User talk:Adrian J. Hunter/Archive2

Thanks!
Thanks for the kudos! It was my first major wikipedia contribution so I'm glad to see it was well recieved. I'm looking to probably add some more to the history in the next couple days and hopefully start looking at other articles to add to as well, so if you have any suggestions on articles that could use some work let me know! CPRI04 (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

More thanks
hey, just wanted to say thanks for copyediting so much of my new article! with somethin that long there's always going to be some errors so I appreciate you putting in so much time to help! CPRI04 (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk page
Just wanted to give a quick thanks for getting use of fungicides talk page restored! I saw it dissappeared then saw it reappeared and noticed it was you who asked MZMcBride to put it back. I am still working on getting that article back up, been a crazy couple work weeks but I'm thinking it'll be back up in the next week or so. Also working on a similar article for insecticides while I'm at it so hope you'll take a look at them when I get them up CPRI04 (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thx for correction at "Redundancy exercises"
They need a renovation—both reformatting per Gary King's job on the "Advanced editing exercises", and content. Pleased to have your scrutiny. You might consider doing a little reviewing for WP:FAC. ...? Tony   (talk)  15:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Page claimed to be advertisement; edits don't work
Hi Adrian, You claimed my site for Controlled Environments Magazine was an advertisement, so I made the necessary edits and the warning is not going away. Am I missing something, or can you please clear the warning if the page is now written from a neutral POV? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcvpub (talk • contribs) 17:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edit to Stolen Generations
I included  in my Verify source edit because "Adelaide Sun" is in the provided reference. As such, as you have left it, the Verify source can be removed because Wikipedia is about verification, not truth. I just wanted to highlight the dubiousness of the "fact", when both fact and dubious won't do. I also explained this here.

Probably the solution is a new template source is wrong that displays as something like [confirm] with a tool tip of "An editor has queried this referenced fact. Can you find a supporting source?".

BTW I will be borrowing a couple of your userboxes. Mark Hurd (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Controversy sections
The problem with "controversy" sections is that they can have all of the "negative" information put there with everything else being positive or neutral. We don't want that. We need for the good, the bad, and the ugly to be layered throughout the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Article to check out
Hey Adrian, this is the wikipedia user formerly know as CPRI04 haha. Thought you might be interested in this article I put up a week or so ago, Fungicide use in the United States, took me a while but work had finally slowed down enough for me to get back to contributing to wikipedia! CPI04 (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

NICE interface modification: We need more users!
Hello. I am one of the developers of the NICE tool and the related study's contact person. I hope you have been finding the modification helpful so far. We have been gathering users for a little over a month now, but we haven't gotten as many users as we had hoped. We'd appreciate it if you would share the NICE tool with any editors that might find it useful. --E poch F ail (talk 16:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Question
Ok. If you don't want me redirecting two of hearts to Playing card, explain why Four of hearts, five of hearts, six of hearts, and etc. all redirect to Playing card. Hmmmm? XxTimberlakexx (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I agree with you now, but some people would be looking for the playing card. Anyway, a bot made all those redirects "four of hearts", and etc., but you should get someone to delete them, I mean, bots aren't always right when it comes to making articles.

XxTimberlakexx (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I'm eventually gonna propose some of those playing cards for deletion. In the meantime, maybe you can start doing that.XxTimberlakexx (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Tickling the minor edit
Yes, accidentally hitting that has been a problem. Now for clarification in the future, what is a minor edit v. major? Noles1984 (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Gray wolf
Is there in reason you prefer "is the largest wild member of the Canidae family. It is an ice age survivor originating during the Late Pleistocene around 300,000 years ago"

over

"is an extant species of the Canidae family originating in the Villanyian stage (3.4 Mya) of the Pliocene epoch through to today (Halocene)." ?Noles1984 (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Villanyian stage within the Pliocene can be cited as a point of origin if it's worth anything as content.Noles1984 (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Intro Thanks
Thanks for the intro! My edits are mainly just spelling errors I find while browsing around, heh. But I feel like a CoolKid now, 'cause I have a TalkPage! *giggle* ;) Thanks again! Kailey elise (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Fungus at FAC
Hi there. A few weeks back you left some comments on the Fungus FAC page. Other editors have responded - do you want to go back, have a look, and see whether you wish to switch to supporting the FAC nomination? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!!!
Many thanks for the compliments and even more thanks for your thoughtful FAC review and contributions to Fungus!!! You and the other reviewers made many excellent points which helped bring it to FA. Thanks again & best wishes. Malljaja (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Full version of NICE to be released
Thanks for helping me and my colleagues test the NICE interface modification. Depending on when you installed the tool, you were only presented with a specific subset of the features we have developed. We are ready to roll out the full feature set which, we expect, will make the gadget significantly more useful. Before we do that, we'd like you to answer a few questions about your activity in Wikipedia as it relates to undoing other's edits and what you thought of the NICE features you were shown.

The survey will ask for your Wikipedia username, but you can participate anonymously if you choose. To do so, send me an email with an address I can respond to and I will have the survey software respond with an anonymous token for you to continue. --E poch F ail (talk 17:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for completing the survey. You have been added to the full feature set. --E poch F ail (talk 14:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Mercury in high-fructose corn syrup
Adrian, I think you missed my point in adding the comment about the FDA methylmercury limit in seafood. I was trying (perhaps too subtly) to suggest that the levels found in HFCS were much too low to panic over. 192.12.184.2 (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

DNA Sequencing
http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-products/Single-Pass-DNA-Sequencing-from-Agencourt-Bioscience-2689-1/ http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v4/n8/full/nnano.2009.155.html DOIs: 10.1002/smll.200500464 10.1504/IJNT.2009.022928 10.1002/anie.200462114 10.1038/nature07517

You reversed my edit but the point is unclear to me. What is the issue with length of DNA during sequencing. Throughput is essential. You reverted with silence about the 2002 date. But if single pass length is somehow what you want to consider check above more 2009 current not 2002. Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

re: "is that we still can't reliably sequence much more than about 1000 nucleotides in a single sequencing read"
 * 2007 qoute: "The recent introduction of instruments capable of producing millions of DNA sequence reads in a single run is rapidly changing the landscape of genetics, providing the ability to answer questions with heretofore unimaginable speed" from {{cite doi|10.1016/j.tig.2007.12.007} } Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk)
 * A:individual read is still limited to around 1000 bases
 * X not relay, one of most efficient methods, reads only 30-40 bp; but it is not key issue. What is the max length of cloned into GenLib fragments ? Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Xook1kai Choa6aur
Many thanks Adrian. Though looking at the recent history of this editor and after having cautioned him/her earlier (which he/she had then deleted from their talk page) I feel now urged to file a report at ANI or other appropriate place. Malljaja (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

can i ask you for mediation?
XC, Malljaja is editing in good faith and has made the effort to put explanations in the edit summaries. Three times reverting without comment is disruptive and bordering on edit warring. And please don't mark this kind of edit as minor - it's disrespectful to the person you're reverting. Would you kindly either undo your reversions, or at least explain your reasoning at the appropriate talk pages? Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you please point to to this person explanation already on the talk pages. The links explain not only why word "separation" is improper but also document how this error was inserted.


 * About the PCR fragment source interpretation. Is it possible to average size of typical length on one source? If it is possible than edit point to, the biggest size, in context of sentence "the typical size". If the goal is to find the UP TO size as was rephrased, then how the following UP TO follow the next sentence (which is 4 x longer). In fact PCR to amplify very short DNA is useful too and the typical size depends on applications. Factually average typical PCR product over all publications may be possible but who is going to do this?.


 * Minor/Major common interpretation is/was that "editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute" (what I certainly believe) and assumed disrespect based on factual disagreement (the links) has to be objected. Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Fungicide use in the United States response
First, just want to say thanks for taking a look at the article and sry, didn't response to your questions earlier -- been on a nice vacation the past week. But anyways in response to your questions, first, you are correct those are not fungi. That was my mistake in labeling them as such, little bit of an oversight. However they are treated with fungicides not a bactericide which is why I included them. Putting a note on the top probably is appropriate.

Secondly, in ref to your question on captan and PCNB. The wiki article on that is actually incorrect/misleading and I will look into updating. Mostof the uses of captan were phased out in 1989 however there still are many registered uses and where I talked about it in those article they are still in use there and are primary way to treat right now. If you take a look at the bayer website (http://www.bayercropscienceus.com/products_and_seeds/seed_treatments/captan.html) it is still used on 30 different crops and if you look at this cornell site you'll see it is still in 320 diff products (http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/24d-captan/captan-ext.html). Like I said, will definitely change the article on captan because it is misleading to just say it was phased out of general usage, implies it is canceled, when although it is used much less there are still times when it is primary treatment method.

Again, thanks for looking through the article!

CPI04 (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Distributed/massed learning
Hi, thanks for that link; I'd searched for an article, but found talk that there was a gap in that aspect of learning psychology. I wonder whether "Distributed and massed learning" is a better coverage for that article? Tony  (talk)  07:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing my typo in Directionality (molecular biology). Debresser (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Reversion
Hi. Umm on his official twitter page he just said that wikipedia got it wrong and that it's September... His twitter page is a verified account 217.7.207.230 (talk) 13:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * http://twitter.com/therealgokwan he said it @jadeycakess about 3 hours ago... 217.7.207.230 (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Prescription

 * Thanks for helping me. I realized that there was no "move" tab because I was using the beta version. Wolfdog (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Practice/se
Adrian, thanks for your insertion into the noun + -ing page. Outside North America, "practice" is a noun and "practise" is a verb.

The lead to that page needs work; noun + -ing is a part of the grammar that is not well treated in sources (in fact, no one knows exactly what is behind it, as far as I can see). What I do know is that it's often used awkwardly, especially with "with". Tony  (talk)  07:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep: italics. Thank you! Tony   (talk)  14:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as linking headings, MoS says not to. It's a rule I disobey in one or two guidelines. But they're not in article space. Tony   (talk)  14:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Meteorologist: spelling is my weakness. Tony   (talk)  14:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Question about Myoglobin entry

 * Copy-pasted from my user page

I believe you are a primary author of the myoglobin article. I have a question for you on the topic which may or may not be appropriate for inclusion: In a rare steak, the red juices are mostly myoglobion, right? Is it safe to tell squamish people that myoglobin is not blood and that we should not call the juices blood? Could you answer via email: meathead@amazingribs.com 98.226.204.252 (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

re Puck (sports)
Good catch with. I was just about to revert myself after I did a search and could not find anything to even partially verify this claim. Evidently this user was trying to insert some disinformation, but probably just some kid trying to promote his buddies names. Either way, might be a good idea to keep an eye on this one. -- &oelig; &trade; 02:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Advanced editing exercises
Thanks, Adrian. Let me know what you think. Link. Tony  (talk)  11:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for picking that up. The problem with writing such exercises is that the edit box requires elaborate text that often bears little relation to the display mode. Thinking about the language and the staging of the exercise from both my perspective and, more importantly, the reader's perspective, also inhibits the checking process. I was appalled to see how many glitches I'd left when I renovated the page earlier this year (I see the page started May 2006, oh heck, so long ago).
 * Currently, I'm writing a c-e short guide for the MilHist project at Roger Davies's request. When I've finished that, I'd like to do a quick survey of any similar exercises that can be found on the Internet. I don't think there's much, though. Tony   (talk)  12:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Concise version of the MoS
Adrian, it's here, and I'd be delighted if you provided feedback. I now link to it rather than the fluffy version of the MoS when I refer nominators of featured article candidates to the guide lines. It does not go against what the MoS advises, but merely covers its scope in 40% of the word-length. There have been growing complaints among FAC nominators about the size and complexity of the MoS, which FAs are bound to follow and which is often an important reference point for reviewers.

On a broader matter that is coming to a head right now, MoS main page has many many sub-pages that have been allowed to grow like topsy and have no oversight. People seem to self-promote their pet guide line to MoS status as they please. Shakescene and I are working towards the re-activation of the WikiProject MoS to perform a coordinating role. I see that there's even a list of participants at WP:MOSCO, although it's all but a ghost town. Tony  (talk)  14:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Goodness, you were up late last night! Let me think about the woolly mammoth idea for MoS. My initial take is that there would be technical problems with a very long page, and that while show/hide banners would be a great idea, they don't improve that problem for readers without a fast connection. But expanding my "concise" MoS main page to encompass the main subpages (MOSNUM, LINKING in particular ...) would still keep it way under the current size of full MoS main page, even. We'd have to make do with the asterisk links rather than banners, though. (Note that some 70% of MOSNUM is already covered at MoS main page.) Tony   (talk)  03:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ilana Mercer

 * Moved from above

Hi Adrian,

My username is Heliopolissa, and I appreciated your comments in re: the Ilana Mercer wiki entry. Thanks for trying to show me the ropes; I hope I'll become a more enlightened editor, as a result! --Heliopolissa (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Badoo
I left a message for you on this article's talk page.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism to your page
(Responding to the message you left on my talk) Ah! No problem at all. Congrats on your first time getting your user page vandalized -- usually a sign you're doing something right, hehe. Very simply how I nabbed it. I use a rollbacking app called WP:HUGGLE. It tracks the recent changes RSS feed and, among a number of other things, highlights contributions by users with 1 or more recent vandalism warnings on your talk page. OverlordQ had already given the user in question 2 or 3 warnings so when the user vandalized your page his edit showed up highlighted as suspect. Clicking on the edit made it pretty apparent. Hope that explains it! Ginsengbomb (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
I just wanted to thank you for striking out those warnings, they could have become troublesome. Also, to avoid any more misunderstanding, would it be possible for you to revert Marek69's edit back to my edit that didn't blank the page? Thanks, again. 70.106.212.170 (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, it looks like Marek69 reverted himself! 70.106.212.170 (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly welcome!
I'm really excited about having the chance to contribute here-- I see it as a really great project! Thanks for the useful links, I'll be sure to read through them before making more contributions. Nick Klose (tc) 16:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again!
Hey, I saw you reverted some vandalism on my page-- thanks for the help. :) -Nick Klose (T/C) 02:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You should not have reverted me.
Supposing that adding atheism was a bold revision of that IP, when I reverted it, you should have moved to discuss it, not simply reverted me. I have started a discussion on the talk page, as adding religions like this is inappropriate. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 05:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should read List of systems of plant taxonomy　andycjp (talk) 07:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Which is the best system, would you say?andycjp (talk) 10:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Posting revert messages in duplicate
I posted a reply to your bug report: NICE Posting revert messages in duplicate -- EpochFail (talk 20:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And another... -- EpochFail  (talk 16:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverted your revision to User:Adrian_J._Hunter
testing... testing... Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverted your revision to User:Adrian_J._Hunter
testernating... Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Silliest wikilink of the month award
Hey Adrian, how are you? I hope the varsity is giving you a good rest. Are you on wiki right through the summer break?

Good entry in the award. At some stage we must make some awards, I suppose. I can't think of a suitable prize, though. Perhaps I might ask Ohconfucius to make up a pretty user template.

Tony  (talk)  15:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Tagged
Sadly, I don't have a ref; I found out that Tagged is blocked in mainland China simply by trying to access it. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

CGI Heffalumps
It was clearly a fix. Oh, well. The year is young and there are plenty of weird links still to find. Bradley0110 (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Beta clamp
Fully noted, thank you, processingBetaclamp (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well Sir ,,, as re your critiques - your immediate response has granted you infinite leeway (!). For the DNA clamp (dc) and beta clamp (bc) coalescence, I've 3 items: iii) the first and third links should be reassigned while the second appears to be a 5-star resource; ii) bc has three times the prose dc has, how to decide which shall be overridden will prove interesting, & i) the title shall be ... ?  Thx again ~ Betaclamp (talk) 06:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, Thank you for both your in and outputs ; secondly, having not made a copy of my completed Article that has apparently Vanished,  can you show me where to get a copy so that I do not have to redo It from notes ? Thank you again ;  and thirdly,  while it seems clear that the new version lacks what the first one had,  could you please tell me to what extent that you think -  the condensed, non-preexisting material should be replaced by the original Article :  this is also to specifically ask ,  what did You think of my Prose ? ~ Betaclamp (talk) 07:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

ELISA
I responded! NickCT (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church
Hey. I saw that you've been a contributor to the Westboro article, so I was wondering if you could chime in on Talk:Westboro Baptist Church. We're having a disagreement on sourcing and could use a hand. Thanks! —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)