User talk:Samsara/Archive11

Comment on Fir0002's talk page
Samsara, I find this comment needlessly inflammatory. You haven't pointed out anything that hasn't already been said quite (more clearly and more politely) at the nomination and your tone is unhelpful. Fir is perfectly capable of reading and responding to the comments at the nomination - hopefully he'll take them on board, but since it's currently 3:30 AM in Victoria, it's pretty unreasonable to expect an immediate response. Your comments at the goat nomination - "This is not your private photography contest, Fir. If you want credit for taking beautiful pics, for heaven's sake take it to Commons!", among others - were uncalled for; I'm not surprised Fir reacted defensively. We have a policy here of commenting on content, not the contributor, which applies just as much to you as it does to Fir0002. --YFB ¿  17:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You fail to note that it was Fir who became inflammatory first. Also, please keep the two incidents separate. Regards Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "He did it first" is not an excuse for incivity. We're all adults (or near enough), so let's try to behave like it. Quoting from the goat discussion:


 * Oppose. If the colour variation is supposed to be the theme of this image, "as far as I know" is not very good information as to the identity of the father. Goats are not at all monogamous. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK it was a pure white father as we only have white billies. Aside from that I can't see any validity in your vote as the image is not meant to illustrate colour variation - it's not even in an article on that! --Fir0002 06:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I fail to see where in that comment Fir is inflammatory: he's pointing out that you are voting based on an inaccurate assertion. As for keeping the two matters separate, you might want to retract the part of your comment where you accuse Fir of bitching at you. Since you're not even involved in the discussion about the tomato photo, this suggests that you've already linked the two incidents.


 * I should also point out that I'm not playing advocate for either side in this discussion. I'm just trying to reduce some of the tension that's making FPC an unpleasant place at the moment. I'm requesting that everybody keeps a cool head and considers biting their tongue before making that stinging retort that's really really essential to an objective discussion about photographs for an encyclopaedia. --YFB ¿  17:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You've quoted selectively. You've missed out the part where Fir declares my vote has no validity. I find I can't address your concerns if you quote selectively, and therefore declare this conversation finished. Any further comments from you will be removed. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is your talk page, so if you want to remove this comment I can't stop you, although I think it would be unfair as I'm only trying to keep the peace here. I haven't quoted selectively - that's a direct copy & paste from the nomination. The part where Fir declares your vote has no validity is right there; it's just that I disagree that he made that assertion in an inflammatory way. I note that you've retracted your comment to Fir and thank you for doing so. Best wishes, --YFB ¿  18:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No. I believe you are deliberately being tendentious here. If I'd voted on the tomato thing, you would doubtless interpreted that as retaliatory, too - think about it! Also note that I have not yet changed my vote on the goats to "strong oppose", as Kicking222 did on the tomatoes - something, that, by the way, I absolutely reserve the right to do at a later stage. And yes, this conversation ends here, as announced, and is being archived. Goodbye! Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Cycler
This pic wouldn't be helpful would it? I just found it and uploaded it from flickr it's cc-by. Quadzilla99 23:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You're a star. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What?
You don't know about the Venerable Bacterium and his famous work, the Historia bacteria gentis Anglorum? pschemp | talk 05:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Goal
Good idea. I'd say it merits a wikiproject except that things seem to get done faster and better without one. Plus it saves on talk page banner cruft. pschemp | talk 22:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well quoth. Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What's going on?
Hey Samsara,

What's going on? It seems like you're really upset, and it appears to be about the Evolution article. Anything I can do to help? My talk page is always open; I really hate to see you so obviously upset. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just glad you're back, Samsara. You have been instrumental on many science-related articles; I'll never forget all the work you did on Tyrannosaurus. We all get upset from time to time; feel free to contact me at any time if you need someone to talk with. Firsfron of Ronchester  22:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Common ground
I could not agree more. David D. (Talk) 17:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, well, thanks for reading, and maybe we can resurrect the proposal by means of a straw poll. I'm just going to assume, seeing how quickly you responded, that others may feel the same way, too. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would hope so. Reverting the continual juvenile and petty vandalism is enough to drive off any serious editors. Worse it is often missed, so good edits get mixed in with the bad and untangling the mess is not always as simple reverting back to the last edit. For example, see what I had to do with mitochondrion today. David D. (Talk) 18:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC) (check this out as a possible way to go)


 * His proposal doesn't work, because vandals can change which version is referenced. People also noted that it violates "no self references" (this is a guideline or policy somewhere, don't have the ref to hand). There was some consensus, however, that the development version should be shown by default. I could raise some further spectres, but in the spirit of "stay hungry, stay foolish", I won't. Ultimately, this is about getting everybody into one boat and doing what's right for the continued growth of the internet. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. I had not seen the old proposal, I'll read through the discussion. David D. (Talk) 18:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We may actually have to throw the self-references bullshit out of the window to make some progress on this issue. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The first thing we'll need to do is merge the discussions at Stable versions and Stable versions now - any new discussion must be firmly kept in place for this to succeed. I need to quickly go shopping before shops close. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you don't think my photo is great. But I like it. I won't put it back up lest I start a wiki war.

Ubuntu (Linux distribution) article
Hi

You've recently tagged the List of releases section of the Ubuntu (Linux distribution) as having a list that can "equally well be represented as prose". Please can you expand on this, as to me none of the tables in this section fit that description? Thryduulf 13:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied on article talk. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Leaving?
If so, sad to hear, but not surprised - getting progressively more sick of the atmosphere here. If so, all the best, and hope you make it back eventually. Guettarda 20:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm still debating whether to scramble my password for good or just change it and keep a copy on some storage medium to be hidden away somewhere at the bottom of a big box of old sentimental rubbish. Thanks for all the good times! Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sad to hear. I'd vote for keeping the password somewhere safe...not having a password won't stop you editing (anyone can edit...), just from resuming your identity.  Guettarda 20:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Script
You said on Talk:Global warming you had some kind of script that automatically converted refs, how does that work? Aaron Bowen 20:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey!
Thanks for the award - just what I needed after what felt like bashing my head against a wall for a few days =) Adam Cuerden talk 23:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue II - May 2007
The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 05:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Alfred Russel Wallace FAC
I have gone ahead and nominated it. Your participation in the process would be much appreciated.Rusty Cashman 02:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Epigenetics
Hi Samsara. I'm very sorry to bother you, but I was wondering if you could have a look at something in your capacity as a Wikipedian biologist? There's a bit of a dispute going on over at epigenetics to do with the significance of epigenetic inheritance for evolution. The specific section in contention deals with the so-called philosophical implications of epigenetics. Without wanting to colour your impression of the dispute, to my mind it seems that there's an attempt to overplay the importance of epigenetics (ulterior motives are in play). Anyway, I'd be grateful if you could have a peek - to make sure I'm not waaaay off the mark if nothing else! Cheers, --Plumbago 19:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Kai, fine
Why there isn't a place to cite a page number in the regular ref template is beyond me. Go Harvard. pschemp | talk 19:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's more economic this way anyhow. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Images
I really can see no direct or implied connection between the images you made and Adam's images. Since any similarity is minor, don't you think it would be wiser to assume good faith and say that, since all the images we are discussing are free-content anyway, the point is moot? This discussion isn't casting you in a good light, you are beginning to appear hyper-sensitive and aggressive on a minor point that nobody else appears to care about. From our past interactions, I know that isn't what you are actually like, but I'd thought I would warn you that you might be creating a really bad impression to other editors who don't know you as well. TimVickers 22:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see now that the image Adam referenced is one that you made, rather than any of the ones seen on natural selection, so the following comments apply to you as well. I think you understand as well as I - if I must say it - that the deeper issue here is whether it is acceptable to simply replace another's contribution without correspondence, or to avoid using an existing image. I've often criticised those who exert effort where it isn't needed, simply because making an SVG version of an existing image was easier than going to the library to get some books and help work on the articles, or where we're too scared of having to deal with another human being, so we won't contact them when we need their image uploaded at a higher res, in a different format, etc. And yes, face-saving behaviour does annoy me when it surfaces in a "what the hell's the matter with you" fashion rather than the more usual "okay, maybe I made some mistakes" leading to "no worries, maybe I made some, too". I've been around, editing these articles for a long time. I'm always happy to see my contributions sacrificed to worthier replacements. And I'm sure the hounds will descend upon me and accuse me of WP:OWN, but I can justifiably say that I don't expect many of you newer hands (if we must enter that territory) will understand what it feels like when one's contributions are needlessly replaced, without consultation, and without attribution. It's like a piece of you disappears off the face of the Earth. This is much more tangible with images than with prose, both because images have a greater particulate nature, and because there is no attribution trail like the edit history, unless images are uploaded as a new version of the same name as the original, hence directly replacing it. You, Tim, currently have both the luxury of most of your contributions being recent, and in areas that a smaller group of editors have any expertise in (or feel they do - some of the worst contributors are the ones who think they know). This won't always be that way, because you will eventually become busy in other areas of your life, and your subject area will become more crowded. It would be a sign of grandeur on your part to understand early on what this may mean to you, or others currently in that situation. As for your comment about alienating people, if it hadn't been for the fact that Betacommand at one point had almost all of the University of Edinburgh doused in blocks, some of which persist, I wouldn't have come back at all. So don't worry - you'll be rid of me eventually. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Brooms
I like the image: I have a choice of brooms, depending on which chore I'm working on at any given time. Joyous! | Talk 15:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's great. :) Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Tuatara
Hey Samsara, had a look over the article. Unortunately, there's not much I can add--I'm not an expert on lacertilians by any means, and I don't have any literature on the subject at the moment. It is shaping up nicely though! Dinoguy2 23:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I was hoping that the poor Tuatara might been seen elsewhere in Europe too and the list could be expanded, but alas that seems not to be the case. Ah well. pschemp | talk 02:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Tuatara map
I'm surprised how well you've got it to come out, given that's what you started with. Did you consider using this topographic map? Its high res version (linked from the description page) is beautiful, but maybe the colours could be too distracting. -- Avenue 02:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Wich one? I have had 300 edits today so it is kind of heard to remember them all:)--James, La gloria è a dio 03:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks:)--James, La gloria è a dio 03:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Frogs
I wonder why the frog article seems to draw such a crowd of vandals. Joyous! | Talk 14:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Evolution peer-review
Hi there, I'm hoping to bring this article forward as a FAC in the next week or so, if you had any comments or suggestions of things we should add or change, the peer-review is here. Thanks! TimVickers 23:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have made changes in response to your comments, I hope these address your concerns. TimVickers 17:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month
NCurse work 19:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Most true....
My thoughts exactly, dear Samsara. This is one of those cases when one feels like a mother trying to stop a kids' fight... Well, like you said, one of them has left Wikipedia, so let's hope this particular feud is over. Btw, it's been a long, long time since we last saw each other! It's great to see you again, how are you doing, dear? Love! :)  P h a e d r i e l  15:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey sorry
Hi there. Sorry I've been sick lately and so not using wikipedia much.. I'll have a look now. CheersKotare
 * No worries dude and yeah thanks for understanding - the Tuatara article is looking great. Cheers, Kotare 03:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Pete
S - I'm not sure exactly what you were getting at on User talk:Pete.Hurd. Are you expecting some action on my part? Do you think I'm in some way responsible for Pete's departure? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Mmm...I think you are being a bit sensitive, it isn't about you. Whenever anyone leaves, people say the same things, but the root cause of good people leaving is never addressed, just fluffed over with platitudes. I suspect you just haven't been around long enough to know this, but there's no reason to take offense. pschemp | talk 00:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

On that note, for anyone who needs a good laugh, please see Category:Exploding animals. pschemp | talk 01:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * S - I really disagree. Conflict is inevitable here.  No amount of change in anything will prevent that.  Sometimes that conflict becomes more than someone cares to bear, and they choose to leave.  That is sometimes necessary for all sorts of reasons outside of our control.  Once things have calmed down, I will talk to Pete about it.  But not now.  Trying to address his reasons for leaving now will become just more dispute about the appropriateness of Betacommandbot and WP:FU which is just the straw that broke the camel's back in Pete's case (I'm guessing).
 * The one thing that can be done, is preserve a culture of respect and politeness. I try to do this, and I feel like you acted counter to this by insinuating I had some obligation to do more than I chose to do (as if I have some obligation to donate more time than I already do to this project).  Or, more recently, you insinuate that because I don't agree with you I must be stupid ("assuming that you're smart enough...").  Please, show me more respect than that.  We disagree, but I don't presume that you are stupid.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually feel that your comments are inappropriate. I'm under no obligation to show you any kind of respect. As far as I'm concerned, we're strangers until we've proven ourselves worthy to each other. Asking for respect is a no-no in my books. I'm perfectly entitled to show dissent with your approach to Pete's departure. I've been fed up with this project at times, and I can tell you that when someone comes along and gives you the kind of "oh I'm so sorry to see you go, but I'm really clueless (or pretend that I am because I'm not willing to get involved with the conflict but I still want to be your friend)" makes things worse. Few things upset me as much as people with that kind of blase expression (excuse the absence of an accent tegue) and lack of energy. So yes, we will have to agree to disagree. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm under no obligation to show you any kind of respect. Pardon me, but this is exactly why we have policies like WP:AGF. The idea is that you should show other people due respect until they demonstrate that they are not acting in good faith.  This is a longstanding and fundamental component of our culture.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You've jumped to quite a few assumptions about me and my intentions to now be invoking AGF. This conversation ends here. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Just curious...
Why is Template:WikiProjectBanners high risk? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't really. High risk templates are those that are on lots of articles. Since this one is in talk space, is isn't really high risk. Do you have a need for editing it? Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No - I was mainly curious because Template:WikiProjectBannerShell is used on even more articles, and if the other one is protected, maybe it should be as well? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for pointing it out. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Tks :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution
I wouldn't worry too much about the changes: There's been a lot of tightening up and tweaking that came up, but the structure hasn't changed significantly. This is, to my best knowledge, a comparison of the article that entered FAC to the current article. Speciation got rearranged a bit to match the graphic, and there's some misalignment in the last half that's more an artefact of Wikipedia's shoddy comparison algorythm, but... well, your talk page comment seemed to imply you thought there were pretty major rearrangements happening, and I've been following the changes pretty closely, so... Adam Cuerden talk 15:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah! Right! Aye, I agree with you on that, but, short of the creationists suddenly discovering the FAC, I suspect that we've hit the end of it now. (And Tim has, at least, said no to Plumbago on a few points)
 * Mind ye, makes you wonder where all the creationists have gone. Not one unreasonable comment yet! It's downright spooky. Adam Cuerden talk 16:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, god, that. Had nearly managed to forget it. I think the side of reason is winning the day, provided a reasonable admin closes it. If not, well, Akhilleus' original nom left out the key information about it being a POV fork, so there's probably justification for a re-nom, or a review. Adam Cuerden talk 16:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Tuatara skull
Here's version 1. Thoughts? ArthurWeasley 06:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice! pschemp | talk 13:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Version 1 looks good to me. Would you like me to put it past the rest of the contributors for comment? Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. No problem. ArthurWeasley 15:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution: maindates
How many maindates does the template accommodate? Presumably, they have to be "maindate1", "maindate2", etc. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems unlikely that any article will appear on the mainpage twice, so ArticleHistory allows one spot. Why? Gimmetrow 13:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's easy enough to figure out which promotion a maindate goes with by identifying the time interval in which it falls. If you think this particular data retrieval needs to be easier, you could code the date comparisons into ArticleHistory, but it seems a small benefit for a lot of code. Gimmetrow 16:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Raul tries to avoid repeating the same article on the main page twice, given the large selection of FA material available. Gimmetrow 19:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that. However, there will be a few biggies that will eventually be repeated, especially at major anniversaries. And evolution is probably in that group. I don't understand what the opposition to being flexible is here. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Testosterone and caffeine
Responded on my talk page. DMacks 17:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba 19:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination)
You recently commented at Articles for deletion/Cradle of Humanity, which closed with no consensus. The article has been re-nominated for deletion, and you may care to comment at Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination). --Akhilleus (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support
Hi, thanks for your note of support in the initiation rite. Did you know you had a sound alike User:Spamsara ? Shyamal 02:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Commas or parentheses for scientific name in opening sentence and elsewhere
(Now that was a long header wasn't it?) There's a debate here about commas versus parentheses for scientific names for organisms (well in this case birds). I'm not sure whether this has been raised elsewhere but would be good to establish once and for all here and could apply as MOS across all biology articles. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Amphibians and Reptiles Portal (P:AAR)
--Melanochromis 06:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Rex
You can come here to discuss. Kingjeff 17:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible Imposter?
Hi there - I've noticed this user (User:Spamsara) who's popped up on a recent dinosaur FAC & noticed his name was similar to yours, so I thought I'd notify you. Their edits seem legit, & I'm not sure about how to deal with possible imposters since I've never had one pretend to be me (who would?) ;). Anyway, regards, Spawn Man 12:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * your username came from the Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG card, right? -- Andersmusician  VOTE  03:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Who mine? I made mine up from a comic I was drawing (copyrighted...). I thought Samsara's came from that Bhuddist arthouse movie "Samsara" about that monk or something... Spawn Man 04:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Tuberculosis in history and art
Tuberculosis in history and art, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Tuberculosis in history and art satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Tuberculosis in history and art and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Tuberculosis in history and art during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Eyrian 19:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:List to prose
Hi, you created Template:List to prose last year. Is there a Manual of Style page that covers the guideline regarding when lists should be converted to proses? Shawnc 14:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think WP:EMBED might cover what you're looking for, or at least point you in the right direction. --Eyrian 14:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ACID
I was trying to follow the policy based on the top of the page, specifically ruling out IP addresses as nominators. I also, I believe, have contacted one or more IP editors for the purpose of explaining as much to them, and requesting that they establish accounts. For what little it's worth, if there was the appearance of COI, my apologies. I honestly don't expect any of the articles I have nominated to actually get much support, and certainly not to be selected, given their rather limited appeal. However, I've been working on the assumption that an article might be seen as being more important to some of the other editors who might work on them if the talk page contained a reference to its being a previous nominee for collaboration, and I have only been nominating those articles which seem to be of same degree of importance. However, I do understand and appreciate your comments, however, and will refrain from any such action in the future. John Carter 14:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup-toomany
Hi! This is just notification that I have nominated cleanup-toomany for deletion here, in addition to another analogous template that (interestingly) was created 2 days after yours. If you have any comments about the matter, your input is appreciated. Thanks, Grace notes T § 20:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear expert in science,
I would like someone to do an experienced copyedit on the article Clonaid. I spent the equivalent of 2 shifts (16 hours) trying to improve the article from this to this. Since you know how to make featured articles, I was thinking that you would be interested. If you have any suggestions, please post them at Peer review/Clonaid/archive1. The article is currently a featured article candidate. Sincerely, Kmarinas86 22:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue III - September 2007
The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 00:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-Mendelian inheritance
I am a new Wikipedia user and am in the process of expanding the article on Non-Mendelian inheritance. Any comments or suggestions that you have about my edits would be greatly appreciated. Bretsam 04:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Lactose intolerance
Hello Samsara. I picked your name out of the participants list at the evolutionary biology project only on the basis you seem so active :). I wonder if you've ever had a look at the «History of genetic prevalence» section of the article. I think it has potential in the evolutionary biology sense, as many recent scientific articles have been pointing to flexible gene expression (genetically lactose intolerant Japanese and Massai who are not lactose intolerant in real life - for entirely different reasons, and genetically lactose OK people who loose lactase function after prolonged weaning and lactase persistance in certain domestic mammals who weren't weaned) as well as the contentious gene adaptability/selection process. My masters degree involved population genetics to some extent, but it's been several years and I don't have enough materials at hand to improve this section myself. I think it could have a very interesting place in one of the genetics projects, either population or evolution. What do you think? Or who would you pass this question onto?

Also, I wonder if you could give a critical look at «Lactose intolerance by group» table. It is my impression that many stats are old and unreliable as assessment methods and understanding of lactose intolerance has changed since those early days of thinking it was a disease... I wonder if such differently originating older stats can be allowed to stand side by side with more modern stats...Thank you for your help --Tallard 06:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

PS, just to add food for thought, some scientists are pushing for a natural selection or evolutionary biology aspect to lactose intolerance, I guess my doubt lays with the concept of favorable phenotype. I have doubts that in a non-herding society, lactose tolerance confers any advantage at all. Just another question :)--Tallard 06:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Polar bears as apex predators
Hi Samsara,

Apex predators are predators that, as adults, are not normally preyed upon in the wild in significant parts of their range. Polar bears are occasionally killed by orcas and walrus, but that is not the norm, so it doesn't affect their status as apex predators. If we were to consider every odd case where a rabid mouse succeeds in killing an elderly lion, then the term "apex predator" would loose its meaning.--Yannick (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Killing does not constitute predation, and parasites cannot be apex predators. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Commonsimages template
Hello again,

The Commonsimages template was added to the polar bear page and others as a result of a dispute regarding galleries. Some people go around deleting galleries from Wikipedia, citing What Wikipedia is not. But it seems to me that some readers are interested in wide array of picture as part of learning about a topic, and Template:Commons is obscure to most people. So I created Template:Commonsimages per the consensus on Template talk:Commons, and added it in. Do you have a better suggestion?--Yannick (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Graphics are not only the portal requirements (portal:biology; related portals)!
Hey Samsara, well i would like to tell you that graphics are not required if they are not comprhensive, i mean since their are numerous portals regarding biology it's worthless having graphical representation. no body is snatching away the featured status of the portal. in my past i did the same mistake in a bit different manner. cheers, Sushant gupta (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't give a flying f*** about the featured status of that portal. It's not my life's work. BUT if you read the explanation on portal talk, then you may understand (I do get lucky sometimes). Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * SQ - I find your comment both nonsensical and incomprehensible. All but the main portals have images for related portals, nor should every single portal be listed as portals are hierarchical. This is the purpose of Portal:Science for example. Additionally, this discussion is much more appropriate for the talk page of the portal, that way it would at least be clear that you read the notes there. pschemp | talk 19:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Mechanisms and processes of evolution
hi Samasara, i think that this article is of immense importance. the page evolution discuss varous aspects such as mechanisms of evolution, evolutionary history of life, variants and many other things. the purpose of this article is to feed the mechanisms which are responsible for evolutionary changes and then the outcomes which can been seen after these mutuations. hope so you are getting my idea. if you don't mind can you pls. rem the tag. instead of you many others could have also raised this issue because of duplication but the purpose of this article is of great significance. thanks for your kind words. Sushant gupta 05:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a blatant duplicate. Even the pictures are the same. It couldn't be more obvious. Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * replied on FAC page.

do you want me to write all the sections again in my own language so that duplication do not exist. Sushant gupta 06:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * replied. Sushant gupta 06:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * i have find a substitute. kindly have a look @ talk:evolution pls. thanks a lot for your kind words. Sushant gupta 14:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * i have given the whole explanation regarding my strategy @ talk:evolution. hope so you might like it. thank you, Sushant gupta 12:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * i think you didn't read my message. i asked to replace the current mechanisms and outcomes section for the page evolution. Sushant gupta (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I gave you the best reply I could based on your ambiguous statements. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * this is the worst day of my life. first my parents scolded me and now here on wikipedia. delete the page. i don't care. i will be back in April 2008. i will try my best to improve other articles. thanks a lot for calling my comments as ambiguous. i don't know why you all guys keep on contradicting me. i am a bit scared. see forgive me for splitting my aggression here on your page, don't block me for god sake. today i am depressed. go on, delete it (this time i am encouraging you). thanks a lot for making my day. Sushant gupta (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you've had trouble. The article has been moved to User:Sushant gupta/Mechanisms and processes of evolution while we figure out what to do with the material. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

this is my last day here on wikipedia most likely this year. i will be back on April 2008. my health is also not at all well (currently suffering from frequent heeadaches and vomiting). i will work on it and try to improve it later. Sushant gupta (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You Inspired Me Today Barnstar


You have been awarded the You Inspired Me Today Barnstar for inspiring me to write The Beginner's Guide to Wikipedia. DOSGuy 10:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

History of evolutionary thought FAC
I have nominated History of evolutionary thought for FA. Your participation in the processs would be welcome. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your vote on my ArbCom candidacy
Hi Samsara, I don't understand your vote on my candidacy. What do you mean by "closet creationist"? Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your reply to ragesoss' question. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your vote on my ArbCom candidacy
Hi Samsara, I don't understand your vote on my candidacy. What do you mean by "joke candidate "? Thanks. -- E n d l es s D a n  17:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not really that funny. --Deskana (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Voting for me is a vote for straight stone cold chillin. No gimmicks needed. That doesn't read like a serious manifesto to me. So you can all gerroff my talk page now, thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

FAC
Hey, there, glad to see you're more active again! I'll look at that bird and picture issue later, but warning, I don't speak images, and the last time I dove into a bird topic, I found out that questioning capitalization on bird topics can be fatal :-)

Would you mind revisiting Featured article candidates/J. K. Rowling? The FAC page was a formatting mess that took me a bit to sort out, but I eventually determined that your Oppose is the last standing, and wonder if it has been resolved to your satisfaction. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)