User talk:DanDaniels

File permission problem with File:Isothermal microcalorimetry (IMC) measurement at 37C ofHeat-flow record of the growth of Escherichia coli in M9 medium containing glucose and lactose.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Isothermal microcalorimetry (IMC) measurement at 37C ofHeat-flow record of the growth of Escherichia coli in M9 medium containing glucose and lactose.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

IMC
I made a minor edit to your sandbox, to include one of the images.

I'm working on processing your permission requests,; have made some progress, but not all is done. I look forward to working with you to finish the remaining items.

Formatting using Wikicode can be tedious; if I can help (for example do you want text to flow around the ampoule image?) let me know. You can reach me at my talk page-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Image permissions
Thank you very much for your work! It's quite rare for scholars to contribute here (I've only ever worked with one), so your expertise will really be helpful.

If you've not been back to the Help Desk since leaving your request for help, you should go back. A helpful response has been given, and other responses via email have been sent that will improve things even more. We've nicknamed our permissions processing people "OTRS" — if you ever want to contact all of them via Wikipedia instead of via email, you can leave a note at OTRS noticeboard. If you have any general questions, leave a note at my talk page and I'll do my best to help, although I'm not able to help much with permissions because I'm not a part of OTRS. Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Have you had a chance to look at my comment regarding references? You can see it here:


 * I will carry on discussions about the draft on the talk page of the draft. Comments there won't trigger a message to you, comments here trigger that yellow bar you occasionally see. If I think you haven't seen something, I post here, so you'll know. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  19:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it is ready
I think it is ready. There's always room for improvement; there's an essay on the topic Wikipedia is a work in progress which applies to articles as well as the whole project.

Be aware that while much of your life has been involved in No original research, Wikipedia is not a place for OR. You have plenty of sources, so that helps, but be prepared for challenges, and be careful not to defend original research; this article should be a summary of what others (including you have done) but not breaking new ground.

I'm posting here, rather than on the talk page of the draft so you will see the new message banner)-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, with your permission, I will make it live.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Re original research: I don't think I have written anything in the article that is not supported in one or more of the 65 references. But no doubt there will be some challenges. Also, some constructive additions, I hope. PLEASE DO MAKE IT LIVE! DanDaniels (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, now at Isothermal microcalorimetry (IMC). Have a couple cleanup items, then I'll come back with more info-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  19:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

{{od}OK, I added a couple categories, don't worry about that if you don't care, but I'm sure a there may be some other relevant ones. I wanted something to do with thermal, but didn't see one.

If someone tries to search for this article using the Wikipedia search function, they won't find it until roughly tomorrow.

Ironically, it will show up in a general Google search sooner, but not right away.

If you want someone to see it today, give them the exact link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isothermal_microcalorimetry_%28IMC%29

I do want to clean up a couple things
 * 1) I'll look into fixing the parens in the title In Progress
 * 2) I'll clean up the External Links✅-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  19:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again (and again)! DanDaniels (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I created a redirect, so someone searching for Isothermal microcalorimetry, a plausible search term, will go to Isothermal microcalorimetry which redirects to the main article, and they won;t even realize it, unless they look carefully.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK possibility?
I'd like to see if this article will qualify for DYK. to see the current DYK, go to the main Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

and look at the second section, called "Did You Know"

That will contain six or seven links to new or expanded articles. The goal is to have a "hook" that will encourage the reader to want to read more.

Here is my first draft of a hook:

Did you know that accurate measurement of heat transfer, called Isothermal microcalorimetry (IMC), has applications to many areas of science including Biology, Toxicology, Food Science and more.

There are some challenges:
 * 1) The point would be better with more example, but there is a 200 character limit, and this is at 194
 * 2) My summary may need tweaking
 * 3) I haven't  worked on a DYK in months, I know some of the DYK regulars got their hands slapped for not being careful enough with references, so the rules are now tighter, and the hook itself must be directly supported by a reference. (See [the hook] for more info.) We aren't close to having that yet.

Maybe you have a better idea for a hook.

If you are focused on other things, understandable.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I did take a break from WP. Wife's birthday, etc. Please try for a too late for DYK if it is not too late. Here is a possible hook. ...Isothermal microcalorimetry (IMC) measures millionths of a watt of heat flow and can detect and follow the replication of a few thousand cultured cells? DanDaniels (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I like it. I've proposed it.


 * We have one or two small challenges I know of, we'll see if reviewers add others.


 * First, I note that you added no references to the lede. That's quite acceptable, as, in theory, the lede is a summarization of what follows, so anything in the lede that requires a source will be sourced in the main body. However, not everyone knows this, so don't be surprised if it comes up. It is possible that the DYK reviewers will insist on the reference appearing in the lede; if so let's comply. Addendum - reviewer notes that this is OK


 * That said, while the reference to &mu;W in the lede is mentioned in the body, I don't see a reference nearby. Fixed


 * This is absolutely critical.


 * Second, the second half of the hook refers to "a few thousand cells". In the body I find "few thousand living cells" but it needs a reference nearby. (We may want to change the hook to match the wording, in fact I will)


 * Your hook is much better than mine, we'll see how the reviewers react.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, the hook says "cultured cells" the article says "living cells". The mismatch will create angst. Which is better to change, assuming both are correct? I like "cultured" in the hook, so my inclination would be to change the article, but you know the subject matter, I want to be sound nice, but not at the expesne of being incorrect.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  18:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

IMC can measure the metabolic heat of living cells, whether they are in culture (meaning an environment which supports metabolism--and replication if conditions are just right) or are just living--e.g. sitting in salt water. But in that case, with no "food" present, they die off, and IMC records the declining aggregate metabolic heat. So "living" is the general case and "in culture" is a special case. DanDaniels (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Popping in as someone who does reviewing for DYK. This looks like an excellent article, and one that is certainly eligible for DYK, since it's a new article that was moved from user workspace to article space on May 9, and it's only May 12 today.


 * However, the template needs to be set up properly, and transcluded onto the T:TDYK page instead of what was done—it looks like you bare-edited a template and inserted the contents directly under May 9 on the nominations page. This is problematic. Here's what I recommend doing:
 * Copy the information from what's been inserted on the nominations page for later use.
 * Delete that information from under May 9
 * At the top of the nominations page, there are instructions for creating a nomination under How to post a new nomination. Read the three steps, and then follow them.
 * Insert the name of your article, "Isothermal microcalorimetry", in place of "YOUR ARTICLE HERE" (be sure it's exact, including case of the actual article name but without the quotes—I always copy and paste to be sure) and click on "Create nomination" button.
 * Then fill out the form that appears; most of the information can be taken from what you've previously done. When it says to just use the actual names rather than links, believe it. The hook needs to have links in the usual manner, however; just copy everything from the "..." through the "?".
 * Copy the template for the article that's shown on the form's page for use on the nomination page.
 * Save the form.
 * On the nominations page, under May 9, insert the template you just copied. It'll be a single line, just like all the others, with the braces and "Template:Did you know nominations/Isothermal microcalorimetry".


 * Note that the lede should not have to have any sourcing, provided that there are no controversial or quoted statements in it that would require an inline source, and that the actual facts there are covered by sources in the body of the article. If you need additional sourcing, the reviewer will go over that with you and make sure what needs to be added is added. It doesn't have to all be settled within five days of the article being newly available or expanded, but the nomination has to be made in that period. Good luck! Let me know if you have any further questions. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * DanDaniels didn't do the nomination, I did. I thought I followed the directions, but they have changed since last I did a nomination. For DanDaniels, you need do NOTHING with respect to this request, I will sort it out. (However, we still need a reference close to the facts, that's for you to address). I'm in the middle of something, so won't address for a couple hours, but I will read this and address it in a couple hours.
 * Couple false starts, but I think I got it. See here to monitor progress. -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  00:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks good now. Thanks. Now that you've done it, I expect it will be much more straightforward next time. There was a little detritus left over from the earlier one on the nominations page that I removed. Now just sit back, and wait for the review. The template should show up on your watchlist when someone edits it. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

References supporting DYK
I see that both the claim about 1 microwatt and the claim about a few thousand living cells are mentioned in the abstract of (Braissant et al. 2010), footnote 37 support the claim.

From the abstract:

Modern isothermal microcalorimeters make measurements of less than a microwatt of heat flow possible. As a result, as few as 10 000-100 000 active bacterial cells in culture are sufficient to produce a real-time signal dynamically related to the number of cells present and their activity.

While the footnote first appears earlier in the section, I placed a copy right after the 1 microwatt claim so that the DYK reviewer, and readers of the DYK will immediately see the reference.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. FYI, healthy bacteria produce ca. 3 picowatts of metabolic heat per cell. Mammalian cells produce ca. 30 picowatts per cell. However, bacteria in culture are easier to study by IMC because many kinds replicate so fast (number doubles in minutes or hours). In contrast mammalian cells in culture can take days to double their number. DanDaniels (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you saw this link
viewing history

Not huge, but not bad for a highly technical article.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I had not seen it. I am such a newbie I did not even really know there was a viewing history. Seems a pretty good set of hits to me for a highly technical article. I am an only child and so is my wife, and we have very few cousins, so only a few of the views are family members. Some of view are friends in USA and CH to whom I bragged by email about having written for Wikipedia. I have not emailed to many professional colleagues yet but will. Should produce some more hits. DanDaniels (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Some people are around for quite a while before they learn about viewing history. BTW, you get to it by clicking on History, then looking for

Page View Statistics"


 * Keep in mind, it is both artificially high now, because you and I visiting to make edits are in the counts, and that will tail off. On the other hand, views tend to go up as more people hear about it, or it gets linked to other articles.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Exothermic rate process - isothermal microcalorimetry data plot.png
Thanks for uploading File:Exothermic rate process - isothermal microcalorimetry data plot.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello - The image is from a paper which I co-authored. According to the journal website (http://journals.asm.org/site/misc/ASM_Author_Statement.xhtml), "ASM also grants the authors the right to republish discrete portions of his/her article in any other publication (including print, CD-ROM, and other electronic formats) of which he or she is author or editor, provided that proper credit is given to the original ASM publication. “Proper credit” means either the copyright lines shown on the top of the first page of the PDF version, or “Copyright © American Society for Microbiology, [insert journal name, volume number, year, page numbers and DOI]” of the HTML version." The paper is reference one in this article (^ a b Howell, M; Wirz D, Daniels AU, Braissant O (November 2011). "Application of a microcalorimetric method for determining drug susceptibility in Mycobacterium species". J. Clinical Microbiology. PMID 22090404.) Could you please help me do what is needed? DanDaniels (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)