User talk:Mad Price Ball/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

millipedes

I was going to leave a message asking you about the millipedes on birds issues in the commensalism article but I see you already got to it and left a {{fact}} tag there. —mako (talk•contribs) 18:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, Chris mentioned it to me, I thought it sounded weird too.  :-) But the guy who put it there (IronChris, different Chris) looks like he knows his stuff, so hopefully he can add a reference for it. -Madeleine 19:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Via proxy, I also asked the question on the WikiProject Arthropods talk page. No answer in either place yet. —mako (talk•contribs) 14:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Phoresy

Hi there, thanks for your note. When I made those modifications I was feeling a bit lazy, so I didn't provide the sources. As a result, I can't actually find the article about pseudoscorpions phoretic on birds, but instead I found one about pseudoscorpions phoretic on mammals (it mentions one species in particular that is phoretic on European Moles). You can read the abstract here. I can't find a free abstract for the article about millipedes on birds, but if you want I can email it to you.

Do you know much about phoresy or remoras? I left a message on the remora talk page expressing doubts that they represent a case of phoresy, but I didn't get any answer...

Anyway, I've got to get back to my wikibreak! IronChris | (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the references! Sorry, I can't add anything to the subject, it's not my area of expertise. Even though I'm a biologist in the general sense, I'm much more technology oriented. -Madeleine 23:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

image

Not sure if you saw the comment I made at Image talk:DNA chemical structure.svg with respect to colours? Nice work. David D. (Talk) 14:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I forgot to "watch" the page. I've made some changes in response. -Madeleine 16:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Image on Genetic code

Hi Madeleine,

You're right - my mistake. Graft 16:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Health (Vegetarianism)

Your addition was perfect. Thank you. 71.198.52.89 18:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Genetic code

Hello, I made the edit in the page about the genetic code because as far as I'm aware, the term "aromatic" can only refer to the 6-membered ring in a purine, not the 5-membered ring. If I'm wrong, I do apologize. Thanks.

The five-membered ring of purines is imidazole, which is also aromatic (at least, according to wikipedia). I'm not an organic chemist, but I think you're mistaken on this, so I'm gonna revert the deletion... I know it's minor, but the aromaticity seems to rise above mere "factoid" information as it constrains the nucleobases to planar structure. Thanks for editing wikipedia, though. :) -Madeleine 16:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Homologous recombination / Crossover / Gene targeting

Hi Madeleine,

I agree with you that the forward from hom rec to crossover is confusing. Excessive fusing of articles is confusing people who just look for the explanation to a term they encountered in the literature. As you saw voting although a way of online democracy can go bad if not enough people participate. The vote on the merger with only 1 opinion collected tells us nothing. I think the best way forward is to reverse the redirect from hom rec to crossover and to write a short article that explains what the term means and link to the full articles. Something like a lead section, hom rec as a technique, hom rec in the cell. With links to the full articles. Here's a draft of what I think would be great to have: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homologous_recombination&oldid=125888159

Looking forward to your article,

Ciao, Jasu 17:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

OpenWetWare

Hi again,

I also wanted to point you into the direction of another similar wiki. Have you heard of openwetware.org (OWW). It's a wiki set up to share everything related to biology. That includes protocols, material lists, recommendation, journal clubs, conference info.... It's different from the wikipedia in that it is targeted not at the general public but at researchers. Articles like PCR optimisation might be more suitably hosted there. I understand it like this: a general description of PCR should go into the wikipedia, a detailed protocol with concentrations, machine settings, troubleshooting should go into the openwetware wiki. Have a look at it. Hope to see you on openwetware.

All the best,

Jasu 09:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: You made some great diagrams. Congrats. Which software did you use?

Yeah, I wouldn't have added that PCR optimization content to wikipedia myself, but I didn't feel like deleting it either, so I moved it away from Polymerase chain reaction (where it was making the article confusing) and into a new page.

I used Inkscape to make the drawings, it's pretty easy to use. The DNA chemical structure was made with Chemtool, saved as SVG, then worked on further in Inkscape. For the mice, I used a tablet to draw the mouse in Inkscape. Madeleine 13:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Genetics & Mutation

Basically, the only "grades" I allow myself to grant are A, B, Start, and Stub. A means basically that an article is just shy of "FA" status, so it is something I give out only very frequently. GA and FA both require a more formal process. I do however think that the lack of in-line citations in the Genetics#Areas of genetics section is probably it's biggest current stumbling block. Some of the subsections in that part could probably be improved too. I want you to understand that a "B" grade is in no way an insult. Most of the articles I see are stub or start. It simply means that a little more work, in this case references primarily, is required for it to get to FA status. If you would like to try to find such references to include, I think after doing so your best bet would probably be to request a peer review. They might be able to point out any other problems I might not have seen immediately. Regarding Mutation, the lack of in-line citations is probably the biggest stumbling block there as well. John Carter 20:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. It looks like you have an issue with the section I didn't rewrite. (I redid the intro and wrote most of the history, which previously sucked.) I will go through those, though it's going to be difficult to give appropriate citations for what would be considered uncontroversial knowledge. - Madeleine 05:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Realizing I'm not really the most qualified person to speak about what is and isn't uncontroversial knowledge, it looks great to me. Good work! John Carter 00:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Polymerase chain reaction

I am sorry you got that impression from my comments. When I wrote that, I referred "we" to Wikipedia in general. I have seen some editors in the past who have tried to make articles more user-friendly by removing complex material from articles that might make the article unsatisfactory. I was referring to Wikipedia as a whole, not you. Anyhow, I looked at your edits before, and I thought they were perfectly fine. I think you've done phenomenal work in your editing of these biology-related articles, Madprime. Please understand that I was not trying to pin you for "dumbing down" articles on Wikipedia. My interpretation of your statement was taken in the wrong sense, and that's why it was inappropriately used. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Galton graph

I'm pretty certain the graph was from "Hereditary Genius". I ought to be dropping by my office tomorrow, I'll check and see. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 03:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's where the graph comes from, Fig 2.1 in:

• Arnold S.J. (1994) Multivariate inheritance and evolution: a review of concepts. In Boake, C.R.B. (ed.) Quantitative genetic studies in behavioral evolution. U. Chicago Press.

I uploaded it from a collection of graphs I used to teach a behavioural genetics course a few years back, and thought it was Galton's figure, but it's not, it's Arnold's graph of Galton's data. The data are presented here in Table 11 of

• Galton, F. (1889) Natural inheritance Macmillan, London

Galton does supply a graph of the data here on page 96, but it's not nearly as nice as Arnold's. So in conclusion, the graph is almost certainly a copyvio, but the data required to re-plot are easily accessible. Pete.Hurd 20:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Your draft on genetics

I'm sorry if I came across as rude in my comment, that was not my intention. But after I removed the template the first time, you should have attempted to discuss the matter with me before reinserting it. Loom91 10:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I see now what led to this confusion -- you thought I had specifically reinserted the template. What actually happened is I completed the draft I'd been working on and used it to update the Genetics article in March, then blanked the page. A couple days ago, I copied the current version of the page Genetics page over again, and started adding new content. I wasn't specifically re-adding the template. Madeleine 13:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

edits to Genetics

Sorry about the journals. I'm lagging on this computer and I tried to preview but saved instead. On the wording though, I did rephrase that purposely, but if you don't like it then it's not a big deal. Bulldog123 14:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I left your rewording in place, it's fine. I was just reflecting on it, in case you had a better idea.  :) Madeleine 15:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Madprime, collaboration tends to happen on a rather adhoc basis. If you want to attract more help with genetics, the best way to begin is to just jump in and Be Bold in changing the page; this will tend to get more reaction than just advertising on WikiProjects. That said, advertising on related WikiProjects can be useful as well (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/Science#Biology). If you're looking for SVG diagrams to create, how about one for Luria-Delbrück experiment (along the lines of this)?--ragesoss 19:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: The Molecular and Cell Biology WikiProject (WP:MCB) is probably your best bet for finding other editors to work on genetics with you.--ragesoss 19:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've already done a lot of massive changes to the page. (Excepting the timeline, it's all my writing at this point.) I'll look into MCB, that's one project I hadn't tried, and that suggestion for an image sounds like a great one, I'll add it to my to-do list. Thanks! Also, thank you for looking at my template. About the nowiki tags on the template -- I thought those were to remove wiki formatting, they also work to exclude metadata? Is there a way I can make the whole page's metadata (because I think a lot of the time I don't know which stuff is metadata) excluded without ruining the links? I assume this is because metadata gets picked up by bots that build lists and stuff? Madeleine 19:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The main things that need to be excluded are categories and interwiki links, because we don't want people navigating to your draft thinking it's a regular Wikipedia article; bots (unlike categories and interwikis) pay attention to what namespace an article is in, so they will generally not do anything with a draft in userspace.--ragesoss 19:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I was asking because there was also a problem with the {{seeintro}} tag that I hadn't known about. I assumed there must have been some sort of bot issue, because Loom91 removed it and seemed irritated with me in the edit comment -- and it didn't seem to me that he had come to the draft out of curiosity. If he was generally removing wikipedia stuff to make sure the draft doesn't look like a real article, I assume he would have made the changes you made. I'm just left wondering what else is considered problematic. :-/ Is this essentially a personal judgement call, a guideline I need to follow in the draft, to remove as much as possible so it doesn't look like an article? Madeleine 20:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm one of the MCB editors, on the front page of our project are the instructions for using this tool which makes formatting references a lot easier. I'm working on Evolution at the moment, so I'm grateful that the related articles are getting some expert attention as well. TimVickers 20:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool tool! Thanks! Madeleine 20:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I also replaced the dead link to complex trait with a link to Quantitative trait locus, which covers some of the area. You may want to change this back in the future, but it might do for now. TimVickers 20:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this the image you were wanting? TimVickers 20:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, that's exactly it! Thank you! I wanted a correct double helix for Genetics, but not some dizzy animation. Regarding the quantitative trait locus, that's also exactly what I wanted to find, I guess I'll set complex trait as a redirect to this. (As I understand it, these are the essentially the same thing and I just didn't think of the right words to find this page.) Many thanks!! :-) Madeleine 21:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Genetics in Evolution

Hi there, I wondered if you had time to read the section on genetics and make any corrections that are needed? Thank you. TimVickers 18:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I just left some comments on the peer review page. I didn't see any errors that needed correcting, but I think it could use some rewriting. (Can't guarantee I didn't miss an error, of course.) Madeleine 21:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, very useful comments. TimVickers 00:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It's looking great! :) Madeleine 03:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

random comment

Hi Mad. I know you're not anonymous, and had checked your userpage. Just giving you the benefit of the doubt. A false name is sometimes used to maintain anonymity. And no worries about the message you left/erased on my talk page. I have moments like that, too. Cheers. Esseh 13:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

DNA melting

Rude? Exactly how was I being rude? You don't know me and I don't know you. It is a fact that mutations have weaker bonds - think about it if you replace a base which was suppose to bond with 2 hydrogen bonds ad then mutate it to bond with a base with three, it will not bond as effectively. Its analagous to trying to use a UK socket for an American or a European Plug. I don't need your help regarding referencing, who ever mentioned that I needed it? What do you expect me to do beg for your assistance? That was quite an arrogant and rude statement itself "I am not going to help you because you are rude". Well doesn't that make you rude too?Tourskin 22:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no disrespect for you, as you can imagine it is frustrating when edits are made without discussions first. That is the order of things in Wikipedia. You may be more knowledgable in Genetics being a graduate student, but in Wikipedia, we are all just users with knowledge. So please discuss first. Tourskin 22:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

To quote your entry on Talk:DNA melting: "Well whoopee doo for finding that one out." Madeleine 23:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair point that sounded rude but as I already mentioned above I wasn't the only one. My main point is discuss before hand. Just as you had discussed the merger. To quote from you, " I find it disturbing that you apparently made this scientific page" and "I'm not going to help you with this, because you're being rude". I find it disturbing that a graduate student has such audacity to say such a thing. Tourskin 23:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was a little rude back. I still find it disturbing that you seem to have made a scientific statements on wikipedia based on your own speculation. I did retain the first sentence you wrote on the page, and your statement regarding using melting temperature to determine GC content material is covered later in the page.

What you wrote that I removed: "Furthermore, the individual strands are broken up further. The technique is useful in determining where along a DNA molecule a mutation may exist, since mutated parts of a DNA strand break up sooner than normal parts, possibly due to the mutation weakening the bonds within the molecule." Broken up further? Most DNA breaking occurs due to shearing forces or exonuclease activity, not due to heating, and DNA melting specifically refers only to the breaking of the hydrogen bonds. Mutations do not break up faster than other parts, I've already tried to explain this to you. These statements were factually incorrect, I was in a position to know that, so I removed them ... since the page was such low traffic (and since you hadn't commented on the merger thing), I didn't bother to say anything about it. People use wikipedia as a reference and learning tool, I feel it's very dangerous to be have bad science in it. I understand that you are upset that that my removal of the material wasn't discussed beforehand, but if you had watched the page, you could have immediately commented on it. We're having the discussion now, it seems, but I'm afraid I still don't see you providing a reference. Madeleine 23:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that upsets me is your continued use of " I find it disturbing that you...speculation". No it was not speculation because I had been told by certain Dr. Knette (a Biology teacher of mine) that DNA melting is used for finding mutations. Will you be so kind as to stop saying disturbing? I don't care if you delete everything I wrote and replaced it with good science - you seem to imply that you are better than me because you know the science. You most certainly are in a better position to know this material and correct it but it doesn't give you the right to judge me and call my actions disturbing. I had no comment in the merger but so what? Does that mean that all further edits (that are debatable) should be without discussions? If you haven't realised, some people can't attend every discussion online at wikipedia, so just leave a message at least and wait 24 hrs like your user page says so. Its not a wiki rule but it is good manners, which is what we both seem to lack. I admit that much. Good day to you.Tourskin 22:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

untitled

I don't really know where to put this, but thank you! :)

I'm sorry for wasting your time but I have a question and you seem to be the only person I know on this site. When responding to a user's query on my talk page do I respond in their talk page or respond underneath their query in my talk page? I understand if you do not feel like answering this, but I cannot find the answer in any of the rules. Pwnz0r1377 02:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this sooner -- generally people add to the bottom of a talk page, offset with a new title, so that's where I look for additions. I'm moving it to the bottom for now ... You can reply either way. Sometimes user A may reply on the user B's talk page because user A suspects that user B isn't "watching" user A's page. But it's not necessary. I'm copying this comment over to your talk page right now, because you might not see it. :-) Madeleine 22:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

fingerprints

In my recent edit to Genetics, I replaced the re-direct from fingerprint to DNA fingerprint, because the first one led to actual fingers. Wikipedia automatically redirected DNA fingerprints to fingerprinting, the process not the actual term, if you get what im say ;[. Still, I think DNA fingerprint is what you meant to say. Leave me a message if you disagree and I'll get some research to back my claim ;]. Pwnz0r1377 05:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. I would change my name but all I can do is change my signature and that would confuse people so there's really no point ;\.

Thanks for the heads up, it's thoughtful of you.  :-) The statement wasn't originally mine (if you search the history), but I retained it as a relic during a rewrite of the introduction... twins will actually have the same genetic fingerprints, since they have the same genomes. I know it's kind of lame and trivial as an example, but they will have different fingerprints on the tips of their fingers, since those patterns are random development and not genetic. I'm reverting your edit, but I think this whole twin example is kind of bad for showing how the environment plays a role in development as well as the genes. Hartl & Jones has this cool example of how someone with PKU can have severe permanent mental retardation but if they eat a restricted diet they end up perfectly fine, an example of the environment (of the kid's diet) being a massive determinant of phenotype in addition to the gene playing a role. Maybe that would be better. Madeleine 05:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh -- on the name thing, you can do more than change your signature. You can actually change your name, all the old signatures end up staying the same, but everything else (all your edits, your user talk stuff) supposedly gets transferred: Wikipedia:Changing username I think you should go ahead and do it, since a lot of people will consider your name a violation of user name conventions. I've been thinking about changing my username to my full real name, since I'm already open about it, so I was just looking at the same page myself.  :-) Madeleine 05:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh man I am so sorry haha. You are right, I'm pretty embarrassed right now, sorry for the mix up :]. Also, I'll change my username, people have already talked to me about it before :\. Pwnz0r1377 19:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Let me know if you think of a better example.... Madeleine 20:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Sorry, i've forgotten to mention I was mentioning Chimeric DNA molecules/constructs like those of recombinant chimeric plasmids; still, the image you added is much better; I couldn't find any, unfortunately :-( ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 15:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No prob. I'm glad you were working on the article. I might do a little rewording on it at some point, hope you don't mind... Madeleine 15:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know; my PhD's are in Mathematics and Chemistry, unfortunately. Any biological context that might be wrong, just fix er' up and i'll be thankful :-) ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 16:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Going to go for GA on Recombinant DNA by tonight

I'm going to make it a project by adding images and text to make this article a GA. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 19:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Melting your suspicion

I have a reference proving that DNA melting does in fact help determine where some mutations are:

Because genetic mutations melt at lower temperatures than “normal” DNA, researchers can use the map to identify genes that have rare mutations. These genes can then be sequenced and the mutations pinpointed.

This has been taken from the following link: http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/05_03/melt.shtml

And another one:

Melting characteristics of the fragments are analyzed to determine the best fragment for detecting mutations at each base pair position in the sequence. The calculation also determines the optimal fragment for detecting mutations within a user specified mutational hot spot region.

From this link here: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=331956

And yet another one:

Simultaneous mutation scanning and genotyping by high-resolution DNA melting analysis

From this link: http://www.nature.com/nprot/journal/v2/n1/abs/nprot.2007.10.html

I can only imagine how disturbed (quoting from you!) you must feel knowing that my absurd claim is more of a fact. Tourskin 17:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There were ample sources available simply by googling for DNA melting Temperature. I was only bothered to bring three references but I guess a theory can only be proven wrong, can never be proven right for all situations but then again you should know that. By the way, if you do agree with this information, can you please tell me how to incorporate into the article? Thank you.Tourskin 17:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the obscure technology I was thinking of and didn't help you with -- melting and reannealing DNA, then running in a temperature gradient gel. These quotes are taken out of context, mutations are only melting at a lower temperature because they've been reannealed to nonmutant versions of the same sequence, creating a mismatch that disrupts the base-pairing. This differs greatly from the explanation you have been using to justify the content I removed.

There is a wikipedia page about the technology -- Temperature gradient gel electrophoresis. I have no issue with you adding a reference to this technology to the DNA melting page, you should link to this other wikipedia page and try to do it accurately ... I'll correct any mistakes I see. You should note that this is only useful for detecting small DNA differences like point mutations and SNPs. Also, this technology is extremely nonstandard, mutations are almost always detected using DNA sequencing. Madeleine 18:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for not helping you out by telling you about it. Your scientific justifications were flawed and there was nothing about them that indicated to me that you'd read about this technology... I didn't want you to think you were "right" just because an obscure thing exists that seems to do what you were claiming, but that's no excuse for not sharing the information. Madeleine 18:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but I don't know how to add citations in Wikipedia. You should also know that I created the article because I needed info on DNA melting so I researched it using non-wikipedia info and then decided to make the article in the meanwhile. Well I guess thats resolved then. Tourskin 18:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I can try to add the topic to DNA melting myself, later today. I didn't realize you'd come up with this from searching the internet -- I thought, from your earlier explanations, that the information was "original research" on your part (a synthesis of scientific knowledge you'd made) rather than a bad explanation of something you read -- the first is disturbing, the second isn't. I'm sorry about the misunderstanding. In the future it'll help if you give a reference to anything if you're not certain your explanation is accurate, you can do it with <ref> </ref> tags, or copy the website into a references section at the bottom of an article, or at least give someone a reference / link for what you were thinking of if they say your claim is wrong. Would've headed this argument off at the pass.  ;-) Madeleine 18:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No hard feelings!!Tourskin 20:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi Madeleine,

I really like your tree image for evolution, your colors and the way you combined a pie-chart with the circular phylogenetic tree. Maybe your image will show a path out of the labyrinth, giving a happy resolution of the Tree Affair — as later histories will no doubt dub it. ;)

May I offer two suggestions? Maybe it would be better to flip the text of the middle two species (giardia and malaria) so that all the eukaryotes read the same way? The other confusion I had was about the taxonomic level; the labels on the left, the bacteria and archaea, seemed to be phyla, whereas the ones on the left were mostly species, is that right? I'll confess, I'm not sure about the information that the image should get across, but maybe the labels should be either all phyla or all species?

BTW, I'm really glad to meet you, and hope that you have a good time here in Wikipedia. You seem wonderfully smart and nice! :) I'm looking forward to learning more about genetics from your articles. See you around, Willow 12:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure how to collapse labels for the Eukaryotes so they apply to general groups ... the groups for bacteria was inferred by using a representative species I picked from each group. A lot of groups in Eukaryotes aren't represented in the ITOL --the map used only fully sequenced genomes and there's not a smooth representation of eukaryotes for a couple reasons - (a) eukaryote genomes are bigger and harder to sequence due to repetitive sequences and (b) those that are sequenced are the model organisms studied in lab, so is limited to things that are easy to grow, which rules out a lot of multicellular species. (It also rules out a lot of bacteria, actually, it's an interesting problem...)

That said, some "labeling as groups" could be done to eukaryotes, I'll try doing that later today ... I'm afraid it'll end up looking a bit weird because a lot of sections are missing.

I guess I wanted the image to use terms a reader would be familiar with ... another option is to pick species of bacteria instead that are well known, like "E Coli" and "Salmonella"... it'd leave out some big groups though. Madeleine 12:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes made, switched most species to general group names. Your comments helped, many thanks... Madeleine 02:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I really like your tree and wonder that, with it's more animal-orientated focus, if it would be a good addition for the animal article? At the moment they have a picture of Linnaeus as the only image in the taxonomy section. Don't want to see all your work sitting on a server doing nothing if we don't use it in the evolution article. All the best. TimVickers 12:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think probably not a good picture for that article, it should have a tree of animals alone. I could do it if I had a published tree to base it on, preferably a newick format file, but I'm having trouble finding these things (treebase.org seems to have stuff, but it's very confusing and I think only some papers are in the database... BoLD seems to require an account and I think it makes me build the tree myself, which seems like original research to me) and trees are all built on species names which is hard for me to know how to condense into group names... it's just not my field, I guess. I give up on it.

It's okay if the tree I made doesn't get used. If you settle on a circular one you make, I can always edit it to make it "pretty", but I'm not going to try until people stop arguing about it what should and shouldn't be on it. :P Madeleine 15:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

fluctuation test image

The SVG you made for Luria-Delbrück experiment is very nice. Thanks!--ragesoss 00:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Just saying Thanks for the recent DNA edit.Tourskin 20:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

Just a note to say that your edits on the Evolution article are appreciated. It is perfectly possible to improve the article while ignoring the talk page! All the best. :) TimVickers 00:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note... I never contributed much there, and it's getting plenty of attention. I don't envy your task of dealing with all of it, it's a big thing to do. I'll just focus on other stuff, there's always other articles that needs improvement. Madeleine 05:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Dragons

You Stupix im sorry I said that but I am Not A Vandal since a Vandal is stupid but please don't hurt me with your evil words.Do you like dragons because I am a real dragon and can you leave a comment on my talk page if you do like dragon.--Tub city adventures 00:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)s

Despite your edit comment, it sure looked like vandalism to me. Madeleine 01:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Veganism

I don't mind your removal of the §, it is unsourced and probably not as objective as it should. It is however raising an interesting point about comparing the effects of vegan diet vs standard American diet: I don't believe any nutritionist consider the SAD healthy, thus comparing to it is disingenuous, as opposed to, say comparing it to the recommended diet from the FDA :) CyrilleDunant 16:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing genetics topics

I noticed your redirect to complex trait through the previous version of my list of missing topics related to genetics. Since my knowledge about the field is superficial at best, I wonder if you could have a brief look at it. Thank you - Skysmith 14:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A look at the list? Or are you wondering whether the redirect to QTL was appropriate? Regarding the QTL redirect, it was made when TimVickers suggested it to me ([User_talk:Madprime#edits_to_Genetics]) ... I'd been looking for a complex trait page and felt that QTL covered the same material... Madeleine 15:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no complaint with the redirect (looks fine to me). However, I wonder if my list includes any other titles that would just require a redirect as well. - Skysmith 20:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok! I think it would be fun to look into these. Is it ok to leave notes/comments/questions regarding the missing pages on that page? Madeleine 23:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead - Skysmith 09:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Epigenetics

Madeleine, you and the other editors at epigenetics seems to have things under control. For what it's worth, I concur with the decisions to remove the "philosophical issues" content. As for a more general view as to whether this kind of thing is appropriate in science articles, I would say that it can be, if it's something that philosophers have discussed explicitly (as opposed to, say, brought in as one example in a larger philosophical discourse that is mostly unrelated) and it can be written about coherently and integrated smoothly. I don't think "The social and philosophical impact of genetic theory" would be out of place in genetics, though it would probably be more appropriate in history of genetics (or even its own main article with several several subarticles, as that is actually quite a large topic).--ragesoss 16:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully, challenges based on expertise (you're not a philosopher, so you're not qualified to judge) don't count for much on Wikipedia. The best strategy is just to bring it back to the sources (are they relevant?) and the proposed content (does it fit well into the article? does it represent an appropriate balance of viewpoints without giving undue weight within the overall article?).--ragesoss 17:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, if Wikipedia ever has you feeling stressed, just leave it alone for a few days or weeks. Misinformation or bias in one article is not the end of the world, and if you leave the problem alone, it may incite someone new to jump in and help.--ragesoss 17:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Madeleine - many thanks for your expert help at Epigenetics. Having it edited by someone who actually understands the subject is a refreshing relief from all the bluster, the bullying, and the empty arguments founded largely on name-dropping, misrepresentation of misunderstood sources, and ad-hominem attacks based on the fact that someone's son has 4 million citations to his first scientific paper. Keep up the good work - much appreciated. Snalwibma 07:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I had a chat with George today about my research, it wandered into other topics ... your comment reminds me of part of the conversation, about blustering and the need to be firm. The guy is prescient, what can I say. I guess after chatting with him, it'd be silly to let a little name-dropping intimidate me.  :-) Madeleine 07:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work on epigenetics. I think this random page might amuse you Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. It's a personal favourite! TimVickers 03:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Image

It's nice.. could you make one for blunt-end ligation as well? ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 08:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, Madelaine! Nice running into you!  :)

I see what you mean about the fracas on epigenetics. When similar things kept happening to MMR vaccine, it turned out to be handy to create links to "controversy" articles. These controversy or "philosophy" articles are places where editors can focus their effort on that particular aspect of a subject: whether it be some controversy, some philosophical whim, or whatever. Like-minded editors frequent those articles for a while, and I imagine those articles will need cleanup, but that's another story. Heathhunnicutt 08:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Veganism

Eh, it might just be most vegans I've talked to. I'm not saying it isn't inhumane though, anyone who's ever even heard of the term 'factory farm' knows it is. While I'm no longer a vegan (I hope to try again someday, but I just didn't have the willpower), I know the reason I avoided meat was primarily because it's unhealthy and unnatural. There might be vegans who would eat animals if farming were more humane, which I guess is why "Free range" chicken and eggs are popular, but I don't think most vegans would go back to eating meat- if they would, I'd think someone would've run a 'natural' farm, and got a huge vegan market, but that doesn't seem to be the case here -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 14:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Data entries for Infobox for sequenced organisms ?

Mad, hi, you seem like the person to help me on an infobox for sequenced organisms. My suggestion is that I create a infobox which so far has,

• Type
• Relevance
• Genome Size
• Number of genes predicted
• Organization
• Year of completion

basically stuff taken from List_of_sequenced_eukaryotic_genomes or other references as they get decoded. We can add this to any organism article as it is sequenced.

In your opinion what else can I add ? The infobox can have a lot more detail in it that would make the table article very cluttered. I envisage that the table would stay but it would be a summary and the finer detail would be on each article infobox.

Ultimately I guess humanity will sequence everything and traditional taxonomy of organisms will be considered to be historical interest but that may take a few hundred years so be nice to start this process off in Wikipedia. Ttiotsw 12:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds great to me! Expert is a relative term, I really don't think I'm much of one here -- George Church has an account, you could try asking him. I've bit sitting here trying to think of anything to add... seems to me like the list seems to cover all the important points. Maybe percent completion? That seems like a nice caveat to have. (I guess there's two numbers for that — percent completion at the year of "completion" and the current/most recent percent completion.) Madeleine 15:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Although the "relevance" is nice in that table, I think that could eventually become problematic for the infobox. (I had this thought after looking at the discussion on that talk page.) As sequencing becomes cheaper, I'm sure more things are going to get sequenced that aren't going to fall into neat "pathogen" or "model organism" labels... "We sequenced it because it lives in a weird environment and we thought that sounded interesting."... "We sequenced it because no one knew what it was." ... "We sequenced it because we were bored, curious, and had the cash."  :-) Madeleine 16:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Additional fields I think would be encyclopaedic,

• Strain = string
• G+C content = percentage
• plasmid = Yes (bp count) /No
• BLAST link = URL

Ttiotsw 15:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Epigenetics

Hi Madeleine. I'm very sorry to bother you out of the blue, but I was wondering if you could have a look at something in your capacity as a Wikipedian geneticist? (I saw you making edits over at genetics) There's a bit of a dispute going on over at epigenetics to do with the significance of epigenetic inheritance for evolution. The specific section in contention deals with the so-called philosophical implications of epigenetics. Without wanting to colour your impression of the dispute, to my mind it seems that there's an attempt to overplay the importance of epigenetics (ulterior motives are in play). Anyway, if you have the time/inclination I'd be very grateful if you could have a peek as your background would certainly help - my days studying genetics are long behind me! Cheers, --Plumbago 19:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, I loved your redesign of the phylogenetic tree! Even if it's not currently on the evolution page.  ;-) --Plumbago 19:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So much to do, so little time. You're right that I'm not in favor of this sort of emphasis on the evolutionary implications of epigenetic modifications. I'd like to do some more reading to put together a good response. Madeleine 20:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Madeline. Plumbago suggested that my comments to you on Epigenetics might have been read as an attempt to intimidate. I very much doubt that you are the sort of person who could be intimidated - and that's certainly not my intention - but I do sincerely apologise if you read it in that way. You are a few years behind my son in a similar career path, so I am particularly keen on and supportive of brilliant young researchers in this kind of area. But even from him, whose first paper now has over 65 citations, I would not take a "command" not to edit on philosophical implications of science. Working together we can add to knowledge and make WikiPedia stronger. NBeale 13:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Madeleine. Sorry that I've taken so long to respond. I'm afraid that I "blew a gasket" at NBeale's antics over at epigenetics, particularly at what I perceived as his attempts to bully and intimidate other editors (yourself principally). To this end, I've stayed away for a week to cool off. Anyway, now that I'm back, I notice that you took it all in your stride, and that the article is much improved as a result. Thanks for taking the time (and weathering the storm) to do this. Best wishes, --Plumbago 08:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool Under Fire Barnstar Madeleine, please accept this Cool Under Fire Barnstar in recognition of your exemplary coolness in "philosophical" disputes at the Epigenetics article. --Plumbago 08:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

wow. that's really cool of you. :-) My first award! Thanks! -- Madeleine 04:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You totally deserved it. Not only did you improve the article, you also fended off a rather persistent POV-pusher. Cheers, --Plumbago 14:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution FAC

Hi there, as you have probably read, I have nominated Evolution as a featured article candidate, the discussion page is here. As one of the peer-reviewers, any further comments and suggestions would be appreciated. TimVickers 15:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's looking really good. I'm sorry I haven't made any more suggestions for the article, I always think it's looking great -- maybe I'm just not picky enough.  :) Madeleine 21:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion

I apologize for the confusion and lack of a coherent argument (just burned out on Wikipedia!!). TimVickers seemed to mock my posit so I dredged up old arguments (unlike Silence I am more a nebulous thinker). I agree with many of your comments and distinctions concerning epigenetics, and I am not making an argument for any major mechanism. I find the article mostly neoDarwinistic with too much emphasis on mutations bordering on Morgan's mutationism-it is a hybrid. I thought for NPOV it would be nice to point out other realms of thought-the poorly worded neoLamarckism, but I understand the resistance and confusion that might arise. Sounds like you landed in a powerhouse lab for your graduate work (Church is an excellent scientist!!). He is established enough he should give you reign for first authorship and you should be able to pump out some papers (I believed I had 5-6 by the time I finished my Ph.D.??). Is your interest mostly technical or is there a major biological question that has your interest? I bounced from neuro-olfaction, cardiovascular development, hematology-oncology, and finally nested in cell signalling (I told you I was nebulous). I have always had a lifelong passion and interest in evolution (what biologist isn't!)but make no claims of any expertise. My wife (a pediatrician) and I had our first daughter in her second year of medical school while I was in graduate school (Jeez were we crazy or what!). We had no time or money and we kept on and spawned two more. I am retired now, but life has been great. You seem a lovely and bright young lady. I wish the best in your education and life. Well I have digressed enough (must be senility). I also apologize for being a little testy on the Evo article as I am usually a polite sort. GetAgrippa 12:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by! It's fine, I'm sorry if I came off as dismissive, I had just come through some tensions in the Epigenetics article itself. The editor there did not understand the material he was referencing. I'm worried that epigenetics gets used by ID-sympathizers to claim scientists have "got it all wrong"... characterizing the updating of evolutionary theory as a "kuhnian revolution" to make it seem unstable and "wrong". (My impression from readings is that not all this "neo-Lamarckian" updating is epigenetic, either... eg. localized hypermutation [1], adaptive DNA rearrangements [2]...)

My own research -- I'm actually trying to use high-throughput sequencing to study DNA cytosine methylation patterns. Of course there's already a dozen ways to profile DNA methylation, we'll see if my method works and if it's useful. I probably have my own epigenetics bias because one of my original ideas was to look at how genomic methylation patterns change as cells differentiate. Nevertheless, I'm trying to learn more about the broader scope of epigenetics to update the Epigenetics article. My project was my own crazy idea... the lab is like that though, everyone working on their own crazy ideas, I guess that's how new technologies get developed. Interesting fact -- George also has a wikipedia account. -- Madeleine 16:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a good research idea. One thing i have noticed is that transposons do not jump randomly. There are times when they are more active during development. I have always assumed that this correlates with the transition from undiferentiated to differentiated (in plant organ primordia). It's anecdotal and something that is hard, even impossible, to track in real time. David D. (Talk) 16:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think your are correct that the word epigenetic means different things to different researchers. I just noted an article expressing the same opinion. The role of epigenetic process in transposons is of interest as transposons role in evolution itself. The term applies to RNA silencing as well as methlyations so I think it is a field ripe for the picking. I collaborated with a neurotoxicologist on a paper years ago and that prompted an interest in epigenetic phenomena (it has changed drastically with the most exciting findings of late). I can't help but personally believe it will prove of more interest, although that is POV. GetAgrippa 17:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Social misperceptions

Hi M. The Epigenetics article seems to be coming along nicely - though the more I read Ein4D the clearer it is that they see this as having philosophical implications - we'll have to deal with this some time but maybe when things are less heated. :-). The embryonic article on Social misperceptions and oversimplifications of genetics which you suggested certainly could do with your help, if you have time to look in. NBeale 19:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Vegan Food Pyramid

I added your food pyramid to the articles on veganism and vegan nutrition. Do you create your diagrams in free software? If so, you should give me a lesson. They look great. :) mako (talk•contribs) 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support.  :) I use Inkscape a lot to make all these SVG diagrams, which seems to be a prefered format on wikipedia. I think it's GPL, derived from sodipodi. I found sodipodi very hard to learn, but Inkscape was easy to learn -- more intuitive, I learned it myself, and the documentation tutorials are pretty good. I used chemtool (also gpl?) to draw chemical structures like the one for the DNA molecule (which I exported to SVG and further edited in Inkscape). -- Madeleine 17:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

revert

Actually he made two large edits, if you are wanting to revert back to my version. I suggest you self-revert.. and then edit the archive of my last edit and save it. Thanks. Peace. Lsi john 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

supplements

The source that Migospia gave me for that supplement suggestion isnt correct. I have not seen any source which specifies what you have said there. The recommendations are for 'supplements'.. not that the supplements are made from anything in particular.

I agree that it makes 'sense', but it isn't sourced anywhere that I've seen 'as part of the recommendation'.

Hopefully that makes sense. Lsi john 05:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it really doesn't make sense, and I don't understand why you're making a deal about this. I don't care about the reference and I find her disagreeable to deal with, I didn't look at it and and you can go ahead and remove it. This isn't the sort of thing that needs a reference. Do we need a reference for a statement regarding the general blueness of the sky? It's implicit that supplements will be vegan, the wording is essentially redundant but it serves a purpose in that it lets readers know that non-animal sources of these vitamins are available. This state of affairs is proven by the exceptions -- eg, vegan discussion about finding vegan sources for vitamin D [3]. Can you give me any source that would lead you to believe otherwise, that anyone anywhere reputable (eg. the ADA) is recommending vegans take nonvegan supplements? That sounds like a silly position for anyone to make, and it's the one you are implicitly making here. Madeleine 05:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

So are you saying that if the sentence does not specifically state non-animal supplements, that it means animal supplements? If so, you better get on the line to the Vegan Society, because they must be recommending animal supplements. ;) pfhthht. Lsi john 07:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Migospia blew up tonight and threw a huge tantrum. It was not pretty.

And, I'm not making a big deal. Actually, I'm ready to walk away from the whole article. The attitudes here are as bad as the anti-cult group that I'm used to working with. And that group is ruthlessly POV and edit warring.

This should be one of the simplest articles to write on all of wikipedia. There is absolutely nothing anti-vegan in the article, and yet this group is whining and fighting about how to word a health concerns section (and calling it pov trolling!). I'm half tempted to go do some research, and find some strong anti-vegan information and insert it into the article, and show this group what real anti-pov information looks like. (fortunately I'm only half-tempted).

The fact is, we aren't supposed to make things up on wikipedia. If it isn't source, we aren't supposed to say it. I know that 'it makes sense' that vegans would want vegan-friendly supplements. And I agree that it's redundant. AND, the very words you used to explain why, are the exact reason why we can't say it, because it's original research:

This isn't the sort of thing that needs a reference.

It's implicit that supplements will be vegan, the wording is essentially redundant but it serves a purpose in that it lets readers know that non-animal sources of these vitamins are available

If you want to let readers know, then make a statement in the article that says 'non-animal sources are available' and cite Migospia's source, because it does say that.

Combining two sources, into one statement, is original research. The recommendation was for 'supplements'. The vegan choice would be non-animal supplements. And, I agree that its understood, but its not cited. And unless you find a citation that specifically says it, then adding non-animal to a recommendation for supplements makes the statement not follow the source.

It isn't worth fighting about, but if you make it up, then you will not have a good-article and certainly not a feature-article. And anyone can come along, at any time, and delete whatever doesn't match a source. So you won't have a stable article either.

Cheers. Let me know if I can help. Lsi john 07:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am sick of the article as well, especially all the factoid dumping that is occurring. If you're going to keep arguing about it, I give up and really don't give a crap - go ahead and revert it to a statement which says nothing about recommending non-animal / bacterial origin in supplements, it does not matter to me. I'm irritated that you would characterize me as engaging in OR, that is a gross exaggeration when the sentence (which others agreed with) can be fairly described as a summarization of the reality -- for example, all Vegan Society recommendations for supplementation are consistent with a "bacterial/non-animal" description. I was retaining it because Mako wanted it there and he's a reasonable guy and I like him. (see this edit) Madeleine 07:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me know when you get done, because I'm probably going to stick several CITATION tags on your version. You're moving away from the text in the citations, making it original research, which is supported by your edit comments that say you are inserting your opinion. Lsi john 07:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What the hell? More accusations of "original research" (a "novel narrative or interpretation") and "opinion"? Do you even pay attention to how carefully I research things? This is a waste of my time, you've successed in making me give up on the article. Have fun with it. Madeleine 07:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

PS - I had my father ([4]) review my original rewording of that study, I was being so damn careful to do my summarization fairly and didn't tell him which of the two versions was mine. I guess that's part of what's astounding to me here, it just blows my mind that my more carefully nuanced and cautious summarization of a single dietary study is getting attacked as OR. Madeleine 07:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Veganism edits

Hi! I've had no issue with your edits; I've found them constructive and I think they've had an overall positive impact on the article. The addition of the food pyramid was A+ and I appreciate your support on some of the discussed issues. Cheers, Kellen^T 20:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Veganism edits 2

Vandalism is a petty serious charge. I was going to check the source to see how far off that anon edit was, and I like the text you reverted back, but I recommend you be careful about a) frivolous accusations of vandalism and b) wasting your reverts... lest you be put up on 3RR report by someone looking to get you blocked. It doesn't matter if you are putting up a consensus version, or reverting someone's anon edits, it still counts as revert. And calling something vandalism, doesn't make it vandalism. Back to the article... Peace in God. Lsi john 22:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on 3RR. I had meant "take it to the talk page or it will be considered vandalism" as a warning against the unilateral editing... but it could come off as an accusation. Unfortunately the editor has continued, even over your own revert (which I also thank you for doing). Madeleine 23:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I did it for the article and for the sake of progress. Peace. Lsi john 23:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I, too, edit wikipedia for the sake of progress. I suspect that's true of most of us around here. Madeleine 23:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Veganism - your comments

Lsi John's liberal application of OR accusations have made me give up on helping with the Veganism article. It was upsetting to me to get accused of this, because I'm not invested in veganism and merely wanted to make the scientific statements more accurate (I spend most of my wikipedia efforts working on science articles). I'm not the only science wikipedian treated badly on Veganism, I felt bad for how TimVickers got treated by Viriditas, I suspect he'd followed me to the article when he saw me editing it. Kellen, good luck with the article, I'm sorry if you've found my participation problematic. I do think there are too many factoids in the article: non-notable people (eg. Stephen Davis) and isolated studies (eg. B vitamins & pancreatic cancer). I think the pro-vegan health benefits section also needs to be trimmed. Madeleine 01:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm really sorry you feel that way Madeleine, I thought we had been working together just fine. I'm not invested in Veganism either. I only started when a 3RR caught my attention. Lsi john 21:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Lsi John, in my interactions with you so far I've found you frustrating to deal with (accusing me of opinion-based OR in my summarization of a vitamin/cancer study) and your attitude often comes off to me as insincerely friendly / condescending, especially when you end comments with a "Cheers" or "Peace" platitude. I've stopped watching the page and I'm going to have to take a break from it for at least a while. I know I got involved yesterday, I wanted to write down my opinions on some particular issues and "get it out of my system" although I suspect they won't be given much consideration. I feel silly having spent time on that page, my efforts are better spent (and better appreciated) adding material to and improving core science pages. -- Madeleine 23:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting observation. Someone once told me John, you cannot see in someone else what is not also in yourself. The fact that you see my Peace (Short for Peace in God) or Cheers (Aussie for thanks) to be platitudes is also interesting, given that Kellen` just signed 'Cheers' (above).

That you take an OR comment as an 'accusation', is equally intresting. On more than one occasion I've read a source, rewritten it for wikipedia, and ended up with OR. When someone came along behind me and fixed it (and tagged it as correcting OR), I didn't take it as an accusation. Instead I was glad that they caught the mistake. To me, an 'accusation' would imply intentional wrong doing. For the record, I have never thought that you edited any article with intentional wrong doing. I do, however, believe that you have reworded (or combined) one or two items, and ended up with a combination of "Original Research" or "Citations which do not match the Source". And, I don't think it was intentional.

Based on results, clearly I have contributed to a misunderstanding between us. For my part in that I am sincerely sorry. I have no judgment or opinion on you as a person. I've found you to be a reasonable and compromising editor. Perhaps my 'analytical' personality conflicts with yours. I tend to be very direct and I say what I mean. Sometimes people take that 'direct approach' personally.

As for my closing signatures... thats simply a part of who I am and it helps remind me to stay friendly and polite. Hopefully you'll be able to look back and give my words a second reading, from a different viewpoint. I'd hate to see you leave the article based on a misunderstanding. Peace in God. Lsi john 00:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Peace in God" comes off as a "holier than thou" attitude to me. "Cheers" is fine when used by someone I'm on friendly terms with, but it is disingenuous to use it when arguing with another editor's edits or comments (and can even come off as sarcasm). If you want to be genuinely friendly, take some time to specifically show an understanding of and respect for the other person's perspective in an issue. Your failure to be specific in the OR accusation and failure to respond to my responses contributed to my perception of a lack of respect. -- Madeleine 04:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it is all in the perception of one's own viewpoint. Those who know me personally would confirm that I am anything but 'holier than thou'. Though some friends have said that sometimes I am an uncanny reflection of themselves. I'd submit that it is in how you choose to read it, rather than how it is intended. Again, I'm sorry that you take either of my closings to be either disingenuous or sarcasm.

I did not 'fail' to be specific in my OR comment. As I recall, we were in a very polite discussion (above) and I was trying to provide my specific reasons for the OR claim. Since I would not agree with you, you got upset and said:

"If you're going to keep arguing about it, I give up and really don't give a crap"

And then you devalued your own opinion when you said:

"I wanted to write down my opinions on some particular issues and "get it out of my system" although I suspect they won't be given much consideration."

Madeleine, I'm sorry that you feel I was not taking time to 'respect for your perspective'. I'm curious whether you feel that you were taking time to show respect for mine?

Madeleine, I think you are an asset to the article and I hope you continue to edit it. I'll not followup on this thread unless invited. Best Regards, Lsi john 21:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I made some heated comments in my frustration, which is part of why I should take an indefinite break from this article. I may look at it in a month or two, see how things progressed. -- Madeleine 23:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I left a [reply] for you in case you are interested. 193.217.194.184 22:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

RE:Epigenetics and Prions

I think in the most restrictive definition Prion refers to only the infectious form. But common nomenclature refers to both forms as Prion proteins with only a superscript to differentiate between the two conformations (PrP^C for normal and PrP^Sc for infectious). This is a result of the fact that the protein was discovered because of its infectious nature and its normal function was unknown. -Id711 21:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Veganism GA review

Hi there, I've reviewed the article and put it on hold until some corrections and clarifications are made. If you could help out with this that would be great. All the best Tim Vickers 22:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... I've given up on that article. I have a lot of problems with it, it seems like a factoid dump, lack of notability of some people / studies, "neutrality" achieved by the addition of factoid material to support both extremes. In other words, my general problem was this: just because something is "verifiable" doesn't mean it's notable enough (or broad enough) to belong in an encyclopedia.

I had trouble getting anyone to do more than defend their pet addition to the article. I wish we could promote more careful reporting/usage of studies in wikipedia. But I gave up on it and returned to the science pages, and I got the impression that questioning the validity or relevance of an obscure study was "original research" or otherwise frowned upon.

However, it's not clear to me that any of these issues I have with the article fall under the GA criteria.

... also, I see you say vegans eat lots of fruit and vegetables. Well, I'm trying to be vegan, but I don't eat a lot of veggies or fruit (due to my laziness, the perishability of produce, and the dearth of vegan ingredients at the cafeteria salad bar downstairs). It's easily possible to be vegan and eat all sorts of not so healthy foods: veggie burgers, pasta, noodles, and cheeseless pizza. The veggie/fruit thing may correlate with veganism, but personally I'm eating just as little of these healthy things as I did before trying to give up meat/cheese. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 02:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Many conflicting authors = bad articles. I've seen that before. The best articles have two or three main authors who can all work together and have a broad view of the subject. No problem though, the comments didn't appear anything very complicated - GA is a pretty low bar. Tim Vickers 03:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Eukaryote tree

Hello, I'm curious, what program have you used to create the Eukaryote tree image ? -PhDP ^(talk) 14:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I used the interactive tree of life: [5], collapsed down to the eukaryote branches and traced over it in Inkscape [6]. Not a great method. You can submit other trees to the itol online tool in Newick format. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 22:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

limitations current technology in dna seq page

why did you delete this ? even by the std you cite, "complete = euchromatic" the "complete" chromosome seqs have gaps; I presume most of the gaps have been sized by southerns with pfge (which as you know was a schwartz cantor thing originally) I feel we are doing a dis service to the non prof community by failing to point out the tremendous gap between reality and hype.Cinnamon colbert 13:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for not explaining myself on the talk page, I should have done that. I've copied this over to there and responded. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 15:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

ZS Genetics second opinion

Hi Madeleine, I've had a look at the DNA seq page and your recent edits, and I think you've resolved the issue quite well. Linking the ZSG technology to the patent for it is better than the previous link to the ZSG website. I had a look at it, and while it gives some useful background, some tantalizing questions about the principle and fidelity of the technology remain, most probably because that info is proprietary. At this point it probably it is still a rather primordial method, and expansion of the section will have to wait until one sees it being used in the literature (I've tried various queries on pubmed, eg ZSG and sequencing, and various others, but couldn't unearth any articles). I've made some edits of this section--have a look in case I've misstepped. All the best, Malljaja 13:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I had left a note on Frankatca's talk page hoping for a literature reference. He emailed me in response, providing these two:

“ZS Genetics' Chemistry Allows EM to See DNA“

In Sequence: The Inside Read on Genome Sequencing - February 20, 2007

http://www.in-sequence.com/issues/1_7/webreprints/139071-1.html

You will find further technical details in their published patent filings.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20070134699.html

But nothing in the peer-reviewed scientific journals at this point: "As neither gene expression nor sequencing have as yet been fully demonstrated using ZSG's technology, no journal articles citing their technology have appeared. Some will in 2008." I can't take credit for the link to the patent, that was there in the old version of the section, apparently in response to his prior additions of the same material [7] [8]. Many thanks for checking it over and clarifying the wording. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 13:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy, Biology and Life & John Dupré

Hi Madprime. I hope the research is going well. I just found in Cambridge a CUP/Royal Institute of Philosophy publication called Philosophy, Biology and Life (2005) which contains inter alia is a very good essay by John Dupré called Are There Genes which raises a lot of the questions I tried to bring together in the Social Misperceptions article. I don't know if you have come across him? If I have time I'll update this with some of the fascinating points he raises, but I'm v v busy at present. There are some other v interesting essays, you might enjoy dipping into it. Best NBeale 20:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Madeleine. On a related note, do you have any strong feelings about moving Social misperceptions and oversimplifications of genetics to something with a less wordy title? Something like "Misunderstandings of genetics" suggests itself, but even it's something of a mouthful, and unlikely to be typed in by a visitor. Still, it's got to be better than the current title!  ;-) Incidentally, there's a link to the article NBeale mentions above is available here if you're interested in it (actually, this might only be the abstract - the full article may be available at your institute, it is at mine). Cheers, --Plumbago 21:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For taking time to look over the hair splitting of the definition of epigenetics. Shyamal (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:DNA_polymerase.svg

How did you create the impressive bases/DNA strands in this

and this

?

I would like to be able to create similar illustrations. Thanks. --Seans Potato Business 03:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

pcr scheme

This picture is not accurate, as it depicts reannealing of strands (eg the original blue strands anneal back together). In PCR, any partner strand is always the newly extended primer from the last extension phase, it doesn't reanneal with an old or different partner strand. [9]

Although I would agree with you that for general purpose this depiction would be misleading,in real PCR I can imagine that if the initial template is big DNA piece like chromosomal DNA it would reanneal back and stay away from the further reaction, since accessing small amplicons would be easier to reach 'big' DNA. -ArazZeynili_talk^contrib_{21:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)}

I don't imagine it that way at all. The PCR primers exist in vast excess to genomic DNA, unless the DNA was not well melted they have a much higher chance of getting in there and annealing to that sequence before the DNA has zipped back up. After all, in situ hybridization seems to work. Regardless, the part of the diagram depicting two newly generated strands reannealing is flat-out wrong. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 19:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Codon image

I DO understand what the CC licence means, when I say "stolen" I mean reused WITHOUT CREDIT. I don't care if people copy it, so long as my name appears on it. Imprinting my name in the raster image was a (admittedly non-foolproof) way to ensure that the CC licence was honored. When the crediting information appears on the Image page, it is sufficiently decoupled from the image that a "right click/save as" does not preserve the crediting information. Sorry, I just don't have enough trust in people to not abuse and honor that. Most people, however, will not go to the trouble of removing the name from the raster image. The image remains with the CC licence AND with the crediting text, it's just not on Wikipedia anymore. Takometer (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Polymerase chain reaction video

Hi Madeleine, that video is a riot :-)--I've already seen it, but thanks for forwarding it. It's been in the entry before, but I had to remove it a little while ago, along with another bunch of links. I felt a bit like a grinch doing that, but as one can see from the current revert haggling, some seem to take it a little too far ;-). Thanks for continuing to look out for this article. All the best Malljaja (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to MCB

Hi there, welcome to the Wikiproject. If you had any comments, suggestions or questions please drop me a note on my talkpage. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Double-flowered

Double-flowered is really cool. Great new article! —mako๛ 16:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! :-) Madeleine ✉ ✍ 19:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 12 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Double-flowered, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—Dark ^(talk) 10:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just popped by to say I thoroughly enjoyed this article you wrote. Excellent, well-referenced, great job! Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 02:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

comments on image changes

Hello,

Let me first thank you for your efforts in improving Genetics article, it is a good job ! Regarding the image that I replaced, I hav'nt paid attention to the legend so I thought there was a rough image not the original work of Thomas Morgan, The man who spent entire nights in front of his binocular lens to study Genetics ! (My modest contribution, although it took me a lot of time ^^', can't be compared to the historical value and the relevance of the original Morgan's document). I don't regret anything, on the contrary that's a good idea to link the original historical records and documents of the Genetics founders.

Please feel free to ask any question or help :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YassineMrabet (talk • contribs) 21:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Genetics

High Madeleine, I've stuck my neck out and voted Support for the article at FAC. Well done with the referencing. Best of luck, you deserve it. Graham. --GrahamColm^Talk 17:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Sorry if I moved to quickly; I had trouble seeing what more to add to the article without the FA feedback. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 17:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well done on your hard work! After your post on WP:MEDGENP I have been on a journey around the houses of genetics articles... and seen the differing qualities and styles of articles, along with the lack of a genetics project! I have proposed the expanding the current project to cover more subjects or evolve it to actually be the genetics project to fill the void. Would you consider joining or adding your opinion on the projects discussion page? - as if you didn't have enough to do with a FAC ;), good luck Leevanjackson (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see it there! I should have watched that page, thanks for leaving a message here. :-) Madeleine ✉ ✍ 03:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• I see the FAC is going very well. Well done in getting the article up to standard so quickly. Graham. --GrahamColm^Talk 15:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Congratulations on the FA. Graham. --GrahamColm^Talk 21:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks! And thank you for the nice responses that encouraged me to do it! Madeleine ✉ ✍ 01:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• She Shoots.... she SCORES! Congratulations and nice one! Have a celebratory e-drink on me :) This means that at least I have two FA articles genetics and [[DNA} to rely on now. I have, over the last year and a bit, been trying to make the Huntington's Disease article make sense, and trying to link it in with the correct articles got lost in [[tanslation (genetics)]|translation]. I'm not a genetist myself so had to learn using references and articles linked to, a lot of which were confusing, have been making sense of them as I go but could do with a brilliant high lvevel minded genetisist, like you!, to check the article over. It was originally based from a medical perspective, I added NPOV and bit of readability, currently reads like an AZ of a genetic disorder, but the arcticleslinked aren't all in great shape so have kept a lot of info in the article ( for now ). Oh dear babbling, crux is genetics starts at the top Huntington's Disease comes from the other end, and I feel it is 'close' to FA itself, ties in a lot of genetics issues/articles, but I can't break the barrier without a genetics education :( Will get there in the end tough ... and your FA feat has been an inspiration. thankyou ... :)Leevanjackson (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sex

Thank you so much for your excellent work on the sex entry. There is no substitute for an expert! I'd tried a few improvements but am severely restricted by trying to "catch up", reading what biologists can teach us about the things they have learned and are learning about the processes. It is such a complicated topic and it needs extensive familiarity with diverse material to present a clear overview -- you have done (and are doing this) -- thank you!

Not only have you educated me, I believe there are many "hits" on this page (surprise, surprise). It's a wonderful thing for Wiki to work towards a quality article for this entry. Warm regards, Alastair Haines (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Although most of it was already familiar to me, I've been learning a lot too! Yesterday I was telling everyone I knew about cloacal kissing. :-) Madeleine ✉ ✍ 23:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL, it's a charming phrase isn't it? It takes all sorts to make a world. ;)

PS there's a bold statement that hermaphrodite is the norm (across species that is). Sounds good to me, makes sense, but I've not read it anywhere, so a basic reference may help.

Also, counting herms as an independent "third" sex, despite their respectable majority in plants, seems potentially informal (brings back the difficulties of defining sex).

Mating types among gametes in a species seems to be the fundamental concept of sex. Hermaphrodite does not describe a sex or mating type of gamete, rather it describes multiple mating type gamete production in an individual. Herms produce more than one type of gamete, they do not produce a new, distinct mating type. This fits with informal language too, since human herms are often described as both male and female, or androgynous, rather than being neither and something altogether different.

Anyway, there's my ignorant opinion. Sex in species = mating types. Sex in individuals = mating type production (see John Money for this definition in Homo sapiens). It seems more natural to say herms have more than one "sex", rather than that they constitute a third, or an intermediate sex, to do the latter is to use the same word sex to refer to quite different physical realities.

PPS my area is gender, and understanding sex better is helping me. It would appear that ordinary language use of male and female presupposes human sexual differentiation. Historically, by analogy with humans, mating types have been "pushed" to conform with the dimorphism of human gametes. Its not a bad metaphor, its just that the analogy works best for species with dimorphic gametes, one motile, and "phenotypical" individuals having gonads of only one type.

I love the idea that many disorders of sexual development (DSDs) in people have biological antecedents in other species. As we see the bigger picture, what seemed strange and inexplicable becomes almost something to be expected. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've added the ref for that - it's from "Sex Determination in Flowering Plants", which says An extensive catalog of sexuality in 120,000 plant species indicates that hermaphrodites are common, representing ~72% of species examined. Another 7% are monoecious (different sex flowers but on the same plant) and 10% have both unisexual and bisexual flowers. Strict dioecy -- male and female plants -- accounts for 4% in this survey.

Counting hermaphrodites as a third sex ... well, I'm doing this because it's not just unique to species without sex specialization. C elegans has two sexes: male and hermaphrodite, determined by an XO system (males are XO, hermaphrodites are XX). I'm not comfortable just saying there's only male and female sexes possible if later I'm going to say something like "and in this species the sex of the organism can be male or hermaphrodite". Madeleine ✉ ✍ 01:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah androdioecy! My favourite! I started a stub on that. ;)

You've changed the lead from great to even better. Two quibbles from me. In the first sentence, an indefinite article could be preferable regarding genetic exchange, since I believe genetic material does get exchanged in some non-sexual reproduction. Is it right that some viruses do a version of this? There are other unusual genetic exchanges too, aren't there?

Is it fair to say that sex is a "broad classification of various similar reproductive processes" (namely, those where new individuals arise via meiosis / gametogenesis)?

I think you write excellently, phrasing to allow exceptions, while giving an impression of what is typical. Takes judgement and balance. I think the issue here is that the reader expects all sexual reproduction to involve male-female duality at the individual level, but duality only works at the gamete level. The ideal intro will summarise facts and define terms, aware of potential reader misperception. I think your intro is very close to this ideal.

Secondly, the distinction you mention between sex and gender is not consistant in English language usage. Henry James and many writers since the 14th century have used gender synonymously with sex. Technically, gender simply means "typing" and is cognate with genus, generic and, of course, gene! The French for gender is genre sexuel. John Money the sexologist notes that a sharp distinction between biology and sociology is unscientific, since hormones influence social behaviours and hence gender roles and other things. Swedish uses sex role for gender role (the Swedish versions of the terms). There is no consensus, scientific and academic, or popular common-sense, about where "sex" and "gender" become distinct. It is, of course, true that certain groups do consistantly make such a distinction in English, but I'd argue it's peripheral to the topic of sex.

There's no need to really have the last paragraph of the lead. Sex is a huge subject covering millions of species (including extinct ones). Behavioural sexual dimorphism in Homo sapiens is a fraught topic, and ultimately a triviality in comparison with the story of lifeforms in general.

Summary an indefinite article in the first sentence, and deletion of the last sentence of the lead would seem to be improvements to my way of thinking. But on the first I'm speaking from ignorance, and on the second I'm speaking from over-familiarity.

I'll keep watching this article and will tinker a bit. Mainly I want to learn and cheer on from the side-lines. You have awesome subject knowledge and delightful written expression. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In reply to your agreement about the changes, I did to the gender article what you are doing to the sex article. Don't worry about removing the gender info at the sex entry, you were only doing what is logical, and Wiki has gender covered in its own entry. Logically, gender depends on sex in ways that sex does not depend on gender. Sex is the primary topic, and better understood. But, yes, terminology in the gender area has been in flux for a few decades and still hasn't stabilized.

I'm a real late-comer to reading up on biology, it's absolutely fascinating, and so much is being researched and published all the time. I can really understand the appeal of the subject. I plan to drop another note in here for you some time with some questions. Could take a few days though. Cheerio Alastair Haines (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Post-transcriptional regulation

The AfD on this article has already been closed. I disagree with making it a redirect, the subject is too important not to have its own article. As a stub it is on stub lists, plus I listed it on a couple of Wikipedia projects to get attention. As a redirect to a different article, it won't be listed as a stub, and it won't be recognized for a major topic in desperate need of attention. --Blechnic (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, if it's too obscure for the main article, it doesn't belong there. If it's so important it merits its own article it usually gets one. Consider it for a moment, too obscure doesn't merit its own article. And too major to be only part of another article, as with this topic, is the case. --Blechnic (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Quantification of nucleic acids

Excellent article but if I'm not mistaken there is an inconsistancy between your extinction coefficient and your example:

---

extinction coefficient for double-stranded DNA is ~50 (ug/ml)-1 cm-1,

Thus, an optical density (or "OD")

of 1 corresponds to a concentration of 50 \ug/ml for double-stranded DNA.

---

an extinction coefficient of 50 (ug/ml)-1 cm-1 implies that an optical density of 50 corresponds to 1 ug/ml (but the sample would have to be diluted for an accurate reading); or an optical density of 1 corresponds to 1/50 ug/ml or 20 ng/ml

From your links I take it the example is correct, in which case the extinction coefficient is (1/50 = 0.02 OD per (ug/ml). that would be 20 per g/l. assuming Nmp MW ~350 a solution 1 mM in bases would be 350 mg/l = 350 ug/ml and would absorb 7 OD, for a molar extinction coeff of 7x10^3 which seems pretty reasonable.

(Of course I may be completely confused!) Ed Berry Eaberry (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sex

Is it just me or did you replace the entire article with a new version? Do you realize how many people have contributed to such an article? It seems to me that you've shown very little respect for their efforts, and neglected to try to keep anything of value. I think just about the only contribution I made was to add a see also link to sexual conflict, an important topic which I note you didn't bother to mention even in a see also section. I guess I'll add it again myself, and wait for the next person to rewrite it. Richard001 (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do realize a lot of people made contributions to the article when I approached it. This is why I made a lot of effort to get other opinions on the rewrite and what the article should cover. See Talk:Sex#Rewrite of article, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality#Sex, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology#Sex, and Wikipedia talk:Version_1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics#Sex. No secret has been made of this rewrite—you can see how difficult it has been to get feedback. This article obviously had no "steward", as you so aptly describe on your userpage. I chose to become that steward when I proposed and made the rewrite. I would eventually like to take this core article to FA and it's been difficult to get any feedback.

As you know, the "see also" section is deprecated, material should be covered within the body of the article. I'm sorry your link got removed; I thought I had covered everything in the article. As I noted on the talk page, I think the article should have a top level section on evolution and I think this link could eventually go in there.

I like you. I'm surprised, hurt, and disappointed that you're so quick to be angry with me. In my past experience (and up to now with the Sex article), I've been too hesitant to throw away old material and too slow to rewrite. Because I got no response to my proposal, and because the article was so poorly written, I went ahead and did it. Wikipedia encourages us to be bold. Alastair Haines, who works on Gender, seemed happy with it. -- Madeleine ✉ ✍ 11:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was quite an overreaction. It looks like you've made a great job of rewriting it, which is surely an improvement regardless of whether you may have discarded some things that were of value or not. I also haven't exactly looked closely at your changes, so it may well have been just one tiny thing you overlooked. I am too easily annoyed when I make what I see as an improvement to an article and then someone comes along and undoes that work, and often I'm too quick to tell the person responsible off without thinking carefully about what I say. I certainly didn't mean the article would need any further rewriting, that was more a reflection on cases where I've re-added something and then someone else again has come along and messed things up yet again.

I disagree about see also sections. They are useful for links that should be in the article but aren't currently there (and you don't have time to rewrite sections of the article to include them). And lately I'm also inclined to think that there is a place for other relevant links that don't quite make it into the article (perhaps because of size) but are still of potential interest, though this vary from article to article.

Anyway, sexual conflict is an often overlooked area relating to sex and should definitely be incorporated into the article somehow. The problem is that article is itself so poor. With my obsessive bottom up approach I would probably work on improving that first, but then I would be forced to work on poor quality articles summarized there as well, and so on ad infinitum...

Again, I apologize for both what I said and the way I said it. I look forward to working with you at the genetics project. Take care. Richard001 (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Genetic project

Thank you for setting up the page. Of course, I'm interested. Let's create a comprehensive genetic project. NCurse _work 08:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

PCR

Dear Madeleine, it's past my bedtime, (UK), there's no need for a simplified version of PCR ; it will just confuse folk. I didn't like the way the links to PCR were substituted for a v. poor version. Please do what you can WRT the debate. Best wishes. Graham. GrahamColm^Talk 23:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Done! I hadn't realized links were systematically substituted like that, I think that's pretty unacceptable. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 00:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Genetics newsletter

Hi Madeleine. I created a template newsletter at Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics/Newsletter. Please revise as necessary as I copied it from here and the information really does not apply. The newsletter may be delivered by bot request (hopefully) to Wikipedians interested in genetics as a way of recruiting more WikiProject Genetics participants. GregManninLB (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help! This is great! Probably a while before I'd be able to make a newsletter but we'll see. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 04:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Genetics Outreach

Wikipedia:Bot requests is willing to post a notice on the talk pages of Wikipedians interested in genetics to let them know about the new WikiProject Genetics. However, they need someone to specify the message so that a bot owner doesn't have to guess at it. If you have the time, would you compose the notification message and post a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Genetics article tagging

Would you please review my request at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Category:Genetics_tagging to confirm that all the articles in Category:Genetics should be tagged with the WikiProject Genetics banner. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 06:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting for your approval also. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)