User talk:Antony-22/Archive 7

DYK for Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

About electron microscopy (EM, TEM, SEM, STEM...) and Nanotechnology
I would like to know your opinion if EM and related microscopy techniques should be included in the Template:Nanotechnology and the Portal:Nanotechnology:
 * Electron microscope: B-class article with nice illustrations
 * Transmission electron microscopy: B-class
 * High-resolution transmission electron microscopy: unassessed
 * Scanning electron microscope: B-class
 * Scanning transmission electron microscopy: start-class
 * Electron energy loss spectroscopy: start-class
 * Energy filtered transmission electron microscopy: unassessed

Please reply on your discussion page. Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestions! I do think High-resolution transmission electron microscopy is high-quality and nanotechnology-specific enough for the portal.  I'm less familiar with electron microscopy than scanning probe microscopy, so I'd like to know more about nanotechnology-specific uses of the former.  I think the current "scanning probe microscopy" section of the navbox could be broadened but it should be done in a sensible way. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The TEM and HRTEM are used in material sciences to see single atoms (e.g. carbon atoms in graphite; DOI:10.1126/science.1166999), but on the other side there are biological nanomachines (e.g. ribosomes), which can be vitrified and examined by TEM/HRTEM. The images of these biological complexes (of RNA or protein or both) are processed (Single particle analysis) and if the final 3D structure or tomogram is obtained, it is uploaded to EM Data Bank (like PDB for X-ray and NMR structures; ribosomes in EMDB). I guess, that SEM and TEM (and STEM) are used extensively in material science, but have no experience with that. Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Cool! If you had to pick only one or two articles that are the most nanotechnology-specific to go in the navbox, which would you pick?  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I would say Electron microscope: the most general, though B-class. As I am biased, I would also suggest TEM as the 2nd article, though SEM/STEM and EFTEM are widely used as well. You could put it next to AFM and STM (and call the whole section "Microscopy"), as these techniques "see" things. On the other hand, the photon-microscopy (e.g. X-ray microscopes and Sub-diffraction limit techniques: e.g. STED microscopy) can reach the resolution of the tens of nanometers as well. Lastly, the state-of-the-art free-electron lasers are being built or optimized to resolve even smaller features with harder X-rays, but that is still in the future. Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Very good. I think I'll change that section to "Nanometrology" which is a little broader than microscopy and add Electron microscope.  I think Super resolution microscopy would also fit as well.  Thanks for bringing this up!  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Did meetup happen?
I was at the Kogod Courtyard for the DC meetup to day promptly at 3:00pm. I didn't see any group that seemed to be the Wikipedians. One group had a sign "meetup" but it was the DC Philosophy Club. Anbothe was a photographer's group. Where was everyone? was this canceled? DES (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Question
Hi Antony, have you any knowledge of a class project or such involving molecular pathological epidemiology and related topics? There seems to be a rash of edits from/near Dana-Farber that cite papers by one prof there, Shuji Ogino. The work seems decent, but often isn't wp:MEDRS based. ILeadSongDog come howl!  06:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No, unfortunately... Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Crossings list
You realize, if we have enough information about crossings at a particular location, we need to move the information to a separate article, right? - Denimadept (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure, feel free to rearrange the information as you please. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Been doin' that for years. :-D That's where the article came from, when I moved the list to a new article (this one) and formatted it similarly to List of crossings of the Connecticut River.  So, yeah. - Denimadept (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Participate in discussion about Media Viewer follow-up study
I'm contacting you because of your involvement in the Media Viewer RfC. I understand that this is a bit awkward since the RfC has closed with consensus, but I have been tasked with helping the Multimedia team run a study to gather more feedback about Media Viewer preferences. I think the the write-up for the study could use your feedback. Would you take some time to review the study and share your thoughts on the talk page? Please feel free to invite others to participate as well. Thank you! --Halfak (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Curl
Orlady (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Naval Medical Research Center
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Navy Annex
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Precious again
  comprehensive scientific concepts

Thank you for the courage to let us understand scientific concepts comprehensively, for example DNA nanotechnology, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Two years ago, you were the 213th recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Bureau of Medicine and Surgery
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Protein structure
Hi! This is Dcrjsr (Jane Richardson). I noticed one of your proposed projects is a page on Protein structure determination, which is indeed very much needed. I've had something similar on my wish list for a while, but would want to make it more general as Macromolecular structure determination. One hard part is settling on the best hierarchy -- is there a general page on molecular structure determination? Definitely the crystallography page is almost entirely on small molecules, which are important but currently perhaps less so than biological macromolecules. So should the main organization be by molecular type (small; protein; DNA; RNA; carbohydrates; ...) or by technique (crystallography; NMR; cryoEM; SAXS; prediction; ...) or some other system. Anyhow, at present it seems a shame to do proteins without including nucleic acids (especially RNA and protein/nucleic acid complexes). I don't know the answer -- what are your feelings? In any case, I'd be interested in helping whenever you get started with it. Dcrjsr (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Cool! This has been on my wishlist for a while mainly because it's the only item in Template:Biomolecular structure that doesn't have its own article.  It's not really my area of expertise but I could help impose some structure on the articles, especially if someone could suggest reviews to write from.  There's already an article for Nucleic acid structure determination that breaks down by method, so protein structure determination could be broken down the same way.  A couple of the protein subarticles already exist, such as Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy of proteins and Gel electrophoresis of proteins.  Small molecule structure determination doesn't have its own umbrella article; maybe it should, and as you mention it's well-covered in the "vanilla" articles about various techniques.  Carbohydrate structure is a bit spotty, there are some articles like Carbohydrate conformation and Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy of carbohydrates but it doesn't look very well covered. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Chief of Naval Research
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

COI help?
Hi Antony-22! One of my co-workers at Cato has recently realized that her boss's wikipedia entry is very wrong, to the point that it says he doesn't even work there anymore. They'd like the intro updated to give his current title at Cato and say that he formerly worked where it (wrongly) says he currently works. We both have a clear COI (since she works for him directly), but we think this is a fairly simple change. She's posted a request on his talk page, but hasn't gotten any replies. Can you help us out here? We want to be completely above board on this. Thanks! HistoricMN44 (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I see User:Harej has already beaten me to it! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 07:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep. No one had replied for a few days, so I went ahead and reached out to a few people. Thanks for checking up on it!! Hope you're doing well. HistoricMN44 (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

article on the CR
Also, in case you're interested, I put up a basic article on the continuing resolution that was just passed. I feel like I recall your being interested in this type of bill in the past, although maybe that was just during the shutdown. It is the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2015. Thanks! HistoricMN44 (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of United States Navy systems commands
Hello! Your submission of United States Navy systems commands at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Yoninah (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for United States Navy systems commands
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Glenwood Generating Station
The DYK project (nominate) 23:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)