User talk:Alteripse/archive4

A lititle help, rmemeber me?
Im up for arbitration because Acharya S's disiples have decided I am an immoral Christyain zealot out to destory her and have commitd crimes againt her.

THy want ot use my past internet hisotry agaisnt me in a doubt standard. ( After all, if you show anyone sayign bad things about Acharya S, they are detractors, say bad things abotu Zarove, they are true.)

I aquired internt stalkrs abotu 4 years ago, and they are evidence of how bad a peson I am. ( THey followed me from board ot baord to ruin me, so they must be tellign the truth as they say badhtings and make sure Acharya loosk liek a sweet, innocent girl attackdby a Demoniac possesse dby sheer evil...)

Can you help by offirng soem evidence about their ocnduct, or at lays some advice?

Why are you defending this person, when he has made constant very vicious personal attacks on the subject?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%5E%5EJames%5E%5E/evidence

Others have been banned for far less egregious behavior. There is extreme bias going on here. This matter is something that should be take up by the Wikipedia organization ASAP.

Sorry, unsigned notes don't elicit much respect from me, especially when they contain exaggeration and misrepresentation. I have not been following the arguments for months, but there was nothing in the early weeks that I would have characterized as "vicious personal attacks", certainly nothing more pointed or offensive than what I read on Acharya's website itself or from you and her other defender here. Also contrary to your assertion, very few editors have been banned for this level of dispute or POV. You apparently do not get it, but both of you look to me exactly like mirror images of Zarove. There is practically nothing you have accused him of that one or both of you has not been similarly guilty of, including dragging in real names and personal information. I had never heard of Acharya before this idiotic feud started, but there is certainly nothing on her website or in your messages that gives any of you standing as supporters of reason and civility. You are barking up the wrong tree here. If wikipedia and its administrators were half as biased as you claim, one of us would have skipped the stupid arguments and banned both of you months ago. alteripse 20:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Who is "you?" I've never posted here before. And, as concerns "unsigned notes," is "alteripse" your real name? I see no real name on your USER page. Are you an admin? You act like you are. I wasn't barking up any tree, just pointing out something you were admittedly unaware of. You seem to be very hostile for unknown reasons. Please never mind.
 * You have just demonstrated the problem with unsigned notes as well as the reason I sound hostile. I am not interested in your real name either, just an identifiable persona here, with a track record of contributions. You sound exactly like James and/or el Lobo, of one of her other moron disciples, who have no interest in anything here except fighting with Zarove, and who use multiple names, IP addresses, or none at all. You create a reputation and respect here with your signed contributions. You left an unsigned critical note here containing the same misrepresentations they deal in and then act offended when I responded to it appropriately. Don't bother me anymore. alteripse 01:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Glucocorticoids
question was moved to talk page of talk:glucocorticoid article and answered. alteripse 12:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Acharya S
I am having torubles with her. I try to present a balanced article, which includes critisisms of her idea's,and her (real)creentials. I am not tyign to just flat put say "She slyign and a fraud", but I am tying to point out what she relaly is. A holder of an undergrad degree formFranklin and MArshal Collage, and an author of a badly researhced book that is open to much critisism.

Her disiples won't leave this alone, and if you check her mailign list she tlaks abotu hwo Wikipedia is out to desotry her. ( Not rlelay an exageration.)

Anyhtign spoken againt her is biased, anyhtign in promotion fo her is good. Thus,, all critiissms are not allowed, all favourable statements are good.

Can you help?

Okazaki fragments
Hi Alteripse, this is someone whom you have helped a great some by answering his quetions regarding DNA and Okazaki fragments. I want to thank you a lot for your time spent.

Newborn screening
Good good! I twiddled a little with formatting here and there, but basically, bravo!! jengod 22:06, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

OMIM
Yes, I discovered the problem with the tags in the table later. This is why I didn't give porphyrin the same treatment. We may get somewhere by removing "number" alltogether or replacing it by "no.". I'll change it around and see how it works. JFW | T@lk  08:45, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I did it straight away. The CAH table still spans more than one line, but it looks better. I'm going to put it into porphyria now. JFW | T@lk  15:59, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Glycosylation vs. glycation
I assume you read my userpage, otherwise you couldn't have known I was working to expand glycosylation.

Anyway, the lead section of glycation pretty much explains the difference perfectly. Glycosylation is a highly controlled process mediated by specific enzymes in the endoplasmatic reticulum and Golgi apparatus while glycation is much more random and haphazard and not mediated by enzymes. If it needs to be any clearer, I'd love to help, but you'd have to tell me more specifically what part is unclear. - Mgm|(talk) 15:44, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a discrepancy between the way the terms are used in medicine and chemistry. The principal use of the concept in medicine is in relation to chronic diabetic complications. Since the 1970s, the term glycosylated hemoglobin has been the principal term for a clinically important blood test, and many articles have discussed the vascular damage caused by glycosylation of various tissue proteins because of high glucose levels in people with diabetes. Both of these processes are nonenzymatic Amadori rearrangements, which doesnt match your enzymatic vs nonenzymatic distinction. Perhaps this is an unresolvable terminology difference, but I haven't noticed many medical research articles observing the distinction. My undergraduate degree was biochemistry (quite) a few years ago, and my first published research was on glycosylated hemoglobin, but basic glycosylation research is not a particular interest and I haven't kept up with it. Have you seen this discussed in relation to diabetes research? Are you doing graduate school research in this area? alteripse 15:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I just finished a course on glycobiology and glycochemistry and I heard a mentioned Amadori rearrangements. I'll check it as soon as I can. BTW, since I'm in Europe I've got no clue what level graduate school is, so I'll stay away from answering that. Mgm|(talk) 22:44, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Graduate school is after college. You do original research and it gets you a PhD, (or an MS or MA). In the US this usually occurs between 22 and 25 years of age but I think in Europe a year or two earlier. Since glycation/glycosylation is not a very elementary topic for the first years of university chemistry, I was guessing you are farther along. alteripse 03:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * In that case I'm probably in graduate school. Maybe you're interested in knowing. At about age 4 kids start "elementary school" here at around 11 or 12, they go on to "middle school" (middelbare school) and after they finish that, provided they have followed a high enough grade of study in middle school they can go on to University. University should take approximately 4 or 5 years depending on the chosen subject, but most people take longer. Mgm|(talk) 19:50, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Reference desk thank you
Thanks for your well rounded replies on the reference desk! :) --HappyCamper 3 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)


 * Most kind of you to notice and compliment. And the same to you of course as well. alteripse 3 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)

One thing I must tell you, Alteripse. Please seperate your edits to talk pages from the original post with a white line... JFW | T@lk  3 July 2005 21:29 (UTC) :-)   May a thousand edit-style flowers bloom... alteripse 3 July 2005 22:53 (UTC)

Your comments/questions on glycation/fructose
Thanks for your questions on my message page. I am an amatuer, but have studied the effects of glycations extensively. It appears that something on the order of 90% of all age related chronic diseases are related to glycations and subsequent reactions. High fructose consumption may double or quadruple the rate of glycation damage. I know relatively little about glycosylation, your specialty.

There seems to be considerable imprecision in the usage of glycation, glycosylation, and other terminology in this field, including AGEs. It is, after all, rather arcane, very specialized, and evolving. I don't know which groups are using what terminology; but the distinction is crucial and seems to be observed carefully in recent papers.

From my understanding both glycation and glycosylation occur with hemoglobin. As I understand it, glycosylation is a desirable biochemical process, mediated by enzymes, that may help stabilize molecules and/or promote proper protein folding. Glycation is non-enzymatic and may range from benign to severe in its effects depending on: where the sugar molecule bonds, to what molecule it bonds, and subsequent reactions. In diabetes, glycated hemoglobin is used as an indicator of the average blood sugar level over about the last 3 months. This is used to monitor how well patients are controlling their average blood sugar levels. High glycated hemoglobin level indicates poor control, and vice versa. http://my.webmd.com/content/article/46/1667_50935?z=1667_50936_6504_00_08 http://www.missouri.edu/~diabetes/ngsp/factors.htm I does appear that gHb is a less desirable acronym than HbA1c, so I will correct the article on that point, probably by eliminating the acronym since they tend to be confusing to general audience anyway.

Type II diabetes used to be called age-related since it did not occur in young people. Now, with the influence of high fructose consumption in the last 20 years or so, we are seeing teens with Type II; so age-related doesn't seem as good a name. I added that to help people remember which type I was referring to, as I thought many general audience types don't distinguish very well between Type I and II. Thanks again, JWAnderson | Talk

Thanks!
Thanks for your work on the first Medicine Collaboration of the Week! You especially really made the article. I'm quite proud of how much the article improved, and I hope we remain an active force, improving medical articles on Wikipedia. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 02:41, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Acharya S
I say we oughta take off and nuke it from orbit - it's the only way to be sure. Any ideas how? crazyeddie 06:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I share your opinion. I'd be happy to have it simply vaporized, but then one of her disciples would create a new article and start the whole mess over. Will you support the last version I posted on the talk page if zarove and I can get a couple of other people to do so? I am sorry to ask you to go looking for it amid all the word fog. alteripse 02:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was talking more about the contributors than the actual article. We'd be vaporized as well, but at this point, I'd be willing to write that off as acceptable losses. I was actually thinking about starting up a fork as a subpage off of my userpage, work with you to hash out a compromise between us on it, then sit the principles down one by one and see if we can work out a compromise with each of them in turn - with us two having complete veto, at least initially (as long as its a subpage off of my userpage, then by convention, I own it...). The idea here is to deal with one maniac at a time. Right now, they're feeding off each other. Eventually, we'd have to open it up to the community as a whole, but this might be a way to proceed at first.

Since I think we're both of the "Acharya S is a quack" POV, then I think it makes sense to sit down with ^^James^^ first (since he is of the opposition), then move on to Zarove after that. We can work on 216 after we've dealt with those two. Hopefully, 216 will get bored and wander off... It might be the word fog, but James seems more-or-less reasonable, at least as out-and-out POV warriors go. crazyeddie 06:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Show me what you have in mind. Anything different than this. alteripse 10:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Crazyeddie/Acharya S compromise draft Let's see if we can work out a version that we are perfectly happy with first. Let's also continue this discussion on the draft's talkpage... crazyeddie 19:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I moved your comments to the draft's talkpage. I would like to keep the draft in such a condition that we can just cut-and-paste it when it's done baking. Also, just reminding you that it does have a talkpage! You also might want to watchlist it, assuming you haven't already done so. crazyeddie 05:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Re Poliosis
Thanks for your very quick reply in the Reference Desk. Amazing that the white hair patch is most frequently over the forehead. It's fascinating to me that a human anomoly can happen the same way in different people. A bit of an oxymoron isn't it? Yet at the same time, it's reassuring that when you're abnormal, you're really just normal. I've been told by ultrasound that I also have an anomoly -- a wall dividing my uterus in 2 halves. Other tests have shown this is debatable but it's nice to know my husband and I are together with others in our uniqueness. It is a shame though that we can't claim extreme inteligence by default. Thanks again. (M.Close, NJ)

"when you're abnormal, you're really just normal" I like that! It reminds me of the old internist's saying: a healthy person is just someone who hasn't been thoroughly worked up. alteripse 23:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Lymphatic System
"By age 70, the thymus is one-tenth the size it was at the age of 10, and the immune system is only 25% as powerful."

I had recently edited the lymphatic system with a brief statement denoting the progressive weakening of the aforementioned system's functions, but you had removed it within minutes following its inclusion. That statement was obtain from The Eighth Edition of Hole's Essentials of Human Anatomy and Physiology, Chapter 14, p. 371 under the information about the thymus gland. As such, I would like you to review the citation for its authenticity, though I doubt the eidtors would place incorrect information in a book meant to teach one about anatomy and physiology. I would deem such a statement relevant to both the lymphatic system article, as well as the aging article, thus I shall let you review the statement alongside its source.

Jordan Yang 22:43, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the statement is that it is meaningless. By what measurement is the immune system 25% as powerful? While the thymus shrinks with age, linking it with the other statement implies a causal link, an equally dubious proposition. If a specific parameter which is 25% as "powerful" can be cited, I would have no objection to a clearer sentence that actually said something. As it stood it sounded like something used on late night infomercials to sell unnecessary dietary supplements. alteripse 04:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Controversial hGH uses
I added idiopathic short stature to the list of controversial uses of hGH. It was approved by the FDA and side effects are apparently very minimal, but it is controversial nonetheless for other reasons that you're undoubtedly aware. Kudos on the superb articles, I felt a courtesy was in order. Evolauxia 09:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the addition. thanks alteripse 04:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

GSD type # edits
I made the alternate names redirects, so if they search for them, they will get redirected to the GSD type # article. It's an improvement because there were multiple articles for the same disease (ie von von Gierke's disease and glucose-6-phosphatase deficiency - which are the same thing). So instead of making multiple articles with the information all spread out for essentially the same thing, I considered it better to centralize the information to the GSD type # articles. If you disagree and consider this a bad move, we can have a vote on the glycogen storage disease talk page on what best to do. KBi 17:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Ref. desk
Could you take antoher look at your Earth response on the Science Reference desk, cheers --Commander Keane 00:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The Nineteen Senses
I thought you might have something interesting to say at the reference desk, about "human infrared sense". I'm curious as to whether you'll agree with me or think I'm completely off-base! - Nunh-huh 00:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I almost added to your comment, but what you said was so exactly right, I decided it didn't need me say Amen to it. If anyone argues, I'll back it. alteripse 00:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. It's good to have a reality check... I had that "Twilight Zone" feeling and wondered if it was me, or them. - Nunh-huh 03:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)