User talk:WAS 4.250/Archive 06

FYI on LibriVox, Project Gutenberg
hey WAS, long time no wiki! ... just a little fyi on LibriVox, project gutenberg has started to add our audiobooks to their catalog pages, for instance: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/19580 ... they're trying to figure out the display format (the way gutenberg's pages get generated makes it a bit difficult), but the books are getting onto their servers. which is good for everybody. Mackinaw 20:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear it! WAS 4.250 20:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-break
I feel the need for a wiki-break. Couple of days ... couple of months ... who knows. Last time I had a medical issue. This time ... um .. vacation better captures the feel of it. Be happy. I will. WAS 4.250 05:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Have a good time! TimVickers 17:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Influenza
Page now nominated as a FAC. Comments and suggestions are welcome on the review page. Thank you. TimVickers 00:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm off on my own Wikibreak, my departmental retreat is this weekend so I'll be away for a few days. See you when I get back. TimVickers 03:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Remember who you know is more important than what you know when it comes to future money opportunies. And everyone is impressed with how smart you are when you agree with them. WAS 4.250 16:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good advice! I had a fun time. TimVickers 01:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 23rd.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Today's featured article
Tobacman 00:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Original research in the article about me
This edit is original research, and actually a very good example of what is wrong with original research...

First, the cite (to Usenet, which is hardly a reliable source) does even, if valid, match the claim you wrote. How can a newsgroup post from 1992 support the claim that I did something between 1992 and 1996? It can not.

Second, another major problem with original research has to do with "undue weight". This is an extremely trivial point about my entire career. I have said and done many other things in my life, inculding managing and participating in a major way in probably 100 different mailing lists. Why is this one so important? If it is that it shows that I am or was an Objectivist, well, so what? There are reliable sources for that which don't require us to post sloppy original research about trivialities.--Jimbo Wales 23:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Response at Jimmy Wales and Talk:Jimmy Wales. WAS 4.250 12:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Report of WP:3RR violation
I reported you on the WP:AN/3RR page of violating the WP:3RR. As response to your message on my talk page: I'm not taking this personal, I'm too only doing what I think is best for wikipedia and I hope you too don't take it personal. And I'm not that knew, it's just a relativly new user... I know what I'm doing here... greetings Ogno 01:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've invited Tim Vickers to help resolve this. I'll agree to whatever Tim thinks is the right solution to our disagreement. WAS 4.250 08:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I'm reading the articles on influenza vaccination and I think we should be able to reach a compromise with precise wording, clear referencing and less emotive language. We might do this on the talk page to reduce instability in the article and let us edit it as much as we wish. TimVickers 01:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you e-mail me using the link on my user page? Then I can send you Pdfs of the papers we are discussing. TimVickers 05:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I interact with Wikipedia and Wikipedians solely through http://en.wikipedia.org/. I do not have email enabled. It is important to me that I limit my involvement in Wikipedia in this way. It would actually be best if I spent less time here, but its fun and continues to draw me back even when I try to spend more time on my other hobbies. Tim, however you want to word it is fine with me. WAS 4.250 08:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand completely, I spend far too much time here myself! I've tried to produce a fair summary explaining both the findings and limitations of the current studies. If you have any further suggestions or comments then please let me know. Thanks for thinking of me as a friendly intermediary, I'm pleased to help out. TimVickers 16:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 30th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 15:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The economics of death
I can find very little published on the effects of the 1918 pandemic on economy, this may be due to the difficulty in separating the effects of the war and the effects of the flu. However, since I see this from a medical viewpoint I really find the economics of death neither interesting or important! TimVickers 21:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Influenza FA
The E=MC² Barnstar

Email
I'd like to send you an email but your email isn't enabled. JoshuaZ 06:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hrmph. I had some memory of you not using email from something earlier. Ok, then: Looking through the article on ANI in the toronto paper I can't find any evidence of plagiarism from Wikipedia. What am I missing? - JoshuaZ

See Talk:Avian flu in a few minutes. I'll post it there. WAS 4.250 07:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I posted it there. But also, I just looked at it again and the unsourced Wikipedia paragraph has been removed. I guess they read their reader input after all. WAS 4.250 08:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 6th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:ATT
WAS, I'm sorry if I got a bit brusque with you on ATT. I didn't mean to, but re-reading my comments I can see that they looked that way. My apologies. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * (I just logged on.) I appreciate your saying the above. Apology accepted. WAS 4.250 17:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you're in the mood to reflect on how your behavior appears; please try to see what the whole incident can look like to the other party with regard to a bunch of other people showing up in what seemed like mere seconds. (I had four edit conflicts in a row on the talk page - literally couldn't get in a word edgewise with my slow computer and slow connection.) Now I know Wikipedia, you, and the dynamics of the place so I don't read anything inappropriate in your friends showing up quickly. But you have received criticism in the past that you know to be inaccurate and I merely wish to point out this incident as an example of the sort of thing people easily misread and conjure up dire imaginings about. I'm not too clear what for you to do about such misunderstandings when similar cases in the future create an opportunity for such misunderstandings; except to say that you excell with words and can be quite charming when you choose to be, so maybe you can head off at the pass the possibility of misunderstandings when your friends show up all at once when dealing with people that don't know you like I do. Boy, that was rambling! I hope I was clear that I don't have a problem with you; I'm just trying to helpful since I know your enthusiasm for helping Wikipedia is sometimes misinterpreted. WAS 4.250 17:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * With regard to the content of ATT, we all want to express the same policy - we all are simply trying to agree on the right words that best communicate it. Words mean different things to different people so what is obviously best to one person can be obviously wrong to another. When that happens, it means that our intended audience will also have conflicted understandings of the words and so the words need to be thought through yet again. It doesn't mean one of us has gone crazy and wants to change policy. WAS 4.250 17:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Fictional texts
I'd love any input or organization you might be able to put to User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction essay. I'm trying to work out on broad principle some of the popular culture issues, at least as they relate to fictional texts, so that debates over them are somewhat less sterile, and so that everyone is on the same page about things like sourcing. Phil Sandifer 18:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm impressed with your efforts and insights with regard to sourcing in the pop culture area. I will be happy to suggest things. WAS 4.250 00:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 13th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 23:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIV
Please don't refer to other people's views as "sheer idiocy." SlimVirgin (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Glycan array analysis
Surprisingly enough, somebody is working on these glycan arrays in my lab at the moment, so this is quite familiar. The message of the paper seems to be that the H5 protein is different from previously-characterised hemagglutinins and that different and as-yet unidentified mutations will be needed to adapt it to bind lung sugars rather than gut sugars. Hope this helps. TimVickers 01:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * First, I don't know if you read this page or if I should post it to your page. Second, I don't know the word "glycan". I google it and get "polysaccharide", which I am familiar with. (Is this new fancy terminology you young folks have adopted or is it an old term a computer/physics geek like me wouldn't be expected to know?) The part about "mutations will be needed to adapt it to bind lung sugars rather than gut sugars" I am very very clear about. The exact changes needed to accomplish that is the issue that is in question and no one has the answer to that but it is a key issue in whether a billion people will die or not. A patent was issued recently based on what exact change can do this (going from memory - positions 88 or 92 ; but this article mentions position 90?). A big question is how much is cutting edge research and thus unencyclopedic (needs to be verified) and how much can be depended on as uncontroversial. I can't tell. Since the experts want more money to do more research, obviously there are unknowns neither of us can be expected to know. But even tho I may have read more about it in the last 12 months than you, it really isn't a field I've been trained for and your help would be ever so much appreciated. WAS 4.250 05:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi again. Sorry for the ill-defined terminology Glycans are carbohydrates attached to proteins, such as the sialic acid on the cell surface the hemagglutinin binds to. The paper seems uncontroversial since it doesn't really make any clear predictions as to which mutations will be needed. I saw this paper in Nature today that seems very relevant to this question. In which article would you like me to put this information? TimVickers 07:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your contributions are so excellent that all I can think of to say, before reading it or reading your proposed contribution, is to place it whereever you see fit. Please don't feel bad if I like it so much that I also post it, or some portion of it, elsewhere as well. WAS 4.250 07:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Re template:flu
All links in the template are to sites that will also have the same template, including the two I added. Whether or not that is acceptable, we will see. User talk:Brian Pearson 02:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hawarden, Iowa as a "source"
You know, I wondered about what to use for the opposite of recommendations, too. I couldn't find anything that was directly relevant in Category:Wikipedia as a media topic. I'll let you know if I find anything... -- nae'blis 00:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not that I'm recommending it mind you, but you could create a template that said something along the lines "This article was improved based on this critical review." WAS 4.250 06:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was thinking more along the lines of "This article was mentioned (critically|favorably) in press coverage of Wikipedia." What would one name such a template to make it easy to find, press? -- nae'blis 14:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you modify the template you added that I deleted so that (critically|favorably) is a passed variable with the current template being the default? WAS 4.250 20:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, that'd be a much smaller learning curve. Let me see what I can do. -- nae'blis 21:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. On further reflection, that template (or at least the non-deprecated version of it, Authoronlinesource2006) specifically references Wikipedia as a press source. Since this is a different style of mention, I think I'm going to go ahead and make press into something useful along the same general lines (both will now have that customizable field, though). Thanks for all the input. -- nae'blis 22:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

References to Flu research regarding Taubenberger et al. study
I've previously inserted some important references to articles from a very highly respected peer reviewed journal... My concern is that within the community of evolutionary biologists who study diseases, there is a lot of doubt concerning the methodology behind Taubenberger's assessment. I felt that it is important that people be aware that the link between Avian Flu and the Spanish Flu is still being determined and there is no conclusive research stating that it is of 'direct' avian origin. If you are unable to access the journal articles I am happy to provide them to you. Additionally you should note that the Article by Fanning et al. which states that the 1918 flu was of swine origin, is an article on which Taubenberger is a coauthor. Saying that the 1918 flu came directly from an avian source... has many implications...a few to mention are generating fear in the public and giving yourself a stronger lobby for immediate funding. I think its important that this section of wikipedia reflects the current on going discussion within the scientific community. Vpanjeti 16:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you wish to place the data I can't access at User talk:WAS 4.250/1 I would be very grateful. As it is copyrighted, I will delete it after I read it. WAS 4.250 21:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for helping Wikipedia. We get a lot of vandalism and biased opinions masked as facts, so please understand that even tho we welcome anon edits, many times an edit coming from an anon is one too many issues with an edit and needs to be reverted until better confirmation is available. "Within the community of evolutionary biologists who study diseases, there is a lot of doubt concerning the methodology behind Taubenberger's assessment" should be sourced and added to Wikipedia using the specific names of the researchers who put their reputation on the line as finding fault with Taubenberger. Wikipedia is not helped by unnamed individuals creating FUD, but it is helped by specifics in an area of current research. The fact that it is an area of current research says all by itself that the conclusions are tentative and subject to continuing evaluations; and that obvious fact can certainly be included without getting into sourcing and details if anyone feels it is not already clear by the context. "No conclusive research stating that it is of 'direct' avian origin" is a strawman. The point is that the best current research indicates that it is and competing reseachers who also want grant money can be expected to quibble. But the details of this back and forth are not only beyond my abilities to adjudicate; but it is against our "no original research" policy for me to make that call anyway. Wikipedia aspires to provide the evidence and let the reader decide. It seemed to me that you misrepresented an earlier article as contradicting a later article when in fact because it is earlier all that indicates is the author found newer and better evidence. Did I get that wrong or was the misrepresentation more a matter of you being too concise (or some third possibility)? "Saying that the 1918 flu came directly from an avian source... has many implications" Tes, absolutely. This is important to get right. "I think its important that this section of wikipedia reflects the current on going discussion within the scientific community." I agree completly. Please help us get it right. I'm over my head in all this. WAS 4.250 21:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've had a look at this as well, despite coming from an anonymous IP, the sources are real. However, although the paper was questioned, the authors answered these questions in this letter. I think it is quite justifiable to add the contradictory interpretation of the Taubenberger data, as long as the response of the original authors is added as well. TimVickers 16:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks once again for your help. My concerns are in the paragraph above in response to Vpanjeti. Your help makes me feel less overwhelmed in trying to keep the H5N1 articles accurate. WAS 4.250 21:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I lack access to that letter. WAS 4.250 21:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded the articles so you can have a look. I feel that the current copy with the original authors response included as well is fair. The earlier research which I provided (Reid and Fanning et al. study) is not necessarily less accurate because it is earlier research. That research involved a phylogeny using different genes (Hemagglutinin HA gene sequences) whereas the Taubenberger et al. study in Nature used polymerase genes. Creating a phylogeny using the HA genes seems to indicate that the 1918 Flu probably had a swine origin. It is interesting to note this, since depending on which sets of genes you use to construct your phylogeny you may differing results on what the origin of the 1918 Flu. Another point with the Taubenberger study is that the phylogeny constructed with polymerase gene sequences actually seem to indicate a swine origin as well, similar to the Reid and Fanning et al. study (You can see Fig 1. and interpret it for yourself). However, (and this point is a bit complicated) Taubenberger et al. felt that using some additional information from the amino acid residues those sequences coded for could suggest that the it might be of avian origin. I think its this last point that many people seem to be wary of. First, there isn't a case that polymerase genes are more accurate for building a flu phylogeny than the Hemagglutinin genes, and second gene sequences are usually considered to be a more accurate way of constructing a phylogeny, so why draw conclusions from the amino acid sequence (Since genes code for amino acids and several different gene sequences can code for the same amino acid; so amino acid sequences often contain less information). In any case, to really get into all the biology behind this is beyond the scope of a wikipedia article. But, as I stated earlier, I felt that it was important that the article reflected more of the fact that this is an ongoing area of research and at this point there isn't any overwhelming evidence that points to a definitive source for the 1918 flu. Vpanjeti 19:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You say "I've uploaded the articles so you can have a look." Where shall I look? WAS 4.250 23:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Your note
That's very sweet of you, thank you. The article's here. I like where it says that, when you look through the edit histories of these articles, it's like studying the Bible closely; you get faint traces of all the voices that joined together to create it. I was about to write that the Bible doesn't contain so much abuse, but in fact it does. :-)

Anyway, thank you. Your note cheered me up a lot. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was the article. So glad you found it. So glad it cheered you up. WAS 4.250 17:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 20th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Tax Farming article
Hello --

I'm a little unclear about what your additions to this article are about. I'm sure they're accurate, but they don't seem to be about tax farming per se. Perhaps you can clarify this for me. Tax farming was, in historical times (e.g., Ancient Rome) not the backup plan for collecting unpaid debts, but the only way tax was collected at all. Your comment on what the US IRS plans to do seems to be about contracting out debt collection to private companies. In itself, this isn't particularly unusual; for good or for bad, the Conservatives who ran the UK during the 80s and 90s hived off quite a few of these sorts of things to the private sector in the name of greater efficiency. While income and local taxes are still collected by their governmental bodies, minor taxes such as the television license are not, and go through companies such as Capita Group. Anyway, neither this nor what the IRS is doing appears to be tax farming, and its inclusion in the article seems to need some sort of justification.

The tax farming article should, I suggest, concentrate on the historical practise. I'm neither an historian nor an economist, so I hestiate to make these additions or changes myself. But I think I know what I'd like to see, as added on the relvant talk page.

Sincerely,

Neale Monks Neale Monks 10:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello -- I'd like to delete the section on debt collection that you have on the tax farming article. I don't see that it is tax farming at all. These private companies aren't pocketing the taxation collected in lieu of a sum handed over to the State at the beginning of the collecting period, which would seem to be the fundamental of tax farming. Roman tax farming involved censors leasing out all collection rights to publicani for a fixed sum and a fixed number of years. The Censor, on behalf of the State, accepted this bid instead of the taxes. The publicani would then try and collect at least as much in taxation to cover that bid, and everything else was pure profit. So fundamentally the publicani aren't collecting taxes for the State, they are recouping their payment of those taxes by collecting money from people within a fixed area and across a certain amount of time. Your section on the IRS seems to be nothing more than debt collection. The private companies presumably receive a fee, but the taxation is going from the debtors to the State. If these were tax farmers, the private companies would pay the tax bill, and then try and cover their loss by collecting money from the debtors. Does this make sense? Neale Monks 10:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * May I recommend that you add to the article what you said to me above, with sources backing it all up; and then I believe that the solution will be obvious to both of us. Please don't delete the section we both know you wish to delete. Yet. I believe it belongs in the article; but if you follow my recommendation about a sourced addition to the article, anything becomes possible. WAS 4.250 10:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Done and done. Added references. I hope this is fair: rather that deleting your section, I've moved it to a new article Privatised tax collection (please rename if you want). It's linked in the tax article (and vice versa). If you want to add something on similarities to, or concerns about, in either article that shows how and why the two are often linked/confused, then that would make sense. I can see why your section is useful, I just don't see that it's tax farming. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 11:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And well done at that. Tax farming is now much improved due to you. Thanks. WAS 4.250 22:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, very kind. Please do try and expand the connections between the two. If there's a (widespread) misconception or anxiety in the US that these new tax collection methods are tax farming, it's as well to say so, and perhaps even say somewhere that the term has morphed from meaning one thing among Classical historians through to another thing in the modern media. That would be a valid subsection to the article. Since I don't keep track of American taxation politics, I'm not really the one to comment on this. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 10:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Rebecca#Concerns
You previously posted concerns on User_talk:Rebecca. You may wish to post them at User_talk:Rebecca. Jreferee 22:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

About FAO
Thanks for your reply.--Alnokta 00:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

XPLANE deletion review
WAS, Would you mind weighing in on the deletion review for XPLANE at Deletion review/Log/2006 November 24? Your comments/opinions are much appreciated.Dgray xplane 16:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Email me?
Hi, I wanted to chat with you privately, but you haven't supplied an email address. Could you email me?--Jimbo Wales 14:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Jimbo Wales. Thank you for everything you've done to make Wikipedia possible. And I am certainly honored that you wish to chat with me. And I will figure a way to email you if it proves to be necessary. But I don't have any email set up. I haven't used email in years. I'm old, set in my ways, and am trying to keep my stress levels down. If you want to ask me to do more; well, I really should cut back instead to help with my stress. WAS 4.250 19:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, well, actually I just wanted to ask you privately about a comment you made that I did not understand and thought was quite insulting towards me. You wrote:
 * He also made some interesting comments about the 9-11 stuff that has now been moved off. Back before Wikipedia became famous, he added a comment about using interest in the non-encyclopedic (yet true) information enthusiasts were accumulating about 9-11 on his servers to drum up publicity and perhaps donations to keep the servers up. He apparently excells as a promoter. And its important for the rest of us to credit Jimbo where credit is due, but not to give his opinions undue weight. I wouldn't overly credit Einstein's sex advice or Hef's marriage advice. WAS 4.250 19:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This was in reference to my recent comments here. As it turns out, I was absolutely right in this case: the article proved to be a copyright violation, and I think that the concerns I raised were quite valid.  If you want to debate me on the merits, then let's have that debate.  But to suggest that my opinions about wiki editing are outside my range of qualifications, well, gee.  That's just offensive.--Jimbo Wales 18:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can see why you asked to do this privately; because what we have here appears to be a misunderstanding. Let's take this one step at a time. Yes I made that comment. Yes, you are correct that you did not understand that comment. You say you thought it "was quite insulting towards me". I am sorry that your misunderstanding resulted in such an outcome. Be assured that I have never insulted you and any reading of anything I have written that appears to you to be an insult is a misunderstanding. That specific quote you copied above was not in specific reference to your recent comments here. It was an off hand comment adding information to the immediately prior comment. It is about something that occurred years ago and does not refer to anything as recent as this year, much less the specific wikien-l message you referenced. It is indeed "offensive" to "suggest that [your] opinions about wiki editing are outside my range of qualifications" and I would never do such a thing. I said "And its important for the rest of us to credit Jimbo where credit is due, but not to give his opinions undue weight" which refers to any comment anyone makes about anything ("give due weight but not undue weight"). Your opinions concerning the article's copyright violation were given due weight and I never suggested they should not be. The other concerns you raised were indeed quite valid concerns to be raised and discussed. Due weight as a fellow editor is one thing. Undue weight as our fearless leader in another thing; and you have always indicated you felt the same way I do about that - so this is nothing insulting in any way at all. To cut to the heart of the entire thread in question, the jist of it is that conflict of interest questions with regard to Wikia versus Wikipedia can and do cause concerns; so even tho editing one's own biography can be done properly, it is wise to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. I know you agree that it is wise to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest because you said so with regard to both your editing of your wiki bio (which you regret, you said) and with regard to wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline that you weighed in on (appropriately). So where you conclude you were insulted in all this is quite beside me. You want to make money with Wikia. Fine. No problem. More power to you on that. But that is exactly where the conflict of interest thing comes in. And your previous editing of your own bio shows that you like the rest of us mere mortals can create an appearance of a conflict of interest that in the end is more trouble that it was worth and in the end means we wish we had not done it. Exactly where this appearance of a conflict of interest between Wikia and Wikipedia will become problematic is not for me to say; but more importantly is exactly the kind of thing that no one can foretell and thus it is wise to be careful about. Is it an insult to you that I wish you to act wisely and prosper? WAS 4.250 22:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

FA nomination for Bacteria
Hi there WAS. I've nominated this page for FA. Your comments or corrections on its nomination page would be very welcome. TimVickers 17:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 27th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

LAST COMMON ANCESTOR
My argument was for creationist that we all have descended. I agree with your comment and it is an argument I have made in earlier Talk discussions, as also hybridization. I also attacked the bacteria mutation example for antibiotic resistance and natural selection, because HGT appears to be a significant path in antibiotic resistance. I highly referenced all my comments, but in the end I realized it distracted from the simple example and I withdrew the additions. Plants and prokaryotes display a high degree of HGT and hybridization so a true tree of life is difficult (from mitochondrial and nuclear genes)but it doesn't stop anyone from doing so. I know, I know why try to reason with creationist. Well I am about ready to quit this Wiki from frustrations with vandals and POV pushers. Any comments on this article are met with suspicion because of the paranoia from creationists. That is why I usually just quote papers and abstracts to make points with merit, although of late I say why bother? Oh, yeah the LCA is a controversial topic. At a meeting last year the common opinion was that whatever the LCA was that it was already a significantly complex organism/s. GetAgrippa 19:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

H5N1
Thanks for offer re H5N1, but I need to stick with contributions on clinical dx/rx. Badgettrg 16:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Introduction to Evolution
I looked at what Snalwibma had done. I think it was a distinct improvement over this current version. I think rather than just revert the text, we should edit the material we have here. It needs to grow organically. If some of what was added was not exactly correct, then it needs to be edited, not reverted!! The text has to evolve while keeping it simple. --Filll 13:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Mostly, I agree. But I had already deleted the incorrect data once and he just reloaded it without fixing it himself. You also are welcome to fix it, without putting me down for keeping wrong stuff out of wikipedia. WAS 4.250 14:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 11th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of posts
Just a suggestion: removal of other's comments from the talk pages of articles, as you did on Talk:International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, is probably best not done. I am sure your intentions were good, but ask yourself if you would have done that had the poster been a registered user. If the answer is no, then it is best not to do that with anonymous IP's comments, too. Jeffpw 09:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Believe it or not, WP:BLP applies comments about living persons made on talk pages by anons too. WAS 4.250 21:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me?
To what or whom were you referring? Jeffpw 21:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Look up one subsection. WAS 4.250 21:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Strengthened enforcement of existing policy
I'm talking about its substantive effects on the encyclopedia. I wish we did treat people no different from buildings, and had strict sourcing requirements for all articles. Policy says unsourced material may be challenged and removed by any editor at any time but people are hesitant to apply it and be called deletionist or attacked for removing something "everyone knows" is true yet is noncompliant with policy. I also think many of the pieces of data the policy is concerned with are already excluded by other policies, or simply by its irrelevance. WP:NOT means that we don't include things like addresses, phone numbers, birthdays (where they're irrelevant) etc. I understand the change in motivation for the policy, but the substantive effects on articles should not be exaggerated, simply because all other articles deserve to be held to just as high a standard. It's better for us to have a single correct and sourced article than it is to have a hundred cruddy ones. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank goodness that Wikipedia policy disagrees with you. WAS 4.250 22:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you opposed to the strict application of our other standards? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Like WP:IAR? Do you understand the concept of a dynamic tension between opposing but critically important goals (or means or policies or forces ...)? WAS 4.250 23:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

IAR just means use common sense. I've never seen a case where it means we can ignore WP:NPOV, WP:V or WP:NOR, simply because any contradiction of those policies would be a detriment to the encyclopedia. The only dynamic tension against those is the desire to include everything possible, which a strict enforcement of the policies would keep in check for the most part. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you read all the talk pages to all the policies, you would find many examples. People disagree with what the policies say and what they mean and the policies themselves are freely modified in actual terminology over the years. Further Wikipedia has itself changed over the years and will continue to change in the future. Simplistic rigid enforcement of what is currently recorded as "policy" must always take a backseat to people who actually understand the detals of a given situation and are willing to be bold in making Wikipedia better. WAS 4.250 23:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The basic three content policies are nearly as old as wikipedia and have gotten stricter, not looser over the years. Interpretations on the fringe have shifted, yes, but the trend has been more rigorous sourcing and exclusion of opinion. Could you please show me a specific example of when any of those policies should be unambiguously ignored? (as opposed to information included that may or may not comply depending on interpretation) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I find no fault worthy of discussion (ie I could pointlessly quibble is all) in your last comment. WAS 4.250 23:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

So is there any thing wrong with me wanting strict standards, or were you just being devil's advocate here? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have said nothing to you in the role of "devil's advocate" (not that there is anything wrong with that). I have made no comment on what you should want. I'm signing off now. If you want to know more about what I think, please review the archives of this page and get back to me after that. Thank you for taking the time to engage me in friendly chit-chat. Bye for now. WAS 4.250 23:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 18th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright vio in Influenza
Quite right, the text you removed was a direct quote from TimVickers 00:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You use the best sources
LOL!! SlimVirgin (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey WAS, sorry for the vandalism remark in the edit summary. I didn't realize that you are apparently a known contributor to the policy.  I disagree with your edit, but it was obviously a mistake to label it vandalism.  Cheers!  Alan.ca 09:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Verifiable sources
I'd prefer to use the peer-reviewed sources, rather than other people reporting what these sources say since this is most authoritative and follows the policy to use the highest-possible quality sources. I get free, direct access to these at work and they are labeled in PubMed as "Free, full text." Could you do me a favor and see if when you register you get full access to these? TimVickers 23:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I started to, but I've decided I'll register on another day. Thanks for telling me about the free registration. The CDC is a good source and not one that one has to register to read. The CDC summary does not say that the sources you listed are their sources nor that they are in any way less authoritative. Do you have a source that says the CDC site in less authoritative or is that just your belief? Also, prefering to use the peer-reviewed sources does not prevent the adding an additional source that some might find easier to access, easier to understand and more authoritative (Office of the Prsident). All I'm saying is I think the readdition of at least one of the sources is a good idea and no skin off your nose, so I don't see any reason for you to repeatedly delete them. Several times now I've added them had them deleted and then someone comes along and questions the numbers and asks for a source and I'm tired of it and it probably shows. Sorry. I think I'll sign off and go do something else now. WAS 4.250 00:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I put these papers in since the CDC press release says the data were published in "the January 8 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)." and this let me find the original research. I think you're right about ease of access though, I've put the CDC fact sheet in, but not the OP report. I'm sure this is my bias showing, but I regard anything published by politicians as intrinsically suspect! Hope you have a good Christmas. TimVickers 00:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy holidays !
You may want to consider endorsing this petition: User_talk:Friday. StuRat 12:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons for deletion" (BLPfD) policy proposal
Your input would be much appreciated here. And happy new year to you. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The Problem of Love
You created a redirect for The problem of love to Altruism. However, it does not mention this somewhat specific application of altruism. And after creating the redirect someone created a page which is pretty much an exact copy of the page you more or less deleted. So, should the Altruism page mention this, and both pages redirect to altruism? Or should "The problem of love" redirect be moved to "Problem of love", or something else? The love table template points to Problem of love (the separate page). I thought propose a merger for the separate page into altruism. Any thoughts? --Bennybp 03:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you should go with your best instincts; be bold initially, but be eager to compromise with reasonable suggestions. And come get me if you need a tie-breaker or meet with unreasonable POV pushing (which the recreate suggests might be the case - smells of WP:COI). Just mostly be aware that if Wikipedia isn't fun, then you are doing it wrong. WAS 4.250 03:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: FYI
But it's also important to note Jimbo's own feelings on the matter as of now (ie - his is sole founder). Though this may not pass in a mainspace article, as it's his own user page sources aren't required. Jimbo has made it widely known in press releases and interviews that he considers himself the sole founder of wikipedia, citing Sanger as an employee, and I feel that is this is Jimbo's opinion, it should go freely on his user page. Thanks, Mart inp23 23:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Horizontal gene transfer
Hi, you reverted my edits. Why? I did explain them in the edit summaries. Regards, --194.145.161.227 23:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Guess you assumed this was another case of anonymous IP vandalism (that's not the first time this happens to me), but I think edit summaries should at least serve as the starting point of some form of conversation.--194.145.161.227 23:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * May I recommend that you break your edits into 3 groups: Today add data you wish to add (I doubt I'll revert sourced additions) 24 or so hours after that rewrite what you feel needs rewiting in the sources/footnotes/further reading (I didn't look carfully at those but I'm guessing we can easily come to an agreement there) then argue on the talk page for deletions you wish to make and I'll argue back and we'll get a third party to decide between our arguments. WAS 4.250 00:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The first group is unnecessary, because I added nothing new. As for the deletion of the quotes in the lead, I do agree that I needn't have deleted the bit about HGT being a new paradigm and having occurred among prokaryotes (although I still feel that concrete quotes are sort of awkward there and should generally be avoided in the lead, all the more so as the statements are just summaries of the info in the rest of the article). However, I think it's pretty obvious that the quote from the anti-GE essay is too long (especially for the lead) and that parts of it (talking about HGT as occurring among higher plants and animals, with bacteria and viruses "serving as intermediaries for gene trafficking") are inconsistent with the rest of the article and, apparently, with the mainstream state-of-the-art view. I'm sorry I can't spend a lot of time on Wikipedia discussing this. I'll repeat my edit to the footnotes, which you don't object to, presently. As for my edit to the lead, I will just post my (revised) version on the talk page and check in a day or two if you have any objections to it. --194.145.161.227 20:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy nominations
When nominating articles for speedy deletion, first make sure it fits one of the criteria for speedy deletion, and if so, please be sure to include a reason when using the delete tag. Often, it is better to use one of the more specific speedy deletion tags available here. thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, List of misconceptions does not quality for speedy deletion, and "take to AfD" is not a reason, that is a suggestion to you. If you think this page should be deleted, please follow the instructions at WP:AFD in order to do so. If you have trouble with the instructions, give me your reason that it should be deleted, and I'll post it for you. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Reasons can be found at Talk:List of misconceptions. WAS 4.250 17:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are discussions from months ago (and a previous AfD). If you want it deleted, start a new AfD (following procedures at WP:AFD) and provide you own, specific, reasoning. Let me know if I can help. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

COI
Let's take this to talk please -- I'll wait for you to reply to my remarks. Sdedeo (tips) 22:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read. WAS 4.250 22:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Careless" bot edits
You appear to be mistaking "uncategorised" (which the bot correctly tagged that article as, and which it still is), and "orphaned" (which it was not tagged as, and which which as you say, it is not). Feel free to revert your revert, or indeed to actually add an appropriate category. On user pages: see this reply. It's not my (or the bot's) fault if an uncategorised page in the article space is (correctly) tagged as such, and then userfied. Alai 01:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Reported your Discussion page deletions
I'm not 100% certain, but I think it's really bad form, if not a policy violation, to delete other people's comments on a Discussion page, as if they never existed. You left me little choice but to report you to the Admin Noticeboard. --MuscleJaw SobSki 16:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This user has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of MyWikiBiz/JossBuckle Swami. Gwernol 16:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz
You're very welcome. I'm glad he made it completely obvious through his anagramatic choice of username, since that made it a lot easier to spot :-) Gwernol 16:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop Referring FluTrackers as Spam
You are removing FluTrackers.com from pages related to Avain Flu. You are referring to FluTrackers.com as spam and this is entirely incorrect. FluTrackers.com, Inc is registered non-profit corporation that provides information on pandemic influenza and other infectious diseases. FluTrackers.com is used daily by people in over 100 countries and has members from the top health institutions in the world. - 66.166.91.226 15:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Jeremy


 * Placing a link in as many places as you can get away with is called spamming. That is what you did, so the terminology was correct. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a link farm. Further reading is provided to help our readers find additional information related to the article. Such further reading should itself be a good source of information and not be a copyright violation. FluTrackers.com is a blog with unreliable comments attatched to content copied there in violation of copyright laws. It is against policy to link to copyvio sites or blogs and FluTrackers.com is both in addition to your spamming it where it doesn't belong anyway. By the way, we now use nofollow. WAS 4.250 19:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * First, you are not a legal expert. Second, you claim that "It is against policy to link to copyvio sites or blogs...". Then if that is the case why is YouTube linked on Wiki? - 66.166.91.226


 * I don't have to be a legal expert to make decisions about what links to delete. We are taking down YouTube links. WAS 4.250 21:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Air purification system for H5N1
You reverted my contribution on the Brit air purification system, but: it is new and unique with worldwide patents (patent GB2415774); very important in being the only potential defence against H5N1 in public spaces; tested at 99.9999 percent protection at Porton Down, UK's leading virology testing centre - I can provide chapter and verse on what it does, and here is extract from patent:

A method and device for decontaminating air comprises passing contaminated air through a non thermal plasma filter 22, breaking down ozone output from the non thermal plasma filter 22 and introducing an aromatic hydrocarbon to react with residual ozone. The flow of air may be generated by a fan 30 adjacent to an inlet 14. Non thermal plasma filter 22 may be located in a flow passage 12 and may comprise alumina pelletised dielectric 38 sandwiched between a cathode 34 and anode 36 both being powered by a power supply unit (PSU) 40, which is housed in a compartment 18 adjacent the flow passage 12.

The ozone may be broken down using an ultraviolet radiation emitting device 24 comprising a UV light 42 powered by a further PSU 44 and an ozone catalysing device comprising a mesh 46 coated with a mixture of titanium, lead and manganese oxides disposed across the passage 12 and surrounds the UV light 42. The aromatic hydrocarbon may be a Terpene olefin such as Myrcene and is introduced into the passage 12 via an emitter 28 including a rechargeable reservoir 48, an evaporator 50 and a pump. The device may be mains or battery-powered, portable, decontaminates air in an open outside environment and may be driven in reverse so that it is self cleaning.

First part of extract was lost - should be:

A method and device for decontaminating air comprises passing contaminated air through a non thermal plasma filter 22, breaking down ozone output from the non thermal plasma filter 22 and introducing an aromatic hydrocarbon to react with residual ozone. The flow of air may be generated by a fan 30 adjacent to an inlet 14. Non thermal plasma filter 22 may be located in a flow passage 12 and may comprise alumina pelletised dielectric 38 sandwiched between a cathode 34 and anode 36 both being powered by a power supply unit (PSU) 40, which is housed in a compartment 18 adjacent the flow passage 12.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patrea (talk • contribs) 09:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC).


 * "the only potential defence against H5N1 in public spaces" is not true. When such a statement is made by WHO or CDC or the like then I'll believe it, and then it would be encyclopedia worthy material for being a unique solution to a real problem. If and when it is manufactered in huge volune, then it is encyclopedic for that reason alone whether it works or not. As of now it is simply assertions looking for funding and they are trying to generate buzz. Wikipedia is not the place for that. WAS 4.250 18:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of the Original Research tag from Criticism of Microsoft
Hi, I noticed you revert my OR tag. I added some discussion about it in the talk page. Please review and discuss the tagging there before you revert again. This is not about how well referenced it is, this is about how much in unreferenced and how much is lacking is the sense of aggregating sources which are specifically about criticism of microsoft, not just criticisms of microsoft. --TrollHistorian 04:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)