User talk:Opabinia regalis/Archive 6

looking for a moderator and/or contributors

Physics is being rewritten and we are looking for contributors and/or moderators at Talk:Physics/wip Do you have any suggestions? --Filll 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what's going on here; is this one of those 'here be dragons' sections that gets aggressively disputed no matter what it says? Why is there so much process involved, with all the votes and moderators and whatnot?

I'm happy to take a look, but would be a poor candidate for "moderator"; I think my previous attempts at writing introductory-level prose have proven that I'm not a good judge of it, and having read the current set of lead proposals, I already have a non-neutral opinion. Opabinia regalis 23:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally do not like any of the 3 proposals so I wrote my own. I would be loathe to take the position of moderator because (1) it is my field (2) I am somewhat biased already (3) I would like to contribute, not moderate. So if you can give us a bit of one of your 5 eyes, we would be grateful. Also, the prose does not have to be super simple, just readable by the average person who is not an expert.--Filll 23:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if my multiplicity of eyes are already failing - where's yours? I see the three that were voted on, obviously. Opabinia regalis 02:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, I came late to the party, so I posted mine at Talk:Physics/wip#A_suggestion and then merged it with the proposed version to get [1] just to try to stir people to act because nothing had happened for about 2 months. Then I finally was able to entice a few other editors to show up and show interest. They have now edited the version to read like Physics/wip at present. Now people are trying to decide on rules about how we want to proceed; do we do what they did for the last 6 months? Try something new? etc. And looking for a new moderator as you can see. They wanted me to find someone because I told them I knew nonphysicists that I trust. Including you.--Filll 02:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to check - the version of the page you linked to has a quite short single-paragraph lead; is that the one you meant?

Without wanting to stomp on what people have already done on that page, doesn't it seem that there's too much meta-discussion and not much Getting Stuff Done? Finding a 'moderator' and deciding on 'rules' about how to proceed just sounds like unnecessary process, especially since it looks like there aren't very many people participating. I think I must be missing a prior edit war that inspired all of this, or something. Like I said, I'd be happy to provide a 'reasonably intelligent non-physicist' perspective, but I'm wary of taking some sort of recognized 'moderator' role, especially since I have a lot of real life stuff going on in the next couple of weeks (I still can't bring myself to say 'meatspace' :) that may make my contributions spottier than usual. Opabinia regalis 23:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Improvements to Wikipedia article

Hi O, can I plague you twice in two days — pretty please? I started tinkering with the Wikipedia article yesterday, but it could definitely use your sharp eyes and Wiki-experience. Apparently, the article is scheduled to be the Article Creation and Improvement Drive collaboration in a few days' time.

I also hope that you don't mind that I recommended you to bring the Physics page to a higher level. You were so good and helpful with Photon, Cyclol and Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector that I could think of no one better suited to help them. I'm feeling a little swamped myself right now, and I know myself; I know that I'd be tempted to leap in with both feet, much to the detriment of the other articles I'm trying to shepherd to FA.

I know that you'll be amused by this reference, which just appeared in bookstores

• Durant, Judith (2006). Never knit your man a sweater (unless you've got the ring). Storey Publishing, LLC. ISBN 1580176461.

I am so vindicated. ;) Affectionately and merrily, Willow 14:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm, I could use some help right now on Wikipedia, if you're free. Thanks much! Willow 20:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Haha, excellent book find; you were right all along! ;)

I hope I can be helpful for physics; like I said to Filll, my ability to judge prose simplicity and comprehensibility (is that a word?) seems rather low. Then Tim comes in and makes a few subtle changes that make it so much more readable. But my planned expansions to RNA interference are very much a 'strike while the iron is hot' situation motivation-wise, and come at a time when I'm rather busy in meatspace... (there, I said it!)

Will look in on Wikipedia, which is just a very difficult subject to write about. I've never been a big fan of ACID, it's sort of a too-many-cooks problem, but on this kind of article more people should hopefully help to hammer any subtle biases out of it. I have a few thoughts on some of Bramlet's "obvious" conclusions; I'll post on the talk page once I've put them in a coherent form. Opabinia regalis 23:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"Meatspace!" — that's funny; I'd never heard that before. :D

I'm getting exhausted in Spiritspace, so I may sign off and meditate on the element of water. Thanks so much for your cheery message and support; they fell like sweet raindrops on parched fields. Ta ta, Willow 01:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, O! It's so nice to see you back in our little ghost-world; I was afraid that fleshy duties would keep you away for a while, as I guess they are keeping Tim. Today was a little strange; the vandals were out in surprising force, savaging lots of pages. I had fun inventing sly rejoinders, though, a special one for each vandal so that they'd know they were loved equally. ;) I even got to be An Affectionate Woman Riding a Beast for one apocalyptically-minded vandal, although I don't think he realized that he was the "beast" being "ridden" (kidded, teased).

I worked a lot more on Wikipedia today; would you have a moment to look it over? I'd dearly appreciate your suggestions, as always. It's the AID now, but no one seems to be working on it except me, Qxz and some vandal-fighters. :(

Oh, btw, I did actually intend for those protein structure templates to link to each other — although, in retrospect, that seems woefully dim. Your way is much better! But perhaps we could make the arrows link to the templates? My idea had been that one could "meta-navigate" through the navigation templates. I'm not sure why that would be useful, but my intuition still says that it might be. How does it seem to you?

Hoping all's well en ton monde réal, doubly yours, Willow

Ah, cross-posting... you have a (brief) new message ;) Yes, I'm currently back from meatspace (though maybe returning again for a day or two). I agree the interlinking would be more useful if you could go directly to the next template, but at the same time linking into template-space feels too self-referential... maybe the top of the template can contain an anchor link, and the arrows can jump to the top of the template on the next article? Or would it be too weird to link to, effectively, the end of an article? (I actually thought of these after looking at the FAC for Same-sex marriage in Spain and seeing their very ugly nav template; ours are so much better!) If that's too strange, maybe it should go to the template directly; I'm not sure.

I posted a bit on Talk:Wikipedia earlier, with a few nitpicks on what sounds to me like POV/political statements in the article - mostly as a preemption against people flowing in from ACID with more opinion than fact. (Though I guess mostly that causes vandalism. I don't know if you saw, but apparently Stephen Colbert has been encouraging mass vandalism again, which probably explains the influx. "Reality is a commodity" is apparently the catchphrase du jour.) I have to admit I haven't actually even read all of Wikipedia in one go yet, so I'll have to do that before making any substantive comments. I did link to an interesting study-attempt by Aaron Swartz on who adds the bulk of the article content. I don't see it in a quick glance through the refs; have you read the book Wikinomics? Not entirely about Wikipedia, but contains some potentially useful external commentary. Opabinia regalis 07:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately — or fortunately — I don't have a TV, so I have to glean what's going on from talking to people. I did see some of Colbert's original shows on YouTube, after CatherineMunro alerted me that YouTube existed, which were very funny. Pop quiz for Bible-belt politicians: what are the Ten Commandments? ;)

I also haven't read Wikinomics yet, since it hasn't reached our library yet. It seems interesting, though; if you've read it, could you fish through it and find some good facts for Wikipedia?

I didn't know of Aaron's series of articles before; thanks for pointing it out! I'll confess, though, that I had trouble keeping my attention on it, both because of a fond cat (how's Kitty?) and because I wasn't quite sure why the question was important? I guess I would try to refine the question first, and then maybe the methods for addressing it. Perhaps we could ask a more limited question and one perhaps less tied to people's egos: what are the mechanisms by which FA's get made and how could we foster that? Willow 08:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No TV? Hm, that might improve my productivity. Still, mine gets most of its input from games these days - I had to find out about the Colbert thing from a noticeboard post. For some reason I've never watched his show, though I used to watch The Daily Show semi-regularly.

I read Wikinomics, but I don't have a copy; I'll try to hit the library this weekend. In general I thought it was kind of long on buzzwords and short on data, but it has the advantage of being an actual dead-tree book that covers the subject. It was a little thinly researched, considering how easy it is to check your facts when you're writing about open-access internet projects; there were a few inaccuracies or oversimplifications about Wikipedia internals that surprised me. (And I don't think it was just a matter of being out of date, but I'll have to check again.)

Actually, every set of statistics I've seen trying to quantify Wikipedia content has been a pile of trash. After I read Aaron's post I kept thinking about how I'd do the study differently (if I had a computer cluster on hand ;), but it's hard to track that sort of thing through hundreds of revisions, particularly for very old articles where the original "content addition" has probably been so often copyedited, reworded, and re-formatted that diff tools will trip up over it. I suspect the results would come out quite different for different article topics in any case. Opabinia regalis 02:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Posted at cross-purposes again; I didn't see your revision of the above. I didn't follow the Board of Trustees elections at all, but IIRC Aaron was running on something of a platform of representing anonymous or occasional content contributors who don't really get involved in the community. So the point of the 'study' was, to some extent, to illustrate that that class of contributors is critical to the encyclopedia. More on FA stuff below. Opabinia regalis 06:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

New thread in the tapestry

Hi O,

I'm a little blue tonight because my boss came down on me today for being lazy. :( She was really nice about it — I don't think she knows how much time I spend on WP when it's slow — but I get the impression that I'll be let go unless I shape up. :( I'm kind of upset, but I also can't talk about it without getting more upset, so it's best if I think about other things.

So how do FA's get made? I think it would make a really interesting sociology study, don't you? There are probably multiple mechanisms, but it sometimes resembles a shark feeding frenzy. ;) A single user will begin working doggedly on one article and soon others swarm around, perhaps drawn by...

"...the good company of clever, well-informed people, who have a great deal of conversation...that is not merely good company — that is the best."

— Jane Austen, in Persuasion

Blah :( I can't keep writing, I'm sorry. Tell me the news about Kitty, when you get the chance; even if I don't reply right away, you'll know that I read it happily.  :( Willow 04:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I try never to make assumptions about offline people based on online people, but I have to say 'lazy' is just about the last adjective that would come to mind to describe you ;) I hope everything works out, and let me know if there's anything online I can do.

The kitty has gotten fat and happy. She was such a skinny kitten when I brought her home, and now she's got a definite paunch. (I haven't posted her name, which seems to be rather recognizable.) I had visitors here a couple of days ago, and she wasn't such a happy kitty then, but I think she's forgiven me. I just took a computer break to eat a bowl of cereal and damn if that cat hasn't got a one-track mind when there's milk involved.

I would love to know the sociology of the typical FA. I get the general, qualitative impression that hardly any have more than four primary authors, and most have one or two, with a few hangers-on who added a sentence or two, cleaned up some formatting, etc. (ie, the minor stuff people sometimes do when Tim's almost done ;) A lot of the existing mechanisms are collaboration-based (which IMO really only works on topic-specific collaborations; MCB good, ACID or good article collaboration so-so) and only seem to result in an FA when a particular person adopts the article to shepherd through the FA process (hydrogen being the exception that made me think about the rule). I think this is partly because so much of FAC is about presentation; the writing fun is mostly over and what remains to be done is prose cleanup, reference formatting, fixing images, etc., which is a bit less interesting.

In short, I'm not sure what would motivate individuals to write an FA besides wanting an FA. I'd be curious to know whether the 'FA decision' usually comes first or last: do editors more commonly decide 'article X should be an FA' and then do it? or do they plug along writing an article until one day they look at it and say, 'hm, I'll take this to FAC'? If the former, do they usually complete the process, or decide that it's just too tedious a process/too dull a topic/too subject to edit wars to keep going? There is Wikipedia:One featured article per quarter that attempts to organize individual efforts in the FA direction, though as far as I can tell it's been mostly inactive lately, and I imagine people are hesitant to commit to a timeframe. I've kind of been rolling the wider question around in my head lately; what could we change as part of the community culture to encourage content writing as a core activity? Opabinia regalis 06:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey O,

Kitty is cute! :)

Sorry for disappearing but I need to start looking for a new job. :( I'm trying really hard to keep my present one, but my hopes are dim. The store isn't doing well and, honestly, I can't say that I've been more of a boon to it than a burden. I do think I'm a very good teacher of knitting, and I love my students dearly. But I also sympathize with my boss' plight; those old equations of Micawber still hold, "20 pounds income minus 19 pounds expenses equals happiness; 20 pounds income minus 21 pounds expenses equals misery." On a happier note, I might be able to take in some seamstress work from a local costume designer; so don't be surprised if I suddenly start writing about corsets, bustles and Gibson-girl sleeves! ;)

I'll have to spend a lot less time on WP in the near future. :( Please forgive me; it really hurts to pull back and miss out on everyone's company. I'm still hoping that it'll blow over, but I need to be prepared. I'll probably do some "fill-in" edits that I can schedule flexibly and are unlikely to be reverted by well-intentioned editors. If you have piecework suggestions for me, that's be great as well; you could start a TODO subpage for me. ;) I'm tempted to still try to bring the EB articles to FA and to type in my Aristotle translation, but I'm worried that the price would be higher than I could afford.

On the FA question, I do think one generally resolves in advance to make an article into an FA; that's my experience, and probably yours and, I'm guessing, Tim's as well. Aside from its innate worth and the challenge of covering a difficult subject completely and coherently, an FA article seems more stable than any lesser counterpart, more protected from vandalism by the community and less likely to be massively rearranged or disemboweled. So it requires less work to keep an FA at a high level. But you should ask Tim what he thinks!

Till next time from one who thinks you're the best, Willow 11:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Today was another weird day. I was acting strangely, others were strange, and funny things were happening everywhere I went. Maybe it's the full moon? ;) Hoping that things are more serene and less lycanthropic around you, Willow 00:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, all kitties are cute, aren't they? Except Persians. I just don't get those. Of course, this comes from a creatures with five eyes and a toothy proboscis.

As much as the sciences could use your efforts, costume design is probably one of those systemic-bias problem areas, so we'll be looking forward to any articles on sleeves you see fit to write ;) I'll have to bulk up my redlinks list; I know there's a bunch in old articles that I never got back to, and those little supporting stubs tend never to get edited again except by typo fixers and bots. I can't seem to keep my to-do list up to date, but the redlinks I'm doing better with. I'm afraid I don't know enough about EB to make a significant effort there, but I'll try to do some fixing on Wikipedia (which is admittedly a hard article to edit; everyone thinks they know everything about the subject). I haven't been able to track down a copy of Wikinomics yet; the library's copy is out and the person I borrowed it from is on an extended vacation.

Much good luck in working things out in the real world; I imagine working in a yarn shop (right?) would be fun, so I hope you get to keep doing it! I noticed a bookstore nearby hosting a knitting club every week and thought of you when I saw them ;)

I suspect you're right that deciding to write an FA precedes substantial work on the article, but I'm hesitant to generalize outside the sciences. Then again, maybe that's even more true of the humanities, because tracking down the relevant book sources requires time and commitment. I've been thinking about trying my hand at a literature article, but the return on the time investment is so much less for a subject I've never formally studied and don't know the standards of well. Opabinia regalis 03:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's always so good to hear from you; when I talk with you, I feel positively normal, even when I admit stuff like...

...I love to dive my arms into great bins of colored silky yarns, to drink in the smell of lanolin from unwashed fleece, to learn patience and gentleness from spinning, and to give big hugs to impossibly fluffy Merinos. Life in yarndom is just good, even if it's not as refined as the world of weavers and tailors. :) I'm still under the gun and under the eye at work, but I can't help but snatch a few Wiki-moments now and then.

I gave you a little blue-link present just now, or rather the promise of a present; it's still only a stub. I had to laugh about the names SHAKE, LINCS and SETTLE, once I found out what they were; they're cute and clever names! :D Who knew that computational biologists could be so funny? Ever affectionately, Willow 01:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. You should totally take RNA interference to FA, don't you think? Willow 01:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Spinning? Do you make your own yarn? Good to see you still around, even if just from time to time :)

Yay, blue links! Excellent. I'm going to be filling in the RNAi ones soon, and then maybe I'll get back to some of the others. It's become practically de rigueur to come up with a cutesy pronounceable acronym for your algorithm (see sequence alignment software for many even lamer examples :) I haven't done much with the MD stuff because it's hard not to write stuff that qualifies from a Wikipedia perspective as OR.

I actually just put RNA interference up for peer review - it still needs some work on the history section, which I haven't really done much with. I just rewrote the medicine section in October and it's already a bit out of date again, so that'll get an update, and possibly some rearranging of the miRNA stuff. Any comments or edits would be great if you get the time. Opabinia regalis 03:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Spinning is a lot of fun, especially in groups. I do it for the yarn and as a good spiritual exercise, since it requires patience and a delicate touch, which doesn't come easily to me. Some people also do it for selling the hand-spun yarn, but it's hard to get others to pay what the labor is worth; buyers see $50/skein and suddenly think that machine-washable acrylic is really attractive. ;)

I'm so happy about RNAi going to FA. I'll give it as much attention as I can afford. :) Ta ta, Willow 14:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yarn spinning as meditation... I don't think I have the right set of appendages for that ;)

Your article on constraint algorithms is great! To think that was just a couple of days' work... BTW, if you happen to come across any useful images for illustrating RNAi, the article is a little bare of images after the mechanism section. Opabinia regalis 07:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am so relieved and happy that you like it — whew! :) I chose the constraint methods from your redlink list because I've always loved mechanics best (like the LRL vector?) and, in principle, it's just like keeping straying sheep penned. The local university has a decent collection of articles up to the point when they all went electronic; at first, the articles were bewildering, but the LINCS article was so well-written, that everything blossomed like a flower. Academics are so nice, too; they put everything important for an encyclopedia article in the first few paragraphs and give, umm, hypolinks to other useful articles — you only have to grab the tail of the fox, and you can work your way forward to its head. Now I have a beautiful new garden-patch in my brain; thanks, O! Willow 12:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

PS. Thank goodness that there's no "swotty curse". ;) Otherwise, I'd never have the courage to make you a present of an article. Also, thanks ever so much for defending Photon last night! :)

PPS. I may have made a mistake, which maybe you can help with? I wasn't sure what to call those Lagrange-multiplier and projection methods, so I called them "implicit-force" methods, to distinguish them from the "explicit-force" methods and because the constraint forces aren't computed explicitly? Is there a more usual general term? Also, if you could update the article to cover the developments of the last ~9 years, that'd be great; my articles are rather old-fashioned by now, I suppose. :(

PPPS. I read RNAi last night but it seemed beautiful to me; I couldn't think critically about it. Today, though, I'll re-read it and try to watch myself and find the spots where my Curiosity Quotient (CQ) exceeds threshold: "tell me more about that!" or "how does *that* work?" If I see an opportunity at work, I'll try to make a Figure as well; is there anything in particular that you'd like? Willow 12:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not aware of any common term to group the 'implicit' methods besides 'implicit', but I'll look into it. One of the problems with the recent stuff on constraints is that everybody and his brother comes up with a slightly different algorithm that never really gets implemented anywhere important. (Actually MTS methods and coarse-graining are even worse in that regard.) The LINCS paper is quite nice, isn't it? (Though possibly the biggest reason it avoided the previous fate is that Berendsen put it in GROMACS.) I'm amazed that you wrote that article from digging through the library stacks - it's definitely more detailed than the little stub I would've put there if you hadn't started it :)

I got some figures for RNAi from PLoS, which I love to pieces, at Peta's suggestion, though I'm not thrilled with the new header figure; it's too dense and not very colorful. If you feel inspired (and/or bored), both this article and miRNA lack a schematic of the stem-loop pre-miRNA structure. Opabinia regalis 04:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Blush You are so nice to me; I'm definitely going to have sweet dreams. :) It's high praise, too, coming from the esteemed author of Proteasome. ;) I totally don't deserve it, though; I could hardly follow anything else you said. :( I'll have to go the library again before I can say anything sensible about miRNA, etc. Sorry, what are MTS and coarse-graining about? Maybe I can guess: "maximum time step" or "multiple time step" or "multiscale time step" or something like that? I remember this cute engineer telling me about his clever use of multi-scale time averaging to make a little robot that could balance a pencil upright. That was a few years ago, but it was such a vivid story that I never forgot it.

I wanted to look at RNAi today, but work was hectic; forgive me? I'm also having some time-intensive interactions with another editor at Talk:Sweater curse, who seems to think poorly of me, I hope not deservedly. She prefers a more formal, less cozy discussion, which I understand; I'm working hard to oblige her, but such impersonal conversation doesn't come naturally to me. :( I'm also nagged by doubts unbecoming to us both; she's a self-styled anthropologist and folklorist, but her spelling seems inconsistent with someone who writes for a living. She recently joined the Harmonious Editing Club, though, so perhaps all will be well. Sweet hi's to you and Kitty, Willow 08:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, sorry, TLA syndrome :) Yes, MTS = multiple timestep; it's a family of methods that use different step lengths for recalculating the bonded and nonbonded forces in a molecular dynamics simulation. Coarse-graining is all those beads-on-a-string models - in proteins, each amino acid gets a couple of beads instead of representing every atom in the sidechain. (Arbitrary example on one of my favorite proteins: PMID 15583128.) Also often used on a lattice for quick Monte Carlo-type sampling. But that doesn't sound as cool as building a robot :)

Hm, on the one hand I have no trouble believing that people knowledgeable in real life can sound less coherent online - I know several excellent experimentalists who write every email like they've never seen a computer before. On the other hand, I just skimmed that page and had to chuckle at "or if you want to get heavily academic about it, a Folk Belief". That's not very nice, is it? Opabinia regalis 01:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, that didn't bother me, nor even the accusation that my edits were "dripping with hostility and sarcasm", since it seemed a misunderstanding that could be cleared up quickly. Even her rebuff of friendship was OK, since it may well have been too personal and some people like a more professional tone. The only thing that's bothering me is the feeling that someone hates me and it's my fault; I start doubting myself, which makes me act awkwardly, which make me doubt myself even more and, well, you probably know what I mean. :( At the same time, I don't think that being nice and gentle requires me to agree with everything; perhaps it's understandable that outsiders think that we knitters are irrational when we speak of a "sweater curse" but, from my perspective, they're misled by the word "curse" and don't appreciate the nuanced sense in which the term is used.

It's good that you tell me about the algorithmic three-letter codes, since I was toying with the idea of re-coloring another of your redlinks. I'm just in an indigo mood. ;) Do you have any special favorites? I was attracted to the structure prediction one, but all of them seem interesting. Cheery cheers, Willow 11:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I've re-read the RNAi article and read the PloS article, so it's beginning to come into focus for me, although it hasn't "blossomed" yet the way the constraints did. I'll need to read some more before posting or editing, but one quick question. In the lead, there's something about "complementary to the dsRNA" — does that mean "complementary to both strands of the dsRNA"? In other words, if you injected the cell with a dsRNA with genes on both strands, would they both be suppressed equally? The article seems to say "no", that one strand is preferred over the other? But maybe I misunderstood that. Swimming in murky depths but guided by my mud-loving cousin, Willow 12:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yay, I think I've covered all the RNAi-related redlinks. It still needs a bit of a copyedit and I know there are some terms wikilinked half a dozen times in there, but I think it's almost ready for FAC. If I understand your question right, I think the answer is 'they'd both be suppressed, but not necessarily equally'. Which of the two strands is chosen from the double-stranded dicer fragments is thermodynamic, and independent of whether there's a complementary gene to suppress, but it's also stochastic and there will be cases where the less-stable strand gets incorporated into RISC. So if the genome really did have two genes whose sense strands contained perfect 21-nucleotide palindromes, they'd both get suppressed, but probably not in equal amounts. Is that what you meant by 'genes on both strands'?

Hmm, any of those red links could use re-coloring... I suppose the miscellany is the place to start, since most of the Alzheimer's proteins will probably just cite the same sources as amyloid precursor protein. I know we have requested articles lists, but I was thinking the MCB project could benefit from a centralized list of redlinks maintained by us, rather than random people who can't type things in the search box. I think there used to be a category for user-maintained lists of redlinks; maybe we need either a single project list or a Category:MCB Redlinks to collect individual user lists? I'm impressed at how useful that list has been compared to my perpetually outdated and neglected to do.

My cat learned last week how to open the kitchen cabinets. What's strange is that she opens and climbs into the one with all the pots and pans, but not the one with the cat food. Go figure. Opabinia regalis 06:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the snuggly feeling of curling up in a skillet! :) My kitties are still thwarted by cabinets, but the mischievous male recently learned to open the latch on their food container with a well-placed head-butt after a running start. They haven't figured out the next step, but I see a Great Robbery writ large in our future. ;)

Your idea of an MCB redlinks list is excellent! :) You should definitely propose it there. On the other hand, I like the personal touch; I would happily re-dye both types of redlinks, but it's more fun and cheery/cheeky to make a redlink page for someone I like (especially if I can surprise them!) than one needed by the WikiProject.

Thanks for explaining the RNAi thing; I appreciate your patience more than ever! :) Like the hydra's heads, though, two questions sprout for every one answered. ;) If dsRNA is put in with a gene on only one strand, as I guess is normal, does it mean that there's a 50%-50% chance of having strong vs. weak suppression? Also, what happens if the RISC RNA strand doesn't match exactly, what if one base isn't complementary to the mRNA — would that be enough to prevent degradation? I'm guessing not, since viruses mutate so quickly; it'd provide too easy an escape for them. ;) Creeping slowly towards enlightenment, Willow 11:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The things cats will do for food ;) I think mine's just waiting for the right moment to sneak into the cat-food cupboard.

What do you think would be more useful, since I'm somewhat undecided: a single centralized list of "MCB redlinks" that anyone could add to or blue-ify, or a Category:MCB Redlinks in which individual users can put their personal redlinks lists? The former seems like the 'obvious' way to do it, but there's an advantage in users maintaining their own - the personal side of things, and the ability to remember which articles the links appear in and what sources were used in related articles.

Last question first, slight mismatches still work, though slightly less efficiently - miRNA usually doesn't match exactly to any one of its targets, but it's 'close' to a large number, hence miRNA regulation is often about modulation rather than switching expression off altogether. When you add dsRNA to a cell culture (or infect it with a virus), it's unlikely you'll see two distinct populations of cells with a 'strong suppression' and a 'weak suppression' group, unless the cells started out in two distinct states. You'll likely just get a distribution around some mean level of suppression, which may be 'slightly decreased' or 'completely turned off' depending on the conditions, the complementarity of the fragments, how much argonaute the cells are expressing, and several zillion other factors. This is likely especially variable with long dsRNA as opposed to pre-processed siRNAs, because the siRNA fragments produced by the cells' native dicers will vary a bit and have a distribution of lengths and sequences. Opabinia regalis 06:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, amyloid precursor protein, was selected for DYK!

On January 29, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article amyloid precursor protein, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 03:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

FAC

Hi there. You recently made some comments at the Same-sex marriage in Spain FAC. Would it be possible for you to take another look and see if your concerns have been adequately addressed? Another editor has copyedited the article, a few explanations regarding why a heavily Catholic country would support same-sex marriage have been included in the reactions section, the names of several local organisations that supported and opposed the law have been added, and Spanish tags have been added to Spanish sources. We'd be grateful for your input. Cheers Raystorm 17:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew I was forgetting something. I'm kind of busy offline at the moment; mind giving me a day or two? Opabinia regalis 23:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your time. :-) Raystorm 11:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What a WONDERFUL user name.

On Slashdot I am Archaeopteryx. --BenBurch 04:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, of all the online aliases I've had, I like this one the best. And congratulations for having a rare instance of a cool username on Slashdot ;) Opabinia regalis 06:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It *is* rare over there. I went to school for Astrophysics, wound up being a computer guy instead, and now am a liberal political talk show impresario. But some day I think I will go back to school for a Paleontology degree. --BenBurch 21:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh, anything that doesn't refer to a Linux distribution or a Half-Life mod gets +karma from me. If you do end up in paleontology, then you get an award for odd career paths, and don't forget about us Cambrian fauna! Opabinia regalis 01:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Odd little inverts are where it's at! --BenBurch

Science Collaboration of the Month

You voted for Natural selection and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Month! Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article.

NCurse _work 16:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

So I'm guessing you're a doctor?

Nice expertise. I'm a Biology fan myself, although I'm only in AP Bio. ~ Flameviper ^{Who's a Peach?} 14:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV. I don't deal with anything bigger than a protein. But stick with bio, it's clearly much more interesting than physics ;) Opabinia regalis 01:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are, then I might beg for you to cast one of your 5 eyes over at dolorimeter, pain scale or dol and help me with a bit of professional perspective.--Filll 14:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine might be a good place to ask for more help. Cool articles though; nice job so far! Opabinia regalis 01:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Prod (and some begging)

Physics is being rewritten and we are looking for contributors and/or moderators at Talk:Physics/wip. Is there any way I could prevail upon you? Or should we look elsewhere? I fear the natives are getting restless.--Filll 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Some Fast Deletion I SEE

Tried to refute the charges with my Article, and before I even finished uploading my refutation the page was deleted. Then I redid the page and added quite a bit more information and gone again in seconds. So I take it WikiPedia is the NEW DMOZ!!!

Twebdon 05:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Try not repeatedly posting spam for your non-notable website. Opabinia regalis 05:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism action

I don't mean to upset him. I put a prod on his article but I told him how to fix it to save it. What do I do?--Filll 04:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comment about article size at Talk:Evolution

Hello Opabinia. Your comment tells me I've got more to learn about article size. Article size is the raw size you get from the 'Edit' button or the 'Search' function? If that's the case, then surely Evolution has got much smaller since the FA review began, because it had this remark by SandyGeorgia on 5 January:

The article size is 104KB overall, with 60KB of prose

So unless I'm miscalculating, the current 'Edit' size of 65 Kb is a lot less than 104 Kb quoted by SandyGeorgia.

Using the gimmick in Footnote 2 of WP:LENGTH I find that the 'readable prose' is 41 Kb. Is his how it should be figured? EdJohnston 02:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Half the time I'm not sure anymore what people are quoting when they say 'size'. I think Sandy's 104KB number was likely the edit-window size, though I don't think I've followed the editing on the article closely enough to know offhand if that size difference makes sense. Usually it's prose size that people care about, since nobody's going to sit and read the gob of references at the end anyway. If it's really 41KB of prose, then I think it's fine on article size. See bacteria for what's probably the practical upper limit of FA size (prose and total). Opabinia regalis 02:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Dr pda (talk · contribs) has a script which calculates all the sizes - yep, the 41KB was readable prose (last time I checked, 10KB references), as described at WP:LENGTH. By comparison, Bacteria is 39 KB readable prose, with 21 KB references. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy. Finally installed :) I guess my size calibration is off; I thought bacteria was much larger than that. Opabinia regalis 03:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Proteins wiki and your DNA clamp image

Hello,

My students introduced me recently to Wikipedia and, in particular, to your Proteasome article. Although I've looked at only a fraction of the MCB articles, I'm impressed by the quality of the review articles that you and your colleagues have been producing recently, and am intrigued by the possibilities for wiki's in scientific collaborations and in teaching.

By coincidence, we've recently been awarded a grant from the NSF to functionally annotate the chloroplast-targeted genes of Arabidopsis thaliana, roughly 4500 proteins in all, using a combination of experimental and computational means. We're growing up thousands of individual knockout plants and assaying them using a variety of methods, while at the same time, trying to predict their domain structure, carry out multiple sequence alignments and structure predictions. Naturally, it's a lot of work to interpret the data and formulate functional hypotheses. So, as an experiment, I've begun setting up a Proteins wiki at this page to facilitate the distribution of our results and to foster collaboration in developing functional hypotheses. However, the aim of the Proteins wiki is to foster education and discussion on any sort of protein, not just those of A. thaliana.

The nascent wiki is not meant to supplant Wikipedia's own coverage, but to be complementary to it, since it may accept as-yet-unpublished data. I would hope for cordial relations with the MCB WikiProject, and would work to earn their respect and trust. As a token of this, I would like to use your attractive image for the DNA clamp as the logo for the Proteins wiki; please let me know whether this is acceptable to you. I would also appreciate any advice or suggestions that you and your colleagues might have, since this wiki-business is still foreign to me. Proteins 17:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's great to hear that the MCB articles are proving useful to someone! You're welcome to use the DNA clamp image for any purpose you want - you'd just need to provide a link to the VMD website (on its image description page, presumably).

Your project sounds like a big but extremely useful undertaking - I like your idea of using a wiki to facilitate it, though I'm not sure that I have any useful advice to give. (Other than avoiding feature creep, which bogged down an old wiki-based education project I was involved with, but that's useless advice for just starting out, isn't it?) If you want to make more general contact with the MCB people, feel free to post on one of the talk subpages - Announcements or Help are probably your best bets. I'm sure other members could have some more helpful input for you. Opabinia regalis 04:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions and guidance. I'll take your advice and post an initial announcement at the MCB Project, although I'm somewhat hesitant to do so before I've had a chance to set the wiki up properly. I've just learned of a tool that will allow us to upload tens of thousands of pages in an automated fashion, without having to enter them manually. My plan is to analyze the genomes on my supercomputer, generate Wikipedia-formatted pages from our results and then upload them to "seed" the wiki. Since our focus is on plant proteins targeted to the chloroplast, I intend to work on plant and cyanobacterial genomes first. Unfortunately, I'm teaching our senior-level biochemistry course right now, and I have yet another grant due in a few weeks, so my time may be limited.

Thank you also for your permission on the DNA-clamp image, which I will add to the wiki later today. Proteins 20:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The proteins wiki looks nice so far! Isn't it fortunate that some proteins are so conveniently symmetrical? Out of curiosity, what are you using to automate the initial content population? (Incidentally, we have a potential need for automated content population also, though we don't have our own supercomputer to generate it ;) If let us know when you've got the initial content set up, and you're planning on allowing open registration, there may be some MCB people who are interested in using or contributing to your project. Opabinia regalis 02:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Flickr

Do you use Flickr? You might want to ask the photographer of Mello's Nobel Lecture to freely license this. --Peta 03:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a great image, thanks for pointing it out - unfortunately I've never used Flickr in my life; the only images I ever deal with here are my own. Would it be weird if I registered there just to contact him? Opabinia regalis 03:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me dropping into this conversation, but I saw the photo, and I'm already a Flickr member, so I sent the photographer some mail. Will let you know if I hear anything back. EdJohnston 04:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks Ed! Opabinia regalis 05:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Photo has been cleared under GFDL and is now posted in the Craig Mello article. I don't know if you were planning to replace the picture which is there now, which is only Fair Use, but the new one is shot from quite a distance back, so keeping both may be desirable. EdJohnston 20:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! It's now in the RNAi article also. I tagged both the Mello and Fire portraits as replaceable fair use and suspect they ought to be deleted given the new fair-use guidance, but I'll let someone else make that call. Opabinia regalis 02:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Pfam proposal

Hi there, if we want to implement this proposal, who should get in touch with? If we are going to do this automatically, what information does the person who writes the bot need? This is a bit out of my area of expertise, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks TimVickers 18:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, if the Pfam curators are on board with the idea, I think the only thing we'd need to do locally is get a bot and get it a bot flag - given the Rambot precedent, I can't imagine significant opposition to the idea of mass-creating articles for protein families. (Of course, one could argue that an article about a protein family is implicitly accepting the POV that families/folds exist, but I think it's a very small minority that take that seriously.) Do you know if Pfam distributes a static database dump, or if we could get one, rather than hammering their servers with content-scraping?

The two things that immediately come to mind as bot considerations are article titles and redundancies. I'm sure we'd rather not have article titles corresponding to the family names ("LRR_1" isn't very descriptive) but the descriptions seem too wordy also ("Zinc finger C-x8-C-x5-C-x3-H type"?). I'm not sure what the best solution to that is, other than manual supervision/semiautomation. The other potential problem is that we have some articles on these families - leucine-rich repeat exists - and they're probably not consistently in one category, so we'd have to have some way of sorting out the redundant articles (ideally by integrating the Pfam stuff with the existing text, which has to be done manually).

Am I right that what we'd want in the articles are the text of the general description, the superfamily (as a category?), the references, and a link to the Pfam page? I assume we explicitly can't import the INTERPRO text, right? Opabinia regalis 02:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Jcink.com

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jcink.com. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Opalelement 05:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jenna Jameson

If I haven't written so already, thank you very much for your detailed criticism. I am accepting most, pushing back on others, but appreciate the effort in any case. I hope we can reach something you find worthy. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry I haven't been paying more attention; I'll read the article again tomorrow. Opabinia regalis 08:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I changed a Cquote to a blockquote because you didn't like too many Cquotes, but I am now getting criticism that I shouldn't use both. I can't change the most important Cquote to a blockquote, because it's just one sentence - "The most important thing to me right now is to become the biggest star the industry has ever seen." - yet that one sentence seems to characterize the subject so well, I really want to emphasize it. Any suggestions? It looks like I just can't satisfy everyone, but I would really like to. Could you still consider supporting if I changed the blockquote back to a Cquote? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 15 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Piwi, 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.

--Yomangani^talk 09:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Zzuuzz's RfA

You may want to check up on Zzuuzz's new answer to Q2. Regards, —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

New essay and new WikiProject

I took your advice and took my best shot at writing a rigorously impartial essay; it's nowhere near done, but I gave it a decent start. I'm glad that I steered clear of the other crowd, things seem to have gotten — warm over there. :( On a happier note, we got five editors for a new WikiProject Textile Arts, which has been a fond wish of mine for a long time. The project got started today and we already have 28 article assessments; I'm as happy as a clam snuggled in her seabed. :)

Maybe we should continue the conversation over at my Talk page? I hate to be always filling up your Talk page with non-encyclopedic pleasantries, however pleasant it is. :) Hoping that all's well with you and I really would appreciate any insights or suggestions you have, either for the essay or the Wikiproject — or for me. I'm reflecting today that I didn't handle the situation with User:Worldtraveller very deftly; it was exceptionally clumsy, even for me. All trees are dense, but Willows especially so.  :( Willow 23:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion of the article Cannibal Holocaust

I believe I've resolved all the points you've made against the article's featured article nomination (I crossed out each point you made as a checklist for editing, so if I crossed one out without merit, forgive me). I'd like for your review again. Helltopay27 16:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Your nomination in MCB

• Hi, you nominated the article RNA polymerase for MCB collaboration of the month. It's currently overdue.

• So, I was wondering what exactly needs to be improved in that article, and if you could post that in the "to do" list on that article's talk page.

• After you do this, please leave a message on my talk page and I will certainly vote for that collaboration.

--Parker007 16:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to read the article? I haven't done the research to have a content-specific list of to-dos yet, but it's embarrassingly short and incomplete for such a well-studied subject. In particular, there's no mention of error rate or processivity factors, it doesn't even describe the polymerization reaction (actually, neither does DNA polymerase, which is also not good). The writing is terrible - 'in scientific terms'? There shouldn't be any 'unscientific terms' in the article. There are no references, the 'isolation' section is sorry little substub that ought to be called 'purification' in any case, and the distinctions between polymerases in both prokaryotes and eukaryotes deserve more than single-sentence explanations. (There's nothing on how these distinctions are maintained or regulated, for example.) In short, the 'to do' list is longer than the 'done' list by a long shot. Opabinia regalis 02:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think we should work on MRI article first, (not sure if it was a former FA, but I am sure it was never featued on the main page) I mean, it does have more importance to the general population; I know it does a scan etc. etc. fMRI was invented in 1999. My 2 cents. Anyways as promised, I voted for RNA polymerase. :) . --Parker007 00:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

lookie lookie lookie i made todo list :)

• make bigger because it is short and incomplete for such a well-studied subject.
• mention error rate or processivity factors.
• describe the polymerization reaction.
• add more references.
• make the 'isolation' section bigger and rename to 'purification'.
• more than single-sentence explanations for the distinctions between polymerases in both prokaryotes and eukaryotes deserve (There's nothing on how these distinctions are maintained or regulated, for example.) --Parker007 00:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

Thanks for the thought, yes, OK. This could help a lot with dealing with vandalism. TimVickers 18:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

(in case anyone's looking here instead of Tim's talk page) Fantastic news, RfA created: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TimVickers. Hopefully before long we'll have even faster vandalwhacking on the bio articles ;) Opabinia regalis 02:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I've got a lot of reading to do, I'll go off and do my homework. TimVickers 04:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've read the guide pages and have accepted on the nomination page and answered the questions. If I've missed anything please let me know. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence and fulsome praise - I'm blushing! TimVickers 05:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Aww, we made Tim blush ;) It looks good! Whenever you're ready, stick it on the RfA listing and you're off. As an aside - purely an opinion, but - it's not a big deal to protect an article from vandalism even if you've been involved with it in the past. (Hands off on a content dispute, of course.) Good luck! Opabinia regalis 06:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help with this, I'm happy to have people like you as friends. TimVickers 16:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent edit

I think your edit was very good, and updates the assumptions nicely. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

MCB Worklist

I don't think the article worklist is being updated - I've assessed all the entries shown that present as 'unassessed', but they fail to be updated day after day. Does ClockworkSoul need to do it manually or is it supposed to be automatic? There are actually many more articles with the MCB template than actually show up on the worklist page. --Seans Potato Business 19:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This version of the list gets updated automatically. I think Clockwork had his own program to update the worklist page, but the data there was just taken from the 1.0 bot-updated one. The 1.0 list is much longer than it was last time I looked at it, so I'm guessing that version is up to date. Opabinia regalis 23:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

wiked custom button bar definitions have changed

Hi,

the wiked custom button bar definitions have changed in the latest software update to version 0.9.25. Please check the wikEd homepage for more information. All you have to do is to update the following lines in your monobook.js page (disable JavaScript if you cannot edit pages):

wikEdButtonBar['custom1'] = ['wikEdButtonBarCustom1',  'wikEdButtonBarCustom1',  'wikEdButtonsCustom1',  'wikEdButtonsCustom1',  44, 'My custom buttons', [100, 'br', 101] ];
wikEdButtonBar['custom2'] = ['wikEdButtonBarCustom2',  'wikEdButtonBarCustom2',  'wikEdButtonsCustom2',  'wikEdButtonsCustom2',  44, 'My custom buttons', [100, 'br', 101] ];

Cacycle 21:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratu LATi ons

Well done! TimVickers 01:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad you stopped by to review it; that page was starting to get lonely before you showed up! Opabinia regalis 01:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

RNA interference

Hey, congratulations! I didn't even have time to read the article properly and vote/comment... Unusually slim participation, wasn't it? Still, one more star under your belt! Congrats again and sorry for missing out on this one, Fvasconcellos 01:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you too! Yes, it did seem unusually quiet for a while... but it is kind of a long, dense article. (Nice way of admitting to having written dull prose? ;) If you do get a chance to read it and have any suggestions, the talk page is still open. Opabinia regalis 01:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Followup on Jupiter

... I did have a minor followup on my FAC comments for Jupiter that I didn't get a chance to post before it was closed, so I'll drop it off here - maybe I'm dim, but I still don't see why Thursday being named after Thor has anything to do with Jupiter; it sounds like a back-of-the-cereal-box fact. The chain of reasoning as far as I can see is 'Thor is a god associated with thunder -> Jupiter is a god associated with thunder in an unrelated mythology -> Jupiter the planet is named after Jupiter the god -> therefore it's totally relevant to mention the etymology of Thursday in the Jupiter article.' It's an editorial decision, but unless Thor was associated with the planet in Norse mythology, that's way too tangential for me. Opabinia regalis 02:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I modified the text to make Thor's association with the planet clearer. It's covered by the cited reference, "Astronomical Names for the Days of the Week" from the JRSC. — RJH (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Much better! And sorry for belaboring the point ;) Opabinia regalis 01:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I wanted this article to be the best I could make it, so your feedback was very helpful. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:

In response to the question left at FAR, I'm rather saddened you've gained the impression I'm holding Restoration literature to stricter than usual standards as this isn't correct. I'm always strict as concerns criterion 1. c. on all FARs, for example;

Ask Deltabeignet who saved Layla, or Angmering who lost Nineteen Eighty-Four (TV programme) but saved Quatermass and the Pit, Raul654 who got that sick of me going on about citations he thought I was doing WP:POINT, or User:Josiah Rowe who saved Dalek. In fact, ask anyone whose FAR I have ever been involved in.

It's true me and Giano don't get along, but I wouldn't let this get in the way of FAR - I'm involved at FAR at a daily basis mostly. If you feel my interpretation of criterion 1. c. is strict in that specific FAR, then you're saying it's strict in all the FARs I've ever been involved in. Accusing me of being stricter than I usually am though is actually incorrect. LuciferMorgan 14:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I retracted that question as unlikely to yield anything productive, but thanks for responding, and in particular, thanks for responding here instead of there. Briefly - only you know whether you are applying different standards, but you undisputably said you would; that's what '110%' means.

Yes, I'm aware of your usual citation 'expectations', and I'm not the only one who has commented in the past that they are frequently unreasonable. Most recently, that I recall, your request for citations on two specific items in the Infinite monkey theorem FAR was completely illogical, and suggested that you did not have the requisite background knowledge to evaluate the article well. Even if you are not trying to make a WP:POINT, did you consider when Raul suggested it that your behavior might still be problematic? A comparison of your approach to Sandy's would be instructive; I don't necessarily always agree with her on referencing standards, but she is an excellent and thorough reviewer of articles whose subjects she is familiar with, and she knows when to step back a bit on articles whose subjects she isn't familiar with. Those would be good traits to emulate. Opabinia regalis 02:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

When reviewing articles, I always apply the 110% standard - I didn't say it as though trying to apply different, stricter standards. When I ask for citations on things, you don't need to have a requisite background knowledge on a topic in my opinion. It's opinion based statements that I usually ask for as concerns citations, as opinions always emanate from someone / some people.

To be honest I didn't consider what Raul said as concerns my behaviour, as he suggested using his FA director's powers to close the Downfall FAR early, and some of his behaviour I would say is problematic on occasion. I don't feel my standards are unreasonable, but you have a right to your opinion the same as I do mine. The thing is it's all relative to interpretation, and everyone has a right to their own interpretation. Having said that, I prefer this kind of gentle debate as opposed to the heated theatrics of RestLit. As concerns Sandy's behaviour, yeah she is a good reviewer / editor, though the good traits of her I admire most are the ability to ignore negative goading from other editors. While some of the things I've said at FAR in the past have been uncivil, I'm rather saddened I'm the only one who was singled out since others made rather uncivil comments about me but weren't chastised for them like I was. LuciferMorgan 01:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for debating this in a civil way here, which is much appreciated. LuciferMorgan 01:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

'I always apply the 110% standard' - so you are attempting to enforce a standard higher than that which is specified in the criteria?

Honestly, I am amazed that you (or anyone) would think that basic familiarity with the field is necessary to properly evaluate the sources in an article. True, it doesn't take a PhD in chemistry to see an uncited density and ask for a citation to a standard table of chemical properties, or something to that effect, but... to use the infinite monkey theorem example again, you made two specific requests that were frankly completely uninformed. This is not something that can be backed out of with 'it's just my opinion' (you've heard the old saying about opinions, right? ;) and that goes double when you start making statements like this one that falsely imply a degree of authority granted to these statements that are 'just opinions' or 'just my own interpretation'.

I don't know the context to your dispute with Raul and I don't intend to go digging; it's not that important. But if you didn't consider that Raul might have had a point, and you dismiss out of hand the opinions of Giano, Geogre, and Bishonen (and ALoan and Christopher Parham and Peter Isotalo), then did you consider it when similar criticism of your position on referencing was advanced by myself and Septentrionalis, or by DCGeist, or Mcginnly, or Wetman - and this is just what I can think of off the top of my head, from my rather rare FAR visits? My point isn't to compile an enemies list, but to illustrate that a large number of people - sometimes that gets called 'consensus' - think your expectations for citations, and in particular your willingness to demand them for articles whose subjects you are admittedly not familiar with, are inappropriate. If you feel 'singled out', I'd venture a guess that it's because you have a very long history of making these types of demands, and have not really responded to others' criticism of your position. Opabinia regalis 04:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Are you are attempting to enforce a standard higher than that which is specified in the criteria?

No I'm not. As I said, it's a murky area and open to interpretation.

Lucifer, the only possible coherent meaning of '110% meets 1c' is 'exceeds the standard'. If that is not what you mean, then you should find another phrase to describe your position. Did you ever hear, in high school or college, someone say 'there's no one right answer to this question, but there are many wrong answers'? Opabinia regalis 05:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

2. that goes double when you start making statements like this one that falsely imply a degree of authority granted to these statements that are 'just opinions' or 'just my own interpretation'.

Richard O' Connor has 6 citations - do you think it will remain an FA if it has 6 citations at the end of its FAR? That's why the comment was made, and also it's true that articles with more citations have been defeatured per 1c. FAR cannot change the criteria, but if Giano et. al. wish to change it they can by gaining community consensus on FAC. FAR applies the standard that happens at FAC. As concerns falsely implying a degree of authority, it's yourself who made that interpretation and I didn't say I'm an authority figure.

This is precisely the type of argument that leads people to become very frustrated with you. This is pure beancounting. I have no idea if Richard O'Connor should remain a featured article, because I haven't actually read the article. (I'd be a hundred times more concerned about the plagiarism allegation than the number of little subscripts it has.) Have you actually read the article? Why do you think you can predict what the consensus will be on whether to remove it or not, when you are unable or unwilling to see that consensus does not support your interpretation of the citation criteria? Opabinia regalis 05:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

3. I don't know the context to your dispute with Raul and I don't intend to go digging; it's not that important. But if you didn't consider that Raul might have had a point

As concerns that, it's actually very important in the context of what your saying. You're saying Raul may have had a point when not even checking the Downfall FAR, and don't know all aspects of that. Additionally, when I say an article fails criterion 1. c. nobody needs to go on a personal attack on me - I have every right to defend myself.

I think you misunderstood. If you are in a dispute with someone, it is excusable not to take their criticisms of your behavior seriously. However, substantively similar criticisms have been raised in a number of other contexts and by a number of other people with whom you were not in a dispute at the time, and you have shown no evidence of even considering those criticisms. Now that I have read the Operation Downfall FAR, I will refrain from commenting on your behavior there, as dredging up months-old arguments is not productive, other than to confirm again that the same points about your attitude toward citation have been made by others in other venues. Opabinia regalis 05:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

4. If you feel 'singled out', I'd venture a guess that it's because you have a very long history of making these types of demands, and have not really responded to others' criticism of your position.

No offence, but do you know the context of the Giano dispute? He's been running me down on various talk pages, trying to goad me and even trying to goad SandyGeorgia may I add. When he or anyone else has been uncivil though, nobody has battered an eyelid. If I'm warned for being uncivil, then so should everyone else. As concerns them having a point, perhaps you should take a look at [2]? The LM stands for LuciferMorgan by the way, and while the comments of most there I find ok, I don't particularly find Giano's nor Geogre's holier than thou comments particularly nice, not that they were accused of being uncivil. Also, pay attention to the below called FA FAC FAR FARC, which sheds light on their opinions and others involved with RestLit - while I'm in favour of citations, they want "Brilliant prose" reinstated according to that which asked for no citations. So perhaps then you agree with articles having no citations? If you do, that's up to you, but I have no intention of warming to the idea of reinstating brilliant prose myself (ie. responding to their criticism) - that's a right I have, which is the same right you have (ie. to feel however you wish).

Also the Restoration Literature article had zero citations when all those people were criticising me. Not thirty, or twenty, but nothing. Take me out of the equation for a minute - if the article wasn't an FA, and was nominated at FAC at this point in time with the current 1. c. criteria as it currently is, would it have become an FA?

Once again, my warm thanks for debating this in a civil manner, but your guess is wrong unfortunately in me being 'singled out' - it isn't because of a long history, but the fact that 6 people went on my talk page when RestLit erupted, and I was the only person warned for being uncivil even though others were also uncivil. Also, as evidenced by Geogre's talk page, everyone's now going for a bash at me yet not being told to leave things lie. With DCGeist for instance, I only said that I felt B Movie failed 1. c. and he asked for others to check my history of contributions at FAR / C - I'd only expressed that I felt the article failed 1. c. and commended editors on their current efforts with the article, so really was there no need to. However, I feel DCGeist's recent comments have gone in a positive direction and I commend him wholly for that - the thing is that until 1. c. isn't a murky area, there'll always be debate with the criteria. LuciferMorgan 10:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the first and certainly not the last to have been unfortunate in crossing Giano, though rather than influence your opinion as concerns him you can find out for yourself.

It's a rare case to see this minor spat referred to as 'the Giano dispute', but yes, I'm aware of the context. This whole long post contains a lot of 'they're being mean to me!' and not much reflection on whether a whole group of editors just woke up one morning and declared it Be Mean to Lucifer Day, or whether your own behavior was a provocation. (It seems like everyone's first response to a dispute-related warning is 'did that guy get one too?' rather than thinking about what they can to do improve. Not that I think Geogre's warning was well-advised.) I am not sure why I am to have an opinion on Giano, rather than Giano's participation in this situation, but to the extent that I have any opinion on him, it is that he's an excellent writer.

I criticized you above for not being precise in saying what you mean, so it's unfair of me not to be precise. When I said 'venture a guess...', I was trying to find a polite way of saying 'the citation issue has been annoying people for a very long time, and you have vocally and repetitively advanced a position that is widely viewed as extreme and unreasonable, so it's not surprising that frustrations boiled over on you.'

The thing I find missing among all of your commentary on citations is any recognition of context. To pick on my own articles (admittedly not very diverse), RNA interference has over a hundred citations, because it is a very current and very active area of research, while sequence alignment has many fewer, because the basic elements of the method are quite settled. The humanities have different citation standards than the sciences, long articles have different standards than short ones, articles based mainly on a few sources have different standards than articles based on organization and summary of many sources, etc.... and you apply the same reflexive judgments in every case, with no recognition or awareness of context, and - to drag up the infinite monkey theorem case again - little willingness to reevaluate your erroneous judgments after their error is pointed out. This is really not something that can be explained by appealing to subjectivity; 'just my interpretation' doesn't justify persistently rigid and inflexible behavior that has thus far proven impervious to criticism. Perhaps that is because you feel singled out or put upon by many of the other people who have offered such criticism. Thank you for being willing to discuss this here, and I hope that your response to this thread will be to think seriously and critically about the way you approach citation standards. Opabinia regalis 05:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Addendum I didn't quite answer your specific questions in my previous post. No, I don't think Restoration literature in its pre-FAR form would have passed FAC today, though I don't think it would or should have been dismissed altogether, either. I wasn't around for the days of brilliant prose, but a) it existed at a time when inline citations were not technically feasible, so the fact that it lacked citation criteria is irrelevant, and b) just what it says on the tin. Brilliant prose was, as I understand, much more about the writing than the current FA process, and I see no reason why a separate status for outstanding writing couldn't exist independently of the other factors that go into an FA. In fact, that would probably be more useful than GA as it currently exists. Opabinia regalis 07:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Without trying to sound cheeky, I think this conversation could drag on and on, but all I can say is you have your opinion and I have mine. Mine differs from yours, especially as concerns your second paragraph. The fact that I nor you can have an erroneous judgment with FA criteria since its vague, so therefore mostly interpretative, doesn't seem to be have been mentioned. As concerns brilliant prose, inline citations, Restoration literature Giano et. al., let's say we distinctly disagree, especially as concerns your views on Giano (which of course you're entitled to, as I am mine). What people don't seem to understand as concerns brilliant prose, criterion 1. a. of the FA criteria already asks for that - if articles with bad prose are being passed (which shouldn't be), that's the fault of the reviewers supporting the article and the FAC director for not upholding the complaints of the few that complain about a specific article's prose, not the criteria itself. Anyway thanks for the chat, and I hope you don't find my reply to you rude, but I hope you can understand this could go on virtually forever. LuciferMorgan 22:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you're right, these kinds of discussions can go on forever with no resolution. I apologize for going on at length about side points (I am a rather loquacious fossil, after all ;), but I wish I had been more effective in conveying the general point that citation requests can be inappropriate, uninformed, or plain wrong, and subjectivity or interpretation can't be blamed for failure to familiarize oneself with the topic. That's what I meant by 'there's no right answer, but there are wrong answers' - even if something is open to interpretation, it is possible to interpret it wrongly. That said, I found your response on the criteria talk page encouraging, so I suppose I'll keep my proboscis out for now. Thanks for being willing to discuss. Opabinia regalis 04:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the month

You voted for Oxygen and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Month! Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article.

NCurse _work 16:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Automatically generated taxonomic stubs?

It sounds so mundane when there are no birds and no music involved. ;) Anyway, I left a message for both you and Tim at the bottom of my Talk page; I really would appreciate your advice. If the idea's unfeasible, that's ok; the program didn't take much time to write, and I had fun doing it. I'll be gone for a little while, so please be patient if I don't reply right away. Wishing you every tranquillity (the above discussion makes me glad I'm a little Miss Nobody here) Willow 18:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, could you give me some image advice, too? I'd like to make some nice-looking 3D diagrams of simple geometrical constructions: spheres, ellipses, planes, cones, etc. What's a good package or scripting language that I could learn to do that? Ideally it'd be in Linux, but I also use Windows at the library. I'd also like to learn how to make those animated figures; any clues for the clueless? Gratefully, Willow 22:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Biological Value

I noticed you appear to be involved in biology articles or WikiProjects relating to biology and human processes. This article, on a method for evaluating biological utilizations rates of proteins in humans and animals, was started in August and is in need of the attention of an expert. We are having trouble locating one and the article desperately needs it. This method is used constantly in bodybuilding magazines and products and is the subject of much misinformation and half-truths. On the other hand it does appear to have some value. Please help if possible. In case you're wondering why I picked you I just looked through some Science WikiProjects and biology articles and your name appeared a lot in one or both categories. Quadzilla99 22:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally if you decide not to do this for whatever reason there's no need to reply. I'll just take it you're busy or uninterested. Thanks. Quadzilla99 22:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy Spread-the-funny and-slighty-random-love day!

:) pschemp (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice work

Nice work on Natural_selection#Information_theory. cheers, Pete.Hurd 06:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. As I posted on the talk page a while ago, hopefully there are more important aspects of the article to worry about ;) Speaking of which, do you happen to have any insight on this question? Opabinia regalis 07:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Aye, answered on Talk:Natural selection. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 02:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent timing; the message banner just popped up as I was replying there. Opabinia regalis 02:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do

Opaninia regalis, thanks for the welcome to wikipedia--this is definently becoming a [somewhat inconvenient] addiction but I am enjoying it. I havent come across anything on the size of paraspeckles yet but will keep an eye out for it. I will also take a look at at the MCB wikiboard and see what more I can do. Let me know if there are anym ore improvements that I should make! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsundby (talk • contribs) 00:23, 7 March 2007

I emailed Archa Fox(who runs the main lab doing research on paraspeckles)and he gave me the size of the paraspeckle to be approx 0.2-1.0 um....however, since this was through email correspondance (and unpublished) I was unsure of how to properly site it using the wiki templates...any suggestions? Archa was also very helpful and offered to provide original pictures along with making an edit/additions to the paraspeckle and cell nucleus page himself. Sorry to bother you again but im new to this and dont quite know my way around it yet. R. Sundby 06:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit of a Wikipedia idiosyncrasy that original, user-contributed images released under a suitable free license are strongly encouraged, but sources like personal correspondence are all but forbidden under the no original research policy, because the accuracy and provenance of the message can't be verified by other editors or readers. If the size of a paraspeckle has been published, then that publication would have to be cited; if it hasn't been published, we unfortunately can't include it. Images are always welcome, but have a look at Wikipedia:Uploading images first, because the specifics of image licensing and tagging can be unnecessarily complex.

Don't worry about bothering me or any other MCB people; we like fresh blood ;) Opabinia regalis 07:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Issue de table

Well, the feast is over for this time, and off we go into a period of intellectual fast. But mayhaps will we meet again some day to make more medieval merry! My regards to you for your comments at the nomination.

sincerely,
Peter ^Isotalo 07:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

a very rare mistake

Try google -- or Bio Abs etc etc. for "Evolutionary ethics" which is what the article at AfD should have been called.DGG 06:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I was trying to be too clever writing that ;) Does my second post clear up what I think about the article? Opabinia regalis 08:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

neprilysin on DYK for 11 March 2007

On 11 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article neprilysin, 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.

Thank you for your contribution! — ERcheck (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)