User talk:Malljaja/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Garion96 (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Helpme on Talk:Carbon mutual
Should this page be here on Wikipedia? It seems merely an advertisement for a rather obscure company that seems to try to separate people with good and honest intentions from their money. Malljaja 15:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The page appears to be advertising; as such, a user has tagged it with db-spam to request its deletion under CSD G11, so the page is likely to be deleted soon unless sources to demonstrate the notability of the company are added and the article is reworded to be neutral and attributed (which is highly unlikely, but which would solve the problem just as well as deletion would), so you probably have nothing to worry about. If you come across spam in future, you're allowed to tag it the same way (read the rules about spam). Hope that helps! --ais523 15:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the prompt tagging and clarification. I had noticed that this "company" had earlier posted its link on the Carbon offset website, and upon removal of the link, seemed to have founded this page. Malljaja 15:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Follow-up on what's happened:
 * 16:12, 19 March 2007 NawlinWiki (Talk | contribs) deleted "Carbon mutual" (g11 advert), so the page was deleted as spam; and
 * The user in question is now on a final warning for spamming (see User talk:Barnsdirect).
 * Hope that helps! --ais523 16:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

DNA sequencing
re dna sequencing timeline - it looks really good. You might consider adding the introduction of hte sequenase kit and s35 alpha dNTPS; my memroy is that these reagents had a huge practical influnecne on the field. Another huge influence was that with fluorescent sequencing, you didnot have to prepare the gel for autorads; if you talk to anyone who actually did sequencing pre abi, they will tell you of the immense anmount of work and wasted effort this end step entailed.
 * Thanks for your comments. I cannot take the credit for creating the time line though--I've been mostly editing this section for clarity, as some of the info was too long or dispersed. I've edited and moved some of your recent additions regarding the Sequenase method--have a look whether I left the main message intact. Some of the seq methods have become so extensive that they may deserve a page in itself Malljaja 15:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for helping clean up & improve the clarity of the Polymerase chain reaction article! :-) -Madeleine 14:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for moving & clean up of the optimisation section in the first place :-). The PCR page has long been in need of some repairs, and it's good to see it move in a good direction now. Malljaja 16:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey there
You'll know me from the John McVie page... I was wondering if you'd keep an eye on the Danny Kirwan page for me in the same way - the same unregistered fool is doing the same thing there. And Mick Fleetwood as well, come to that, haha... the guy is persistent. Thanks, and keep up the great work! Bretonbanquet 20:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Plus, I'm already breaking the 3-revert rule on several articles... :( Bretonbanquet 20:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Bretonbanquet... yes, between cooking and doing laundry, I've been entertaining myself with the same spiel :)) -- I think it's deteriorated into a bit of a pointless vendetta, one joker in his/her underwear, but apparently without linguistic ability, trying to make a dent in the world. I'd be inclined to let it go by way of discussion, but seeing that we've been doing a lot of work as authors on some of the affected articles, they've become quite dear to me... don't like to see them defaced by yobs. I'll be away for a few days, but I'll be back--with a vengeance if necessary!! All the best to you. Malljaja 21:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, I needed a laugh :) Also thanks for your help on these pages, it makes it so much less frustrating to know that others are fighting for the same cause! Cheers! Bretonbanquet 17:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Innate immune system
Fantastic job on the copy edits! Your edits certainly did clarify, and the article reads much better. Thanks!--DO11.10 03:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Radiotrophic fungus
You have made some edits to this article which make references to NADH and the chemistry associated with the radiotrophic mechanism. Can you tell me where you got the details? Thanks. --Simpsons contributor 23:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Preview button
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Bendž|Ť 20:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

ZS Genetics second opinion
In the DNA sequencing article, I ended up removing this section and restoring some old writing about unproven commercial proposals for DNA sequencing methods. I tried to be neutral, but I know there's an apparent of a conflict of interest for me on the issue, if you get a chance I'd like you check over the situation and decide what you think is best. Many thanks! Madeleine ✉ ✍ 21:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

NPD @ The Times
See WP:MEDMOS, you can't use opinion pieces, even from the Times, as sources in a medical article! It also contains some seriously weird misinformation. --Zeraeph 19:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to take time to get back to you there. As far as "weird information" is concerned, the article opens by implying support for DIY diagnosis through online resources, most of which are self published, self appointed and rife with misinformation largely under the control of a single individual (with no relevant qualifications or standing) featured later in the article.


 * Then is goes on to imply that NPD is considered a "severe and dangerous" personality disorder in terms of the latest UK mental health legislation, which it is not (and cannot be, as the UK uses the ICD10 which does not include NPD). Then this: "if it ensures the continuation of what psychiatrists call “the narcissistic supply” of uncritical admiration and adulation." when, in fact "Narcissistic supply" is jargon exclusive to online "NPD resources" that Psychiatrists have a tendency to never have heard of.


 * Most of her "professional and academic" sources are gleaned, second hand, from publications, those that are not seem to confined themself to questiong the validity of DSM diagnostics...and so it goes on..--Zeraeph 03:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

carbon offsets
Hi Malljaja,

I edited the carbon offsets piece, section on co-benefits. Is this okay now? I'm keen to share the knowledge of my organisation but don't want to do it in a way wikipedia doesn't like!

Thanks, Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nscott.odi (talk • contribs) 14:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your reply - negative benefits was not my phrase but should certainly be changed. Will do it now. Nscott.odi 15:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries - I hope I didn't come over harshly! Nscott.odi 17:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Zi Lan Liao
This was my mistake; I was attempting to respond to an editor who was removing templates stating that articles need Chinese characters, and reverted the wrong edit. Badagnani 15:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Polymerase chain reaction video
Don't know if you've seen this PCR song video, I got a kick out of it... but I resisted temptation to add it to the article. Thought it might give you a laugh in the midst of the silly revert war. :-) Madeleine ✉ ✍ 03:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

John Lydon
Did you know that this edit on the John Lydon page puts you in violation of 3RR? FYI I agree with your edit. --Adamfinmo (talk) 07:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If the above is true, please do not do so again or I will report you for 3RR. In additon, there is widespread consensus to use English/Scottish/Welsh not British, hence the categories and the widespread use of these terms on people's articles. There has been many discussions on this, and I would ask you to accept the widespread consensus not insert what maybe your own POV. --UpDown (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * With regard to 3RR, I made no judgement as to whether you had, I said "If". English describes people from England, Lydon is from England. English/Scottish/Welsh are widely used terms to described nationality, both within and outside Wikipedia. Cockney is not. I to disagree with single-use accounts. There has been many, many discussions on article talk pages (I can think of Richard Branson, Daniel Craig, Bernard Manning for a start). The "broader consensus" is for English, not British; hence our categories for a start. As I said the majority of articles use English/Welsh/Scotttish, and an even greater number use the corresponding categories. You are going against the tide on this one article, and would urge you not to.--UpDown (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I also note that in one edit summary you say that Great Britain is a country – not true. The United Kingdom is a country, Great Britain is part of it. Hence if you are calling someone British the link should be "United Kingdom|British". In addition, no one is saying England is not a "constituent country". That is the point; it a country hence why we use its nationality, it is more than a region or US state.--UpDown (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I RETRACT the above statement. I was confused by the conflict of the text and audio versions of the rule.--Adamfinmo (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. There are huge differences between the US and the UK. England, Wales and Scotland have long histories, as independent countries with there own cultures, traditions, legal systems and these have remains since the UK’s formation. For example each has it’s own international football team, something the US does not have. They’re a lot more than states, regions or provinces; they are constituent countries and hence we use their nationalities, to use British would on the whole be greatly inaccurate.--UpDown (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

opinion
I saw you helped out with microarray cleaning spree, Thanks. That article in the last year became an eclectic mix of mess and I am a terrible writer. Tiling arrays and Illumina are completely absent, but oh well for now. However, could you give your opinion for a better leadDNA_microarray. Thanks x2. --Squidonius (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I linked it badly it was on the talk page. Talk:DNA_microarray, the current lead is understandable but has some badly defined terms, most notably gene chip=any micorarray and probe=gene and only tranditional solid microarrays exist. I tried to change it, but mine was confusing too, hence it is in the talk page. --Squidonius (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Antibiotic
Hi, I moved the article back to the original name. Garion96 (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi
If you revert me again, I'll delete one of your userboxes. Reinistalk 20:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

M Brady Re: Lydon et al
I'll offer you the same feedback that I offered John--

My edits are neither disruptive nor improperly weighted. They are facts, were added accordingly and are as equally important as eaches English component. Lydon's description of himself in his autobiography (please read it) actually states that he is Irish--but I would not even consider trying to discount the English component because I respect its significance in the lead....and yet such a vigorous campaign --by a few--to remove the seemingly minor yet important fact that I added. These actions can only lead me to question what the real agenda is in having it removed. If you/and only a few others are focused on having these leads changed to fit YOUR definition of appropriate weight, I ask if you will subsequently work as vigorously to ensure that Shehzad Tanweer, Hasib Hussain and Mohammad Sidique Khan EACH have the same weight in their leads== == —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.72.194.218 (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

M Brady Re: Lydon et al
You state that only because "None of the artists to whose entries you have added the qualifier in question has made it their life's mission to advertise the fact of their (distant) cultural origin" as the qualifier for my editorial inclusion/exclusion; that may be your opinion but its just that--your opinion. And how exactly are these "distant cultural origins"? Again, PLEASE reference Lydon's autobiography (chapter 2, child of the ashes) where Mr. Lydon does more than "elude" to his Irish roots--he calls himself Irish, not that its his "distant cultural origin"....Yet despite HIS writings I did not attempt to remove any element of his English background or its dominant position in the lead. I respect it. Writing that he, and the others, are English and English alone, not English born, however implies not just their nationality, but it implies their TOTAL ethnicity. And that is not true. A cockney, french or any other accent does not define ones ethnicity either. Artists such as Robert Smith, Noel Gallagher are presented with only the date and place of their birth in the lead. Mr. Gallagher's ethnicity is then further developed later (as you suggest should be done with my edits) If that be the case then it would seem reasonable to have Lydon's, Morrisey's,and Springfield's follow the criteria established with those artists. English born, read on for more info.

M Brady Re: Lydon et al
Thanks for your efforts and input Malljaja.

John Lydon
Hi. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from reverting the article again until an agreement has been met on the talk page. You only received one very weak support for your suggestion (they stated they didn't actually agree with it) and a resolution should be met before the article is changed back to your suggestion. Thanks.

Aviousours76 (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Female Welwitschia
The female structures in the photo you asked about are cones. Welwitschia is a gymnosperm so it has no carpels and no stigmas. The ovules are borne naked on the upper surfaces of the scales in the cone. I hope that helps.

Dr. Chris Meloche Asst. Prof. of Biology Metropolitan State College of Denver Chris Meloche (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

LSD as an alkaloid
I have removed LSD from there, as it is a synthetic derivative of lysergic acid. In the same sense I would not call Heroin an alkaloid, and the same is true for hundreds of synthetic derivatives of alkaloids, which have been made for medicinal purposes. Just look at the huge number of opiate derivatives as an example, but it is generally true. In the article belong only the naturally occurring substances. You are right that ergine is LSA, so this was a duplicate. There is a number of other naturally occurring ergolines, which should be mentioned. 70.137.134.30 (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Alkaloid is not primary a chemical definition. It is a definition secondary to "natural products", namely natural products with an amine character and usually physiological action. I also have removed 18-coronaridine from there, as it is also a synthetic derivative of an alkaloid. It says in the article "alkaloids are natural products....". There is no category for "alkaloid-like derivatives", this would be probably much too broad, as infinitely many substances are "derived" from alkaloids or modeled after them. In many cases the researchers have observed actions of alkaloids, and then played with the molecules. 70.137.134.30 (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Genetics edit
I was going over the Genetics article, I see you added some stuff about "diploid" and "gene locus". It's true that was glossed over ploidy in that section, but the article does cover ploidy in some depth later in the article. In general I've tried to avoid unnecessary terminology and, when technical terms are necessary, avoid using them without defining them ... your edit is problematic in this sense. While I won't change your edit, I'm leaving a note here hoping you'll reconsider whether your changes should be kept. :-) Madeleine ✉ ✍ 20:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Fungus
Hi Malljaja, I've put fungus up at peer review, mostly to help motivate me to work on it more :) I was wondering if you'd like to be a co-nominator when it eventually goes up for FAC? I'm more than willing to do it myself, but I don't want to "step on any toes" and thought I should check with you first, as you are the most prolific contributer to this article. Cheers Sasata (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well progress is happening slowly... but surely. I hope we get more feedback at PR, but the two comments there say the article looks pretty good already. Here's my "stuff to do before FAC list":


 * expand lede to 3 (or 4) paragraphs
 * tweak image placement (suggested by Graham Coln) so there's more even distribution left and right
 * find image for dermatophyte cultur e
 * carefully check the info in the Phylogeny and classification to make sure it's up-to-date and accurate, and cited to the most recent/important papers (I found a couple of outdated statements already, and I don't even really know much about this stuff)
 * *have mostly completed this, but need to research a bit to see how the classification for black bread mold has changed in light of the Zygomycota disappearing


 * get rid of the last couple remaining redlinks
 * add a couple more sentences to the Mycology/History section to wrap it up
 * make sure Evolutionary history section is up to date - I think there's some recent papers on the subject
 * just saw Philcha's comments at PR; have to think more about them
 * Could fit in another image somewhere in the Phylogeny and classification section to break up a screen full of plain text... ideas?
 * just prior to submission, do a careful line-by-line, word-by-word copyedit
 * then (if possible), a copyedit by someone else who hasn't worked on the article... this may be overkill though

Anything else you can think of? About the timing for FAC, I'll be going on vacation from May 25th-Jun 15th; would it work for you to submit when I get back? The FAC process typically lasts 2-3 weeks, but may extend to a couple of weeks longer than that depending on how picky the reviewers are. Sasata (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, I've crossed out some things on the to-do list, and added a couple more. I'm thinking another week of tweaking and fiddling before FAC submission (but no rush or anything)? Sasata (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * One week has turned into two since I last wrote. I'm finding other little issues along the way during my line-by-line copyedit. Still trying to fully resolve the issues with naming re: former zygomycetes, but I think I have the solution. I'll list all 10 subphyla in the taxobox, explicitly stating (via footnote) that this classification is based on Hibbett et al. 2007. This will make current higher-level taxonomy readily visible in the article, and make it easier to explain all further mentions of former zygomycetes in the new taxonomic context.


 * A question about your change about the AAA pathway. I specifically changed it to the wording "With euglenoids: Higher fungi and euglenoids", and took out the word bacteria. I'm getting the information from the review paper by Xu H, Andi B, Qian J, West AH, Cook PF (2006) (PMID16943623), which states "the AAA pathway is present only in euglenoids and higher fungi (5 refs here), with alpha-ketoglutarate serving as the precursor for L-lysine." This comes after a discussion on the DAP (diaminopimelate) pathway found in "most plants, bacteria, and lower fungi." Do you know of other more recent information which suggests that some bacteria use the AAA pathway as well?
 * Regarding the table issue, I'm personally not convinced it's necessary, but I will try to knock one up in userspace, and we can have it ready to plop in the article should it come up at FAC. Sasata (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC) (P.S. thanks for fixing my spelling errors with AAA article... I miss stuff like that completely sometimes! Sasata (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Ah I see I was right in the first place ... thanks anyways :)

Greetings! I took the liberty of reorganizing some sections in Fungus, with an eye towards eliminating the duplicate information about the distinguishing characteristics. I've also started putting together a table in my sandbox, but it's not as easy as I thought to decide what to put in there and how to organize it. Any suggestions or ideas would be greatly appreciated! I'm thinking once this section gets trimmed and tidied, we'll be ready for FAC after a final copyedit... agree? Sasata (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fungus
On your recent revert of my very unclear edit what did you mean exactly by "lacks a page number"? Should I have deleted the "s" in the word pages? The page number was present in the citation "35". - Steve3849 talk 17:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC) PS The orginal quote reads "A forest ecosystem cannot be defined without its fungi because they govern the transition between life and death and the building of soils, all the while fueling numerous life cycles." Its true the article already has this idea stated to some degree. However, I think the idea could not be overstated and that the book deserves to be cited in the article. - Steve3849 talk 18:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Incremen or Decrement of Dopamine
Dear Wiki: Excuse my bad English, but I'm spanish.

In the article said: "To increase the amount of dopamine in the brains of patients with diseases such as Parkinson's disease ".

Is that true?, In the most publications that I read, said the opposite " The dicrease of dopamine .....

Thank you in advance --SantiBadia (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's time...
... for an FAC! Sasata (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think they're right about the suggested changes in the lead, I like Louie's new interpretation. How about we each take a turn at going through the entire article once, with the aim of rephrasing/simplifying 1-2 words per section? Sasata (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I sat with the editor open in front of me for 10 minutes looking at the Characteristics section, ready to rip it apart and put it back together again in the manner suggested by Cryptic, but couldn't bring myself to do it. Seems after all this effort by various both us and various other users to carefully craft and polish the prose, it would be a shame to stuff it in a meat grinder just so it came out a different shape. Am I being too melodramatic? At any rate, it's getting late here and my mind is no longer in the mood for constructing prose... I'll postpone any more thinking until tomorrow :) Sasata (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Malljaja, I've just found out that I'll have to take a work-related Wikileave for probably 6 days, starting tomorrow. I don't imagine there will be any problems at the Fungus FAC, and if I understand the procedures correctly, one more support vote should be good enough for promotion. Talk to you when I get back. Sasata (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter Sellers
Hi, I only have the Ham & High, (the major London weekly newspaper), in its original form and they have only been putting their whole paper on line for about 2 years now. If I had a proper online link I would have added it naturally. I am trying to add to the knowledge of the subject and his relationship with his son. That is the reason for my addition. Hope you understand. Thanks for being so diligent.Captainclegg (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

You raise a very good point. But I cannot alter the quoted dialogue as this would be 'original research' which is not allowed under Wiki rules. This was a direct quote and I would suggest gives a very shocking, first-hand account of the true character of the man. I cannot alter the style and still attribute it as a sourced item. I hope that you agree with the assessment. Captainclegg (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the detail, but I am just not comfortable with altering a quote. Especially one that gives such a fascinating insight. I appreciate your points but I think the suggestion of editing to fit goes against everything that we are trying to do with the new Wiki to get away from the glaring inaccuracies of the old Wiki! I hope you see my point and respect my position. Captainclegg (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Fungus
I'll have a go. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)