User:JWSchmidt/Talk from 2010

AfD nomination of Windows box
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Windows box. 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 Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Windows box. 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest
Hi

Thanks for your interest in this ANI posting - I appreciate it. For the record, I can confirm that User:Ncmvocalist has only ever posted once to my talk-page. (Some preliminaries took place here before I became aware of them; with follow-up here.)

Cheers, Pedant17 (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Cavalier-Smith: Deep phylogeny, ancestral groups and the four ages of life
Hi JWSchmidt,

Thank you very much for the link to the article. I greatly appreciate it. Cavalier-Smith's work has radically transformed my understanding of these issues and clarified the picture of how life and the biosphere have co-evolved - as well as, resolving many glaring paradoxes and contradictions in the mainstream view. My initial feeling upon reading his work, was that he was committing biological heresy but the force of argument/analysis and marshaling of facts is so impressive that I have been reluctantly won over! Once again, Thanks for the article. If there is any way I can return the favor let me know.

Jtwsaddress42 (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Hi. Don't even try asking for evidence or clarification on the topic of "DNA arsenic". Everybody is taking showers in a cascade of falsehood and misunderstandings. (And unsurprisingly, falsehoods have saturated their DNA.)216.254.111.34 (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I like to ask. Upon digging into the supplemental data it looks like there is about equal arsenic and phosphorus 25 times more phosphate than arsenic in the DNA of the cells grown +A/-P. They really do seem to greatly prefer to use P in DNA. --JWSchmidt (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Neurochemical.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Neurochemical.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Kelly hi! 23:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)