User:JWSchmidt/Talk from 2006 second half

This (below) is an archive of old talk for User:JWSchmidt. Please do not edit this page. Continue any old discussions at User talk:JWSchmidt --JWSchmidt 00:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of May Userbox policy poll
If you don't approve of my proposal, fine. That's your opinion. However, adding "garbage," in your own words, to a proposal which had high community support, is clearly vandalism. Please do not do it again.

Respectfully, // The  True  Sora 22:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, if you differ with my opinion, I don't care if you post messages on my talk page, or even the talk pare of the proposal. However, changing the text of the proposal itself, especially in the manner in which you did, is vandalism, regardless of how much you think UBX are harning the project. // The  True  Sora 03:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Beta-catenin.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:Beta-catenin.PNG. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ~MDD4696 22:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Francis Crick
John,

Is there a problem on the page (it appears to be missing!) or has it been 'badgered'? Something has happened as you can now no longer bring up a page called "Francis Crick"! See below:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia You searched for "francis+crick" [Index] Jump to: navigation, search No page with that title exists.

You can create this article or request it.

PLEASE RECOVER ASAP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick ? MP

See all pages within Wikipedia that link to this article. See all pages that begin with this prefix

62.25.109.194mp62.25.109.194

SUNDAY TIMES (11.6.06) A RATHER SHORT BUT VERY CRITICAL ARTICLE ON FRANCIS CRICK
See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2220486,00.html

62.25.109.194mp62.25.109.194

Franklin on the Crick page
I will post a message on the talk page expressing by objections to the removal of Rosalind Franklin. But everywhere else on the Wikipedia, she is an acknowledged co-founder; there isn't much debate. If someone is going to deny her credit, they have the burden of proof. And our anonymous Rosalind Franklin remover has not provided any reason for her removal. --JesseBHolmes 22:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

request and advise
Hi J,

Was looking over the Francis Crick discussion and there is an advert for a bobble-head in the discussion. Is that something which should remain there? Please advise. I am new to Wikipedia. I will look for you response here. Cheers, K

Thank you for the information I respect the notion of not deleting this, but might it be appropriate to take the all caps off? I believe that my brother and I voiced the wishes of our Granddad who was quite opposed to one being made of him while he was living or after he was dead. Cheers, K


 * I moved the bobble head discussion to an archive page and removed the headings that were ALL CAPS. --JWSchmidt 22:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. ~ K

every Human protein
I admit it; I want a Wikipedia article for every human protein. - Thats a LOT of proteins :) --h y dka t 09:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Wikipedia does have over a million articles now. I think an article for every protein is a bit too much - deciding what constitutes a distinct protein could be tricky, but an article for every gene is reasonable :) It'd be only 30,000 articles for mammals - less than 3% of current wikipedia. Peter Z.Talk 18:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * When I say, "an article for every protein," I do not mean that there needs to be only one protein in each article. For example, Catenin currently covers all seven of the major human catenin proteins. Even if we do not need individual articles for every protein, we are going to need additional articles that describe the meaningful collections of proteins that actually accomplish particular physiological functions. I think Wikipedia has a bit of a problem with articles for both a gene and the protein coded for by the gene (for example, P53 and TP53). In most cases, such article pairs should probably be merged. --JWSchmidt 19:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I do agree. I meant to ask you, since you worked on the protein templates - the rule I follow at the moment is to link to database entries for the human protein/gene. Do you think it would be possible to expand these templates to add links to database entries for various model organisms, preferably with an option to show/hide this information? I think it could be useful, especially since most databases don't link homologs together. Peter Z.Talk 20:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I was thinking along the lines of BorisTM's organic compound templates. For example see Arginine, there's a compact infobox on the article page with a link to Arginine (data page) with extended information. Do you know of any wiki-format biodatabases, by the way? Peter Z.Talk 21:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Would somone be able to point me to a good example of a protein template? I've been invited to do work on the Estrogen articles, which are in dire need of work (more patriarchical bias ;) *joke*) and since this is a major thing I'm heading into in my life, and I'm facing a life of taking hormone replacement, I don't mind doing the research and sharing the information.  I'd just like to know what frame would be best to work from.  If you could just put it in my User Talk page, that'd be great. --Puellanivis 23:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

signaling diagrams that are hyper-linked
Thank you for the note. Yes, it does seem that the technology is here... I'm just finishing writing a book, but when that is done (which will be in around 4 weeks), it would be great to get started on this - if you could help that would be ideal!

best, Gacggt 10:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Pathway names
Hi, I've replied to you at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cell_Signaling. I've been away for a couple of days, forgive me if it took some time. Peter Z.Talk 18:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikicite/Wikiversity
Hi-

I should have a working prototype of Wikicite finished in the next 2 months or so, so please let me know if there are any special features you would like for integration with Wikiversity, as well as how you think the projects can better collaborate in general.

One activity promoted by Wikiversity, the discovery and improvement of cited sources on Wikipedia, is something I too have envisioned and for which purpose-built tools will be created. The designs up on Meta are there for your feedback :)

Jleybov 22:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I read the proposal for a semantic prosthetic and in some ways there is overlap with what I am doing. In particular, the creation of text relationship maps (which people will set down as they do research for articles and will generally go from general to more specialized source material) could be useful orientation tools for newcomers to a topic.  Wikicite is mostly focused on accuracy and source quality issues, but since it is very much intended to enable motivated amateurs there should be lots of opportunities to allow/force them to leave a trail behind.  Anyway, I'm making good progress on the implementation so stay tuned for further updates and send me your enhancement requests.
 * Jleybov 00:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply to "Vandalism
Please refer to the rest of my comment. "The fellows over at ytmnd.com just don't realise that wikipedia isn't the place where attacks on scientology are needed. I don't think they're "morons", I do understand them. I'll do my best to keep an eye on the vandalism, though. We don't need this on wikipedia. I'll try to clean up as a much as I can."

Xioyux 00:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Denticle
Hi. Thanks for your addition to denticle, however could you add a descriptive caption to the image you added or let me have one so I can add it. Thanks.HappyVR 16:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Although it's clear the upper part represents a row of cells in the cuticle it's not clear (to me) what the lower 'blob containing dots' is. I you want I could update the image so that it contains suitable annotation and arrows etc.HappyVR 16:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC) A million times better. Thanks.HappyVR 18:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation format
Firstly, thanks for your help with Hedgehog (cell signaling). The article still needs some cleanup, but I think it is of the level we should strive for with all signaling pathway article. You tend to format your references manually, while I use the code. I believe the advantage of this syntax is that it is easy for any contributor to follow. Is there a specific reason for format you use? Would you mind if I reformatted the references to ? --Peter Z.Talk 20:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I will leave references as they are. Have you thought of creating a template that formats the references the way you do? If we created say on the basis of  we could easily change between the formats. I'd do it, but  syntax scares me. PS I think I am going to start on JAK-STAT pathway now. --Peter Z.Talk 08:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I really prefer the Entrez template myself. So I modified your template to use it instead. I don't think having to omit the "PMID" text from the id field will be a problem - majority of articles I've seen don't use the id field, but use an extra Entrez template instead. Peter Z.Talk 18:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Enzyme kinetics
No problem, but I'd be grateful if you could simplify the text a bit and make it more accessible. I'm not sure if it is really written at the right level.--TimVickers 02:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Monera
Thanks for fixing Monera! --arkuat (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Related portals in biology portal
Thanks for cleaning up my mess when i rearranged the pictures and text. Obviously i did not check afterwards to see if they were aligned correctly. Sloppy editing on my part. David D. (Talk) 04:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping
Thanks for giving me those very helpful links on kuru and prions. Bmer 21:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Dennett
Guess I'm going to have to change back to IE. Thanks for fixing the accidental deletion. Banno 04:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

introduction
Hello. I've seen you around and thought I'd introduce myself. My name is Eric Zilli, I'm a PhD student in Mike Hasselmo's lab (whom I believe you met not long ago). Just thought I'd say hi and properly introduce myself, it's nice to see other theta/hippocampus people out there. Digfarenough 16:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I suppose it is a pretty common name. Oh well :) I do know about the neuroscience wikiproject though, and I check up on the page from time to time, though I haven't explicitly joined up. Nice meeting you anyhow, even if you aren't who I thought you are :) Digfarenough 19:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Amorrow
I answered your comment on AN/I re Amorrow. -- FloNight  talk  23:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello JWSchmidt : - ) After I went to bed last night, seems you got a good dose of Amorrow. Thank you for re-protecting the article Jimmy Wales and quicking reverting those edits. After your reverts be prepared for some ugly emails from him. They can be dramatic with the intent to cause a strong reaction from you. I suggest that you ignore them. Email me with further questions. Take care, FloNight   talk  10:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

DNA controversy
I liked your edit on King's College (London) DNA Controversy, let's try to keep it neutral. Alun 17:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
for the revert to my userpage. I'm glad that I'm not "indefinitely blocked" any more =D. Regards, Alphachimp   talk  20:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the chocolate!
I started a chemiosmosis article by combining Chemiosmotic phosphorylation and Chemiosmotic hypothesis. I also added stubs for more elaboration on chemiosmosis in plants and bacteria.

I hope that this new article can replace the old articles, whose texts I copied in entirety.

Have a great summer. Rozzychan 00:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What about this? I highlighted the ATP synthase with color, and there are other small changes. I am editing it now. Whatdo you think? Rozzychan 01:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

My knowledge of chemiosmosis is not as good as yours. I am trying to make a simple image for the top of the chemiosmosis article. I made this one, but I don't know if it is of any use. What should I add to it? Should I make the blue circles H+ ions? Does the concept include any ion?

It is a greatly simplified version of Oxiphos.png quoted in the Mitchell article. Rozzychan 03:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Help needed
Help! Vandals have used my user account! They used my account and vandalized Wikipedia. What should I do? I found blocks on my IP and computer. I told all people who had acess to my computer and one of them confessed to doing it. What should I do? Help me!--Yasha I 04:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I am truly sorry for any vandalism on my account. But it was not me (owner of the account) the perp. has apologized and i need to know how i can stop use of my account. how do you change password? please help me. i love wikipedia and do not want do hurt it but to contribute to it. i looked @ the contributions and many of them were not me. thank you in advance.--Yasha I 05:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank You Wikipedia is great only because of helpful admins such as yourself --Yasha I 05:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Who is Bridget Marks
You aroused my curiosity. Who is this person and why do we care?? (I saw your request on the Wiki Law project page)...jawesq 01:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks.  I don't know all the facts of this case, so will not make a judgment.  If the facts are true as stated, then I agree..  However, I am not big on the "Fathers' Rights" movement, because many of them are lunatics, imho.jawesq 03:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the beautiful DNA Barnstar, it's lovely. I'm touched. : ) Alun 05:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ask for help
Hi there. You may remeber that you asked me to insert the information about Olmert and his remarks on Iran in Olmert's webpage. I actually tried to insert the information in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel, Ehud Olmert, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran-Israel relations. If you look closely you will see that all those sentences were deleted by the same people who voted for the deletion of Ehud Olmert and Iran and interestingly all of them are Jewish. The information was nothing but the prime minister's quotes with no explanation or interpretation. Jewish-Israeli wikipedians deleted it saying that "it is not notable!! or it is POV!!! or it should be in another article !!!". This is the situation with all articles about Iran and Israel. Israeli-Jewish wikipedians use it as their political platform and there is no way to stop it as they are a lot and work together. They know how to vandalize so that no one can see at the first glance.--Sinooher10:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary
OK. I keep forgetting. Thanks. :) Exteray® 19:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Long responses
I know it wasn't long in the "actually long" sense but it always looks like so much on the page if you give more than a three sentence response. The "what is eugenics?" issue is one I've been struggling with finding a good way to articulate for some time in my professional work, which is why I have such long-winded opinions of it. ;-) Also, I don't know if you're aware but the original Duck-Rabbit is in the public domain. --Fastfission 13:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've not read Ludmerer's book itself, though I know of it. It is one of the earlier professional histories of eugenics (late 1970s if I recall). I would not consider it to be necessarily the most up-to-date when it comes to reflecting the view of the historical community, but it doesn't have a reputation for being a bad book. The "pseudoscience" claim can be pretty difficult to pin down—usually it is meant to refer to the nonsense of people like Henry Goddard and Charles Davenport and their very bad data collection methodology which allowed them to make all sorts of ridiculous claims (like Davenport's that "love for the sea" was a Mendelian unit character). The more frequent charge is that the work being done in the 1900s-1930s by these guys was that it was just bad science—this was a charge made in their own time by people like T.H. Morgan and L.C. Dunn, and is the reason that the Eugenics Record Office was disbanded (the data was useless for rigorous human genetics research). --Fastfission 23:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Browser scrollbars
I see your problem is already solved, but just by the way, placing them inline like you were the first time wouldnt work because if the screen is 1280 wide, then the maximum useable browser window width is less than 1280. the window cannot be stretched larger than the screen size (in XP) and it maintains a couple of pixels for the border on each side. unless you use a table, most browser wrap images just like text. alternatively, you could have cut your images down to say 635 width. 02:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Tricking XP
Thats exactly the problem, XP follows no logic! and tricking it can be tricky sometimes. I was thinking of switching to Mac, now that i can install XP aswell for programs that require it, or better put, for backward-compatibility. Have you always been a Mac user? if not how hard is it to switch? I used a Mac back in grade 4 and found it much more appealing than the MS-DOS box my teacher used. I tried OS X once and experienced some user interface shock just trying to do simple tasks. 03:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

cell membrane
do you know something of biology if not can visit IOB.they say cell membrane is partially permeable.not semi-permeable.Yousaf465 05:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Earlier this year Partially permeable was redirected to Semipermeable membrane. The phrase "partially permeable membrane" does not seem to exist in the PubMed database. "Semi-permeable membrane" and "Semipermeable membrane" are used in the biomedical literature. --JWSchmidt 05:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Communitas!
Thanks for your interest in Communitas! It is a purvasive, ambitious and long-term project, designed to work across domains and namespaces. See Quinobi's reply. &bull; CQ &bull; 07:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC) &bull; WP:CBTF
 * Hi Surf. I've created a spot for your spin on the whole thing in our new Embedded Communitas! workspace at Wikipedia. (shhhh - don't tell anyone about it ;) Your space has a main section and one subsection. Just go to town with it if you want to. Make a whole section for Wikiversity if you want to, but scroll down and note that I have seeded some interest areas that are very Wikipedia-centric, which is how we must be in this workspace.


 * I've identified the "Change is good" picture as a "learning object" and I'm looking into making a whole bunch more.


 * Two more things &mdash; Our COTM is the Virtual community article (it's a bit of a mess) and the Fasttrack to sources subproject. I know you haven't "officially" joined, but Cormaggio has highly recommended you, so I'm kidnapping you, if that's OK. &bull; CQ 01:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hillman/Dig
Hi, JWSchmidt, thanks for your comment; I really appreciate all the feedback I've received there. Can I ask you to return there for a minute to clarify one important point, though? When you wrote "Wikipedia needs to establish clear policy for digging", I fervently agree, but it wasn't clear whether you had read User:Hillman/Digging. That is, whether you realized that the subpages up for MfD arose in the context of my research and painful struggles toward eventually formulating and proposing at least two new policies, dealing with wikistalking and regulating "digging", respectively. IOW, I hope that everyone participating in the discussion realizes that the whole point of my recent activities at WP has been to try to enact a regulation on when digging is and is not appropriate, what actions are and are not appropriate when digging, etc. TIA ---CH 23:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Trollslottet
Hi. I responded to your decoration of my talk page right underneath. Just letting you know in case someone else comments there and you miss it on your watchlist, so feel free to delete this when read. Thanks! Byrgenwulf 06:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Your advice?
Hello JWSchmidt. I noticed you have an interest in animal experimentation issues. I wonder if you would mind having a look at an animal experimentation related mini project i'm embarking on? Your opinion would be most welcome. Thanks.  Rockpock e  t  07:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the Welcome. I started editing some pages not too long ago for a show I work on Heroes (U.S. TV series) and have become hooked on helping maintain wikipedia, it's just a wonderfully simple idea: the good of the masses prevail.

Thanks for the welcome
How did you find my addition of commas?! Oo7jeep 19:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephencolbert
Howdy! Please read Administrators%27_noticeboard before reverting on User talk:Stephencolbert, the current state reflects an admin consensus and should stay as is for now. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 23:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC) "before reverting on User talk:Stephencolbert, the current state reflects an admin consensus and should stay as is for now." (source) It sounds like you are exerting ownership over a Wikipedia page. Is there a Wikipedia policy that gives you the power to do so? --JWSchmidt 23:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read Administrators%27_noticeboard and notice that I added a comment to that discussion.
 * Howdy! You may not understand that the text there is not mine, it and the static nature of the page is the result of a group of admins coming to consensus.  Thanks! - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 23:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "You may not understand that the text there is not mine, it and the static nature of the page is the result of a group of admins coming to consensus." <-- I do not understand your reply. You seem to be suggesting that some group of wikipedia editors has exerted ownersip over a page and that no explanation is need for this beyond, "they are admins". I must be missing something because I find that argument to be very poor indeed. If this really is the nature of your argument, then I will continue to take action to allow all Wikipedia editors to edit User talk:Stephencolbert according to Wikipedia policy. --JWSchmidt 23:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hiya! I am an administrator, and I worked with other administrators on the issue.  We came to consensus on the message and keeping the page clear, then implemented it.  If I can answer any other questions, lemme know.  Thanks! - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 23:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that you're an admin too, I guess I'm not sure I understand your confusion about the timeline we followed and the purpose of my post to WP:AN. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 23:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Checkuser results are rather sensitive, but yes, it was a checkuser that made it pretty obvious, that and the fact that Comedy has totally disowned the account. -- Tawker 05:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

bot problems and human solutions
I'm not sure I fully understand that there is a double standard. I'm certainly not suggesting that we shouldn't attempt to imporve the mediawiki software or any bots where there are genuine problems, but the vast majority of issues I have seen levelled at that particular bot are actually policy issues as to if a certain image should or shouldn't be allowed or if the information provided is/isn't sufficient.

The upload interface could arguably do more, however I certainly have doubts as to if it would make the situation any better than it currently is. I am certainly aware of many users who have been politely reminded, discussed with the need for proper copyright information pointed to all the documentation, offered all manner of help, some of them have been blocked for a short while for contiuing to ignore that, and yet some also continue to upload images without proper information. An interface forcing entry of such data wouldn't help they'd enter something to keep it happy and we'd then no doubt have a harder job of tracking down those images. --pgk( talk ) 14:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Being able to block individuals from uploading and only allowing certain users to upload I believe has been proposed before, I can't remember the arguments surrounding it but it isn't something I'd personally see a problem with. But I doubt it would remove the requirements for the bots though, in that we would still potentially have mistagged images, we'd still get images claiming fair use where that claim is disputed and so on. This is why I believe it is to a large part a human solution to the problem, technically we cannot get a bot which evaluates images against the claims being made and thus not have to worry about uploads. An update to the upload interface might be able to remove some of the basic cases where a user mistakenly fails to enter certain data, a downside being that those who want to upload and then seek some help to get everything right would be limited and might give up and go away. It's a difficult problem and one which I'm sure there is no 100% perfect solution to. --pgk( talk ) 15:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:TestJWS.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:TestJWS.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 15:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Userpage award


What motivates anti-vandalism efforts? Let's say it's boredom mixed with that crazy idealism of youth. That's my forumla, anyway. That, and it can be gratifying at times; frustrating as well, to be sure, but often gratifying. --Emufarmers(T/C) 02:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello JWSchmidt : - ) Thank you for adding the links to the recording and the transcript. I hope the editor will listen to or read Jimbo's speech. Maybe it will motivate him to stop reverting the article and join me on the talk page in discussion so we can reach consensus. Take care, FloNight   talk  07:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientology article
I definitely didn't originate the scientology article. My edit was just some minor edit. I have no memory of what came earlier -- an effort to improve the article edit histories in nostalgia.wp would be great. --User At Work 15:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Enzyme role
Thanks for your welcome JWSchmidt. Do you mean that I should put a link to Chemical reaction in the enzyme article and then discuss my point there? Or that in addition to discussing my point in the enzyme article, I should provide a link to Chemical reaction? I would think that my point about selectivity would be most appropriate in the article on enzymes, at the place where the need for enzymes is now made: ''Enzymes are essential for life because most chemical reactions in living cells would go too slowly. . .'' --Emhale 19:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I see. Thank you.  I should mention that the sentence in the article that does address my interest (line 9: By selectively acting only on certain reactions among the many energetically favorable reactions of the cell, the enzymes direct the metabolism of the cell.) was added to the article by me a week or so ago.  I just think that it should be expanded some, and I have a graphic in mind that I think would be helpful.  Thank you for your help. -Emhale


 * Thanks for the link to the graphics users page. The picture I have in mind is one I made using Corel Draw.  My guess is It would take me a while to learn how to put it into the article; I'll probably go without it for now. -Emhale 15:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Apes and humans
I'm just a lowly anon, but i wanted to commend you and the other editors on your collective fight to maintain humans as a subset of apes in the 'ape' article. Reading through the talk page made me really realize what a struggle being a serious editor on WP is. Your work is much appreciated. -brandon

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Karmafist ban
I've been looking for discussion on WP:ANI and elsewhere regarding the Karmafist ban, but haven't found any. I'm thinking it was such an obvious case of abuse little or no discussion was necessary. There is evidence of what led up to his ban on his user page. szyslak (t, c,  e ) 21:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * From User talk:68.39.174.238 and the user's edits, I can see he's a good user. He's even been offered adminship if he creates an account. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 00:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Links from this link, according to the blocking Administr. 68.39.174.238 14:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no point. He admitted to sockpuppeting around and has throughly worn out the patience of the Relevant Nine-Hundred. Any attempt will get rapidly WP:SNOWed under. While I can see the uses of such a system somewhere (Another subpage of AN is most likely), I suspect this is a case of the community changing to the best/easiest[sic] method and the relevant pages not getting updated. Rather then forcing the community to rigidly follow a page that can just be edited to reflect the current system better, the page should just be edited. In any case, there are so many community bans that I doubt that trying to apply any new system retroactively would result in an immediate backlog. 68.39.174.238 16:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If you wish to do so then I'm not going to stop you, however as it stands I consider the matter to have been closed ages ago and the user banned since then. 68.39.174.238 18:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

'Rant'
Hi, what I describe as a rant is someone adding the following to a controversial article (note how loaded with weasel words it is) - After their activist admitted failing to disclose her PETA employment on her HLS job application, and indiscriminately stealing company records.. For example, the fact that it was an undercover investigation covers the fact that the person didn't disclose their employment with PETA. Also, stating 'indiscriminately stealing' is POV and weasely - did any criminal charge succeed in a court on this issue? Finally, using animalrights.net as a source (in whatever context) is not acceptable as it is nothing more than a forum/blog and is biased. (See previous discussions that have occurred on reliable sources that have occurred on various animal rights and animal testing related articles. So, as you can see, I define that as a rant (a bit like what I've just done, but mine is a acceptable as it is talk). Hope that helps.-Localzuk (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiversity
Thanks JWSchmidt for the heads-up on Wikiversity. I have a number of what I think are unusual graphics which I've found useful in teaching and maybe I can get them into those pages. I hope to learn how to do it. -Emhale 14:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject proposal
Hi, I am posting this message to everyone who has edited on animal rights or animal welfare related articles in the last couple of months. I have just created a proposal for a WikiProject to help co-ordinate editors on the many articles under the mentioned subjects. If you would like to find out about it or show your support for such a project, please visit User:Localzuk/Animal Rights Proposal and WikiProject/List of proposed projects. Cheers, Localzuk (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

do you have time to help out?
I have done some work on Evolutionary developmental biology but I think it needs a lot more work and I have reached the limits of my competence. The May 11 issue of the New York Review of Books has an essay by Israel Rosenfeld and Edward Ziff on evo-devo, reviewing three books: From DNA to Diversity, Endless Forms and The Plausibility of Life. Are you familiar with any of these or other works by their authors (Sean B. Carroll, Jennifer K. Grenier, Scott D. Weatherbee, John Gerhart or Marc Kirschner)? Roland Deschain has done some good work on the article too, but it still seems woefully underdeveloped for such an important new field in evolutionary science. I´d appreciate it if you would look over it. Or perhaps you know other wikipedians who might be able to pitch in. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Help Me Understand The Politics
I want to have a subcategory of the protein category (which I think contains no subcategories at present) so that we can distinguish between naturally occurring proteins and proteins that have been designed/fiddled with in some way. 'Natural proteins' and 'Engineered proteins' has been suggested. How do I suggest this to the Molecular and Cellular Biology wikiproject people so they can make decisions and put it into action? --Username132 (talk) 08:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

What Did You Mean?
You wrote this suggestion on the MCB project page but I'm having trouble understanding it. I'm trying to arrange things so that people can jump right in without having to cut through any chaff. Are you saying we should put WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology links on stub pages? I don't think we're meant to do that... When you went through google, were you finding existing stubs and adding some-stub to them or creating stubs to proteins that weren't linked/were red linked? Maybe it's just me, but I think your paragraph assumes some knowledge of the process.


 * Put links to this project in all of the correct places within wikipedia. This includes existing short articles about specific proteins and new stubs (see #Stub templates) for other proteins that are currently only mentioned in other wikipedia articles. Note on finding existing articles about proteins and mentioned proteins: search wikipedia for "protein"; many proteins are mentioned in this sort of context: "the protein X", "a protein called Y" etc. On 8/30/05 I (User:JWSchmidt) went through the first 50 Google hits for "protein" in wikipedia, placing some stub templates (see below) and adding to List of proteins. See also: requested protein articles. Note: many enzymes can be found in the wikipedia enzymes category

--Username132 (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The template that I used to create the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject included a template for marking pages as being stubs that are of interest to the project: .


 * This is fine. I've no objections to this.

''When I wrote about "mentioned proteins" I was talking about both proteins "that weren't linked" and proteins that "were red linked". I was trying to start a systematic approach to finding all Wikipedia articles about proteins and marking them with a link to the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. This would allow the articles to be categorized in a sensible way and developed by participants in the project. What makes you think that we are not supposed to do this?''


 * Are you talking about the template? So long as it only goes on discussion pages, I don't see any problems with that.

Since the main project page was shortened, there are now broken links to what was the section of the page for the stub templates.


 * I'm pretty sure those links were broken before I started. Either way, the project does need to be made a lot clearer. There was/is a lot of junk floating around from long ago which I think just made the page(s) confusing.
 * I aim to make the project provide information to newcomers in a way they can grasp quickly and painlessly. Once I'm sure we understand each other, I'll alter Task #4 accordingly. --Username132 (talk) 12:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Trying to understand the protein categorisation issue
You created the List of types of proteins page from Go Slim. I'm not entirely sure what Go Slim is about, but shouldn't we be using their updated scheme rather than a modified version of the one they published a year ago? --Username132 (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"shouldn't we be using their updated scheme" <-- We should use whatever works. --JWSchmidt 15:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Would their updated scheme work? --Username132 (talk) 08:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this what you mean by "updated scheme"? --JWSchmidt 15:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well that depends - supposing my answer was yes? --Username132 (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * All I want to know is whether there is an issue that needs taking care of. --Username132 (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Maintenance template on Enzyme
Hi there. I thought a Help box might be useful on the Enzyme page. I used the Template:Maintained to create this. Do you want to be added to this list? TimVickers 00:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This month's WP:MCB Article Improvement Drive article
– ClockworkSoul 22:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

John
Can you check the Jim Watson article as it has lost the DNA pioneers pane (common to Crick, Franklin, and Wilkins) as soon as possible? I have deleted 'Professor' from the opening paragraph of 'Watson' as just like 'Doctor' Crick, it is not really necessary - see Wikipedia guidelines - and there should be some consistency! Otherwise the one man 'Rosalind Franklin lobby' - in Finland - will start complaining that she never received a formal acadamic title, of course?

Best wishes, Martin

ps Have you finished Matt Ridley's biography of Crick yet? M.P.

pps If so (assuming you didn't give up after the first third), any changes to your Crick article?

Nucleus diagram
Hi, I saw on the cell-signal community page that you illustrated a signal pathway. Is there any chance you could create something for the cell nucleus article? It needs something in its "Nuclear transport" section to help make that awesome jumble of acronyms a little more accessible. ShaiM 14:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the swift reply. I might give it a go. At least something in Paint that can always be replaced later. ShaiM 12:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

proceeedings of the royal society
See: http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/(byuu1iz24qxbuby4yu3etcbm)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,7,10;journal,726,1018;linkingpublicationresults,1:120148,1

or start at: www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/archive and go via their Crick link!

217.134.247.11MP217.134.247.11


 * Thanks for the link. Still a great read after all these years. --JWSchmidt 18:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

==Brenda Maddox (Rosy's second biographer) reviews the first biography of Francis Crick in "The Sunday Times" (17.9.06)== See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-2353754,00.html

and not a mention of Alun's supposed 'cause celebre'!

John, I will be hearing Matt Ridley in person tomorrow night.

217.134.242.94mp217.134.242.94


 * "Alun's supposed 'cause celebre'" <-- Sorry I'm so slow, but remind me what this 'cause celebre' is. --JWSchmidt 20:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Crick stumbled at hurdles that most bright young scientists vault", "When is he going to show signs of ... genius?" I suspect that "signs of genius" are rare in people who do well at school. It is not clear that there is any particular correlation between "bright young scientists" and "genius". I doubt if Crick would have had much patience for anyone who tried to understand his contributions to science in terms of "genius". I wonder if Brenda Maddox had a coherent definition of "genius" in mind when she decided to frame her review of a biographical book about Crick in terms of "genius". --JWSchmidt 00:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

John, Matt Ridley was particularly impressive with his talk/images for the "Ri" last night in Lincoln's Fields, London. Ironically he said that Wilkins 'lost out' far more scientifically than Franklin did - but somehow I don't think our Welsh/Finnish friend would ever agree with that! Several questions were raised on the Rosalind Franklin issue which he expertly handled; apart from some mild sarcasm at Bob Olby's expense at the beginning, his talk (all 50 minutes of it) went down very well, and even my 18 year old daughter enjoyed it. I am still surprised at the Sunday Times choosing Brenda Maddox to review his book; New Scientist I am told will be reviewing it next month. Unfortunately I doubt whether I will get to see the review in Nature. Finally I met Matt Ridley at the end of his talk before he started signing/selling his books; if you do eventually buy a new copy, look out for his images as illustrations in the biography! (UPATE: unfortunately I have been told there are no illustrations in the US edition of the book)

ps I will try to find you a good defintion of "cause celebre", but do try 'celebrated cause'; OED says "lawsuit that attracts much interest (french)"; I was being rather ironic by the way.

62.25.109.194mp62.25.109.194

FA nomination Enzyme inhibitor
Hi there. I've nominated this page for FA and was wondering if you might have time to review it and hopefully find some ways to impove it. TimVickers 21:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi again, thanks for your efforts. Enzyme inhibitor is now a FA. TimVickers 14:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject Votes
{|cellspacing=10 width=100% style="border: 1px solid #a79c83; background-color:#faf8f1;"
 * [[Image:Nuvola apps kcmpartitions.png|60px]]
 * style="color:#000"|The Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject has recently opened two surveys that will help to decide the direction of the project. First, nominations are currently being accepted for the position of coordinator of the project. Second, votes and additional suggestions for the official title of that position are also being taken. As a member of the project, we hope that you'll drop by and voice your opinion. – ClockworkSoul 03:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * style="color:#000"|The Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject has recently opened two surveys that will help to decide the direction of the project. First, nominations are currently being accepted for the position of coordinator of the project. Second, votes and additional suggestions for the official title of that position are also being taken. As a member of the project, we hope that you'll drop by and voice your opinion. – ClockworkSoul 03:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Nomination for the above position
Just wanted to give you a heads up, I don't know if you want the position, but: I have nominated you for the 'director' position at the molecular biology / Cell biology wikiproject. I think you deserve the nod as much as (and probably more) than anyone Adenosine | Talk 09:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * }
 * }

INTRODUCTARY PARAGRAPH TO THE FRANCIS CRICK ARTICLE
John, I assume you are in agreement to this form of words as the opening paragraph is currently under attack from one or two of the 'Franklinistas'(the 'Rosy was robbed' lobby in other words):

"Francis Harry Compton Crick OM FRS (8 June 1916 – 28 July 2004) was an English physicist, molecular biologist and neuroscientist, most noted for being one of the co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953. He, James D. Watson, and Maurice Wilkins were jointly awarded the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for information transfer in living material"[1]. His later work at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology until 1977 has not received as much formal recognition. His remaining career as the J.W. Kieckhefer Distinguished Research Professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies was spent in La Jolla, California until his death; "He was editing a manuscript on his death bed, a scientist until the bitter end” (a quote from his close associate Christof Koch [2])."

See my comment at the bottom of the Francis Crick discussion page!

John, thanks again for putting me in touch with 'K'; I took the opportunity to re-register etc at the same time! Presumably it is possible to contact Francis [Jnr.] in the same way? I hope you enjoy listening to Matt Ridley as I did on Monday evening in London; he is repeating his talk in Newcastle next month. Hopefully I will get the chance to read his biography in book form (99p + p & p off eBay) shortly, but cannot wait to read Bob Olby's MS in due course. MP

62.25.109.194MP62.25.109.194

FA nomination for Enzyme kinetics
Hi JWSchmidt, if you have any comments or suggestions, this article is up for FA candidacy and the discussion page is here. Thank you. TimVickers 20:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

re query
Not given as verbatim quote in the article, but as a paraphrase of an explicit account. See the full article, but especiallly the last para. this Don't think there's any dispute about mysticism being bunk. However the issue is whether emergence (emergent behaviours) are vitalism without the mysticism. Vitalism, as used by the great vitalists (Pasteur, Driesch, Reid, Freud, Jung etc ) disavowed the mystic connotations but used the terms as metaphors for things we did not understand in reductionist terms; they generally weren't denying the existence of a physico chemical basis of phenomena, only asserting that there was then no such explanantion. Sorry, I'm gone, but as you're new to the page thought you should be aware of the basis of the controversy. In modern terms, innate is not a bad example, it was introduced as a mystical concept, now it is used to stand for a physico-chemical phenomenon that is not understood. Whether this exists or not is by the way (it's an ill formed concept), but it is not mystical as used now.

You're cordially invited though to try this:


 * ), with warm respect

P.S. I read the Sokal article with interest and enjoyment. (It doesn't actually mention vitalism though...  )

PPS I think you asked for 3 citations. The first sentence predates my involvement, and I didn't question it seeing it as uncontroversial (still do, don't think it's ever been questioned on the Talk page).


 * Maybe the editotial, Nat Biotechnol. 2004 Oct;22(10):1191 would do?Gleng 11:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The psychology reference related back to what had previously said in the article, and the relevant citation I gave was - it's still there. This citation displays the controversy but actually presents an anti vitalist view (yes, I chose it thus for balance -but you will note in the box to the article declares that it represents a POV opposite to others presented at the meeting; I chose the reference to display the debate, not assert a POV). On emergence etc, again the sentence refers back to things that existed/exist in the article. It might be worth you looking at the first items on the Talk page to see where I came in and understand exactly where the article went as a result. Good luck with it. I'm not arguing, this is just fyi.


 * Thanks for your thoughtful response, I only wish you had been involved earlier. I especially appreciate your assiduous care to references.

The Sokal footnote uses as its authority Mayr, writing in 1982 before the (renewed) growth of interest in emergent behaviours; in later years his views on vitalism were rather different I think, as reflected in the quote given. Yes I share your frustration about historical sources, and my quotes in the article are extracted from secondary sources not the primary sources in general, though where possible I have looked and checked. I used as specific examples of the metaphorical use of concepts by early vitalists examples where the direct quotes used seemed to validate the point made by the authors of the secondary sources; they may certainly have got the context wrong. The vitalism issue is one that is interesting to me now (I had no knowledge of it before) mainly because what I found seemed to refute rather than confirm the general (popular) perception. I'm sure you will recognise this feeling, as a historian! The four humours I think go back to Alcmaeon of Croton and Empodecles. Lamarck is probably also worth mention. All the best! :)Gleng 11:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Gleng 15:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to your question concerning my edit style
Hey JWSchmidt. Thanks for asking. I made the reversion with every intention of leaving an edit summary, but sometimes the settings on my revert feature do not give me the chance to put that in. KrishnaVindaloo had made so many changes, it is too hard to restore any other way. I did put an entry on the talk page.

The next edit concerning writing for the enemy was because I am a chiropractor. This particular statement is what KV wants in the article, so I'm attempting to preserve the intent of the remainder of the article. I'm not sure it is going to work, but I know of no other way of working with him without the article becoming a total denigration of other POVs.

Thank you for asking and I do look forward to working with you. You're edits appear well thought and helpful. --Dematt 15:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

History of biology collaboration
Thought you might be interested.--ragesoss 17:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This month's WP:MCB Article Improvement Drive article
– ClockworkSoul 21:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

re: Wikiversity
As a frequent commentator on the Wikiversity project, I'd like to point you to a lengthy posting I've added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikiversity

I only became aware of the Wikiversity project yesterday, 5 Oct, but it immediately caught my passion. This is something that should exist. And simultaneously frustrated with the weakness of its outline.

While I was in the midst of writing my talking points I learned Wikia is launching something similar. I'm not sure whether that matters. The two feel as if they have different orientations. Unsure.

I'd be delighted to hear from you and any commentary you have.

Morley Chalmers morley at morleychalmers dot com

“jump-starting volunteer participation in the Wikiversity” <-- A major problem is that so many people are indoctrinated from an early age with the idea that learning happens when you submit yourself to the machinations of a factory school. Wikiversity participants are explorers who take responsibility for their own learning and recognize the potential for collaborative online learning that exists in wiki technology. Providing good examples of how wiki technology can support learning and evangelism are ways to attract participants.

“ organized into self-administered colleges" <-- Historically, Wikiversity developed “schools”. Wikiversity even has a “Schools:” namespace. A Wikiversity school is a content development project, similar to a Wikipedia “wikiproject”. Everyone is free to start a new Wikiversity school.

“the flowering of differing styles” <-- “we should run small experiments, tests, see what works, what doesn't, and be prepared to be flexible and change, and not be too locked into stone about how things should work" (source).

“vigorous, focused dialogue is at the core of both learning and research” <-- I suspect that Wikiversity will always be pushing for more features in the MediaWiki software to support communication. A system for searchable, threaded discussions would be a good start.

“Is it necessary to identify certain individuals as teachers?” <-- Wikiversity has participants. The “teacher” to “student” ratio is one-to-one. Everyone learns, everyone teaches, as appropriate for each situation.

“Teacher — anyone with established knowledge and skills willing pass them on to willing learners.” <-- All jokes aside, I think Wikiversity does need to pay more attention to the participation of experts than has been the case at Wikipedia. At Wikipedia, everyone can use the “crutch” of published sources. When Wikiversity turns to the boundary between established knowledge and the unknown, that crutch is gone. All that is left is the experience of those who have spent years exploring the boundary between the known and the unknown.

“teachers and students should be registered users” <-- At Wikipedia trust is placed in verifiable sources. At Wikiversity, a significant amount of trust must be placed in one’s collaborators. I think it will be easier for Wikiversity participants to trust registered users.

“a mechanism for dropping a student or a teacher (for instance because of non-current participation)” <-- I think it will be useful to have easy ways to identify active participants who have similar interests. However, wiki participants are free to participate on their own schedules.

“A benchmark for completion, graduation, thus attaining the status of a post-graduate student and/or of an alumnus” <-- At best, this is a distant goal. For now, Wikiversity is a place where people can come to learn because they know that by doing so they are growing as an individual. Wikiversity does not have classes, degrees or graduation. The wiki user interface is a poor tool for trying to implement such features of a traditional bricks-and-mortar school. Rather than adopt the restricted methods that arise from having learning resources concentrated at fixed locations in physical space, Wikiversity seeks new ways to learn that are free of the old restrictions. Learning the wiki way.

“the care and feeding of volunteers (students and teachers) must be carefully crafted” <-- We have a lot to learn about how best to support online communities of scholars who interact by way of a wiki user interface. A first principle is that wiki participants should be free to explore the questions and ideas that they find most interesting.

“the structuring of courses” <-- The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees wisely deflected the Wikiversity community away from an emphasis on traditional courses. Traditional courses are not suited for the wiki user interface. Wikiversity has “learning projects”, many of which are much smaller in scope than a course.

“Anyone at any time should be able to propose a course” <-- Anyone at any time is able to explore their learning goals by creating learning groups and participating in collaborative learning activities. Wikiversity is devoted to active learners who learn by doing.

“an intimating list of requirements for launching a course” <-- If a learning project attracts no participants, then it will just sit there. With time, the Wikiversity community will discover what people want to learn and how best to use wiki technology to facilitate learning. I doubt if anyone can yet create a useful set of guidelines for how best to build wiki-based learning collaborations. “we should run small experiments, tests, see what works, what doesn't, and be prepared to be flexible and change, and not be too locked into stone about how things should work" (source).

“The point is to get started” <-- true

“An ideal way to jump start the Wikiversity would be to have input from retired teachers and professionals” <-- There is a big need for outreach and evangelism

“Wikiversity ….. has the power to reshape lives, all countries, rich and poor, advantaged and disadvantaged” <-- Some people see this “instinctively”, other folks are still locked into traditional modes of education and do not “get it”. --JWSchmidt 04:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

please help (62.114.164.0)
"I am lost, would you please help me find my way to contribute in the entrepreneurship subjects" <-- try using the "search" function on the left hand side of the page. Basic navigation may be useful. Also, try Category:Entrepreneurship. --JWSchmidt 13:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

One more vote for the coordinator of the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject
Since two of the three editors nominated for Coordinator of the MCB Wikiproject declined their nominations, one more vote has been posted: should the remaining nominee, ClockworkSoul, be named as the coordinator, or should nominations be reopened? Every opinion counts, so please vote! – ClockworkSoul 17:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 3
Hi, and thanks for offering to help with the Wikipedia Weekly podcast. Episode 2 will soon be recorded and release, and so we've started planning for Episode 3, to be recorded next Friday. If you'd like to be on the panel, or suggest any content for the show, feel free to edit that page with the details. Don't feel limited to the five places on the panel, either - there are two extra places available for alternate hosts, who would fill in if the others are unable to speak.

Thanks again for the offer of support, and see you soon. :) Daveydw ee b ( chat/patch ) 11:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Quantum Mind
The page was revealed to have many many lines copied over. Only the earliest of the versions can be restored. However I wanted to keep the history as some of the things there would be useful for a rewrite (the non-cvio things added over the years). Voice -of- All  05:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: wherebot for Wikiversity
Certainly. I will try and do so sometime this week.

Thanks for suggesting this. --  Where  20:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks :)! I will try and have it up and running soon. --  Where  21:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This month's winner is proteasome!
– ClockworkSoul 22:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ion pump (physics)
What information do you have about the copyright violation at Ion pump (physics)?--JWSchmidt 02:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have now restored the article and double-checked the contents. I believe that the IP editor  placed a copyvio warning on the page maliciously.  Apologies for the inconvenience. (aeropagitica) 07:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

post-science patents and Chinese references
Please feel free to erase after examination. One of the most quoted references is the patent on the solution to value, not including our own sites:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6078901.html

http://www.entovation.com/info/archives.htm

http://www.reidepot.com/Software/REI_Analysis/

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.com/definition/Quantitative+supply+and+demand+model+based+on+infinite+spreadsheet

http://www.patentalert.com/docs/000/z00015376.shtml

http://www.akamaiuniversity.us/CenterforInformationTechnologyandMediaStudies.html

http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetail.aspx?PersonID=15457083

http://www.zamanfam.com/lawofnature.html

http://www.zamanfam.com/rr.html

(another person’s) http://www.reconnections.net/multi_me2.htm

http://www.prime-radiant.com/Econometrics.html

(another person’s) http://www.ephilosopher.com/bb-print-6-15.html

http://www.websy.net/En/Software/Shareware/sites/site_sho.htm

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/query-CCL-705-36-p5.html

(another person’s) http://www.freepatentsonline.com/query-CCL-705-36-p5.html

http://www.trustedlinks.com/Reliant_Systems/unethical.html

http://www.trustedlinks.com/Reliant_Systems/unethical.html

http://www.findspot.com/free_excel_spreadsheet_templates.htm

http://2rss.com/news/?rss=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prweb.com%2Fxml%2Fbizbooks.xml

(another person’s) http://ephilosopher.com/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=56

http://asteroidwatch.net/primary/academic-subjects/Microeconomics.html

http://asteroidwatch.net/primary/academic-subjects/Microeconomics.html

http://real-estate-properties.com/primary/science-plus-computers/John_von_Neumann.html

http://www.essential-facts.com/primary/w2/Capitalism.html

http://star.xq23.com/knowledge_perimeter_security/world_nations/Iraq.html

http://www.air.xq23.com/energy_science_resources/Social_Sciences.html

(our own program) http://www.123iss.com/

(our own program) http://www.123istv.com/

(our own program) http://www.123is.com/

The following are references for the software (Completely Automated And Self-generating Software System) patent, not including our own sites:

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5485601.html

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5485601.html

http://www.acmqueue.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showcomments&pid=273

The following are the references on jumpulse mostly from Chinese physicists (independent of our US effort), not including our own sites or discussions:

http://psroc.phys.ntu.edu.tw/cjp/v37/531.pdf

http://www3.merriam-webster.com/opendictionary/newword_display_cat.php?cat=sports

http://www.blogcn.com/user41/quantumshen/index.html

http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/qikan/periodical.Articles/wl/wl2000/0012/001210.htm

http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/qikan/periodical.Articles/wl/wl2001/0109/010911.htm

http://bj2.netsh.com/bbs/87243/messages/2865.html

http://www.ceps.com.tw/ec/ecjnlarticleView.aspx?jnlcattype=1&jnlptype=3&jnltype=472&jnliid=2823&issueiid=14639&atliid=471192

http://www.google.com/search?q=jumpulse&hl=en&lr=&start=20&sa=N

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:PTKKOSAd2RkJ:www.blogtw.com/rss.php%3Fuser%3Dquantumtheory+jumpulse&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=23

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:w9PvELgpPJcJ:61.153.34.35:8002/~kjqk/wl/wl2001/0109/010911.htm+jumpulse&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=24

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:w9PvELgpPJcJ:61.153.34.35:8002/~kjqk/wl/wl2001/0109/010911.htm+jumpulse&hl=en&lr=&strip=1

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22jumpulse%22&hl=en&lr=&start=30&sa=N


 * 1)  End. Thank you for your advice. CYLee

i thought i was blocked.
How am I still able to edit?
 * You were blocked for 3 hours. --JWSchmidt 02:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

WikipediaWeekly Logo
Hi there! I'm making a stab at a WikipediaWeekly template over in my sandbox here kinda like the Signpost's (actually, I stole their design). Anyways, I was wondering if you could make a 150wide/50tall logo. I noticed you made the 50wide/50tall one already in use, but for these purposes a wider one will just be better. Let me know! Thanks! JoeSmack Talk 18:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess that would be in px or whatever the wikipedia convention is. Thanks JWSchmidt, much appreciated. :) JoeSmack Talk 19:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Beautiful! Great work! I'll keep you in the loop as to how the template turns out. JoeSmack Talk 20:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

--Yowza! What'd ya think? :D JoeSmack Talk 21:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Stephencolbert redux
Howdy! I've reverted your change to User talk:Stephencolbert and would like to request that if you'd like to continue discussing it, that we do so in WP:AN or here. As we've discussed before, the checkuser indicated that it was not him, and Tawker indicated that Comedy Central also disavowed any connection with the account. Finally, your comment on the talk page about admins not protecting the pages they've edited would really apply more to something in article space, not a maintenance issue like the SC talk page. I described the SC talk page as a 'circus' and I stand behind that characterization. Changing it to the administrative status it is currently in and protecting it is the proper way to reduce the disruption, and there is no WP:BITE issue in play (as per your original suggestion when this first came about). If you feel I've acted improperly, please bring it to AN or initiate an RFC. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 22:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If we know that the User:Stephencolbert account is not really an account for Stephen Colbert then it should be possible to remove the statement "Block pending identity confirmation" from User talk:Stephencolbert. The basis for a checkuser evaluation in this case has never really been explained ("It must be used only to prevent damage to one or several of Wikimedia projects"). If there was a request made to check the IP for the the User:Stephencolbert account then who made the request and on what basis? If the check was done, who did it and what was done with the checkuser information? Some people have claimed that User:Stephencolbert is a "vandalism only" account and so a checkuser evaluation should have been performed. I do not understand how we are supposed to uphold Please do not bite the newcomers and Assume good faith and still decide that the User:Stephencolbert account is a "vandalism only" account. I do not understand why Wikipedia needs to prevent discussions and remove discussion from an editor's talk page when members of the community want to discuss the editing that was done by that user. Members of the community should be able to ask honest questions about administrator and checkuser actions. "If you feel I've acted improperly...." <-- I think we are dealing with a unique situation that requires community discussion. My interest is in understanding what happened and making sure that Wikipedia's response to what happened is reasonable. When unanswered questions about what happened are simply deleted it only produces the appearance of a cover up. Why not help the community answer the questions that have been raised rather then erase the questions? --JWSchmidt 02:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see the nature of your misunderstanding It isn't blocked because it's a vandalism only account, it was blocked because it's an impersonation account.  As for "the community discussing the editing done by an editor", if you review the edit history you'll find that the vast majority of the edits are to the effect of "lolz you are so funny!!!1!!2!!!  can I be on your show?".  We discussed this as a community and came to the decision we did.  I think it was on WP:AN or AN/I, can't remember off the top of my head.  That's why I encourage you to bring it up there if you'd like.  Tawker made the checkuser assertion, he was our designated contact with Comedy Central too, so feel to follow this up with him too.  At this point, Colbert's word 'Truthiness' best describes the belief that it was actually him.  We decided (as a community) after determining via technical means that it was not him, to put the page into its current state. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 02:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, don't bring this issue up. This is months old, and any issues have been taken care of. I'm sorry you somehow feel dissatisfied, but it would have been more appropriate for you to express your concerns when this issue was active. Since it is no longer, however, there is no reason to be overly concerned about this. If you absoulutely want to bring this issue up, I certainly invite you to do so at the WP:AN but I do not encourage you to do so. — P ilotguy  (push to talk) 02:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I really do not agree. I also advise you to please just let this issue go. It is not important if a checkuser was done, and even if it was, it is really none of our business as to who owns/doesn't own the account. Administrators agreed there was a valid, legitimate reason for blocking this account. If you're bringing this issue up you might as well bring up Brian Peppers and John Seigenthaler Sr., but again, I advise you not to do so. — P ilotguy  (push to talk) 21:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"if you review the edit history you'll find that the vast majority of the edits are to the effect of 'lolz you are so funny!!!1!!2!!! can I be on your show?'." <-- It would be interesting to have a panel of objective judges and ask them to decide what fraction of the material you deleted can really be characterized in the way you suggest. In any case, each edit should be evaluated on its own merits. When there is an edit that does not contribute to constructive discussion the first step to take is to discuss the matter with the person who made the edit. If such an editor does not correct their behavior then harsher action can be taken. It is not right to delete dozens of edits from a talk page just because some of the edits are silly. If a discussion becomes old and stale it can be placed on an archive page. "We discussed this as a community and came to the decision we did. I think it was on WP:AN or AN/I, can't remember off the top of my head." <-- I hope you realize the damage done to Wikipedia when project participants make claims such as, "we know things based on IRC discussions, but we cannot explain how we know," and "Admisinstraters do not have to answer questions about their actions and we can delete discussions and stop discussions because a bunch of us got together on some other page and decided to do so, but I do not remember when or where." "Tawker made the checkuser assertion" <-- I had a chance to chat with him on IRC about the checkuser. The trail seems to go dead at that point in the chain of events. What we really need to know is who did the checkuser, on what basis was the checkuser performed, and what was done with the information obtained by the IP check. "the belief that it was actually him" <-- This is really a minor issue. In my opinion, it is more important that we understand what happened on Wikipedia after the two small edits from the Stephencolbert account. "We decided (as a community) after determining via technical means that it was not him, to put the page into its current state." <-- Please provide the link to where this community decision was made. Please, explain the "technical means" that allow you to be sure who created the account; in particular, state who performed the checkuser action on the Stephencolbert account. --JWSchmidt 14:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "I see the nature of your misunderstanding It isn't blocked because it's a vandalism only account" <-- This is not my misunderstanding.
 * Hello. This really isn't worth fighting over, if you want to unprotect it and restore the content to its former glory, go ahead.  I don't claim any ownership over the page, I was just the person who implemented the consensus.  We probably did most of the discussion via IRC, and if that smacks of cabalism,, that's not the intention, but it was the best tool at the time considering the nature of the issue.  If you feel you've been wronged or that I've gone rouge, let's chat about this on AN or AN/I.  I'm just a janitor and I'd hate to create the appearance of any impropriety.  If formalizing the admin consensus here is needed, then by all means we should do it.  If you'd like assistance in getting this done, I'd be happy to make the initial post for you.  There is no conspiracy, there is no plot to 'kill teh colbert', we just did what we did because it was unnecessary disruption (not his original edits, the massive influx of 'loldongs!  you rule!' posts).  If your specific problem is with my protecting the page, chalk it up to "WP:IAR because it's the right thing to do" and RFC me if you feel its necessary.  As far as villains go, I'm subpar at best.  I don't even have any sort of good spandex costumes or anything, and my 'secret lair' is a modest house in a suburb in central Oregon, not the lava filled volcano caldera I might have wanted. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 16:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"isn't worth fighting over" <-- I have no interest in a fight. I agree that it was wise to do a checkuser on the Stephencolbert account, block the Stephencolbert account and since so much time has now passed it makes sense to strip the Stephencolbert talk page down to a simple request for identity confirmation. "if you want to unprotect it and restore the content to its former glory, go ahead" <-- I think your action was a reasonable action; I'm not sure that you are the one who should have done it. "We probably did most of the discussion via IRC, and if that smacks of cabalism,, that's not the intention, but it was the best tool at the time" <-- I do not have a problem with making use of IRC in this way, but I know it bothers other Wikipedia participants. In my opinion, if Wikipedia participants are bothered by these sorts of things then it helps to let them discuss the situation. Since most people who were concerned seem to have lost interest, I'm basically satisfied with the window for discussion that was allowed. "If you feel you've been wronged or that I've gone rouge" <-- I have no personal stake in this matter beyond a hope that Wikipedia as an institution can learn from what happened. "I'd hate to create the appearance of any impropriety" <-- My questions about deleting discussions from the talk page and preventing discussions by protecting the page from editing arise from by belief that it does not hurt to let people talk. The more fundamental problem is that for myself and others it is not clear that existing checkuser policy provides an avenue for checking the IP for a user account such as the Stephencolbert account. I find it a bit strange that nobody within Wikipedia seems willing to discuss the matter....the consensus seems to be that it is wise to let this sleeping dog lie. I guess the key dynamic of the situation is that the checkuser policy is something that comes down to the community from the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation now has an "ombudsman commission" that can play a role in suggesting needed adjustments to checkuser policy. I'll just pass the matter on to the ombudsman commission. --JWSchmidt 14:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Refining checkuser policy for better guidance is a good thing, let me know if I can help. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 15:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This month's winner is RNA interference!
– ClockworkSoul 14:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you even know what a Blasian is? A Blasian is just another name for the mid point between Orientals and blacks. The source doesn't have to use the exact same terms we use. That's plagarism__Whatdoyou 23:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Blasian is a term in the popular culture that means the genetic midpoint between blacks and Oriental (Black-North East Asian hybrids). The article provides a link to Sforza's gentic chart which clearly shows the genetic distance between blacks and orientals and black and whites, and the mid point between blacks and orientals is almost as distant from blacks as whites are from blacks on the chart.__Whatdoyou 01:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess
Dear JW—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 14:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Graphics Lab
I saw your name listed on Wikiproject Illustration or  the list of graphic artists, and I thought I'd let you know that a Graphics Lab has been created on EN. Based on the highly successful French and German graphics labs, it seeks to better organise and coordinate our graphic design and photo-editing efforts. Up until now, there has been no common space on EN where users could ask for maps, charts and other SVG files to be created. What's more, the Graphics Lab has discussion boards, tips, tools and links; in sum, a good common workspace. Come help us out! The infrastucture is already in place, and now we need participants. :) -- Zantastik  talk  02:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

WW11
Hey hey,

Would you be able to put together a "New Year"-themed image for episode 11? I haven't seen you in IRC recently, but if you could do this I'd be way grateful. :) Thanks!

Daveydw ee b ( chat/review! ) 05:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)