User talk:David D./archive7

——————————————— TALK: DAVID D. ————————————— Welcome. (Contributions) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Current Talk

BevNet

I haven't found the quote on their website yet, but I have heard from multiple sources (including in person from an executive at XS) the same quote. I sent a quote request to Bev Net, to verify it with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barwick (talk • contribs)

Account

No problem, will get one now

RfB With A Smile :)

NEW ROSALIND FRANKLIN Portrait Uploaded

We see you do not have a picture for the Rosalind Franklin article. We are artists, and have uploaded a newly painted portrait of Rosalind Franklin onto http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Rosalind_Franklin_DNA.jpg. and would be delighted for you to use it on this page.

We have made this new artwork available in the public domain and would like to link it to Rosalind Franklin pages and DNA History pages. If someone can give us a hand to do this we would be most grateful. We work in the art/science arena, and use our art to celebrate Frankln's achievements. Thank you very much. November 10, 2006

One more vote for the coordinator of the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject

Since two of the three editors nominated for Coordinator of the MCB Wikiproject declined their nominations, one more vote has been posted: should the remaining nominee, ClockworkSoul, be named as the coordinator, or should nominations be reopened? Every opinion counts, so please vote! – ClockworkSoul 17:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your early support. Results are at Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins#Durova. Warmly, Durova 21:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You David

Thank you, the new image code on Cademuir is just excellent! It really fits to the template; as this template entry is labeled "Logo", I got a question: Shall I better use a photo like here or a logo like there? And do you have any idea to fix the font size bug? --Lazer erazer 10:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• By the way, isn't frame better than thumb? (because of the line breaking window symbol) --Lazer erazer 10:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Hi again, I got a third idea: I recently discovered a bug when using a line break inside the motto variable causing the fat text no longer to be fat... a solution? --Lazer erazer 10:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

PrivateEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)and Rootology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. No action is taken against MONGO for any excessive zeal he has displayed. Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it. Users who insert links to Encyclopædia Dramatica or who copy material from it here may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. Care should be taken to warn naive users before blocking. Strong penalties may be applied to those linking to or importing material which harasses other users.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, FloNight 02:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A humble request for your opinion

Hello! I hope you are feeling fine. Recently, you expressed an oppose opinion with regards to my RfA. I would like to thank your feedback on this but I need another critical feedback from you. If you could spare a few minutes to voice any concerns you may be having with regards to my contributions to this project since my last RfA on this page, I would be most grateful. Once again, thank you for your time! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Cademuir

Thanks a lot for weighing in. I don't want to WP:BITE the well-intentioned young wikipedian who has made great efforts to improve the article, but I feel this could be a tricky article unless we keep a close eye on it, for all sorts of reasons. Thanks again. --Guinnog 22:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Galloway

David, You left a message on my talk page. I am on a Wikibreak, as I noted on my talk page, so I haven't been my checking messages. Thanks for correcting Jeff Galloway's birthdate. Sorry for the late reply, but I am on a break. Thank you for helping on Wiki. I don't have time to help right now, so I appreciate folks who keep the ball rolling. Take care, KarateLadyKarateLady 13:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "personal agenda" ?

Dear David D, What do you mean by "personal agenda" ? I do not see that consulting the results of the NORVIT trial consist of "original research". And what is wrong with including the results of "original research" in my edits on Wikipedia? Do you contend that this runs counter to the Wikipedia policy ? The edit concerning the Journal of Naturopathic Medicine was made after I receieved an email from Dr. Barrett confirming what I say. Does writing to Dr. Barrett to confirm a point constitute an unacceptable type of "original research" which cannot be used on the Wikipedia website ? May I respectfully ask you not to interfere with my edits unless you can show then to invalid ? I strongly feel that my edits should be included on the Wikipedia site until Dr. Barrett appropriately edits his website. He has not so far replied to an email I sent him about folic acid. I must ask you once again not to interfere with any edits I make unless you can fault them on a factual basis. Yours sincerly, Robert2957.

Robert, look at the article critical of quackwatch and Barrett by Kauffman. He makes many specific criticisms of Barrett's articles, and others, but they are not discussed in detail. That is the level of critque that is expected for these articles.

With respect to your persoanl agenda, you seem agrieved by the fact you were misled by Barrett's web site and now you wish to bring this example to light. Wikipedia is not the forum for such criticism. It would be much better if you started a blog or a myspace type web page. David D. (Talk) 18:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You are Smart!

I have a riddle for you. Is the joke up?

Do you think 6317 and Yankees76 is the same person who is just faving fun?

It is very easy to log in and out of an account. You are good. Thanks for your contributions.

Are you willing to prove that accusation? This is a very serious allegation your leveling here. I'm more than willing to have Wikipedia perform a WP:RFCU. It would be a smart move on your part not to continue in this line of thought. Yankees76 23:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Influenza

Page now nominated as a FAC. Comments and suggestions are welcome on the review page. Thank you. TimVickers 16:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. I changed "non-living" to "non-cellular" and added a wikilink to cell (biology). By the way, I discovered Viroids when I was reading about this, strange indeed! TimVickers 23:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent plan. Viroids are indeed strange. I suppose a little like plasmids in bacteria. Are they alive? Harder to justify when they never have a free 'living' form. Or does conjugation count as transiently free living? Who knows. David D. (Talk) 03:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Biological Value

Hey David - I hate to drag you in to this again, but a third party comment is needed over on the BV article. Thanks. Yankees76 13:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. 63.17.71.66 19:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This month's winner is proteasome!

– ClockworkSoul 22:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your comments on the schools talk page

Hi David D.,

Thanks for your comments on the schools talk page. I'm not gonna reply.. not 'cause I'm ignoring you, but 'cause I honestly don't know what to say.

Cheers!--Ling.Nut 06:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem, it takes a while to process all the information and figure out how far to compromise from your original position. David D. (Talk) 16:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Cork

You noted that I started a campaign for city articles to be name only. That is true, with one critical caveat: when there is no significant ambiguity issue with another subject sharing the same name. In the case of Cork, there is clearly a significant ambiguity issue with another subject sharing the same name. Thus, no irony. --Serge 15:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

OK i had not read your caveat before this. Sorry for the irony comment. David D. (Talk) 16:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Date links

No thought or judgement is going into any of Hmains' decisions; he is just killing every date link he sees on sight. I see no reason why I should respond otherwise. Rebecca 23:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. I truly get tired of Rebecca presuming to know what I think and presuming I do not think about what I edit. The fact is, I draw difference conclusions than she does. There is no requirement that all WP editors think the same on this or other subjects. Hmains 06:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You expressed an interest in contributing to User:Guinnog/date_linking. Would you like to do that now? --Guinnog 10:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. There is work to be done on the talk page mainly. Best wishes. --Guinnog 01:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: The Final Sprint

David, as it appears you are involved, I have been asked to anonymously state the Complete Running (www.completerunning.com) does not affiliate itself with The Final Sprint page thank you.

I think you'll find that has already been deleted. David D. (Talk) 01:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually i don't think it was ever in that page? Is there something else you are referring to? Possibly the letsrun.com page? David D. (Talk) 01:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

EssjayBot III

I've set the bot up with the template you provided; please check this diff to be sure everything worked correctly. If you ever need to make any changes to the setup, please let me know on my talk page. And as always, thank you for shopping EssjayBot. ;) Essjay (Talk) 16:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That's great , I appreciate it. David D. (Talk) 23:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

bioenergetics

Thanks for the lol ;-) Perhaps it's a difference in fields (your talk page seems to indicate you're into molecular and cellular biology, whereas I'm much more of a behaviour/ecology guy) but I myself can't really say I've come across the term bioenergetics too much. Granted, I haven't seen it called biological thermodynamics either, hehe. At the organismal scale it usually just seems to be called energetics as far as I can remember, or even be lumped into some term like eco-physiology. I take it this isn't the case in cellular bio? The problem I see with making bioenergetics the main page for this subject is that it will surely continue to be infiltrated by bioenergetic analysis stuff. How about if we did the following instead?

bioenergetics --> disambiguation page, branch to bioenergetic analysis and biological thermodynamics (or even this same page under the title "bioenergetics (biology)" to distinguish it from the disambiguation page). bioenergetic analysis --> have an Otheruses4 link on top, to bioenergetics (biology) or biological thermodynamics bioenergetics (biology) (or BT) --> inverse Otheruses4, linking to bioenergetics analysis.

Hmmm, complicated. Let me know what you think.

--BadLeprechaun 16:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey David D - thanks, first for cleaning up a typo on my user page and second for the vote of confidence in the edit comment. I appreciate that you understand my intentions even though we have different views on the subject. By the way, feel free to jump into the discussion that I'm having with Ronald Deschain on my talk page - it isn't corollary to any particular edits but it should prove interesting. Roland is really good about keeping a level head so it is easy to discuss matters with him, and I think the same is true for you. I would like your input on the discussion on my talk page if you would like to give it. standonbible^Talk! 18:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Cork argument

You wrote: "My primary reason for voting oppose was that the plan for the move was very premature. The proposer had not laid out a strong enough argument and previous arguments had not been referencd." The argument "the proposer" had laid out was:

Neither the Irish city nor the material is clearly the main usage of the term. Cork (city) currently redirects to the article about the city at Cork.

What other argument is there? None of the opposers questioned the premise (neither is main usage), and the conclusion (dab page should be at Cork) follows logically from it. How is this not "strong enough"? --Serge 20:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Becuase if we don't have a place to move it too, then what? You were already moving changing links to Cork (County Cork), The proposal was for city and others thought Ireland. There needs to be a clearer plan. I think you will get a consensus to move Cork if you gather the arguments together and have a consensus for the new name. Does that make sense? Also when I voted I had not seen the prior argument on the Cork (material) talk page. That may have made a difference. David D. (Talk) 20:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Request

Could you look at the discussion on my talk page and maybe explain what you think I did that was innapropirate beyond the simple matter of blocking way too early? JoshuaZ 03:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You seeme dto have already admitted your falability. This IP wants his pound of flesh. I say you don't let the user pull you into an argument. This IP clearly know WP inside out and given the editing patterns i don't think you were completley out of line. As you say more warning in the future. No need to dwell on it more. David D. (Talk) 05:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[Statement of gratitude]

[Unique statement of excitement]!

[Your username name, not subst:ed properly], [statement of gratitude] for [your specific vote] in [link to request for adminship], which passed with a final tally of [final tally][percent in parentheses (optional)]. I plan to [statement of intentions regarding admin tools] and [statement acknowledging oppose votes as helpful]. If you [type of desire for help] or want to provide any [type of feedback], feel free to [link to talk page or e-mail]. [Statement of gratitude, again (optional)] [signature of new admin]

Because people often complain that RfA thank-you messages are impersonal, I thought I'd give you the opportunity to create your own. -- tariqabjotu 05:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

My Contributions to the Pathway Project

Hi David, I need to say that the work that the Pathways Project has done is incredible! Glycolysis has improved beyond belief, there is no comparison between before and after. Anyways to the meat of it -- I have been doing some work for a bit now towards pathways. I have drawn diagrams for the TCA cycle, the pentose phosphate pathway, the Calvin Cycle, and the Hatch Slack pathway. But I love the style that the new glycolysis page has taken (with the data boxes for each reaction, the look, and the comprhensive explanations), and I think it is the way to go. I'd love to know what you (the project) think is the best way I can help out. Is there a place for my 'pathway overview' diagrams? I could try to standardize a format for them all (colour, ways to show stereospecificty, style etc.) so they better fall in line with an overall design. I would love to see all the pathways treated similarly so they can be quickly understood. what do you think!? Adenosine | Talk 05:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

While I'd love to take credit i can take none. This has been a solo effort from Zephyris. My claim to fame is i ask the difficult questions; such as why didn't you add so and so to the template. With regard to how to incorporate your own diagram, i would love to see them featured on the pages. They are a great summary and so much better than the junk we had before. My sense would be that they should be the lead photo, as a summary. Then we get into the nitty gritty of each reaction. i have to say i am in two minds about the footers. They seem very big and despite that, the diagrams are still too small. But overall that is a minor worry. As always i would say just get stuck in and you, more than most, must know that. Thanks for the enthusiasum, it makes a change from the sniping, now go and give where it is really due ;) And welcome aboard the smallest project in wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 06:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Assistance needed

Hey David - I wanted to ask a favor. Samsara is becoming increasingly aggressive over at the Talk:Evolution#sprotection page and I was wondering if I could get your input. I don't want to make a big deal out of this; maybe you can help out some. standonbible^Talk! 07:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review of bacteria

Hi there David. I'd value your input on this article. Thank you. TimVickers 05:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is now a Featured Article candidate, the nomination page is (here). Thank you. TimVickers 04:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Userbox version

This is a userbox version of the barnstar that I previously gave you. Use if you wish : ) - jc37 10:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diligence - Please continue the excellent work on RfA and everywhere else on Wikipedia. : ) - jc37 17:06, 4 October 2006

Date linking

Hi. I wondered if you would be interested in contributing to User talk:Guinnog/date linking? I'm trying to tidy it up over the next few days. --Guinnog 18:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely interested, but very busy recently. Sorry i forgot about that page. David D. (Talk) 19:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This month's winner is RNA interference!

– ClockworkSoul 14:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Vertical box on introduction to evolution

I think it does not look too bad. I like it more than horizontal box. What do you think?--Filll 04:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree it looks a lot better. It probably still needs tweeking and a better title than overview, but its a step in the right direction. David D. (Talk) 04:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess

Dear David—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 05:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Misconceptions at Introduction to evolution

You are absolutely correct. I struggled with this when I was writing the original draft. Maybe this section should be called "Misconceptions answered"? or "Answers to misconceptions"? or something like that?--Filll 16:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the title common misconceptions since it draws you to the section. Using 'answered' or 'answers to' makes it sound a little too defensive. Actually by their nature misconceptions are not in the form of questions so they can not be answered, as such. I am fine with the first line as written, (I wrote it of course ;) ) but i would avoid the word 'answer' if you intend to massage it a bit. David D. (Talk) 18:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sandbox template

I like your glucose metabolism sandbox.. I think I'll try and steal it over at the metabolic pathways wikiproject. Robotsintrouble 15:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Go right ahead and make it your own. I never really got it into a form i liked enough to start slapping it on articles. David D. (Talk) 18:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the metabolism articles are quite ragtag. The individual articles don't seem to lack for information, but the overall structure and organization is quite poor... lots of repetitive information and inconsistent presentation, making it very difficult for readers to find the information they want. The pre-existing Template:Metabolism you pointed me to is in need of a complete overhaul, something I currently lack the wiki coding skills to improve. As an example, check the lipid metabolism entries in the template: They all redirect to Lipid metabolism, a detailed but confusing article about the whole process. I think the current Template:Metabolism is quite limiting in the study of Biochemistry, which is how I've become involved in this area. Why? Well, primarily because Template:Metabolism is organized by classes of compounds (lipids, proteins, carbohydrates) instead of by metabolic processes as the Italian template. Breaking down metabolism into coherent chunks is unnecessarily difficult when you classify metabolism by compounds; this creates a huge amount of ambiguity, overlap, and confusion because the processes acting on carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins are intimately interconnected. For example, 'lipid catabolism' (AKA fatty acid B-oxidation) provides energy for 'carbohydrate synthesis', but it doesn't contribute any carbon to the glucose produced in this way. So would this important process go under lipid catabolism or carbohydrate synthesis? Where do we put ketone bodies under this paradigm?

I'm unsure where to begin with this. In addition to the necessary navigation templates, I think we need to provide more context on how the different parts of metabolism are interconnected, at least in mammals. I think the first step is improving the major component articles of the metabolism content, but where should all this be integrated? In the main metabolism article, or in a new Human metabolism article, or interspersed through the major subsidiary articles?

Your help manipulating the templates would be greatly appreciated, I think that's the first step. After that, I'm not sure where to go.Robotsintrouble 03:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, is it necessary to have both of the templates below in the wiki? Frankly I prefer your Italy-derived template to both of them, although it could be improved by integrating some of the style of the following templates. Also, maybe we should merge Metabolism and Cell metabolism, either would make a great entry page to metabolism and give us a space to provide an overview of the process. Robotsintrouble 03:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ouch!

I have hit a road block or two when trying to improve the lead section on evolution and in the "fact and theory" sections of the evolution and the Creation-evolution controversy articles. I have compiled a comparison between the different proposed sections of text at Talk:FactandTheoryComparison and at Talk:Evolution/LeadComparison and there is a discussion of this at Talk:Evolution. I would appreciate it if you took a peek and let me know what you think. Thanks !!--Filll 19:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Biological laws

I am positive I have heard that phrase before. If you do a google search, it is clear that are over 26,000 hits, so some people use the phrase. If you look at the talk page for scientific law I have put some sites I found about biological scientific laws. There are probably more. --Filll 20:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This might be due to ignorance? This is Ernst Mayr's view on the subject: "In evolutionary biology, however theories are largely based on concepts such as competition, female choice, selection, succession and dominance. These biological concepts, and the theories based on them, cannot be reduced to the laws and theories of the physical sciences. "[1] David D. (Talk) 20:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It might be that natural selection is not really a scientific law, and some people just call it a scientific law. Or it might be that there are enough exceptions to the principle of natural selection that it is not useful as a scientific law. Or it might be some linguistic difficulties as to what constitutes a law and what does not. Physical laws get violated all the time, actually. Consider zero-point energy, the nature of the vacuum, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle etc. That is, if you have empty space, particles and energy spontaneous materialize and disappear in that empty space. This violates conservation of energy and thermodynamic laws etc, at least as classically understood. The Law of Universal Gravitation is violated of course. Even Einstein's theory of gravity (which I do not think is really called a law) looks like it is violated now. Lots of other laws in physics are violated all the time. No one worries about it. In fact, it is exciting to find a violation. A scientific law is just sort of a basic simple principle that is well established you can use to make predictions, solve problems, etc. So it might be a linguistic problem. Even things like determinism or assumptions about reality turn out to be violated. Think about Schrodinger's Cat; alive and dead at the same time. Think about EPR paradoxes. Think about "spooky action at a distance"; BCS theory that explains superconductivity relies on these weird quantum state. It makes no sense. But it appears to be true. Think about Bose Einstein condensates. Think about black holes where all the laws of physics that we know break down, or at least sort of. --Filll 20:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand that laws can be broken but there is definitely a cultural difference between the way they are used between physicists and biologists. Part of this might be that biological systems are not as easy to present as an equation. Those ammenable to such treatment do seem to become laws. David D. (Talk) 20:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It is true that most physical laws are associated with equations, although not always. It is also true that biology is not as well developed as physics because it is more complicated, so it has not become as quantitative yet as physics. As we slowly are able to measure more and more things, biology will become increasingly quantitative I suspect. And probably more quantitative laws will start to emerge. Another part of the problem is that the people doing biology, by and large, are not quantitative people at all. The same thing happened in astronomy when quantitative people invaded, and in geology when quantitative people invaded. The traditional scientists were a bit nonplussed when the new fangled quantitative scientists started to invade. Plate tectonics, for example, is purely the result of quantitative types invading geology. It is now happening in biology as well. Every major university will have a department of molecular biology and a department of biology, for this very reason. Quantitative viewpoints are different, and cause a certain amount of tension in the nonquantitative realms. Also, nonquantitative people are less tuned to look for quantitative laws or rules than quantitative people. So there can be quantitative laws all over the place, just waiting to be discovered. But since there are so few people with those skills, interests and background looking, they do not get found.--Filll 21:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So based on this, aside from a paragraph or two in scientific law with some references, there is no need for a separate article on biological scientific laws. I think that we should at least have a pointer to some of the literature, and the references that claim there are no biological laws, and those that do. It should be no surprise that Schrodinger and other physicists who wrote about biology have a lot of musing in their writing about biological laws. I suspect it might just be a century or two too early to have much yet. But I am fairly confident that more is going to emerge. I suspect that biology will be by far the most exciting field of science, bar none, eventually.--Filll 21:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It makes me laugh (in a good way) to see you call molecular biology quantitative. So how would you define a gene without getting your head bitten off? The biggest impedance in biology towards Laws is that the exceptions are the rule. David D. (Talk) 21:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You have to realize this is very very early days. It is like physics in the year 1200 or something. But it is the start. Just wait for a century or two.--Filll 21:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I have to find the fountain of youth. Or buy a red sports car? David D. (Talk) 21:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thanks, David; your words are appreciated. Have you seen my latest post on the RD Talk page? Look out some of the pages I have indicated-the attack was vicious. I now have a feeling that I am being 'stalked', if that is the right word. Hope that does not sound too paranoid! I will hang on, though, thanks to people like you. Clio the Muse 23:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Solar powered sea slugs

Yes, they're very interesting little beasts, and the research that has been done on them really is top-notch. I learned quite a bit just researching the stub I put down! --Slashme 08:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks re Talk:Stephen Barrett

I appreciate your talking some time to join in the discussion and give some perspective. --Ronz 20:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, i was watching from the sidelines and it just kept getting worse and worse. It does not have to be that way. David D. (Talk) 20:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Other suggestions? I watched from the sidelines for a long time, then when I read the NCAHF article at the end of August, I started working on it, hoping to avoid any other Barrett-related articles. Now I feel overwhelmed. --Ronz 21:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

All I can suggest is patience and use the talk page. Getting into a revert war is pointless. David D. (Talk) 21:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in on Levine2112's talk page. We'll see what happens. Meanwhile, I'm not only feeling overwhelmed, but harrassed. It already looks like he's making an effort to be more civil, so maybe it was just a bad time for him. --Ronz 19:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Then again, maybe not. I don't want to give him a test4, but he's definitely not allowing my comments to stay on his talk page. Suggestions?

Your comments can stay. I welcome them with open arms. However, your warnings are unwarranted on my talk page and your persistence to re-introduce them is equivalent to vandalism. I have not operated in bad faith nor have I made any personal attacks on you. Perhaps you are confusing the edits withe editor. Now then, you make a good point about consensus. Let's see where that takes us. Levine2112 19:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: RNA replication

Hey thanks for liking the work. I must admit that I am(or at least was) unaware of non-viral RNA-dependant-RNA replication. I mostly followed the wikipedia article itself for the diagram. A quick google search actually reveals lots of RNAi related RNA-dep-RNA replication in so many organisms, wow. I'll update the figure. While I'm talking to you, would you consider none-ribosomal peptides as a case of protein-to-protein information flow? I was mostly thinking about the polypeptide antibiotic, but I bet there are other cases (I'm asking because no one replies to the talk page) Thanks! Adenosine | Talk 19:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I just don't know enough about how these long peptides are synthesised. Do you have a reference to get me started? (sorry for the lazyness, research wise ;) It sounds to me that it does not count. But I am open to changing my opinion. I think if all the peptides are aligned in an active site to get them into the correct order it may count. David D. (Talk) 19:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey no worries. I think the wikipedia article on Nonribosomal peptides is really good on the subject. I myself think this comes down to symantics, are these things really proteins or just big molecules, etc..? I'd love to make them count as a for of information flow because it would really added some symmetry to the diagrams. Here's some reviews on the subject [2] [3][4] Adenosine | Talk 04:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on LC's talk page

I know it's difficult when LC exhibits such poor judgement, but try to limit your comments to his actions rather than him. I don't think either saying he's a thug or acting like a thug is entirely appropriate. I also don't think it's a big deal, but I think the best way for him to learn is by example, and so we have to be scrupulously careful when talking to him to avoid diversions. -- SCZenz 03:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I chose my words poorly. I have clarified my comment. David D. (Talk) 03:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please dont pronounce on my judgement here. SCZ. I dont rate your much either.--Light current 10:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

FA nomination for Immune system

Hi David. The FA process for our article on DNA is going quite smoothly. However, Immune system has also been nominated and this article requires quite a lot of work. As one of the more experienced MCB editors, if you have any time over the next couple of days could you have a shot at improving this? Any help would be appreciated, especially copy-editing and clarifying! Thanks. TimVickers 05:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ilena

Nice proposal. Since the guidance she needs has fallen away, she's quickly reverting to "angry mode". --Ronz 21:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry David. Please tell me how Barrett should be allowed to restate his case and claim libel, even after the Supreme Court of California has ruled on it against him. I also do not understand how those with one link away from every website of Barrett's empire, can post his links all over Wikipedia, but I am not allowed any links to my legal non profit foundation. I disagree that I bring nothing of value to the discussions of Barrett. For example, in June I tried to post that his NCAHF had been suspended for several years, but was blocked and it reverted as it his operation was legal. Now, after much ado, the article is less POV and more balanced. Also, there was a clear error in regards to Barrett Vs Rosenthal regarding Barrett's appeals that I corrected yesterday. No one else would have known this and this unfactual / unverified point would have been left on. I am further confused as to why there are Wiki articles filled with Barrett's viewpoint as a critic, even after courts have ruled him to be "biased and unworthy of credibility." I could name 20 articles that sound more like Quackwatch (which in itself is an attack site against those he deems worthy of defamation) than anything encyclopedic. I am a serious health advocate and activist with a support group of several thousand of women, run a legal non profit foundation, and have been a target of Barrett's for years. I am not the only activist who has been successful in defending myself against his meritless SLAPP suits. However, I am outnumbered here, as those in his operation, seem to have a full time job defending his articles. Thank you. 21:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Which links and who are you talking about? And with resepct to your own web site, others may choose to add the site. However, it is inappropriate for you to add the site. David D. (Talk) 21:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. fyslee is the Ringmaster for all of Barrett / QW / NCAHF sites, as well as Barrett's personal assistant listmaster for the healthfraud list for several years (until about 2 weeks ago). He has put hundreds (may be an underestimate) of Barrett's related links throughout wikipedia ... which all link to his own "quack files." Here is one of his Wiki pages which itemizes this.[5] Thank you. Ilena 22:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In case you missed it, there was an AN concerning Ilena. While I was happily surprised by her behavior afterward, she's now back to the very behavior that brought on the AN. --Ronz 23:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, Ilena & Fyslee don't mix well, I am trying to figure out possible improvements on this.--I'clast 14:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Why not add your own name to the mix? Ilena doesnt mix with anyone that gets in her way. Ilena seems unable to learn wiki policy and guidelines, while behaving in what many admins label as "attack mode". No, I do not get along with such people. Frankly, no one should have to. Maybe if we could get editors to stop letting her play the victim, ignoring her behavioral problems, and encouraging her biases, then things would be much better for all. I'm pleased that she's taken a break. The problem still needs to be dealt with. Meanwhile, I've pretty much pulled myself out of the picture, which others have noticed if not I'clast. --Ronz 17:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm still in favor of her avoiding these pages totally. If this went to arbcom it would almost certainly be the outcome, however, I would hope that arbcom could be avoided and if she could be more collaborative that might be the case. The key is for her to understand that wikipedia is not usenet. David D. (Talk) 17:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, in fact a few of us were under the assumption that it had already been done until she reappeared in December. Meanwhile, I've asked for help and received a reply Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#3-January-2007. --Ronz 18:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Something to note is that if you don't agree with Ilena, you are immediately labeled as being Barrett, pro-Barrett, employed by Barrett or some other similar invective. It is now so familar to the editors on Barrett-land that even we use the distintion ourselves (ie/ pro and anti Barrett). Rather than saying "Ronz, Ilena & Fyslee don't mix well", it is more accurate to say "Ilena does not mix well with wiki editors who do not support her POV". Shot info 23:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Or even better, she was accusing me of being Barrett for a while. I'm sure it's my fault for not noticing that she was just angry and was actually acting in good faith ;^) --Ronz 01:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In case you missed it, I decided to go ahead and reopen the AN issues that appear to be returning User:Ilena_revisited.

Civilx, AFGx, & NPAx

I'd appreciate it if you could comment on this [6] or suggest a better location for such a discussion. Thanks --Ronz 02:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there are numerous related discussions on this. I'll contribute to what's out there already. --Ronz 21:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry case against me

Could you comment on removing the template from my user page? The case is still open and I do not have valid grounds (that I know of) to summarily remove the template.

The thought is appreciated, especially since the case is obviously frivolous and was opened by a suspected sockpuppet of a blocked user, but I do not want to seem to be circumventing policy here. N6 23:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no valid case, I have removed it again. I have no problem removing stuff from an anon IP. David D. (Talk) 18:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Point well taken. When I see what I feel is hypocrisy, I believe in noting it. However, I will do better in the future. Thank you both. Steth 18:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

What refreshing courtesy! Thank you for asking. I do not mind at all. Now you have me reading your talk page, which is fascinating. I am not a biologist. My last biology class was in high school. However, I do have some college physics and math, or quite a bit, since my degree was related, and my grad classes (before law school) were in electromagnetism. I am not schooled in esoteric philosopies that clearly distinguish between "quantitative laws" and "qualitative laws." How does one make a real distinction? I might point out that non-Euclidean geometry was developed before Einstein's birth. It seems to me that a common link is consistency (in math research, and in physics) more than an arbitrary distinction between "qualitative" and "quantitative" laws. To my knowledge, creationsim has no internal consistency. Is that not required in biology? I also think the injection of religion into science is a travesty. (My father was a geologist, so maybe I am "biased.") It seems that the applicable law in creationism is a Murphy's corollary, First draw the graph, then plot the points. Jance 22:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Creationism is basically trying to shoe horn science into a biblical context. Unfortunately it has to be bent to such an extent that it is broken by the time they get it into the shoe. Far better to have a more liberal interpretation of the bible. In that way both science and religion can, and do, coexist.

With regard to laws, ceratianly biology requires consistency, however, all too often we find exceptions that make simplification very difficult. To proceed forward in biology it is critical to realise that we have only scraped the surface and to expect dogma changing discoveries. History shows that these are quite normal in biology. Less so in physics, although Rutherford's experiments at the beginning of the 20th century certainly broke apart the dogma of atomic structure. Sorry this is rambling but i don't have time for anything more coherent. David D. (Talk) 23:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Holford

Dear David D,

I was quite disturbed by this report in The Guardian 06.01.07 about Patrick Holford and thought it might interest you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,,1983925,00.html

Yours sincerely,

robert2957 08:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter Cusack

Thanks. The whole episode sort of left a bad taste in my mouth.--Filll 02:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

your comments on my talk page

Thanks for insulting my tag. I enjoy it and it's staying. Sorry that you fell for it. And for the record, when I tagged for speedy deletion, there was nothing at all about him being a member of NAS. --Адам12901 ^Talk 03:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll give you that. But the article did mention that he was a Fellow of the AAAS from the very first edit. And you then [proceeded to tag it TWICE. So the same criticism stands. You should do some research before placing deletion tags on an article, that is how good contributors get disheartened and possibly leave the project.

I was not insulted by you orange tag, just thougt it was strange since I thought the fad was over. Feel free to keep it, passé or not, it's your image. David D. (Talk) 04:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Newton

My reading (a few years ago now) about Newton's religious views indicate something far different than most like to present. If I recall accurately, Newton was more of what we would call a Deist, and was not particularly convinced by a personal god, or maybe even deity of Jesus etc. Newton spent a considerable amount of time trying to establish the veracity of the scriptures, and doing what was essentially producing an epexegesis. He did not unquestioningly agree and was very sceptical. He was applying scientific reasoning and rationality to try to find any evidence for these biblical accounts. Most creationists, fundamentalists, people believing in biblical inerrancy, biblical literalism etc. would have been very unhappy with Newton's beliefs or Newton's studies of the bible or some of Newton's conclusions.--Filll 16:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Filll, how true! Same with Benjamin Franklin and the founding fathers. To listen to the current fundamentalists you'd think they were all Christians. Ironically the founding fathers wanted separation of church and state because they knew the fundamentalist-type all too well but now the fundamentalist propaganda machines are trying to rewrite history. David D. (Talk) 16:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Someplace on the web last year I found a careful evaluation of all the founders of the US and their religious views, along with quotes. It was very eye-opening! Christian nation, my ass !!--Filll 03:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter Cusack

Is up and open for visitors.--Filll 03:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

StuRat 2 RfC

Hi David.

Yes, you can endorse the RfC. You have made a bona fide effort to resolve the dispute, by asking (prior to the RfC) StuRat to stop using labels for his opponents. For the sake of avoiding confusion, I would recommend that you not edit the header section (a wikilawyer might be tempted to start an argument over whether the other endorsements were valid after you edited the section, etc.) but continue to add any points you believe are important to your own statement.

I'm trying to keep this RfC narrow and focused, to avoid the ugly free-for-all mudslinging that tainted the last one. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Foran

David D., I'm confused by your post. What is this "Princton" you speak of that has these "unnotable" "utlity" players playing "quarter back" and "attacking positions" Kind regards, Rpritchie 15:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe it's just me, but I find no record of this "Princton" you speak of, nor do I see either "unnotable" or "utlity" in my dictionary or find any reference to "quarter back"s or "attacking positions" in my Joe Theismann Football for Dummies book. Can you clear this up? Rpritchie 15:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hilarious! You see what you did there? You took what I was mocking you for and you charicatured it. Creative and witty. You crack me David D. you really do. Rpritchie

This month's MCB Collaboration of the Month article is Peripheral membrane protein!

– ClockworkSoul 18:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Edit

Nice catch on the POV See Also list on Answers in Genesis [7]. Another editor tried the same thing at Probe Ministries [8] Prometheus^-X303- 06:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Struct

Hi. I noticed you've been reverting edits by this guy. So have I. Although I agree with some of his edits, they make some of the Creationist articles highly POV against creationism. I can't even believe I'm saying that. Let me drink first. Anyways, I'm not an administrator, nor do I play one on Wikipedia, so maybe he needs a time out someplace. He's running rampant through various articles. Orangemarlin 18:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd help if I could but I'm not an admin. Sorry I'm in the same boat, can't believe I did all those reverts but they will never pass through and just be fodder for the persecution complexes we come across so often. David D. (Talk) 18:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

For some reason I thought you were an admin because you edit so much, and were chasing down this Struct guy as much as I was. Hope I didn't insult you. LOL. Orangemarlin 18:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, definitely an insult David D. (Talk) 20:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI

FYI, my response to Ilena's continued personal atacks all over the place (as well as my offer to her) can be found here. -- Fyslee 11:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Inquiry

Hello David D.

After reading your very sensible comments regarding a certain Reference Desk issue, I perused your contributions to the project and have been very impressed. Consequently, I wondered whether you would consider accepting a nomination for adminship soon, or sometime in the future? If its something you would be interested in, I would be very happy to nominate you. If not, then just carry on as you are and simply consider this a compliment! Rockpocket 04:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rockpocket, i really appreciate the offer but I don't really have a need for admin ship at the present time. If anything I think it may distract me from my encyclopedic contributions even more. The last few weeks i have been sucked into a few debates in wikipedia namespace. As an admin i think this would occur all too frequently. Certainly being able to delete pages would be a useful editorial tool but for the types of contributions i have made this year i have only need that once or twice. Fortunately, i know enough admins that I can get that achieved relatively quickly. Thank you for your kind words. :) David D. (Talk) 19:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand. However, the offer stands. Should you change you mind in the future, please do let me know! Rockpocket 22:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, i appreciate it. David D. (Talk) 22:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Rockpocket above. With or without the extra buttons, your contributions are much appreciated. Friday (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Regarding the article Ash, Surrey - you have edited, have you got any green idea about the origin of the name Ash? Eliko 00:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, i has no idea. David D. (Talk) 05:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You have been named in an RfArb

I hate to do this, but you have also been involved in the controversies with Ilena and myself, so you are being named in an (IMO premature) RfArb here. Please add your comments. -- Fyslee 10:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Hi,

No, you did not answer my questions. (But you did give your unsolicited opinions on questions that were not asked.:-) I have deleted your response because I am waiting for J.Smith's response, and I want to keep the conversation clear for future reference. Thanks,-Cindery 00:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you might find some of it useful nevertheless. David D. (Talk) 00:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I was already part of an RfC in which someone was accused of admin misconduct for closing AfDs against consenus, so I get all that about it--I had a specific question about using the term vote, because I understand AfDs are contentious, and didn't want to inadvertantly offend anyone. If I have any questions for you, I'll ask you. Thanks,-Cindery 01:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, i was referring to the redirect info. David D. (Talk) 02:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you are a RfC veteran, at least i know your background now. David D. (Talk) 03:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Just one--and I didn't comment on any of the AfD stuff, since I don't pay any attention to AfD. (I'm not really interested in being involved there, but I would like to understand it better.) So, I do have a question for you--can you nominate something just for a merge? If you think an article should be merged, do you propose it only on the article talkpage? What if it's a completely new article--can you propose merge on AfD, or is the appropriate thing to do to only propose deletions on AfD ?-Cindery 06:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cindery, You don't need to go through AfD for such a proposal. You are right that one should only propose deletions in AfD, merge on AfD is usually a compromise so information is not deleted. If your original intent is to merge then it can be proposed on the talk page. There are specific templates for the task that you can find here, Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages. If it is a back water page with few active editors it might well be appropriate just to go ahead and merge it without any discussion. Wikipedia does have a be bold approach to editing. If there is a problem it can always be reverted. David D. (Talk) 15:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Christie

Hi. I'm done for the moment, thanks. Mauls 20:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad (Acting as Assistant to the Clerk) 23:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Plugging away alone

Thanks for the kind words! I hope you can find a use for some of the stuff I've done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.248.247.133 (talk • contribs)

Yes, I noticed some good stuff too. Keep plugging away. You can always open a user account too. Ironically, being an anon IP makes it slightly more obvious where you are editing from, and hence less anonymous. Another good reason for getting an account is that people will be less suspicious that you are a vandal and that your edits are in good faith. Thanks for the note here :) David D. (Talk) 20:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the space

) Durova^Charge! 21:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi David the Extra "External Links" in the Wildlife articles I have been working on and the Extra External links you have been removing

Hi David

First of all let me thanks you for helping with the wildlife articles I have been working on

Asiatic Lion, Kuno Wildlife Sanctuary, Asiatic Lion Reintroduction Project, etc.

I know you have been removing all the external links I had added in all these and other articles, but you see I am not an experienced writer on Wikipedia, all the external links that I added are actually what I read before writing of editing the article,

• Hence they should have been included in the "References" section that I didnt make, and I didnt add a "Further Reading" section, wher all the links should have been added.

If you now see the inbreeding section in Asitic Lions, references have been correctly added as an inset within the article, like you were also suggesting, ..... you might want to see how that section was written after pressing edit, also see what appears after pressing edit on "Cited References", if done prperly the "Wikipedia software" automatically tabulates references under the "Cited References" heading, please see when you get time.

All external links will have to be added in "References" section and under "Further reding" sections which were missing, my mistake.... I have been not getting much time to comtribute on wikipedia. Instead of adding all the meterial wrongly under "External Links", they should have gone under either within the article as an inset thus automatically appearing under the "Cited Refrences" section, or just tabulated manually under the "References" section, though all these were references, I have noticed any additional important links can go under "Further Reading".

Sorry for the mixup.

Thanks again,

Atul

Atulsnischal 05:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dyestat

see what you mean, I'll dump text here so you can see what you can do - I'll be away for a couple of days now jimfbleak 05:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Jimfbleak, any chance you can semi protect the current dyestat too? The IP's are having a field day at the moment. David D. (Talk) 05:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks David, I appreciate that. Hopefully the whole sorry matter is now finished with. Badgerpatrol 09:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment

After a good night's (or six hours, anyway) sleep, I would like to offer a summation of my thoughts on the matters that have been ongoing on my talk page and other such places. This might be a little long and rambly since I just got up and the coffee's still brewing, so stick with me.

1. I've been under a lot of stress lately. As my user page indicates, I'm not really at my best. The only reason I stick around id the Arbitration case - otherwise I'd probably be taking a long wikibreak to sort myself out.
2. Your comments have always been appreciated. If ever I have said anything to the contrary (other than honest disagreement), I apologise without hesitation.
3. Please realise that having what seems to be every single issue criticised is not very helpful, to my spirits or to my editing. I make occasional mistakes and am entirely willing to correct them, or have them corrected (such as the categories/interwiki link bungle), but having everything I do, or seemingly everything I do, questioned, well - it gets to one after a while.
4. Specific to Zoe/Pierce - while Zoe's reactions may have been exaggerated and uncalled for, so to was Jimbo and Badgerpatrol's reactions. Jimbo's condemnation, while it was withdrawn, will likely be a black mark on Zoe's reputation if she does choose to stay, and that's really unfair. Badgerpatrol hassling Elara, myself, and several other editors, for speaking up about this, was disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, and his charged personal attacks against myself and Elara would do a good job of destroying any assumption of good faith. He comes off much as having an axe to grind, and I find it almost a little amusing that he reacted as if he were so greatly slighted when he found he picked on someone that would fight back. As I said to Anthony, when people start throwing accusations around of incivility, they should look at their own actions.

Just some food for thought. I had more but the brain's pettered out. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter thanks for your thoughts. And I am glad you have appreciated some of my feedback. I apologise if it became viewed as pestering, that was not my intent and, in retrospect, I can see it from your perspective so was not offended by your request for some peace. From the start the comments were directed at you based on your obvious ability to be an admin in the future (I truely do hope you choose to come back after your break). Sometines they may not have been well thought out but they were meant to be helpful (or at least an outside view for you to tee off) based on my experiences here.

I am certain that Zoe will bounce back, we have many many users who are worse than Zoe. As I said before I do not condone either sides actions and have tried to keep clear. But seeing Elara's response made me think it is getting out of hand (too personal). We all need to start forgetting the whole incident for the future health of the project. We are all here for the same reason and should be able to get a long with that common goal in mind. Different factions are usually not too far apart (obviously trolls and vandals excepted). And you're probably not as far as you think from Badgerpatrol and Anthony. David D. (Talk) 20:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

With respect, please point out where I have "hassled" anyone about this, and in particular please point out where I have hassled anyone for speaking up about Zoe's treatment. That is, again. a straw man. My only point was to defend someone else from being hassled for speaking their mind in a reasonable, considerate and good faith manner. Criticism should not be stifled just because we don't like it, so long as it is constructive and to the point. I'd also like to see your evidence that anything I have done in this entire debate was exagerated or uncalled for (with the exception of one edit, below), and certainly evidence that anything done was comensurate in scale to Zoe's actions. I object in the strongest possible terms to your accusations of "picking on" people or having "an axe to grind"- I don't. As for personal attacks- I regret this edit. Everything else, I stand by as being reasonable. NPA does not mean "no criticism of any kind". Please let's all try and be more adult in future. Badgerpatrol 03:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)