for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Guillaume Kornmann is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guillaume Kornmann until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Rathfelder (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]