User talk:Lankenau


 * WP:EXPERT
 * Wikipedia editing for research scientists

Epigenome tag
Hi, thanks for your contributions! I find academics often aren't appreciated enough by other Wikipedians, but well referenced contributions like yours are valuable!

Anyway, I was thinking Image:Epigenome NoE tag1.gif should probably be a template rather just an image, and it could therefore include links. You could create a sub-page of your own (e.g. User:Lankenau/Epigenome) giving a brief description of Epigenome and the work it's doing on Wikipedia, how its peer review of Wikipedia works, etc, which could then be linked from the template. I am willing to help create the template if it all sounds a bit confusing!

Additionally, whether we create a template or not, the template/image should be placed on an entry's talk page, rather than on the page itself.

Oh, and I assume you created the image yourself, and therefore you release it under the GNU FDL, or you allow it to be used by Wikipedia and any derivative work (including commercial use) or you release all copyrights? If this is not the case, the image can not be used.

Thanks again, Joe D (t) 02:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

- RESPONSE:

Hi Joe,

thanks for discussing the Epigenome NoE tag on my Wiki discussion page. The use of it in two articles (Chromatin and Epigenetics) has been only of piloting character so far.

I agree that the Image:Epigenome NoE tag1.gif might better be a template. But as an "academic" I have no clue of how to make a template out of our Epigenome NoE tag. Your step-by-step help would indeed be highly appreciated, and we should do it together with Susan Bale. 1. How do we create a sub-page e.g. User:Lankenau/Epigenome ? 2. the template/image should be placed on an entry's talk page - Could you explain details and help out on this?

3. The image was created by the webmaster of the Epigenome NoE and myself. Thus, no licensing problem. 4. To your information: We also received confirmation from the WikimediaFoundation granting the Epigenome NoE to use the Wikipedia globe logo.

''Dear Dirk Lankenau, Thank you for your kind words about Wikipedia. We hope that you continue to find the site a useful resource. I doubly appreciate your interest as I graduated in the biotechnology field and worked for a while in flower plant improvement research (somaclonal variations). Your site appears most useful and I'll be glad you help improve Wikipedia in your field or specialization. The Foundation gives you the permission to use the Wikipedia-globe logo for tagging weblinks on the site http://www.epigenome-noe.net/ to specific articles in Wikipedia as requested in the mail below. Best regards Florence Devouard''

best regards, Lankenau 20:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC) ---

Retroposon
Hello, you defined retroposons, but emphasize to exclude LINEs from this group. Why? LINEs code for their own reverse transcriptase, are transcribed and retranscribe themselves. So, they would be retroposons, too. Also early reviews (Brosius 1991 (see Retroposon)) mention LINEs as retroposon. But I agree, that in later publications, the names are totally confused und these "online dictionaries" still say, that retroposon was short for retrotransposon *shudder*. Do you have a citation, that explains, why LINEs are not supposed to be retroposons? --138.246.7.158 (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC) (de:Benutzer:Pharaoh_han

Historical reasons found during the dicovery phase of the micropia retrotransposon family in the 1980s. no access to that literature at the moment. DHL.

March 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Abiogensis. It is not appropriate nor civil (WP:CIVIL) to accuse other editors of vandalism just because you disagree with them over article content issues. If you have an issue over disputed edits you should raise it on the article talk page per WP:BRD. Thank you. Sky Machine  ( ++ ) 09:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Abiogensis. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 14:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

RESPONSE to: Hghyux by ==Dirk Lankenau: Abiogenesis March 2012==

concerning your note 14:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC) under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lankenau on "abiogensis"

Dear Hghyux - editing and constructive comments by Wiki-editors are always appreciated. However, just deleting a published and world-wide well recognized issue (i.e. Zn-world theory and colaterally published material including the references of peer reviewed journals and books) without talking to us as responsible Wiki-editors (i.e. Prof. Armen Mulkidjanian and me)is, in our eyes, an act of vandalism. Prof. Mulkidjanian is a highly respected specialist on the scientific issues of the Zn-world and everything added to the Wikipedia site was published in peer reviewed journals and books. Only published material was included in the entry to the Wikipedia article (please, check it out...) and the references were cited. I am the editor in chief of the Springer book series Genome Dynamics and Stability. A recent book co-edited by Prof. Mulkidjanian and me is entitled "Origins of Life: The Primal Self Organization". The book was peer-reviewed as well, with each article reviewed by at least three specialists. Prof. Mulkidjanian and I are working on an additional book related to the issue. In this context we discussed, how to improve the Wiki-abiogenesis article in order to update and make it a generally more usefull information for Wikipedia. We respectfully do not intend any harm to the Wiki-article and we were carefull in re-assembling the paragraphs and put them in less conflicting order (not yet sent to Wiki as we had to probe Wiki first). Not much is intended to be deleted.

We came to the following conclusion: Apparently, numerous hypotheses on the origin of life can be separated into two groups, namely 1. the models that suggest experimental testing and that are, actually, experimentally tested, and 2. the models that either do not suggest any experimental testing or which suggest such testing but have been never tested from some reasons. The first group of models we suggest to gather under the title "Current models" whereas the second, large group of models would go under the title "Other models". We think that the criterium of testability is scientifically reasonale and fair; it should be explicitely and clearly introduced into the text of the article. In addition, it might be useful to mention results of experimental tests in each relevant case. References would be added. The models of Wächtershauser and Russell, as well as the Zn world model, are currently under experimental testing; since each of these models captures some facets of real biogeochemistry, some positive results have been reported in each case. In fact, not all scientifically testable scenarios are mentioned in Wikipedia. For example there is a new and very promising "Formamide World" concept of Saladino and Di Mauro that is not even mentioned in the Wikipedia article. We would be willing to write a respective section. Another section on top-down (anthropic principle) and bottom-up approaches would be added as well.

For doing all this, we would not be willing to fight deletions again of the sort encountered this morning. However, we may need some time and are not ready to engage in any shadow-boxing type discussions. Otherwise we may drop out instantly. Technical assistence from your side would be highly appreciated, as we are not well self-trained Wikipedians.

with best regards, Dirk Lankenau — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankenau (talk • contribs) 21:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

-

Abiogenesis
Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold with their edits to articles, in the interest of constantly improving the encyclopedia. Have you read WP:BRD? This applies to what you are doing so it would help to be familiar with it. You are proposing some substantial edits to the article (so far, no problem with that), however one of Wikipedia's central pillars is WP:NPOV. That you are involved in research in this area is helpful as you may bring with you expertise, however there is also the potential for conflict of interest which is a WP:NPOV issue.

I ask you that inorder to mitigate such conflict of interest issues that you explain on the Abiogenesis article talk page your proposed additions/changes and why they will help improve the article. I ask you to do this so that involved editors can have their say on these changes, and hopefully a new WP:CONSENSUS can be reached. It is not helpful for you to say that if your edits are reverted you will walk away (for one thing that just plays into the hands of people who want the status quo to remain), this is why seeking consensus is important if you feel your edits can improve the encyclopedia, as edits made with a consensus to support them will be resistant to being reverted.

So to recap: wikipedia welcomes your bold edits. We need to maintain WP:NPOV by mitigating a potential WP:COI, so discuss your proposed edits on the article talk page (explaining why your sources are reliable, and how your edits improve the article) and help bring about a new consensus for any changes you wish to make, in consultation with other involved editors. Then any agreed-on changes can safely be made. Sky Machine  ( ++ ) 11:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears your reverted edits have been restored by User:Yngvadottir in this diff following the admins weighing in on the situation, so you can assume consensus now exists for that material. What I have said in the above post would still be helpfull for the future though, if you explain your planned further edits on the article talk page at the same time as you make the edits or just prior (rather than solely by edit summary) you can establish consensus with any involved editors. Sky Machine   ( ++ ) 04:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yngvadottir is a well-respected editor, an academic, who can tell the difference between a well-referenced edit and one that isn't. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

ANI Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 23:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hallo Dirk--I have to agree with Bwilkins: "vandalism" means there was an intent to harm the encyclopedia and I don't believe there was. However, I've looked into the matter of Abiogenesis a little closer; please don't do anything rash until I can make a further comment on the Incidents noticeboard. I thing you'll end up satisfied, although afterward I may feel obliged to give you a link to WP:COI--oh wait, I just did. Alles gute, Drmies (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hallo once more: I have placed a note at the ANI section, Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents Please accept my apologies for the incorrect claim of "original research", and the incorrect revert on the basis of COI. We do have a COI policy (see link above), but in my opinion that doesn't forbid an editor from adding the kind of material you added (and your name isn't in all of them anyway). I hope this experience will not deter you from adding to the encyclopedic project, which is in great need of experts such as yourself. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

What a kerfuffle
Hi Dr Lankenau, and again welcome to Wikipedia. Hmm... there really should be a WP:ESSAY to guide professionals, experts, and academics about how to interact with the Wikipedia project. Actually, there probably is. (I'm a well-established Wikipedia "editor", and I've got a heaps of Post-nominal letters I could use after my real name.) D-nmded if I can find it, tho. What a kerfuffle. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, sticking my head in here after coming home, seeing the situation, and prior to going afk for a bit ... the only thing I've found is WP:EXPERT. Thanks for the good words on my talk page, Lankenau (and I owe thanks for the vote of confidence to Drmies, too), but both at ANI and on the article talkpage, issues have been raised about the edit (and it's been reverted again). I will go talk on the article talkpage, but I suggest you do so, Lankenau. Your words have the most force and all it may take is for you to present a reasoning for adding the material. Since it's being argued that the material needs to be discussed before it's re-added. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editing for research scientists may be of help too. Sky Machine   ( ++ ) 23:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! --Lankenau (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)