User talk:TimVickers/archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, TimVickers/archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Ed (Edgar181) 03:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enzyme

Hi Tim! Thanks for your great edits to enzyme, the article is much clearer and neater now. Please also remember to sign your name on talk pages using the wikicode ~~~~. Once again, great work! -- Serephine ♠ talk - 03:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too have been watching your progress on enzyme. Nice work. David D. (Talk) 02:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Thanks

Absolutely no problem. -- Steel 14:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which Scottish Uni?

I was a graduate from Edinburgh biochemisty department. David D. (Talk) 21:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went to Dundee. My old boss did his PhD in Edinburgh, many moons ago!--TimVickers 21:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enzyme kinetics

Thanks for all your work at Enzyme kinetics! --JWSchmidt 02:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Peter Z.^Talk 02:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! But I'm sure the article can get better, it still seems a little over-technical. What kind of level of detail should we aim for in these pages? --TimVickers 02:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think an expanded lead, summarising the field in general terms would do the job. I doubt this is really a "general audience" article. Students (late school and undergraduate) are the readers here. Enzyme kinetics are tricky, especially for the mathematics-fobic types. The maths IS what they are all about, and there is no way around it. Your layout and presentation are great. A section you could certainly expand is Enzyme assays with examples of how they are actually set up. As a matter of curiousity, have you ever heard of a machine called the "enzymometre" (I'm not sure about the spelling) that uses change in conductivity to follow a reaction? --Peter Z.^Talk 03:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The technique does exist. I was just wondering if anyone outside of my university (Glasgow) ever heard of it. It is, to my surprise, still used - PMID 11934879. --Peter Z.^Talk 04:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not sure if it is really written at the right level" <-- It is easy for Wikipedia policy to say that each article is clearly expressed for both experts and non-experts in appropriate detail, but what does "appropriate detail" mean? According to the Wikipedia Guide, not all articles are to be written for the same audience. The enzyme article should have a general introduction to the topic, but anyone who goes to Enzyme kinetics is going to be looking for some technical details. --JWSchmidt 03:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tim, great article. I think it could use a very thorough peer-review. SO... I have nominated the article to be a 'Science collaboration of the week.' The beuracracy takes a while but I hope it helps. I'll keep reading now..... Adenosine | Talk 08:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment

Talk:Enzyme_inhibitor#Merge --Steven Fruitsmaak 18:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

homeopathy

Did you mess up here? My assumption is that you are referring to effects on the activity of the drug. David D. (Talk) 00:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was referring to the effects the drugs have on the cells, but I see it can be read both ways.--TimVickers 00:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i saw your change. it makes much more sense now. David D. (Talk) 00:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

homeopathy

i am out all day so cannot help with finding a reference re increasing popularity but there are a few good ones around. I will try and check for one later. best! Peter morrell 06:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peter, we need to either reference the current two articles and say alternative medicine in general is growing in popularity, or find some survey data to show that homeopathy in particular is growing in popularity. I'm sure it is, but since people are objecting we need the right reference to back this up--TimVickers 15:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, this is the quote from one of the article cited in the introduction. You think this is not specific enough? Although they kick it off with alternative medicine they do specifically mention homeopathy.

"Alternative therapies such as acupuncture and homeopathy are growing in popularity and are increasingly being endorsed by doctors."

I'm playing devils advocate here since I'm not sure this is a great source, nevertheless it does seem to address more than just alternaive medicines in general. David D. (Talk) 15:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It is ambiguous. Does it mean that alt. med. is growing in popularity and some examples of alt. med. are homeopathy and acupuncture, or does it mean that acupuncture and homeopathy are examples of alt. med. that are growing in popularity? You can read it either way. We need a better source. I found one that said overall alt. med. usage has not increased in the USA since 1997 but I can't get full text to find the specific homeopathy figures.--TimVickers 16:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That link goes to nowhere. i may be able to download it here. Can you give me the link to the abstract page? David D. (Talk) 16:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tindle HA, Davis RB, Phillips RS, Eisenberg DM Trends in use of complementary and alternative medicine by US adults: 1997-2002. Altern Ther Health Med. 2005 Jan-Feb;11(1):42-9. PMID 15712765 --TimVickers 17:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can't get that one. David D. (Talk) 17:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Peter will find something.--TimVickers 17:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to the full text of this article. It specifically claims that homeopathy use fell from 3.7% to 1.4% in the U.S. between 1997 and 2002 (pg 47), and this change was statistically significant. Let me know if you want me to send you the PDF. T.J.C. 22:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I have now sent you some data privately by email; I hope it is of some use. Please also note that some data and a citation has been removed about the numbers of homeopaths amnd homeopathic doctors and also an entire graph of the growth of RSHom homeopaths...if you go back far enough in the history you will find them...maybe these need to be added back in. Just a thought. The reason why homeopathy is statis in the US is that it is not licensed in many States and thus no surprise that there are so few practitioners. best! Peter morrell 14:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you've done a good job, Tim, it looks much better! thx Peter morrell 18:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, would you care to explain which partions in version of user:Homy/homeopathy YOU consider POV ? May I remind you that homeopathy is a developing "science" with lots of opinions which may be presented in Wiki. --Homy 15:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starting at the beginning, what was your reason for removing the last paragraph of the introduction? TimVickers 16:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was not NPOV (it was POV by selecting sources, my version can be debated) --Homy 06:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I made a first sector of it because there are more than 4 reasons, but all need proper context. High regards --Homy 06:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, that is on continues structures...Then nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also of the rest of modern physics Albert Einstein --Homy 14:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello Tim. I am making new edits. I do not want to make reversion wars. If you revert I will not make rushed reverts. Here is a good article. [1]. It talks of dangers with unvalidated methods. The author talks of homeopathy in other articles. It applies here also. Hylas Chung 04:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, it is good to get a wide range of peole interested in this. However, please be conservative with this article since there seems to be strong feelings on both sides which could indeed lead to edit wars if we do not attempt to reach consensus. --TimVickers 15:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radionic potentisers

thanks Tim for cleaning that one up! I thought you would like the weirdness of it; nice move best Peter morrell 14:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My God, I thought Homeopathy was strange, this radionics stuff is amazing. I hope I don't annoy you in any way by saying it appears completely off-the-wall to my way of thinking! --TimVickers 15:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not bothered at all call it what you like it's weird alright! ;-) cheers Peter morrell 15:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

am not quite sure that radionics is really a pseudoscience and wonder if you can clarify that? i tend to regard it as a non-mainstream body of knowledge and practice differing from science but not really pseudo...pseudo seems to imply a pretension to being a science that I just don't see in the subject...what's your view on this? thanks Peter morrell 08:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the pseudoscience page. A real give-away if if a subject re-defines scientific terms like "energy" or "frequency" and uses these in mumbo-jumbo sentences with no clear meaning. This is a simple type of protective camouflage since people are often baffled and impressed by jargon. Another indication is an insistence that special rules apply to them and them alone, making their ideas untestable by experiments. However, religions are not pseudoscience since they do not pretend to deal with the natural world and are instead openly supernatural. --TimVickers 17:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh dear this is not a very intelligent response. I don't buy your conspiracy theory at all. Thanks anyway. Peter morrell 17:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, have a look at the pseudoscience page anyway. A good short definition would be "A non-theistic merging of the natural and supernatural." --TimVickers 17:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have and its just as bad and infested by all those same dorks you like and who like to defecate on folks like me...I will not name them but you know them from the homeopathy discussions and are probably your science geek friends. Its a feeble argument but don't worry. thanks Peter morrell 18:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, thanks for cleaning up the somewhat messy bibliography I added to the Radionics article. Well done, it is much better. Maybe you could see your way to apply your skills similarly to the counterculture biblio?? thanks Peter morrell 22:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potentization vs. dilution

Thanks for the reference; could you send the pdf? I'd appreciate it greatly: address (address deleted) (perhaps you could erase this from your user page afterwards.

I would like to create a reasonable section here, Tim, with clarity as to what experiments used what protocols, but also showing the range of results, positive and negative, with each protocol. It's a largeish research project in itself, perhaps; if you can contribute to it, it would be great. Hgilbert 19:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enzyme

Tim I think that a discussion of function in the Enzyme article should go in the introductory part of the article rather than many pages into it. It sets the stage for further discussion, which I think would be easier to understand if the function and role of enzymes were given first. That’s why I placed my paragraph on the role of enzymes in the cell up in the beginning of the article. What do you think? -Emhale 14:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tim. The introduction needs to be general. And shouldn't this discussion be on the enzyme talk page? David D. (Talk) 20:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject Newsletter!

We have a new newsletter!
As you've no doubt noticed, there's a new Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject newsletter, which will be sent out about once a month to all WP:MCB members. This newsletter is designed to perform two equally important functions. Firstly (and obviously, perhaps) it will serve to inform the members of the MCB project of such things as important discussions, votes, and article improvement drives. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the periodic correspondance will hopefully encourage a greater level of participation from the MCB community by acting as a gentle reminder of many of the the interesting tasks that are awaiting completion. If you prefer to receive this newsletter in the form of a link, or not receive it at all, you can add your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Newsletter/Opt Out List.
New project feature: MCB Article Improvement Drive
Have any pet MCB subjects that you think need attention? Have you been longing to be part of a team of like-minded editors working toward a common goal? If so, the MCB Article Improvement Drive is for you! On the first of every month a new article is selected by the MCB with the goal of promoting it to good article status. Make your nominations and cast your votes now, because the first article will be chosen on September 1!
Discussion: do we need an MCB director?
In an effort to organize and motivate the MCB activities, it has recently been proposed that a member of the MCB project take the role of "director", who would be responsible for the administrative side of the MCB project, including but not limited to coordinating recruiting efforts, spamming the newsletter, and maintaining the Article Improvement Drive and MCB Portal. A special discussion/vote page has been created for this proposal, and the vote will run until 23:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC), unless the community decides otherwise.
Odds and ends: what else you got?
In an effort to raise our profile and possibly attract some new blood, a shiny new MCB project banner template has been created at {{Template:Wikiproject MCB}}. Please add it to the talk pages of all MCB-related articles.
Signed...
Clockwork Soul 06:39, Sunday August 27, 2006 (UTC)
If you wish to opt out of having the newsletter posted on your talk page in the future, you may add yourself to the opt out list Newsletter concept and layout blatantly "borrowed" from the Esperanza newsletter.

Wilhelm Reich

Tim, could you watch your editing of Wilhelm Reich? You just left it with one section repeated twice, and with part of the lead section pasted into another section i.e. also repeated. Best to use preview before saving. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No idea how that happened, sorry about that. I'm glad you picked it up so quickly. TimVickers 13:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Organization

Hi, Tim. I saw you moved a few things around on the "Fundamentals" list. They were just sorted alphabetically before, did you have something else in mind? Cheers! – Clockwork Soul 19:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was sorting them into rough groupings by subject, by for example putting all the organelles together. I hadn't noticed the alphabetical order! TimVickers 19:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:) Understandable! I think it would be alot neater if we kept it sorted by alpha though. Cheers! – Clockwork Soul 19:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Enzyme

Hey Tim, I really like the article, but I just want to have a better read through it before I offer my support. I had an exam yesterday, another in about 8 hours and an assignment due on friday. It's been a busy week :) I'm sorry for the wait, but I'll be free to go over it this weekend and you can count on my support once a few issues are taken care of.

I still think some of the smaller 2-3 sentence paragraphs could be merged together. It's nothing major, but I'm afraid, as it stands, they make the article look a bit choppy. Also, and I won't object based on this, but the images in SVG format would be nice if you want to chase that up before the weekend. To answer your question, Image use policy aside, the vector based images can be scaled/resized without any loss of quality - so the smaller thumbnails won't look so fuzzy on the page, people can zoom in on the image to their hearts content (not so much of an issue with such simple images this time) and should anyone ever want to use them for any purpose outside of wikipedia - well, they'll be perfect for any application. Combined with the fact that users globally set size they want thumbnails to be viewed at and, well, SVGs were made for this. I'd love to discuss it more, but I need to get some sleep. There are many users that might be able to help you with the conversion - check the author of the SVGs from the FAC above yours, Star, for instance - or run through the other current FACs for other people that might be able to help. darkliight^[πalk] 16:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You copied the png/jpegs into illustrator and saved them as an svg? darkliight^[πalk] 13:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For some of them yes, for others I have the original files. TimVickers 15:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tourette syndrome

Tim, thanks so much for the review, the excellent copy edit, and the image (which was needed). I made a few very minor adjustments, which you can see in this diff. I just can't live with the POV language "sufferer": you must be British :-) And, the adjustment of initially to initial is a subtle difference: most *initial* or first tics present in mid-line body regions, which is subtly different than Initially, tics present in ... Initially, tics may present anywhere. It's a small adjustment. The probabilistic statement was taken almost directly from Swerdlow's article, and makes perfect sense to me, but I'm a mathmetician: I'll leave it out, since it's not that necessary anyway. Thanks again! Sandy 22:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes that's better. Sandy 22:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TS Review

To Dwaipayanc, Xyzzy n, Wouterstomp, Wikipedical, TimVickers, Arcadian, NCurse, TedE, Jkelly: to all who have helped me develop the article Tourette syndrome, I was hoping you'd have a new look. Jkelly has checked the images, I've asked Tony to do a thorough copyedit to polish the prose when he has time, and I've completed the referencing and expanded the Screening section. I think I've done all I'm capable of, and would appreciate any new input you may have. Sandy 23:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cladogram

Thanks for the feedback on the sundew article. You wrote:

Doesn't the cladogram need a scale? TimVickers 22:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

With this, I assume you are referring to taxons outside the group (Drosera in this case) to anchor it? If not, what are you referring to? I've never worked with phylogenetic stuff before WP, and only transfered this one over from the German version of this article, so I'm not super familiar with either vocabulary of methodology. The original phylogenetic study did, however, include a few outside taxons, so adding them in should be possible. --NoahElhardt 23:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great job!

Enzyme FAC

You've made a great job! I expressed my opinion there, for now I have a weak object, but very weak. :) Just go on like that and it'll become featured. NCurse _work 14:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I think I have to support it now. Well done. :) NCurse

_work 16:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At Talk:Enzyme there seems to be a stray "<noinclude>" in the box that says: "The following users are active in maintaining and improving this article." In the near future I will have no time to help out because I am very busy at Wikiversity. Keep up the good work. --JWSchmidt 00:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enzyme Article

There is something wrong with this but I'm unable to figure it out and fix it.

For example, the reaction catalysed by orotate decarboxylase will consume half of its substrate in 78 million years if no enzyme is present. However, when enzyme is added, the same amount of substrate is consumed in 25 milliseconds.

According to that sentence, I can infer if I want to (and I do) that if I take 2 kg of orotate decarboxylase substrate and keep it somewhere safe, 1 kg will still be knocking around in 78 million years but if I apply a couple of enzyme molecules, 1 kg disappears in 25 milliseconds. This is wrong, therefore the two sentences above are wrong... but why? --Username132 (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These people (Link) did the same calculation as me but came up with a slightly different answer. The orotate does not disappear, it is just converted to something else. I'm working on the Orotidine 5'-phosphate decarboxylase page to give more details about this reaction.

My issue isn't with what happens to the subsrate (dissapears, turns into midgets, whatever) - it's that "enzyme" (e.g. one molecule, a billion molecules) removes half in 25 microseconds. This does not make sense. It surely depends on how much enzyme is present? --Username132 (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison is between two rates and will refer to k(cat) versus k(spontaneous). You are quite correct that the actual rate of the overall reaction (at saturating substrate) v = kcat[E][S] so both E and S are needed as variables if you are going to be comparing amounts consumed instead of rates. However, kcat is a constant and not affected by the amount of enzyme or substrate present (as long as S is saturating). TimVickers 19:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Publications

Are you publications Open Access? As a former student (and therefore someone who used to, but no longer has, access to journal articles), I'm keen to push open access wherever I can. --Username132 (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them are, but you hand over copyright to the journal when you publish stuff. PNAS has a option of paying more for open access and we did that when we could. TimVickers 15:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not publish in a different journal (one that is comitted to Open Access)? (who is it who decides?) The Open access article gives several studies that show an open access article is more likely to be cited. --Username132 (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a difficult process to get going. As a scientist the visibility of your research, your career and future funding all depend on publishing in high-impact journals. When you look at the top journals in terms of citations there are no open access options. Consequently, since the best science does not go to these journals, they do not reach the top of the list. By asking people to publish in lower-tier journals it is therefore a request that they sacrifice themselves for a possible long-term good of the community. TimVickers 16:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This month's WP:MCB Article Improvement Drive article

Cell nucleus

The Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject's current Collaboration of the Month article is cell nucleus.

Please help to improve this article to featured article status.

– Clockwork Soul 22:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enzyme

Congratualtions on your work with the Enzyme article. Excellent stuff. And since we're on the topic the homeopathy article is great too. Are you going to try and get that one to featured status too? David D. (Talk) 02:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion requested

Hi Tim and Peter, I am wondering if you could both inject a second opinion with respect to an ongoing discussion at the Stephen Barrett page. I have chosen to seek your opinion since you both represent differing views with respect to alternative medicine but are both reasonable editors, as proven by your excellent collaboration on the homeopathy page. I would like you to focus on one paragraph only. It is in the Licensure_and_credentials and reads as follows:

Barrett's critics cite that he failed part of his medical board certification exams in 1967 and never retook them as evidence that he cannot claim to be a medical expert.[2] When Barrett retired in 1993 about 81% of physicians were Board certified according to the American Board of Medical Specialties.(PDF).

There are two schools of thought here: The first is that the latter sentence is relevant to whether Barratt is a medical expert. It is verifiable data, no claim is made that the data supports the views of the critics or not, that is up to the reader.

The second is that the latter sentence should be removed since it seems to be original research.

There has been much discussion on this topic both currently and in the archive, one of many sections in the archive is here. I feel the discussion has reached a stalemate, although, possibly an injection of new ideas could lay this to bed so we can move onto other parts of the article. Thanks for your time. David D. (Talk) 17:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this alright?

Hi Tim, I've been writing an essay of sorts regarding some of the failings of the Wikipedia editing ideal. I've mentioned you and your fantastic work on the enzyme article as an example, but wanted to make sure it was alright with you. I generally don't like to talk about other people without their consent. You can find a draft of the essay at User:Matt Britt/DJDW. Thanks! -- mattb @ 2006-09-11T20:25Z

Thanks for the suggestions, Tim. You're absolutely right about sampling bias. This is just a first draft of the essay, and I intend to try and address some of the issues it currently has in the near future. I started off with FAs simply because they are what nearly everyone on Wikipedia considers of excellent quality, and thus are a logical place to look. I'll also be sure to give credit to the other major editors of the enzyme article and evaluate it more carefully to see if it backs up my point. If not, I'll move it to a different section as an example of where the wiki process HAS succeeded in creating a good article. Thank you again for your input. -- mattb @ 2006-09-11T23:08Z

WikiThanks

Thank you for your assistance in bringing ADHD up to GA Standards--*Kat* 12:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cell nucleus

Re. your edit described "Corrected statement that nuclear envolope prevents passage of ions, added ref)" Do you mean that the envelope allows free ion passage? Or do you mean that the envelope, as a result of its pores, allows ion passage?ShaiM 15:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's what I thought you meant. I'm just wondering whether it could confuse people, who wouldn't realise that pores are responsible for the permeability. Esp. since pores are not yet mentioned in the article at that stage.ShaiM 16:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to drive you nuts, but are you sure that the plasma membrane doesn't contain pores. I'm not sure technically what "pores" are, (ie. compared with channels, carriers, etc).ShaiM 17:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huzzah! Well done. It was just a matter of working out what to do with those fiddly words. I was unsure how to go about it, without rewriting the paragraph that is, and your solution was embaressingly simple. :) ShaiM 17:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tompkins Square Park Police Riot

Tim, thanks for the compliments on the article. I knew it needed some changes, but I had stared at it for too long that I could no longer see them. I spent about 15 hours on it one weekend and have been tooling with it since, and I think all of your suggestions were excellent. You really do tremendous work on here. I'll let you know when I make the revisions. --DavidShankBone 16:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also plan to get in touch with the reporters from that night to see if they will give me a few photographs; wouldn't that be awesome? They still live and write here in NYC. --DavidShankBone 16:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Enzyme inhibitor

It would be my pleasure! It would only be fair to let you know, however, that I've been pulling teh brutal hours of a graduate student lately, and I may have some periods of inactivity. – Clockwork Soul 21:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any feedback is welcome. I'm trying to assemble a group of expert editors for this, since it is a bit of a specialised subject. TimVickers 21:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made my suggestions, but it's nearly a perfect article. I often find faults, unreferenced statements, but in this case, I could write just a few words. :) Well done! NCurse _work 05:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the invitation, happy to help. it looks in good shape, one technical niggle of mine would be whether slow-tight reversible inhibition is best placed under reversible inhibition/special cases or irreversible inhibition/slow-tight. it is currently in the latter; i added it to reversible inhibition without realising this. my gut instinct would be it belongs in reversible inhibition, but it does in practice share some aspects with ireversible inhibition, so if some biochemist is trawling the wikipedia looking for an explanation of their bizarre kinetics, they would be most likely to find it there. any one have comments? Xcomradex 11:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi tim, with your picture showing the two different types of binding of the quinacrine mustard, do you think you could produce a new diagram with the covalent and non-covalently bound inhibitors coloured in different colours? it would make it more obvious at a glance to general readers just which molecule is which, and where each ends. Xcomradex 11:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could use your help

Tim, my Floyd Abrams articles have been nominated for deletion. I explain the point behind them on the deletion page, but if you think this is important information I could sure use someone backing me up. I have spent so many countless hours working on it, that if it's deleted I'll have to taken an extended vacation from contributing, because I think it is very important. I'm all for deleting useless and vanity-fuelled articles, but this man is living history, and I took it upon myself to do this (after I read the book he gave me when I went to take his photograph for Wikipedia). I am writing a grant-proposal around the project; if it's deleted, well, that would hurt me a lot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Floyd_Abrams_and_the_Pentagon_Papers_case --DavidShankBone 03:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject Votes

The Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject has recently opened two surveys that will help to decide the direction of the project. First, nominations are currently being accepted for the position of coordinator of the project. Second, votes and additional suggestions for the official title of that position are also being taken. As a member of the project, we hope that you'll drop by and voice your opinion. – Clockwork Soul 03:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A modest proposal ;)

Hi Tim!

The Enzyme inhibitor FA candidacy seems to be going well — congrats! I'll try to make a few more tweaks today, if I find the time. I hope you like what I added but, if not, please feel free to change it however you like; you probably have a better vision of how all the pieces of the article fit together.

So — I was wondering whether you would consider running for this "Coordinator" position at the MCB WikiProject. (I prefer the title "Herder of Cats" but it hasn't go over well; maybe it would sound grander in Greek (Αιλουροβωτηρ)? ;) It's probably not your thing, and the other candidates are really well-suited, but you do seem to have a gift for bringing together people to write a crack encyclopedia article, and (to me) good taste in tackling fundamental MCB topics. Anyway, if you wanted to, I would be happy to nominate you there. Willow 13:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enzyme inhibitor

Raul made a visit to enzyme inhibitor last night... it would seem that it is now a featured article - great work! – Clockwork Soul 11:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats - good effort in raising an army of contributors too Xcomradex 21:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my congratulations -- drop me a note if you need editing assistance on a future candidate, as I'd be happy to help the biochemistry featured article whirlwind :) Espresso Addict 21:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan

I was in the midst of writing one when I got your message. I explained myself on the talk page. Daniel Case 03:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Organization

Hi, Tim! First things first: amazing work with your enzyme articles. I see that you're well on your way to yet another FA. Second, I noticed that you've been manually changing the article classes on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Organization page. I just want to let you know that that page is semi-automatically updated with the settings in each article's {{Wikiproject MCB}} tag. Obviously, it's okay for you to update the organization page, but if you don't update the tag also, you changes will just get overwritten. Cheers, and keep up the great work! – Clockwork Soul 20:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tim! :)

Hi, I agree, you're doing awesome work; thanks also for the kind messages you left on my user page.

I have a big favor to ask, though. I know you're busy, and I won't be offended at all if you can't, but could you please review Photon for its FA candidacy? The opinion of a non-physicist would be a boon, and I'm sure that your review, positive or negative, would raise the tenor of the present discussion there. Of course, I would be delighted if you wrote "Strong Support A masterpiece of scientific exposition written by an amazingly patient Wikipedian." ;) Trying to keep my sense of fun, Willow 13:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work

Tim - you've really done some amazing work these last few months. For that reason, and many others, I offer you this humble barnstar in recognition of your efforts. I wish I could offer more. Cheers! – Clockwork Soul 21:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, it will go in pride of place on my user page. TimVickers 22:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enzyme kinetics

Enzymes are molecular machines that manipulate other molecules

I tried to see if that can be linked to molecular machine, but I think it would be a needless distraction to take someone to nanotechnology. Would it not be simpler with just

Enzymes are molecules that interact with other molecules ? Just a thought. Shyamal 04:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be a little unclear. How about molecular catalysts? I'm not sure if that would work in the context of the sentence you have cited here. David D. (Talk) 04:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going for an extended metaphor in this paragraph, do you think this is inappropriate? TimVickers 04:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that the introduction to enzymes should be minimal with the main article indicated and then moving on to the main topic of kinetics in relations to reaction mechanism, energetics etcetera as we have it already. Shyamal 05:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anabolic Steroid "good article" review.

You stopped posting about the Anabolic Steroid article. Should I re-add it to be reviewed for a good article or what? I'd like to make this article a good article candidate.Wikidudeman 19:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enzyme kinetics

Thank you for your input on this article, if you have any more comments or suggestions, it is up for FA candidacy and the discussion page is here. Thank you. TimVickers 20:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Good luck with your FAC. — RJH (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I supported it. :) Great work! NCurse _work 20:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! :) Drop me a message if you work with an other great article. NCurse _work 05:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enzyme kinetics has now been made a FA. Thank you for all your efforts. TimVickers 23:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it. Nicely done. — RJH (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to reference tutorials, gifs, etc.

You may wish to have a look at the solution used in Pericles to separate references and footnotes. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the figure!

Nice figure for structural alignment, thanks! What program do you usually use for molecular images? (In case you didn't see it, there is an open, if not exactly ongoing, discussion on the MCB proposals page about whether or not to recommend a particular program and if so, which one to choose.) Opabinia regalis 02:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I didn't realize that could produce such nice images; I had associated it in my mind with more basic functions because that's all I've ever seen it used for. (And I guess you did see the help page discussion; sorry for bad memory :) Keep up the exceptionally good work! Opabinia regalis 02:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This month's WP:MCB Article Improvement Drive article

Adenosine triphosphate

The Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject's current Collaboration of the Month article is adenosine triphosphate.

Please help to improve this article to featured article status.

– Clockwork Soul 21:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cell nucleus

You were recommended to me as a good science article reviewer. If you find yourself with some time to be whittled away it would be very much appreciated if you could make your way over to the cell nucleus. Cheers. ShaiM 15:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enzyme-related stubs

I would like to ask your opinion about some enzyme-related stubs. I found four articles (apoenzyme, holoenzyme, coenzyme and cofactor (biochemistry)) that might be mergable with, say, enzyme. I think that the fomer two are very likely candidates for such a merge (and are so tagged), and the latter might be mergable as well, depending on how much we could flesh them out. What do you think? – Clockwork Soul 21:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You helped choose Microorganism as this week's WP:AID winner

Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Microorganism was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

Davodd 03:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferguson's Disease

I already asked Joeyk47 the same question but he did not respond. Maybe his name indicates it is a jok(e), or maybe not. Thanks for following up. ww2censor 19:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enzyme diagrams

You're welcome. Glad I could help! Fvasconcellos 23:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whew!

Hey, Tim, I just wanted to send you supportive vibes for your handling of Enzyme today, with its ~270 edits. I kind of freaked out when I saw what was happening, especially since Photon is slated for Saturday, but I got a really good sanity check from my fellow editors there and from Catherine Munro. Enzyme is actually better today than it was yesterday, don't you agree? Anyway, I hope you enjoy a well-earned rest, full of tranquil and happy dreams. Willow 02:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Hi Tim. Thanks for helping in the fight against vandalism.

However, I thought I'd better let you know that the Wikipedia:Introduction page invites people to make edits to it. The new user User:Djman222555 was not deserving of a warning since he was merely following the instructions on the page, so I replaced your warning with a welcome message.

Also, please be careful not to bite the newbies. In my opinion, even if the user was vandalising, the warning should have only been a test1.

Regards

LittleOldMe 17:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin

Hi Tim- I noticed that you have been making several edits to vitamin. (BTW, Thanks very much for the enzyme reword in the intro, I didn't really know much about how vitamins were used as enzymes, thought I had better leave it to an expert.) Anyway, the article has just be re-nom'd for GA standing. According to the reviewer the "Notes" section is/was a major problem in the article. I think that the main concern was that it was not cited, used too much jargon, ect... I was just planning on removing that section (since it doesn't really add a whole lot to the article anyway.) Do you have any major objections to that? Please let me know. Thanks again--DO11.10 19:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since two of the three editors nominated for Coordinator of the MCB Wikiproject declined their nominations, one more vote has been posted: should the remaining nominee, ClockworkSoul, be named as the coordinator, or should nominations be reopened? Every opinion counts, so please vote! – Clockwork Soul 17:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flu

At first glance it appears you know the subject matter better than I do; but your edits seems to indicate that you did not bother to read the sources that the claims were based on. I am very very open to bettering this article. Please don't take my revert the wrong way. WAS 4.250 06:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inhibitory Enzymes

this site seems to suggest that some enzymes inhibit protein synthesis. However, evidence of other inhibitory enzymes seems to be thin on the ground. Perhaps my biology teacher is wrong!

Influenza

Tim, I'm in a hotel and on a *VERY* slow dialup: I won't be able to look at Influenza until maybe Monday. Sandy (Talk) 03:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/110/1/9 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,850443,00.html?internalid=ACA

1918 W curve

Please take a look at the famous 1918 W curve here. I feel flu is inadequately communicating this. Thanks. WAS 4.250 09:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject Newsletter

The project main page has gotten a facelift!
When people visit the project, the very first thing that they see tends to be the project's main page, and with this in mind, the main page has been completely overhauled. To enhance readability the various "goals" sections have been merged, and a detailed "how you can help" section has been added. To increase accessibility for more established members, the links to any resources that were in the main body text have been moved onto the navigation bar on the right. Finally, the whole page has been nicely laid out and given a nice attractive look.
New project feature: peer review
I'm proud to announce the addition of out newest feature: peer review! The MCB peer review feature aims serve as a stepping stone to improve articles to featured article status by allowing editors to request the opinions of other members about articles that they might not otherwise see or contribute to.
Project progress
The article worklist
We’ve had quite a bit of progress on the worklist article in the past month. Not only has the list itself nearly doubled in size from 143 to 365 entries, but an amazing three articles have been advanced to FA status, thanks in great part to the efforts of our very own TimVickers! Remember, the state of the worklist is the closest thing we have to quantifying the progress of the project, so if you get the chance, please take a look at the list, pick a favorite article, and improve it!
Collaboration of the Month
Last month's Collaboration of the Month, cell nucleus, was a terrific success! In one month, the article went from a dismal stub to an A-class article. Many thanks to all of the collaborators who contributed, especially ShaiM, who took on the greatest part of the burden. This month's Collaboration of the Month, adenosine triphosphate, isn't getting nearly the attention of its predecessor, so if you can, please lend a hand!
Finally...
The project has a new coordinator, Clockwork Soul! The role - my role - of coordinator will be to harmonize the project's common efforts, in part by organizing the various tasks required to make the project run as smoothly and completely as possible. Many thanks to those who supported me and those participated in the selection process.
Clockwork Soul, project coordinator 18:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to opt out of having the newsletter posted on your talk page in the future, you may add yourself to the opt out list Newsletter concept and layout blatantly "borrowed" from the Esperanza newsletter.

Request for Help

Hi Tim,

I’m sending this message out to about 5 or so people I’ve worked with here on Wikipedia. You may remember me from the MCB project where I've done a few diagrams. Its not a blind carbon copy to 1000 people. Sorry its only partially wiki-related.

Basically as you may know I make a lot of diagrams for use on Wikipedia in my spare time while studying a Biochemistry BSc (hons) degree at the University of Sussex in the UK. Next year (in my final year) I’m planning on starting up a medical graphics company. Its been suggested to me more than once that some of my diagrams are as good as, if not better than those presently in research papers and text books, so it seems like a good logical progression (and more so something I enjoy!) to start up a company producing them.

But without a reputation, and as a nameless student work will be stagnant or non-existent. So I’m desperately trying to make a small name for myself and to build a credible reputation as both a scientist and artist. So to cut to the chase what I’m messaging people about is just to say please please please, if you or any of your colleagues are publishing research articles/text books etc. and need bespoke diagrams please get them in touch, I would be forever grateful! I’m very very happy to do the jobs for free as I enjoy them anyway and the exposure would help me no end! They have nothing to lose, if they don’t like what I produce its not like they paid for it, and are under no obligation to use it. I can’t stress how helpful a diagram in a published work would be for me. I do have a portfolio of generally better work than the pics here on Wikipedia, but examples to show colleagues are those such as:

Anyway, as always if you need any diagrams done here on Wikipedia, I’m an email away! And if you do by any chance know of anyone seeking a scientist/artist then please be sure to get them onto me! (My email is nick-daines<at>hotmail.com). Thanks!

WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 15:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

citizendium

Hi Tim, you may find this web site of interest. http://www.citizendium.org/ David D. (Talk) 16:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Influenza

You're very welcome! I saw your message in talk about living/non-living and although I don't think I agree with you, I accept the compromise you've made. One thing; do the names of viruses need a capital? I wouldn't have thought so, especially if they are not living! Best wishes, --Guinnog 16:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, another star

I, Clockwork **Soul**, do hereby award the Tireless Contributor Barnstar to TimVickers in recognition for his being a *FEATURED ARTICLE MACHINE!* Keep up the good work!

Yet another barnstar, which is richly deserved indeed! – Clockwork Soul 18:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Luck on the FA for Influenza

I just wanted to wish you good luck on the FA. I don't follow FAC enough to feel comfortable supporting or opposing any articles. I just am not sure where the line is drawn there. In any event, I think this is an excellent article and I hope you get the little gold star. I have really enjoyed watching it improve from the start of the peer review process and I hope to become more active over at Peer Review.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TS fixes

Thanks, Tim! I fixed the combined ref, added images (great suggestion), and left you a response about the U.S. school children and why I used it in the lead: please let me know what you think. Thanks again, Sandy (Talk) 04:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Fibrous protein; Non-competitive inhibition; Transpeptidase; Embryology; Al-Azhar University - Gaza; Protein phosphatase; Kevin Steen; Class II PI 3-kinases; Ubiquitin protein ligase E3A; Sulforaphane; Binding site; Nuclear transfer; List of proteins; Staphylococcus saprophyticus; G0 phase; N-terminal end; Candida (genus); Influenzavirus B; Exenatide

Cleanup: ABTS; Zosuquidar trihydrochloride; Enzyme database
Merge: Phytoestrogens; Dietary supplement; Proteasome
Add Sources: Animal fat; Glutathione S-transferase; Cardiomyopathy
Wikify: Citrate synthase; Moving plant proteins; Davson-Danielli model
Expand: Carbohydrate metabolism; Cell therapy; Exergonic

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Influenza virus research.jpg

Hi Tim,

First off, congratulations on your excellent work! Secondly, since you're doing so much work here, I'd like to suggest that you upload images to Commons where possible, to help usage of resources by other projects.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: this weekend

Remember who you know is more important than what you know when it comes to future money opportunies. And everyone is impressed with how smart you are when you agree with them. WAS 4.250 16:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notification

It sounds like you're busy with good stuff: just wanted you to know I mentioned you here - any ideas on those two articles? Sandy (Talk) 16:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]