Jump to content

User talk:Benbest/Archive2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


70.28.213.166/Glass report on WP:RFI

I'm not sure why you couldn't edit the page then, but the vandalism was reverted by someone else. For future reference you might be interested in this portal, a guide to cleaning up vandalism. Feel free to ask my more questions on my talk page. Cheers, Petros471 17:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Censorship

A revised version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 11:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


Monobook problems

Hi Ben, right I'm not expert on this and so I can't help that much. My monobook seems to work more by luck than judgement! Right the probelm with the Interiot Tool, first. Try going to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js and see fi that works, that may be your problem. If that does not work, I'm not quite sure what to suggest, as you monobook contains the same code as me. Are you saying the popups don't work either? If that's the case I'm not sure what to say. You ought to leave Lupin a message and see what response you get. Feel free to try copying the rest of my Monobook.js and you could look at my monobook.css as well. You may find some fo the other functions etc. handy. Let me know if that works. --Wisden17 16:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Revisions

Thanks. Now that page looks great! Now I guess I'll call off the merge. Freddie 01:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Testing talk comment

Test, test, this is a test! --Ben Best 13:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Another test of the talk page

AGAIN I AM TESTING. Test, test, test, test. --Ben Best 13:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity what are you testing? How are things going? Petros471 14:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I was testing the reply box at the top, which I copied and modified from another user. --Ben Best 16:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:CI Facility.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CI Facility.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I've created a list to support the development of the subject area of life extension on the 'pedia, and since you are a major contributor to the main article on life extension, I was wondering if I could get your valuable feedback on it. Specifically, is the scope of the list right on, too narrow, or too broad? What would be the best approach to develop the list further? Also, you know a great deal about life extension and could no doubt spot gaps and missing topics that should be added to the list. Please have a look. --Transhumanist 18:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD

The List of life extension-related topics has been nominated for deletion. --Transhumanist 18:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Annotating the items on the list with a brief explanation of how they pertain to life extension would build value into the list that could not be replicated in the category system. --Transhumanist 22:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Life extension category

Are you familiar with creating categories? It would be a lot of work, but it would have a similar result as your list. I could help a little, if required. --Ben Best 20:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. My initial thought is that we should let the list grow for awhile, and then when it is sufficiently extensive, I could make a copy and have you put abbreviation codes next to the items you think should be tagged with the life extension category or one of its subcategories. Letting the list grow first will expose the relevant sub-categories which should also be created (and which the codes will stand for). Once the work list is coded, then all we'd have to do is click on the entries marked for a particular code and paste the corresponding category tag to the bottom of those pages. A comprehensive list will make this task a lot easier, and will help prevent accidentally opening articles for tagging that have already been tagged, because we can replace the code with a #-mark once they have been tagged. Without a working list, we would have to use category pages to monitor progress and navigate the subject while constructing the category tree, which is a real pain in the ass. When we're ready, we could create from the working list sublists for each category, strip those down to bare text link lists, and then feed them into Wikipedia's Auto wiki browser. Are you registered for using AWB? If not, you should sign up. That wikipedia-editor is quite powerful. In the meantime it wouldn't hurt to create the life extension category and tag the most prominent LE pages to it. --Transhumanist 21:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, what categories is Life Extension a sub-category of? Health, Life, and Gerontology come to mind. Can you think of any others? --Transhumanist 21:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I pulled the cats off the main article and slapped them on the catpage. --Transhumanist 22:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Okay, I've created Category:Life extension and Category:Life extension lists. After adding the few most prominent links, we should switch our focus to building the LE topic list. --Transhumanist 22:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Created Category:Life extensionists. If you think of any others, let me know. --Transhumanist 22:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


After letting the matter stew awhile, I've come to the conclusion that since you are exceptionally knowledgeable in one or more fields, the value of your time contribution to Wikipedia would be greatest if you focused your donated time on contributing content to articles and applying your scholastic acumen to proofreading articles for factual accuracy. Also, if your awareness of the best resources on the web for your fields is high, then providing links to those where appropriate would also be highly advantageous to the readers of Wikipedia. Having you do mundane editing chores like page tagging would be at the cost of foregoing the application of your expertise. Therefore my advice is to leave the mindless rote tasks to the wikignomes. --Transhumanist 17:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Your ariticle on Wikipedia

I just discovered your article on Wikipedia. I'm impressed. I should have included that link on the AfD!

I added your article to Category:Life extensionists, and have redirected the page User:Ben Best to your user page.

You should probably Special:Userlogin and create an account with your proper name, for personal security. You wouldn't someone to impersonate you with the proper spelling of your own name. Then do an edit or two with the new account, so that it won't get purged in the upcoming empty user contributions accounts sweep (a policy is being decided on to remove all unused accounts that have zero edits). --Transhumanist 23:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

New account User:Ben Best

I have created the new account Ben Best at the suggestion of User:Transhumanist in order to prevent someone else from taking my identity. User:Transhumanist has already kindly re-directed User:Ben Best to User:Benbest. --Ben Best 06:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you are represented as yourself on Wikipedia, rather than via a pseudonym, you might consider moving your page User:Benbest to User:Ben Best, and log on henceforth using your new account name. Ben Best is your name, and comes across more professionally than Benbest. Anyone visiting the Benbest page would be redirected to your new user page. In the case that your edit count or contributions become an issue, for instance if you were nominated to be an admin, you would simply include a reference link to your old account's contribution record. --''--Transhumanist'' 19:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Another useful suggestion. Thank you. I will look at doing this shortly, but am at the moment a bit too busy to be spending much time with Wikipedia. I added a few names to the category of "life extensionists" and removed the "biogerontologist" category on the grounds that several on that list are decidedly not life extensionists. You can easily expand on the number of people in that category, a number of obvious candidates were not included. But at least now I am not the ONLY person in the category. Thinking about what subjects to include under the category "life extension" reinforces the value of your List of life extension-related topics precisely because so many of the topics in that list decidedly should NOT be in Category:Life extension! In my mind, nearly all of the topics in the list do not belong in the category. Maximum life span, for example, is a subject of critical interest to life extension, but does not fit well in the category. Ditto for most other things on the list starting with Accelerated aging disease. (Thanks for adding that subject, by the way. I have just made a few modifications and am resisting the temptation to do more. But I am preparing for a conference and will not have much time for Wikipedia in the next couple of weeks. --Ben Best 11:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

==Dummy edit by a Dummy==

I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms

Tobacco smoking

Do you know anything about tobacco farm subsidies, and the changing laws regarding them? I thought it might be a good addition to the Tobacco smoking article. --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know about that subject. --Ben Best 06:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Re sockpuppet suspicions

I have asked CopOnTheBeat and Freezer Man whether they have been making edits under more than one username. I'd like to see their response. Sometimes people just forget their password and sign up a new account for that or whatever reason, and since these accounts are fairly new, I'd like to assume good faith first.

Regarding the Ben Best article, I understand that it can be frustrating to see other people make edits about you that you don't like. You aren't the first to be somewhat stressed up over it. My advice, for what it's worth, is to try and not take the article so seriously at every point in time. Articles evolve and change. I don't know anything about you and your work, but I'm sure the article will still be here in 10 years, and then looking rather different. It will be a needless waste of energy and frustration for you to watch over it as long as you live. Please do make comments on talk if blatant errors should creep in, but I believe that taking some time off in watching it and discussing every detail in it will do you good. But it's of course easy for me to say. I know. Shanes 04:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, concerns and help Shanes. I realize that it is difficult for others not as familiar with the evidence to see the consistancy of single individual behind multiple sockpuppets and it is too ambitious for me to attempt to explain the reasons. And my request was somewhat off the mark as well as overly ambitious. Off the mark because Freezer Man was simply a replacement for CRANdieter, the former taking over where the latter began, as you can see from the edit history [1],[2],[3]. What is more relevant and more focused grounds for banning is the fact that you and I have given warning to Freezer Man to stop making personal attacks (Talk:Ben_Best#Please_stop_the_harassment) and I have given the same warning at Talk:Ben_Best#Some_.22hands_off.22_policy.21.21.21 and the attacks have continued, most undeniably by Freezer Man at Talk:Ben_Best#Some_.22hands_off.22_policy.21.21.21. Sock puppet deniability would provide grounds for considering CopOnTheBeat to be not the same person as Freezer Man and for CopOnTheBeat to not have been present when you issued your Talk:Ben_Best#Please_stop_the_harassment. But Freezer Man has been identifiably, repeatedly and undeniably warned to stop personal attack and that this is in violation of Wikipedia policy -- and yet has continued to engage in personal attack. I believe that this is grounds for Freezer Man to be banned. If others engage in personal attack after having been warned, they should also be banned, whether or not they are sock puppets of the same individual.
Yes, it is disturbing when a family of sock puppets from one individual -- or when several people -- use a biography and the associated TALK page as a vehicle for personal attack. Meaning especially disturbing to me when I am the target. The Ben Best page is certainly very different from what I would like. I have not edited it since June, but I see nothing wrong with providing corrections and additional information on the Talk:Ben_Best page -- or on the User TALK page of those who I sense are interested in creating a factually correct article about me. Hypocritically, Freezer Man DEMANDED on Talk:Ben_Best that I provide information about my education [4], and I accommodated his request. Yes, I can accept the Ben Best entry not being what I would like, but surely you can see that intentional personal attack and vandalism deserves to be dealt with, and that it is of especial concern to me when it is directed against me personally. --Ben Best 09:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand. What I can do is to courtesy blank the Ben Best talk page. Either completely or just the parts that are off topic to the article content. I could do that now, or I can wait a a few days until things have calmed more down. What I'd like is to cause the least amount of fuss and commotion as that is clearly for the best for all parts. As for the vandalism, I can't see there's been any vandalism to the article for a while. Either way, If you feel I'm being too slow and would like quicker action here, you can file for a Request for comments and get more people and administrators involved. But I do suspect that will just cause more arguing and not solve this as quickly as a more calmer approach might. Shanes 10:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Shanes, but "courtesy blanking" Talk:Ben_Best removes documentation of the history of personal attack. This should be prominent evidence for you or others who may take an interest in the matter. I still think there is ample evidence for banning Freezer Man, who has been warned against personal attack yet continued. However, if you want to wait a few days for whatever reason, that's fine. I am disturbed, but not traumatized by these attacks. I can be patient although I doubt that it will do any good. This campaign began in June and patience has not yielded much change in the situation. --Ben Best 11:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
If I blank it, it will still be there in the talk-page history. It will just be less accessible for the casual reader who comes to the article and then clicks the talk page link. Blanking of bio-talk pages are sometimes done when its content can be seen as libelous and hurting the subject of the article. Anyway, Freezer man hasn't edited for a few days. When and if he returns I'd like to see his response to the sockpuppet suspicion and maybe get a clearer idea of what his motivations for editing here are. If I'm convinced he's just here to cause trouble, I'll block him right away. Thanks for being this patient. Shanes 11:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Freezer Man has shown a great capacity not only for persistance, but for patience in his attacks. I feel it is important to answer accusations because failure to do so can support the view that the accusations have substance. Therefore I have just answered Freezer Man's accusation that I have engaged in childish deception. I have tried to do so in a way that is purely defensive and which does not involve counterattack. --Ben Best 15:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of sock puppetry on the Ben Best page

As someone who has edited the Ben Best page recently, you may have been aware of the allegations of sock puppetry. As this has continued for six weeks now, I have started the appropriate Wikipedia handling process. If you wish to make a contribution, please go to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CRANdieter and add your views to the Comments section. Nunquam Dormio 13:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you Nunquam Dormio for your efforts. I will add a note. --Ben Best 14:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

help with PLS

I don't know if you can help me or if this is the right place to contact you. My mother has PLS, the motor neuron disease, the slower moving version of ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease. Is there anything that you know of that could cause the motor neurons to not work in some areas. She is 69 years old. She has had silver fillings in the past. She has used anti-perspirants in the past with the aluminum stuff in them. She has had one of those homeopathic magnetic beds and pillows that she slept on for many years. Is there anything physics or magnetism related that would raise a red flag in causing motor neuron failure that you can think of? The doctors have no treatment and I am just shooting in the dark asking people anything I can. Novice thinking, magnetism=positive and negative. Nerves and electrons signals = positive and negative. Can this cause a body's electrical system to get messed up? If so, how can you fix it?

any possible direction to send me would be appreciated, if I am in the wrong place. Thanks Cary Harris cary.harris@verizon.net I hope this is how to contact you.

Sorry, I am not qualified to diagnose and treat diseases. --Ben Best 23:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Cd vs Zn

About being cadmium rather than zinc, I know both both form d10 ions but Cd is more broad minded an element than zinc. Being an inorganic chemist who has worked with both zinc and cadmium chemistry (plus much of the rest of the periodic table) I decided that Cd was more fun than Zn.Cadmium

Well I would reason that Cd is more broad minded than Hg as Cd binds well to both hard (O) and soft (S) donor atoms, while Hg++ does not bind that well to the harder donors. Also Hg is complicated by those werido effects due to the fact that some of the electrons are wizzing almost at light speed. I know that Hg does form a "+1" oxidation state but that is oftein [Hg2]++ which is not a simple ion, I would like to know what the UV-PES of the Hg2++ ion is like. Are both mercurys in the +1 oxidation state or is one +2 and the other zero valent ? I have not looked up the PES data for Hg2++ but maybe I should. Are you a chemist ? as you seem to know something about chemicals.Cadmium

Good point the PES page is mostly about XPS, I hold the view that XPS is less interesting than UV-PES. This is becuase using other methods such as XRF and SEM/EDX it is possible to get details of what elements are in a sample, but PES has a special ability to measure the binding energy of the electrons in the valence orbitials. I think that a better example of PES showing if two environments for the same element are present in the same system should be used for the PES page. Perhapes thiosulphate (known as hypo which is used as a fixer in AgBr based photography) would be a better example.Cadmium

Bruce Klein

Hey there Ben. Not sure if you care or not, but I thought I would bring to your attention the proposed deletion of a page of a fellow cryonicist Bruce Klein, in case you felt one way or another on his page deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bruce_Klein Just fyi. Later man. (Cardsplayer4life 04:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC))

Eicosanoid Peer Review

I've asked for Peer review for Eicosanoid. Since you've contributed to many of the related pages, I'd appreciate your input. David.Throop 00:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Aubrey de Grey photo authorized.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Aubrey de Grey photo authorized.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Aubrey de Grey harassment

I don't know if it is of any interest to you, but Aubrey de Grey has been the subject of some persistent harassment by IP 130.63.242.219. Would you suggest a block? I don't know much about the rules for doing this or whether it is appropriate for this situation. --Ben Best 07:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

We must assume he made the edits in good faith (WP:AGF). He may have spotted what he believed was an inaccuracy in the article and naturally wanted to fix it, and he may have been unaware of more up-to-date sources of information on the subject. Also, he may be new to Wikipedia, so please keep in mind that he may be experiencing frustration that his edits are being reverted. He also may not know that in order to keep Wikipedia running smoothly, we have a rule (WP:3RR) that nobody should revert more than 3 edits on the same page within a 24-hour period (continued violations may result in the violator being blocked). Otherwise Wikipedia would degenerate into anarchy. Be sure to welcome him to Wikipedia, and let him know in a friendly manner that you are more than willing to discuss his desired changes on the article's talk page, and that if he has any questions about how Wikipedia works, that you will be happy to explain anything he is unsure about. It's important not to take a defensive tone with new users. Strive for empathy, openess, and friendly cooperation. It can be rather traumatic for new users to be scolded and have a bunch of rules shortcuts flung at them. So be personable, and help acclimatize new contributors to Wikipedia. Please follow Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers carefully. If after being extended every courtesy he decides to disregard his fellow editors and be disruptive, report further violations of 3RR at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. I hope you find my comments helpful. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 11:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Your comments would be appropriate if the edits were neutral. Perhaps you did not read the content of the edits. They were determinedly derogatory: both factually incorrect and designed to present facts in the most negative possible light. --Ben Best 17:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I read the edits carefully. It appears he believes what he has been writing, though his facts are a bit out of date. He may feel that the article is skewed from the opposite perspective (written to present facts in the most positive possible light). And because of this he may not understand that POV edits are unacceptable, nor why. Or he may just be what you've suspected from the start: a vandal or a troll. You should still try to be nice to the guy. Please read Wikipedia:Don't feed the trolls. Treat others with the utmost kindess and civility. Any wrong they do in the face of such treatment will be amplified ten-fold in contrast to your cordiality. Don't let him rile you up. The Transhumanist 22:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Reperfusion

What do you know about this topic:

Docs Change the Way They Think About Death

The Transhumanist 00:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have done a great deal of investigation of this topic. One notable example:
Quantifying Ischemic Damage for Cryonics Rescue
--Ben Best 03:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my mistake

Ooops [6]. My bad [7]. Thanks for fixing my mistake! --Kralizec! (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. Thanks for your thanks. --Ben Best 01:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


Little context in Cryostasis

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Cryostasis, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Cryostasis is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Cryostasis, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 17:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid repeating internal links in articles and definitely avoid adding links already in the text, especially prominent ones, to the see also section. See WP:SEE ALSO. Cheers. Richard001 04:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Long time no see

Nice to bump into you on the LEF deletion debate.

By the way, I just started a stub on William Faloon. If you know of any 3rd-party reliable sources, please provide them in the article or on its talk page.

Writing the article from sources, rather than off the top of our heads, should prevent annoying AfD nominations.

The Transhumanist 01:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to see that you saw the LEF debate and added more than your two cents. Thanks. Citing me as an authority, however, is a little embarrassing. I was worried that it might lead to some embarrassing challenges, but it hasn't. The discussion has died, but I don't see how the page can be deleted given the comments. Yes, finding reliable third-party sources is a challenge, both for the LEF page and for the William Faloon page. I have sent an e-mail to Bill about this, but he has not replied to me. -- Ben Best (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you will not be offended that I reverted your change of a link to a redirect that substituted a piped link. The reason is that links to redirects that are not broken are acceptable under Wikipedia policies and guidelines on redirects and links; specifically, editors are encouraged not to change them per WP:REDIRECT: Do not change links to redirects that are not broken. One of the advantages of links to redirects, such as [[water softeners]], is that they are generally simpler and easier to edit than piped links, such as [[water softening|water softeners]]. - Neparis (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not offended, Neparis, and I will try to remember this. -- Ben Best (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Maximum Lifespan

Ben,

Please see what I wrote in "Purpose of this article" in the Maximum Lifespan one. Antioxidants have already been proven on 3 occasions to increase maximum lifespan. You are the most indicated to change the article itself.


Harman: Three antioxidants have now been reported to increase the maximum life span. One is the simple compound 2-mercaptoethanol; this is very similar to 2-MEA except that there is a hydroxyl (OH) group in place of the amine (NH2) group. Unfortunately it has an unpleasant odor.

Passwater: That means it works! If people would understand the value of the sulfur and selenium compounds, they would appreciate the odor. I keep running into people who don't take N-acetylcysteine (NAC) or sulfur-containing amino acids because they have strong odors. Even the health food pioneers appreciated the value of these odorous sulfur compounds. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.

Harman: Dr. Emanuel and his associates in Moscow claimed that two pyridine compounds increased both the average and maximum life spans of mice by about 20 percent


Ben you can find the scientific abstracts on the net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.157.153.206 (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You should provide citations yourself if you want to support your contentions. --Ben Best (talk) 05:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Here are the references for the 3 proven antioxidant chemical species that have increased MAXIMUM LIFESPAN:

38. Heidrick, M. L., Hendricks, L. C. & Cook, D. E. (1984) Mech. Ageing Dev. 27, 341-358. 39. Emanuel, N. M. (1976) Q. Rev. Biophys. 9, 283-308. 40. Emanuel, N. M., Duburs, G., Obukhov, L. K. & Uldrikis, J. (1981) Chem. Abstr. 94, 9632a (abstr.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.157.153.206 (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Engineered negligible senescence

Hi Benbest, I noticed that you've contributed to the article "Engineered negligible senescence". I have proposed that the article be renamed and moved to "Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence". I'd like to get your view on this. You can voice your opinion here. Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for reverting a bit of mindless abuse on my talk page. You might be interested in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#About 400 links to the two sites of one individual. I suspect that this is the same person who used sock puppets to attack you Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CRANdieter a while back. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems the troll had a go at you merely because you reverted his go at me! I'm glad to see he was blocked almost immediately. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

William Godwin

I see you have added some material to William Godwin - thank you! I was wondering if you would be interested in doing a substantial rewrite of the article and taking it to featured article? It is part of a larger Mary Wollstonecraft featured topic that I have been working on. All of Wollstonecraft's works are now featured and some of the biographies. Godwin will be a big project - care to help? Awadewit (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

aquaporins help !!!

Dear Sir, I’m an italian medicine student who is making a work about aquaporins. I’m looking for this article: Gonen T, Walz T (2006). "The structure of aquaporins". Q. Rev. Biophys. 39 (4): 361–96. doi:10.1017/S0033583506004458. PMID 17156589. I’ve found that you made reference to this article in Wikipedia, and so I hope that you’ll can help me to find it and send it to me, or other articles about this topic.... please help me!!! Please contact me here in Wikipedia, I'll give you my e-mail address Thank you so much Paola —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleiade (talk • contribs) 09:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I have access to this article at the moment. If I had a hard

copy I have either disposed of it or I want to keep it. --Ben Best (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Multiplier effect

Oops--thanks for fixing that bad link I put in, I obviously wasn't paying enough attention. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I am glad this won't be an "edit war". I still think that the external link I had to Investopedia site was helpful, and I would like to restore it. --Ben Best (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know that Investopedia is a good source. It might be. Mostly, I think that something like that should be internal to WP. Your edit comment made it sound like going to Investopedia was a kinda POV-fork, rather than correcting another article. Is this what you have a problem with? CRETOG8(t/c) 21:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Good work. That is a better wikilink, so I have not only used in for the ABCT page, I have made it the redirect target for multiplier effect -- in place of the Keynesian spending multiplier. Let's see if I get into an "edit war" over this. Thanks again. -- Ben Best (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Right on. Hmm, I wonder if "multiplier effect" should be a disambig page instead, since there are different kinds of multipliers. I'll put it on my list of things to maybe do sometime. CRETOG8(t/c) 22:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
A disambiguation page would be overkill when there are only two uses of the term. I have created notices for the other meaning on each of the pages targeted by multiplier effect and spending multiplier -- giving precedence to the banking interpretation rather than the Keynesian one. We can see how long this will last. --Ben Best (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Right on. I tweaked the "otheruses" in Spending multiplier to send to the entire Fractional-reserve banking article. That seems a bit better to me. It also appears that money multiplier redirects to money creation, which has pretty much the same stuff. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

trouble with glass transition

Hi Ben. Maybe you could in the next couple of days have a look at glass transition. User:Logger9 has an ownership issue with that lemma; he has dumped lots of material that appears to me largely off-topic. Best regards, Paula Pilcher (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a question for you...

Is "anti-aging medicine" the same thing as "life extension"?

The Transhumanist 23:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think "life extension" is a bit broader than "anti-aging medicine". Looking both ways when you cross the street might extend your life, but it isn't medicine. Thanks for undoing some of the damage done by User:Keepcalmandcarryon -- Ben Best (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Reversion

Hello, Ben. Thank you for your suggestion at Aubrey de Grey. Please feel free to request additional reversions of my past edits or to make them on your own if you like. Cheers! Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Minor edits have to be *really* minor

In general, edits have to be really very minor indeed to count as minor (see Help:Minor edit) - adding a link, as this edit does, is usually above that threshold so best not to tick the box in those instances. Cheers! ciphergoth (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected. --Ben Best (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hydrates - clathrate section

Hi. Could I ask you to look again at Hydrate, to which you added a paragraph about clathrates on September 9. I have now combined this with an older (Oct.2005) paragraph about clathrates to make a separate clathrate section. More editing is needed, but first I have two questions which I have placed at Talk: Hydrate. If you can help, it is probably best to answer there so that others can see the discussion on the relevant page. Thanks. Dirac66 (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

/* Font size for MATH "<math>" */

{{helpme}} I have gotten no help or response to the question I posted to the Help Desk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Font_size_for_MATH_.22.22 so please HELP --Ben Best (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Almost always when a help desk question languishes that is a very strong indication that no one knows he answer one way or the other. I saw your question there and hadn't a clue. I suggest you try your post at a different forum. Maybe the coders and developers who hang out at WP:VPT will have an answer for you, or you might even try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics since I would think the participants there have occasion to use the code often.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
make readable --Ben Best (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:TK Donaldson 27Oct90 London.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:TK Donaldson 27Oct90 London.JPG. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

    • Why was the "no copyright holder" tag applied to this image with the questions:
  • Who created this image?
  • Who holds the copyright to this image?
  • Where did this image come from?


when all of these questions were specifically answered in the tag I applied to the image, which states "Private photo taken-by and owned-by former Alcor Life Extension Foundation President Mike Darwin who sent the photo to me requesting that it be used as the photo for Dr. Donaldson's Wikipedia page." --Ben Best (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, that much is fine then. However, the copyright holder needs to have given permission for the image to be used under the given Creative Commons license, and a confirmation e-mail is needed (see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials). —innotata 16:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:TK Donaldson 27Oct90 London.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:TK Donaldson 27Oct90 London.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for an independent edit

Dear Ben,

You are one of the experts in biogerontology and aging research and expert in wikipedia editing. Can I ask you for an independent review and edit of a wiki entry on Aging Portfolio - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_Portfolio , which was tagged as "advertising" by one of the wiki editors? I believe that the editor tagged the entry as "advertising" without looking at references, since the system is non-profit, open access and was presented at several scientific conferences including BSRA 2011 and SENS.

This entry is based on http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21799912 and the system is constantly evolving with the help of many volunteer category editors.

Regards, Sequencepro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sequencepro (talk • contribs) 02:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Lactamide

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Lactamide, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Lactamide.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is a substantial copy from Wiktionary, which is probably copied by thefreedictionary. I created it as a stub in the hope of getting something more substantial.

Request for an independent assessment

Given your extensive editing experience regarding aging and rejuvenation, I was hoping you could take a look at the Wikipedia article for the journal of Rejuvenation Research. Although I am a biologist who does not study aging, I recently read the article and felt that it did not portray the journal fairly and objectively. I feel that the article has an anti-rejuvenation feel and does not give Rejuvenation Research the academic credit it deserves as a peer-reviewed, scientific publication (which I feel publishes quality work). I was hoping you could read over the article and give it an independent assessment, as you would likely be more qualified to judge this than I would. Looking forward to hearing from you. SattvaBodhi (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. I am not an "objective source" on this matter, because I have had articles published in REJUVENATION RESEARCH and have attended all of Dr. de Grey's conferences in Cambridge University. I acknowledge that Dr. de Grey takes the extreme view of wanting to extend human life and having strategies to achieve this. Those who do not like his views tend to dismiss his science, but I do not think that there is a good basis for doing so. The science in the journal is sound and peer-reviewed. --Ben Best 15:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited CCL11, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eotaxin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited MFGE8, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Medin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Society for Venturism

Hello, Benbest,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Society for Venturism should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for Venturism .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, dci | TALK 01:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements

Just one note "see also" section are not recommended per WP:MEDMOS and definitely should not contain elements already in the text. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited PINK1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parkin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was unintended. I have now fixed it. Thanks. --Ben Best 12:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Project Help

Hello Benbest. I am a student in this graduate-level course. My project is to work to hopefully get an article to good article status, and I have chosen mTORC1 as my article. I am at the phase where I am supposed to elicit responses and saw that you have previously made some edits to the mTOR wikipedia page. If you have any input to the article, that would be great. If not, that is okay as well. Flemingrjf (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cyst, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SAC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alpha Delta Phi may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[Category:Organizations established in 1832

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited VSS Enterprise, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Subsonic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Benbest/Archive2&oldid=864038743"