User:JWSchmidt/Talk from 2008

I do hope you like the long email? More to come when THE biography is published by CSHL Press!!

Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.38.202 (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I may have lost your email in my spam filter. I have a new email address active for this wiki account. Please send me a short email there (click the "E-mail this user" link on this page) and I'll give you a return email with the new addy. --JWSchmidt (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If "long email" was joke then I guess the short email with a link was what you sent. It just showed up in my inbox. --JWSchmidt (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Read and enjoy it my friend! Do you want the same (by email) for Wilkins? Happy New Year! Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.7.114 (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"E-mail this user" = sorry John I cannot find it, please give me another clue? regards, Martin


 * On the left side of this page, in the "toolbox"."Do you want the same for Wilkins?" <-- sure. --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry John I think I will have to log-in! IF you find any SERIOUS discrepancies between 'your' Wikipedia article on FHCC and what I sent you earlier, do please let me know ASAP please? Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.203.177 (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

John, any informal comments on what I sent would be appreciated please? I hope you have found it interesting reading and will look forward to the full biography published later this year. Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.169.200 (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hyperspace theory
An editor has nominated Hyperspace theory, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits...
Did you mean for this to go on the talk page? Mercury at 06:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC) I have actually commented about it on the talk. Regards, Mercury at 06:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Greeting and thanks
I just saw your postings in Talk:Homeopathy and wanted to let you know that it is not unappreciated. There are many editors who do not participate regularly in that space due to the ongoing incivility issues, some of which I see you have already been subjected to. Thanks for helping. Your comments are very well reasoned and correct in my opinion. &mdash;Whig (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You might find the current discussion at Arsenicum album interesting, as that seems to be where a number of constructive editors are participating. &mdash;Whig (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Constructive? It's a POV load of woo.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy and AGF
JWS, I just read your comment to ScienceApologist regarding assuming good faith. I think it's easier to AGF individuals in non-controversial issues. It is impossible with articles such as Homeopathy. Part of the problem is that one of four types of editors show up:
 * Reasonable editors (whatever their POV). These are so rare, I think we should build a statue to them.  They actually understand NPOV, undue weight, etc.  Unfortunately, for articles such as this one, SPOV=NPOV, and many individuals don't understand that equality.
 * Anonymous POV warriors who show up and argue tendentiously and uncivilly.
 * Registered but SPA accounts who argue tendentiously and uncivilly.
 * Registered accounts that have a one-track mind about Pseudoscience, that is, it works, we just don't understand.

Honestly, a lot of editors who have a science or medical background are getting frustrated. We put up with a lot. SA is just the surface of this frustration. I think lecturing him is unfair, unless you read the vast number of whining, arguing, and other negative comments from the POV warriors. We are frustrated. Tendentiousness should be one of the standards of uncivilness, because it's getting harder and harder to be nice. I'm no longer nice, because it is getting too difficult to put up with the POV warriors. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 19:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Informing past contributors of new TFD for Template:Maintained
As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that Maintained is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2008-01-30 17:47Z

ep. 41
Hi there!

There's a new episode of the podcast now live - episode 41: Interview with Angela Beesley. If you'd like to make an image for it that would be lovely.

Since we talk about how she has her own mainspace article - you could use her portrait and place it in between a big set of ' double square brackets '. Just a suggestion.

Best, Witty Lama 11:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Crick et al
Although I have decided to work on improving the Maurice Wilkins article, I have just noticed how little reference there is to the LMB MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, in the Francis Crick article? As YOU are the leading light on Crick as far as I am concerned, can I respectfully suggest it needs some more on his time at the LMB please?

91.108.16.49 (talk)Martin Packer91.108.16.49 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm busy in the real world. You should be able to make your suggestion at the Crick page. --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Bob Olby's new biography of Francis Crick due in December 2008
Francis Crick: A Biography by Robert Olby; Hardback - ISBN 9780879697983; December 2008; Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; Price: $TBA "This engrossing biography by one of molecular biology' s foremost scholars reveals the remarkable evolution of Francis Crick' s scientific career and the shaping of his personality. From unpromising beginnings, he became a vital contributor to a remarkably creative period in science. Olby chronicles Crick' s life from his early studies in biophysics, to the discovery of the structure of DNA, to his later work in neuroscience and the nature of consciousness. This account is woven together with insights into his personal life gained through access to Crick' s papers, family, and friends. Robert Olby' s book is a richly detailed portrait of one of the great scientists of our time." (from Scion)

Contents Time Line Introduction 1. ' You're a Dog If You Haven't Got A Nobel Prize' 2. A Difficult Act to Follow 3. From the Provinces to the Big City 4. War Work for the Royal Navy 5. Biology at the Strangeways 6. Helical Molecules at the Cavendish Laboratory 7. The DNA Fiasco 8. Two Pitchmen in Search of A Helix 9. A Most Important Discovery 10. Publishing the Model 11. Employed by the John Wayne of Crystallography 12. The Genetic Code 13. Preaching the Central Dogma 14. Crick as Experimentalist 15. Speaking out on Controversial Subjects 16. Biological Complexity 17. Leaving the 'Old Country' 18. Taking the Plunge: Neuroscience 19. From the Searchlight to the Soul 20. Eighty-eight Years Biographical Index Subject Index

No doubt whatever Professor Olby has to say about Francis Crick can be used to improve this article; very little of Matt Ridley's 'potted' biography has been interpolated into this article, but Olby's full length (450 pages) scientific biography contains references and an index, both of which were missing from the Matt Ridley biography for reasons of space. Olby's biography of Crick has been many years in writing and Crick insisted that it NOT be published during his lifetime. Four years after his death, a full biography is being published by CSHL Press.

John, while I am pleased you effectively ignored the Matt Ridley version of Francis Crick's life - I think you will find ample new material in Bob Olby's version to 'improve' the article!

91.110.217.162 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope even a dog like me can appreciate it! --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Change
"Change is good." Have you been to Detroit?Lestrade (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Francis Crick
http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/dnb/93883.html

Any comments?

Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

ROSALIND FRANKLIN
John in the absence of Alun:can you 'repair' her article at the top of the page, not done by me?

Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitramrekcap (talk • contribs) 21:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help John!

Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Dennis Thomas
John, your comments and especially your article "Wiki Science/Semantic prosthetic" are enlightening. Great perspective and understanding delivered with sincere humanity. Your very fresh view that language is a prosthetic to learn what other people are thinking is a tremendous concept. A viewpoint (in many respects) that Richard L. Ballard has advocated since 1987-1993 when he was working on the government Star Wars project. His phrase is "theory-based semantics." It appears that you were also inspired by Carl Sagan. For Ballard, it was "Episode 11: "The Persistence of Memory" that confirmed that one of natures greatest accomplishments was to invent the brain. Ballard developed a knowledge science out of his "machine assisted decision support" work while with the government, then translated that work into a machine that represents every form of human knowledge - it KNOWS. It defies in representation the religions of linguistics, logic and self-consistency in favor of what we regard as a true miracle of nature - the human brain.  Thanks for the post.  Dennis www.knowledgefoundations.com / dlthomas@knowledgefoundations.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.33.171 (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Transferosome
Hey JW, this is going to be odd. 8 months ago you posted on my talk page regarding the "transferosome" that I have labeled in my image on the bacterial conjugation article. You were curious about any sort of citation I could show to support its existence (sorry for the late reply, my wiki-life has fallen by the way side). Well.... There's not much, if anything out there on transferosomes, but fear not, I did not make it up! I got the name and info about transferosomes from a paper:  "Fekete RA and Frost LS (2000) J. Bacteriol. 182(14)4022-27 'Mobilization of Chimeric oriT Plasmids by F and R100-1: Role of Relaxosome Formation in Defining Plasmid Specificity' "  there is also another paper by the same group using the term. To be honest the author, LS Frost, is my old supervisor from undergrad, so I may be a little biased to trust it.I think the term 'transferosome' may have been coined by my ol'lab to describe the protein complex that is required to mediate DNA transfer during conjugation. Specifically TraD is a protein that has been shown not to be involved in DNA nicking, relaxosome activity, or mating pair formation - but without it all steps can take place except DNA transfer. TraD, and other proteins that is binds to are thought to form a trans membrane apparatus for DNA transfer. So there name might be in contention, but the presence of a protein structure at that location is not. Sorry if I ramble, I like this subject, check this out too  "Matxalen Llosa, F. Xavier Gomis-Rüth, Miquel Coll, Fernando de la Cruz (2002) Bacterial conjugation: a two-step mechanism for DNA transport Molecular Microbiology 45 (1), 1–8" 

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Image-Windows sidebar.PNG)
Thanks for uploading Image:Image-Windows sidebar.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey request
Hi,

I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, BCeagle0312 (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

User:PocketRock
Suggest indefinite block as sock of User:Light current, see the other various socks. Zazazaa (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

created in response to Brandt; make guide and policy due to Seigenthaler related publicity
"In response to the publicity generated by this and other similar cases, Wikipedia restricted page creation (see: Wikipedia Signpost 2005-12-05 "Page creation restrictions") and created new guidelines for biographies." is not quite correct. Please read User talk:WAS 4.250/Archive 05. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia weekly
G'day there, As you may have noticed, there is a new episode of the podcast out - WikipediaWeekly/Episode62. Would you care to make another one of your images for the purpose? I must say, I'm not sure if we've ever thanked you for your visual support of the project over all this time. You've been so diligent in making these "album covers" right the way back to the beginning. Thankyou. Have this as a small token:

Corrections to the drawing "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9f/MAPKpathway.png/180px-MAPKpathway.png"
The drawing gives the viewer the impression that the EGF receptor binds its ligand as a monomer. As I am sure you know, the receptor is activated by dimerisation (EGFR-EGFR homodimerisation or heterodimerisation with HER2), induced by ligand binding. The drawing should be edited accordingly. In addition, the term "MAPK" refers to a group of kinases partaking in distinct signaling pathways. The MAPKs acivated by Raf-MEK are ERK1/2. ERK also migrates to the nucleus upon activation.

I would have edited these issues myself if it were text, but editing an image can deteriorate the quality. Danbae (talk) 08:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)