User talk:David D./Archive8

RNA interference peer review
Well, I have finally gotten a round tuit and done some extensive work on RNA interference, which is now up for peer review here if you want to take a look. IIRC, you are considerably more knowledgeable about the history and specifically earlier plant work than I am; any comments or fixes would be great. Thanks! Opabinia regalis 02:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Do Not Remove Sources
On the article Cactus cat, you removed a link in a Sources section. Don't do that. You claimed it was "self-promotion"; it probably was. Nevertheless, the article was based on it; (in fact, the article was a dangerously close paraphrase of a single source, which we really shouldn't do. In any case, removing items listed as sources is a big no-no; if the source is spam, get the article deleted, or sourced from somewhere else; don't just remove the link.  Thanks for your attention. 71.128.189.190 (really User:JesseW/not logged in) 00:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoa, don't shoot the messenger. I may have felt bothered to do something about it if you had come here voicing a pleasant concern. However, your chiding and patronizing message here makes me wash my hands of it. David D. (Talk) 01:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I applogize for the tone; I was in the middle of fighting with someone on the phone, and I guess it leaked into my comments here, as it shouldn't have. Regarding the page, I marked it as copyvio; it'll be deleted eventually.  Glancing over a google search for the term, I didn't immediately see further sources.  I think the copyvio template is sufficient for now.  Again, I'm sorry about my tone in the previous message. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I accept the gracious apology and likewise apologise for snapping. Since I have not come across you much on wikipedia I was not sure if this was your normal voice but obviously not. Thanks for sorting out the copyright issue. I just saw you added that to the article immediately so my fix it yourself type comment was OTT. David D. (Talk) 05:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Cellular respiration
Didn't mean to revert this, somehow I got a blank page, thought it was empty and needed a stub. Sorry about that, never had that happen before. Must have been a wiki error of some sort! Thanks for fixing it. Isoxyl 03:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, i noticed what you had done and understood why. I had not considered it vandalism at the time. David D. (Talk) 17:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

RNAi FAC
FYI, I moved RNA interference to FAC here, so please continue with any further comments/criticisms/glowing praise there ;) Opabinia regalis 06:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Amazing and enlightening gift! :)
Thank you so much for your most excellent gift; I'm just delighted! It's really a double gift, since it makes the page beautiful, and opened a window in my little brain through which I can glimpse how all that stuff works. I'd always wondered about everyone else's page, but it always seemed so daunting. So you're getting more than a double helping of thanks from me :) Willow 22:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Peppers?
Cute ;) What made you think of peppers? Opabinia regalis 03:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It reminded me of "hot papers", I know, corny! I did not search too hard for a good image.  I just wanted to see if it was possible and to see if others liked the concept.  David D. (Talk) 04:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahhh, I get it now... that, sir, is an impressively bad pun ;) I do think it stands out better with an image rather than just bold text; I know it's the thing to do these days, but those highly formatted citation templates drive me nuts, and make the whole list hard to read. There are probably other heavily-cited articles that could use a similar treatment - I don't know why I hadn't thought of it till now, but I like the idea of highlighting the major works in a field - but I don't have time to go looking right now; can you think of any? Opabinia regalis 07:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Antioxidant FAC
Hi there. I wondered if you had time to review this article? The FAC nomination is here. Thank you. TimVickers 05:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Citizendium message
Hi David,

I just got your message over at Tim's Talk page, where I replied. What was it that you wanted us to consider? I'll be gone soon, though, so don't be surprised if I can't reply for a while. Thanks again for your wonderful update of my Talk page; I enjoy it and wonder at it every day, Willow 18:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just thought you should check it out. See http://pilot.citizendium.org  It is a new wiki that it much less tolerant of vandals and has fixed versions of articles, reviewed by experts, as well as working drafts.  Otherwise it is similar to wikipedia, but much much smaller. Another difference that it aims to be family friendly.  Not sure if it will take off but an interesting concept.  i'm glad you enjoyed the changes i made to your talk page. It was fun to do it. David D. (Talk) 18:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Biological Value
I noticed you appear to be involved in biology articles or WikiProjects relating to biology and human processes. This article, on a method for evaluating biological utilizations rates of proteins in humans and animals, was started in August and is in need of the attention of an expert. We are having trouble locating one and the article desperately needs it. This method is used constantly in bodybuilding magazines and products and is the subject of much misinformation and half-truths. On the other hand it does appear to have some value. Please help if possible. In case you're wondering why I picked you I just looked through some Science WikiProjects and biology articles and your name appeared a lot in one or both categories. Incidentally if you decide not to do this for whatever reason there's no need to reply. I'll just take it you're busy or uninterested and leave it at that. Thanks. Quadzilla99 22:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a WARNING, you will be reported Ragib for Systematically following me and Vandalizing the articles I worked on
+++YOUR COMMENTS ON MY Page+++++ Adding spam and irrelevant external links Please do not add a very large number of unrelated external links to articles. See WP:NOT for what Wikipedia is NOT. If you continue adding such links, you will be reported to the administrator's noticeboard. Thank you. --Ragib 10:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Ragib 10:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

+++++MY COMMENTS++++

Dear user Rajib, please don't vandalize the articles I have worked on, instead of improving the articles you are just deleting the "reference list" for the article, this has gone on for couple of articles, you are systematically following the articles I worked on and vadalizing them, I will shortly be reporting you to wikipedia Administartors. Consider this a Warning!!!!. If you want to improve an article you dont take out its reference list. You could have contributed to Wildlife of Bangladesh, I even asked for help on your page, but the article remains at square one after so long while you have had lot of time arguing with me and vandalizing my other articles. Please do not remove this comment from your page, let other be warned too of your great credibility and coopretaion.

Atulsnischal 20:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

CAn somebody please talk to Ragib, one argument that started with him on Bengal monitor page has led to an ongoing onslaught on the articles I have worked on, instead of improving them, he is been removing Reference list from my articles, following the idea from another user David D., can you please talk to both.

Thankyou Atulsnischal 21:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you expand on this? I'm not sure what you are trying to say here? Are you giving me a warning? Or are you informing me of a warning you have given to Ragib ? David D. (Talk) 23:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like he has copy-pasted the same thing into ANB/I, my talk page, and your talk page. It is equally unclear to me who he is addressing, the first part addresses me (misspelled) and then the second part seems to address someone else. This user has the habit of doing this, i.e. copying same comment to as many talk pages as he can, no matter how tangentially related the talk pages may be to his comments. --Ragib 00:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Evolution
I understand the way you feel. If GA really leaves, that's terrible, and Samsara's edit summary was unnecessarily rude. But it doesn't do anyone any good for you and pschemp to get into a fight over this. It really doesn't help anyone. Guettarda 19:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reality check. David D. (Talk) 19:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support. It was a bad edit I must admit, and I over reacted. Bad day boiling before I logged onto Wikipedia. Thanks for reverting Smooth Muscle article-a childish reaction on my part. I do need a break!!!!I do thank you for your kind words and support. Perhaps I will return with my sanity after a break. GetAgrippa 21:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Semi-automated taxonomic list generation OK?
Hi David,

Daisy woke up this morning in good voice and produced a List of Archaea genera. Is that what you had in mind, maybe, kind of? Any suggestions would be most welcome! :) Willow 17:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey that looks pretty good. You may want to break the list up a bit, maybe into phylum?  It would be nice to add some other facts too; hey don't look at me! Nice thing about lists is that they accomodate red links too. Sorry to hear you're branded witht he L word at work :(  David D. (Talk) 19:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Any idea why there is only one class of Crenarchaeota? Are the classifications to order, rather than class, based on phylogenetic distances? In that phylum it would seem more appropriate to assume the mutation rate is a bit slower rather than most of the diversity has been lost.  David D. (Talk) 19:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your friendly welcome which is one of only two friendly messages I have recieved so far (apart from the initial one by Someone called friday). Im not an expert on anything really, but I do like to see things presented neatly and clearly so I will try to help where I can--SlipperyHippo 18:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi SlipperyHippo (is Slippo a good contraction? ;) ), I actually like the shorter leads so it looks good to me . I guess Friday likes them a bit longer. Glad to be able to welcome a new comer.  Hope you have a good experience here. David D. (Talk) 18:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think 'Slippery' might be nicer! Thanks again.--SlipperyHippo 18:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Slippery it is. David D. (Talk) 18:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to be a very friendly person. Do you mind me asking if you are British or American?--SlipperyHippo 21:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Born UK live US. A hybrid? David D. (Talk) 21:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah I thought I got a sense of the Brit in you. Im from UK and still here.--SlipperyHippo 22:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi David
Hi there, if you've got the time I'd be grateful for any comments and suggestions you might have in the peer-review of metabolism. The page is Peer review/Metabolism/archive1. Thanks! TimVickers 00:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Another FAC
Hi David,

It never rains, but it pours? ;)

Encyclopï¿½dia Britannica is also at FAC, just above Metabolism. If you're looking at the latter, could you maybe throw a glance at the former? I hope that you can support it, but any thoughts or comments would be most welcome. Thanks very much! Willow 02:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Willow is, as usual, ahead of me. TimVickers 23:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Above, but not ahead; Metabolism just got made into an Featured Article! :D


 * Poor Encyclopï¿½dia Britannica is still getting herself spruced up, while everyone else is going to the party. :( Any help or suggestions you could give would be great - thanks, David! Willow 23:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal
The above-entitled arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published at the above link. is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year and is banned from editing articles and talk pages related to alternative medicine, except talk pages related to breat implants. is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a neutral point of view. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 12:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay controversy
Glad I got your position right, then! It is very good to have someone coming in and looking at the article with fresh eyes; your observation is entirely sensible, from my perspective. Unfortunately, there are a few editors on each side of the question who indeed are still checking the rings on the tree stumps. (On the other hand, I will admit to being very prickly about a few issues related to this article too!)--Risker 01:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Disgusted
David, I would like to register my feeling of disgust at reading your diatribe against StuRat on the RD talk page. Whatever you feel about StuRat's actions, nothing can excuse your personal comments such as "StuRat has a problem" and your accusation that StuRat was somehow responsible for Lightcurrent's ban. Your post was unconstructive and simply serves to further polarise and personalise the debate about appropriate behaviour on the RDs. If you can think of anything you can do to repair some of the hurt that your post has caused, I urge you to take that action so as soon as possible. Gandalf61 22:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My post reflects my extreme frustration with him. Being polite and patient has had no effect.If he cannot parse simple arguments then he does have a problem. And I, for one, am fed up of being played for a fool. David D. (Talk) 22:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way StuRats problem is that "he wishes to poison each discussion". If you thought I meant anything else you are overeacting to my message. As far as Lightcurrent is concerned, he made a genuine effort to find a compromise by writing the guidelines as well as soliciting ideas and discussion.  If StuRat had come to the table to help find that middle ground Lightcurrent would not have got so frustrated. I am not implying StuRat was directly responsible but his actions made it inevitable. As far as polarising the debate, StuRat has already achieved that one hundred fold more than I ever could with one, frustrated, post. David D. (Talk) 22:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As an aside, there has been a spate of reverting on your talkpage because has been attempting to edit using IPs and sockpuppets. His edits have been reverted according to our policy on indef blocked/banned users.  Rockpock  e  t  02:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * David, do we really want to go diving in the dumpster of history on the reference desk's talk page? My only comment: I disagree that StuRat is to be held responsible or even to be seen as a cause for that particular ban. QED per Rockpocket's aside. ---Sluzzelin talk  02:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Oh for pity's sake Rockpocket. Reverting a space? Enough already, there are plenty of banned users posting in article and article talk space - not to mention on policy and policy talk pages, AN/I and AN. Give it a rest, you are not helping anything here and you are annoying anyone who has David D.'s talk page watchlisted for any reason. Let David D. deal with the "vandalism" and banned users on his talk page by himself. Risker 02:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

David, I'm rather surprised that you suddenly took such a negative tone at the Ref Desk. I don't quite understand it, either, as we seemed to be having quite a civil discussion up to that point. I was actually wondering if someone might have hacked your account from the sudden negativity. I hope we can get this discussion back on a civil tone, and, for myself, have tried not to respond in the same negative tone (by suggesting we should all ignore you, for example). StuRat 05:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

How are you, David? It's a long time since we have had any direct communication, and just wanted to let you know that I continue to admire the clarity of your thought, your forbearance and your patience. If ever I can assist you in any way please do let me know. Clio the Muse 10:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack to criticize someone's behavior. How on earth could we deal with problem editors if we don't say things like "So-and-so engages in >insert problematic editing description<, as seen here"? Sure, in an idea world, no editor would ever lose patience. Also, in an ideal word, no editor would go out of their way to try other editor's patience. Friday (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

wikiprojects/RFA
I too "like the idea of emphasising participation in projects as a long term goal." My concerns were merely about how far thsi would go and how it would be done, mentioned at a very early stage so that they can be taken into account as the idea developes, rahter than being a suprise later. DES (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Idea for stable versions
Hi David,

Can I try out an idea on you? I've been brooding about Wikipedia and Citizendium, and the ideas of stability and reliability. There are so many topics out there left undone, whereas people can edit in circles indefinitely on other articles. Perhaps we need a ratchet mechanism, a way of saying, "yes, this topic has been done well enough for now; let's move on to another topic." A stable version could also be reviewed by outside authorities. There are also the problems of persistent vandalism of high-profile articles, ever eroding at our best articles.

As I guess you know, several people have proposed a two-tier approach to Wikipedia, in which edits would not go "live" immediately but be vetted somehow, taking away the vanity temptation of vandalism. Others have suggested different types of "stable versions".

A different solution occurred to me today, although perhaps it's been thought of already. The WikiProjects could be allotted their own namespace into which they could put stable versions of their favorite pages, pages that they deemed good enough for a real publication. Very few people in each WikiProject (say, one or two, by election) would have the power to upload or change pages in that namespace. Work (or vandalism) could continue in the Main namespace, but nothing need be uploaded to the stable namespace until a significant improvement had been reached, as voted by the members of the WikiProject. Moreover, if people were together in the Wikiproject, they might well turn to making another stable article, rather than tweaking the last one. Giving real power to the Wikiprojects (beyond that of an individual editor) would also encourage people to join them, making them more like medieval guilds.

Of course, there may well be drawbacks; I'm wary of too much organization, and could imagine that the power might be abused. But it might allow the people who really care about an article to put it beyond the reach of malice or mistaken self-confidence. What do you think? Willow 22:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the stable, vandal proof pages in Citizendium make it much more attractive for editors who are fed up with vandal fighting. i think this might be a good idea, especially for wikiprojects that are well organised. David D. (Talk) 16:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Message on my page
you left a message on my page what was it for?--68.201.118.165 15:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * which edit? i don't think i have edited your page? David D. (Talk) 16:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I forgot to sing in. This page-->--Mphifer254 16:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I remember, that was your grammar edit to Human. See the Human talk page for context, I had assumed you were the same user as the IP. Sorry for being cryptic. David D. (Talk) 16:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but I figured out the reason I wasn't able to edit the article was because I wasn't signed in...(duhh lol).--Mphifer254 16:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help with the banned user who keeps vandalising my user page. Your reverts and vigilance are very much appreciated. Alun 07:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Request
Hi David, I've replied briefly to your comment at WP:ANI because I think you may not have noticed the most relevant information. I'd be grateful if you'd review and comment further. Thanks, Gnixon 17:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I replied at ANI David D. (Talk) 18:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks David -- great advice. Sorry you've got to be *prodded* here in addition to reading all the content on the other pages.  Over and out, TxMCJ 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, sincerely. Gnixon 19:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on Durin's talk page
I replied there to your rant (also have a long rant that has nothing to do with what you said...) Pascal.Tesson 19:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast
Thanks for semiprotecting the cloming article. David D. (Talk) 16:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Welcome. Because i saw it in WP:AN/I. --  FayssalF   -  Wiki me upï¿½  16:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

DNA
Thanks for helping with this, the FAR came as a surprise to say the least! TimVickers 04:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was stunned too. But these changes are making it better, so that is a good thing. David D. (Talk) 04:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
The Introduction to Evolution article has apparently been discovered. So many vandals, perhaps they are still feeling the spirit from Easter. I predict even more attacks in the future; since this one is simple enough that they understand it (sort of the Ken Ham approach). Most of the challenges have been ridiculous attempts by some very bad spellers. It will be interesting to see if anyone attacks from an intellectual angle, similar to what you contend with on the main page. --Random Replicator 00:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Itk GNF1Hthumb.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Itk GNF1Hthumb.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 18:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Angry flame
Feel better now you Darwinist/Evolutionist/Atheist primate!!!!! Orangemarlin 23:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought you'd never arrive, better late than never ;) David D. (Talk) 01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

re Cloning again
Could you consider extending the semi protection status of the cloning article? It expired on May 1st. See what has happenend since. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloning&action=history Can semiprotection be used for an extended period or is this frowned upon? This article seems to be a real magnet for juvenile trolls. David D. (Talk) 20:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. lets hope with the arrival of summer, in the northern hemisphere at least, that these vandals will have better things to do with their time.  David D. (Talk) 21:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ;) --  FayssalF   -  Wiki me upï¿½  21:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Amino acid metabolism
I thought that as the catabolism of the majority of the amino acids either feed into pyruvate and then into acetyl-CoA (alanine, serine and cysteine) or acetyl and propionyl CoA directly, (the branched-chain amino acids and threonine) that this was a useful generalisation. I missed out pyruvate as it isn't nearly as important an intermediate as acetyl-CoA, which is the center of both anabolism and catabolism and where the majority of catabolic pathways converge. I deliberately designed this figure to be as broad and simple as possible. (I do admit I stole the basis of the figure from A survey of the energy transformations in living matter by Krebs, Kornberg and Burton) TimVickers 22:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the number that are ketogenic vs gluogenic are simlar but admitedly there is some crossover (See the following figure ) I have to say I have never seen it simplified so extensivley as the Burton diagram you cite, I am more familiar with these type of diagrams.  Another issue is that the text does not clarify the confusion and there is a disproportionate emphasis on the urea cycle.  I'll try and rewrite that section a bit to clarrify the diagram. David D. (Talk) 22:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the amino acids that feed to oxaloacetate are the exception, but I omitted these for the sake of simplicity. If you see pyruvate as just an intermediate in the formation of acetyl-CoA it lets you bring all these pathways together into one simple diagram. It's not the standard way of splitting up the pathways, but it is a useful unifying principle. TimVickers 17:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do like the removal of pyruvate and agree that acetyl CoA is probably the more central metabolicm intermediate. I still think it would be better to have a second arrow from protein into TCA cycle.  I this way it is still kept simple and any potential confusion can be clarified in the text.  Then simplicity is maitained without the loss of accuracy. David D. (Talk) 17:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:SHUN
Consider. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and i see that they have marginlised themselves into irrelevance anyway. David D. (Talk) 18:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

RFA
Oh, sorry, I should have explained it on the RFA page. I'm going to revise what I wrote there to make it more clear. Thanks for pointing that out. WooyiTalk, Editor review 20:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, judging from your talk page it seemed a little out of character. David D. (Talk) 20:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Amino acid metabolism
I thought that as the catabolism of the majority of the amino acids either feed into pyruvate and then into acetyl-CoA (alanine, serine and cysteine) or acetyl and propionyl CoA directly, (the branched-chain amino acids and threonine) that this was a useful generalisation. I missed out pyruvate as it isn't nearly as important an intermediate as acetyl-CoA, which is the center of both anabolism and catabolism and where the majority of catabolic pathways converge. I deliberately designed this figure to be as broad and simple as possible. (I do admit I stole the basis of the figure from A survey of the energy transformations in living matter by Krebs, Kornberg and Burton) TimVickers 22:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the number that are ketogenic vs gluogenic are simlar but admitedly there is some crossover (See the following figure ) I have to say I have never seen it simplified so extensivley as the Burton diagram you cite, I am more familiar with these type of diagrams.  Another issue is that the text does not clarify the confusion and there is a disproportionate emphasis on the urea cycle.  I'll try and rewrite that section a bit to clarrify the diagram. David D. (Talk) 22:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the amino acids that feed to oxaloacetate are the exception, but I omitted these for the sake of simplicity. If you see pyruvate as just an intermediate in the formation of acetyl-CoA it lets you bring all these pathways together into one simple diagram. It's not the standard way of splitting up the pathways, but it is a useful unifying principle. TimVickers 17:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I do like the removal of pyruvate and agree that acetyl CoA is probably the more central metabolicm intermediate. I still think it would be better to have a second arrow from protein into TCA cycle.  I this way it is still kept simple and any potential confusion can be clarified in the text.  Then simplicity is maitained without the loss of accuracy. David D. (Talk) 17:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:SHUN
Consider. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 18:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and i see that they have marginlised themselves into irrelevance anyway. David D. (Talk) 18:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

RFA
Oh, sorry, I should have explained it on the RFA page. I'm going to revise what I wrote there to make it more clear. Thanks for pointing that out. WooyiTalk, Editor review 20:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, judging from your talk page it seemed a little out of character. David D. (Talk) 20:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines
Good work in your use of the hidden archive. This appears to work pretty well so far in cutting short the off-topic sniping. Hopefully, if used appropriately, we can use it to keep things focused. Rockpock e  t  21:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I copied directly from the first two. I wonder who did those ;) David D. (Talk) 21:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, jimfbleak 09:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Hi David, can't see any problem with my talk, so as you say, weird. jimfbleak 05:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -- Finngall  talk  22:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh no!
Now how can I make sure this matter receives the attention it deserves? Oh well, I suppose you've saved me the trouble of digging up a bunny with a pancake on its head. Friday (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your attention is more useful elsewhere. Actually, anywhere else. David D. (Talk) 20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

well put...
Somehow I missed your post at the village pump a few days ago. Just had a chance to read it now, and all I can say is your arguments are well put. Glad you're on the side of advocating for the idea (and actually contributing, no less).... Cheers, AndrewGNF 00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Images for evolution
Hi there. A point to notice is that some of the people on the talk page contribute to the article, whilst some only contribute to the talk page. TimVickers 22:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks liek Adam has it covered anyway. David D. (Talk) 22:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never had so much guidance and yet so little help when writing an article before. It can become a little frustrating. It feels better now I have vented. Thank you! TimVickers 22:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What is it with evolution and sweater curses? Just don't hit the reference desk. It can be even more frustrating. David D. (Talk) 23:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Aaaargh! AAAAAAARRGH! TimVickers 20:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved the discussion out of the straw poll. I can't believe I've wasted almost an entire day dealing with this. TimVickers 22:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Tim, I can't comment any more tonight. What do you think about drawing a representative tree with the minimum representatitve species (based on that data set)? Obviously it could be done (see my example on the talk page) but this seems like OR as well as not being a real tree. What do you think? David D. (Talk) 23:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would be asking for problems. One of the things I have been trying to do with this entire article is to base it solidly on real peer-reviewed research. By doing this I hope to be able to prevent ID and creationist weaseling in the future. TimVickers 23:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You do know that the theories of evolution have been put to the test by many famous social psychologists/sociologists that say its impossible for the languages that we have to be based on evolutionary processes, right? So don't think too much about evolution vs creationism, because both require a lot of faith in stuff that would have required far too long for us to ever witness and prove. SanchiTachi 04:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk page
It actually crashed my browser loading it this morning. I've changed the archive bot setting to 3 days and compacted all the inactive threads until then. TimVickers 15:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see now, I thought that was a severe compact. Especially given you had just commented in the very section you archived. David D. (Talk) 15:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Help!
Silence has deleted a section I just added on the evolution of complexity. I am too annoyed with him to deal with this in a calm and dispassionate way, so could you please go and have a look at this and see what you think? TimVickers 22:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've decided to step back from the article for a few days. Progress is getting more and more difficult and I am spending most of my time justifying my edits on the talk page to Silence and this is leaving little time to actually improve the article. I wouldn't mind so much if he were either polite or actually contributed in a positive way, but all he seems to do is complain on the talk page or delete new material from the article. As you can tell, I'm not in a positive frame of mind, a short break should do me good. TimVickers 02:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page
Apologies if there has been any confusion. My comment on the actual page apparently caused some offence, and from an organisational standpoint, was somewhat difficult to handle: messages were coming rather fast on several pages, and nor was there an intention to delete any comments (I now assume I did.) Were they undeleted?martianlostinspace 17:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * On further review I saw your comment further down. My edit resoted the information you deleted and hiopcrite then restored the comment you had made.  Everything appears to be in order now. David D. (Talk) 17:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.martianlostinspace 17:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Clio is back
Clio is back, David, thanks to you and the many other decent people here. You will find a note of explanation on my talk page. Love Clio the Muse 00:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

AGF
Hey, it's okay. I have my own suspicions, and have had about many things in the last few months, but it never seems to go well when people start with the "What's the link? Why are you doing this? Sockpuppet!", even if their accusations are completely true. Much better to ask polite questions, politely point out what has recently happened, and keep your eyes peeled. If someone then acts disruptively, they should be pulled up for that. If someone (hypothetically) had a sockpuppet account, but it wasn't used for vote-stacking or edit-warring, but rather for trying to make edits and starting discussions without being judged by the behaviour of their other account(s), I actually have no problem with that. As long as they're subtle and not disruptive. If someone started a discussion because someone else asked them to, I'd rather they admitted this, but it wouldn't make me dismiss the discussion out of hand. But again, if they were disruptive they should be pulled up for that.

Just my observations :-) Skittle 18:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, just jaded I guess ;) David D. (Talk) 18:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * When I feel like that, I tend to wander around Meatballwiki. Try this or this for some feelings of deja vu! Or what about this? And I often ponder linking this into discussions... Skittle 19:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, how do you feel about removing the bit I've hidden below, so it looks like you just spontaneously asked? ;-D
 * What alignment does have with ? This user started the Featured article candidates/Psychology page, that was tended by, who is a sockpuppet of . Is this a conspiracy to disrupt?  We should not play this game if it is insincere.  David D. (Talk) 17:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What alignment does have with ? This user started the Featured article candidates/Psychology page, that was tended by, who is a sockpuppet of . Is this a conspiracy to disrupt?  We should not play this game if it is insincere.  David D. (Talk) 17:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * While of course, with all the tomfoolery that has happened around here, we are all suspicious of motives, particularly when someone who has previously been silent around here suddenly appears and brings up a recently contentious issue, we must be careful not to throw accusations around too freely. That way lies a witch-hunt O_O Hirakawacho appears to be a steady editor with a respectable history. There could, of course, be some deep conspiracy behind this, with sleeper accounts acquiring respectable histories. It could be that some user has emailed Hirakawacho, or even hacked their account! However, I'd say the simplest thing is to ask Hirakawacho.
 * Hirakawacho! What brought you to the reference desks? What prompted you to make this suggestion? Pardon my curiosity, but we've had some upheaval around here :-) Skittle 17:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Given the amount of discussion on this page such an innocent question (with surprising connections) stretches the benevoleance of AGF beyond sensible limits. I am just pointing this out since until Hirakawacho addresses the sincerity of the question I see no reason why anyone should waste more time on this issue. David D. (Talk) 18:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Skittle 19:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey skittle, thanks for all the links and advice, very funny and wise :P David D. (Talk) 19:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Enjoy :-) Skittle 19:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Biology montage (Citiendium)
Hi, I chanced upon Citizendium's biology article and was very impressed with the montage showing the varieties of life shown in the title image. Would it be possible to use that image in this encyclopedia's article on biology or, if not, could a similar one be made? Brisv e  gas  23:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer-review of evolution
If you had some ideas on how to improve the Evolution article, could you contribute to the peer-review? Thanks. TimVickers 20:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * FAC now. TimVickers 05:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

David D.bot
Comes online. (thats the right thing to do, of course, I was just amused by a (very rare) example of genuine wit among the childish dross. Rockpock e  t  07:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

Image tagging for Image:Four Dungarees.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Four Dungarees.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 08:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how it would help
As he's an admitted sock of a banned editor who exhausted the patience of the admin who'd been permitting him to edit, I don't see how bringing it to AN/I could possibly help him. Friday (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if the other admins were overwhelmingly supportive of the ban it would help him understand his situation more quickly. David D. (Talk) 20:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * True. Under the assumption that he doesn't understand his situation, it seems reasonable.  He seems like a kook to me, so I doubt he can be reasoned with.  But I suppose it doesn't hurt much to keep trying either.  Friday (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably right about the reasoning. There are Loomis like qualities to the arguments being presented. Have you noticed how the ref deak really brings out some bizarre editing qualities in users? Its the Mystery Spot of wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 21:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It is weird that way, yeah. I've often wondered if the apparent large number of kooks is really just one or two silly kids playing games.  This guy has a history of using lots of socks, I noticed.  Also just noticed that THB who I remember being problematic was blocked a while back for non-ref-desk-related sockpuppetry.  It does surprise me when some of these people claim to be adults with jobs- if their real-life persona is anything like online, I don't see how that could be possible.  Friday (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Admin
Yes, I feel you are right. I have been away for three months and if I run for admin right now, I would most likely fail in the nomination. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 01:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Carla Baron cover-up
I expect you are keeping an eye on my and her histories and talk pages User_talk:Psychic_profiler. She is notable enough for her own article.

BTW, this talk page is a nightmare for me to view since boxes cover large parts of it. I use 1024 x 768, which is quite common. -- Fyslee/talk 14:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally agree, this is a misuse of BLP protection. See what I wrote on badlydrawnjeff's talk page. Are the boxes at the top a mess?  It is fine on my browser but I know there are differences depending on which is used, which browser are you using?  David D. (Talk) 15:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Like it or not, I use the most common one -- Windows Internet Explorer, and have Windows XP. The box that causes problems is the "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" box. It covers the text on the top few comments. -- Fyslee/talk 18:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I'll try and fix it. David D. (Talk) 18:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Banned User and the Ref Desk
I note your "same old, same old" comment on the Ref desk Talk page. How does an editor tell if the questionner is a banned user? I would rather not waste time on banned users or trolls, but I am having some difficulty telling a bewildered question from a (possibly) young questionner whose first langusge is not English from a silly question from someone who just wants either to be noticed or to tie up resources, especially if I am to assume good faith and be polite. Any experience or "checking" mechanism you can share would be appreciated. Bielle 18:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Any user with a dynamic IP cannot be banned since they can switch IP numbers as they please. Nevertheless, their style of posting is often similar and the range of IP's they use is often relatively small.  So, you can never be sure, but by combining the style and IP information it is possible to pick them out.  With respect to the specific example you cite, for more information see this thread. Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents David D. (Talk) 18:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So many of the questions sound like 14-year-olds giggling about their audacity that I just assumed that, for the most part, this was the case. I won't worry about it a lot. If you notice me getting sucked into a series of sillinesses, I'd appreciate a "word to the (not-so) wise". Thanks for responding. Bielle 02:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A good rule of thumb, for this particular user, is that if the IP begins with 88.108... through 88.112... then its probably him. However, even comments within that range should be treated with good faith as long as they are constructive, as its always possible it is another user from the same range. However, the ratio of contructive edits to trolling is very small. Rockpock  e  t  02:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Question about color use
Would you please direct me to the page that explains all of this to me? I really would appreciate it. Please post it to my talk page if you do not mind. Thank you very much for taking the time to explain what you did. Crohnie Gal Talk / Contribs  14:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The welcoming
How'd you git that Welcoming thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikro (talk • contribs)
 * I'm not sure I understand you? David D. (Talk) 00:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Surprised?
I am. So much so, I think its still worth keeping an eye on. Rockpock e  t  08:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page, much appreciated. â¦Tangerines BFC â¦ Â· Talk 19:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

white text

 * Thanks for the heads up. No one else has mentioned it. What browser do you use (so I can check myself)? &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  23:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Safari with a mac running OS10.3.9. I looked at other pages and the problem seems to be on Barratt talk page alone.  Very strange. Clearly the others did not have an issue since they responded to your points. David D. (Talk) 01:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. I'll cross my fingers for now. Please let me know if you see it on other pages, if perchance we meet again. &#2384; Metta Bubble puff  02:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Nikro
I saw your messages on the user's page and my observation on the user behaviour suggests that they are a bunch of children at play and have stopped worrying about them since they are restricting themselves now to userspace. I see they are not doing anything useful to wikipedia, but do not have the heart to do anything about it. Shyamal 05:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Mission - How can you be sure
You on a mission ATM to rv all posts you think may be LC? How can you be sure its me him?


 * Good point may be there are other 88 IP's that post with your exact style. Now I'm confused, maybe you're really not you but one of them? They should make a new show called the 88. Files. Who will play you? Or them?  Is Friday the smoking man? David D. (Talk) 02:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"Discussion" to "Talk"
Hello, David D.: Several days ago you commented on the proposal to change the label "Discussion" to "Talk" for greater newbie friendliness at Village pump %28proposals%29. You were opposed to the change on the grounds that it might encourage "chat" rather than content discussion on the talk pages. A.Z. has summarized the discussion to date on the point, and amended his summary after a call for a correction by Qiddity. Do you have anything more to add before we request a view on whether we have consensus, or would you like to comment on consensus? Bielle 19:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I asked on TenOfAllTrades's talk page for him to better explain his position. I think it's possible to have a real consensus on this, to change the tab to "Talk". There are new arguments on the thread, but there are still three users opposing (or maybe two, depending on Ten's answer). A.Z. 19:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin nomination?
Hi! I hope you are feeling great. I would like to inquire if this is the right time for me to be nominated as an admin. Your thoughts on this matter would be useful! -- S iva1979 Talk to me 07:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My candid opinion would be it is too early. Typically admins are involved in many situations where they interact with other users and have to explain their actions. Your recent contributions include very few meaningful interactions or discussions with other users. Most of your edits this month have been housekeeping type edits which might explain that lack of interaction but i think this might be a thorn for you given you have only been back a month. I could be wrong about that thorn and clearly you can be trusted. What is you main reason for needing the tools?  That is probably the most pressing thing to formulate in your mind since in the last month there seems to be no need. I hope this is useful for you. David D. (Talk) 14:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha!
That is all. Tim Vickers 03:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page tabs
Thanks for your comments on the proposal.


 * Leave it alone or remove it. I see no real need for the tab anyway. If people are curious they can click it and find out what it is. Does everything really need to be spelled out?

Based on the comments from other users, I think that yes, it needs to be spelled out.

We experienced editors know how to add new sections and edit existing sections, but drive-by editors do not, and they're the ones we want to encourage to contribute. I don't even see these tabs the way they are formatted by default. I have a number of admin tabs and custom tabs added to my interface with js and css.

On articles, you use the "edit this page" link regularly, to change the entire article. But on talk pages, no one uses it. We all use the "new comment" link to create new sections, and the section "[edit]" links to contribute to existing sections. The big "edit this page" link is only used rarely for special things, like rearranging sections. So the argument is that we should be making the whole-page "edit" link less prominent, and the other links more prominent.

We need a simply way for passers-by to notify us when they see a problem with an article, that doesn't require them to learn any code or invest anything in the site beyond that comment itself. — Omegatron 12:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Speak for yourself but I always use the 'edit this page' or edit option beside each subsection. I literally never use the +. But this is beside the point, we need to focus on the drive by editor. I would think that any editor who is savey enough to click on the 'discussion' tab can figure out quite easily what the 'edit this page' tab means. Where is the data to show us that people see errors on a main article but don't fix or report them? If there is a problem, surely it is due to the tabs on the article itself, not the talk page, that are causing the problem? David D. (Talk) 15:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

ATP accountancy
Something I have never found particularly interesting, but I suppose we could add an ATP trivia section if you think people will want it! :) All the best Tim Vickers 18:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure they want it, but they might need it :) In my experience other editors keep coming in and changing the value to 38. David D. (Talk) 18:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments
Please see my comments here Raul654 21:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of Dryve article
Hello, it appears you were involved in the deletion of the article on the band 'Dryve'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dryve_%28second_nomination%29

I was a founding member of this band and would occasionally add current information to the page. It seems the two main points of contention were first, the involvement of a banned wikiuser named Jason Gastrich, and second, is the article's information is unverifiable. I would like to request the article be reinstated on the following grounds-

I can fully verify any and all of the information in the article.

There is sufficient verifiable information to meet the WP/music requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia.

As far as this Jason Gastrich character goes, I do vaguely remember him frequenting the Dryve performances in San Diego and I do believe he briefly played with former Dryve bass player Michael Pratschner after Dryve had disbanded. If he in fact did start the page as one admin claimed, his personal character deficits do not negate the validity of the subject matter of which I looked over quite a bit to insure it's accuracy.

Please contact me if you would like more information.

Keith Andrew Kickstar1@hotmail.com --Kickstar1 03:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 2
Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 06:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Bot Question
Hi David, I was hoping you might be able to answer a question for me about Bot read rates. Do you know how much time a bot should wait between read requests (just a read, not an edit)? I wasn't able to find any good information about this. Thanks. JonSDSUGrad 20:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry this is something I have no idea about. User:Cyde runs a bot and may well know the answer. David D. (Talk) 04:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks David, for the help. I have hence had my question answered by another admin.  FYI there is no limit on read rates, but it is suggested to use a maxlag parameter of 5 and repoll the page after waiting 5 seconds if a 503 error occurs resulting from the maxlag parameter. JonSDSUGrad 21:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Input
Hello. As an admin previous involved in the Gastrich affair, I wonder if you would be so kind as to weigh in on the Kearny High School, San Diego, talk page and the inclusion of one of Mr Gastrich's privately-owned domain sites as a reference for the page. Thank you. - Nascentatheist 04:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Viruses
As I said before its biology, lol... there is never any hard and fast rules (which makes it sooooooooooo much fun to teach)... so many things that are gray around the edges. That said I still think viruses aren't alive :p ;)

As for earliest life... I think that there were things like viruses around before true life evolved. The earliest true life would have had the ability to self replicate. It is possible that some form of protein replication occured first which would have lead to ribosomes evolving and so on. Sorry I can't do this right now I've got a two year old shouting at the top of his voice at the TV, I think its bedtime for him. Why is there an evolutionary advantage to two year olds being as mad as a box of frogs?AlanD 18:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Help with a new template
Hi David!

I hope you're doing well these days — our paths don't cross as much as they used to. :( I'm wondering if you can help me with a template formatting question.  I'm trying to make a Stacked timelines template for historical articles (and others), which I've been testing out at User:WillowW/Stacked timeline template.  Unfortunately, if I have fewer than the maximum number of entries (presently 4), the template leaves white space at the bottom.  I've experimented a little with different workarounds, but they either don't help the problem or they ruin the template's result for more than two timelines.  Can you help me or suggest a better approach?  Thanks! :) Willow 23:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi David
I've put the article on oxidative phosphorylation up for FA, any comments or suggestions at Featured article candidates/Oxidative phosphorylation would be most welcome. All the best Tim Vickers 19:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction to Evolution
Thanks, When I incorporated that long list of misconceptions the article took on a very hard edge. Sort of felt like we should be teaching evolution from a pulpit. Praise Darwin!!! Have you see the new "list". They're excellent suggestions --- but damn I'm getting tired of this --- it makes me feel stupid. Anyway, what should be done about Hardy-Weinberg? The formulas has been left out; yet several have seen it as overly complex. You want to take a stab at it --- or should we delete it?--Random Replicator 02:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate to say it but given the audience we are aiming at, it might be wise to cut it out, but leave in the link so at least readers are aware this exists. David D. (Talk) 13:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Template:@
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Rocket000 04:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem with your inhibition
Your figure of non compeditive inhibition is wrong you may want to correct this. The slope i.e (Vmax/Km) does not change in this plot  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.132.215 (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean this one: Image:Inhibition_diagrams.png? Are you sure you're not mixing up uncompetitive inhibition with non competitive? David D. (Talk) 07:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi there
A proposal to make the kind of discussion I've been struggling through on the Enzyme kinetics talk page a bit simpler to conduct is at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style, I would be very grateful if you would comment. Tim Vickers 17:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your recent message
This is a school. Of course there are going to be immature edits that will be reverted. You pretty much wasted your time posting that message. 216.56.27.105 18:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea which message you are talking about. But knowing that some ip's post more crap than most is useful for other users to know. David D. (Talk) 18:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin?
Hi David, would you be interested in a few more tools on your toolbar? Tim Vickers 18:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And more fights too! I'm honoured Tim but I'm not sure I could get through. My only justification for having the tools would be for editorial purposes.  Deleting pages to make way for moves, semi protecting pages such as cloning or photosynthesis from vandalism. The ability to edit protected templates, etc. I have never been an AfD hound and don't really see my self getting involved in those types of decisions from and administrators perspective. I am pretty sure that would not fly at RfA.  Or has it changed in the last six months? Besides I have noticed there are some advantages to not being an admin.  It sometimes helps not to have the tools to be viewed as more neutral.  There is a tendancy for disruptive editors to immediately ignore admins by playing the "you're a bad admin and harrassing me" card.  They can't play that game when it is non admins they are dealing with.  I'll wait back to hear what you think.  Another potential problem is that, as you can see, I have cut back editing a little recently too.  It's busy at work and my time is much more precious.  That was one of the reasons I got frustrated by that silly edit war recently with FM. I am realising I want to make more quality edits here rather than the horrendous never ending discussions I was getting drawn into before.  David D. (Talk) 19:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel myself that somebody who uses the admin tools in a limited manner to make vandal blocks, protection or deletions as part of their normal work is still making a valuable contribution. The problem of us having too few admins has made this minor change in access rights be seen by some as a kind of special status. In fact it is "no big deal" and should be given to all trustworthy editors. I'd be very happy to nominate you and I'm sure you'd have no problem in passing. Tim Vickers 19:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, may be on the third time of asking I should try and pull my weight around here. I suppose you want a list of all the skeletons in my closet? And you'll want to know about my sockpuppet account, User:Daycd, actually its nothing other than an old account, I switched to a new user name to have my user name match my signature. David D. (Talk) 19:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem with that, multiple accounts are fine as long as it is clear they are not being abused. With that one redirecting to your main account I don't see anybody being confused about who it was. Shall I create the nomination then? Tim Vickers 19:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll run the gauntlet and see if brutal honesty can win the day :) David D. (Talk) 19:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, I'll put it together this afternoon. Tim Vickers 19:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

So you need answers to these? David D. (Talk) 20:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) What admin work do you intend to take part in?
 * 2) What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
 * 3) Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

 TimVickers would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact TimVickers to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Comment on that draft reply, the phrase about blocking - it being "very unlikely i will use this during normal editing disputes." isn't what you mean, since you can't use blocking as part of editing disputes, only as part of the normal maintenance of pages against vandalism. Tim Vickers 19:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Better to say what I will use it for rather than what i won't. For the record, when I say editing dispute i mean with respect to any edits in the encyclopedia that are not vandalism (for me vandalism in this context refers to the blatant IP crap edits). It was not meant to be specific to any editing dispute I might have with other users.Clearly i would not use blocks for such a thing, although I can see how it might be taken the wrong way. I was just referring to any disputes in general from signed up users. So that would include any edits from non-ip's including vandalism-like and in your face bullying that has nothing to do with productive editing articles, but likely about editing articles (even if indirectly). Anyway, that is still a very rough draft. I need to cut it down significantly.  I'm just randomly writing at the moment.  Stream of thoguht type stuff. David D. (Talk) 20:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's on the page. Tim Vickers 23:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, and thanks for the copy editing. David D. (Talk) 23:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Good job reply
Thanks. I think I actually did screw it up a little, and, to let you in on a little secret, I'm not exactly the wide-eyed innocent I painted myself. I kind of knew I was dropping a cherry bomb in the toilet, but I figured what's the worst that can happen. It's a balls thing. This Wikipedia world is a strange place, but I'm learning. --Milkbreath 00:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well maybe if I had seen you in action I would have realised you're really the devil. You cetainly play a good "What me?" card ;) David D. (Talk) 01:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to say thanks for your support over at Talk:Race and genetics, I really do appreciate another biologist getting involved in what is often a difficult environment. On a related note, if you have a few minutes I would appreciate your thoughts on a section I added to the Race debate article that specifically discusses clines vs clustering. It's called Clusters or clines, isolation by distance and small island models. If you don't have the time then of course I understand. Thanks again for your help. Peace. Alun 11:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Watson
Hi. I would like to ask about the comment you left on my user discussion page. I don't know anything about you. Are you a Wikipedia administrator? Are you a biologist? Why were my comments about the article deleted? Is there a way to retrieve my paragraph? I have contributed a lot of material to that page. Some of it signed and some unsigned. I have reasons for not signing some information, which I can disucuss with you via email, if you want.Shannon bohle 04:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Shannon, I'm a biologist, all your contributions can be attributed to you regardless of whether you sign the comment or not, . The signature just makes it more easy for a dialog. You can e-mail me if you'd rather have a conversation off line. With regard to your contribution, it was reverted by  with the following edit summary (rvv to last edit by JettaMann - introduced paragraph is irrelevant to the Watson controversy. See discussion for proposed move) David D. (Talk) 04:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, the other edits you did were removed by with the following edit summary (Removing two incidents that do not contain statements directly attributable to Watson. Someone may consider adding them elsewhere.) David D. (Talk) 06:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Good luck!
The very best of luck, dear David. Clio the Muse 01:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations! You are now an administrator! Secretlondon 01:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And from me, dearest David; the one person who kept me aboard Wikipedia by a simple exercise in gentle reassurance when I was on the point of jumping ship! Clio the Muse 01:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And from me as well : ) - jc37 17:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice one, mate. Tim Vickers 19:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for participating. In fact, thank you to everyone for the positive comments. David D. (Talk) 19:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Pile-on congrats to match your pile-on RfA! I shouldn't have missed this one. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Favor
Hi David, you might have noticed that your nomination was one of several others I made over that last week, this was partly spurred by the IP editing threat, but also has a more general objective. The reason for this effort was that I have been a little disturbed by a growing attitude that admins are more than just editors with a few more buttons on their toolbars and are instead "senior editors" with greater authority. I decided that the best way of dealing with this idea was to greatly expand the pool of admins to include a wider diversity of the pool of editors.

Since you have now passed the selection, could you in turn select and nominate some people you trust - I'd suggest aiming for about three over the next month or so. Of those who are selected, could you ask them in turn to select and nominate three candidates. Such a chain of trust should result, over time, in a greatly enlarged pool of admins and thus provide a simple and effective way of spreading the responsibility - perhaps to the point where becoming an admin is seen as normal and expected, rather than a major achievement. I hope you'll be able to help me with this. Thank you. Tim Vickers 20:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahh, the catch :) But I only know trouble makers? And Willow.  Do you want me to lean on her? (if you're reading willow, no pressure!) But seriously, I'll think about who I know out there. David D. (Talk) 20:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. Favor? You're getting americanised already. Do you spell hybridisation with a Z yet? :)

Yes, I'm about 1/2 way there so far, although my home spell-check keeps me right! Unfortunately Willow seems intransigent, unless a huge bribe of yarn would do the trick? Tim Vickers 21:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Wonderful though you are, you two are incorrigible! ;) I suspect that yarn won't work as a bribe; if you could see my home, you'd know that I have more closets of yarn than I'll probably be able to knit up in this lifetime.  Of course, that did happen because I'm susceptible to the temptations of yarn, so maybe you should just try it and see... ;)  But to me it looks as though you'll need a counter-example, someone "on the inside", an infiltrator of the non-admins who might teach them not to despair over their lowly state, that you don't need to be an admin to contribute to Wikipedia in a sincere way.  For you two, at any rate, I hope to be a positive control. ;)  laughing, and oh BTW, congratulations on your elevation Willow 00:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * PS. There must be a "conservation of British spelling", since I've just begun to use British spelling again (occasionally) after years of school-induced repression. ;) Together with meeting Roger, it's a happy fall-out from the emotionally nuclear war over WP:ENGVAR in some humanities articles.

Homeopathy
Thanks for your kind message. After reading over the talk page, I more fully understand what you're going for, and I agree that the changes in wording that you've suggested are most helpful. Again, thanks. Ante lan  talk  02:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy
To be honest, I've never liked the writing in this article much, but I was hesitant to make changes because of some past nonsense regarding the article [don't ask]. I didn't think a lot of the attempts were going the right way, but I think Skinwalker mentioned Intelligent design, so I went over there, noted how they did it, and tried to follow the pattern. Also, once all the repetition got cut, the balancing criticism... just didn't seem necessary any more. The first paragraph was no longer a blunt instrument for either side, and so could just be simple and clear. Adam Cuerden talk 04:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Congragulations
--Angel David 02:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, indeed! Rockpock  e  t  08:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Congrats, David! It's been a while. Good luck with the mop. --Fbv65 e del — t — c // 14:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Genetic pollution
Well done for starting to sort out the mess. Let me know if you need backup with anything. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've been meaning to do something with it for a while. Unfortunately it has a protective owner, we'll see how he responds to this start. David D. (Talk) 15:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi David, just watching the fireworks. Can you please also make sure that you don't violate WP:3RR if this carries on? Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I will be careful. Thanks David D. (Talk) 16:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: medal template category
Thanks! :) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 03:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Easy solution. I will add the cat to the articles in the cat that should be in that cat. And then I'll revert my change from earlier. A bit putzy but I can do it. Sound good? --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, sorry to mess you up. ! David D. (Talk) 05:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Intertwining templates are tricky. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey, thanks for the note. I think mitochondria can make it to FA status, and I'd appreciate any help you can give! (Actually, I'm not sure I correctly requested peer review ...) Sedmic 15:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Orion4
This user has been blocked as a possible sock puppet of User:Sm565. If you are interested in commenting on this block, Orion4 has requested your consideration in an unblock request. &mdash;Whig (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

James Watson African American category.
I don't understand why you deleted by addition of James Watson to the African American category. You say that 16% African blood is not relevant enough. What exactly is the percentage that you think is relevant? And how did you come up with the number? If James Watson is of African descent, which his DNA proves and he is American, then he is of African American descent. That does not deny his European ancestry. Guess what? Most African Americans have European and Native American ancestry, some to greater of lesser degrees, but we are still counted as African American. Think of Earl Woods, whose, African Ancestry is MAYBE 1/4, and Tiger Woods who has even less than that. If Tifger is listed in Wikipedia as African American, then so should James Watson. Unless it something to be ashamed of. Do you think it would be shameful? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Computer-girl (talk • contribs) 20:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I said we should discuss it on the talk page first. I'm not sure the category is intended for everyone with some african decendants. No doubt others will know better. See the talk page for more. And you're right, maybe Tiger should not be categorised as african american? Again, i don't know the criteria to be listed in the category. But I still think it is premature to add that categopry until there has been more discussion. Clearly it will be provocative and end in edit wars before a consensus is reached. David D. (Talk) 20:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

-

David, you said that "I'm not sure the category is intended for everyone with some african decendants." But that is the very definition of African American. Unless you just want to stick with the definition of "LOOKING" African American, and then people of African descent who "look" White can go along their merry way being categorized as White. What is your criteria for being African American? Will the percentages creep up as more and more Whites find that they have African blood? Will you reclassify current African-Americans who fit your definition of "Non- African American" as White? By the way, what exactly IS your definition of African American?


 * It's not my definition that matters it is the wikipedia usage that is relevant. I actually don't know what the wikipedia definition is. With respect to what is my definition I'd say those that self indentify with such a category for sure.  After that, who knows, its debatable. David D. (Talk) 23:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's face it, Watson has made an issue of intelligence and race, namely that Africans are less intelligent genetically speaking. On top of the genetic issue, this very issue makes it all the more relevant that he be put in a category to which he belongs genetically. I NEVER said that Tiger Woods should not be categorized as African American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Computer-girl (talk • contribs) 20:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it a genetic category or a cultural category? Why do we even have such as category? Certainly you never said Tiger Woods should not be categorized as African American but your example does indicate that such categorisation at a genetic level is fraught with problems. Actually at any level it's fraught with problems. David D. (Talk) 23:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not join the discussion on the articles talk page. It seems to be following a similar line of thought. David D. (Talk) 00:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

LSD
FYI, i just added a semi protect to the LSD article that expires in a month. Lets see how that helps. David D. (Talk) 13:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. I've started a discussion topic on the Wikipedia:Protection_policy talk page you might be interested in. Cheers, --SallyScot (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy
Sorry, don't like this kind of drama. Dropped it from my watchlist. Curious Blue (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, the drama does get annoying that is for sure. David D. (Talk) 19:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean, it seems it would be more workable if people not engaged in the discussion like Orangemarlin would refrain from reverting. Rather than a just a three-revert rule, it seems that there should be some sort rule that if there is an ongoing discussion, an editor should at least join it before reverting. 'course, it'd just be abused too. Curious Blue (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is what I always try to do too. In my experience it is the only starting point that leads to a stable version. David D. (Talk) 19:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, I don't know if you are an admin or not, or if you know WP policy or not, but is this kind of behavior cool? Calling me a vandal, then banishing me from his talk page, then attempting to goad me by calling me a dirty sock and making some sort of threat that I don't really understand. Curious Blue (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Not Homeopathy!
If you feel the yen to deal with genuine "molecular waves", I'm feeling a bit lonely at the NAD FAC. I suspect the subject is scaring off reviewers. Can you catch any of my mistakes? Tim Vickers (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Real molecular waves would be great! Although, I'm surprised you have not attracted the attention of the vegan/B12 crowd. David D. (Talk) 05:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's all in the title. If "vitamin" isn't there the cranks don't come. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your improvements to the text. Did you have any suggestions to make in the FAC? Tim Vickers (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

STOP STALKING ME WP:STALKING
has made more edits to genetic pollution rapidly pushing this article back to where it was before. On top of this Genetic pollution is currently linked to by 52 different wikipedia articles.


 * American Bison - Artificial selection - Asiatic Lion - Beefalo - Bengal Tiger - Billy Arjan Singh - Biodiversity - Biome - Central Zoo Authority of India - Conservation biology - Domestic buffalo - Domestication - Dudhwa National Park - Ex-situ conservation - Extinction - Fauna - Feral - Food security - Frozen zoo - Gene flow - Genetic engineering - Genetic erosion - Genetically modified organism - Green Revolution - Habitat fragmentation - High-yielding variety - Hybrid (biology) - Hybrid speciation - Hybrid zone - In-situ conservation - Introduced species - Introgression - Invasive species - Jeremy Rifkin - Lion - List of conservation topics - List of environmental issues - Mallard - Parahuman - Population genetics - Purebred - Red Junglefowl - Selective breeding - Small population size - Species - Terminator Technology - Tiger - Transgene - Transgenic plant - Twycross Zoo - Wild Asian Water Buffalo - Wildlife

I have looked at at about ten of these and in all cases these links were added by User:Atulsnischal. This is becoming a significant POV problem since a quick look at the titles of the articles linking to genetic pollution makes it apparent that the invasive species usage is most common. In other words, this is activist terminology and it "looks" as if wikipedia is being to be used to promote a cause. This is pretty subtle I know, but given how Atulsnischal refuses to discuss this issue and is active on so many conservation related pages to promote this issue I'm wondering if a RFC should be started to address this issue? If nothing else the genetic pollution article should clarify the political usage of this term, assuming there is any good commentary that can be cited. Any thoughts? David D. (Talk) 23:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * David D. (Talk) has been continuously stalking WP:STALKING the articles I contribute to for more then one year, I have made several requests to him not to stalk me on wikipedia and make his contributions randomly but he keeps it up (check my talk page archive 5), now its been more then a year since he has been stalking me, his behavior has started to cause considerable stress now and I loose my motivation to contribute to wikipedia, I think a Administrator should look into it and advise him not to track and stalk me. Completely unacceptable behavior.

Atulsnischal (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Orion4/Sm565
Do you think it would be possible or appropriate to find someone that will mentor him/her? &mdash;Whig (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I do. I thought Orion4's contributions on the homeopathy talk page were useful.  What of Sm565?  I have no idea what happened that led to the banning of that user? David D. (Talk) 05:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been operating under the presumption that they are one and the same. I don't much care though, and if Orion4 wants to be an editor and discard any previous accounts he might have had then it seems to me something could be worked out. Since I'm not even an admin I don't really know. &mdash;Whig (talk) 05:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What is your perspective with regard to Sm565, do you think the indefinite ban was fair? David D. (Talk) 06:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he needs some help making himself understood, and is too impatient. He wanted a source included and it was rejected as not statistically significant, by consensus of everyone except Sm565, and he was asked not to resubmit it again. I offered to reconsider my opinion if he'd give me a little time, but he continued repetition until he was blocked. Although he may have been disruptive he was being accused of sock puppetry and subjected to other incivility. (That particular SSP accusation was not confirmed by checkuser.) I'm not sure what the guidelines are for justifying indefinite bans but I think it may have been excessive. &mdash;Whig (talk) 06:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Hi
Hi David, no particular reason. I figured it would be something I would do eventually but I haven't given it much thought. Do you think I should? One obstacle I foresee is that my edit count is comparatively low, at about 2200 currently. Thanks, --S.dedalus (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But the quality is high. May be mull it over. I would be happy to nominate you, I'm sure others would too.  David D. (Talk) 03:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * After considering it over the weekend and reading some of the pertinent policy I have decided that if you are still willing to nominate me, I accept your offer with thanks. Administrator tools could be useful for me especially as part of the new WikiProject Contemporary music I’m helping set up. Thank you for bring this up and for the offer of nomination. Cheers, --S.dedalus (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

La Plata HS
Agreed. Thank you for your patience and improvements to the article. Once I had stripped out all of the fiction, mafia stories, etc, it was really bare. I'll watchlist it to hopefully help keep it moving in a positive direction. best regards, --guyzero | talk 21:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)