User talk:Narayanese/Archive3

Lobaria pulmonaria GA review
Many thanks for reviewing the article Lobaria pulmonaria for GA status. I've addressed your concerns and hope the changes are satisfactory. Cheers Sasata (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 08:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Narayanese (talk) 08:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Obesity
I am unable to find this well you are referring to. What section is it in.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way Obesity is up for GA review. If you are interested would be great if you could review it.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Made a few changes. Like all things about obesity there is a lot of conflicting evidence. Looking into dietary guildline / info. Some say they may contribute to obesity. Same say they help...-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the issues with obesity is that it is such a huge topic :-) Each section and subsection has textbooks written on it.  Here is a book that just discusses the genetics of obesity syndromes for example.   The article is currently sitting at 120,000 and shouldn't really get any larger.  If more info is needed it will need to be as subpages.


 * The next is that Obesity is so controversial. Some say it is due to diet only, others say exercise only, others say both, still others say the previous two havn't really changed and it is infections or genetics, and the list goes on.  You can find primary research and reviews that support all points of view.  These are important and interesting discussions, but deserve a page or pages of their own.  What the WHO based there decision that energy expenditure is decreasing on I do not know.  Maybe we need a page on Exercise trends or Energy expenditure as a cause of obesity.  Here is 1040 page overview of the topic that I came across in the last few months.  Havn't had much chance to look at it though.  * Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Out of town for a week or so.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ok. I'll withhold giving a review until then. Have a nice time. Narayanese (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I am back. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Have made a number of changes.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed a number of things. I think the WHO is good enough to use as a reference.  Added a few other of their pages to support it.  Emailed them a hope to get a response. Anything else?-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am adding information to the page on exercise trends to support the WHOs assertions. There is a fair bit of evidence.  Some from the CDC some from South America.  Also working on the healthy diet page to support the fact that an unhealthy diet contributes to obesity.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The references you added to Obesity only contain unsourced opinions, and are thus quite pointless. I do note you have a decent source for a reduction in physical activity in the US on the exercise trends page. Most of that page is however only a description of the current situation rather than trends. Narayanese (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree most of it is the state things are at currently. The US is a good stat though.  I have come across states for China aswell.  Will move the section from Epidemiology_of_obesity-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I have provided enough evidence to justify the WHOs statement. Cheers.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed the wording.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be best not to try to state which is greater ( diet or exercise ) when it comes to obesity. Both are important factors. The RAND review says it is 60% exercise 40% diet. I do not think this matters. The ref you gave is only for developed countries and we want to keep the discussion in the main section more general. It says diet is more important. All refs agree however that both are important. I can find you that exact page if you want in that ref I gave.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is no need to state how much is contributed by overconsumption and how much from laziness. Narayanese (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope those two do not come back. What is presented however is a very solid argument backed up by almost 300 refs to peer reviewed literature.  I have read much of what is out their and unless they can find a review that support their POV...
 * Most of my recent edits was just reverting the changes one of the previous editors made.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Polyadenylation
Apologies that this is talking so long, but there are some things I thought I'd better change before starting the formal review. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Finally got the redraft of a paper off my desk, so I had time to finish the review! Tim Vickers (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, nice. (I got my own article, on gene expression profiles and UTR length, submitted today, which I'm happy about. I'm considering adding one of its pictures of average mRNA and UTR length to the Polyadenylation article once I can get it published, the current lead figure looks correct but it does say what it's based on) Narayanese (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Mostly visiting
I saw you have done a lot of good work recently on the Developmental Biology article. A long time ago I tried to find people to work on our article on Evo-Devo - would you have time to go over it? It seems like an important topic (especially it simplications for theoretical work on evolution) that never got much attention here. best, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a try. Narayanese (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverting Vandalism
Hello, Narayanese, I noticed that you had reverted some vandalism. *chuckles* Don't worry, you're not in trouble. I just wanted to tell you that I appreciate your efforts. However, you should put warning tags on the talk pages of users who have vandalised pages. Thus, people like I won't have to do that. Even still, I'm okay either way. Here's a little vandal-fighting "toolbox" I have for ya:

happy editing!

--Montgomery&#39; 39 (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I seldom get angry enough at a piece of vandalism to get around to warn a user. But that box is handy; thanks! Narayanese (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Bird Taxobox
I am no expert, by a long shot, but can you explain why you deleted all that you did in the taxobox. Does this have to do with the two styles of Taxonomy, and did I mix the two or what. I would like to know, well because I love knowledge. Thanks speednat (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Toxoboxes shouldn't list every high-level group that contain the group in question, it only makes the infobox unwieldy. The immediatly above groups and a sparse selection of high-level groups is enough, the user can click e.g. Vertebrata in the rare case they wonder if it is a bilaterian or not. Besides, there were several errors in the overexpanded version: placing Archosauromorpha under Archosauria, including the dubious Neomura and the made-up ranks for lots of groups. Narayanese (talk) 06:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont agree with avoiding the clutter as a reason to not post up the deleted ranks. I understand the "made up ranks" but unti the taxobox template gets fixed there is no way. The members of WP:WikiProject Birds have had no issue with the improvements that I have made. I feel that for classes like Birds, Reptiles, Fish etc.. doing in detail to the top makes sense. However once you start with smalller groups as in Albatrosses, or Neoaves or Ratites, using detail up to the Aves class makes sense. The reason I added all of that was because I was looking for it, and I doubt I was that rare a user. The Neomura class is doubtful and probably should be left off so I didn't re-add that. I hope you will respect my reasoning, and keep in mind that if the only arguement is that it is too much information (cluttered) that probably shouldn't be enough of a reason of to delete information. Remember this is an online encyclopedia of knowledge, and the online portion makes it nice to not have to limit your size due to silly cost constraints.speednat (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * But you don't even have to fake the ranks! Didn't you see the I added? There are templates like that for all the ranks, and one for unranked. Narayanese (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I never caught that, thanks for pointing it out to me. I have fixed the faking. speednat (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, good :) Narayanese (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Citric acid cycle illustration
Hi, I'm currently working on an M.Sc. thesis on computational biology where I'm engineering an aconitase-like protein to accept citric acid as substrate instead of it's usual substrate (See http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/67/8/3603 for the enzyme PMI).

I would love to be able to use a modified version of your citric acid cycle illustration for the biological background section of my thesis, but I don't really want to deal with the process of getting my university to agree to releasing my thesis under the GNU FDL, not to mention the requirement of having to print out the GFDL with my thesis every time I want to distribute it.

If you could dispense me from the requirements of the GFDL for this picture for this use, I will gladly give back the modified versions I created, and of course cite your picture in the thesis. If you're willing to do so, please contact me at blin(at)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de. KaiBlin (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The picture was created mainly by commons:User:YassineMrabet. Myself, I'll gladly allow you to skip any requirements from the license. After reading Transition to CC-BY-SA, I noted I could relicense it to CC-BY-SA 3.0, where no license page has to be included in derivate works, but I guess it's not enough (if you don't get Yassine's permission you could probably license the picture but not the rest of the thesis under CC-BY-SA; or perhaps upload your version to the net somewhere under a compatible license and cite it from the thesis). And good luck wih the writing. Narayanese (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Lipids
Hi Narayanese, thanks for the GA review. I'm surprised you summarily failed the article without any discussion or consultation. Since I'll be able to make the changes you requested in a day or two, would you mind putting it on hold and having a look again when I make those improvements? Sasata (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi again, I've implemented your latest suggestions. I also wanted to let you know that I'll be going on a three-week wikileave starting Tuesday (19th); no pressure to finish the review or anything, and I have no problem with leaving it on hold for that time if you feel further improvements are required, but I thought I should let you know about the time constraints on my end. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a large chance I'll promote it while you're away, but if I don't I'll keep it on long hold. Narayanese (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:Good articles/recent
Hey. I would just to update you on some developments with the WP:Good articles/recent page. Following a bot request, it became apparent that it would be handy to have a bot pipe new additions to WP:GA onto the /recent subpage. Now, I admit that the bot's been having a few problems, but I hope these have now been worked out. It should mean that every 5 minutes the newest additions are added automatically, so all users like you have to do is add the newly listed GA to WP:GA and let the bot do the work. Of course, you're allowed to do it yourself, but you don't have to. Essentially though, you can either carry on as normal or take advantage of the bot, as you wish. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 11:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Source for definition of Reptilia
Hi Narayanese, you did an edit on the Reptile page with reference to "Damiani et al 2003 Proc Biol Sci". Could you ad some meat to the bone on tha? I haven't been able to track it down. Petter Bøckman (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here it is: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1691433&blobtype=pdf I guess I should give PMID next time I put a reference in a comment. Narayanese (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Petter Bøckman (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

ATP synthase equation
Re this edit The citations for the proton/ATP ratio are in the sentence above the equation, was it something else you were querying? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The water generation from oxygen. Narayanese (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, I wonder where that came from? This is the correct version, I'll revert back to the original - many thanks! Tim Vickers (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Amino acid GAR notice
Amino acid has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Miller–Urey experiment revert
I've undone your revert of the recent addition of metadata through the reflinks tool. If you feel that the data in question can be improved, feel free to do so: I inspected the additions and believe them to generally be an improvement to the article, at least insomuch as that the references in question now use the templated citation system rather than a simple URL-title pairing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They were not an improvement, but addition of incorrect information. Geocities is not a publisher, it's a web host. Same with Springerlink and Books.nap.edu. orig913.dvi is sort of a pecular title... And why the accessdates that are placed in the middle of the reference? Narayanese (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Information derived automatically from a source may be imprecise, but it is rarely incorrect. The Manual of Style discourages the use of inline links, especially where a footnotes system is in place, so your repeated reverting of, say, the PDF link to inline because you happen to disagree with the tool's choice of the PDF file name as the title simple leads to the article being inconsistent. I'll fix this myself in due time, but reverting this was a waste of both your time and mine and has done nothing to improve the article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Ciliate telomerase RNA.JPG
File:Ciliate telomerase RNA.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Ciliate telomerase RNA.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * File:JSzostak.jpg is now available as Commons:File:JSzostak.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Poly(A)
Sorry about the pickiness of the wording on the polyadenylation page. My problem with it was that it seemed overly wordy -- such as using RNA twice in the same sentence needlessly and using the term "poly(A)" before clearly defining it. I am sorry that I introduced those errors. I should have known better. Thanks for being so careful about factual accuracy. I think it reads well enough now. Regards, Lhynard (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I ended up throwing it out and trying a new wording. Having RNA twice near eachother wasn't perfect, but defining the polyA tail by the monomer isn't good since the monomer (AMP/adenylate) is less well known than the tail, plus (which is rather minor) it ends up ambiguous since monomers can't be the same as a free molecular species. Now I just need to figure out how to write the plural of A. Narayanese (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Narayanbot
I noticed that you created this bot account and indicated it was being tested. Please be aware of the following pages as username policy specifically prohibits usernames with "bot" at the end (and bot accounts in general) unless the bot has gone through the approval process:
 * Creating a bot
 * Bot policy
 * Bots/Requests for approval

Please let me know if you have any questions. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Creating a bot seems to say I'm supposed to make an separate account before making anything scripted (like sandbox edits or page retrieval), and I can't submit anything before approval until I've figured out how to run the commands... username policy and bot policy contradict each other. Narayanese (talk) 06:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As you seem to be working toward approval, this should be fine. Please make sure you begin the process before actually running it in the mainspace, though. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 14:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Question
What are these "holes" in this image? They are in the upper and lower portion of the image. I thought you might know since you were a biologist. - BennyK95  -  Talk  October 10 2009 (UTC)
 * It can't be cells or anything else biological. Looks like holes in the film under the sample. (I haven't worked with electron microscopy) Narayanese (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for your time. Regards - BennyK95  -  Talk  October 11 2009 (UTC)

Evolution needs better description in intro text
Hi Narayanese.

We may have differing views, but don't you think evolution is not suitably described in the intro text? I mean, for a theory based on random chance, I'd expect that the random component be emphasized.

Comder 17:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've taken the issue to talk:Evolution as the changes did not seem to me to be improvements, and doubtless you'll prefer to discuss it there. I've also welcomed Comder and given some advice on relevant policies. . . dave souza, talk 20:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Souza, I appreciate your warm-hearted welcome. COMDER (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Genetic drift
Hej. Vi bor i samma storstadsområde. Du jobbar med det som jag helst skulle velat göra. Det närmaste jag kommit är en kurs i Computational Molecular Evolution. Du har förstås rätt om referenserna i Genetic drift. Men jag är inte alls förtjust i att lägga in referenser. Nu kommer jag att lägga in så många som krävs för GA. Sen går jag vidare till Natural selection, för att få tillbaka den till GA. Mitt långsiktiga mål är Evolution som Good Topic. --Ettrig (talk) 08:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Jag kan försöka leta rätt på en del av dem själv, men hoppas du då kollar att jag hittat rätt referens. Lycka till med övriga artiklar, natural selection ser inte ut som alltför mycket jobb. Mutation och molecular evolution ser tuffa ut att få upp i kvalitet, innehållet i dem är så gammaldags. Narayanese (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Kul att du också jobbar med Genetic drift. --Ettrig (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous
I think your RNA article (real one) is great stuff. This could be heralding a seismic shift in the role of Wikipedia. Has it been mentioned in Signpost? OK if I call you about the genetic drift problem? (Isn't your name wrong, shouldn't it be Arenayese?) --Ettrig (talk) 09:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * *smiles happily* There was a nice "sister project publication" around the same time. (followup) I'll stick around at genetic drift, though I'm afraid I'll still take as frustratingly long between edit rounds. Narayanese (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Introduction to evolution
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Introduction to evolution. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In recognition
Your efforts helped to improve the article greatly!

Allele
Hi, even though nicely sourced, I think that your changes to Allele are wrong. A locus is a place on the chromosome, kind of in a geographical sense. A gene is a functional unit. An allele is a variant form of a gene. I realize you have a source for this, but, unfortunately, the field of genetics is replete with articles using genetic terminology wrongly ("My mouse has no phenotype", etc. For some examples and discussion see and . --Crusio (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm wrong (though polymorphic locus is perhaps better than just locus), because I've seen plenty of articles using the term allele about site/region variants outside genes, including those genome-wide association studies. What fields use the other terminology (genes only), isn't that outdated? The source I added was for show though. Narayanese (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)