User talk:SebastianHelm

When you post a message here and you'd like me to reply on your talk page please let me know. I prefer to keep the thread together, rather than splitting it up, as some users do.

Conversely, if you came to reply to a message I posted on your talk page then I encourage you to reply there. (I keep your page on my watchlist for as long as I'm waiting for a reply.) If you want to make sure that I notice your reply, please click here and insert your signature or talk page name.

Old Talk

See /archive for talk before 2005.

Replies

Users who replied on their talk page to a question of mine.

Bouton/Seattle

Not sure whether the Bouton book should or should not be at Seattle, Washington: it is about playing for the one and only season of the Seattle Pilots pro baseball team... -- Jmabel | Talk 02:20, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. I deleted it for the following reasons: If it is placed in the general "further reading" section then I assume that many users, like me, would expect this to be either generally about Seattle or about a topic which isn't covered elsewhere in the article. This is misleading if the description of the book is correct which only mentions baseball. It is already mentioned in the sport section. Sebastian 08:39, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

Animals and Animalia

Hey Sebastian, thanks for your e-mail. I think I can understand that creationists could be offended at being categorized with other animals, though I strongly disagree with excluding humans from the animal category, of course. Having two separate articles is an interesting idea; although I would suggest "animal" and "animal (nonhuman)" or something. The biggest problem I see is what kind of information would go in the "animal (nonhuman)" article? What can be said about animals that does not apply to humans as well? In fact, how does one define animal so that humans are not included? Merriam-Webster's second definition ([1]) states "one of the lower animals as distinguished from human"; it is difficult for me to see how one could construct a definition of nonhuman animals without specifically directly or indirectly excluding humans ("all life-forms that move but cannot speak in words unless they are parrots"?). Having a separate section or article on nonhuman animals to appease the creationists might not be a bad idea—just that I can't imagine what someone would write in there, other than ("And at 6 a.m., God created the donkey, and at 6:05, the elephant, then at 6:08, the hippopatomus" and so on. (I don't mean to offend—I'm actually rather religious, but I don't feel the need to inflict my religious views on others or try to modify science). — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 08:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the word "animal" itself has been around long before biologists appropriated the word. People have used it to refer to their lifestock and other animals around them before biology even existed - and the term always excluded humans (as well as sponges).* Even though I like your definition, it doesn't have to be so complicated - "nonhuman animal" as you proposed, suffices. Paraphyletic groups, although discouraged, do not break biology!

There are certainly still uses for the traditional animal category. Ethics, law, art, communication, breeding and use as a food source are areas that fundamentally distinguish animals from humans, just to name a few.

As for the names for the articles, I see the following possible counterparts:

Footnote:
* Interestingly though, if people back then, who were in general more deeply religious, had been as offended as today then Linnaeus, who grew up in a clerical family, would probably have named the kingdom differently. Could it be that Christians were more humble back then? Linnaeus even classified Chimpanzees under the genus Homo. Just imagine what hatred he would earn from the advocates of self-importance of our time!

Sebastian 10:10, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

Apologies for my late reply (I normally watch talk pages I've edited, but must have missed yours—it's on my watchlist now though). Thanks for the comment; you brought up a number of good points I hadn't considered. You're right of course that animal didn't always have a biological definition. However, since defining animal in this original (?) sense seems to me to involve defining animals as a whole and then excluding humans, I would still feel that Animal should refer to the biological concept—especially since I feel that's what people would expect. Of course, I also have a bias towards science as I've mentioned earlier, but I hope that's not clouding my judgment. I think you've convinced me that a good article could be written on nonhuman animals, and how humans relate with them. Domestication of horses was integral in early human history, and that of wolves/dogs has been a very important part of human society. Also, as you mention, food sources, animal testing, preservation, and so on could make for a very interesting article, and none of these seem to be addressed in the current article. I personally lean towards Animal and Animal (nonhuman) , as that seems to reflect their definitions best. I would expect to see the scientific content at Animal, and Animal (nonhuman) would clearly be about nonhuman animals. I'm not too crazy about Animal (unscientific) as it could be interpreted as a slight towards that definition. Also, I do not think it would be clear that Animal (non-biological) or Animal (unscientific) would be about nonhuman animals just from their titles (although that is not the sole factor). Anyway, the big problem is that while I think this is a good idea, I am not sure how much I would be able to contribute to the actual article, since it is somewhat out of my field of knowledge. But I would love to help work on it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course, as you pointed out, the articles seemed to have been merged in the past, so we'd want to discuss this at Talk:Animal before proceeding. Or perhaps even starting a new section (Nonhuman animals) within the Animal article, then splitting it off when it becomes well-developed enough. Regarding your footnote, I am not sure what to make of that. Certainly, I sometimes have trouble understanding the nature of the offense—I suppose one has to think he is quite superior to something else to take offense at being included in the same group. I do think people were more humble then, but self-importance has been taking off lately. It may not solely religious, although that is probably a big part of it. In general I think humans (whether or not they believe in evolution) tend to see themselves as the "best" species on the planet, as the end-product of evolution, the state it's been trying to reach for the past 4 billion years. But as you point out, I am not sure why this would be stronger now. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! No need to apologize. This isn't urgent; we all do this as a hobby. I'm glad we agree with both word pairs. I don't like the other two either, on second thought. The advantage I see in "animals" over "animal (nonhuman)" is that it may be a bit easier to accept for the creationists - but that's just a baseless assumption.

If I may be open; I do think you have a slight bias for science in this case. What people expect depends on context; on an article about the science of animal husbandry, called animal science, they would expect "animal (nonhuman)". The disadvantage of a section of its own is that you can't start the article with a clear biological definition. You would have to say: "Some - the biologists - understand the term animal to mean such and such. Others say such and such." Or else, your special section doesn't make sense in the article. Either way, I don't think you would need to contribute to such a section or article - that's the task of the creationists. Let them show the value of their view!
Sebastian 07:16, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

Exxon Valdez oil spill

Sorry, I'm not actually a set of geniuses or even one genius.

I'm new to wikiing, so I hope this is the right way to respond to your message. The previous version of the Valdez article said it was the largest spill in the history of the US (and linked to "history of the US". There seems to be great confusion among Americans as to the scale of Valdez vs. other spills. We have a way of equating US=World in the back of our minds.

I'm glad you called me out on this point. I should have researched this fact and determined exactly how many or which spills were larger than Valdez. I have a document from 1992 which indicates 3 or 4 spills of higher volume (several Gulf of Mexico spills occurred, one I know flowed into US territorial waters). I believe that only Wikipedia can objectively cover topics such as this: energy companies won't advertize spill information, and environmental lobbies want to pretend each new spill is the worst ever.

User:NeonGeniuses 02:07, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

Sure, this is certainly a good way to respond. It has the advantage that I get a notification on top of my browser window. I prefer to respond directly below the original contribution, but that's a matter of taste.

The oil spill page lists a few other big ones, and none of the ones in USA have an indication of size or a link. So my guess is that the Exxon Valdez oil spill was either the biggest or the most destructive one. Are the spills your video names in that list?

You are making a good point that WP does actually have advantages for finding out the truth - as long as one goes beyond the momentary content of an article. Of course, such articles tend to attract partisan editors, but I find it exciting that the majority really have the best intentions.

As to the article, I see four ways to deal with it:

1. Ideally: If you have the time to do the research - great! You can help improve the article.
2. Leave it as is. I personally don't like it because it raises the question "which one was bigger".
3. Use weasel words like "one of the biggest". That's actually discouraged Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms.
4. Experiment: Put "the biggest" back, and add a comment on the talk page that you're not sure. Eventually someone who knows the facts may take the bait and edit the article.

Sebastian 03:59, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

I made the Exxon Valdez oil spill article a bit more concrete by saying that several American spills were larger in volume. I wrote the oil spill list a week ago from my sources that include estimated spillage data. I ordered the second list of "notable spills" according to volume of oil discharged. I neglected to put in quantitative data until I could make a piped table of what, where, and how much. However, there are scores of major oil spills in the last 40 years. Perhaps the Soviet Union has had some tremendous oil disasters my 1992 source wouldn't mention. It's really beyond the scope of the oil spill article and ought to be a new list of oil spills . No one source has compiled worldwide oil spills and tried to rank them against each other. Different sources have different estimates that may employ units of mass (tons, tonnes) or volume (barrels or gallons)). Crude and other types of oil have unique specific volumes, so it's not always easy to compare them.

I would like to improve my oil spill article as soon as I can. I appreciate your input in what is appropriate on WP and maybe how I should go about this effort.

NeonGeniuses 07:38, 2005 Mar 3

There are several spills that are larger than the Valdez. In the American energy industry it is generally agreed that the Ixtoc I blowout is the largest unintentional oil spill in history. It occurred just beyong American waters in the Gulf of Mexico. Unfortunately, I do not have time to dig up some references I have from conferences. --Csnewton 15:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Redirect Deletion

Hello. I wanted to let you know I reverted Aggridant to a redirect. It doesn't qualify as a CSD per WP:CSD#Redirects. If you really believe it needs to be deleted, you can list it at Redirects for deletion. Thank you, and happy editing! SWAdair | Talk 11:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, makes sense!
#REDIRECT this discussion to

Re: Special Characters

Hello Szyslak! Your signature displays with two boxes, which I assume are special characters my computer can't display. What are they? Do you know which font can display them? Thanks! Sebastian 09:47, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)