User talk:Antony-22/Archive 11

DYK for DNA walker
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Meson bomb DYK issues
Antony,

Earlier today the DYK hook for Meson bomb was removed after I pointed to issues with the original article's stating as unchallenged fact that the Soviet meson bomb research was the result of American disinformation efforts when the single source cited for this assertion (and the single source for this other than the article that came up in a search) should not have led us to state it as if it were an unchallenged fact. (See the article's talk page as well).

I am bringing this to your attention because you had approved the hook. I saw that the discussion there was primarily around how to word the hook, which seems trivial but suggests that someone knew deep down that the article could not establish the existence of an American meson-bomb disinformation program beyond one possibly biased interviewer's speculation and conjecture.

Just something to keep in mind for future reviews ... Daniel Case (talk) 23:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately this occurred while I was traveling in California, so I wasn't able to respond to the issues. For the record, I did look at the source and I took the following exchange as supporting the hook: "'Sometimes, as we know, you get simply disinformation. Have you encountered it?' 'Yes.  Some time around 1960 we got information about the so-called meson bomb... Zeldovich says: "Nonsense!" Khariton did not believe it either. Nevertheless, the bosses decided to set up a special unit...' 'Which means that the disinformation worked as intended.' 'Yes'".  It did not occur to me, however, that the interview itself could be considered unreliable, and I will take that into account in future reviews.  Do you think this could have been fixed by adding to the hook something like "allegedly" or "according to one Soviet scientist," or do the problems go deeper than that? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In this case, I think making it clear that it was not a proven allegation would have worked. Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Janet Werker
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 12:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

California High Speed Rail
I saw the new map you put in, and I'm not impressed. I don't think it is an improvement at all: (1) It doesn't show the route, it implies it. (2) Also, the old one was an official map from the Authority. This is not, so it doesn't have quite the credibility. (3) The topology is a bit clearer, but it also doesn't show the major cities, either. (4) When you enlarge it, you loose the cities, so there is NO route information at all! So, in the end, I think this map loses good information. If you believe the old one should be replaced, you should choose one which is an actual improvement.

BTW, I'm in the process of getting permission to show the new route plan (from the new Business Plan). I've gotten informal permission, but their lawyers need to review the Wikipedia license.

I also don't see any mention in the initial section re the change to North-IOS. I don't know who removed it, but (1) this is a BIG change, (2) it has not yet been officially adopted, and THE PUBLIC IS STILL IN THE COMMENT PHASE SO IT IS ACTUALLY IMPORTANT THAT IT BE LISTED!!!, and (3) removing this was a really bad idea, since it is critical information re the project and I don't see it listed there in the text. Really stupid changes such as this one piss me off. To my mind, losing important information is NEVER a good idea! This is NOT a comic book ... it is supposed to be authoritative information source!

Robert92107 (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The new map does need a few more tweaks, but there were problems with the old map too.
 * The station names were barely legible even at the extremely large size and they weren't clickable, and the positions are not editable as plans change.
 * We can actually add the route itself using the "image overlay" feature, I just need to find the time to do that.
 * The colors didn't show the topography clearly.
 * The major cities served are indicated by the stations, and I don't see the need to add minor city names, which are barely legible on the original map anyway.
 * There's also the possibility to having a separate zoomed-in map for Southern California to prevent bunching, but I have to ask someone to do the footwork for this.
 * As for the North-IOS text, none of it has been removed, I just moved it down to the "Route" section because the information was too detailed for the lead. You're right that it should be mentioned in the lead, so I'll add a more succinct summary back there.
 * Lastly, (I think) you don't actually need permission to use CHSRA materials, as works made by the California government are not under copyright. Use commons:Template:PD-CAGov when uploading. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for putting the IOS-North info in the lead-in. I think it definitely helps.


 * Re maps: (1) I do agree there were problems with the old map, but I personally found it acceptable. After all, every map is a trade-off. (2) As you know your new map doesn't list any of the Phase 2 cities. Maybe you should use a different color for Phase 2 sites? (3) It would also be good to show the tie-in with the Las Vegas line. (4) I think an overlay to get the route marked would be a great idea, but I'm not familiar with the method to do so.


 * As to permission, I added another CHSRA map which was removed by the permissions section until I got CHSRA to sign their permission form. So, these days I'm not assuming anything!


 * Robert92107 (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I added in the Phase II stations in a different color. I can add in the route lines (including the Las Vegas project) but it's moderately technically tricky, so it might be a few weeks before I get around to it.
 * As for the copyright, there was a court ruling that works of the California state government aren't eligible for copyright... but it's possible that they're still trying to enforce restrictions even though they have no legal basis. I suppose if you want to keep a good relationship with them you'd have to do what they say regardless. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

DYKs for Cynthia Larive and Day-Glo Color Corp.
Cynthia Larive and Day-Glo Color Corp. have been nominated for DYK. This is my first time nominating, so let me know if you see any errors. Thanks for the suggestion and for guiding me to the appropriate resources! KLindblom (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Great! Just two minor suggestions: the status is "new" in these cases (see "Status" under Template:NewDYKnomination), and there's no ellipsis after the hook. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Yue Qi
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Josephson effect
Antony, merging (Jos. energy into Jos. Effect) is not that simple as copy+paste. The energy part has a reference to the Jos. effect i.e. now to itself. :-( Also some notations are different: In Jos. effect the voltage is U, while in energy-part U is the energy and the voltage is V (which is more appropriate from my point of view). Please, straighten this up to complete the merge correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.255.153.46 (talk) 09:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip. I'll try to get someone knowledgeable to fix it.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for The Play of Wit and Science
— Maile (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for National Strategic Computing Initiative
— Maile (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Postdoctoral researcher unionization
— Maile (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for San Joaquin River Viaduct
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of I Will Possess Your Heart
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article I Will Possess Your Heart you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of I Will Possess Your Heart
The article I Will Possess Your Heart you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:I Will Possess Your Heart for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MarioSoulTruthFan -- MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Do-It-Yourself Biology
Most of the information on the Do-It-Yourself Biology page is woefully out of date. In fact most people in the community don't even call it Do-It-Yourself Biology anymore, they call it Biohacking, see google trends or Motherboard or the tons of other news articles that were used as modern citations(i.e. in the last year). Biopunk has really never been a term associated with Do-It_yourself Biology except maybe briefly in it's infancy and by a poorly written book that has had no traction in the movement. No one uses the term "wetware hacking" ever.

The introduction of the article was modernized but you reverted it, statements like " DIY biology is primarily undertaken by individuals with extensive research training from academia or corporations, who then mentor and oversee other DIY biologists with no formal training." are wrong. It is not primarily undertaken by individuals with extensive training, even from the beginning of the movement.

There are statements like "For example, the Glowing Plant project intends to grow the arabidopsis, or rose, plant with a bioluminescent gene naturally occurring in Fireflies.[39]". Someone intending to do something should not belong in a wikipedia article.

Also, many things are sourced very poorly like using an article in "Seed magazine" as a citation 4 times!

I don't understand why you reverted most of the changes to use information cited from 2001 but nothing in 2014 to present. Doesn't that seem wrong? Please let the edits stand, all of them were cited and modernized. There is no reason to revert them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC06:F520:5921:A1F7:5537:F536 (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article needs to be overhauled, including with more recent sources. The main issue is that text on Wikipedia needs to be cited to third-party reliable sources, and cannot rely on your own first-hand knowledge of the topic.  See Verifiability and No original research.  This is especially important if you are trying to remove text that is already supported by sources.  It would greatly help if you can point to a source that says that, for example, DIY biology and body modification are part of the same community, as you claim.  I've seen no sources that support that so far, and one that directly refutes it.  Same with you statements about the terms "biohacking" and "biopunk".  In general it is okay to add text from more recent sources, but if you want to remove sourced text you need to justify that pretty strongly by showing that reliable sources support the change.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * So when a statement has no source, I need to find a source to refute it? Most everything I deleted and overwrote had more modern and reliable sources(as compared to things like "Seed magazine") put in its place. Please go back and see what you reverted. I pointed you towards google trends for biohacking and biopunk and Do-it-yourself biology(I don't know if there really is a better way to look at it?). It is clear that Biohacking is the popular term, again the modern articles I posted all refer to it as Biohacking. Obviously, there is no citation that says "Biohacking is the more popular term". But a simple internet search for biopunk shows that it is associated with Science fiction genres not actual people, just like cyberpunk is a sci-fi genre associated with people called "hackers" not "cyberpunks". DIY Biology is not really a community anymore they have started to fall under the term Biohacking, many of what were previously called DIY Biologist are also what people call Grinders. This is again a hard source to cite because where does one find an article that says "People involved in the group formerly known as DIY Biologist are now also part of the subculture called Grinders"? Instead I posted relevant articles about DIY medical implantation, experiments like microbiome transplants that involve both biology and body modification, if you want I can even find articles of people who are involved in the community formerly known as DIYBio who also have implants but those who aren't familiar with the scene might have difficulty connecting the two. There is also a project out of Counter Culture Labs for a bacterial sunblock, which is body modification(which I did not cite). I know offhand half a dozen individuals who participate in Biohacking that also have implants(while this last one is obviously anecdotal it is still relevant). The Austin Biohacking community is composed of both Grinders and DIYBio people, they do stuff together(again difficult to cite). I interact with many of the biohacker communities and so have lost of knowledge in this area. I am not trying to fuck up the article, I am just trying to improve it. Everything or almost everything that was changed had tons of sources and they were all from the last two years. I would appreciate it if we could figure out a way where you don't revert changes I make especially when they are cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC06:F520:F8E6:B024:B7B8:74EC (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * After going through the article again a number of the citations were dead links, blogposts and a satirish news article by Newitz that said things such as "The Internet boom was a joke. Steve Jobs is a dink, Bill Gates is a fascist, and Carly Fiorina has lost the Midas touch. The days of Mondo 2000 are long over." and "Say McDonald's patented the arm, and whenever you used your own arm, you had to pay 10¢ to the boys who brought you the Happy Meal. That would suck, wouldn't it?" These seem hardly reliable. I made more edits and I gave explanations for each one. If you revert changes please give an explanation as to why after each reversion. I tried to make the edits as individual and contained as possible so I could provide explanation for each and global reversions should be unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC06:F520:F8E6:B024:B7B8:74EC (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of I Will Possess Your Heart
The article I Will Possess Your Heart you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:I Will Possess Your Heart for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

non-helical models of DNA structure
Hi, Antony-22 The hybridization of Exon with its mRNA seen by EM was discovered long time ago by Dr. Chambon. In my 2015 paper, I just explain his result in a new way to support my hypothesis about the ambidextrous double helix model. I know you are an expert in a special field of DNA. However, you may not familiar with DNA topology. Anyway, it is very difficult to explain the structure of that hybridized DNA and RNA seen under the EM. By common sense, it is unlikely that the two strands were winding plectonemically. I tried to add one sentence in previous “Non-helical models of DNA structure." Unfortunately, I made a mistake and cause the present edition not perfect, many references were missing. If you think it is helpful to our readers, please add the following sentence to the end of that paragraph:

The hybridization of exon DNA with its mRNA seen on many EM pictures repeatedly and objectively supports the idea of ambidextrous double helix structure. [29] [29]. A hypothesis on the secondary structure of DNA. International Journal of Novel Research in Life Science, 2(5), 58, 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ycxuwiki2012 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi! The issue is that on Wikipedia we strongly prefer citations to secondary sources such as review articles, rather than primary research articles.  This helps us to determine how the research fits into the larger scientific context, and is especially important if you're trying to insert text about your own research.  If your paper has been significantly discussed in a review article, you should cite that.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Glenwood Generating Station
The article Glenwood Generating Station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Glenwood Generating Station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)