User talk:TimVickers/archive 9

Phthisiatry
Just started this article and two "phthisiatrists". Surprised this was missing. Know anybody who can expand it? Dr. Blofeld       White cat 10:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes in google books it seemed that most of them appeared to be Polish/Russian or from the fromer Soviet bloc countries. Still a legit article but if somebody writes an article on tuberculosis research someday then they should be merged. Phew don't know how hot it is where you are but it is 31 degrees celsius here! Dr. Blofeld       White cat 16:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good catch, Dr. Blofeld! But please allow me to raise a question of whether this material might not be better placed under another article.  Judging from its Greek roots, phthisiatry should refer to the treatment of tuberculosis (for which Wikipedia already has an article), not to the study of tuberculosis, which would be phthisiology.  The Oxford English Dictionary supports this reading of the Greek, and indeed has no entry for phthisiatry.  Perhaps phthisiatry is the word used in slavic languages and not in English?  The brevity of the article also suggests that it might be better as a section or subsection, or as an entry on Wiktionary.  What are your thoughts?  Proteins 21:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections to adding it to wiktionary Mr. Proteins. I have however created articles about physicians who work in this field. Maybe you could use your expertise and help sort it out. Are they phthisiologists then? I;d imagine it is a branch of pulmonology. Sometimes I'll get around to adding more scholars in this field, it is quite interesting stuff. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 21:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick check needed
Could you please look over User:Proteins/Draft_Welcome? I slung it together this morning as a meta-page to conjoin the Welcome pages for the individual WikiProjects and to avoid redundancy. It might advance our goals as well, especially as the first impression. I'd like to have a few of you check it before I refer it to MA today so, yes, this is a rush job. Thanks! Proteins (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

socionics AN/I discussion
you may wish to comment on the newly created administrator's noticeboard incident discussion regarding the conduct of User:Tcaudilllg and User:Rmcnew in relation to the page socionics, located here. Thanks. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

*ping*
You have mail, good sir. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Sanity
I would like to believe that Wikipedia is populated mostly by sane, rational people interested in creating a freely available, high-quality reference work. I'm having trouble sustaining that belief over the past week or so. Do you have any suggestions in terms of useful endeavors here? Anything you're working on that could use a bit of help, and that has not been fastened onto by a host of zealous True Believers? MastCell Talk 08:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably not the kind of response you expected, and not from the editor you addressed, but I could use a bit of help by someone with easy access to a US library over at pigeons in aerial photography. The main problems are to verify that this technology was really used by the US military in the 1960s, and that the "Bavarian Pigeon Corps", or at least the claim that their pigeons carried cameras, is in fact misinformation resulting from a telephone game. Hans Adler 08:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is quite an interesting subject. Thanks for the suggestion - I'll take a look, though I can't promise anything. :) MastCell Talk 16:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Whenever things get a bit much for me I work on cat for a while. It is the Wiki equivalent of going off to play with a kitten and some string. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? I seem to recall reading about a set of 36 reverts in 2 hours, on WP:LAME - something about whether it was OR to describe a given kitten as "cute"... :P MastCell Talk 19:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The taxonomy of domestic cats is also controversial, but I just ignore that part of the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This may be as good a time as any to tell you that I'm not a cat person. MastCell Talk 22:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Dead. To. Me. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If not Cat, then how about Cancer? Cancer is rarely updated, and it needs work. It gets about 7,000 hits/day, which is pretty respectable for a medical topic; not as many hits as trendy articles like Swine influenza and Vitiligo to be sure, but still comfortably in English Wikipedia's top 1000. Cancer is a topic that ought to be perfect for an encyclopedia, as it's all about the overview. Eubulides (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Andonee
Hi TimVickers. I am just letting you know that I have unblocked User:Andonee over a day early, responding to an unblock request in which he promised not to edit the article. If you believe this in inappropriate, let me know, but I was willing to assume good faith and unblock early. If you happen to see the user editing the article, don't hesitate to block him for a lengthier time. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
— raeky ( talk 03:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
— raeky ( talk 05:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Business of academic publishing
Apropos of your lack of access to Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, I saw an interesting article the other day: The Business of Academic Publishing. Key points: Interesting little story of the academic world. II | (t - c) 17:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "from 1986-2005, serial expenditures for the member libraries of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) have increased 302% while the number of serial items purchased has increased only 1.9% on average per year"
 * "Three giants dominate: Reed Elsevier, Springer and Wiley. Estimates indicate that these three account for approximately 42% of all journal articles published [15].  The for-profit publishers skimmed the cream of the academic journals, acquiring the most prestigious and those with the largest circulation"
 * Deutsche Bank comments that the publishers justify their margins by pointing to the "highly skilled nature of the staff they employ (to pre-vet submitted papers prior to the peer review process), the support they provide to the peer review panels, including modest stipends, the complex typesetting, printing and distribution activities, including Web publishing and hosting", but conclude that "the publisher adds relatively little value to the publishing process. We are not attempting to dismiss what 7,000 people at REL do for a living.  We are simply observing that if the process really were as complex, costly and value-added as the publishers protest that it is, 40% margins wouldn’t be available".
 * "As Thomes and Clay relate, commercial publishers within the last twenty to thirty years have taken control over many publications that had been controlled by non-profit academic and scholarly societies [12]. The shift took place during the 1960’s and 1970’s as commercial publishers recognized the potential for profitability in acquiring journals from the societies [13].  Scholarly societies have found it desirable to form partnerships with the large publishers since they are relieved of the costs and administrative burdens of publishing their journals.  Edwards & Shulenburger state “the commercial publishers, which recognized the relative inelasticity of both supply and demand, acquired top-quality journals, and then dramatically raised prices, expecting that they would lose relatively little of the market” [14].  This expectation turned out to be true."


 * Very true, a librarian I talked to referred to the sudden appearance of all the expensive Nature reviews in .. journals as "The Nature explosion". Tim Vickers (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Alumni of The Royal Conservatory of Music
I have nominated alumni of the royal conservatory of music for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your post
Hi Tim,

Thanks for your post. Will go over the information. I need to talk business with my boss now. Have a nice day! Stay connected... A wouldbe scientist (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Adoption Notice
Hi Tim,

As you know that I am a new user from Illinois, USA. Would you like to adopt me? If not, can you please notify any other admin that will be willing to adopt me? A wouldbe scientist (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adopting me
Hi Tim,

Thanks for adopting me. Have a nice day! A wouldbe scientist (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Response
Tim, I am not sure why you sent me a "welcome" message - I am not new to wikipedia.

Regarding my addition of the glutathione information to the cancer page, it does not do much good to simply state that my links "do not comply with our guidelines for external links". Please explain specifically HOW my links did not comply with these policies.

The information I included was very helpful and could save lives - therefore, in the future it would be much more helpful if you would try to start a reasonable dialogue before removing links, or just go ahead and modify the content yourself if you felt that it somehow did not comply with Wikipedia's policies. I look forward to hearing your explanation - if I don't hear back from you soon regarding the logic behind your decision, I will go ahead and re-insert the content. Thank you. Deepfryer99 (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Tim: I will review the guidelines that you posted for medical articles, and find some more suitable sources for the information that I posted. I was in a hurry when I made that post, and I admit I may not have found the best sources.

In the meantime, I recommend that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's etiquette standards (assume good faith, etc). I know that you are trying to prevent "spam", but it would be much more constructive if you would learn to be more respectful towards other posters, rather than use a "delete first, discuss it later" approach. Bear in mind that just because a piece of information is improperly sourced, that does not mean that the information is necessarily invalid. It simply means that the sources need to be reviewed, and, if necessary, improved. Deepfryer99 (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If Tim hadn't deleted it, somebody else would have. Any promotion of medical treatments without adequate sources is subject to "delete first, discuss later".  You would hardly believe how many people try to add junk to medical articles just because they heard it somewhere and think it sounds cool -- the only way to keep the articles from degenerating is to be rigorous about sourcing. Looie496 (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

First off, I want to ask whether or not the Glutathione page is considered a medical page? I don't see any tag on the page indicating this, and if anything it appears to be more of a chemistry-based article. Also, not all of the sources on that page are direct links to scientific studies - for example, link #26 is to "http://www.nutritionadvisor.com/glutathione.html". If sources like that are acceptable, then it seems that I should be able to use sources like WebMD or www.Healthline.com. But I have no problem removing the more questionable sources. Deepfryer99 (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

re: Sandboxes
Ah, thanks for that, I was just wondering if I should create a sockpuppet report, or explain to the users about personal sandboxes :). Anyway, I'll keep an eye on them (I presume you are?). Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, BTW, you may want to delete the pages left over after the move (they can be foun in my move log) under WP:CSD. Thanks - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, User:SoWhy has now done so. - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

sorry, I'm a dog person. --Slinkys (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

NIH science education booklets--public domain
Thank you so much for making the trek to NIH to teach us about Wikipedia. Truly inspiring. The cell biology booklet that I mentioned to you is here. We also have science education booklets on structural biology, genetics, pharmacology, etc. These are here. The material is not copyrighted, so feel free to use it on Wikipedia as you see fit. It was a delight to meet you. Machalea (talk) 20:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Userboxes information requested
Hi Tim,

Can you please give me a userbox that reads "This user is enrolled in a Master's degree program". After completing the MS in sciences, I would like to add a userbox that reads "This user has completed a Master's degree". Awaiting your reply with userbox information. Have a nice day! Thanks and Regards. A wouldbe scientist (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Vector dab
Do you have time to consider Talk:Vector (biology) concerning how to handle the two Vector biology dab pages? I hope you can reply there. Johnuniq (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

BioNet skola
BioNet skola is a reliable source of information. Each text signed by serbian biologists. --Caladont (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Atypical trigeminal neuralgia
Dear Dr. Vickers,

Can you analyze the Atypical trigeminal neuralgia article? It was started by Sammiewood. Lots of IPs have edited the article, but people with knowledge in biology haven't edited the article. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your post
Hi Dr. Vickers,

Thanks for your post regarding the userboxes. Will definitely use them in the near future. Have a nice day! A wouldbe scientist (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tim - Thanks for coming out to NIH to participate in the Wiki Academy! It was very inspiring to hear how scientists are participating in Wikipedia. Also, the workshop/tutorial was really helpful. Thanks for your patience! I do have some questions about a specific page and wondered if I might e-mail you off line to ask some questions?

--Zebranih (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal
In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I hope you will come and do what you can to help make it work: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Request opinion for new article
Tim, if you get a few minutes would you mind reviewing a new article I posted for Yury Verlinsky? Any comments and suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Added one of the cites, but wanted to make sure the cite format was correct before I add any more. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Added one of the cites, but wanted to make sure the cite format was correct before I add any more. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for appending the image file. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Question about some articles on WP
Hi Tim,

I read through some articles on WP and found some differences. Why do the following articles not possess a hyphon between the two words? The articles are: Asian American- this article is about one group (Americans of Asian ancestry) German American- this article is about one group (Americans of German ancestry) Italian American- this article is about one group (Americans of Italian ancestry)

I read in some British tabloids as well as articles by Reuters. They all mention Asian-American, German-American, Italian-American.

Please tell me your opinion and the correct means of expression. Awaiting your reply. A prospective scientist (talk) 14:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Again
Thanks for your reply. Sorry, I couldn't find the place on your user page where it says "e-mail user." Can you tell me where that is? --Zebranih (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Top of this page, on the left in the "toolbox" (which is the 3rd box down under the Wikipedia globe), otherwise I've copied the link here. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Zebranih, the issue may be that you have to have email enabled on your own account in order to email others. If you don't see the "Email this user" link, you can go to the "My preferences" tab at the top of the screen and, under the first tab, specify an email address for yourself. Note that when you email people, they will see this email address in the header, so if you'd like to stay (relatively) anonymous you may not want to use an account that links directly to your name. Once you specify an email account, the "Email this user" link should show up on the side of Tim's page as he suggested. Tim, we should probably let people know about this - it hadn't occurred to me earlier. If people sign up and then look for the "Email this user" link, they won't see it unless they specify an email address of their own in their account preferences. We might want to spread the word to avoid confusion. MastCell Talk 19:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I never knew that, thanks MastCell! Tim Vickers (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply
Hi Tim,

Thanks for your reply. Will ask questions in that particular talk page at my earliest convenience. Have a great day! A prospective scientist (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Various
Seriously, ICD has recognized PANDAS? That is scary on so many levels ! I hope the DSM doesn't move that direction, but with Susan Swedo's position on the committee, I 'spose it will. hmmmmm ... (Redlinking her name as she should really have an article.)

Do you have any sources or expertise to do a basic accuracy check on Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy? WLU and I did some cleanup long ago, but some IPs have been in there lately; I don't have the sources, knowledge or time for making sure it's accurate, and I've gotten an e-mail inquiry. I might also ask Mastcell, but I suspect he follows your talk?

Your name has been dropped on my talk page :))))

Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If I only had your patience and good nature :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, trust me, Tim himself is a seething cauldron of rage. Fortunately for Wikipedia, he's under the control of his patient, good-natured cat. MastCell Talk 21:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Share and enjoy. Article is incomplete, obviously, but enough for a start. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, if anybody feels like checking to see how horribly I mangled the medical concepts and terminology, I would appreciate it. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * wow, I just caught up on this ... thanks ! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Precedent
Per your comment, some users are still providing an external link along with the userbox (1, 2 and 3). "2" seems especially egregious, both in the size of the banner and the inclusion of 2 external links. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 21:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've edited that example. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't say that the one example was all I wanted you to edit, but if you feel you've done all that was needed to best comply with WP:SOAP, I can live with it. I appreciate your attention on this matter. Thanks, Tim. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 22:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting.... The dark side wins again. Wikipedia is indeed going to the dogs. Now start being consistent and forbidding all links to external sites found in userspace. This is a POV driven move, and I'm rather shocked by it. Brangifer (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * BullRangifer, please learn to be more civil. Above you say that I am on the "dark side", you liken me to a dog, and describe my efforts as POV driven. You have been nothing but downright rude to me since I reported this very basic violation of WP:SOAP. Please try not to take it so personally and above all please finally show me some good faith and leave the personal attacks off of Wikipedia. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 07:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't liken you to a dog. That's just an expression that means things are going downhill, IOW civil fringe POV pushers are being handed concessions and being allowed to do things their own way more and more, in spite of recent improvements in the way we're supposed to handle fringe beliefs. In this case allowing a one-sided POV driven and dubious interpretation of a guideline to be used to violate my userspace. That was indeed uncivil and very impolite. Bang! Done! No discussion or request. I am shocked and disheartened by these actions by someone I respected. That's all. Was what I said uncomfortable for you? Sure, but not incivil. You have chosen your agenda and it is not incivil to point out what it is. You do it to me all the time without me running to mommy and complaining about incivility. When you're getting your way, you are very tough and civil. Somehow you expect that you can tread on people and just get away with it by calling their comments "incivil". You really do misuse that card by playing it too often. When you become perfect, then you can start pointing fingers. Keep in mind that you have the dubious honor of being considered one of the most classic and highly skilled cases of a disruptive civil POV pusher. As I recall, you may have even been the pioneer developer of the technique. Your civility covers an agenda that is counterproductive to NPOV by inevitably seeking to wikilawyer, stonewall, and censure anything negative about chiropractic, no matter how well sourced, when we're actually supposed to follow the sources. That's just wrong. Since this is Tim's user page, it's probably best that this discussion not continue here (or even continue at all, since we never get anywhere). I just wanted to set the record straight that I certainly wasn't comparing you to a dog. I actually do have much higher opinions of you. I admire intelligence. I just wish it wasn't being used for such a nefarious and non-NPOV purpose as "to protect chiropractic's reputation". In the real world that is good from your POV (chiro advocacy and protectionism), but here we follow the sources and let them speak. Brangifer (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've taken the liberty of adding Tim's edited version to my user page. Levine, every time you bring this up, I'm going to make another donation to Sense About Science.  Skinwalker (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * BullRangifer, describing my activities "nefarious" shows your lack of good faith, your incivility, and your POV. Calling me a POV pusher, whether civil or not, is a personal attack. I am not here "to protect chiropractic's reputation" generally. You keep taking that response to your interrogation of me over three years ago way out of context. At the time, I was defending the chiropractic article (and other random articles) from your heavy handed anti-chiropractic POV pushing. Do we really need to rehash on the days when you were relentlessly edit warring to get the phrase "Scientific chiropractic" included as an example on the Oxymoron article? Or when you were recruiting new editors from off-wiki skeptic discussion board to come and take me down? If you really want to take that stroll down memory lane, I am happy to oblige and then we can talk about personal motivations and POV pushing.


 * Skinwalker, go on and donate again on my behalf. I am honestly torn on the issue. I don't believe in censuring scientific discussion, but at the same time Singh knowingly published blatant lies about an organization (and consequently a profession). His writings arguably had a damaging impact on members of the BCA. Singh's work, in this case, wasn't really much of a scientific discussion and more akin to sensationalized hyberbole to boost sales of his book. After all, we are not talking about a peer-reviewed discussion in a scientific journal. We are talking about an editorial Singh wrote in an online newspaper. So I kind of understand the BCA complaint. Apparently, in the first trial, the judge understood it as well since he found that Singh's comments were defamatory of the BCA in exactly the way the BCA had claimed and Singh's allegations were not comment but were serious defamatory allegations of fact against the BCA. In the end, I don't know what will happen. It seems like Singh's organization, Sense About Science, is doing a good job at spinning this into a freedom of speech issue, where in reality, SAS is funded by several major pharmaceutical companies with vested interest in bringing down an anti-pharmaceutical health care professional organization such as the BCA. It's all very twisted and political, and in the end driven more by economics than freedom of speech. But hey, that's business-as-usual in the world these days, right?


 * Tim, thanks again and sorry for contributing to this lengthy discussion on your talk page! :-) -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 17:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the idea that Singh "knowingly published blatant lies" is a bit extreme, at least when framed as an expression of fact. Even if one accepts that formulation of his motives - which, incidentally, is exactly the sort of imputation that the BCA considered defamatory - then what? Every time someone publishes blatant lies about my profession - and you don't have to look far - should I respond with a lawsuit? It's actually not that complicated - I don't agree with everything that Sense About Science preaches, but I don't have to. It is as simple as a freedom of speech issue; that's not "spin". What possible difference can the funding of SAS make to the question of whether Simon Singh is allowed to express his opinion of the evidence base for chiropractic care? To me, that seems like the most obvious of red herrings. One can of course choose to discount his opinion based on his funding sources, but I don't see the legal relevance. I really think the lawsuit is short-sighted, and that the people behind it haven't thought through the implications. If it is defamatory to state an opinion that a chiropractic group advocates treatments lacking an evidence base, then what about the statements that "conventional medicine" profits from illness and death, or has a vested interest in maintaining these states, or intentionally and knowingly suppresses cheap and effective cures for what-ails-you? Those sorts of statements are ignorant, but do we really want a legal climate where they're treated as defamatory? MastCell Talk 18:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Every time someone publishes blatant lies about my profession ... should I respond with a lawsuit? No. Of course not. We are not talking about a practitioner suing for libel in defense of his/her profession. We are talking about a professional organization suing for libel in defense of itself. Let me repeat that, because this is where SAS's spin is causing blurriness. The BCA is suing in defence of the BCA. They are not suing in defence of chiropractors or chiropractic. They are defending their professional organization from statements which attack their professional organization. Singh said that the BCA promotes "bogus" treatments without any supportive scientific evidence. As a researcher, Singh knows perfectly well that there is plenty of supportive scientific evidence; he just chooses to ignore such research. (See confirmation bias.) Singh is on the board of trustees of SAS. SAS receives funding from large pharmaceutical companies. Pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in bringing down anti-pharmaceutical organizations such as the BCA. I think the legal significance of all of this should be rather obvious. Future implication of this lawsuit? I am not sure. Again, I'm not really taking sides on this. All I am saying is that I see the merits of the BCA's claim against Singh. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 18:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't say I see the distinction you're making as especially relevant. But very well: suppose the AMA got litigious every time it was held up as a boogeyman. Or suppose pharmaceutical companies sued every time some asserted, without evidence, that they were involved in unethical or malicious suppression of competition. Simon Singh is hardly the most rabid polemicist out there, and the BCA is hardly the most "defamed" organization, if one applies their criteria universally. Given the relative weights of evidence for and against chiropractic as a treatment for asthma, confirmation bias probably comes into play as an explanation for why people continue to maintain its effectiveness for that particular condition. After all, the strongest studies (e.g. ) and the highest-quality systematic and narrative reviews (e.g., , ) tend to conclude that chiropractic is not effective for asthma. Certainly a scientist could review the literature and reach this conclusion honestly, as opposed to maliciously, right? This is at least defensible as a scientific synthesis of the literature, so why is it libelous (as opposed to arguable) to state it? Again, I don't see how Singh's funding is legally relevant. Either a statement is defamatory, or it is not. If he made the statement but didn't receive drug-industry funding, would that be less of a problem? MastCell Talk 19:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The BCA has provided supportive research which Singh had access to and simply ignored. The AMA can and does get litigious when provoked. Remember, they are a lobbying group, not a scientific organization (much like the BCA and SAS). Singh's funding is relevant to the scientific community, the legal community and to the people being served the spin SAS is putting out there. I am not here to judge whether or not his statements were defamatory, but I see the merits of BCA's complaint. That's all. In the context of discussing Singh's campaign through his own SAS organization, it is however, entirely relevant to note that SAS gets major funding from pharmaceutical companies (who clearly have a vested interest in bringing down an anti-pharmaceutical organization such as the BCA). -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 20:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Has the AMA ever sued anyone for defamation for criticizing their organization? (Honest question, I don't know the answer). And why are you convinced that Singh "ignored" the research? Is that the only logical explanation? Isn't it equally or more likely that Singh evaluated the evidence as a whole (i.e. not just the papers helpfully provided by the BCA), and came to the same conclusion as virtually every evidence synthesis published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature? I guess that's my biggest problem - the point he's making is scientifically defensible, and probably even reflects prevailing scientific opinion - so how can it be "defamatory"? MastCell Talk 20:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Depends on your interpretation, in his interpretation he's calling the BCA misguided idiots who believe in whacky things, in their interpretation he's calling them deliberate fraudsters. I agree with his interpretation myself, but it hinges on what you think "bogus" means. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it all depends on interpretation of what Singh wrote. And that interpretation is up to the courts to decide now. Either it was libellous or just good ol' fashioned mudslinging. But it certainly wasn't in the context of the open scientific discussion as which SAS is trying to frame it. It was more akin to an editorial hit job trying to promote the book he co-authored with Ernst. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times;">ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:x-small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background:#FFFF99;">ssnɔsıp 21:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Levine2112, above you state that Singh "knowingly published blatant lies". If you had written that he had published "untruths", there would be no problem. One can AGF of Singh and still write that as a personal opinion, IOW you don't agree with him and consider his statements to be untrue. BUT that's not what you wrote. You did the same as the BCA and assumed bad faith, and attempt to make Singh out to be a deliberate liar, rather than a writer who somehow doesn't understand the issues or the research. In doing so you have committed an even more clearly and legally liable act of libel against him than he is claimed to have done against the BCA, and you have clearly violated our BLP policy. You know better.

You also write that "The BCA has provided supportive research". Yes, at long last it has finally done so, but only more than a year after Singh's article and after much pressure from the press and writers. It finally presented its best evidence, and that evidence has been "demolished". The BMJ has covered the situation. Evan Harris, MP, wrote an editorial in which he decried the situation. Richard Brown of the BCA then provided their best evidence. Edzard Ernst then analyzed it. Then the editor of the BMJ summed up the situation and expressed her hope that " readers of the BMJ are signed up to organised scepticism." She went on to state that Ernst's "demolition of the 18 references is, to my mind, complete." Many sources have commented on the situation and analyzed the BCA's best "evidence" and found it severely lacking. Of course Sense About Science covers the situation. There is more information here where I am collecting information for an article. The situation is still developing, so more will need to be added. The PR nightmare for the chiropractic profession is growing and they may well end up retracting their claws to minimize the damage. With the McTimoney Chiropractic Association blanking its website and practically ordering its members to take their websites down, the situation has become a rather tragicomic affair of gargantuan dimensions unseen in modern history. It's going to be interesting to see what happens with the over 500 chiropractors who have had formal complaints filed against them.

You are welcome to disagree with me, Ernst, Singh, the BMJ, and the rest of the scientists who disagree with the BCA's claims, but be more careful how you word things. Even though you have committed clear libel above, I really doubt that Singh will sue you for it. BTW, the BMJ and the AMA don't go around suing people like the BCA, NZCA, and ACA have done. As a bible thumping believer in the gospel of vertebral subluxations, I know this won't sway you, so believe what you want, but note that the rest of the scientific world does not side with your's and the BCA's very fringe, pseudoscientific, and metaphysical beliefs in a non-existant fantasy that is THE philosophical and legal cornerstone in the foundation of the profession. This farce of a lawsuit is helping to exhibit the professions's nakedness to the whole world. The emperor has no clothes! Brangifer (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You also mention Singh's funding. Note that Singh has expressly stated that he will fund his own defense. He has the money. He has asked that any donations be made to help SAS with their expenses, not his. See "Fighting Fund" here. Brangifer (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Flu template
I don't want to be argumentative but:
 * 1) If you protect a page, presumably you are watching it, and notifying you would be redundant.
 * 2) I don't think a heated debated on a talk page is recognized as a justification for protecting an article.

I'm not criticizing your decision, I think you clearly had good intentions, I just don't agree with your decision. ike9898 (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Evoultion FAQ
Tim: I decided to lightly re-work the evolution FAQ without removing any text. What I did was to re-word the questions into yes/no questions (avoiding asking "why", etc.) and then start each answer with a simple yes/no. They are the same answers except that they now provide *the answer* in the first sentence. The rest of the bulk is the why, how, etc. It might strike you as pushy or assertive, but I feel that this is much more respectful of the reader's time.--76.200.190.35 (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You might also want to examine Talk:Intelligent design. I made some changes to try to make it more similar in style to Talk:Evolution but User:Guettarda (who helped to get to FA a few years ago) wants to keep a voluminous "WP policy review" section at the top of that page. I think it is smarter to just ensure that new users encounter the FAQ first thing at the top of the page and avoid custom (and slightly dramatic) messageboxes.--76.200.190.35 (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

A sincere request to you
Hi Tim,

Can you please mark my user page and talk page as Semi-Protected pages. I am afraid that unregistered editors may vandalise my user page and talk page. Awaiting your reply and help in this regard. Thanks and have a nice weekend! A prospective scientist (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and awaiting your guidance
Hi Tim,

Thanks for your help in semi-protecting my user page. I am following the guidance you give me. This is fine for now. I will let my talk page be like your talk page. If I am attacked by any vandals on my talk page, I will request you to semi-protect it the way my user page is semi-protected. Have a great rest of the weekend. A prospective scientist (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

A humble request to you
Hi Admin,

This is Svr014, an American Wikipedian. I request you to semi-protect my user page as early as possible. I am afraid that IP editors and new editors may harass me by putting false notices on my user page. I have added the retired notice in both my user page and talk page, but am really worried. This is my sincere request to you. Awaiting your help. Thanks and have a nice day. Svr014 (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

24 Hour Protection
It would have been better if you had installed a 24hr protection against anonymous users for the Template:2009 flu pandemic table. Also you have put the current protection in after the anonymous user had made his or her latest revert. Right now there is no consensus to change the table and it should be return to its original format of the number confirmed cases and deaths. AS per, the table should be return back to its original state. A lot of people have express disappointment in the current state of the table. Roman888 (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ever read The Wrong Version? Tim Vickers (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes and this argumentation in the article The Wrong Version only says, do nothing. I think you or any other "Justice" must make an inmediate decision, which version is wrong and which decesion makes in a 24h freeze the bigger damage. Even if in 24h this/yours decision is wrong.

In german law you call this kind of decision "Provisional order", i would call The wrong version-decision a unbrave "blind order". 93.131.27.246 (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So I gather from that article that you admit that you made a mistake and should apologise to everyone. You did not consider the other option of reporting that anonymous user using Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring thus making people more frustrated. Roman888 (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Before protecting the page, it would have been at least necessary to look at the circumstances:

1. The main page is already partly protected against changes by IP users.

2. The template was still unprotected, but now repeatedly and massively changed by one IP user.

3. What is the history of this user? The first and only contribution was changing this template, he has contributed nothing else.

4. ClueBot reverted the change, leaving a warning on the user's talk page. The warning included the invitation to justify the change and restore it again.

5. The user did NOT justify the change, but restored it nevertheless (and removed the warning).

6. At 18:06 the user has broken 3RR. Consequence should have been to block the user and not protecting the page.

Finally you came in and supported the 'edit war behaviour' of the IP user by preserving his change for 24 hours. And you did so on a page, which needs frequent updates from many contributors, to keep it up to date (just have a look at the number of daily updates). Can you imagine, what harm it does to the template not to be updated for 24 hours?

Please unprotect the page and block the user instead!

FHessel (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've now closed the RfC, since the consensus now seems clear. For the record, my decision to protect rather than block came from seeing the the IP editor's position had significant support on the talk page, so I felt that forcing people to come to a decision through discussion would improve the stability of the page. The edit warring here was a symptom of a wider problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is significant support for a position, changes (also big changes) can be made without violating 3RR. Observing one single user, who is violating 3RR (no one else even came close to 3RR in this case) should lead to a blockage of this user in the first place.


 * Edit warring has been started by one IP user, whose version has finally been preserved for almost 24 hours, thanks to your decision.


 * Please be careful, Tim, with the rights you have been given as admin, these rights are not to be used to push a certain position.


 * For the record: I made a mistake in my above statements. 3RR was broken at 20:21, right before the protection of the page.
 * FHessel (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And there is no comment form your side, Tim, except "ever read the 'Wrong version'"?? I'd expected a bit more. FHessel (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion re: renaming to Swine flu
Tim, any thoughts about a "new name poll" (talk page) would be helpful. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a small group that agrees to have "Swine flu" redirected to the 2009 flu pandemic article instead of Swine influenza for the reasons discussed on the talk page. It would be appreciated if you could do that.  Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Hi Admin,

Thanks a lot for your help in protecting my User page. I sincerely appreciate it! Have a great rest of the month.

Svr014 (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Twocs
Hey,

I suppose in the light of a block, you though perhaps I was joking with you (Odd, but you weren't just ignoring your responsibilities as an admin I take it?); however, I was not, you did infact miss blatant block worthy disregard of policy by this user, in your haste to be a good admin and prevent me from attacking and possibly harming another human being with my words, in frustration. Apologies that you had to take time out from preventing his actions, because of mine.

If were were to number the point in WP:CIVILITY under the section "Engaging in incivility", the user whose posts you must have accidently missed, broke in his self-righteous quest to pretend I had taken a stance I did not: 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14; the three most notable being 6, 7 and 14, which as you know frustrated me to the point of taking wholly inappropriate action. I on the other hand blew off 1, 2 4 and 11. While it isn't a numbers game, I feel, and hope you can correct me that you intentionally weighted my actions more than his because of a level of personal investmant in the seriousness of their meaning? This seems a little unfair, given that the three numbers I have pointed out (6/7/14) as you can verify in the discussion, in which the user pretended not to read what I said, and lied about my position are all related to intentionally driving another user over the edge. I am the first to admit I go over fast, but I didn't go over unaided and obviously it makes me feel worthless and gives me the will to remove my services from Wikipedia when his actions are sanctioned by an administrator.

Is it really fair to allow an editor to vandalise my edits in blanket reverts, despite having only an interest in a fraction of the edit? Is it fair to allow an editor to accuse me of bad faith for actions and stances I have not taken? Is it fair to allow an editor to accuse me of not using sources, when I revert UNSOURCED material back to a temporary consensus, but leave sourced contributions? Is it fair to allow an editor to fictionalise actions by me, repeat them to me in a manner that attacks my voluntary contributions and ignores my repeated (and even polite) attempts to correct his fiction? Is this fair, simply because he didn't use a swear word, and then places the civility card when I am driven to rage by his repeated disregard of everything I say?

God, do I know, that I shouldn't have attacked him with vulgarity! If he had shown but an ounce of sincerity, I would have apologised unreservedly to him; but I beg for a small amount of solidarity in that his attacks upon me, while in another form, were easily as hurtful to the will that drives me to honestly try to improve articles. See my User Page, I'm no vandal, troll or Attacker, I'm busy, but whenever I get chance, I improve those pages, and my edits go attacked becasue I user pretends I did something I didn't, and you ignore him because of some self-imposed weighting of policy? - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Fungus
Hello Tim, if you have time, would you mind looking at Fungus, which is currently in FAC? One reviewer suggested you as someone who may be able to help smooth out potential issues with jargon/overly technical language. This may be the case especially in the lead of this entry. Many thanks! Malljaja (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Enzyme templates
Hi Tim. I have made a proposal to merge the contents of several partially overlapping enzyme templates into a single new enzyme template here. In the request for bot approval, the comment was made "this task does probably need more consensus". As you were involved in creating and editing many of the enzyme pages that transclude these templates and given your expertise in the area of enzymes, your opinion would carry a lot of weight. Therefore I would appreciate if you would comment on the proposal here. Thanks. Boghog2 (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: RfA
As you requested here, this is a note letting you know that I will be running for adminship when Prodego and anyone else who wishes to co-nominate me writes up their nomination statement. If you still wish to co-nominate me, you may do so by adding your co-nomination statement to User:Cobi/RfAsand. Thanks. -- Cobi(t 00:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Having waited two days, I'm going to go ahead and transclude it. Feel free to add your co-nomination statement even after it's transcluded if you want.  :)  -- Cobi(t 03:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Glyoxylate cycle
Hi Tim, can you have a look at this article Glyoxylate cycle? A friend of mine pointed out that the major textbooks mention that the GC does not occur in humans, but this articles seems to state the opposite. I cannot read the original papers since I do not have access and but they do not seem to support such a strong claim from what I could read. Unfortunately I do not have the time right now (exams...) to read up on this, maybe you know this? Greetings --hroest 19:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Big fierce animals are rare"
A page you created, Big fierce animals are rare, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it redirects from an implausible misspelling.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Jamesofur (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of Big fierce animals are rare
Thanks for the heads up. That looks perfectly understandable :) Jamesofur (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Consider striking comment on SOD/CAT AfD Page
Using the "Search inside this book" feature that is enabled for Rector-Page and Goldstein, no pages discussing "SOD/CAT" are returned in searches of either reference. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see comment below your entry. RGK (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * These products all appear to be sold as different things, however true that claim may be (I suspect they are all the same expensive little pills with different labels), you can't use a reference to one product to support the notability of another. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not expensive Dr. Vickers, just effective. Since the article has now been deleted, you cannot correct your statement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Kavanaugh (talk • contribs) 21:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've noted your extensive edits of Protandim. Do you have a pecuniary interest in that article or technology Dr. Vickers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Kavanaugh (talk • contribs) 21:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * there were also comments about this on my talk page. For my response, see .  DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, my only professional interests are in the forgotten diseases of forgotten people. Tim Vickers (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Still, Tim, think about it. One of interesting aspects of Wikipedia is that it provides an up-close-and-personal view of the sorts of scientific-sounding nonsense used to bamboozle the unsophisticated health-care consumer. I guess what I'm saying is, if you ever want to collaborate on a diet/health paperback and retire early, let me know. I think we could come up with something that would make Eat Right 4 Your Blood Type look like the Proceedings of the Royal Society. MastCell Talk 06:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In its modern usage, hubris denotes overconfident pride and arrogance; it is often associated with a lack of humility, not always with the lack of knowledge. 71.105.255.183 (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That contribution may be more appropriate for Wiktionary. MastCell Talk 22:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Methotrexate and folic acid compared.png
Hi Tim. Can you please upload a new version with a higher resolution? --Leyo 16:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, easy enough. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks in advance. Please remove the dispute template after having uploaded the new version. --Leyo 17:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

File:TryP cycle.jpg
I was going to send you an annoying template, but figured I would ask first how you know File:TryP cycle.jpg is PD-self, since I am fairly certain you aren't the cited party.  MBisanz  talk 06:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's an image my boss and I made together (Alan was my PhD supervisor), as I remember he contributed the molecular models and I made the powerpoint diagram. I don't think I have the original slide any more, but I could make a new copy. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you do so, please upload it in the PNG or SVG format. The JPG version shows compression artefacts. --Leyo 16:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * PNG is probably best because of the molecular models. Embedding those in an SVG would make for a huge file and no real quality advantage. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, ok, I understand, thanks for the explanation.  MBisanz  talk 07:23, 19 August 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)

alan roger currie afd
please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Roger_Currie_%282nd_nomination%29. it was recently deleted, and you voted either delete or keep, and it has since been recreated. i am messaging all previous voters to see if they wish to vote again. please do not take this as canvassing, as i have attempted to contact all voters Theserialcomma (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Cats' eyes
Hi Tim. Tony is on Wikibreak still, so I have answered your question instead.

Best wishes,

– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 03:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

A favor?
Tim, would you be able to access this source to complete the list of other conditions at coprolalia?
 * Coprolalia is not unique to tic disorders; it is also a rare symptom of other psychiatric disorders, ...
 * Singer C. Tourette syndrome. Coprolalia and other coprophenomena. Neurol Clin. 1997 May;15(2):299-308.

Best regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * PS, if that article also happens to include an overall prevalence of coprolalia (including TS and other conditions), that info would be helpful. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

your recent chat on my talk page
WP:DTTR --Surturz (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would call it civility. Originally I added CN and WHO tags. Only the CN was resolved, so I re-added the CN tag (but accidentally put WP:WW in the edit summary instead of WP:AWW). The template you used accuses me of edit warring, violating 3RR and threatens me with being blocked from editing. Totally unjustified IMHO (as was the revert's edit summary accusing me of 'plastering tags all over the article). Just so you know, templating me has achieved nothing except pissing me off, it certainly has not encouraged me to seek or heed your advice.
 * And since you don't believe in WP:DTTR... enjoy! --Surturz (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia.


 * At the risk of receiving a retaliatory template myself, Surturz, you might want to consider modeling the sort of behavior you'd like to see. I can't promise anything, but I think it's more effective than petulant immaturity. MastCell Talk 05:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Templating regulars does nothing but annoy. --Surturz (talk) 06:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. So then you intended to annoy Tim? That seems like a less than constructive, and less than civil, means of addressing a concern. MastCell Talk 16:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Will reply on your talk page. --Surturz (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Icos FAC
I've nominated a biology-type article, Icos, at FAC. Would you be interested in reviewing it? Shubinator (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Dear Tim,

Thank you for your kind invitation to join Cell Biology project. Unfortunately my English is rather poor. Perhaps I may contribute to some papers, especially related to invertebrates (I have Ph.D. in invertebrate zoology) without joining the project "officially". In Russian Wikipedia I have started Cell Biology (Cytology) project and also began to write a Cell Biology textbook on Wikibooks because I am teaching this topic at high school (college). Yours sincerely      Glagolev (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Problems
Thanks for your notes. I think you may be right that a block may be in order. Judging from this editor's editing history, I think we're dealing with a bull-in-the-china-shop type situation. I'm especially worried about some entries, such as Homo ergaster, which have had multiple changes in recent edits (such as from hominin to hominid)—as I do not know enough about this particular subject, I've stopped intervening with what I felt were haphazard changes, but feel inclined to do so if this continues. Malljaja (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me know if/when you're escalating this, as I will contribute evidence and diffs. I've lost my patience with this editor. Fences  &  Windows  04:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Remarkably similar to 76.16.176.166. Johnuniq (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's obviously the same user, having finally registered. Fences  &  Windows  15:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Clickable images
Hey, Tim ... I know you do a lot of image work; do you know anyone who might have ideas on the problem at User talk:Fvasconcellos?

By the way, although the article hasn't been disrupted too much, the talk page discussion at Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy is becoming quite frustrating. It might help if WLU could get hold of full text on some of those recent reviews, and Hillinpa could be convinced to base his talk page posts on reliable reviews. I'm about to unwatch, because I don't have time to read long opinion pieces on the talk page, but hate to leave WLU to deal with all of that alone. There are some problems with the definition, and Hillinpa has some valid points, but it's just too much advocacy to sort through. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

4 or 5?
Yes, unless you start to discuss the edits you wish to make to articles on talk pages and the sources that support these edits, you may soon be blocked from editing. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Now you may talk on Archea. Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps you could discuss your changes on Talk:Archaea? Tim Vickers (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That reference (Garcia-Vallvé et. al.) does not discuss Archaeal taxonomy. The influence of HGT on classification is discussed in detail in Archaea. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Garcia-Vallvé et. al. was a source of numerical estimation for HTG. Do You know that HTG was sourced below and new source was not necessary? Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've similar concerns with this editor's changes to Archaea. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not see parallels. You stated phd so i assumed you will find answer yourself. Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Tim. This editor continues to be a major problem; see various discussions, e.g., here, here and actions here, here, and here. Would ANI be an appropriate forum for reporting and possible action? Many thanks. Malljaja (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * These comments, as well as these, deeply pain me, mostly because they're exactly what they've been labeled in the edit summary: "difficult but honest". I have no doubt that this editor is acting entirely in good faith, but collaboration with him or her is complicated considerably by the language barrier. However, that being said, I really don't think that posting about him or her on ANI is called for. Instead, I think that we should do our best to do what we usually do with newcomers who don't know their way around: be as patient as possible for as long as her or she continues to act in good faith and shows even incremental progress. XC is clearly knowledgeable and motivated – two traits that we are chronically in need of – so it would be to our benefit to help him or her grow as an editor. – ClockworkSoul 19:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors have tried that approach since the start of June while the editor has been editing from an IP address. See Talk:Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans and sections from then, for example. They've had their chance to try to collaborate and communicate clearly - I don't think they're capable of it. Fences  &  Windows  00:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I was not aware of that. Regardless, it's not actionable offense to be a difficult editor, so I'm not really sure what we can do. Did you have a specific intervention in mind? (Side comment: Tim has been very tolerant of us using his talk page as a discussion venue, but perhaps we should more this somewhere more appropriate?) – ClockworkSoul 00:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, please. Go on. I'm not at all sure what to do either. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tim. I think that the only thing we can do with a persistently "sub-disruptive editor" (hey, look, I coined a phrase) without a major shift in wikipolicy is for each of us to keep on top of him, patiently and kindly nudging him in the right direction, and calling in others when our patience wears thin. If his collaborative skills improve in time, fantastic, if he persists in his behavior, however, then we'll be in a better position to reconsider our approach. Unless anybody has any better ideas? – ClockworkSoul 02:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like somebody else agreed with the ANI proposal: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Maybe it'll be fruitful? – ClockworkSoul 11:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Some background might be required eventually, so I'm dumping all this here (sorry!). User Wapondaponda is (and was blocked for sockpuppetry at one stage). Wapondaponda has started three discussions: I think the current discussion is far too premature. Third parties are going to correctly conclude that it is a content dispute. I found one occasion when 76 started getting collaborative and nearly ready to discuss issues. That was when 76 had been consistently reverted by a couple of editors (the reversions being based on incorrect grammar, or substantial changes against consensus, or unexplained changes). One issue is that 76 finds it difficult to participate in exchanges on a talk page due to language problems; also, there is a fundamental misunderstanding about how talk page discussions are supposed to proceed. I suspect that a concerted effort by two or three editors might persuade 76 that collaboration is a good idea. Johnuniq (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 3RR trivial mention, 17 June 2009 re.
 * ANI minor discussion, 13 June 2009 re.
 * ANI, 1 September 2009 re.
 * I agree about the prematurity of the discussion. However, the post has been made to ANI, so we'll see if the community also agrees (which I think they will). – – ClockworkSoul 14:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if my message to XC (, last paragraph) pained you, ClockworkSoul. I agree with you that XC is editing in good faith (at least with respect to PCR and DNA sequencing – can't comment about the human evolution stuff), and I note that attempts at communication both through talk pages and edit summaries have improved – though not without lapses, and still with language problems.  But my impression from discussions with XC is that s/he is quite confused about some of the things s/he is writing about.  The problem with your suggestion to keep on top of him is that dealing with XC has consumed huge amounts of time from productive editors already, and I can't see this pattern changing.  So my feeling is that XC is, regretably, a net burden to Wikipedia.  I remember seeing an essay about what to do in this kind of situation but I haven't been able to find it. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 15:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I should clarify a bit: I'm not at all saying that you shouldn't have written it. In fact, I thought you phrased it in a manner far more diplomatically than I think I would have been able to. The pain is purely my own problem in that I involuntarily cringe from statements that bleakly honest, regardless of their truth and/or necessity. I haven't seen any edits from him in a little while: I suspect he may have taken your advice. – ClockworkSoul 17:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. I'll shut up now. – ClockworkSoul 18:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I almost forgot to address your last statement. I've been reading over his (simplicity of pronouns: I'm assuming male gender) human evolution contributions, and I'm starting to come around a little to your point of view. I still think that intervention is premature, not not quite as much as I did earlier – ClockworkSoul 17:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the notion that this discussion is premature (unless I have misunderstood the nature of this discussion). Some of what has just emerged here is deeply troubling and calls for a speedy resolution. I am referring to the prior problems with the 76-IP editor raised by Johnuniq that include rants and slurs by 76-IP that are wholly incompatible with WP policy and etiquette (see here). In my opinion a checkuser enquiry may be in order to determine if XC is identical to 76.16.176.166—this could help shed light on whether or not we're dealing with someone who basically acts in good faith vs someone who has a history of repeated and irrational insults. I interpret the current silence by XC as a response to the report to ANI (or else, as temporary absence due to daily obligations), seeing that they had edited in the same vein earlier today and never responded to Adrian's comments. As Tim has pointed out here, there are two issues, content provided, and behaviour displayed, by this editor—the latter issue seems much more serious, and I feel if identity of XC and 76-IP were confirmed that the behavioural attitudes (lack of civility, verbal abuse, and vandalism evidenced by repeated POV edits and inability or rejecting to heed advice on talk pages) should be grounds enough for revoking this editor's editing privileges. Malljaja (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The AN/I post is now archived. I guess it fell in the too hard basket.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 02:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's one possibility. Another is that his behavior a) isn't extreme enough, or b) gone on quite long enough to warrant punitive action at this time. – ClockworkSoul 14:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, though if an admin looked into it and concluded such they ought to have noted so, if only to save other admins the time re-checking. XC doesn't seem to have been problematic since the post, anyway.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 16:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On those two points I definitely agree. – ClockworkSoul 18:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I too wonder why they didn't even bother leaving a note—given the efforts that went into this, I would have at least expected some measure of transparency. It reeks of a buck being passed. Very unfortunate. Malljaja (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not deliberate buck-passing. Just noticed point 49 of User:Moreschi/Wikithoughts, Wikimorality, Wikiphilosophies: "Do not take your problems to ANI anymore. You will probably not get an administrative response. (...) ANI has grown so massive that a too-thinly-spread admin corps cannot cope. Try other noticeboards, or the talk pages of specific admins." Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 16:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rollback
I am not going to argue with you about the rollback feature, as such an argument would tend to be a waste of my time. However, just to be clear, in regard to the first two diffs you cited, a discussion had begun on the talk page, and I had stated my views there, so the rollback was justified inasmuch as the other editor should have waited for the discussion to continue before reverting again. Furthermore, the reasoning he had given showed a clear ignorance on the subject. As far as the other two are concerned, it is hardly edit warring to remove uncited opinions from articles, which is what both of those were. ---<font face="Georgia"> RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 22:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As the other editor involved with the first two diffs, I hope you don't mind if I add a couple of things. Firstly, although the second rollback was made after discussion began. The first was not and I would not have made the same edit again except the lack of a summary made it look like a stray edit caused by over-zealous vandal fighting. Secondly, I've been an editor since 2005 and I'm fairly experienced. Sometimes I take a break but I still make occassional anomymous edits, like this one. Although I think I can recognise POV when I see it, I accept there are indeed probably things I'm ignorant of. That's why an explanation would have been polite. --81.108.133.207 (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Your apology is accepted, with thanks. I will state that the manner in which I approached this situation was wrongheaded. A big part of my problem was allowing off-Wiki problems (specifically, my father being in the hospital) to affect my mood while editing. I know I am not the first to make such an error, and likely not the last, but it is no excuse. I intend to make a better effort to avoid such situations in the future. Again, I appreciate your message. ---RepublicanJacobite (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Mercy for Animals
Hello, I see you are involved with many of these animal rights articles. I would be interested in your opinion about this article I just created Mercy for Animals, and any assistance you may provide, thank you. Ikip (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

A4M
Thanks, Tim, the article is much better for your contributions. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Rollback conundrum
Although I agree with your recent decision in the RJ matter, the fact that you reconsidered and even left an apology is "above and beyond."

Gene Locations
Hi Tim. Thank for all your excellent work. Did somebody go through all the human gene locations and edit out the locations? It seems as though they used to list gene location using the old cytogenetic band tags (like "15p2.23") Next they seemed to change to a numeric address expressed in megabasepairs (which I suppose they needed to abandon because there is so much intervariability in humans....like the variable region of triplet repeats that result in fragile- X syndrome). But "n/a" is not useful. At least the old cytogenetic terminology could get you in the ball park. Last year I built a large map that labels the cytogenetic bands, and there is an approximate scale so that users could at least get close to locating what they were looking for. If we're ever going to understand the architecture of the genome, we'll need to create tools to help us see the relationships (Entrez Gene is OK, but it's so "all-inclusive" that it's hard to find anything.) Tim, I'd like to help, but I'm not sure where to start.doctorwolfie (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for butting in, but I think many of the changes from cytogenetic band to megabasepairs that you refer to were due to replacing protein with GNF_Protein_box templates. The megabasepair location was used to provide a link to the UCSC Genome Browser. The advantage of the megabasepair link is that it more precisely targets the gene in question (one-to-one relationship) whereas one cytogenetic band may contain more than one gene (one-to-several relationship).  I believe situations where "N/A" is displayed is due to omissions in the data file where these gene locations were obtained (ftp://ftp.ncbi.nih.gov/gene/DATA/) and we are slowly fixing these omissions as we find them. I hope this clarifies things.  Cheers.  Boghog (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that clarifies it.  I'm not much good at editing, but is there anything I can do to help?doctorwolfie (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Help is certainly welcome. :-) So as not to take over Tim's talk page, I am moving this discussion here. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Influenza prevention
You mentioned on the talk page of the above entry that the article should include info on vaccines, prophylactic drugs, and school closings. Could you point me in the direction of some good sources for this?Sagan666 (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

PANDAS
Tim, I'm going to be traveling, with slow and sporadic internet access, through the end of September. Someone is gearing up to work on PANDAS, but there is some confusion at Talk:PANDAS about primary sources and due weight. I'm hoping you'll be able to keep an eye on it? Best regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to pack; that's all I can do. I suspect, at this pace, the article (which before was at least accurate, if incomplete) will be back to the kind of shape it was in before the last revert by the time I return.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution
It appears that there is an effort to delist this FA article. Any assistance or comments you could offer would be appreciated. Thanks. --Filll (talk | wpc ) 22:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Anti-aging
Couldn't help peeking at your note to NYB and have taken a look at the article; I hope you don't mind if I offer a few comments. Off a quick read, I'd say drop the bit about the tax evasion; it condemns the organization for the actions of a member, whether a founder or not. If the organization had been convicted of tax evasion, that would be relevant. And is it Perls or Pearls? It's spelled both ways. I'd probably throw the part about the lawsuit against Perls/Pearls up in the section where he is quoted and drop the "lawsuit" subsection, because the fact they sued Olshansky is mentioned in the "Awards and criticism" section. About this sentence here: "Both the organization's scientific foundations and the safety of the products it promotes have been questioned." - this needs to be backed up not just by a reference but by the names of people/organizations who are doing the questioning.

Incidentally....darn good work on this. Best, Risker (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I took a quick look also: The specialty board business does not adequately consider subspecialties--this are indeed not one of them, but this is not shown by the links. I added the osteopathic Board link, as they are D.O.s We might consider an article on the journal--let me know if you;d like me to try--its the best way of clarification.  (and I have emailed you. )    DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 flu pandemic, taking a chance and removing protection
Tim, research was announced today including some indication that only one injection may be needed for vaccine protection. I've added this to our article, with a reference to an ABC news article.

Okay, about the semi-protection, I suppose I might be one of the people guilty of "vandalism" (although I really don't look at it that way! I might be a radical, but I'm a radical that references the New England Journal of Medicine, and since removed from the article).

And I very much see a selection process. People whose primary interest is swine flu are not established wiki users and those cannot add and contribute. Instead the people contributing are (I suppose) those whose primary interest is formal communication.

So, let's take a chance for Rock n Roll! If we can. I put forward the idea that we could remove the protection and see what happens.

And if you want to jump in and help with the article, please! I remember we discussed the N of the H1N1. We probably both got too technical, but you seemed to really know your stuff. And that's the kind of good information we should include in the article. Cool Nerd (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Tim. Thanks for changing it.  It will be an experiment.  And I guess we’ll see how it goes.    Cool Nerd (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Biliverdin3.svg
I would like to draw your attention to this image. One of Czech users has pointed out that it shows bilirubin instead of biliverdin. Could you please check it?--195.113.146.198 (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like Biliverdin to me, see structure and note the arrangement of the double bonds joining the imidazole rings. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on comparison to structures in Chemical Abstracts File:Biliverdin3.svg correctly matches biliverdin (CAS# 114-25-0), not bilirubin (CAS# 635-65-4). -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 flu pandemic---First Playable Hand!
This is the first information that people might not know that might really make a difference. If your child seems to be getting better, then relapses with a high fever, that might be a secondary infection of bacterial pneumonia. Get them medical attention, and hurry!


 * Report Finds Swine Flu Has Killed 36 Children, New York Times, Denise Grady, Sept. 3, 2009. This article more emphasizes children with previous health problems.


 * How did swine flu kill a healthy boy?, Antioch kindergartner's death leaves parents and doctors without answers, by CHAS SISK, THE TENNESSEAN, SEPTEMBER 14, 2009. The article is about five-year-old Max Gomez, who died even though he did not have chronic health problems.

Now, presumably this would be true for adults, too, although perhaps to a lesser extent. I am taking it step by step. And let's see if the research states this. Cool Nerd (talk) 20:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Your help and guidance needed
Hi Admin,

Hope you are having a good weekend. I am an American wikipedian. I live in Chicagoland, Illinois. For a while, I am deeply bothered in a very negative manner by a user named User:Ravichandar84 from India, a country in South Asia. He is not willing to assume good faith in my edits and was blindly accusing me a sock of an Indian WP user named User:Vyaghradhataki. I can't even say this user's name who was blocked long time ago. You can see my edits here as well as here. Ravichandar84 is repeatedly harassing me saying that I made personal attacks at him based on his nationality (which is Indian). I did not do anything of that sort. I also did not disrupt WP. Please read the WP Harassment policy here. While analyzing this situation, please have an open mind by being neutral and unbiased. After the thorough analysis, please stand by me. Please tell Ravichandar84 not to harass me. He also has trouble understanding English language. He also uses disparaging, and unprintable words like "shit" in his posts (please look in the second post mentioned above). He is also crossing his limits by threatening to start an ANI when I did not do any harm to anybody. Please honor my sincere requests. I am really fed up with Ravichandar84's demeanor which is very offensive, discriminatory, harmful, and dangerous. Please protect my account, and please protect me from Ravichandar84's harassment. Thanks for your time and awaiting your help (and protection). Take care...A proud Illinoisan (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Your note
Hi Tim, I'll certainly take a look at that article, though I wonder whether editing it is a good idea now that a legal case has started. But I'll look at the issues, anyway, and if I feel I can contribute positively (and safely), I'll do so. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 06:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Glancing at the lead, the "unscrupulous purveyors" quote, and the source, I would remove that for sure, because the source doesn't quite say it. Even if he did, it would not be good for the lead based on one source. But he's quoting someone else, and that second person is using it as a sort of parody statement. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 06:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed it just to be on the safe side. Hope that's okay.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 06:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Problem
Hi Admin,

Thanks for your post. I am being troubled by the User:Ravichandar84 for a while- right from 23rd August 2009. I don't remember any other date. The pages where he (Ravichandar84) is creating problems are here and here. You may also want to look at this page, as well. Please help me, Sir. This is my sincere and humble request to you. Awaiting your reply and help. A proud Illinoisan (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please respond to my requests. Please help me. I am afraid, time is running out. Thanks for your understanding. A proud Illinoisan (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Admin, Please respond to my requests. Please help me. I am afraid, time is running out. Thanks for your understanding.A proud Illinoisan (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Admin, Thanks for your post. I present you the diffs wherein User:Ravichandar84 is blindly accusing me of making personal attacks based on his nationality (which is Asian Indian). I never did anything of that sort. He is suffering from inferiority complex and sees me with a jaundiced eye (you know what I mean) as a result of which whatever I try to say appears wrong to him and he makes up many things against me solely because of hatred. The diffs also contain his threats (like starting an ANI if he doesn't see anything useful from me in the months to come). Please read them and help me. This is my sincere request to you. Here are the diffs, please peruse them thoroughly so that you will understand the situation better and will help me cordially: number 1; number 2, contains unprintable word-Shit; number 3 contains blind accusation; number 4; number 5; number 6 accusing me due to inferiority complex in his mind. You can very well see from User:Ravichandar84's edits that he hates me for some reason. He is willing to act like a sycophant with his fellow Indian editors but is seeing American editors like me with a jaundiced eye. He is picking fight with me almost everytime for no good reason but is boasting that he has other important things to do. Don't you feel this is too much on the part of User:Ravichandar84? How long is he going to harass me? I recently suffered from some health predicaments mainly because of problems engineered by User:Ravichandar84. I prefer not to disclose my gender or ethnicity here on WP, but he calls me a man and an Indian American. Please help me, Sir. This is my sincere and humble request to you. Again, please help me.A proud Illinoisan (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Admin, thanks for your post. Will duly follow your advice. But, please do help me stay safe here on WP. Some editors (esp. the ones from the East) tend to misunderstand others. They also make up things against others. I do not want any admin to block my account in my absence. I sincerely request you to protect my account, and my interests (in my absence). Thanks again and you have a great rest of 2009! A proud Illinoisan (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: SOD/CAT
See http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Research/Could-soy-isoflavones-extend-life. Isn't this what the essence of my SOD/CAT article two months ago. While this may not improve my chances for publishing an article on wikipedia, I must say, it certainly improves my mood to say, " I told you so." 71.105.255.183 (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Alberto R. Games Hernandez
You deleted the TALK page why? I would like to see how to improve the article, even if it can be included in WP:CUBA PROJECT.


 * If you register an account, I could copy the deleted content into your userspace, so you could work on it at your leisure. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

okay...Alberto Games 8:32, 24 September 2009

Re: Invitation to Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject
Hi,

Do I just add my name and short description to the long list of other users?

Cheers, Wil

WKoets (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Modern Evolutionary Synthesis and Limb Development
Thank you for your suggestions. I will give them some thought. In the meantime, I will post a brief reply to your last comment on the MES talk page.CHW100 (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

citations on kingdom (biology)
There was no citation for the line about 18 to 30 kingdoms possible. I looked for about 10 minutes but couldn't find it. The rest is just cleaned up and was already in the article. alatari(talk)71.86.152.127 (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Article in 2009 suggesting a move back to earlier phyla classification. The whole field is in flux. alatari(talk) 71.86.152.127 (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

e-mail
I sent you one, but am not sure it is still a valid address. You don't have to reply but could you confirm for me that you received it? Best, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I sent it yesterday. I can't do it through WP as I have my own e-mail disabled. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Old Account
Haagenti was indeed my old account and that would be fantastic if you could do that thanks ^_^ It was only after I lost my password that I realised that I hadn't set up an email address with the account, so there's no way I can get it back unfortunately. Aratron of Saturn (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I really do appreciate that! Aratron of Saturn (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Vitamin GAR notice
Vitamin 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) 02:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting help with a pandemic
Hi Tim. SandyGeorgia suggested contacting you about 2009 flu pandemic. This social science article just cleared WP:GAC and I'm looking at WP:FAC next. If you have time, could you provide criticism? There's a separate article on the bug itself, Influenza A virus subtype H1N1. One concern is that medical articles shouldn't use too many mainstream media sources. I think we need to develop an understanding about what sources should be used in each of these articles. Jehochman Talk 12:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Permission to make Evolution a GA
May I have permission to make Evolution a GA? Secret Saturdays (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Responding for Tim, the article is an FA already, making it a GA would demote it. Looie496 (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Guanine
Dear Dr. Vickers,

An IP made this edit; I reverted it. Is the IP correct? Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, nice to see myself. TimVtestaccount (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

SfN
Hi Tim,

It was nice meeting you in person at the SfN in Chicago yesterday. Hope to start contributing full-speed again.

Take care, Anirban

Antorjal (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Vampirococcus modifications
Took at look at how you spruced up the stub I added. It helped me get a better idea of how to flesh out an article, thanks. Joe Weaver (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)jeweaver

Courtesy mention
User talk:Eubulides. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

AdminReview
Thx for your edits, Tim. I think it should be an ArbCom subcommittee. Yes, it all needs to be shortened and simplified. I'll try to do something before the end of the year. Tony  (talk)  16:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Tim, I replied here; I hope you don't mind that I changed the title of the section. Tony   (talk)  11:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Wizard feedback
Moved your comment to WT:WIZ2, and replied. Happy to have more input! Would love to figure out how to get more input from newbies, by the way, eg to trial different versions of the Wizard - if you've got any ideas on how to achieve that... Rd232 talk 20:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Fur
Yes, the Rauchwaren in Zurich was, at the time a provider of smoke goods and furs well known for providing to the costumers more affordable choices such as cat and rabbit furs.

XOXO Koven.rm (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be because the original source of the picture (Deutsche Fotothek) uploaded it in the category Kleidung aus Hauskatzenfellen

Koven.rm (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

But but but!!!

 * But DAD!!! Otter started it first!!! Seriously though, I fully welcome you watching along because before Sarek intervened it was getting completely ridiculous.  For what its worth, I did apologize to Otter for my uncivil comments (Otter did bring an ANI on that, there've only been maybe 5(?) ANIs involving Otter in the last two months, and it was closed as resolved after I calmed down) Cheers. --Milowent (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Bryozoa
I am reviewing Bryozoa for GAN here at Talk:Bryozoa/GA1 and have rejigged it a bit. I am not too crash hot on knowledge of invertebrates - anything glaring missing you can see. Anyone else around who is a TOL expert? Must take another look at cat sometime... (wonder if any feline has ever interacted with a bryozoan...) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tim, tried to clean up the peramivir subsection
This is from 2009 flu pandemic.

Okay, the paragraph previously sounded like a business publication or stock market report, but apparently there is a real story there. The FDA did approve an Emergency Use Authorization yesterday Oct. 23. And apparently, peramivir is the only major anti-flu drug that can be given in intravenous form. I cleaned it up and added three references. I think I did a pretty good job. But please take a look at it if you get a chance. Thanks. Cool Nerd (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep up to date!
You can keep up to date at User:Otterathome/Deletion discussions, though I don't have time to include all pages which are not deletion nominations, just use http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py if you want to see the scale of it outside deletion discussions.--Otterathome (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Protocols
Sorry to bother, I just wanted an opinion from an expert wikipedian. As it annoyed me that there is a wasted effort in methods pages where cyclically some people add protocols while other remove them, I made a navigation box called Template:Bioprotocols to link to sites where protocols can be found. I think it is a good practical solution, but it is not elegant so a user (which stirs a lot) wants to delete it (discussion page). I wanted to know if you think the template is a good idea or not, and as it is quite minor so has no attention, feel free to resolve the dispute in favour or against (I would like to stress that I will not be upset at all in that case as abandoning it now diverts my efforts else whereas a deletion in a few months after I have gone to the effort of better implementing would waste my time). Thanks --Squidonius (talk) 11:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is nearly resolved (it will probably be deleted as it contravenes too many policies), so please ignore my request. However, While clicking to get here I notice on your main page that you have not been awarded any barnstars, which is odd, so here is one (feel free to move it or delete etc)

dna structure edit
what do you think of this edit. I am not quite sure whether thats correct or maybe belongs to the talk page. Unfortunately I am no expert in that field, but I believed that all numbers in the equation are integers. What do you think? --hroest 12:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Vaccination Controversy
Tim, your recent edit here was both thoughtful and an accurate representation of the cited sources. Well done. There has been much debate over that one sentence, but your edit seems to strike a perfect balance that should, hopefully, satisfy everyone's expectations. Cheers. Sebastian Garth (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you please follow up at Talk:Vaccine controversy ? Eubulides (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Essay we'd missed earlier
Hi Tim,

Remember the discussion from a while ago about Xook1kai Chao6aur you graciously allowed on your talk page? I remember everyone being unsure how to deal with that situation. Just a heads-up, since being an admin I'm sure you'll encounter similiar situations again: there's a relevant essay, WP:COMPETENCE, which recently featured in a decision to indefblock a vaguely similar editor. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 06:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the heads-up on the AN/I mention. It looks like my role in these sorts of disputes is to discuss things with the POV-pushers until their mission becomes obvious, and I suppose I'm comfortable with that. I must confess I had no particular memory of my interaction with Mr. Hospodar, so I checked out his contributions. And so as a result of the mention I now know of his intense interest in male belly-dancing - and also that our male-belly dancing photograph is not particularly attractive. I am, of course, never displeased when I find that the tactics of those who would mislead our readers about the state of knowledge of HIV and AIDS has backfired against them. - Nunh-huh 00:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC) P.S. Say hi to Loki. Nice cat. - Nunh-huh 00:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies
Wasn't attempting to do anything wrong, just following through on your previous edit. I was not attempting to vote twice, I just wanted to add another two cents to the discussion, which isn't discussing the content so much as the name. Some of the editors on here are very adamant about not allowing change, regardless of the validity. I have always been under the impression that if something new is available, you leave the old, and contradict it with the new, allowing people to see the progression of ideas. This is especially true of science. I hope I am not the only one who feels this way. Neuromancer (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Why like this Mr. V
So, you reverted my entry on swine flu and how it was used as an eugenics tool and is a man made combination of different flu's. I do accept that the positioning of my text could have been more accurate.. f.ex. but still. Aren't you a bit biased to be working with this flu thing anyway, since i suspect you get your money from the same people that are pushing this poison. Please refrain from future unilateral edits, especially blanket erasures without proper cause or justification. If the problem was some kind of covert attempt to 'discuss' the matter, it is not the case. I'we spent many a day looking at this from different angles and came to a conclusion that i wanted to apply to the subject. If you are looking for people 'discussing' flu, swine or otherwise, there are blatant examples of this all over the talk page. So feel free to poison and kill you'r loved ones with eugenics coctails, but also please extend other people the opportunity to warn and to encourage scrutiny. I see you named your cat after a lying god that fights against his own people. Is there a connection? Are you doing the NWO's bidding? Are you an eugenicist sir?--Zaphood (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for messing with my scratchpad. Real kind of you to violate me. I mean it's nice that the copyright guys have avatars like you that act on harmless things without any kind of cease and desist letters from layers. Not vindictive at all. --Zaphood (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Dispatch on sources in bio/med
Arrrgh. Now I'm concerned that we may need to rewite the Dispatch: User talk:Eubulides. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

HIV FAQ
...the other thing I'd add to the questionnaire is why we don't blanket screen the whole population - i.e. the incidence would be so low that the rate of false positives would exceed it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACS Chemical Neuroscience
Tim, given that you voted in this AfD, I am not sure that it was appropriate for you to close this one. Of course I recognize, although I heartily disagree with all the "keep" votes, that any other closer would have closed as "keep", too, but still... Cheers, Wim --Crusio (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no, no need to re-open it, as I said above, the outcome was clear. It's just that I always feel that it is better even to avoid the impression of a conflict of interest. No big deal! --Crusio (talk) 08:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Fozzie
Tim, you might consider reviewing the nature and circumstances of the Fozzie one-month block on me and further consider why he seems unable to apologise and admit he was wrong before rushing to defend his "honour". Sarah777 (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I know nothing about your history with this editor, but the tone of your comments make me sympathise with those who criticise you - exactly the effect I was warning you about. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Chiropractic is Controversial
Thanks, that makes the article flow a lot better. 76.90.251.53 (talk) 21:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

content may be shortened?
First of all, Tim, you are doing a heck of a good job, and I'm not being sarcastic. I was about to come up here and give you a defender of the wiki barnstar, but it's Friday night and I'm a little drunk and lazy. No really. Am I sarcastic? No, no. Sorry, the voices. Anyway, I don't like your language in the NPOV policy about shortening things, because... I don't think it means much of anything. It's too much like elliding... which my spell check tells me isn't a real word... ellipsing? No... look, as a scientist, I believe there is a pigeon for every hole. It is very easy to completely misrepresent things by leaving little things out, don't you think? Yes as a tertiary reference we must gloss... but I don't like how you have put this exactly, and as an IP I can't fix it even if I knew how.... -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What would you suggest? Tim Vickers (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just not sure what you are trying to say. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What alternative wording would you suggest? Tim Vickers (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know; I'm still thinking about it. It's not that horribad, really. But, hey, while I have you on the horn, I want to apologize again for insulting you back on April 1st, which got my logged-in account an indef block. Any chance you could chime in with a voice of support for restoring my full privileges, per my latest request? I'm getting tired of putting WP:AFC thru their paces, to be honest, and I'm not under nearly the ArbCom related wikistress I was back then. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no
Re:. Sometimes the students can be motivated to do a lot of improvements. Sometimes, they don't. But thanks for your early review, please don't hesitate to point out more areas that need to be fixed, in this or on other articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Glutathione
Hi Tim,

Your question, What is the GSSG? GSSG is actually the oxidized form of Glutathione in your cells it is reduced to a thiol dual GSH chain. It is complicated and I have a full diagram of the entire sequence somewhere in my 1,000s of Glutathione files. Interesting that GSSG is called "reduced" and this form is extremely more complicated than that of the original GSH form.

See this link for the actual GSSG - this is the actual oxidized cellular structure.

http://www.novelos.com/

Click "our products"

then,

Click "Click here for posters and Publications"

then,

Click the poster titled:

poster 2011-09 Montero Miami EORTC.pdf

See the Blue Box with the Chemical Structure at NOV-002?

GSSG - Oxidized Glutathione Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient

GSSG is the thiol group along the pathway as Glutathione is processed in your cells.

GSSG appears to almost cure the proliferation of cancer lines, I think it is a breakthrough.

If you have anymore questions Please email me at bixbyte@email.com or Talk on Wikipedia.

Thank You,

Alex Kalman

Bixbyte (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Bixbyte

Thanks for the welcome
Hi Tim Hopefully my views aren't to controversial for the kinetics page that paper took me 3 rounds of brutal revisions to get published Ryan Eskeptic (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

NOV-002
Hi Tim,

Does this help with your question about the substrate? Novelos Therapeutic their medication that stops certain Cancer cell line proliferation, this compound is actually a GSSG competitive substrate. Sorry about that I made an error.

Alex Kalman ___________________________________________________

glutathione disulfide NOV-002

A stabilized formulation of disodium glutathione disulfide (GSSG; oxidized glutathione) and cisplatin (1000:1) with potential chemoprotective and immunomodulating activities. Mimicking endogenous GSSG, glutathione disulfide NOV-002 acts as a competitive substrate for gamma-glutamyl-transpeptidase (GGT), which may result in the S-glutathionylation of proteins, predominantly actin, a redox stress on endoplasmic reticulum (ER), and ER stress-induced apoptosis; S-glutathionylation may be stimulated by reactive oxygen species (ROS) liberated by a glutathione disulfide NOV-002-induced increase in GGT activity. Glutathione disulfide NOV-002 may also induce phosphorylation of proteins such as ERK and p38, two kinases that play critical regulatory roles in cell proliferation and apoptosis. The cisplatin component of this agent does not provide an effective therapeutic concentration of cisplatin in vivo. Check for active clinical trials or closed clinical trials using this agent. (NCI Thesaurus)

Synonym: oxidized glutathione NOV-002

Foreign brand name: Glutoxim

Code name: NOV-002

http://www.cancer.gov/drugdictionary/?CdrID=494994

_____________________________________________________

Bixbyte (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Bixbyte

thanks
Good to be back, er, formally, and I thank you for your support. -- Kendrick7talk 03:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello from LG
Hello Tim, how are things with you? Hope all is well. It has been a while since we last spoke. I added that systematic review article on mortality and benzos to the long-term effects of benzodiazepines article by the way, much appreciated, thanks again for getting me that. :) I would like to talk to you as I need advice from an administrator about a problem I am having with some editors which is fairly serious from my viewpoint. Do you mind if I explain what the problem is or are you too busy? I have added your talk page to my watch list. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  08:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ilness among Jews
Not sure what's for the best. I'd suggest perhaps moving the "illness among Jews" material to a history section of the "medical genetics" article, as they're both aspects of the same issue. Alternatively, you could rename the illness article to something like, "Historical perspectives regarding illness among Jews" or "19th century views of illness among Jews" (even though the encyclopaedia was published in the early 20th century, these are still 19th century views). I'd probably choose the former if I were doing it myself&mdash;making it a section of the medical genetics article&mdash;and I would point out issues such as the encyclopaedia contrasting it with illness among "civilized communities." SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Influenza
Hey Tim. How do you feel about semi-protecting the article? I see nothing but vandalism and questionable additions in the recent history. Best as always, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on this? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

GSSG and NOV-002 Substrate
(Dr Vickers your Question)

Thanks for the note, but as I did my PhD on thiol metabolism, I'm quite familiar with the difference between GSH and GSSG. Looking at that cancer research paper I'm very surprised by your data in figure 6, which seem to indicate that GSH is a substrate of glutathione reductase. I don't see how that is possible, since GSH is the product of this enzyme, not a substrate. The paper doesn't give any method for how you did these assays, so I can't work out what might be causing this very odd result.

______________________________________________________________

(Dr Pazoles Answer)

To clarify -- the GSH curve in Figure 6 is a standard curve of GSH analysis in the spectrophotometric assay used to measure glutathione reductase activity with either GSSG or NOV-002 as a substrate. Thus, GSH was not used as a substrate for the glutathione reductase assay per se. As you point out, this would not make sense.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Kind regards,

________________________________________________________________________

Bixbyte (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Bixbyte November 24, 2009

Still giggling
Every time I think about that conspiracy theory sentence, I burst out laughing. I've been reading a lot about 7/7 conspiracy theories for another article I'm working on, so the idea that there's a vaccine going around squirting this stuff into people &mdash; well, it would explain so much! :-D SlimVirgin  01:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have found myself wondering whether the Illuminati are behind Climategate. And I recently got the H1N1 vaccine. Coincidence? And I got the bland vaccine - imagine if I'd gotten adjuvant! MastCell Talk 01:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you still believe there's such a thing as a cooincidence, you may need another dose. :) SlimVirgin  01:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Discerning New Yorker readers would balk at the lack of a diaeresis in "cooincidence", SV. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's one of those spelling mistakes I always make. Another one is "infoxbox". I have to think hard before I can write "infobox," and it's a real struggle to batter down that extra "x". SlimVirgin  02:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Discerning New Yorker readers long ago concluded that their diaeresis fetish was a pretentious middlebrow affectation. :P MastCell Talk 05:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Pshaw! Leave me my middlebrow affectation, sir. Do you have any idea what a sweeping spelling reform does to a translator? I'm going through major diacritic withdrawal here. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was once taught that when the Bolsheviks reformed Russian orthography, such that the hard sign could be omitted from the ends of words, that War and Peace became shorter by about 40 pages. I cannot find a source for this, though, so it may be apocryphal. MastCell Talk 21:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy theories may be an infectious disease, but, alas, we have no vaccine. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If I understand HIV/AIDS correctly, then the fact that we lack a vaccine proves that the disease does not exist. MastCell Talk 05:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Curious
... if you'd seen this. The pisser is that Columbia's data-safety monitoring board stopped the study early because of the excess deaths with nutritional therapy - in 2005. The study was just published - more than 4 years later. For about 10 years, you couldn't swing a dead cat in the alt-med world without hearing about how Columbia was running an NIH-funded trial of this stuff, but it turns out that the investigators have known for at least 4 years that it's worse than useless. Imagine the field day that would ensue - that does ensue - when "conventional" trials are handled like that. Of course, the most telling statistic (if not particularly surprising) is that not only survival, but also quality of life, was substantially better with chemo than with the nutritional therapy. MastCell Talk 06:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ugh. Tim Vickers (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't Clinton do something that started all that silliness at NIH? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Office of Alternative Medicine was incorporated as part of the NIH under George H. W. Bush (though I suppose, if one were to look at it from a partisan political perspective, the impetus was largely from Democratic legislators like Tom Harkin - because bee pollen cured his allergies). The OAM was a boondoggle - it was constantly under pressure from the political patrons of alternative medicine to validate alternative remedies rather than scientifically investigate them. Barrie Cassileth was driven out, and Jacobs - the guy who was chosen specifically for his sympathy to alternative medicine to head the OAM - eventually quit because he found himself increasingly pressured to treat the scientific method as an unnecessary impediment. OAM became NCCAM in the late 1990s, under Clinton, which was actually a positive step - once it was elevated from an "Office" to an actual "Center" in the NIH hierarchy, it was compelled to subscribe to some minimal standards of scientific decency. Honestly, I don't really have a problem with government funding to investigate alternative medicine - in fact, I think it's wise to some extent, given how widely used the stuff is and how little is actually known about it. My bigger problem is that they had a clearly negative result and apparently sat on it for 4 years. I can only guess what prompted them to publish now. It bugs me, because when you run a clinical trial, you have a very real ethical obligation to the participants to try and share what you learn from it. People sign up because they want to further the state of knowledge in the field, and help people who come after them. If you sit on the results for 4 years, then to my mind you've broken your pact with the people who put their lives in your hands. And they can't even hide behind the defense that it's hard to publish negative results. They published in JCO, which is the top journal in oncology, as an "early-release" article.  From the larger medico-political perspective, the 1990s were a dark time (cf. DSHEA, where the supplement industry's lobbyists wrote the legislation that (still) regulates their industry). I think some of it has to do with the irrational anti-government mood that takes root in certain sectors like clockwork when a Democrat is in the White House - people suddenly start fearing that their vitamins and colloidal silver will be confiscated, right before they're sent before the "death panels" - but that's just me. MastCell Talk 22:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

kinetics
Hi Tim will do just a first draft and aparently im a little mathematically challenged as well as that took me quite a few years to work out and publish, if you have suggestions on how to clarify it more, I'm open to suggestions. Eskeptic (talk) 08:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Escitalopram
Hi Tim. Thank you for putting a soft block on paroxetine. Would you consider doing that for escitalopram? There is an unremitting vandalism from school accounts. Many thanks. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, Casliber took care of that. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Casliber. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem - I have been semi'ing some where there is a delay in reversion of vandalism. ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See update Talk:Escitalopram. Snowman (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * May I say that I feel that this semi-protecting to the paroxetine article is rather harsh. I am aware of users making good faith edits to the page, and many are logged in and have talk pages, where issues may be raised with them. If you feel that there is enough evidence for sock puppets, then please ask for this to be investigated. I feel that there is a difference of opinion between editors of the page sometimes about how to present the information, which may be sorted out through discussion. I will be grateful if you would review the current semi-protection that you instigated. Snowman (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I noted that there was a significant delay in dealign with reversions by IPs to escitalopram, however I was hasty in not checking what was reverted. That said, given that (a) the material has been subsequently crafted, and (b) there are more of us looking at escitalopram now, I have unprotected. The drug has some intriguing leads to follow up and might be a good one to bring up to Good or Featured standard to illustrate how best to balance newspapers and medical sources for popular perception and other issues. I have no comment on the current state of paroxetine yet as I have not looked at it in some time, I do recall there being some problems with stability. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that I should step in here and explain that I have been in contact with Tim via email and explained in detail the very abusive behaviour of sockpuppets of Mwalla against myself and also The Sceptical Chymist which has been ongoing for 9 months now. It has been investigated via check user and Mwalla is an indefinitely banned user. See this SPI for more details.Sockpuppet_investigations/Mwalla/Archive Unfortunately he keeps coming back, harassing myself and The Sceptical Chymist. The tactic is usually to report me to admin noticeboard for dubious reasons (eg when I reverted his misuse of refs) and getting me into disputes with admins, trying to trigger content disputes with other users; this happened on Major Depression article and other articles, or else trying to make it look like I am using sockpuppets and so forth. The latest incident was an impersonation of The Sceptical Chymist. See here.Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_15 All that I did was revert misrepresented refs of Mwalla and vandalism to talk page comments to make people say the opposite. I have not even edited the article or talk page since June but still these sockpuppets keep popping up. So I think that it is justified in page protecting paroxetine.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for explaining some of the edit history. I understand the semi-protection on the paroxetine article a bit better now. I trust that Tim will take previous problems into consideration as well as articles on other SSRIs when reviewing or shortening the semi-protection, and I anticipate that I would accept his review of the semi-protection which ever way he opts for. Snowman (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome snowman. :-) The socks were also continuing to target the paroxetine article. Hopefully it will do the trick.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  19:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

09 Vaccine
Your reversion is of course correct, but there is (as often occurs) a glimmer of substance beneath the misinformation. You might like to see and related papers, particularly those by Hilleman MR, to be prepared for the next volley.LeadSongDog  come howl  20:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and I've heard about the 1960s problems with SV40 as well, but how this relates to modern vaccines grown in eggs is beyond me. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Breast Cancer Cure Story Making TV
Hi Dr Vickers,

Here is a link please click "watch this video":

http://www.wsvn.com/features/articles/medicalreports/MI137669/

Novelos has a 46 patient PII clinical trial for their NOV-002 medication and are currently enrolling and this is one patients story with her breast cancer cured!

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00499122?order=1

The sad part is they are only accepting 46 patients.

Happy Holidays,

Alex Kalman

Bixbyte (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Bixbyte

Swine Flu
Tim,

First off, thank you for your work on the vaccine article. Anyone working swine flu is a friend of mine.

Now, please remember, I'm not exactly a real big fan of summarizing. . (you might also remember me as the radical who quotes New England Journal of Medicine, makes it much more interesting that way, don’t you think?)

I would ask you to consider helping me, and specifically here. The last go around with news articles and WHO updates, and then just WHO press conferences, I took the line, why don't we just excerpt (in accordance with fair use of course). Why in the world would I attempt to summarize Dr. Keiji Fukuda or Dr. Marie-Paule Kieny? ? . . . for starters, she’s been to medical school and I haven’t.

Okay, I push once, I push a second time in a more gentle fashion, and then I graciously back off.

And I'm not sure everyone sees that pattern! (esp since I reserve my democratic right to argue my position, again trying not to overdo it, well that’s just the way it is. I do have the right to speak out.)  Time before that I might have pressed three times, so okay I’m learning. And I also want to see wikipedia continue to grow and adapt and learn.

So, if push comes to shove, and someone really wants to ban me, perhaps you can tell them, ‘Hey, he really is a constructive member, he doesn’t keep doing something. And most of all, you can talk to the guy.’ Or please at least consider that (and I know you probably have a hundred different projects). I would appreciate that. Thank you.

--The Cool Cat, The Cool Nerd (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

PS On 2009 flu pandemic, I've done about as much work as anyone else in keeping up with ongoing developments. Who's added the fact that it's typically a dry cough, that pregnant women are most at risk themselves during their third trimester (and should start Tamiflu the very first day they get symptoms), etc, etc, well, me of course! And some other people really pitching in. But I have done my share.


 * CLARIFICATION: Per WHO's Dr. Nikki Shindo's Nov. 12th press conference, ALL pregnant women should receive appropriate antiviral(s) as soon as they show flu symptoms.  True, a pregnant woman is most at risk if she gets the flu during her third trimester.  However, the recommendation for prompt treatment applies to all pregnant women.


 * Cool Nerd, my preference is also for more fair use quotes rather than summarising; but the clear consensus at Wikipedia is for minimizing quoting, so go with the flow. Add quotes as much as fair use allows, but if others make a fuss, back off on any quote they minimize or summarize. Let's just all get along. PS, I have also done my fair share .. :) . WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Nanobacterium
Just to say that your edits to Nanobacterium greatly improved the article (I bought Michael Taylor's Dark Life in a s/hand bookshop, which led me to the article – not my normal Wikipedia haunts). I've made a couple more changes to Nanobacterium. It's a long while since I studied any biochemistry, but the Raoult, Drancourt, Azza et al. article does seem pretty definitive; still, Wikipedia shouldn't be the first to say this. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

weekly WHO press conference now available (Dec 3)
Hi Tim,

The audio and transcript for the weekly WHO press conference is now available. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/multimedia/swineflupressbriefings/en/index.html


 * Cool Nerd (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy
I wonder if I could get your input on this POV dispute. Riverpa (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Tim - Thank you for your quick response. I do get the policy on the matter, but what I need more is an eye on the actual article to determine if these policies are being followed, because I don't believe that they are.
 * I got your name from the A4M article which you have done extensive work on recently, being led there by the controversy about it. I consider that article balanced. I cannot say the same about BHRT and would like another opinion about the actual article - at least about the state it was in when the NPOV was posted. Thanks again.  Riverpa (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Tim,
 * I believe Riverpa and myself both agree that the current wording in one part of a table is less than optimal, but can't really think of a better wording. Could you give some specific input more as a biochemist than an editor?  The discussion is in this section of the talk page.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Original research at bioidentical hormone replacement therapy
Hi Tim,

This edit looks extremely problematic to me, particularly given this posting on his talk page where you cite the same policies as me, with the same interpretation. This is aggravating, since this issue has arisen before. If you need or are interested in them, I'm sure I could turn up examples of where I have said this specific act (including primary sources that don't use the term "bioidentical" to contradict secondary sources) was inappropriate. Probably the first place I mentioned to Hillinpa it was inappropriate was here.

Also note this edit - there are three "positive" studies, with Schwartz, Holtorf and Moskowitz as the authors. I had originally thought only Schwartz and Holtorf were problematic, but apparently Moskowitz is as well... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy fun...
Given you're interested in taxonomy and FAs, have a look at the link here on cockatoo taxonomy, which I have set up a discussion of at the cockatoo talk page. Timing not so great when the article is at FAC.... heh. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful
With regard to the anti-aging movement article, please be very careful to stick as closely as possible to the sources. These people seem to be quite willing to sue individual Wikipedia editors if they dislike the statements that are made in the sources cited. As a word of advice, a "movement" or a "profession" cannot sue, so if you were to say "energy healers are a bunch of dangerous quacks", an individual healer cannot sue for defamation, but if you were to say "energy healing organization X is a bunch of dangerous quacks", then that organization has standing. I'm not saying I have seen anything incorrect, and all your content seems quite acceptable to me, but this is a dangerous area to deal with. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's much worse than you imagine. They know my name and where I live... Fred Talk 18:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As with me Fred, and I have personally got a threatening letter from an A4M lawyer objecting to statements that I did not add to the article and were sourced to the NYT. This is why I'm worried. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Intro to evolution
And the introductory section is so bad that it's impossible to improve within the article. The "introduction to" series of articles also have ownership problems. It's a good idea, and it could work, but it can't work on en.wiki the way it's been implemented. I think deletion is the solution to this series of articles. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is it called 'introduction to'? That sounds like a course is being taught. Why not 'overview of'?--Neptunerover (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

2009 flu pandemic vaccine
Tim, just a note to thank you for building up this article. You've done a sterling job there SlimVirgin  01:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was reading about 7/7 recently, something I've mostly avoided doing, and I had the same depressing feeling, seeing the things people believe. As requested, I won't go into detail about who believes Icke, though it's comforting to note that one academic's theory is that Icke himself doesn't believe it -- that it may be political satire along the lines of Jonathan Swift. So there's hope. :) SlimVirgin  01:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you know who David Icke is. You poor, poor people.  I should know who he is, I read dumb things for fun.
 * If he's faking, he puts Andy Kaufman to shame. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's one of the reasons I keep coming back here. In my real life, most of the people I interact with are sane, highly rational, and good critical thinkers. My participation on Wikipedia has opened my eyes to a whole new world of crazy shit that people actually believe, or at least care deeply enough about to edit-war over. I would never have heard of Royal Rife, or the Anunkani. It would never have occurred to me that a literate, presumably sentient person could believe that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, or that Stalin had nothing to do with the assassination of Leon Trotsky. The anthropological value provided by this site more than justifies the occasional annoyance. :P MastCell Talk 04:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Anunkani? Tim Vickers (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For further information, see: Zecharia Sitchin. And I misspelt it. :P MastCell Talk 04:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * After reading that I am sadly none the wiser, although I am arguably better informed. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant Anunnaki. Who really existed, but Sitchin used them as the basis for his pseudohistory-slash-alien-origin-theory-slash-nonstandard-cosmology. Ickes drew on Sitchin's work a bit with the lizard people. Great, now you're making me sound crazy trying to explain it. MastCell Talk 05:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to get David Icke to FAC, so you'll soon be able to read all about it. He believes that the swine flu vaccine is an attempt to cull the world's population. Tim, I hope you got that into the article, and didn't fall back on your mainstream science thing. :) SlimVirgin  06:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delicious. I'd read the crap out of a FA about Icke.  If you're looking for something batshit insane but comprehensively so, you might try Rule By Secrecy.  Just don't check his sources, they'll make you cry.  I've actually reviewed (and read, unfortunately) Children of the Matrix for google books.  It's exactly the opposite of awesome.  We live in a terrible world when von Daniken ends up looking like a purveyor of reasonable speculation.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, WLU. I've been looking for something to explain the Trilateral Commission aspect, and now sadly you've found it for me. :) Your review was only partly right, by the way. Where you wrote, "Icke assumes that if he can see any relationship between two items, they are related and must be linked to a global conspiracy," you missed out the bit about how, when he can't see any relationship, they're linked anyway, and even more so, because someone's gone to the trouble of making it look as though they're not. :) SlimVirgin  07:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How deeply ironic. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't Alex Jones also believe that the flu vaccine is meant to cull the population? I seem to remember that assertion while having listened to him one day when my PCP ran out. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

re Dan Fefferman
You are right, I should have sought out dispute resolution a bit sooner, though the matter did primarily involve as opposed to one particular article (removing sourced info, adding wholly unsourced info, etc). I am glad that the matter is now resolved, and I had not planned to take any further actions at the latter page, Black Heung Jin Moon, in any regard. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Intro genetics
I don't want to work against you. Weight and Height aren't good "earmarks" of genes in people, at least not now. Aren't we guilty of erroneous overstatements often in this article, not to mention outright factual errors, while striving too hard to avoid being "too complicated"? Professor marginalia (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Deadkord going around denying unblock requests
An editor whom you blocked a few minutes ago, User:Infinitesimus, just had his unblock request denied by User:Deadkord, who is not an administrator and has almost no other edits of his own. I've reverted all of his edits and asked him to explain, and he apologized, but he's still going around to various talk pages of recently blocked users and adding his commentary. Is this generally allowed? I'm not sure what, if anything, I should do. -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 00:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:RESTRICT updated
I added a link to the WP:AN discussion where Infinitesimus' ban was discussed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings
GetAgrippa (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Accessdate parameters
Please see documentation, that the day parameter should not be used in cite templates. If you know the day, month and year, you should logically use the date parameter. Debresser (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Infinitesimus
Since you're the one who placed the 1RR restriction on, I thought I'd let you know he's already violated it at. This is the same stuff he's already been blocked for trying to edit-war into the article in the past, and I don't see any evidence that he's made any effort to convince anyone or pursue dispute resolution - just more of the same, trying to force it in against unanimous objections from other editors. He's also abusing Scray at Talk:Immunomodulator. MastCell Talk 05:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) 22:45, 20 December 2009
 * 2) 02:26, 21 December 2009


 * Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Something odd
Tim, when I saw these editors actions on the same articles, timeframe, and always "minor" edits, my neckhairs started to rise at the scent of wet wool. I don't see anything exactly wrong with the edits, but would you mind taking a look here and here? Thanks, LeadSongDog come howl  18:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The edits seem OK to me, is there a history of any particular disruptive editors at this article? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't see any gross problem with the edits either, but two new editors popping up at the same time, with similar edit patterns, on the same short list of articles, dealing with citations of an old source about one drug (apomorphine) as used (as an anti-aggregation agent) against beta amyloid, suggests the possibility of socking or at least coordinated efforts. It might be perfectly innocent, but I wanted someone else to have a look at it. Over time we've seen quite a few efforts to insert prospective drugs for Alzheimer's disease, so the article has a bright-line policy requiring (at least) stage III trial results before inclusion. Earlier stage results are relegated to a separate Alzheimer's disease clinical research article. AD is a long-standing FA with very high googlerank and pageviews. Accordingly we're very protective.LeadSongDog come howl  20:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Bionumbers article Re-entry
Hi Tim

My name is Uri, I work at BioNumbers. Please note that an article for "Bionumbers – The database of useful biological numbers", which was deleted last year seems suitable for reentry now. It received coverage (among other places) in two peer-reviewed articles: 1) BioNumbers – The database of useful biological numbers Phillips R, Milo R. A feeling for the numbers in biology. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Dec 14

2) Milo R, Jorgensen P, Moran U, Weber G, Springer M. BioNumbers--the database of key numbers in molecular and cell biology. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009 Oct 23.

A short article is prepared for it. Please let me know how this can be done. (Johanndante (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC))

BioNumbers article re entered
Hi Tim, thank you for the welcome. A new short article has been entered under "BioNumbers". Any comments would be welcome. (Johanndante (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

Hi Tim, Please ignore the above comment, and the new entry Imade that has been suggested for speedy deletion. I just entered the references as you suggested. Thanks

(Johanndante (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

2009 flu pandemic, vaccines, and thimerosal not shown to be safety issue
I don't like our phrasing in which we use the word "disproved." To me, it's almost like a swear word that jumps out at you. I'd like to phrase it differently, still emphatically (or matter-of-factly), just different. Cool Nerd (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject Cats
Hello. You have listed yourself as a member of WikiProject Cats. I would appreciate your help in creating Canadian Cat Association, which is a request on the to-do list. Thank you,  Bramble  claw  x   00:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Trimethylglycine
Hi Tim, You seem to know the correct and best ways to add well sourced information. I added information in the discussion pages for Trimethylglycine regarding it's use in non-alcoholic fatty liver. If you agree with the suggested edits, would you make them and add the two study references? Thanks, happy holidays 72.93.158.67 (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC) eriksq at Yahoo


 * I've had a go, it was mentioned already so I just added the refs. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

talk:denialism
Sir, your attention is requested @ talk:denialism, as to why you removed references to evolution denial from the denialism article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.95.136 (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Cerebellum
Hi, Tim; Happy New Year !!! Cerebellum is an older featured article that was in pretty bad shape until recently; Looie496 did a complete rewrite, but it's still in need of some work and review (in particular, the lead is too long and not a summary of the article, contains some text that isn't included in the article, there is some unencylopedic language, and one section that I'm not sure should be included and comes across as original research). Would you have time to run through it? I hope 2010 finds you happy and healthy! Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year
I wanted to take the time to wish you and your family have a Happy New Year Tim. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  09:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there
Hi Tim,

Very nice to recieve your greetings, thank you! I recently wanted to improve the article about blood culture, which belongs to the responsibility of microbiologists IMHO. It looks really awful, but I lack the time to improve it myself. I put some suggestions on its talk page. Greetings, Dr. F.C. Turner - [ USERPAGE | USERTALK ] - 21:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

2009 flu pandemic
Tim, probably is a more succinct title, we can go with it.

Regarding the body of the article, I'm going to make a change and I ask you to be with it if at all possible. We have distilled down what the CDC said, probably to the detriment of the information, and certainly taking too much risk for the sake of wiki business as usual. CDC has seen fit to separate out danger signs for infants (even though its repetitive for some of the signs for children). And I don't see how it's a percentage move for us to overrule CDC.

Who is this information helpful for? Well, parents of infants, of course!

I'm going to make the change and then attempt to start a discussion on our talk page.

PS I briefly talked with a doctor partially retired at a political event. No, didn't get the chance to bring up swine flu. But she would be exactly the kind of person we'd want participating, and would be currently barred by the partial protection. So, I'm wondering if we could be a little strategic, play a little poker so to speak with the vandals. Even though you announced 6 months, at request of member, could we possibly shorten it? Cool Nerd (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, we can give it a go. If the signal-to-noise ratio is too poor we can always replace the protection. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I welcome the experiment. And I think the signal-to-noise ratio is a good way to look at it.   Cool Nerd (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

willing to help referee an argument?
Tim, things have gotten hot and heavy between me and Gandydancer. And I'm partially to blame. I tend to write long, I trot out some of my usual points regarding wikipedia. And I try and include a sense of humor, which generally is a good thing, but if someone already doesn't like me, no, it's not going to play well. So, I certainly share some responsibility.

I've suggested to Gandydancer on the discussion page that we cool it for a while. So, perhaps I more need you as a referee on standby. The warning signs for a severe case is probably okay, at least for a while. People tend to read it fast anyway. If it's a separate category with three signs for infants, people might jump to that, and not pay so much attention for the signs for children in a larger category. Perhaps. (I'm thinking more of the parent of an infant who is of now perfectly healthy, and reading more for casual interest, at times thinks swine flu is probably overhyped, at other times thinking it can potentially be serious. And such a reader is perhaps our perfect theoretical reader.)

I am going to move forward with other improvements in the article. And updates. Almost the chronic problem is that we are lagging behind when we don't need to.

And Gandydancer has made a number of good contributions, as I think I have. Perhaps you can do a little bit of low-key coaching for both of us.

If you don't want to get involved or don't have the time, I understand. But I did want to ask you. Thanks. Cool Nerd (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Tim for contacting me.


 * Cool Nerd, thanks for posting Tim about this problem. I'll try as best as I can to explain my position and why I was so harsh with you.  Please bear with me!...

First off, it just makes my eyes cross and my head spin at the stupidity of some people. Today, I think it was the Today TV show, they had a segment on a woman who found her 2 year old blue and not breathing with string from a backyard net wrapped around his neck. She called 911 and repeatedly screamed, "What should I do!!!". As far as the Today show's take on this went, it was the fact that the 911 operator did not tell her to do CPR - since as it turns out the 911 operator did not KNOW how to do CPR! And it seems that this is not at all uncommon! But that is another story, and not the reason I am going into this long-drawn-out tale.

This woman is now suing and she firmly believes that if the 911 operator had told her to do CPR, her child would be alive. It was never mentioned on the Today Show that perhaps the woman should have said, "Should I do CPR?". Or that perhaps a parent should not wait till their child is blue before understanding how to do CPR, or learning how to do CPR over the phone while the child is not breathing.

What I'm getting at is that it does not take much of a stretch of the imagination to think that perhaps a parent might have a sick child and look up the danger signs on Wikipedia, and that is why I changed that section so as that one could easily look for the danger signs. And that is also why I simply was not willing to leave the danger signs posted as you seemed to think they should be. It would just not be acceptable to have a parent look at our article and think that a child refusing food was more important than a child refusing liquids, when just the opposite is true. Dehydration from diarrhea and emesis is much more dangerous in a child than in an adult, and if a baby is not taking fluids it is a life threatening situation.

I think it would help if you would have a look at the present ref I have used and then look at the previous one. I have worked for the government and I understand "governmentese". I can clearly see that someone came along and monkied with the original set, and thought, "Oh!, what about babies!!!". So they (stupidly) did what they did and (stupidly) also added that gem about how uncontrolled emesis means uncontrolled emesis (I forget the exact wording) that you wisely noted and deleted.

Cool Nerd, I do believe that you are an important part of the "team" that works on this article. When I have presented questions about changes no one has responded, but you have - and I appreciate that. You have also read the article very closely and pointed out some things that no one else has noted, and I respect that. But in this instance, I hope you can see why I felt it important to express my feelings about the danger signs.

I am not very good at explaining myself, and I hope that this is a little more clear than mud! Please ask me any questions and I will try to answer. Gandydancer (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to articles on Scientology
Thank you for your recent contributions to articles on the topic of Scientology - All About Radiation, and Purification Rundown. Perhaps you would like to work together to improve the quality of an article in the topic? Cirt (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your willingness to dive in and improve "core" type articles like Cat is most impressive. Cirt (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL, just so long as you do not end up like Eleanor Abernathy! Just kiddin, Cirt (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Electrolyzed Reduced Water - Water Ionizer Page - Thank you
Hi Tim, I noticed the journal citation you've added to the water ionizer page. Thank you! I hope it sticks. My review of this page shows a long rocky history. I hate to say, but it's long history of edits are suspect of information suppression. Last week I tried to add a series of PR journal citations, regarding electrolyzed reduced water's effect on human and animal health, but they where deleted. It seems the editor overlooked the "Methods and Materials" published in the full text links I provided. In response I've requested an offical mediation, posted on my talk page, including the involved editor's talk pages. I'm new contributor here at wiki, so any tips would be greatly appreciated. Let me know if I can be of any help. Thank you! RealScienceEditor (talk) 10:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:UE image?
-  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 08:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Future of the Earth
Dear Tim, I am reviewing this for GA status - here - just musing on comprehensiveness so all input appreciated on whether it is worth embellishing on anything biological. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Price of coffee
Wow – you pay five bucks for coffee! and I thought we were ripped off here in the UK. Speaking of Coffee, don't forget there's a concentrated drive to improve the article going on, and any contributions from a well-respected editor such as yourself are more than welcome (I think you're well-respected anyway). --RexxS (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Cats
Hello active member of Wikiroject Cats. There is currently a discussion as to whether or not feline acne should be merged into cat skin disorders here. Your opinion would be valued.  Bramble  claw  x   23:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ping
I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time and consideration. As a gesture of appreciation, may I share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

RfA update
As far back as November 2007 you offered to nominate me at RfA. I put it off for a long time because I had not been certain of the time I would have available then to devote to admin duties, but I thought you might like to know that WP:Requests for adminship/SMcCandlish 2 will finally go live today. It has nominations already but you are welcome to add one if that would not be overkill, since you were one of the first to offer to nominate. — <font face="Trebuchet MS"> SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 20:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Liverpool Care Pathway
I'd like to thank you for the speed and effectiveness with which you came in and improved Liverpool Care Pathway, completely transforming the quality of the article (and putting the previous discussion right in its place) in seemingly no time at all, on an article which hadn't been going anywhere for months. It was exemplary and humbling, and that is why I want to award you this barnstar. Jheald (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Amazing
A new strategy for de-listing an FA article. - put it up for de-listing - single handedly rewrite the entire article without meeting any of the FA criteria - admit your version sucks - lose the star - ride off into the sunset. Shameful. If I was still editing as Random Replicator - I would be most bitter.--JimmyButler (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hurricane Georges article is not properly edited
Someone made vandalism edits on Hurricane Georges; the results are incredibly bad editing and poor grammars. Please contact whoever can help out on this vandalism issue involving that hurricane article.

207.191.218.80 (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

End-of-life care
I have added to the article End-of-life care some of the more nuts-and-bolts symptom-management elements of the Liverpool Care Pathway (and also renamed the article, and focused it more on actual practical care). I'd be grateful if you could have a look and review the changes I've made.

I'm very aware that there's a lot missing that ought to be in the article. Especially the perhaps particularly important "softer" side of patient and family psychological support, involvement, and counselling; and also the "living" phase of weeks or months before the final crisis.

There are also a number of areas that are particularly sensitive and difficult for families and patients, or (sometimes) medically contended. The article should probably look at these coolly and rigorously from the outset, or else it will be pulled apart by unhappy people with axes to grind -- such issues might include food and drink; goals of care, and withdrawal of inappropriate medication; artificial hydration; high-dosage opiate painkillers; terminal sedation; and of course questions of clinical judgment: when does the prospect of recovery become hopeless, or not worthwhile (cf the call for much better education and resources as to when a patient should or should not be put onto the LCP).

I started blocking some of this out at User:Jheald/sandbox/End_of_life_care, but became discouraged because it was more than I could readily take on, and I didn't have the knowledge and background to really do a proper job. Given how good you are at this sort of thing, and your access to reviews that I probably can't get hold of, I wonder if you would think of taking an interest? Jheald (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

205.152.158.201
I'm debating whether or not to mass revert his spamming. While I've not reviewed his edits in detail, they all need to be reviewed because he's not, and he's sometimes adding them to the wrong articles. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I'm going to wait until I see how they respond to the discussion on the editor's talk page. --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are the userlinks for the IP:
 * Even if the new links end up being valuable, it creates awkwardness if we are endorsing the actions of an editor who refuses to participate in discussions. They have never commented at User talk and they have only left one comment on article Talk ever. (This seems likely to be a private individual and not an office at NIH. The IP geolocates to Louisville, KY). Do we have the ability to add these links on our own? I would suggest we seriously consider a 1-week block but not revert the edits, unless they are individually checked. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied here. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied here. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

message for you
Another message at my talk page.Immunize (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
for the invitation to join the MCB project. The intensity of my activity may vary in time. However, this project was in my focus already from the beginning. I am glad to contribute. Firefly&#39;s luciferase (talk) 07:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Translation project
Hey Tim—thanks for the note about this. I'd like to start with suggesting articles, but even after rereading the original request, I'm having a hard time grasping the ideal scope. Do we have any parameters beyond 'essential health information'? A target geographical area could help us make topical decisions; target languages could help with determining 'reasonable' quality (it would be easier to rationalize translating a B-class article like amputation or burn or diarrhea if no article is extant in said languages, etc). Can you give any more guidance, or am I overthinking this? Maralia (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Beta clamp

 * Tri-spammed to Boghog2, ClockworkSoul and TimVickers

Could someone else check out Beta clamp? I suggested redirecting it to DNA clamp at MCB talk but I don't want to be judge, jury and executioner to an article written in good faith by a new contributor. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 01:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Feral kitties
Hi Tim! Question: if I reply to you on my talk page, do you get the message? Anyway here is a link to the google books reference on cat vocalization. It was in a book that I read this called Communicating With Your Cat, it's on Google Books. http://books.google.com/books?id=lE-EbnD96QIC&pg=PA55 laurap414 (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing policy
I think it's more relevant now than ever, honestly.

People like you and me that have been here a while, and "get" open culture and open collaboration understand that the entire point of it is to build on what others have done, and that it's about a constant evolution toward a better product, aided by the "many eyes" of the community. It's such a fundamental thing that we have internalized it, it seems inherent and obvious, and even redundant to need to say it explicitly. We (as a community) have become so concerned with defending the integrity of the encyclopedia against people who want to abuse it for their own ends. I think it's important to communicate and document the things that allowed this to happen in the first place, open collaboration, a tolerance for imperfections, and a culture of rather than "tear it all down".

This is a sort of cycle. As more and more people come in that aren't really on board with collaboration, the more of a battleground that Wikipedia becomes, and the more that people want our policies to become weapons to be used to win battles rather than simple documentation of best practices.

I don't have all the answers, but I think gutting or ditching the editing policy would be a big step in the wrong direction. Yeah it's kind of in a poor state right now; its text is a little redundant with itself, and it summarizes too many other policies. Those are fair observations. Sofixit. :) Gigs (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I was blunt and assuming at the MfD, a little on edge with recent events. Gigs (talk) 03:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Tim! Thanks for the invitaion. I will make article contributions. RaoInWiki(talk) 10:21, 4 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Mark Titus - Updates February 2010
In the last 6 weeks, Titus has been profiled in a New York Times article and has appeared on ESPN 3 times. Time to review the prior determination of deletion, please!!











—Preceding unsigned comment added by Skalskal (talk • contribs) 18:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, new references on my page now, but how do I move the article into the mainspace since the original was deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skalskal (talk • contribs) 18:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(FWIW, the article of mine that was deleted was *not* tongue in cheek like the one you restored, it focused more on the actual Mark Titus as an internet sensation. I did not edit the current one (don't know what happened to mine!), other than to add the Senior Year info.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skalskal (talk • contribs) 18:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Baseball: LOL! Made my day —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skalskal (talk • contribs) 19:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, there may be two articles: "Mark Titus" and "Mark "The Shark" Titus". I cannot create "Mark Titus" since it's restricted, but I tried a first attempt at MTST which was very promptly deleted. The second attempt (out there now) is the restored version you sent me, plus edits. I'd like it if "Mark Titus" would redirect to MTST, but only an admin can do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skalskal (talk • contribs) 19:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man 19:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

About the article User Immunize/Treatment of glioblastoma multiforme
Hello,. I would like you to explain what section of the article User Immunize/Treatment of glioblastoma multiforme contains the copyright infringement. Please look the article over now (I have not yet rewrote it), and show me (on my talk page) which portion of the article contains the copyright violation. Thanks. Immunize (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Immunize
Hi Tim and thanks for helping Immunize in the past. I don't know if you have been monitoring Immunize's talk page, but he continues to have issues with referencing articles and moving pages without discussion, in spite of repeated warnings. I think I have done all I can as far as guide and warn him; do you have any ideas as to what to do next? Regards, PDCook (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Evolution
Hi Tim! Thanks for posting on my talk page. I hope I don't sound too harsh in my assessment of the article. I tend to ramble a bit - but I hope I'm raising some formidable points. Like many - I've had a great interest in evolutionary theory through my life. I have even taken courses from John Avise and Marc Ereshefsky. I just found out today that my signed copy of Molecular Marker, Natural History and Evolution is an expensive collectors item valued over $1000!! I even had the honor of having dinner and an in depth discussion about evolutionary theory with Ernst Mayr before he passed away. I worked in a paleaontology lab for five years where we had discussion groups and debate evolutionary issues. Ereshefsky was a great person to learn from - the philosophy on individuality in context of the Linnaean hierarchy can be a real mind bender.

I have read thousands of papers on the topic, every book of Dawkins, every book of Gould's, every book of Darwin (except the one on orchids!!) and I also like to dive into the history of biological writing as inspired by Gould. I ordered the complete works of Sewall Wright a couple of years ago and managed to read through it - the math was pretty complex stuff!! Evolution is a hobby and a passion of mine. I think Richard Dawkins is a very bright man who is wrong about a lot of things. David Hull has an extensive list of publications - but if you read through some of them you will see that he really gives an interesting philosophical perspective on evolution and the debate that has taken place in the past century (e.g., ). Hull and other philosophers were the inspiration I believe for Gould, Vrba, Lloyd and Niles Eldrige (e.g,., ) as they formulated a strong theory for species level selection. As Hull notes:

I contend that group selection of the sort that Wynne-Edwards had in mind is not just rare, but impossible.


 * Wynne-Edwards V C. 1962. Animal Dispersion in Relation to Social Behaviour. Edinburgh (UK): Oliver and Boyd.
 * Wynne-Edwards V C. 1986. Evolution Through Group Selection. Boston (MA): Blackwell Scientific.

It is Wynne-Edwards concept of group selection that has been rejected and still remains so. However, Edward Wilson and David Sloan Wilson have addressed this and together with Gould they have a solid foundation for multi-level selection that is an integral part of evolutionary theory and the debate continues. This debate has been responsible for a large part of the intellectual drive in evolutionary studies and authorship - so it should really be introduced in a more serious way.Thompsma (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Asperger Syndrome
If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Dai Zengar Smite evil 22:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tim, you may perhaps be wondering where this nonsense is coming from. If you look at some old AN/I threads where I was involved, there is an external site called Something Awful, where one of the memes is that all Wikipedians have Asperger's. The user above is coming from there. I can provide more details if required in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but Google has already enlightened me as to the background of this situation. Tim Vickers (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Computer simulation of the cat brain
I would like to move the section cat senses from cat senses to cat intelligence. Comments? Obankston (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems a good idea, fine by me. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I completed moving the section. Obankston (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ed Poor
Why did you removed my post? All I was claiming is that Ed Poor isn't a monkey, which he's not. By removing it, are you saying he's a monkey? 93.127.228.122 (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

FAR for Action Potential
Just in case you missed it (I'm almost sure your didn't, but here is a notification anyway):
 * Action potential has been nominated for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion as to whether this article meets the featured article criteria.

Best wishes, Geometry guy 23:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

My lists
I assume you know that I was blocked from editing for 1 week as a punishment for adding unsourced content to medical articles. The block expired today, and I am considering creating a medical list, probably a list of causes of a symptom, but I just wanted to make certain that you want (and need) these lists. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

MCB Collaboration of the Month
Hi Tim, I realized that the MCB Collaboration of the Month is no longer active (probably for a long time). Since I think that these kind of collaborations are very helpful for articles, I am wondering what it would need to reactivate this. At least looking at the member list of MCB, there are many affiliated with the project. I could give a hand in organizing this; but I don't know whether it is desired and how the process is running in detail. It may also be that this has already been discussed many times and the final conclusion was to stop this. Then I am sorry to bother you again with this. I was not aware of such an information. Thanks in advance, --Firefly&#39;s luciferase (talk) 03:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your quick answer. I will proceed as suggested by you. Good luck your your personal things you mentioned. --Firefly&#39;s luciferase (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please specify where the copyright violation is in this article
I would greatly appreciate it if you would take a look at User:Immunize/Treatment of glioblastoma multiforme and point out where the plagerized text is. Thank you. Immunize (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Genetic code
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at Talk:Genetic code/GA1. I have de-listed the article as the referencing is so poor. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Stem cell
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some serious concerns which you can see at Talk:Stem cell/GA1. The artcile appears to contain many copyright violations. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are addressed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Evolution, "descended from"
RE this edit: Good catch. The recent change to the lead by User:Ryan Paris was quite plainly intended to push an etherial slant descended from Platonism. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

RFA nom?
Hi Tim -- I'm thinking it's about time for me to do an RFA. The best person I can think of to get a nom from would be you -- would you be willing to do it? I wouldn't want anything gushing, just a straightforward statement that you feel I'm qualified to be an admin. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Reincarnation research
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Reincarnation research. 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/Reincarnation research. 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) 01:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Query on need for references
If I was to create a list of neurodevelopemental disorders here, would I need a reference for each disorder that certified it was a neurodevelopmental disorder? Immunize (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is a surprisingly controversial topic, so good referencing is essential. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Immunize: I've been eavesdropping on some of your comments (because we're looking at a lot of the same material) and I was really happy with your Neurodevelopmental disorder page. Are you familiar with the ref name="" shortcut that allows you to make multiple references to a single source? doctorwolfie (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorwolfie (talk • contribs) 22:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

P55
You redirected P55 to CD120 even though there is no mention of that term in the article. If this was a mistake, we can redirect or merge with Intel P55. If it's accurate, I'd encourage you to edit the article. Juventas (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * p55 is one possible abbreviation for CD120, but this molecular weight is shared with a lot of other proteins, so isn't a good redirect. Go ahead and redirect to Intel P55 Tim Vickers (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Otto Warburg.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Otto Warburg.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Email
Hi Tim. I sent you an email. It's not very urgent, so please feel free to get back to me when you have the time. Thanks, <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 22:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Chicago 3.1
You signed up at Meetup/Chicago 3. I thought you might want to sign up for Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Chicago 3.1 from 10:30-11:45 a.m. on Saturday May 1, 2010 at the UIC Student Center West.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi! I am a college student and wrote the article Protein Allergy with a partner for a class project. It is up for peer review, and we were wondering, as someone with vast knowledge in Wikipedia and science, if you would please take the time to peer review our article.

Thanks! Clarker1 (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

yes signpost!
Awesome! Feel free to write something up if you have time ... -- phoebe / (talk to me) 20:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * thanks! I put it here: Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-04-19/News_and_notes

External peer review
I saw the wonderful announcement from Google! I'm so excited! Of course, scientists are ahead of we lit people on this, but not by much this time. See WikiProject NINES and 18th Connect. My itty-bitty version. :) Awadewit (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

A request for your opinion
Hi, I noticed on User talk:Hempelmann that you encouraged him to nominate Genetic resistance to malaria for GA and I thought you might have some useful advice regarding the article. I just now reviewed it at Talk:Genetic resistance to malaria/GA1. I can see that it has much good information, but the organization and formatting of the article, as well as the heavy use of unexplained jargon, made it impenetrable to me. I have asked for a second opinion as I would like to offer the editor some helpful tips. Perhaps you will contribute your opinion. Regards, <b style="color:navy;">Xtzou</b> ( Talk ) 16:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Eubulides
Tim, are you aware that is gone? Keeping up with epidemiology, autism, and other neurological conditions is going to be a chore, as he was the most knowledgeable. Big loss. I'm uninterested in writing PANDAS without him and trying to deal with biased editing, and keeping up with autism-related articles is really going to be hard. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 12:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That is bad news, I'll miss him. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Google collaboration
Hey Tim. I think to get the most out of the google collaboration we need to make some changes to the process. I have started a discussion on the project page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey Tim. Have some concerns with inaccurate taking of articles by the Google reviewers.  Have started a note on the project page regarding my concerns. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Simple mechanism.svg
Thanks for uploading File:Simple mechanism.svg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 14:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Simple mechanism.svg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Simple mechanism.svg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Encouraging academics to contribute?
Tim, someone at wikiproject psychology suggested I talk to you. A group of folks at APS are interested in encouraging contributions to Wikipedia by academic psychologists. We have a few ideas about using the APS newsletter to reward good contributors, publicize collaboration of the week, etc. Someone said you'd done similar stuff. All advice appreciated! I'm Amy Bruckman and my email is asb@cc.gatech.edu Thanks! Asbruckman (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

input on Taxobox
Tim, when/if you have a chance, it would be great if you could chime in on the discussion here about adding NCBI IDs to Taxobox. On the one hand it seems scientifically to be the best thing to do. On the other hand, not sure how/if it jibes with the external links policy... Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Helpful message
Hi Tim,

I'd like to make sure that the Google folks know that this message by User:BSW-RMH is likely to be helpful in getting WPMED folks involved and dispelling any lingering suspicions about what these "outsiders" are doing. I think that BSW-RMH is doing an excellent job of connecting with our group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree on her great job, but I believe that it is being more the exception than the norm. I have also asked in the project page what is going to occur when the expert reviews finish. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Objections to evolution
Would you like to co-nominate this article for an FA? Last peer review here. - RoyBoy 03:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Iodine in biology
Hi Tim,

Do you remember an editor named User:Sebastiano venturi? He substantially edited the above article. I cut it down a lot today. If you're interested, there's a discussion on the talk page. A potentially interesting, potentially redirectable, potentially COI-stuffed article. The objecting editor is Sbharris though, not Dr. Venturi. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you ever need a sycophant, any related form of abject worship, I offer my services. You're a god Tim :)  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

FA nomination for Homologous recombination
Hi Tim. If possible, could you add your thoughts to the ongoing FA nomination for Homologous recombination going on here? Thank you, Emw (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Dengue shock syndrome
Can you have a look at this article Dengue shock syndrome. It seems a dangerous mix of truth and half-truth to me that may hamper understanding of whats going on instead of helping. The editor who wrote the article Lalaleeloo stopped contributing and I fear that the article either has to be reduced dramatically in size to only leave the facts or has to be deleted entierly. Whay do you think? Greetings --hroest 15:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * On a quick read-through I don't see any major problems, which parts were you concerned by? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In case anyone cares, I had that :) It was NOT fun ... I begged for death!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Aids revert
Thanks for the revert on aids. I considered doing it myself, but I don't have the time to adequately defend the change, particularly since I'm already engaged with Gniniv on at least 3 other articles. I was hoping someone else would jump in, and you did. I appreciate it! :) <span style="border:1px solid #95ad5b;font-family:Copperplate;font-size:125%;padding:1px 5px 3px 7px;background:#dac9d4;color:#86747E">Jess talk cs 18:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Lovaas technique article
People haven't called ABA, "Lovaas method" since the late 20th century, and it can be easily confused with the Applied behavior analysis article and is hard to find the article (Lovaas technique). Shouldn't the article just be renamed to the Applied Behavior Analysis? And the "current" Applied behavior analysis article seems redundant to the Behavior modification article. Shouldn't the behaivor modification and ABA article be merged? The early childhood intervention article could say: Applied behavior analysis (ABA, also known as Intensive behavior intervention, IBI, Early intensive behavioral intervention, or EIBI).... and to also read that this was implemented by Dr. O. Ivar Lovaas. (And in the history section it could describe the whole process with the aversive and behavior modification program, and B.F. Skinner and O. Ivar Lovaas which developed the Lovaas method.) ATC. Talk 17:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you provide some context please, I have never edited this article and psychology isn't my area. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * From my knowledge (I worked in the area) behaviour modification is the umbrella term for both of these; I would even venture that the Lovaas technique would probably be considered a subtype of ABA. ABA is a specific type of behaviour modification that places emphasis and resources on developing specific functional and cognitive domains and tracking progress in addition to using the basic techniques of behaviourism.  Lovaas was certainly a pioneer and probably father of ABA's use with autism, but I think it's spun out from there to a more general approach that incorporates a lot more than what Lovaas started with.
 * They do need a cleanup, but I'd personally want to see some pretty clear sources distinguishing between them before I'd urge for a massive merge. That's my humble opinion.  There's certainly sources, this one reads very much like my understanding of Lovaas and his technique.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Water fluoridation
Hey, Tim. I'm bone tired (ahem) and won't have much time til August, but there is a problem with some tendentious editing at an Eubulides FA (Eubulides is gone, unfortunately, and Colin is on a Wikibreak because of another run-in with another editor). I haven't been able to give this close attention. Please see this full-text journal article and Talk:Water fluoridation if you have any time to look in there and watchlist this article. Similar issues are occurring at Quackwatch with this editor. Best regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And I see WLU is going through similar (again) at Talk:Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy; it's going to be hard to keep out quackery without Colin and Eubulides. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Mucoid plaque
I had another go at the page. I'm really uncomfortable with a long list of conditions associated with a pseudoscientific concept, so I shortened the section. As I say in my edit summary, WP:MEDRS supports peer-reviewed journals for medical claims, and even though this is obvious nonsense with no founding in anatomy, physiology, digestion or common sense, I can live with a condensed version. What do you think? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 05:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good. The article does need to describe what these quacks say, if only so that people can recognise this nonsense when they come across it. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I take your point, thanks. And, sigh, much as I hate to admit I'm wrong, the current version is better than my blanked one.
 * Though I'd still like to blank it.
 * Do you do commons stuff? You might be interested in this - though I'm not sure if you deal with viruses.  Do you know someone who would be able to help?  I've already asked GrahamColm if you know him.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

move please

 * can you move User:Cellular Biochemistry II/Course 2010/MSP to Major sperm protein? The article is finished and the Wikipedia-one is very uninformative. Thanks a lot. --hroest 14:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * same for User:Cellular Biochemistry II/Course 2010/FGD1 to FGD1 (gene)? thanks --hroest 14:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: The newly created stub
Sounds fair enough to me! - Vianello (Talk) 21:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Data indicate...
O, the humanity! MastCell Talk 16:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us." Tim Vickers (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Wait a minute - who's the louse in this metaphor? MastCell Talk 18:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Physio-kundalini syndrome
In the discussion around this article you had wondered: "Unfortunately I can't access Turner J Nerv Ment Dis. 1995 Jul;183(7):435-44. so I can't judge if this topic is actually discussed in this source or just mentioned in passing."

In the 8 pages of "Religious or Spiritual Problem: A Culturally Sensitive Diagnostic Category in the DSM-IV" the word "kundalini" comes up just once, as follows:

"Since the influx of Eastern spiritual practices and the rising popularity of meditation starting in the 1960s, many people have experienced a variety of psychological difficulties, either while engaged in intensive spiritual practice or spontaneously. Grof and Grof (1989) have collected case reports of such persons.  The more common presentations included mystical and near-death experiences noted above as well as kundalini awakening (a complex physio-psycho-spiritual transformative process described in the Yogic tradition), shamanistic initiatory crisis (a rite of passage for shamans-to-be in indigenous cultures, commonly involving physical illness and/or psychological crisis), and psychic opening (the sudden occurrence of paranormal experiences) (Lukoff, 1988)." p. 440

The article concludes on p. 443:

"Finally, the new diagnostic category could help to promote a new relationship between psychiatry and the fields of religion and spirituality that will benefit both mental health professionals and those who seek their assistance."

If you provide me your email address, I will be happy to scan and send you the article in its entirety.

Thanks for your thoughtful input into the discussion.Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Milhist's Academy
Hi Tim,

I know you do a bit of work with recruiting scientists, and I wondered if you knew about WikiProject Military history/Academy. It seems like it might be possible to write a similar subject-specific educational program for medicine/science. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Separate Chinese evolution from Homo Erectus
Thank you for you commentary but you must realize that the peer reviewed scientific publication Oxford Journals, "Evidence for Archaic Asian Ancestry on the Human X Chromosome" by Daniel Garrigan et. al. provides evidence for the presence of a separate evolution for the modern Chinese people from a Homo Erectus. It is rather conservative in its interpretation of the genetic evidence but none the less provides indisputable evidence in support of a possible separate origin of the Chinese and a subsequent interbreeding with anatomically modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens who migrated out of of Africa 100,000 years ago and possibly into China. To ignore this evidence in favor of an out of Africa model is not conducive to scientific, whereas I can understand many people would prefer to believe that all humans are descended from the same species. But science is not about making people happy, it is about searching for the truth. And just like Charles Darwin faced numerous criticism for his Origin of Species, current anthropologists can also expect unreasonable criticism. Again, please examine the evidence and put aside human emotion in favor of science. Thank you! :)

1.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9zVEQCIiRs&feature=related

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.251.209 (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback.
- Donald Duck (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Francis Bacon (painter)
I did take you mgs as friendly; my longish post -and indeed earlier sharp edit summaries- are born from long fustration with the page. I can see it spilled over. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

RfA
Hi. I'm not sure if you remember me, but back in November 2007, you suggested that I become a candidate for adminship at RfA. I have since gained more experience both here and on other wikis, and am now: effectively a Checkuser, Helper, Oversighter, Bureaucrat, and Administrator [http://testwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:Jeff+G. on the Test Wiki]; a Bureaucrat and Administrator [http://wicca.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Merrystar&page=User%3AJeff+G. on WiccaPedia], [http://www.thetestwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:Jeff+G. on The Test Wiki], and [http://admintools.wikia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Balistic+Pve&page=User:Jeff+G. on the Admin Tools Wiki]; and an Administrator [http://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=MZMcBride&page=User:Jeff+G. on Test Wikipedia], [http://en.labs.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Bastique&page=User:Jeff+G. on the English Wikimedia Labs Wiki], [http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=MZMcBride&page=User:Jeff+G. on the Wikimedia Labs Flagged Revisions Test Wiki], and [http://liquidthreads.labs.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&user=MZMcBride&page=User%3AJeff+G. on the Wikimedia Labs LiquidThreads Test Wiki]. I would appreciate it if you would take a look at User:Jeff G./Admin coaching, User:Jeff G./Coaching, and their talk pages. Thanks! —  Jeff G. ツ  04:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

NDM-1 as current event
Gene will not change, yes. But there are researches about it. Also it can spread around the world, or go to other types of "bugs". `a5b (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is similar to MRSA, which isn't a current event. There is a bit of a flap about this in the media at the moment, but this isn't very different from the multiple other families of carbapenemases that have been found over the past few years. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this an indication that I should stop using imipenem to treat upper respiratory infections? MastCell Talk 19:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Try phenol. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, based on my readings on Wikipedia, a combination of garlic and vitamin C should get rid of NDM-1-expressing bacteria without all of the toxic side effects of conventional allopathic medicine. MastCell Talk 19:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * High-dose garlic might also inhibit the contact-based spread of respiratory tract infections, so 2 bugs with one stone. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do you somebody delete New-Deli and write ND? In sources (Yong09 and Lancet) enzyme is called New-Deli, so we can't change the name, given by discoverer. Also, look at Talk:NDM-1, gene is called blaNDM-1, and enzyme - NDM-1. `a5b (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it was me who made that change, I'd lead with the article title myself, so New Deli seems correct for me. Thanks for the Gene/enzyme nomenclature pointer, I'm not very familiar with the bacterial system. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know bacterias well too, but sometimes I reread sources (and use google for "bla" gene) :). Thanks for great job on this article. (P.S. I'm author of Russian page of NDM-1). `a5b (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy in need of a good review and clean up
I noticed that you were able to improve a different controversial medical article about resistant virus and wondered if you would be interested in taking a crack at improving Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy?  Active  Banana   (  bananaphone  14:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Amygdalin
Well said! Shame it probably won't sink in with him:( DMacks (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi, Tim. Thank you for the welcome to the MCB WikiProject message. I do have a question... In the page showing the articles to be improved, the dates indicated seem to be quite old. Is this the date of the creation of the article? On the other hand, the articles I know more about are not in that list (for instance kinetochore, or centromere). Is this because their interest is low? I already extended major histocompatibility complex, which was not in that list, but I feel it is important in immunology. I am also interested in molecular based medicine. Let me know your opinion. Thanks again, --Dawn08 (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree
Quite agree with this but somehow I get a certain degree of satisfaction punching holes into their mindless diatribes. JFW | T@lk  20:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Chiropractic
So... not to drag you in, but there's been some ongoing talk (section 3-5) about Chiropractic and it would benefit from an outside opinion. If you have a few minutes and feel like revisiting a classic battleground, there are actually some fairly pointed policy questions being brought up, and little nastiness (though not too much progress). It began on the talk page as a specific question about WP:ASF and evolved into a bigger debate about WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:MEDASSESS, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:UNDUE. Alternately, if you have a good idea about how else to proceed, in lieu of your involvement, it'd be helpful, too. Thanks! Ocaasi (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 18:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleted diagrams
Hi Tim, File:Western blotting 3.svg and File:Western blotting 4.svg have both been deleted because the description pages didn't mention a source. The user who created them appears to have retired and so didn't have a chance to do anything about it. Judging by the user's other contributions, I think that they might well be good diagrams. Could you take a look at them and restore them if they look like Bensaccount made them and then we can sort out the description page accordingly. Thanks Smartse (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, do you think that File:Translation.gif meets the featured picture criteria? Smartse (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Amygdalin: a reference for the discovery
Tim: The citation for the discovery of amygdalin is incomplete. I believe that I have found a complete citation. The French Wikipedia page on Pierre Jean Robiquet contains an entry in the "Principales publications" section that reads: "Nouvelles expériences sur les amandes amères et sur l'huile volatile qu'elles fournissent Robiquet, Boutron-Charlard, Annales de chimie et de physique, 44 (1830), 352–382."

In Wikipedia English that publication could become a reference that reads: "Robiquet, PJ and Boutron-Charlard, AF (1830). New experiments on the bitter almonds and the volatile oil they provide. Annals of Chemistry and Physics 44, pp. 352–382."

Do you know someone who can read French and who has access to the article, to confirm that Robiquet and Boutron-Charlard are the co-discoverers of amygdalin? It would be good to have a URL for the article if it is available online. Paul61485 (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Annales de chimie et de physique page you listed has a few places the journal is available. Very few papers from 1830 are available online though. This paper from 1982 says (with great use of English) "It has been isolated in 1830 by the French chemists Robiquet and Boutron-Charlard from kernels of the bitter almond". This would be fine to use as a reference for the discovery in my opinion. A reference to the 1830 paper could also be added too, to show the paper it was discovered in. I also found this book from 1830 which mentions the title of the paper, demonstrating that it's not made up. Smartse (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Smartse. As I was doing searches earlier today I found this reference: Robiquet and Boutron (1830). Extraccon de la Amygdalin. Ann. Chem 44 :325. This is probably the correct citation for the discovery of amygdalin. Paul61485 (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Human molecule
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Human molecule. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Libb Thims (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Evolution lead
Hi Tim. Just to say that I've permuted/amended the lead of evolution into something that I think is more straightforward. If you've a moment, I'd be grateful if you could check that I've not introduced anything contentious, or missed out anything especially significant for that matter. In passing, the article is getting to be quite unwieldy to edit because of its length. I've not yet had any bright ideas about how it could reasonably be shortened, but I'll be looking over it in the next month or so. Cheers, --P LUMBAGO 07:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

PING
Tim, I've emailed you about The Signpost article coming up on the google project. Quotable comments would be great if you can do it in the next 12–15 hours. Is the taskforce choosing all of the "high quality" articles for the trial? It's hard to unravel the important issues given I don't have much time to read through the archives. Tony  (talk)  14:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RSMED listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect RSMED. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:RSMED redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Colin°Talk 15:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Adventures in the popular press
User talk:SandyGeorgia Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Metabolism Today's Featured Article
Just thought I'd notify you, the principle hard working editor for Metabolism, that I've put the article forward for Today's Featured Article for a non-specific date. See  :)  Autonova (talk) 10:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Turns out it was rejected purely due to 'uncited paragraphs'. Fix this problem and it will be front page material- it's a core article and was promoted over two years ago after all. Autonova (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Medical Collaboration of the Month
Craig Hicks (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Curious Future Biochemist
Hi Mr. Vickers,

My name is Thomas and I'm currently a senior in High School. However, college applications are soon, and I've applied to schools which I think will help me in the degree of Biochemistry, which is what I want to major in. However, I've recently found out that when you do get to college to choose classes and everything, that we need to choose classes related to our major. I've taken AP Chemistry, but not AP Biology, so I'm assuming that Biology and Chemistry will be one of those few classes that I need to help out Biochemistry. However, I'm also wondering what others I will need to know to back up Biochemistry. In addition, I plan on minoring in Computer Science to help edit Wikipedia articles like you do! ^^ ThomasJChoi7 (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

AE notice
Please see Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. -- Cirt (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Ascofuranone.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ascofuranone.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Leyo 22:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Ebselen.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ebselen.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Leyo 22:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

File:ABP.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ABP.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Leyo 22:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Greetings & request
Greetings TimVickers. Sorry to intrude like this, but I've got an interesting request on my talk page that I thought you might be able to help out with. I was looking around for an admin. with an interest in medicine-related areas and while I suppose it has nothing directly to do with your speciality/ies, you'll certainly have more of an idea of what to do/where to go with it than what I does. I thought I'd check it out with you first rather than just referring the editor directly. Thanks for being out there. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)