User talk:Voice of 5-23

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-helical DNA structure
Hello. Please shrink the giant "Non-helical DNA structure" letter size down. Please make the beginning of the article look like others, DNA for example. Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I see you continue to edit without reducing the giant "Non-helical DNA structure" letter size. Please do this now, as the article is in the mainspace. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Please, not smaller, and not centered, and not a stand-alone title. Like this: Non-helical DNA structure, and used in a sentence somehow to immediately give visitors an idea of what this is about. Please see other articles for convention. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Your username
I see: http://www.notahelix.com

Please read WP:COI.

Also, having a username that is an organization is against policy. Please see Changing username. Thank you and happy editing. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Plus, your Wikipedia article could be seen as promotional, and to help search engines find your work. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what the above criticisms mean. What is the "organization" you are referring to? Do you consider "www.notahelix.com" to be an "organization"? As for "promotional", doesn't that imply a commercial interest? This page, in its current form, may propose ideas but it proposes nothing that would benefit any particular person in any way whatsoever. Please explain these things, and I will, of course, do whatever is necessary to correct the problems. If I know what they are. Thanks.Notahelix (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Change your username. This is promotional. It's no  different than calling yourself User:Time Cube. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I am going to change my Username to "Voice_of_5-23". They say it will take several days. I cannot do any more editing until tomorrow night. Should I remove the "In use" tag?Notahelix (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for changing your username. Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Rush pH vs S 2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Rush pH vs S 2.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the file  from the article "Non-helical DNA structure". This jpg file, as you point out, is unnecessary. I went to the media description page to try to delete it myself, but there is no way for me to do it, so I presume it can only be done by an Editor.Notahelix (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Non-helical models of nucleic acid structure. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.  Neil N   talk to me  12:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Hi there
Hi, Ken. Do you remember the faery tale of the cobbler who had elves or whatever in every night who finished his work, and produced really nice shoes, all ready for customers the next morning? Wikipedia is like that, except in reverse. You produce these great shoes, turn away for a few moments, and you find the elves have taken them to pieces, stitched the tongues to the bottom of the soles, and reattached the soles back to front. You might be the greatest cobbler in the world, but if you can't deal with that political reality, this probably isn't where you want to contribute. Do try not to take it personally, though: It's just the way the asylum is run, to shift metaphors, just the rules we've always operated by.

Btw, you did notice the text at the bottom of the page when you enter edit mode? It says, "By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." In short, the text you enter isn't yours anymore once you click "Save Page". Hope it all works out for you; if you stick around you'll eventually meet quite a few really brilliant people, and a great many of the other kind, too. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply to some questions
The following is a response to some questions Ken raised at 10:39, 29 May 2012, on the talk page for Non-helical models of nucleic acid structure - Ohiostandard

Hi, Ken. I know you put a great deal of work into this article, and we're all grateful for that. I remember I got really mad, myself, the first time I saw that some content I'd added had been removed, and that only involved a small contribtion to a long-existing article. Since your initial contribution was so much more extensive, I can well understand that you'd feel proportionately more upset. It's always really jarring when someone changes or removes something you've contributed, the first dozen times or so that happens.

There really should be some pop-up window or something the first few times that occurs, to explain that it's an entirely normal and expected part of our process here, and in no way a personal affront. I've been around here for a few years, now, and just within the last few days I've had content I've added removed in whole or in part at least six times, and other content has been re-written. That's a perfectly normal, to-be-expected part of our process here. We even have a name for it; we call it the bold-revert-discuss cycle. It's never much fun, to be frank, but it does get easier to avoid feelings of ego identification with one's own contributions, as one gets used to the editorial process here.

You do need to understand, though, that we're all volunteers, here, who, like you, want to help inform the world on topics we're interested in. I do understand why you're angry, truly; I probably would be, too. For one thing, it's intentionally hard to propone any new research here, anything that's not already canonical science. Our policies intentionally make that difficult. This isn't to say that new research can't be immensely valuable; of course it can, obviously. It's just that this isn't really the "best fit" place to publish it, for a number of reasons. Perhaps the most immediate, as you've discovered, is that our articles have no one author. One person usually gets them started, of course, but then all bets are off. This is "the encyclopaedia anyone can edit", and people do edit it. Eventually, most of our articles have hundreds or even thousands of "authors". Of course those other authors are going to bring the mainstream view they were taught in school to their attempts to improve any given article. How could it be otherwise?

That doesn't mean there's some conspiracy going on, or that we're all in the pay of big pharma. ( If I'm mistaken, would other editors please let me know how to sign up for the payments? ... That's a joke, Ken; I actually loathe the business policies of big pharma, to speak personally, for a moment. ) Anyway, I wanted to say that while I do understand your anger, you need to understand that alleging dishonesty on the part of your fellow volunteers, calling them names, and generally being an ass toward them isn't likely to make anyone here want to donate their time to help you.

I agree our policy pages about the use of copyrighted materials are arcane, labyrinthine. I've actually never tried to upload any files, myself, because I've felt intimidated by both the complexity of the process and the rules surrounding them, so you're actually ahead of me in that regard. But again, please remember that we're all volunteers, including so-called "administrators". It does take some serious study to understand how the place works, and you can't really blame other volunteers for not being willing to give you an extensive one-to-one tutorial on what's already written down, even if it's not as accessible or easy-to-follow as any of us would like. We do have a help desk, but like everyone else, they're also volunteers. If you post a simple question there you'll probably get a quick, custom explanation, but if the matter is more complex at all, someone will very politely tell you to "read the effin manual", as they say in computer software circles.

If you'll quit calling people names, quit assuming we're all wealthy elitists - we're not - who are out to discredit your work for nefarious and self-serving reasons, and just generally quit being contemptuous and insulting, I wouldn't mind asking another volunteer I know, who's really expert in the complexities of copyright matters regarding Wikipedia, to give you a hand, or at least a clear, concise explanation of what's going on with the files you uploaded. But she's a really nice person, and I'm not about to do that without having confidence that you're not going to just call her names and cast aspersions on her character. Can you promise me you'll communicate with her respectfully if I ask her to look in here, and provide you an explanation on this page?

I say "on this page", by the way, because an article talk page isn't the right place for this kind of discussion. Also, this is the right place, rather than the user talk page for the Notahelix user account, which you shouldn't be using. ( That is, you should log out of that account, permanently, log in as "Voice of 5-23", and make all your future edits under that user name. ) Let me know if you can be calm enough about this understandably frustrating experience to talk to the woman I'm thinking of about copyright matters with respect, even if it turns out that she has to tell you things you're not going to like hearing.

Assuming you say you can, and assuming she's willing to try to help you, it might take a day or more, by the way, for her to get back to you here, since I don't know whether she's online now, or when she will be next, although she usually checks in daily. I'm not an administrator, by the way, just another volunteer editor. The woman I'm thinking of does happen to be an admin, by the way, and a condition of my asking her to help you would be that if you violate a promise to communicate respectfully with her, or you continue to insult or impugn anyone else, would be that I'll be asking her in advance to temporarily block your editing privileges in such a case, to give you time to cool down for a few days. Best regards, --OhioStandard (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

''PS - You need to break up your posts into short paragraphs if you want people to read them. Also, I'll be offline for a while, now, but will check back here in several hours time. 13:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)''

TO WHOEVER WROTE ON THIS PAGE: Today is May 29. I never knew this page existed, and I haven't read anything on it yet. I really, really wish Wikipedia could somehow, someway find a way to introduce contributors to their maze of rules in an orderly fashion. If anything requires a response, I shall write shortly.Notahelix (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:HELP. Also, all those links at the top of this page.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  17:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary secton break
Dear OhioStandard, As I said above, I never knew this page existed. Before coming here today, I wrote a long diatribe on some sort of editor's page I also previously knew nothing about. An email alerted me to the presence of discussions about me, so I went to the site. It seemed that a response was called for, so I responded (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit). I hope they don't penalize me for posting remarks on a restricted page. Yes, I have recovered from my temper tantrum. I accept your offer of help, and I promise to behave the perfect gentleman. I have been working for over 2 months on this article, and a huge part of that time was struggling in vain to negotiate the maze of complex and confusing rules, especially with respect to images. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated.Voice of 5-23 (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, again, Ken —


 * Well, good on you then. By the way, I regret that I neglected to post a message to the article talk page, where you'd asked about copyright matters, to alert you to my reply here. I had too many browser tabs open, my browser crashed, right before I got to that, and then I'm afraid I forgot all about it, until just now. Glad you found this page without my help, though.


 * I do want to reiterate that I understand your frustration, although I can't really know its inward nature, of course, not having gone through what you have in the past few days, and never having put that much effort into an article. ( I tend to do bits and bobs here; correcting small errors, adding references, knocking vandals on the head every once in a while. ) As I said, though, I imagine I'd very likely feel much the same way you have, had I done so, and had the same experience.


 * Re the worry about having posted to the loftily named Administrator's Noticeboard for Incidents (aka "ANI"), no, you're fine. That's what it's for; you're expected to comment there when someone takes exception to some aspect of your behaviour by opening a section about you there. Besides, a lot of non-admins post there regularly, myself included, to try to help resolve disputes and problems. Although the non-admins who do so are typically very experienced contributors, there's no "entrance requirement" for doing so, either.


 * I commiserate re the complexity of our rules and regulations here, too. We all know they're very complex, and that the place isn't easy to navigate. If it makes you feel any better, you're very considerably ahead of the curve thus far: I'd guess that 95% - 99% of first articles from new users are deleted as being unsuitable for inclusion here.


 * The most common problem, other than teenage garage bands putting up articles about themselves when they've never performed in public, is that new users hardly ever understand that none of us are permitted to just "write what we know". Everything we put into an article has to be referenced to what we call, in our very specific and somewhat non-standard parlance, reliable sources. We have conflict-of-interest policies that prevent someone from promoting their own work, or that (intentionally) make it pretty cumbersome to do so, at least. In medical articles, for example, we have a policy whereby we're not even supposed to make statements or cite research that comes from individual clinical trials, but only from review papers. We have ... well, a superabundance of rules and regulations that the simple motto, "The encyclopaedia that anybody can edit" can't hope to comprise.


 * I see from the article's talk page that you've received a some help there from user "The Hand That Feeds You" about the copyright questions ( a pleasant, helpful chap, despite the odd user name ) and that Antony-22 has stuck around, too. People and companies actually do create books for resale straight from Wikipedia content; "The Hand" is right about the rationale about the copyright issue, for that reason. I'd forgotten that, actually.


 * The "diatribe" I think you're referring to was on the talk/discussion page for the non-helical model article, yes? Every article has an associated page like that; it's purpose is to allow the multiple contributors to a given article a place to collaborate. To be frank, those pages are often somewhat contentious, too, as different contributors to the article argue for the content changes they want. For better or worse we operate via a consensus model here, and just like in academia, those discussions can become a bit competitive, at times. It's hard not to get drawn into that, when you're sure you're right about something and the other chap is wrong. We do have a dispute resolution process that includes asking other volunteers for a "third opinion", or for broader help from others, too. There's no "czar", though, who can unilaterally "rule" on a content dispute. Administrators are explicitly forbidden from doing so, actually: All they can do is try to make sure our polices are followed in the process of article development and content negotiation.


 * So since things have progressed a bit for you since I last looked in, and Antony-22 seems to be steering you in the right direction on the copyright question, I'm going to let them continue that. If you get stuck, or can't figure out what they're trying to tell you, I'll be glad to recruit additional assistance; just let me know. Also, a bit more about how to get help from others might be of use: If you post a question to our help desk, which you can do through the not-necessarily-the-easiest-to-use interface here, you'll usually get an answer from one or more volunteers very quickly, usually within 15 - 30 minutes, and often quicker if you do so during a time many volunteers are likely to be online, i.e. between around 6:00 AM and midnight in any U.S. time zone.


 * I must have posted a dozens of questions to the help desk during my first six months here. Some of our most experienced users volunteer very regularly at the help desk, although you'll occasionally get erroneous answers from relatively new volunteers there, as well. Those are usually supplemented by another answer from a different user in short order, however. If you do post there, you'll need to periodically "refresh" your browser page, of course, to see the first response anyone makes, and any additional ones, as well.


 * Speaking of time zones, by the way, we all tend to set our user interface options to display everything in Greenwich Mean Time, which we denote as "UTC" for reasons I won't try to explain at the moment. If it helps you, though, it's about 4:30 PM New York time as I write this, on 29 May 2012, and 8:30 PM on the same day in UTC. The guys at the help desk can explain how to do that, or point you to a set of instructions, if you're interested, and show you how to display a UTC digital "clock" in a corner of your browser pages here, too, if you like. I find that very useful, myself.


 * Right then: If you have further trouble, first try the help desk, and if you're still stuck, say so here, or ask for help from one of the other chaps who've been working with you. I'll certainly be willing to ask the copyright expert I was thinking of to look in, if there remain unresolved issues that way. My only reluctance at this point is that she gets a great many such requests every day, so unless you're really stuck at this point, lets see if we can avoid adding to her workload just yet, please.


 * Oh, also, in case no one has told you, yet, and accessing the help desk seems daunting or too complicated, you can also just type the eleven characters (including the space) on any talk/discussion page, including this user talk/discussion page, type your question, and then click "save page". I've never done that, myself, but if you try it, and then refresh the browser page periodically, you'll see that one of the help desk volunteers someone will have shown up on the page, will have "come to you" rather than you having to "go to them", that is.


 * I wish I could personally be of some substantive help with the whole process of importing images, myself, but I'm afraid you probably know more about it than I do, at this point. I'd just have to read the documentation myself, in order to be of any use. But do let me know if you don't make any progress that way, especially if you get stuck with the copyright and licensing issues in uploading your own work, and I'll connect you with the woman I've spoken of who's our resident expert, assuming she's willing.


 * I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but you do need to stop using the notahelix account entirely, and log in only as Voice of 5-23. You'll still be able to edit all the same pages, of course. Now really finally, it wouldn't hurt to click on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents again, and comment there, politely. I'd recommend you just say something brief, like "thanks, sorry I got hot under the collar, any help anyone can give me on my user talk page will be much appreciated".


 * That noticeboard isn't the appropriate place to get help about how to use Wikipedia; its purpose is to try to resolve "incidents". Because experienced users and administrators tend to "talk" to each other on that noticeboard in a kind of shorthand, feel free to just ask if you don't understand something. No one's going to penalise you if you keep your cool, and speak to others as you'd like to be spoken to. Also, you'll have better luck posting your comments there if you click on the edit "button" for just that particular section of the larger page, instead of the "edit this page" button or tab. When you do so, be sure to add four "tilde" characters, like this at the end of what you write. That's what adds your "signature" and the timestamp at the end of your addition, once you click "save page".


 * Finally, don't sweat it that people there are talking about deleting the article. You might want to copy its "wikitext", i.e. it's unrendered, raw, "edit mode" text to a text file on your local hard drive, just for your own peace of mind, but nothing here is ever irretrievable. Every edit is saved incrementally, and previous versions of any page can be recovered. In the worst case scenario, assuming you do want the article around after all, were it to go through our deletion nomination process, which I can explain to you, if you like, a copy could be provided that you could move to another website that uses the same "Wikimedia" software that makes Wikipedia's wheels turn. There are free sites that you can use for the purpose. There might also be the possibility that the article could be moved to a kind of "work space" page, for you to try to correct whatever problems might disallow it from being accessible to the outside world of non-Wikipedia-editors, i.e. readers. I'll look in again soon. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow! You've sure made your point about long, drawn-out text. But I thank you for your concern, and your good advice. By the say, the "diatribe" I wrote this afternoon doesn't seem to be there. It's possible I forgot the 4 tildes. Anyway most of what I say is probably not worth hearing anyway (but the seeming-rant you just saw on the Non-helical page was my attempt to connect with Antony-22, and who I thought I might be able to reach out to through a certain science approach that might not be comprehensible to a non-scientist. Well, I have two of the deleted figures back up, and they seem to be sticking, so I must be doing something right.  But I may have problems with some of the others.  They're from a Journal of Theoretical Biology article which I wrote, and it's gonna be a real bear to re-create them, as I've been doing all day.  Let me give it a shot, and maybe we can avoid bothering you friend.  Thanks again!Voice of 5-23 (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Warning
Please refrain from posting screeds like this on Wikipedia. It is promotional, contains several personal attacks, and does not contribute to the collegial construction of an encyclopedia in the least. You are on very thin ice here; I would suggest you read the Terms of Use and WP:TRUTH, which is presented satirically but makes a good point. Also, reading Ohiostandard's post above would be good; we're not out to get you here, we're out to help, but you have to want to be helped. And remember that it's just a Wikipedia article, you should really just relax. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Another warning
Please don't go posting where you think I go to grad school on-wiki. Please see WP:PRIVACY. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Another outside view
Remember that Wikipedia is collaborative, and the idea is that what you contribute to a topic like nonhelical DNA is expected to be "improved" by others who may have something to contribute. Keep in mind the core policies of verifiability, neutrality, and nonoriginality. That last one was hard for me to understand at first, but the basic idea is that if we started publishing analyses just because an editor says he's an expert and vouches for them, we'd have no way to prevent deception and hoaxes. Instead we insist on content being reviewable by others and checked against sources and balanced by admission of alternative scientific points of view.

Administrators are talking about blocking you from editing. You've got two choices, work hard to learn the rules, or spiral into oblivion. You might not be breaking the rule about usernames, although because it's unclear whether the .com is a commercial site it would be better to use the "Voice" account. There's definitely a rule to not contribute with multiple accounts, as it leads people to misinfer initially (as I did) that there were multiple people behind the accounts. There's definitely a rule to remain civil and not judge motives when you judge actions (I haven't read ahead to see if you've broken this rule or not). And there's definitely a rule against conflicts of interest (such as you have when posting your own previously published research) and an essay warning users who edit in a single focused topic area to steer clear of appearances of not getting with the Wikipedia program. If you can work on demonstrating your commitment to these norms to other editors it will help you not get blocked.

I do appreciate your contribution of knowledge to the nonhelical DNA article. Whether you stay or not, it is likely that a number of editors will transform this into a very different slant in accord with other sources, especially if they regard it as fringe science or pseudoscience, which WP has a historical animus against. If you stay, you will have a voice in the discussion. If you perform actions that will get you blocked, because of the association of the block history with the article, you won't have a voice even if another account shows up promoting your point of view. Best to cool down for awhile, let the Wikiprocess unfold, and not take it personally if too-major a change happens to the article (it's not "your" article as I'm sure you've been told). Everything is technically fixable, but not for those who don't play by the rules. If you really dislike the changes others make, the place for a permanent historical record of your objections, which you can keep updated as situations warrant, is article talk. As long as you keep the objections there and work with other editors in reaching compromises or consensus how to proceed, the process will work out to your satisfaction. Thank you again for your contribution, as its clear research and time involvement far exceeds the average valueless contribution about garage bands we receive daily. JJB 10:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Add: I see you may already be on the right track in sticking to one username. Another rule to keep in mind (yes we have too many) is that editors prefer you to use the edit summary to indicate what you're changing. You've used it at least once, but it is appropriate to use it every time, even if you put a one-word summary like "correcting", so people know the rationale for the edit. Basically, the task you have is to demonstrate why your views are encyclopedic to someone like me who basically only knows how to rub two strands together to make fire. You seem to know some reasons for discounting traditional research, and, if you want this reasoning to be received as encyclopedic, you will want to indicate where it arises in science, dispassionately and in the interests of greater understanding for all. Expect to deal with published criticism of your own papers, as that criticism has just as much right to appear in WP as your own work. Certainly and above all, have greater patience than Galileo. Thanks. JJB 11:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

One other thing (sorry about length), don't be surprised if User:Notahelix were blocked, because that would be typical to ensure that you stick to one account, and should not be taken personally. Best to go very very slow, even if other editors seem to be going very very fast, and take in the sights and sounds of WP without insisting on any particular right to publish. Keep a polite, civil list of objections at the article talk I mentioned above, and edit it just like you've edited the article, and, if you can keep from the temptation to badmouth the holders of other points of view, your concerns really will work themselves out with patience. JJB 11:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * RESPONSE: I'm sorry I've offended everybody.  I'm dealing with a profound prejudice against a subject; a prejudice which goes back over 40 years.  Although you probably can't see it, and may not believe me when I say it, I tell you that the prejudice is extremely evident here.  The worst thing about it is that the people holding these views see them as "neutrality", which is the opposite of "prejudice", and there's nothing I can do to change it.  Oh, well, so be it.  Like I said, I'm sorry for everything I said which offended; I know they won't believe it, but it was well-intended.


 * RE: USERNAME: You guys ordered me to change it, and I did.  No one told me I had to log out and log in with the new name - I thought it was automatic.  You can say "ignorance of the law is no excuse", but your rules are spread out in countless dozens of web pages, in an almost random incomprehensible order, and I do my best.  Be that as it may, I am now logged in with "Voice_of_5-23".  Oddly, however, Wikimedia Commons won't take anything from me unless I submitit as "Notahelix", and I can't find any way to change that, so I'm on Wikipedia as Voice, and Wikemedia Commons as Notahelix.


 * RE: FIGURES: Thanks to the kind intervention of someone named OhioStandard, I now understand the policy regarding journal figures (clearly the others had no intention of explaining it, and in spite of reading a multitude of Wiki instruction pages, I don't think I would have lived long enought to have ever figured it out for myself).  I'm now very busy replacing the original journal figures with painstakingly difficult-to-create original art which conveys the same message.  I guess I must be doing something right, because no one has removed any of these new figures in over 3 days.  Perhaps there is some hope after all.  Except that this is all extremely exhausting -- I've been slaving away at this article for months, and there's no reward for me at the end.  I'm 62 years old, and even if I won the blinkin' Nobel Prize, what good would it do me?  I can't start a new career now, and I have nothing to spend the money on.  Nope; it's all for you and your readers, though you probably can't see that yet.Voice of 5-23 (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Parenthetical note: Hi, Ken! I've taken the liberty of tweaking the formatting of your preceding a bit, to make it easier to read. I hope that's all right. Just so you know, the usual protocol for so-called "threaded" text discussions is to cause your post to indent to the right, relative to the indentation level of the post you're replying to. You can read about this here ... as if you didn't have enough to read! -- Ohiostandard, 18:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for this demonstration of good faith. I recognize the difficulty complying with the username policy; Commons has different policies so I suspect this arrangement will be acceptable here if it works out there (but we're all individuals and others may disagree). It's also very difficult getting copyright-free images posted and that is one of the harder technical aspects to learn at the same time as you're ramping up the other procedures. So this is all good.
 * I also gave you a welcome at your comment on my talk page. Keeping track of multiple conversations on talk pages can also be a challenge and the simplest thing for you is probably to read it at that link but then to give any response back here on your own talk page. When you're logged in, "my talk" and other helpful links are always at the top of the page.
 * Next recommended reading: a couple paragraphs at WP:GREATWRONGS. The rest of that page probably doesn't apply to your conscious editing, but sometimes there are some tendentious unconscious behaviors that new editors bring and don't realize they are inappropriate, so the rest of the page is worth a skim. You've probably already read the humor piece on WP:TRUTH. Once you get this under your belt, and (I reemphasize) practice using the article talk page to keep polite track of neglected aspects that other editors just seem however incredibly ignorant about (without calling them out on their ignorance), you'll be on the way to the "harmonious editing" in-community solution. JJB 17:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Follow up
Hi, Ken! Many thanks for the gracious comments I see you've made on various pages about my attempts to help you navigate through the labyrinth, here. I'll do my best to check back here within 24 hours, but I just wanted to briefly and respectfully ask you to please try hard not to react with any public expressions of indignation or contempt to the reversion of your most recent changes to the article. I recognise that seeing that happen must feel extremely frustrating to you, but I like you, you know, and as frustrating as I imagine the experience is, please remember that your changes aren't "lost". Every single change to an article is incrementally and recoverably saved, with every click of the "save page" button. I'll be glad to explain that to you more fully in my next message here; I'm afraid I'm rather pressed for time, at the moment. There are other objective reasons not to let it get under your skin, too, that I can explain in a subsequent message.

I wonder whether it will surprise you to know that no new editor in my recollection has received a quarter as much well-intentioned support and attempts to help as you have? I suppose it will seem absurd to to hear me say that, given the immense frustration you've been experiencing in trying to deal with others here, but it's perfectly true. Normally, anyone who responds with the ... "heat", let's say, that you've brought to your interactions just gets shown the door. I'm not saying you haven't had reason to feel upset; you have, obviously. But although I can't speak for others, my guess as to why you haven't been booted would be twofold: In the first place, I think many of us recognise you're what the kids call "wicked smart", independent of our respective opinions of your theory, and in the second place, there are probably some of us who think it would be really cool if you turned out to be right.

This is a wholly subjective impression, of course, but I am sure that most of us feel you could be a tremendous asset to the encyclopaedia, provided you're able to find some way to deal with the admittedly challenging experience of having the "elves" unstitch your shoes every night, and continue to do so, until you're able to work out some consensus language with them for a given article, according to our myriad policies. By the way, we do have other brilliant people here, too, you know, and I suspect that some of those who disagree with your theory are among them, even though, in your view, they're completely wrong about it... I wish I were in a position to evaluate the evidence, myself, but I'm not, alas. I only did two years of chem - although I loved organic - plus a few minor add-ons, e.g. qualitative analysis and a little p-chem.

But besides the fact that no one wants to see you blocked from editing, I can offer you another reason for not yelling at anyone over the reversion of your most recent additions, or unilaterally reinstating them. I hope it won't seem gratuitous to say so, but one of the reasons I edit Wikipedia is because it gives me the opportunity to practice dealing with people I strongly disagree with, in a way that doesn't have to do damage to the structure of the working relationship. It's an eminently useful skill to have in real life, of course, although admittedly a hugely difficult one to ... well, to practice. I was about to say "master", but none of us really ever "masters" it.

Now that I think of it, besides not just booting you off the site as would have been done with almost any other new user, it occurs to me that the community here has treated you much more favourably than is typical, in another way, as well. What I mean is that we'd typically just delete an article in which its creator cites his own published work. The assumption we typically make is that people are not sufficiently objective about their own work to be able to comply with our article content policies when writing about it. And even if we didn't delete such an article, from the moment we became aware that a person was writing largely about his own work, we'd prohibit that person from contributing to it any further. The multiple, situation-specific variations of our rules on conflicts of interest would prompt us to insist that that person restrict himself to contributing to the article's talk page, exclusively. No one has so far told you you're obliged to do so, I believe, although we're violating our own norms to allow you to do so?

Anyway, as I hope I've made clear, I understand that you might feel very angry about the recent reversion of your changes to the article, but I really hope you'll take a day or three before you respond. Your worth as a person isn't measured by how many people recognise the value of your theory, you know, although it's an outrageous liberty on my part to remind you of so obvious a fact. We all know you're extremely intelligent, that's not in dispute.

But I'm sure you have some other pretty great qualities, too, that your sense of personal value or self-esteem ( whatever you want to call that necessary quantity ) can wrap around: Go outside and pick up some litter; be kind to a child; try to forgive someone who injured you; give a fiver to a homeless person; listen well to someone who needs some compassion. I know I'm not telling you anything new by saying it, but those kinds of things are good for the soul, too, and probably more so than having the world accept that you're right about the in vivo structure of DNA. Wikipedia will still be here, when you get back, and a short break might be good for your cortisol levels, too. ;-) I actually take periodic breaks from Wikipedia, myself; I find I have to, in order to maintain my equanimity and sense of proportion. The stakes here seldom seem so high, in retrospect, as they do when one is in the midst of any kind of conflict.

By the way, another reason I hope you stick around is because I'd like you to quote back the preceding few paragraphs to me, if you see me get wound up about some conflict here, as I certainly do, from time to time. The advice I've given you is presumptuous, as I know full well, but it's not condescending. I say that with relative certainty, because I need to hear it myself, and to be reminded of it myself, all the time. Best regards, --OhioStandard (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * OhioStandard, you're something else. How a man can remain as calm and logical as yourself, in the midst of mayhem, is almost incomprehensible to me.  I think you should run for president, because it's really starting to look like all hell's gonna break loose in our dear land in the near future, and a man ...(sorry if you're a woman -- who can be sure? --there are women in Ohio too, and any one of them may regard HERself as the "standard"!)... a person with your qualities may be able to save the day.  Anyway, I thank you as usual for your help and guidance.  The comments you made about me receiving 400% more help than other newbies are astonishing, and make me ashamed of all my behavior.  Hmmm...I'm now reminded of a "stress interview" I was once subjected to.  After being tormented for about 10-15 minutes with questions whose answers were, it seemed, automatically rejected by the interviewer whether right or wrong, I was taken to another room where I was informed that I had done "pretty well" - and that the whole thing was just a scripted scenario to see how I bore up under stress.  They told me I got a score of 80%, which they described as "good", but they were looking for 90%, so I didn't get the position.  Oh, well, I never wanted the position anyway (do you believe me?).  So is Wikipedia merely a large, prolonged "stress interview"?  Naw, life ain't really like that.  In any event, I shall surely look forward to the day when I can be of help to you or anyone else in need of my meager services.  Now I've to to take a look at "Non-helical" because there was activity.  They changed stuff, but strangely enough, at this particular moment, I don't really care.  Have a good weekend!Voice of 5-23 (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, man, if you only knew. I appreciate your kind words, of course, but it's easy for me to make observations like the ones you praise me for: I have no emotional or personal stake in the outcome, apart from my liking for you. If you're still around in a month I'll e-mail you links to the one or two sordid little affaires d'honneur I'm now thoroughly embarrassed to have engaged in when I was first starting out here, and didn't really know what this place is, what it's for, or how to deal with the strange and provoking customs of the natives.


 * I've no doubt that when I come up with a workable theory of everything, or am seen in Cannes with an A-list starlet on my arm ( yes, I'm a man, and hey, it could still happen! ), or just celebrate too heartily at a political rally and decide to moon the opposing candidate with the cameras running, that some overbusy journalist will discover those, tie them to my real life indentity somehow, and that the ensuing spectacle will amuse and disgust the public for the next three weeks, until Michelle Obama gets a new hairdo or Jay Leno announces he's going to have transgender surgery, or something.
 * Your "Wikipedia as a prolonged stress test" really made me grin. I do believe you, of course: Why wouldn't I? I'm actually surprised you didn't kick the man who told you you'd been subjected to so nasty a little game as you've described. Wouldn't it have been gratifying to have gone all What's the Frequency, Kenneth? on him, while shouting, "Don't take it personally, it's just a stress test!" By the way, I've never been to Ohio. Like this chap, I'm an international man of mystery. In haste, --OhioStandard (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A couple more points: I noticed from the non-helical talk page that Antony-22 had put up several "citation needed" tags on the article, and that you'd expressed concern about how long you might have to respond to those. In articles where a collegial rather than a fiercely competitive atmosphere prevails among editors, it's usual for cn tags to remain in place for at least a couple of weeks, and sometimes much, much longer, even years. Only in articles where editors from bitterly opposed and polarised factions are each trying to push their own version through ( and you be shocked, I think, to know how many articles we have where that's going on continually ) do you find people putting up cn tags and deleting the information the next day.


 * Editors are permitted to simply remove uncited material straightaway, rather than tagging it, by the way, but that's normally done only in our most contentious topic areas. In the case of the non-helix article, I'd simply suggest you post a message to the section of the talk page in which Antony-22 discloses his note about the tags, and ask him what kind of time frame he can live with. I'd suggest that two weeks would be about the minimum that would be reasonable, while 4 - 6 weeks would be most appropriate. Feel free to quote me to him, if you like.


 * I should mention, as well, that any "gentleman's agreement" between the two of you would not necessarily have to be respected by other editors, but if you find others removing large sections of material tagged by cn, it would be reasonable to consider reverting that, once, with an edit summary that invites the person who deleted the material to join the discussion in a relevant section of the talk page. ( This would be in conformity to our so-called "bold, revert, discuss" process which, while not a policy, is a "best practice" that people usually need to have some good reason for refusing to follow. )


 * About reverting others' changes: Since reverting is a bit tricky to learn how to do, at first, but especially because reversions can easily lead to very competitive editing, to so-called edit wars, I'd suggest that you might like to ask for help, the first few times you think of doing it. If no one else is able to help, I'd be glad to have a look at what you're proposing to revert. As you know, I don't have the techcical chops to evaluate content in the article one way or the other, but I still should be able to help you prevent strongly negative reactions from other editors for a given revert you might be considering.


 * I should emphatically stress, though, that as a "personally involved" editor at that article, i.e. since you have a conflict of interest with respect to it, you should be extremely careful about reverting other editors. As I think I explained previously, the community is intentionally suspending, for the time being, at least, our conflict of interest policy with respect to your esteemed self, so you'll want to tread lightly, even though I know you're sure that you know far more about the topic than your fellow editors do. Think of it exercise for your collegiality and humility muscles, if you can, like getting the exercise that I'm sure you've recommended to hundreds or thousands of patients, albeit for their bodies rather than their immaterial aspects.


 * I mentioned edit summaries. You're not required to use them at all, but you always should, and should explain the changes you've made as fully and concisely as you can. If the explanation is too complex to provide in the relatively short edit-summary field, then make a comment on the article talk page to explain, if your change has the potential to be even remotely controversial, and say something like this: Clarified wording of phosphokinase wahjahooitz glockenspiel. Please see "Phosphokinase" section on talk.


 * Again, you're not required to do this, but you'll find you'll be much more cordially welcomed into the club if you do. "The club"? Well, there's no key fob, or secret handshake that I'm aware of, but what I mean is to refer to men and women of good will, who are very highly educated in a given topic area, and who are usually very bright, comparatively level-headed and unlikely to fly out in a passion; people who are just great fun to work with, even if you happen to have conflicting ideas.


 * If you stick around, you'll see what I mean: I've "met" some very eminent persons here, from a diversity of fields, over the years. One of my favourites is a man I initially had quite a spat with, because I'd misinterpreted his motive in something pretty badly, and it took me a few months to realise I'd been wrong. He's just might be the worlds leading expert in his admittedly narrow area of speciality, and he's both a thoroughly humble and a thoroughly pleasant chap, just a delight to work with, on so many levels. I see I've gassed on again, though, so I'll stop for now. Best, --OhioStandard (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for more good [sounding - what do I know?] advice! I particularly took to heart What's the Frequency, Kenneth?, which, believe it or not, I didn't know about.  (in spite of my auspiciously-similar name).  Ah, the wasted opportunities we allow to slip by!  Anyway, I'll start doing edit summaries - I never knew they cared.  And my heals are dug in for the long haul.  Sometimes I wonder what would happen if I just laid back -- it might be that the processes of logic would inevitably work their ways in, in their relentless manner, and the article might wind up being exactly what I would have written.  Who knows.  Well, so long for now.  Good luck with the A-list starlett.  If you find her, do what some financial consultants advise -- freeze your credit cards in a block of ice so they're there, but not really. Etc. Voice of 5-23 (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, and thanks in return for what I'm sure is the excellent advice about the credit cards. I became familiar with the phrase after hearing the excellent song of the same name by R.E.M., which you can listen to via YouTube. If you do listen, I suggest you read along with the lyrics, here, to get the full flavour of its delightful weirdness. You seem to have read about the story behind the phrase, but for those who don't know it, this is a good description. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Citation suggestion
Hi. Thank you for your edits to Protamine. If you haven't seen this yet, please check out User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool (instructions). Given a PubMed ID, one can quickly produce a full citation that can be copied and pasted into a Wikipedia article. This tool can save you a lot of work and ensure that the citations are displayed in a consistent manner. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Glad I could help.  I actually had a note about Diberri, but forgot about him.  I just re-visited his page.  It's great when you have a PMID or PMC.  Too bad it doesn't [seem to] work for DOI.  Thanks for the tip!Voice of 5-23 (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ken
Saw your concerns at WP:ANI. Please keep in mind a couple tips so that you don't get yourself further embarrassed by being blocked. Hope this helps. Just let things chill, don't get yourself into a spiral of speaking ill of others, and build the article(s) one step at a time. WP does allow a heady feeling when your first draft appears, but it is even better at shooting down that feeling by letting others have their drafts. This is intended to build collaboration, communication, and consensus, and among level heads it generally works. Best wishes. JJB 18:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Read WP:NOR carefully and thoroughly as it is a pillar of core policy. "If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a discovery."
 * 2) Please comment here or on the ANI thread linked above to indicate that you understand the base rules, which is what the potential blockers are looking for. They want to know that you accept that the article should reflect all points of view about the title, including the topoisomerase view.
 * 3) About that title: moves are easy when noncontroversial, so I restored the title accuracy by moving to Non-helical DNA structure models. If there is objection then moving becomes more difficult and WP:CONSENSUS should be sought about the best title.
 * 4) It's okay to believe the article has been metaphorically "raped", but it's very unhelpful to say what you believe. Tact and civility carry the day here.
 * 5) If the article is all about that nebulous The Truth, then you have nothing to fear from its temporarily receiving the ax. Nothing on WP is permanent. IMHO just about anything that is The Truth can be found in reliable sources, and has nothing to fear from deletion of those sources (they can be readded in ways that satisfy the concerns of the deleters) or from addition of contradicting sources (let those sources without The Truth be free to speak and let the reader decide).

June 2012
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive, non-neutral editing that has continued beyond any reasonable effort to assist in improving your Wikipedia editing to meet community standards for competence in the ways of Wikipedia, neutrality, and civility, along with a refusal to listen that had led to the regrettable conclusion that your editing isn't improving the encyclopedia.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Bushranger One ping only 06:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

As my decline was edit-conflicted with the above, I'm pasting it here as it still applies: Yes, you have indeed been judged by your personal actions in toto, and indeed, you have set your very own legacy on Wikipedia. We go by WP:CONSENSUS, and your absolute massive failure to do so has been your downfall. Because of your WP:COI, you're far too passionate about certain topics. This block is based on the community response to your actions on this project - you agreed when you signed up to follow the rules, and you have not. Nice legacy. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 13:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, Voice, your data is here: Nucleic acid double helix. The double-helix model of DNA is the accepted mainstream scientific consensus. Your model has not been accepted after 40 years of work. You are pushing a fringe theory. Mind, it's a significant historical fringe theory, hence why we keep the article. Your "request" was obviously a red herring, as I'm sure you're well familiar with the established body of work regarding the double-helix model, and its status as the accepted model. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to wikiFeed
Hi Voice of 5-23,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!

Thanks! RachulAdmas (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)