Jump to content

User talk:Skittleys/Archive Sept 09

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


DYK for Potocki-Lupski syndrome

Updated DYK query On September 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Potocki-Lupski syndrome, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 11:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Dermatology

Do you have a specific interest in dermatology? If so, we are always looking for more help at WP:DERM, particularly with the Bolognia push 2009. ---kilbad (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Cruciate ligament

Re this and similar edits: how can cruciate knee ligament be any more precise? - Dudesleeper / Talk 10:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You have 2 cruciate ligaments in your knee, the anterior cruciate ligament and posterior cruciate ligament. Also note that the reason I'm adding the {{dn}} tag to pages is because, as you can see here, cruciate ligament is one of the most linked-to "articles" on Wikipedia, when there should be none! — Skittleys (talk) 11:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:Botany

The "Botany" template wad esigned for the "Top" articles in the WP:PLANTS group, not as a general cataglog of items in Botany. There are separate templates for Plant diversity and for specialist fields. There is no need to duplicate their function and overburden the Botany template. If you would like to radically change the focus of the Botany template, it would be best to discuss that change first. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. I had hunted all over, and the only navbox I could find that got more specific than {{botany}} was {{PlantMineralDeficiency}}, which is precisely why I didn't put anything about plant pathology onto the template except for the link. I saw {{BotanySeries}}, and I also saw that it wasn't used on any articles at all. In fact, one of its 4 incoming pages (none of which are related to WP:PLANT) is the blacklist here. I did not find {{Plant classification}} until you informed me that there is already a template. I admit the plant items went overboard. However, the rest of it was not covered by other templates (unless they too are buried in too general a category and completely unmentioned on the project pages) and was highly relevant. Have you bothered to look at some of the articles that you've now removed from there? Timeline of plant evolution, for example? List of systems of plant taxonomy (shortened to "Taxonomic systems" in my version)? Fertilisation?? Plant pathology?!?! Peristem?!?! PISTIL?! GENETICS?!?!? Surely you can see why I felt that the main level botany template ought to include some of those concepts, especially when it contains herbarium, both pollen AND pollenation,and plant ecology.
  2. I haven't quite decided how to respond to this yet, because I put in HOURS of work on this, and you simply reverted all my edits without even considering any elements of them (or that's how it seems) or posting on the talk page. I certainly don't want to start an edit war. However, if you had at least acted as though anything I had done was worthwhile, instead of simply deleting hours of work due to consensus (and I refer you to essay 1 and 2), I wouldn't be feeling hurt right now. But you did, and now that I am looking through the template's history, it is clear that you consider yourself a vested contributer if not an owner. Do you realise that every edit to the template that is not vandalism or a simple redirect since the end of 2007 has been reverted by you? Or that you reverted an edit to standardize the colour scheme for botany-related articles without providing a reason?
  3. If you want people to not edit the template because its for certain articles only, then DOCUMENT IT. Indicate that somehow. Specify what you mean by "top". Is that the top importance, or the best ones? I would think you mean importance, and yet you've removed numerous articles of top importance while retaining non-"top" articles you added?
I know this is a long rant, but I am quite hurt by your inconsideration, and aggravated by the fact that it's clearly not the first time you've done this. I know I went overboard, but removing EVERYTHING is not the answer. — Skittleys (talk) 04:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I did in fact consider what you had done. I have considered this same issue several times before, as you have noted. I know that you chose to invest lots of time without checking first; for that, I am sorry, but length of time spent on a product is not a consideration. The template as it was had been reviewed by WP:PLANTS. You chose to commandeer the template for a new function without any discussion; that was inconsiderate. Next time, you might check first before investing so much time.
You are correct in that a few of the "top" importance articles are not listed in the template. That is deliberate because they are covered as a part of other articles so listed. A pistil (like anther, petal, sepal, etc.) is part of a Flower, which is included in the template. There is no need to include all the parts and hyponyms as well. And note that Angiosperm is a redirect, not an article. The article is Flowering plant, and that article is listed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. As they say in the 'real world', "if it ain't documented, it never happened."
  2. I hunted down the "review" that WP:PLANT did.
    1. This was done over 2 years ago. The coverage of botany on Wikipedia has changed significantly in that time. Content is meant to evolve.
    2. There was no review of the actual content, what should and shouldn't be there, etc. In fact, the only discussion I can find that says anything about it being a subset of top-importance articles is here, where you tell that to someone else, and in the signpost, where it only says that "key" articles are included. That "key" articles are the only ones included is a good thing; dictating what's key without consistent criteria is not. It appears this is something you decided alone, without checking with anyone else. This wouldn't be nearly as upsetting at the moment if you hadn't just accused me of commandeering the template.
  3. I did not make the template serve a new function. I wouldn't call putting all those plants there a "new function", but that's a moot point, because I already let that go. Listing several more subdisciplines and adding some other important articles is not a new function.
  4. Again, your arguments disagree with the template.
    1. According to you, plant pathology shouldn't be covered. The only argument I can see for this is because technically pathology is part of physiology. However, if that's the reason, then plant sexuality, photosynthesis, plant hormone and transpiration don't belong there either.
    2. According to you, pistil is inappropriate because it's covered by flower. Yet, there are sets like photosynthesis AND chloroplast AND chlorophyll, spore AND sporophyte AND gametophyte, pollen AND pollenation, vascular tissue AND meristem (interesting how meristem is allowed but xylem and phloem aren't), botanical name AND the ICBN, botanical nomenclature AND Species Plantarum...........the list goes on and on.
  5. No, the length of time spent on editing is not exactly a consideration. However, the dictating of what's important and what's not based on undocumented and inconsistent criteria is.
  6. I apologize about the flowering plant/angiosperm comment. I did know that, I just forgot when I was comparing.
  7. Adding top-import articles to a template is inconsiderate? Editing a template is inconsiderate? Not asking for permission before attempting to improve Wikipedia content is inconsiderate (especially when the template is completely undocumented, not even a one-liner that says "If you want to make changes to this, discuss first")? I've lost count of how many policies and guidelines that statement contravenes.
Again, I haven't decided what to do in the long-run here, because I feel some changes are necessary, and that you are, to again use your word, "commandeering" the template.
— Skittleys (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Packet Media

There is another identical version of this article here Packet Media Ltd which should probably go too. TeapotgeorgeTalk 11:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Skittleys. You have new messages at Emmette Hernandez Coleman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Matrix

Hi. You did a good job on organizing the page, but you shouldn't have made some of your changes without posting up on the talk page. You moved a main use of the word (The Matrix) and completely deleted another (Toyota Matrix). Instead of moving some of the more widely used articles to an obscure dab page, it probably would have been better to place most of the Science and mathematics section on a secondary page.--Ridge Runner (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Toyota Matrix hasn't been "deleted" at all. It's right here. I did consider moving out all the science uses, and started to do just that, when I realised 2 things: (1) it was simpler and much more organised to move out the "names" to another page; and (2) it seems pretty ridiculous to move out the real meanings of "matrix" to another page! Plus, in all likelihood, someone looking for The Matrix will type in exactly that, and can follow links in the hatnote I just updated; and someone looking for the Hyundai Matrix will probably type that in, and, if not, it's pretty clear from the hatnote at the top of the dab page that it's really under Matrix (name). To ease things a bit more, I just created Matrix (car) and Matrix (car model) for anyone who decides to take that approach. However, someone thinking about a mathematical matrix will likely only link to matrix; likewise, someone aiming for matrix (geology), matrix (archaeology), matrix (chemical analysis), and any other "Matrix (__)" article, along with extracellular matrix and growth medium (aka matrix) will likely link to just "matrix". The only huge use of the term I could think of where someone might use the correct link immediately is mitochondrial matrix. I didn't post anything on the talk page because, honestly, it never even crossed my mind. I've been organising many dab pages for a while now, and they've all been argument-free. Until just now, I'd never seen a dab page with a "real" talk page! — Skittleys (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Why "original research tag" on antigen article?

Which passages do you believe represent "original research?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfravolda (talk • contribs) 06:19, September 19, 2009

There's a lot of little things all over the place that aren't cited and, as a result, could be OR. Some examples:
  • "However, most authors consider all molecular structure..."
  • "In the words of a respected Immunology text book..."
  • " Protein A, protein G and protein L are well known examples of proteins that strongly bind..."
  • "Immunoglobin binding proteins are often used as a component..."
These are all things that are (a) things that I know to be true; (b) completely uncited; and (c) either (i) a synthesis of materials read; or (ii) something explicitly stated in an uncited reference. In the case of (i), I'm more than willing to bet there's a textbook or review article that state these points. I could have gone through and tagged each of these sentences and more with [weasel words] or [peacock prose] or [according to whom?] or [quantify]...you get the point. I decided the OR tag was simpler, nicer, tidier and more effective. — Skittleys (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I re-wrote parts of this article because I found it difficult to reconcile aspects of the definition of an antigen. I felt it was necessary to bridge the transition from a relatively clear definition ("an antigen is an antibody generator") to what is an accepted current text-book definition. I see that this can be re-written and will give it a shot. I think it is valuable to indicate that the term has evolved away from its original meaning.
Regarding the immunoglobulin binding proteins A, G and L, I thought the inclusion was important since it helps to define what does NOT qualify as an antibody-antigen interaction. I suppose the correct thing here is to create an "Immunoglobulin Binding Protein" page that discusses the properties and uses of these. Perhaps protein A, G and L pages could be merged into it as well - I don't know of any other immunoglobulin binding proteins.

Dan Bldg

Yeah, some U of T buildings get shortened, but some don't (Sid Smith, Sandford Fleming). What's the practice been so far?

My tendency would be to shorten to "Dan", since we're already dealing with a small caps sidelight on another landmark. I'd go for "Dan" and I think we can lose the "Roy" from Thomson Hall at this point too.

Interested parties are free to click on the link and get the full name.

Varlaam (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Dan Pharmacy Building might be best, because a lot of people know it as the pharm building and a lot know it as the dan building.... I'm going to wait a few days and see if someone else decides to shorten it. — Skittleys (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
That suits me. We could seek an opinion from Johnny Au. Landmarks is one of his interest areas.
Varlaam (talk)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

Barnstar awarded

The Redirect Barnstar
Nice work on the redirect categorization overhaul ;) œ™ 04:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skittleys/Archive_Sept_09&oldid=1166522099"