User talk:Antony-22/Archive 4

DYK nomination of Drexler–Smalley debate on molecular nanotechnology
Hello! Your submission of Drexler–Smalley debate on molecular nanotechnology at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 02:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Say Hi
Thank you for your welcome, and now I'm translating some chemistry English item to Chinese, e.g. Fullerene, organic solar cells and related. While, I'm not familar with wiki. Topliuchao (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Drexler–Smalley debate on molecular nanotechnology
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy of nucleic acids
The DYK project (nominate) 21:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ambassador Program: assessment drive
Even though it's been quiet on-wiki, the Wikipedia Ambassador Program has been busy over the last few months getting ready for the next term. We're heading toward over 80 classes in the US, across all disciplines. You'll see courses start popping up here, and this time we want to match one or more Online Ambassadors to each class based on interest or expertise in the subject matter. If you see a class that you're interested, please contact the professor and/or me; the sooner the Ambassadors and professors get in communication, the better things go. Look for more in the coming weeks about next term.

In the meantime, with a little help I've identified all the articles students did significant work on in the last term. Many of the articles have never been assessed, or have ratings that are out of date from before the students improved them. Please help assess them! Pick a class, or just a few articles, and give them a rating (and add a relevant WikiProject banner if there isn't one), and then update the list of articles.

Once we have updated assessments for all these articles, we can get a better idea of how quality varied from course to course, and which approaches to running Wikipedia assignments and managing courses are most effective.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!
I am not quite expert enough to send barnstars (using those templates) but i wanted to show my appreciation that you continued to work on this page even though I was preoccupied. I just learned about this feature called WikiLove and wanted to use it to thank you. Best, MichChemGSI (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yum! Much appreciated!  It is in my queue to get back to work on the Science policy group of articles.  I think it would be useful for us to go to the library and grab a bunch of books on the subject, and write from those.  There definitely a lot of missinf/unreferenced bits in those articles.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of John Marburger
Hello! Your submission of John Marburger at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Gamaliel (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for John Marburger
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Budget Control Act of 2011
Gatoclass (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Kanzius cancer therapy is still in experimental phase
Hello,

I was going through this article. You have put Kanzius cancer therapy under current applications of nanotubes, but apparently, the link that takes you to the page on Kanzius cancer therapy, says that its still in experimental phase and that in 2012, clinical trials will begin.

Please review.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by GautamSation (talk • contribs) 14:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look at it. I didn't add this text myself, but I think you are probably right and it should be moved to future applications.  I see you're a new user; it's always acceptable to be bold and make the change yourself.  Let me know if you have any questions about editing.  :-)  Just out of curiosity, how did you become aware of me as a person to ask about this?  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Space policy of the United States articles
Since you seem to be the primary editor of these articles I thought I would just message you directly rather than on the relevant talk pages. I don't think the main article or the two sub-articles for Obama and Bush should be named and organized as they are. Naming and organizing US space policy by the administration it took place under is problematic because the executive in the US does not actually set the policies as the name implies. Also use of the term "administration" is contrary to other articles which refer to a person's time as US president as their "Presidency". I have renamed the subarticles to something which is sightly more long and awkward but is more descriptive (definitely open to changes, I just can`t think of anything more succinct at present). Vietminh (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I will respond at Talk:Space policy of the Barack Obama administration.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've responded there as well, I agree with what you said and I have reverted all associated changes I made. Thanks. Vietminh (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Nanotechnology in fiction
Template:Nanotechnology in fiction has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

A Discussion of Key Science Issues between Clive Delmonte and Anthony-22
Thank you for your time & effort in setting out some Wikipedia rules. Your remarks rather semm to cast me as some kind of bad boy but, naturally, I see the whole matter quite differently.

To my knowledge, and I could be wrong here, Wikipedia does not seem to have a strategy for dealing with change.

As you know, Science is in continual flux; that is, what is regarded as "true" is often not "true" for very long. The latest example is the looming dispute over whether neutrinos can travel faster than "c". If they can, there is unlikely to be unanimity of view among the the scientific fraternity for some time. How will Wiki cope with that ? There will be a whole brouhaha between the establishment and the young Turks.

Wiki tends to allow science entries, it seems to me, which convey the impression that the science content is immutable, is set in stone and will never be falsified. This is really rather a simplification but it suits those who have an established reputation and a published body of work. Naturally they defend these things fiercely.

This was all brought graphically to mind a few years ago when Wu Senior sent me a long email setting out the saga of the threats made against him by his employer for publishing, sometimes with his son, work on the structure of DNA which would have forced people to think about DNA structures (always a painful process). Apparently these threats included loss of tenure ! All this in the Land of the Free and in the world of Academic Freedom !!

The US academia has a reputation for enforcing conformity upon the young and proof of this is easily found in the biochemical notes available on the net from many university biology/biochemistry courses.

I could go on and on, but I'd better bring this matter to a focus. Wiki should insist that its scientific contributors do several things they don't do yet:

1  First they MUST indentify the facts or phenomena which remain to be explained

2  They MUST cite authors who take a different view from their own

Until Wiki does this, it will just remain a sort of pale photocopy of anything you could get from routine textbook.

The situation with DNA is bad. I mention my publications because no-one else does. My work is largely a compilation of that of others, going back to the 1950s, but it threatens the established view. It is unfortunate that Wiki allies itself with established views because these are liable to change.

We could develop this discussion further if you wish, but I must now shoot off to my next engagement.

Clive — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clive Delmonte (talk • contribs) 12:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "it threatens the established view": In that case, we shouldn't treat it in Wikipedia as if it were the established view. - Dank (push to talk) 13:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Clive, I appreciate your candor and I know that Wikipedia policies can seem daunting to newcomers. Because the double-helical model is nearly universally accepted, and there are very few contemporary (i.e. post-1990) sources supporting a side-by-side model, the due weight policy suggests that it would warrant not much more than a sentence or two in an article like Molecular models of DNA.  If there were a dedicated article on side-by-side models, focusing on the historical context and the reasons why these models were abandoned by the scientific community, perhaps a paragraph or so about pros and cons including your and Wu's work would be warranted, if it were neutral and in proper context.  As I mentioned, it can be difficult to write neutrally about your own research, even if you have the best of intentions, so collaborating with other editors is key if you intend to do so.


 * Also, the discussion of the faster-than-light neutrinos on Wikipedia actually is fairly balanced: see OPERA experiment. This issue has been extensively covered by the media, and the article discusses both sides given the abundance of reliable sources discussing both sides.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anthony ! I found you again ! Just a few little thoughts. One of the problems in Science, it seems to me, is that our understanding of the scientific world is not really a matter of counting hands or votes. Do you remember the Phlogiston Theory ? We all thought that was great stuff at the time, but now it is totally discarded. So it is with the double helix. One day budding young scientists will be incredulous that we could take that structure so seriously ! I once asked a Physics lecturer at Keele University (who has written about the double helix) how he would explain the several papers which describe the spontaneous unwinding of solid fibres of DNA from duplex to triplex strands. He said he couldn't explain it, but, if we waited long enough, new results would come to light and he would wait for that ! In other words, in science, inconvenient results could be set aside because at some future date an explanation might offer itself ! He seemed happy with that. Let not the Truth disturb your sleep !

I shall accept what I take to be a hint that I look at the DNA Molecular Models entry and offer a side-by-side paragraph.

I got a similar response from Nadrian Seeman a few years ago. He was happy with his winding/unwinding models.

With best wishes,

Clive — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clive Delmonte (talk • contribs) 16:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just remember the policy that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Anything written about side-by-side nucleic acid models needs to reflect the literature rather than individual opinion, and be put in historical context, and of course is subject to change by other editors.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Antony !

I guess you know the difference between Truth & Verifiability, but I think I don't ! To me it seems that if a phenomenon is verifiable, then it is empirically true. However, I now find myself preoccupied with a different aspect of DNA structure. If you mean that a source is of satisfactory quality then that is a hrad judgement to make, and who shoul make it ?

I first made my SBS structure public in 1985 (to Watson Fuller). I used the published work of later DNA crystallographers to challenge the Watson-Crick structure deduced largely from a few low resolution smudges (Diagram 51). Later crystallograpic work from the same schools showed that these smudges had been interpreted to define a supercell. There are many supercells now identified by DNA crystallographers themselves in their own papers, as I guess you know, and most of them are listed in the Protein Data Bank.

I have attempted to list as many as possible in my last paper (2009) "Reflections on the Secondary Structure of DNA ... " From early days I have been abused for my work. Professor Pearl, who I have never met, sent me an e-mail calling me "stupid". A Cambridge crystallographer called me "ignorant", etc., etc. An Indian crystallographer (Gautham) sent a whole catalogue of personal complaints about me and my intellectual incompetence to Current Science. They may have been right, it's hardly for me to say, but they all missed the crucial point: I may be stupid, ignorant, etc., etc., but I may still be right !

Richard Dickerson sent an email to my friend Gordon Rodley, copy to me, after I had explained to Richard how his work supported an SBS model, telling Gordon "TO HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ME." Poor Richard, he said, correctly, that if I were right, his whole life's work would be brought to nothing. That is the center of the problem. All the double helix types understand perfectly that their life's work is threatened. I do sympathise with them and I have patiently and gently set out the case in vast detail since I first realised that the dh didn't exist in vivo (in 1981).

However, I have only recently recovered from a mantle cell lymphatic cancer which my doctors say will return, so I am now thinking how to spend the next few years most usefully (I do not at all feel sorry for myself as I have had a fair innings with lots of fun in science and I am now nearly 70).

But it does mean that I have realised in the last few days that I really don't need to bash on with paranemic DNA and endure any more abuse or indifference. No-one is much interested, for various reasons, and all the crucial work is already set out in my first book, my later papers, and in an electonic book due out soon. This work is largely unread and unappreciated, but "c'est la vie", as they say. I certainly cannot muster the energy any more to set out the case anew for Wiki.

There are many DNA researchers who will waste their whole lives on a structure which I have failed to persuade them does not exist in vivo, and may well not exist at all.

I am not bitter about all this, but I am going to pursue other interests for the next few years. If you do not hear from me again please do not be offended or hurt. I do appreciate the time and effort you have given to the topic.

With best wishes,

Clive

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Clive_Delmonte&oldid=456066753" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clive Delmonte (talk • contribs) 07:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I wish you good luck, then, and I hope you remain well. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Orion (spacecraft) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Orion (spacecraft). Since you had some involvement with the Orion (spacecraft) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 65.94.77.11 (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

OTA img
Hi, I was wondering why you've moved the images to be side by side and further down the page? Your placement would make sense if the article were much longer, but now it seems to interfere with the flow of the content much more than previously. --Belg4mit (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I actually thought that this layout interfered with the flow less; it's more vertically compact and doesn't run down the length of the entire article. I moved it down to the "Closure" section because that's the text that it's most relevant to.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You must be using a rather wide screen, as it leaves little room for text beside them. If the article were huge, or side by side were not problematic for non-wide/large devices (which IIRC policy says not to assume), moving them to that section would indeed make sense. But otherwise they just run down the side of the relatively short article, providing a visual counterpoint to the text I think. --Belg4mit (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm on a standard, non-widescreen monitor at 1280x1024 resolution. I think it looks fine on my monitor, but if you think that a vertical layout would be better feel free to change it.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK issue with 2013 United States federal budget
Hello! Your submission of 2013 United States federal budget at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jesanj (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edits. Am I expected to comment further at your nominations entry? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If I've dealt with your concerns you could mark it as passed, or you could make any further comments you might have. If you don't, someone else will come along to close it, but given the backlog it's probably helpful to note if it passes now.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I commented. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Re
The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 00:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Veterans Health Administration Office of Research and Development
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 2013 United States federal budget
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Biophysical Society
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 1996 United States federal budget
Merry Xmas to all our contributors and readers Victuallers (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)