User talk:Samsara/Archive10

Hope you come back

But in case you don't, your contributions to Wikipedia will be around for a long time. Take care--ragesoss 03:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In honor of Samsara: Radiolarians, whose beautiful mineral skeletons remain long after the organism is gone

Ugh I cant believe it

I dont blame you. I hope you do not mind if I try to marshall a few forces to stop this outrage--Filll 18:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't figured out what caused him to leave, but I miss Samsara and wish he'd come back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice to read a glimpse of yourself, feel free to relax and hope further sightings occur in the fullness of time. Something I'd value your comment on; at talk:Charles Darwin#Works the question's been raised of splitting the list of works off into another article. In the past I've felt the list was a useful way of pointing out that he did a lot more than The Origin, but as such a good bibliography is available at DarwinOnline, am reconsidering and now thinking of splitting it off while adding some more (brief) mentions of less known works into the "life" sections. No worries, but if you can chip in the odd word I'll be most grateful. .. dave souza, talk 00:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stick around. I suspect this has something to do with your recent discussions on fundamental principles and qualification to edit. My own expectation also is that wikipedia or wikipedia-fork systems will evolve a system that enforces what you are suggesting, possibly with the formation of linked networks of editors who introduce and rate other editors so that evil and plain stupidity are dealt with identically. best. Shyamal 05:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Spammy link and a plan

This site was snuck into the Evolution article, and led me to ponder heading in to politely point out all the failures in the eye lecture (as one I feel well able to tackle). They claim to want debate, eh? Would you care to join me? Vanished user ^talk 13:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

...Oh, well. Shoot. Sorry to see you've left. Vanished user ^talk 13:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Pleasant Surprise!

Thanks for the lovely award of 'exceptional newcomer' on my talk page! :-) ! Kind Regards, Keesiewonder 10:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar :)

Thank you for the barnstar :). That's quite kind of you. Regards,¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume high intelligence

This is now no-longer a redirect, as this material being merged into AGF proved controversial. See also my own essay on a similar topic, which I made before realizing there had already been something along those lines: User:Friday/Competence. Anyway, just thought I'd bring this to your attention in case you didn't know your essay is now back as a seperate page. Friday (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Click removal guy

Done, reverted, warned and posted about at [1]. pschemp | talk 16:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Of Course You May! :-)

OMG! Have you been following all of this! Let's see now ... Ah, Yes ... I'm supposed to accuse you of stalking me right about now! In fact, um, ... I better not mention it. Save it for email or another day ... ;-) ... Kind Regards, Keesiewonder ^talk 23:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Energy: world resources and consumption

Could you please look at Energy: world resources and consumption and comment if it is ready to be a featured article? Thank you for your help.
Frank van Mierlo 12:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the title. Frank van Mierlo 00:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent sugestion; I will express my support for the automatic solution to redirects Frank van Mierlo 01:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest & contribution. I did see your comment on the layout and I subsequently shrunk the images from 450 to 350. I hope this is acceptable to you. It took a long time to make these images and I would really like to see them at a readable size. I know the collumn format is a bit unusual it does keep the layout orderly and it solves the bunched up edit links problem. Mierlo 01:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

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 16:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Hey there! Welcome back! Glad to see ye again! Vanished user ^talk 13:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely! Sorry I've not been paying attention, thanks for devandalising my user page... fame being pestered at last! .... dave souza, talk 21:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Antioxidant FAC

Hi there Samsara, I wondered if you had any comments or suggestions? The FAC page is here. Thanks. TimVickers 19:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, yes. I created that image for this article. It's in the enzymes section. TimVickers 20:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I misunderstood your comment! TimVickers 20:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I replaced it with that particularly nice image of glutathione. TimVickers 21:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I might have solved the "block of text" problem, comments? TimVickers 00:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, you were right, breaking up that text is a great improvement in readability. TimVickers 01:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Compsognathus

Hi Samsara!

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team has recently been working on Compsognathus in an effort to prepare it for a FACing. Your copyedits and suggestions for Tyrannosaurus, months back, were incredibly helpful (because perspective from someone who hasn't been working on the material and isn't sick to death of it by the end is always helpful), and although you had officially joined the team, we haven't seen you around since then. You wouldn't have to do any editing or anything, but if you could perhaps give the article a look, make a few recommendations (getting as thorough/exhaustive as you want to get), we could then start incorporating your ideas/suggestions/etc into the article. As a FAC reviewer, your perspective is very valuable. If you haven't the time, I understand, but your observations on Tyrannosaurus were spot-on, and I'm just hoping to duplicate that article's success. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 08:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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

:) pschemp (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Long lost adoptee checking in

Hey! I guess you thought I dropped out forever. Been really busy at work so had to lay off for a while. Just wanted to say 'hey' --Caroldermoid (talk • contribs) 00:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

DOI

I'm not (yet) aware of any tools for tackling these. I bet if you can describe what you are trying to do or identify a problematic one that you are trying to fix, one of the following users would be able to help. You've got me curious now too ... User:Rich Farmbrough, User:Jayvdb, User:EdJohnston. --Keesiewonder ^talk 12:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

hagiography

I do believe I have a strong case that Zoe violated the wikipedia's policies and procedures. I didn't make that case out of respect for her fans.

Yes, I do believe my comments on her page are a positive contribution to the wikipedia. I believe there is a lesson to be learned from where she lapsed. Her most serious flaw was an unwillingness or inability to acknowledge she may have made a mistake. This is a bad flaw in a wikipedia editor, and it is a terrible flaw in an administrator.

I question whether you should have excised my comment without contacting me first. I think I am a respected contributor to the wikipedia. And I believe that my record shows, that I comply with important wikipedia policies and procedures, like WP:CIV, which Zoe did not.

Wikipedia is not a hagiography. Let's learn from our mistakes. Let's willingly and graciously acknowledge when we realized we made a mistakes. Let's willingly and graciously acknowledge when someone is civil when they point out we made a mistakes. Let's learn from others mistakes, even if they are our mentors, who we generally admire. You don't think Jimbo Wales is above criticism, do you? Do you think he would claim he was above criticism?

Then why are you suggesting Zoe should be held up as some kind of perfect example? She made mistakes. And anyone who insists on characterizing everyone she acted against as a vandal, is also making a mistake. -- Geo Swan 20:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You're just not going to make any friends here, or anywhere, with that attitude. Zoe has been unfairly criticised previously, and the community has made an effort to retain her, because she is a valuable contributor. Everybody makes mistakes. But to say that if I eat slugs, but I also eat flamingoes, I am not a slug-eater is a non-starter. I strongly advise you to stop. I have no prejudice against you, but if I see you behaving in ways that are injurious to Wikipedia, you will see me taking sides against you. It is your choice. It always has been. Happy editing! Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find your reply confusing. In particular I haven't a clue what you meant to say with your analogy about slug-eaters and flamingo-eaters.

Yes, everyone makes mistakes. I do my best to acknowledge when I make mistakes. Acknowledging when one makes mistakes is extremely important to build a community where the members can count on one another and trust one another. Acknowledging she may have made a mistake is something Zoe proved unable to do in her interactions with me. And it was something she proved unable to do in her last dialogue with Jimbo Wales on WP:AN.

Should we forgive these lapses, because everyone makes mistakes? I don't think so. Of course an ordinary mistake or the normal number of ordinary mistakes, should be forgiveable, provided the mistake maker is willing to acknowledge the possibility of their fallibility, because that it the first step in avoiding the repetition of that kind of mistake.

Of course we should all be protected from unfair criticism. That includes those of us who aren't vandals who should be protected from having Zoe's fans characterize us as vandals. Zoe's fans should not characterize all those who were on the receiving end of her exercise of authority as vandals. It is insulting, and a violation of WP:NPA.

Yes, I am critical of the instances when Zoe proved unwilling or unable to be civil to those who disagree with her. Let me try to understand what you are trying to tell me. You aren't trying to tell me that you will defend Zoe from all criticism, even fully justified criticism, are you? I am going to assume good faith and assume you meant something other than that.

One of the points in your reply I think I completely agree with. If we want to improve the wikipedia, or if we want to prevent the wikipedia's new visibility, and popularity, from introducing a taste of the partisanship one sees on the blogosphere, we have to challenge instances of article editing, or talk page discussions, that we think are damaging to the wikipedia.

We do agree on this, don't we?

It is my honest opinion that Zoe's lack of civility, failure to acknowledge error, and the partisanship she allowed to slip into her exercise of authority made her a fair candidate for challenges. It would not concern me if Zoe returned to contributing to the wikipedia, so long as she either (1) stepped down from being an administrator, or (2) started openly acknowledging the possibility she too is capable of error, and that those who disagree with her are not necessarily enemies, and are entitled to a measure of civility, so long as they are civil to her.

Zoe has fans. That is unquestionable, given the number who have come forward to offer encouragement after her announcement of her departure. But I believe you are mistaken to think that admiration is universal. About a week after my first encounter with Zoe, and her lack of civility, I encountered a guy who became a horribly malicious and persistent wikistalker. My wikistalker showed all the clues that he was a sockpuppet. A more experienced wikipedian suggested to me that he was a sockpuppet of Zoe. I was skeptical then. And I don't believe it now. But it shows that she is not universally admired. This campaign to keep her contributing to the wikipedia — were there any other manifestations of it beyond the several dozen fans who left messages on her talk page following her announcement of her departure?

In my comment of January 30th I acknowledged that the dozen or so fans who had already expressed their distress over her announcement of her departure regarded her as a valuable contributor to the wikipedia. They said that they regarded her as a talented editor and writer. I was willing to give her talented editing and writing the benefit of the doubt. Frankly, however, when I took a look at her contribution history, looking for examples of her talented editing and writing, I couldn't find any examples of her editing and writing. A short review of her recent contributions didn't show me any examples of her writing or editing, let alone talented instances thereof. All of the contributions I saw were participation in {{afd}} fora, or uncivil comments to people like myself who were mystified by her exercise of authority.

It would really help me understand why some wikipedians regard her contribution as so valuable if I had some examples of contributions that her fans saw as valuable.

Finally, you made a couple of comments I would really appreciate you clarifying.

You made the comment: "You're just not going to make any friends here, or anywhere, with that attitude." — Could you please be specific about what you regard as my attitude, and what, in particular, has triggered your concern about it?

You made the comment: "I have no prejudice against you, but if I see you behaving in ways that are injurious to Wikipedia, you will see me taking sides against you." Do you think there was some aspect of the three "curb your enthusiasm" comments I left on Zoe's talk page were injurious to the wikipedia?

Maybe it shouldn't be necessary for me to say this, but these are all serious questions. And I am doing my best to have a serious, civil discussion with you.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 07:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to explain to you that there is no merit in what you are trying to achieve. If you're not willing to listen, that is your problem alone. I have taken time to explain myself clearly, and it seems that given the choice I recommended to you, you have chosen poorly. Please refrain from posting further diatribes on this talk page, as they will be deleted. Good faith only goes so far, and the guideline clearly states this.

Best regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Quit again

Sorry guys, I'm just fed up with the bullshit that you collectively produce. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to read that but, hey, you do what's best for yourself. Take care, thanks for all your help. .. dave souza, talk 11:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jordan

Do me a huge favor and re-read the article, I've made a laborious effort to address your concerns, also please do me an even more huger favor and go into the process with an open mind. The readable prose is 34 kb which is well within reason and I believ the other issues have been addressed. Thanks in advance. Quadzilla99 18:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine anything that could possibly have given you the idea that you can talk to me like that. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

Hey, just a little note. Although the person who included fungi in the animal kingdom was wrong, they were not that wrong. Not that long ago, fungi were classed as plants. When they were moved into their own group, there was a lot of discussion about them being more closely related to animals than plants, more animal-like than plant-like. So while it was wrong, it was not so wrong that it deserved your dismissive edit summary. Hope this doesn't come across as harsh, but edit summaries are brief and can easily upset people. I thought it would be a good idea to mention this now, since I know I sometimes need people to point out when I sound a little mean. Skittle 15:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

At the top of the article, there is a phylogenetic diagram (which, btw, I originally contributed, although in a different format) based on current molecular evidence. It shows animal as the outgroup of plants and fungi, which in turn, are monophyletic. The evolution article has not improved one little bit, except for a very good effort by Silence, which - characteristic for Wikipedia - was instantly overruled as not being based on consensus (that is, lots of people mucking about in random ways). The article will not improve until we can get some of the people who through their edits reveal themselves to be mediocre, to leave. And just to be clear, I would have reacted the same regardless who made the edit, including you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like your diagram is inconsistent with recent data. Do you have a recent reference to show that fungi and plants are monophyletic? David D. (Talk) 17:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply they are animals, just didn't bother to rewrite sentence. I had added hybridization in birds, insects, fish, plants, and fungi with references yet some moron removed them. I am sick of this article as it goes from good to bad to worse to bad , etc. I give up. Then the smart ass comments from people who haven't a college degree, published a paper, or received a grant is frustrating. If you imply my edits are without merit then you are naive and should look through the Archives as I always had provided references. Why bother when POV pushers just ignore the literature and edit away! This article was much better a few months ago and I see it will never be excellent (as I had hoped). It was a bad edit, but no need for personal insults. GetAgrippa 16:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My intent was just to add that hybridization appears to be prominent in plants and fungi, but in reality I would rewrite the whole section. But why bother!!!!!!!!GetAgrippa 16:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

<insert sassy reference to popular culture here> Wikipedia has working against it that there are few brilliant people, and they tend to have less time because they spend it on remaining brilliant rather than editing FP WP. Stable versions would alleviate a lot of that, but I think the American government stole the laptop that had all the code on it or something. Anyway, we haven't got the feature yet, and apparently don't know when it's going to arrive. If the foundation found a way to make more money, they could pay people a bonus for completing the project on time. Still, some people just aren't lured by money. Apparently, we cannot find a way to raise the cash in any case, and are doomed to living in a world of encyclopaedic mediocrity, where nothing is ever quite what it seems, including the references. Finally, with all my being in favour of attracting more real scientists to the site, your academic qualifications are no excuse for not reading the sentence that you're editing. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe he was eating that fungi... pschemp | talk 17:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A call for calm please (if I may). I just read Samsara's edit on evolution. A sassy comment for sure and I'm still smiling from it. Please all, lighten up. GetAgrippa is a good, conscientious editor and just made a mistake. It's easy to do. Sam came in and made a cheeky quip. Probably shouldn't have but then again we're all human. Please try and take like I did. I'm sure it wasn't meant to be offensive.

I'm trying not to type this but I can't stop ... I'm certain you are both fun guys who don't leave mush room for mistakes! ;) Candy 17:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(if you think that fungi are animals, should you really be contributing to this article?). That type of edit summary would be better described as patronizing, not sassy. No hint of a wink there, unless Samsara forgot it? Certainly GetAgrippa didn't read it as a sassy comment since he appears to have packed his bags. David D. (Talk) 18:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, if he puts a false statement in an article because he can't be bothered to fix the sentence, as he admits above, then he deserves whatever comments he gets. If he then posts such comments as that below, and has a hissy leaving fit, he needs a break anyway. pschemp | talk 18:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly Samsara needs a break too. Inflaming other user, especially those who have contributed a lot to the encyclopedia is not necessary. Samsara is not even speaking from a position of authority since what s/he says above does not seem to be citable from current publications. David D. (Talk) 19:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, I thought there are rules against such egomaniacal rants and unsociable behavior. I generally try to be more subtle and polite. I guess you (Samsara) never make mistakes and include yourself amongst the brilliant. GetAgrippa 17:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice going Samsara, go and look at GetAgrippa's user page. In future please keep your opinons, with respect to an editors worth, to yourself. GetAgrippa happened to be one of the better editors involved in this encyclopedia. David D. (Talk) 18:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Btw, who's getting snippy now? Seriously. That's about the most juvenile comment yet on this page. pschemp | talk 19:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm snippy because there are too many editors in this project who think they are above it all. Editors who should know better. David D. (Talk) 19:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. pschemp | talk 19:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Spare me the guilt trip. GetAgrippa's choices are his own, and he is in control of them. Blaming others is juvenile. [2] pschemp | talk 18:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And what is patronizing others? David D. (Talk) 18:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that was patronizing. Get Agrippa said "I...just didn't bother to rewrite sentence." If you are going to put misleading statements in an article because you can't be bothered to do it correctly, then you deserve whatever comment you get. (And if you are that insanely sensitive and to the point you can't be bothered to do things correctly you should be taking a break anyway.)pschemp | talk 19:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't give a damn about sensitivity but I do care about hypocrisy. If you're going to get all worked up about someone making a mistake then either be contructive or get it right. David D. (Talk) 19:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you're one who is all worked up here. Samsara explained it quite civilly to Skittle. You've proved your own hypocrisy with snide comments anyway. pschemp | talk 19:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

OK I'm retracting the previous edit and going back to editing the encyclopedia. Nothing good can come of furthering this discussion. I think we have all learned something from this and hopefully that will guide us in our future interactions with users. David D. (Talk) 19:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't helpful. Blaming people isn't going to help. The edit summary was rude, and an apology would have been nice, but that point has been made already. What's done is done. Being rude isn't helpful, neither is being overly sensitive. But fighting over this just makes matters worse. Guettarda 19:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I see my attempts at peace need a lot more work 8( Candy 20:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not argue on my account (although I appreciate the sentiment). I am not leaving because of Samsara's comments, in fact I would have edited similarly just without the wise crack. I was pointing out my mistake to Samsara and reminding of being Wiki polite. I generally do edit correctly and with more precision, but as I say I am frustrated. Besides my wife is complaining, as we are taking out daughters to Italy in a few weeks so I am supposed to be attending other things. I have lost faith in Wikipedia but after a break I will probably rally back. I would wager Samsara and I agree more than disagree about Wikipedia. I apologize for instigating any arguments. I was overly sensitive but it is just bad timing as my ire was already up from other issues. Anything Samsara can do to improve an article should be commended. Once again I apologize. GetAgrippa 20:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

That was a bored vandal-user from Calicut – [3]. Someone we have both dealt with before. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 16:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

NP. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

disambiguation help

FYI; right after I posted to Clockworksoul's page, I noticed he hasn't contributed for a bit ... so I may need you as a backup (or a primary!) --Keesiewonder ^talk 00:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you! It's in! --Keesiewonder ^talk 01:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's another, more controversial one. Is copying my sandbox to the FAH page, again, all I need to do? i.e. I don't have to worry about all the things that currently link to Folding@Home? (like this that I caught before putting TBT in place) --Keesiewonder ^talk 02:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Two replies there. First of all, not much links there anyway [4], and second, you shouldn't ever worry about that anyway - let people fix their own links. If they didn't disambiguate it properly in the first place, it's their problem. And lastly, there is no technical reason why redirects aren't automatically fixed when wikitext is submitted to the database. IIRC this bug has been filed, but my feeling is that devs tend to work on features that seem "nice" rather than those that would be goddam useful. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not much links to FAH, but lots of stuff links to Folding@Home. But, you're right - it's not really my problem. Based on what I've seen of the Folding folk before ... I anticipate they will not like loosing the monopoly on FAH. Good night! --Keesiewonder ^talk 03:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

AAGF

The discussion is here. And BTW, am I the "it" you don't agree with? :) --Anonymous44 15:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I see a post and a reply. Not really a discussion. And the one person who did reply disagreed with you. How's that for consensus? Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he disagreed with me (rather, it seems to me that his post had only little to do with mine, as he apparently hadn't even noticed that AAGF was exactly what I was talking about from the start). And you still haven't objected to my argument either. Reverting without bothering to read/understand/address the other side's argument is not the way a Wikipedian should act. --Anonymous44 16:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's exactly how a wikipedian should act if consensus hasn't been shown. The burden of proof of consensus is on you my friend. pschemp | talk 16:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean consensus is required for policy/guideline pages. Actually, I now realise that you are right, at least in theory (although here is an example of the actual practice). However, the situation doesn't seem so clear to me, because what I actually did was partially revert this edit, which was also made with no discussion and no proved consensus (see the discussion archive from April 2006). As for what a Wikipedian should do - well, in any case, a Wikipedian should at least try to answer an argument on the talk page instead of stating s/he disagrees with it without any explanations. --Anonymous44 16:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The edit you are referring to survived for almost a year without criticism. So it's not really fair to refer to it as a revert. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You are...

[5] Can't have folks fighting over who gets to be Germany now then can we? ;) pschemp | talk 16:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Plural

Hi Samsara,

You've recently changed the wording on Compsognathus with the edit summary "fenestra is plural; fenestrum is singular". In fact, I get no results for "fenestrum" on dictionary.com [6], and the American Heritage Dictionary indicates the singular form is "fenestra" "1. Anatomy - A small opening, especially either of two windowlike apertures in the medial wall of the middle ear."[7] American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary defines "fenestra" as "1. A small anatomical opening, often closed by a membrane." and the plural as "fenestrae". Firsfron of Ronchester 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks again for your help with the article, and your eagle eye spotting several other issues. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 18:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

G&S

Hello. You added summary notices to the G&S article as well as Gilbert's and Sullivan's. Are you sure this is right? Only select parts of each article are referred to in the others. I think it might be misleading? -- Ssilvers 18:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that exactly what a summary is? Think about it. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, they're only summaries of parts of the other articles (that is, of one or more of the sections), not a shortened version of the whole article. -- Ssilvers 19:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't get hung up on semantics here. Summaries are often completely comprehensive, but they don't have to be. Many times, a summary leaves out things that are not important to its purpose, in fact that's the entire purpose of a summary, to just give the relevant details. The important thing here is that it shows the link to a parent article, and substantial updates to the daughter should warrant updates to the parent, making this a useful addition. I don't find it misleading at all. pschemp | talk 20:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explaining. -- Ssilvers 19:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I just find...

...it excruciating that every single bit of progress you make on Wikipedia is antagonised by people. I can never figure whether this is because of envy or just negative attitude, but it hurts and I can't stand it. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Samsara. I wasn't trying to be peevish with my comments above, if that's any comfort. I apologise. The last thing I wanted was for you to feel bad. I'm not even sure if this comment concerns the above messages I left, but if it does, I do want to apologise. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, our interaction was fine. But it's hard to have this kind of dual relationship with a web community, where you really appreciate a handful of people, but then really really hate all the rest because they just refuse to see any value in what you're doing. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of users who see the value of what you're trying to accomplish, Samsara, though it often seems like the negative comments outweigh the positive ones. I guess I can't really help, except to say I've felt the same way myself, though I suppose you get this feeling much more often, as a FAC reviewer. Anyway, take care, and if there's anything I can do to help (probably not, but still..) please let me know. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 22:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I sympathise; I am a psychiatrist in my day job but many of the subjects I would edit related to this are...ummm...rather lively and changeable (ADHD...hahahaha...not). At least on most there is some semblance of what should be there and to clean tehm up that little bit more would take a large amount of effort, whereas some of the more concrete stuff (such as the dino collabs or various fungi, sport, plant and bird stuff) is easy and rewarding. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 21:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: That is why I thought FA status would/could/should offer some form of protection or at least refernce point to where folk thought the article was pretty cool. Apparentyl dinosaur needs a bit of looking over and at least we have a version handy to compare with. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 21:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Tags

I am sorry that there were pages that were improperly tagged for deletion in your userspace. The pages were most likely broken redirects, which are normally automatically removed anyway. I will make sure that I do not mark any more of your pages in the future. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 00:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue I - March 2007

The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 03:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

Sorry to read that you're feeling stressed. If there's anything you need or anybody particular problems (or users) you might need admin assistance with, just drop me a note. I was visiting your talk page to ask for your input on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metabolism where your comments would be both welcome and valued. TimVickers 23:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Tree of life image

I think you may have missed this question on the tree of life figure talk page. i have transcluded it below?

what happens in mutation

In the Eukaryota ellipse, shouldn't Fungi cladistically be closer to Animalia than Plantae?

128.112.204.158 (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess this image is the representation of Woese' research (1990) of which I know little. But based on Keeling's research (2004) Fungi are closer to Animals than Plants. The former two are part of the kingdom of Unikonts and the latter is a separate kingdom itself. And of course all of them are in the empire/domain of Eukaryotes. Do you want me to go ahead and modify it? David D. (Talk) 09:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your edit

Hi, sorry for not cleaning up properly after the deletion. Seems the click template confused the tool I was using. I just saw that there where no remaining file links for the image and asumed everyting had been removed properly. Didn't occur to me that anyone was using as a navigation tool. As for the deletion itself: The image was licensed for non-commercial use only, normaly that is a criteria for speedy deletion, however because of the "grandfather clause" in the criteria it was listed at WP:PUI for over 14 days instead. No hint that it was actualy freely licensed was provided and no one attempted to make a fair use claim, wich makes deletion the only option per Wikipedia policy. Doesn't matter if anyone has complained or not, the Wikipedia policy is that non-free material must be deleted unless it fits the narrow fair use criteria. This one had simply slipped though the cracks for a bit longer than usual. --Sherool (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. My point is that it was not urgent enough to warrant leaving a gap on the page. I could have accepted that if someone had complained, but if it's just a "per-general-policy" deletion, you should clean up afterwards. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Would a quarter be better?

Sorry about the hassle factor, my silly suggestion of the day is that if you could try coming back for only a quarter of a day at a time, then giving it a break before you want to leave, that quarter will be greatly appreciated. Good luck and all the best anyway, ... dave souza, talk 19:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance – I'm not going to edit war over the Charles Darwin intro, so your intervention is much appreciated. .. dave souza, talk 08:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

NP. It's just a sad fact that when an article becomes FA, the original editors lose some of the control they had, and the article eventually becomes like most Wikipedia articles, plainly written by lots of people in lots of different styles and with various degrees of insight into the subject. Which is my attempt to nicely phrase my belief that TFA is throwing pearls to swine. "Here, come and destroy our article, just to see that yes, you really can edit it!" But of course, the Rauls among us must keep up the belief that articles are improved by TFA. Who am I to express an opinion?! (Oh, I remember now. I used to produce FAs by the half dozen...) Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually some of the edits are quite helpful, and I've always struggled with that intro, so when it calms down we can review the changes and keep the best ideas, suitably edited. After a couple of days break! .. dave souza, talk 09:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Only three quarters of the way through the day, and already someone's semi-protected it again! Think of all those valuable anon and new account insights we could be missing! ;) Anyway, about time for me to get on with some real life type duties, thanks for all the help. By the way, sorry if if caused a long discussion on the talk page, but as an aged bureaucrat when I say "that's an interesting suggestion, we'll give it full consideration" it's quite true, and it's also called kicking it into the long grass. Hope that analogy travels, ..... dave souza, talk 17:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I assure you that chocolate chip cookie is entirely innocent and free from interesting substances. Mmm, at least I think it is....... dave souza, talk 19:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you try out citizendium? Their approved articles are not editable. You might find that environment more productive. By the way, do you want me to change your svg TOL, (see section above)? David D. (Talk) 16:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

From citizendium's own description, it seems that all you can be is a minion - unless you have tenure-track qualifications, which I don't yet (nor am I old enough to be reasonably expected to have them). And since I don't approve of the requirement, I don't expect to be joining later. As for the svg, you'd be better off finding the latest consensus tree and modelling it on that, rather than trying to fix the old one, which by now is probably wrong in several places. Whatever you do, make sure you leave the tree unrooted! That's what's evil about the old picture that's still knocking around. Someone should really put it up for deletion, although of course none of the teenagers hogging AfD will have a clue why an outgroup is needed to root a tree, or that a universal tree by definition cannot have an outgroup (unless you subscribe to once-off panspermia), which is yet another thing that's wrong with Wikipedia. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought anyone could edit citizendium? if its just about getting content into any article i see no block with from that perspective. The only difference i detect is that there is a static version of the articles. Something I have seen suggested in wikipedia a few times, but of course, never materialises. I'll see if i can find a better tree reference to modify the whole tree in the same style. David D. (Talk) 17:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You can edit, but you may get overruled. If the resident academic comes from a different school of thought, you're stuffed. At least that's my understanding. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Not just anyone can edit. You have to be approved just to be an unqualified minion there. You have to provide your real name, your oath of fealty, a biography, a CV, and use a non free email address that has part of your name in it just to be a non-expert. No thanks. pschemp | talk 17:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Ragesoss

I think You would be interested in this user's RfA. Best, feydey 17:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, nazi comparisons are unhelpful

Please remove this. I believe Auschwitz survivors will tell you that their plight was oh so subtly worse than Ragesoss. Pascal.Tesson 23:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We're not going to brush history under the carpet, my friend. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

history of biology

Samsara, I'd love to have your thoughts on history of biology overall. I've done all I think I can without some serious critiques and suggestions from other knowledgeable people. It's on peer review and WP:GAC.--ragesoss 06:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Please learn to keep a running tally to determin a true consensus. Incase you can't count, I did it for you.

For those having difficulty seeing what the group consensus on this topic is, I've compiled a list for you. Remove the unnecessary pictures: Abeo Paliurus, 63.166.224.67, Pontificake, 4.154.53.242, Phefner, Bytebear, Zora, myself. Keep the clutter: pschemp, Duke53, Haikupoet, Eloil. Neural: Rodparkes That's 8 for removing them, 4 for keeping them. Please don't distort what you think the consensus is.

If you continue to revert articles against general consensus I'm going to have to give you a vandalism warming. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.237.2.198 (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

reply Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is just a civility warning. Calling me a mormon is not a very civil thing to do. Though it's a good attempt at deductive reasoning, I promise you before God that I am not a mormon (I doubt any mormon would say that). But as you have obviously missed, that is neither here nor there. In your blind reversions, you must have missed that I removed both pictures under the religious section. The point is simple. Those pictures have no reason for being there. Infact they detract from the article and at least one of them was only placed there by a guy (Duke) who's obvious motivations have nothing to do with bettering wikipedia. I attempted to clean up the crap he threw around, but was thwarted by people like you who play into his hands. BTW, why in the world is there no picture of a thong but some lunatic thinks mormon underwear is more important. (Yes, I called Duke a lunatic as anyone who reads his talk page can deduce.)

If consensus isn't a vote, then what is it? One person's opinion against many? You weren't included in the count because you didn't participate in the discussion which you referenced. It still wouldn't matter though. The obvious consensus was that the pictures should be removed. You went against that consensus. Please refrain from doing that as it will put into question your validity as a WP editor. This is still just a warning, I don't need to report you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.237.2.198 (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Your obsession speaks for itself. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If mormons are the only group of people attributed for making sensible decisions, then fine ... call me a mormon. I'll stand by logic long before sheep who fall into scare tactics.71.237.2.198 13:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that you don't natively speak english, but please quit implying that I have not clearly stated my reasons for removing the cluttered pictures from the "undergarment" page. I have written them in many comments and explanations. I know that you are still learning english, so please keep trying and don't be discouraged. Go back and re-read my notes and you will hopefully be able able to see my reasons. Good luck.71.237.2.198 13:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

12k!

Hi Samsara, Happy 12k! "...And many more!" :) Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 15:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

sticking neck out

I don't feel I'm sticking my neck out.[8] I respect your contributions but the bristles don't help your advocacy. David D. (Talk) 21:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Your behavior

Your use of the Evolution talk page to have some sort of pissing contest with other parties is absolutely inappropriate. Please, PLEASE don't presume to tell me to keep my comments to myself after that display. Try to show some decorum. Graft | talk 22:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you were lining up against the same wall. Congratulations on that. And you're complaining to me now because you're hurt that I pointed this out to you. Otherwise you'd be talking to Aelffin, who started the whole thing and finished with the flourish of explaining he was "satisfied", as though I owed him an explanation. My personal experience is that decorum is not rewarded around here, but you may please yourself and march ahead with good example, which you've so far failed to do. Welcome to the pissing contest! Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)