User talk:TimVickers/archive 4

Archive 4

history of biology

Tim, I'd love to have your thoughts on the 20th century sections of history of biology. 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 06:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick reply to a comment on my page

Hey there, you left a comment on my page and I just have a reply.

I know what you were saying and all, but that user is a school friend, and I've talked to him in person and he doesn't mind it. He just takes it as a friendly joke really. None of the stuff I put on there is serious. Silver Fang 07:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

History of biology

Hi Tim,

I guess that you've also seen that History of biology is also at FAC? The authors have clearly put a lot of work into it, and it were a pity if it didn't pass, although it's kind of — patchy right now. You and others might want to help Ragesoss, either with comments on things he can fix himself, or with your transforming power of words married to insight. I'll try to pitch in, too, although I'm shy of jumping in and messing everything up as usual. :( Spread the word, Willow 03:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Immune system

I'm sorry to bother you, but it was a little disappointing to hear that my actions were classified as "vandalism". Could you please reply on my talk page? Thanks. 89.105.241.164 21:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

86.143.26.67 23:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Hi Tim, I was just looking at Wikipedia and I found you - fantastic! I'm sorry for sending a message on your talk page but I couldn't find your new email address. I'd love to hear from you and how you are getting on in america. Please could you email me at my email?

Melatonin

Please note that I had this link in my edit summary: [1] --68.35.43.82 13:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Upon rereading the entry you made on my discussion page, I see that you may have been referring to my contribution to the anti-oxidant page. If so, that language was extracted from the melatonin page itself and presumably references are provided there. It is difficult to pick up any journal on the pineal gland without references to melatonin's anti-oxident properties, so it was strange to see that it wasn't mentioned in the article.--68.35.43.82 14:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

DNA FAR

Tim, I'm really sorry I wasn't around to help out on that, but it seems to have come out OK? I'm trying to get back up to speed now that I'm semi-recovered from the April 2007 nor'easter, but if I ever miss something important, don't hesitate to e-mail me. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I, Hojimachong, hereby award TimVickers this Editor's Barnstar, for his excellent contributions and patrolling of Evolution! Hojimachongtalk 01:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Anabolic steroid featured article candidate.

I have nominated the Anabolic steroid article to be a featured article. Please vote in support of it being a featured article here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anabolic steroid/archive3. Contributors have been working vastly to improve this article since then taking into account criticism of it and improving it on all accounts since it's last nomination and it has gone a long ways since then. Please vote in support of it. Thanks.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If you believe it is F.A. material please vote before the nomination closes down. Thanks.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

I really appreciate what you're doing with the article. I spent a considerable amount of time reviewing each of the references and removing some bad writing a few weeks ago, then we got an editor in there who went to town with a Creationist POV everywhere. It looks like a lot of that stuff has either been reverted or rewritten. I was once in your shoes 30 years ago, but now I haven't picked up a biochemistry book or paper in many years. Anyways, thanks. BTW, why did you protect the article? I haven't noticed vandalism lately. Orangemarlin 17:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If at all possible, when you complete an activity on the to-do list, please strike it out. Let's get this article to FA status!!!! Thanks for all that you're doing.. Orangemarlin 02:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Envision Financial Communications

They could always argue on their Talk page, but if the article winds up being deleted, can they be blocked? Corvus cornix 22:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, their user name is what I was concerned about. Just like User:genesisfoundation, another COI user name. Corvus cornix 22:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Point taken with the username. I have edited the Envision Financial page and it complies with all Wiki guidelines; therefore, there are no grounds for CSD. Its content is descriptive and encylopedic. If the page itself is still in question, I'd recommend viewing Wiki stubs of similar Canadian credit unions including Alterna Savings, Vancity, Coast Capital Savings, Aldergrove Credit Union, North Shore Credit Union, etc. all of which are perfectly acceptable -- the Envision Financial page is no different.

BrianBevi 21:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

DNA refs

Can you (or did you) check the articles out? I dropped the refs into DNA and at the "mechanical porperties" (or whatnot) article also. I didn't want to dig through the entirety of them, but they may be interesting... one shows that G is essential for B DNA being the default conformation; C-G-poor stretches apparently avoid it. The other is about circumstances under which ligands can induce A-like conformation. I might have some more refs, which I will also drop off there. Dysmorodrepanis 23:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[rm crud] I don't see the thing to click on?! Dysmorodrepanis 23:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply to welcome on my talk page

Thanks for the welcome, although I have been around casually for a while and even longer as anonymous. I was having a quick look around on the MCB project, maybe I will adopt a stub or something - usually the articles that are fleshed out seem to have someone watching them like a hawk, like you with the DNA article :) Oh and I do know about the four tildes, but I still forget it once in a while. And then I get into an edit conflict when a bot edits it in while I'm editing it in myself :P Sakkura 21:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:MM curve v3.png. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:MM curve v2.png. The copy called Image:MM curve v2.png has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and remember exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 18:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Malaria protection

Hi Tim. I noticed you semi-protected Malaria but didn't add a template to this effect (e.g. {{pp-semi-vandalism}}). I took the liberty of doing so—if there was a reason why you hadn't, I apologize, and feel free to revert my edit. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Jimmy Wales

I think you were looking for this page when you made this edit. --Dookama 22:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

IP 75.22.64.116

Just to inform you, since that user/IP most likely seems like a bot. He has made over 15 total edits to WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008, and even 8 literally within less than a minute after I had reverted it to an accurate version. I had notified admins on the vandal pages and suggested that he get a maximum, or near maximum edit-ban. I have also requested full protection on WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008. Just thought I'd let you know! (Edit: Apparently you've followed through, thanks.)Socby19 03:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Socby19

WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008

The 2007 version can be unprotected, as 2008 is the one with heavy vandalism. Socby19 03:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Socby19

On 76.5.105.107 vandalism

I just saw you reverted the vandalism by this IP address at some sites, but I am concerned about the extreme violence and depravity of the commentary that was used by this person. I see vandalism all the time, but usually it is the stupid kind, the one that inserts a curse word or two, here or there, but this is different. This is the type of vandalism that should be reported to authorities that can at least try to track down the IP address. I sincerely doubt that the statements are true, but it takes a lot macabre sensibility to make such provocative statements. Does wikipedia have a mechanism for reporting such stuff? If not, someone should report it to a law authority. CARAVAGGISTI 15:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why y'all are gangin' up on me

I can't believe how many darn individuals like yourself have considered my edits vandalism like y'all are callin' it. I ain't makin' sense to me. I thought I'd be deterin' vandalizm for ya and thus makin' yer job easier, I guess I was mistaken badly. I suppose that y'all only see things on one side, y'all don't see the whole picture, 'cause if ya did, y'all would understand it like dis:

"O-rite, this guy's sayin' 'Give yer proper respect to this page', hmmm, maybe he's usin' an eloquent southern accent with humor to deter vandalism here, lets keep his edits and allow him to improve like articles like he would"

Ah well, it's just another matter of timin' 'till am banner fer sure. Y'all don't see it the way I do. Keep yer self-servin' opinions and ban me fer improvin' an encyclopedia like I do. It's not like it ain't been done before. Just look at the user: user:Jimbo Wales, someone did the same exact thing, they used a hidden html comment to deter vandalizm. I was thinkin', "ya know, am not the sharpest knife it the drawer, why not just do the same thing on other articles, and have fun while helpin' people at the same time." Any case, y'all are gonna ban me fer bein' different, and I guess yer admins and your opinion is thus more important, I guess there's nothin' I can do, I can't conform so maybe I ought to leave. ClaimJumperPete 20:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

accuracy

Hey Tim, i was looking at this figure in metabolism article and it seem to be a little confusing. I understand that accuracy is lost when trying to simplfy the process but what did you have in mind with respect to the proteins being broken down into acetyl coA? It would seem that the better thing to do with this figure would be to have the arrow pointing to the TCA cycle as an entry point rather than acetyl CoA? David D. (Talk) 21:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively add pyruvate and have three arrows from the protein route to pyruvate, acetyl CoA and TCA cycle. Then you could add the glycerol to pyruvate arrow from the lipid catabolism route too. Or is this just too complicated to capture? On the other hand this is fairly complex and might be worth showing in a diagramatic form. One of the major themes in metabolism is that itis a network rather than linear pathways so this might help emphasise this point. David D. (Talk) 21:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipeida xml 2 html

Hi Tim. I am trying to convert the wikipedia xml into html for displaying on our web site. For various reasons running the mediawiki software/apache server is not straight forward to set up and not supported on our network setup (systems support dont want us to do this). I have been trying to use the Text::MediawikiFormat perl module which works reasonably well but misses a lot of fiddly xml markup. Do you know of anything more generic that doesn't require us to run the Apache server -- we did look for a .xslt style sheet in the mediawiki software but couldn't find one. Can you point me in the right direction? also wrt etiquette for getting this kind of help should I just post this query on my talk page and add the helpme tag to my talk page?. Jennifer_Rfm 09:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Help?

Hi Tim! :)

I have a favor to ask, but you should feel completely free to say "no". Could you look over sweater curse and eliminate anything that falls under WP:NOT, particularly anything that falls under WP:NOR or WP:SOAP? Any improvements or suggestions that occur to you would be most welcome as well. I feel keenly that it's moving from the sublime to the ridiculous for you, but it would help me a lot to have impartial eyes and a neutral spirit there, since it's gotten uncomfortably warm. I may have made a bad first impression and have yet to recover from it. :( Willow 21:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

PS. I'm leaving again tomorrow morning for another graduation, so I probably won't be able to write until next week. Take care!

You're wonderful and wise; thank you, Tim! A grateful Willow 02:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Biology

I know you have spent probably every free moment you have working on the Evolution article, but I'm trying to clean up, improve, and get FA status for Biology. It was kind of sad how poorly written and referenced the article is. Since there's not a lot of help there, I took it upon myself to write the article from a unifying theories concept: Gene Theory, Theory of Evolution, Cell Theory, and Theory of Homeostasis (probably not a theory). If you have a handle on those four theories, you can basically describe anything in Biology. But that's my opinion and understanding of the field. Anyways, it needs help. Anything you can do, of course, will be appreciated. Orangemarlin 01:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Virus protection

Good call on the semi-protection of Virus, I was getting sick of people and their "MRS GREEN HAS A VIRUS INFECTION" crap. -- Serephine ♠ talk - 05:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Peroxiredoxin

Hi Tim. I noticed you were the creator and main editor of the peroxiredoxin article, and wondered if you'd heard of this article published this March on PNAS. It actually came to my attention through a popular science magazine, and I wondered if you'd think any info from it warrants inclusion in peroxiredoxin. I realize it's fairly recent, and in all honesty I only skimmed through it, but it seemed interesting enough. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Odd IP block issue

Hi - you blocked User talk:76.5.105.107 on the 6th. Looking at the contribs they appear to have edited after the block. Reason I'm asking is they seem to have done the same thing on Wikibooks where I blocked them. Heads up as much as anything - cheers ok it was early and I was catching up and the brain was not working well! It is (of course) their own user page so they can edit that - the stuff we had has been rather unpleasant tho - sorry to bother you and regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Lead image in Metabolism

Hi Tim. Sorry to bother you again, but I thought I'd give you a heads-up that the lead image in Metabolism (Image:Metabolic pathways small.png) was deleted from Commons as a copyvio. Apparently, it was taken from KEGG[2]. I've been slowly working on a vector version of the file over the past couple of months, but now I think finding a replacement might be in order. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks nice. I quite like ATP in the lead, actually. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work on Evolution

Excellent work on the evolution article. I have been disillusioned and burned out lately. It is wonderful to see editors coming together in a constructive manner and develop this article. I had given up hope. The article really has improved the more carefully I read it. Kudos. GetAgrippa 23:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Amen brother. The more you read the more absolutely ignorant you feel. Personally, I like that because it is never boring and always humbling. I noted your research interest-excellent and it has application. I will be absent for a couple of weeks but I will try to add some comments on the peer review if it is warranted. Thanks for the notice. GetAgrippa 23:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article has been greatly enhanced by your edits. My personal knowledge of the science behind evolution is a woeful 30 years out of date. Nice to see, however, that really not that much has changed!!!! BTW, I had no problem with the Futuyma reference revert. I was doing some housecleaning of the article (just by reviewing the references, I've learned more than anything). Orangemarlin 04:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

I'll take a look when I get the chance!

Verisimilus T 11:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Always a pleasure. Just let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to take a look at! Verisimilus T 23:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Trait vs phenotype

Hi Tim, I recently updated the definition of phenotype (first paragraph) and see that you have done the same to trait (biology). Before we edited, these articles basically said that an example of a trait would be "eye color" while an example of a phenotype would be "blue eyes". Are trait and phenotype synonyms? Dr d12 15:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

So by one definition, a phenotype and trait refer to the same measurable character, while phenotype can also refer to a collection of traits. (I added some definitions to the trait talk page as well.) I think all I have to do is add the second "collection of traits" use to the phenotype page. Dr d12 20:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Evolution article

Dear Tim, as always, you're doing an exceptional job and if you make evolution featured, then we won't have enough barnstars to praise you. So, my suggestions:

• I took a deeper look at the Heredity and Variation sections, and I found them easily readable (I tried to read them differently according to this criticism).
• Don't you want to use this image?
• In the Heredity section, when you're talking about DNA methylation, I saw you've mentioned Epigenetics, but don't you want to mention Genomic Imprinting (Prader-Willi and Angelman Syndrome are serious disorders)?
• In the Mutation section, an other image would be better, I think (maybe this one).

Anyway, I couldn't add new content to it and these sections are perfectly referenced ones. Great job again, Tim! NCurse _work 20:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Image conversion

Sure, no problem. I'll see what I can do by tomorrow. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

How's this? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Why, thank you! I may create nice SVG images, but you actually add content! :D Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

GAC and conflict of Interest

Hi Tim,

You're a GA reviewer, so I figured I'd ask here. Recently, two articles from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team were promoted to Good Articles based on review from members of the team who hadn't worked on either article. I think feedback from the community is important here, and would prefer to have no Conflict of Interest (or appearance of Conflict of Interest) issues. The articles in question are Scelidosaurus (passed February 22nd) and Lambeosaurus (passed two days ago). Both articles were reviewed by good faith editors who did not feel there was any conflict of interest. Neither one had contributed to either article, but as our GA and FA passes are feathers in the WP:DINO team's cap, I think a review from a non-Project member might be important. Things such as clarity, etc, might be issues with someone who has never read or worked on a WP:Dinosaurs article. Is it possible for you to take a second look at these two articles, and make sure they truly represent GA material? I think they do: I nominated both of them, but would prefer community feedback. I had originally posted a similar comment about this to the GA talk page, but received no response whatsoever. What do you think? I specifically asked you because you're a GA reviewer with a science background. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, and the fixes. Much appreciated, Tim. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Informal LoCE

Hi Tim. I see you're a member of the LoCE and would appreciate it if you would give an article a quick read through and fix the worst grammatical and punctuation errors, and then give me some advice for further improvement. (Although American, my English skills are rusty after living in Europe for many years.) While it is no longer "my" article, I did write it and naturally have alot of interest in it and the subject. Here it is:

• Reindeer hunting in Greenland

It would be great if it could become a GA or FA at some point in time. -- Fyslee/talk 13:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer-review of Evolution

Thank you for the kind note, I am glad you found my remarks useful. I never found it easy to write articles, which is probaly why I migrated over to Wikisource. However I am always happy to find areas where I can be helpful and that are more suited to me than article writing.--BirgitteSB 17:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been really taking advantage of the nice weather rather than following anything online very closely. Good luck with it and let me know if you have any questions about my review.--BirgitteSB 19:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

When to sessions of sweet silent thought...

File:Ludwig Vollmar Strickendes Landmädchen.jpg

In shadows and in sun.

...But if the while I think on thee, dear friend,

All losses are restored and sorrows end.

Thank you, Willow 23:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Good luck with Evolution; I'll keep my two eyes on it in return. :)

The article reads very well, and I'm sorry that you're having so much grief with it. What do you think of the following idea? I like your illustration of light vs. dark circles, but you could also imagine making it with a discontinuous phenotype such as red vs. blue, perhaps corresponding to Mendel's wrinkled and smooth peas? Then, assuming that blue had a slight evolutionary advantage in terms of net reproduction, one could make a graph showing the red fraction declining and the blue fraction predominating exponentially over time. If you like the idea, I could make the graphics tomorrow and send them to you. Sending supportive thoughts your way, Willow 22:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm really sorry that you're having so much grief with the Evolution. Rather loquaious for one so silent, no? ;) I was trying to help, but I hope that I didn't make matters worse. :(

What do you think of Madeleine's tree image? I like her colors and her combination of pie chart and phylogenetic tree, although there seems to be an internal uncertainty about the best taxonomic order, phyla or species. Since our not-so-taciturn friend seems to like it as well, perhaps we could work to improve that tree? It might help him save face, and win him over as an ally. Madeleine seems really nice and smart, at least that's my impression. It's a pity about the Talk page, but the prolix debate can always be buried afterwards in an archive; look at the six archives over the photon's mass — going on seven. ;) Willow 11:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. For comparison, a truly vexing thing is when you have to top-stitch something and your old mechanical sewing machine gets stuck on a fat zig-zag stitch. Arrrrggggh, arrrrggggh, aaaarrrrrrrgggggghh! ;)

People who mean well sometimes have to work harder, but the rewards are that much richer and sweeter, no? Congratulations on a well-earned tranquillity and warm admiration of friends. If you have a moment sometime, send me your favorite poem, if you like one in particular. Well done and good luck ahead, Willow 21:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

I mentioned you on the FAR for Schizophrenia; you might want to weigh in, and perhaps you can lend some help on images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Reframe?

Just noticed the compact on the evolution talk page. Are you going to reframe the discussion? David D. (Talk) 15:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

IP blocking policy

I recent had the following question posted on my talk page after warning an anon IP and, not knowing the answer, thought I'd ask your opinion:

"I'm sysadmin at a school and we are often warned and occasionally blocked due to vandalism from our IP address - User_talk:203.56.245.7 After some discussion here we feel the best approach is to block anonymous editing from our IP address, and since you are the most recent person to warn us on our talk page I'm guessing you can point me in the right direction to arrange this - we don't want to block editing outright at our end, as some students may have useful input, but we'd like them to go through their own logins to do this so that foolishness doesn't impact on others. Any idea what the process is? Thanks in advance - Jase 02:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)"

I know that the latest MediaWiki software can handle anon-only blocks, but is this: a) something admins generally do, and b) if so is there an "official" route or is this a case of asking an admin to be bold? If this is something admins do, could I impose and ask you to do so? Thanks for you input. -- MarcoTolo 18:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Progressive evolution

I would be curious to hear any comments about this book [3] that claims to "prove" that evolution is progressive. Also look at The Great Story.--Filll 20:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the offer of help Tim. I currently sitting my finals and will get back to working on Wikipedia when I finish in a few weeks. Regards, Rowan 11:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Dogs R stupid — mischievous kitty violates NPOV ;)

Dear Tim,

Congratulations on your new family!!! :D

I had no idea that you were a "cat person". I hope mother and kitties are doing well, and will bring you lots of joy as they grow up. My own kitties are full-grown (but still mischievous, not surprisingly), but I'm getting some of the same feeling every day as flowers bloom and berries swell in my garden. Some of my strawberries are almost ready to eat — yum! :) Good luck with evo-devo, comments to follow when I get a chance, Willow 22:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

TS article

Tim, two items to review with you vis-a-vis developments at Talk:Tourette syndrome (I'm also going to ask Colin to look at in, as I had recently discussed this with him, and he seems to have learned a lot about the TS research).

1. As a layperson, I'm not sure how to sort out the incidence/prevalence dilemma in TS, considering that a) there aren't good epidemiological numbers to begin with, and b) it is known that tics peak during the ages of 8 to 12 (mean 10), and diminish after adolescence, so that estimates in adults aren't reliable or easy to come by, while estimates in children 8 to 12 are thought to be the most indicative. Are you able to lend any assistance to the concerns raised on the talk page, or via rewording any of the text relating to incidence/prevalance?

2. Of more concern: during the FAC, between the two of us, we brought the exact number of possible school-age children with TS mentioned in one source (530,000) forward to the article lead. As I commented to Colin last week, that exact number has gone from relative obscurity to suddenly showing up regularly in my inbox via Google alerts and such; I noticed this as an indication that many journalists and others are doing their research via Wikipedia, since that number isn't widely published anywhere else (to my knowledge). It occurs to me now that this number is likely to draw attention vis-a-vis the age-old problem of conflict of interest at, and competition for research funding from, the NIH. Many disorders "compete" for NIH research funding (specifically in terms of "disruptive behaviors" which the NIH has targeted in some inititative whose name I can't recall), so other "disorders" would want "competing" prevalance rates to be as low as possible; that number is likely to attract attention. (For TS, there's the additional factor that the NIH has a pony in the race, but that's another story.) The 530,000 is based on a 10 per 1,000 estimate; there are several papers which back up this number, explaining why it's likely to be a good one, considering the amount of TS that does undetected, and my "personal" sense is that it's probably a good number that will be borne out over time. The NIH says 200,000 adults may have "severe" TS (which is very rare), which substantiates the higher number among school-age children, when mild TS is more likely. But, this number seems to be attracting attention, as it is perceived as high, and is the upper bound of cited prevalence ranges, and people outside of the TS research community just don't seem to have a sense of how common undetected TS is. I can spend a lot of time citing the numerous sources that discuss it, and delving into controversy over the numbers, but a) I'd like to find a way to avoid that (I just don't have time over the next two weeks to dig into all my papers, and I'm going to be traveling), and b) I also want to avoid having ridiculously low and outdated numbers like the Apter study take on undue weight in the article — anyone who follows TS research knows of the methodological issues in that older data. Somewhere (which will take me time to find, since I have four large file drawers full of papers) Scahill suggested that 4-5 per thousand should be used. Papers regularly suggest the number should be bracketed at 1 to 10. When I put in the 530,000 number, it seemed that it would be reasonable to just "do the math" and say that would translate to about half of that at typical prevalence ranges in the middle, but it seems to me that doing that (the math) would be original research. So, issues are being raised on the talk page, with the result that outdated, very low numbers (like Apter) are being included; an additional set of eyes might help resolve the dilemma. Thanks in advance for any ideas you might have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My only suggestion at this stage is to request a pause in the discussion at Talk:Tourette syndrome until Sandy gets back. If that doesn't work, perhaps Tim can find a compromise that will do for now? Don't overestimate my knowledge of "TS research". I've read a textbook, the WP articles and a few papers! My understanding of prevalence/incidence is only what I've learned in order to contribute to my own neglected pet subject (TSC). I'm fortunate TSC is genetic with a stable diagnosis that isn't subject to the whim of the DSM (a recent New Scientist article and editorial on bipolar diagnosis in children caught my attention). I appreciate the politics and possible agenda issues. For now, it looks like a fairly healthy fact-based discussion. I'll keep an eye on it Colin°^Talk 19:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Extra eyes are always helpful, Colin, as you're both often able to cut through the fluff and come up with a solution from a fresh point of view. I was up all night re-organizing my files (like I didn't have a million other things to do, but I suppose I needed to do that anyway) so I can source common knowledge facts, and I have pending travel, so the timing on this is irritating ... oh, well ... that seems to be the story for the TS article. I sure would have preferred to use this time to work on the FARs for Lesch-Nyhan syndrome and Schizophrenia, and to begin reading Kushner, since I had planned to start that writing this summer. Oh, well. I guess I get to go back and cite common knowledge instead. I can't say it's not discouraging, or that I can understand this concern that someone somewhere might have to fund something because we report the numbers. On the other hand, by digging through all of my research material, I did find that the bracket of numbers is referenced, so my question about "doing the math" being original research is now resolved. I don't know what the Hirtz report is about, but I'm going to have to put my hands on it now in all my spare time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

DNA article, homologous recombination

Hello! Yes, it was clear that you were talking about sister chromatids. And yes, homologous recombination between sister chromatids initiates with a double-stranded break. Here is the reference: Neale and Keeney (13 July 2006). Clarifying the mechanics of DNA strand exchange in meiotic recombination. Nature 442:153-158. (I'm sorry, I don't quite know how to enter the actual link.) The double-stranded break is caused by an endonuclease. NighthawkJ 23:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Bodybuilding

Hey. Can you keep an eye on the Bodybuilding article? Someone keeps removing an image from the article which has been justified for being there. Their reasoning is baseless and personal and I don't want to break any 3rr rules. I justified it's existence on the talk page many times and it's the only copyright free viable and quality image that exists at present. Can you restore the image and revert their edits? Thanks.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

IP blocking (cont)

This is a continuation of this discussion, as well as this follow-up.

I've received an email from the system admin's school account confirming the request to block anon editing from their gateway IP (203.56.245.7) for 12 months. Is this something that you can do for him? (I'm happy to forward the email to you if you'd like a copy). Thanks much. -- MarcoTolo 23:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

GAC backlog elimination drive

This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman here, I need some help.

I seemed to have messed up my ability to edit when I was working on my monobook.js file. I can't revert it since it's protected. Can you revert the edits I've made? You can do it here [[4]]. Thanks. Testing123Testing 06:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that all. I got someone to fix it.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible article?

Is there any rule that forbids this from becoming a regular article/list?:

• Flora and fauna of Greenland

The title can be changed if necessary. Other encyclopedias have such galleries as a resource. Please reply on my talk page. -- Fyslee/talk 06:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oxidative stress at Lesch-Nyhan

Hi, Tim; since you speak oxidants and anti-oxidants, and I don't, you might be able to figure out what's up with Oxidative stress at Lesch-Nyhan syndrome. Pproctor (talk · contribs) is inserting research apparently authored by him, with links to his website, but I'm unable to see the connection between the text he's entering (about stroke) and LNS, or to determine if it's good research. I just don't know the topic. It doesn't look like LNS is going to make it through FAR, since nothing is happening, and it fails 1a, 1b, 1c and 2 right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it; it's completely Greek to me, but appeared to be worth checking out, and you're the one who would know. Too bad we lost the only part of the article that was cited :/ Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

(Virtual threowing up of hands and shaking of head) Er, experts can cite their own work at arms length, as long as the cites meet the rules. Mine do. Also, you are entirely incorrect about the further cites not supporting the role for oxidative stress in hypreuricemic syndromes. It is a very big deal right now in pathogensis in general, though it originated with the Lesch-Nyhan syndrome about 30 years ago. How else do you explain (e.g.) the efficacy of SOD in hyperuricemic syndrome in Dalmatian dogs?. Also, the concept antedates the term "oxidative stress". So the older papers are not indexed under this on pubmed.

BTW, while we are playing competing experts here, I published my first paper on uric acid and the possible physiological role of its redox properties in the journal Nature in 1970 [5]. Check it out. I got into the "biz" after encountering a patient with LNS about 1968. This was one of the first identifed cases after the first description of this syndrome. Has anyone else posting here actually seen a case of LNS or published any papers on it? I am also an MD, PhD trained as a pathologist.Pproctor 13:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

With the Lesch-Nyhan syndrome page, when I see an edit of some 1,000 or more (and it isn't a userpage or talkpage) I instantly revert as vandalism....and sometimes when I am reverting many articles at once, I do a copy/paste in the edit summary (much quicker)....so, that was my fault. Sorry about that...please know that it was a good faith revert and not in anyway negative. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Please help at Talk:Factory farming

Please help at Talk:Factory farming. We need a miracle or arbcom. WAS 4.250 19:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Morpholino anticancer clinical trials claim

The Morpholino article was changed to claim that Morpholinos are in clinical trials as anticancer therapies: They have been used in mammals ranging from mice[11] to humans and some are currently being tested in clinical trials as anticancer therapies.[12]

They are not; current clinical trials include West Nile virus, Hepatitis C, Duchenne's muscular dystrophy and a coronary artery bypass graft anti-stenosis trial. Therefore I removed the claim regarding anticancer therapies. Otherwise nice work, I liked your contributions. JonMoulton 15:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You responded: I was talking about this and this trial.

The first paper (Devi et al.) refers to safety trials conducted prior to 2003. This program is no longer active at AVI and no trials are ongoing. The second paper does not refer to a Morpholino oligo but instead refers to the morpholino anthracycline KRN8602, the HCl salt of MX2 (38-deamino-38-morpholino-13-deoxo-10-hydroxycarminomycin). KRN8602 is a small molecule containing a morpholine ring; it does not base-pair to a target region of RNA as a Morpholino oligo does.

Morpholinos do have some promise as anticancer agents. One anticancer strategy employing Morpholinos is discussed in depth in: Summerton JE. Custom Cancer Therapies: Safe and Effective Treatments for Most or All Cancers. Ann NY Acad Sci 2003; 1002: 189. However, these applications are not currently being pursued at AVI (which holds IP rights to therapeutic Morpholinos).

Other groups have shown efficacy of Morpholinos in anticancer applications, such as: Ljubimova JY, Fujita M, Khazenzon NM, Lee BS, Wachsmann-Hogiu S, Farkas DL, Black KL, Holler E. Nanoconjugate based on polymalic acid for tumor targeting. Chem Biol Interact. 2007 Feb 8; [Epub ahead of print]

A very different anticancer approach using Morpholinos is the pretargeting strategy for radioimmunotherapy: Liu G, Dou S, Mardirossian G, He J, Zhang S, Liu X, Rusckowski M, Hnatowich DJ. Successful Radiotherapy of Tumor in Pretargeted Mice by 188Re-Radiolabeled Phosphorodiamidate Morpholino Oligomer, a Synthetic DNA Analogue. Clin Cancer Res. 2006 Aug 15;12(16):4958-4964.

However, while research applications of Morpholinos for anticancer therapeutics are progressing, for years there have been no open clinical trials of Morpholinos designed for anticancer applications.

Best regards,

JonMoulton 16:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Per your suggestion, I added a note in the introductory paragraph of the Morpholino article pointing out that the word "morpholino" shows up as an element of other chemical names. I agree that this could head off some confusion. Thanks!

65.249.23.4 17:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Oops, didn't mean to sign with an IP. It's me, Jon: JonMoulton 17:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your thoughts

I'm going to push your thinking from microbiological to a whole new area. Can you take a look at Extinction event#Evolutionary importance of mass extinctions. It makes a lot of references to extinction events and evolution. I honestly have problems here, because extinction events are not a fundamental driver of evolution. Speciation, ok, I can buy that. I know you're busy and all, but maybe you can take a look and help reword it. I haven't studied evolution in many many years, so maybe this section is accurate, although I don't believe it. Thanks. Orangemarlin 15:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: Autoreview

Done. ffm ✎talk 19:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. ffm ✎talk 19:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

1a

Oh, thanks for correcting that strike through! Tony 02:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Evolution peer review

Well, I did the peer review. I'm afraid I got a bit ranty, but, well, there's problems. Vanished user ^talk 02:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, I don't think it's all your fault, indeed, looking at the April version, it looks like the rot had fully set in before you started. But have a look at this version from Late March The mutations section is far better; Horizontal Gene Transfer is... somewhat better, though I see this is from when Valich was doing POV pushing, hence that last paragraph under HGT.

It's not that you've messed it up, it's that somewhere between March and April something went badly wrong, and reversion didn't happen. Vanished user ^talk 03:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

One thing *do* be sure to include duplication events in the mutation section. And, for that matter, deletion mutations'd be a good idea. The current section neglects them. Vanished user ^talk 03:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Give me a minute. I'm trying to combine the March and May versions, then I want to add your last edits. Vanished user ^talk 03:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Right. I've restored your changes, however, I've cut discussion of mutation rate, since it needs knowledge of evolutionary processes, many of which have not, at this point in the article, been explained. Here's the cut text:

Bacteria can even increase their mutation rate in response to stress, leading to the evolution of novel alleles that counter the source of stress.

Mutations that are not affected by natural selection are called neutral mutations. Their frequency in the population is governed by mutation rate, genetic drift and selective pressure on linked alleles. It is understood that most of a species' genome, in the absence of selection, undergoes a steady accumulation of neutral mutations.

Vanished user ^talk 04:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Aye, I'm done. Sorry I wasn't clear! Also, sorry I leapt in like that, but I had an idea of what needed to be done to fix it, so... Vanished user ^talk 04:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No bother! Just sorry it was a bit ranty. Vanished user ^talk 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(Moved to peer-review) TimVickers 21:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't hurt. Maybe ask a couple more people to give it a close reading first, though. Vanished user ^talk 01:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Biomolecules

Replied to your message on my talk page, thanks. I reckon that Category:Biochemicals should be renamed to Category:Biomolecules to fix the problem, since the latter is a superset of the former. Had no replies back yet on Bio Project or Cats Project pages. What do you think? Thanks, Clicketyclack 15:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

I don't know what to say, but you deserve kudos kudos and more kudos for you hard work in getting the Evolution article to being nominated for FA status. The article was attacked by POV editors a few months ago, but you got it cleaned up and very readable. I wish TxMJC was around because she deserves some of the credit too. Anyways, this is a great article. Just for a little history, I showed up here about six months ago, because I needed more information on Evolution and Creationism because of a school board battle. I've been addicted ever since. I've learned a lot just watching your edits (I've looked at most of them as you made them). Since my last course in Biology was around 1983, I feel like I got caught up again. Now, how about heading over to Biology. Thanks again. Orangemarlin 01:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim! I've been pretty much a nonentity around here lately and wasn't around to watch you evolve the evolution article, but you did a great job (tree and all ;) I'm passing your letter on to some coworkers to attempt assimilation. Did you get a usb key? Opabinia regalis 02:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant one of these things here: [6]. For the tree, it'd be nice to have a 'real' one, but I think the way it is now is good for reaching a general audience; most people will get the idea better if they see some familiar touchstone groups mixed in with all the unfamiliar microorganisms. We do still have a real one somewhere, in another article, right? Opabinia regalis 04:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

48 hour 3RR block?

I notice you blocked one of the edit warriors on the Cow tipping article for a WP:3RR violation. But you issued a 48 hour block rather than the more-usual 24 hour block and I was wondering why.

Atlant 13:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(Further discussion over on my talk page. -- Atlant 16:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

Informal mediation

I've closed the informal mediation for "Antioxidant". If you need further assistance with the topic, please let us know. Cheers! Vassyana 14:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments: evolution

I replied on the FAC. Well done on the history section. Much better now. Samsara (talk â€¢ contribs) 17:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I will reply to FAC. I like read articles from beginning to end without interruptions when commenting on them, which isn't possible at the moment. But I know you have done great work on it without a through review. Kudos for getting it to FAC.--BirgitteSB 20:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've replied to the FAC. It has another long list, but the points are much smaller. Heredity's the biggie. Vanished user ^talk 00:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Tim, can you explain what is meant by "Break 1" and "Break 2" in the FAC. I want to comment, but I'm not sure if there's some structure there. Orangemarlin 05:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution is change 3

The best way to put it might be that squares are not animals and an arrow isn't multiple generations of reproduction. BenB4 07:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

help?

Tim, I am having a series of conflicts with another editor at the Race page. Would you ming going over this section [7] and see if you have something constructive to add? Be forewarned, it is a lot, and a mess. To put it most crudely, I think the issue is NPOV (Wobble/Alun believes that there is only one biological definition of race and that is subspecies and any other terms biologists use for race must be synonyms for subspecies; I believe that just the past sixty years, and even now, biologists and physical anthropologists have had very different definitions of/approaches to race and that they are not all reducible to subspecies, and that all these views must be represented in the article). Wobble/Alun thinks the issue is that he knows the science and I do not; he understands the scientific research and I do not; if I did I would agree with him. This conflict is really wearing me down and I think there is a real need for other (and fresher) views. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the details, but this editor's general attitude and the attacks in edit summaries are unacceptable. I have warned them on their talk page. TimVickers 19:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate it and also will try to take your warning to me to hear (I do take it seriously). But I was hoping with your own grounding in the biological sciences you might be able to address the substance of the conflicts, and the content. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

You are crazy man. That article never leaves the top of my watchlist because of you haha. Wikidan829 16:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is looking really good now, with only a few scattered points outside of "Evolution of Life", which is still very disorganised. (Ediacaran before eukaryotes, a progressive description followed by "life isn't progressive", etc) Vanished user ^talk 18:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Just ignore everything after the word "now" in that statement. You work too damn fast. Couple more minor comments added to my review, but, really, there's not much of significance left. Only one sentence that could be considered truly problematic. Vanished user ^talk 18:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah... Problem:

"It is only about a billion years ago in the Ediacaran period that simple multicellular organisms began to appear in the oceans."

The Ediacaran biota is actually pretty complex... Vanished user ^talk 18:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. That gets that. Just... well... You know. It's an article I've been working on just now, Ediacaran biota, so... Added a couple notes on minor points I wasn't quitre sure how to rephrase over at the FAC, but there's not much left. Vanished user ^talk 19:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

attack

Re this comment. diff I do believe that you are supposed to supply diffs when you want your "warnings" to have any force. So where are my alledged "personal attacks"? Why can you not be bothered to even produce diffs to support your "warn"? Is it a proper "warn" when no "diffs" are supplied? Can you specifically link to a personal attack and explain to me why it is considered a "personal attack"? Can you explain to me why this diff is not a personal attack, when you make an arbitrary accusation of "personal attacks" without actually providing any evidence of personal attacks in your warnings? Can you explain why this bloke calling me a "moron" is less of a "personal attack" than a "supposed" comment (that you have "failed" to link to on your "warning") by me on Talk:Race? Just want a fair appraisal of what you consider a "personal attack". Alun 21:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well he used a template to save time, which doesn't use diffs. Taking a look myself, I would say the edit summary in this one could be considered a personal attack. "Duh" is not a valid word to use in a discussion here, no less an edit summary. Wikidan829 21:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

And you are right, the diff you provided was absolutely worse of an attack. It's less obvious because it's not in the edit summary of an article. He was wrong in saying that. Wikidan829 21:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Templates may not use diffs in themselves, but to support an accusation it doesn't take much to append a diff to the end of a template. Take a longer look at the history of the "race" article, and you will see that this user User:Ramdrake and his friend User:Slrubenstein have a cartell attitude to this article. Any and all edits they do not like they revert,diff of my edit, not really controversial is it? another of my edits hardly "enormous" are they? but apparently they are not good enough for the "owners" of this article diff of revert that claims that articles undergoing mediation cannot be edited even those that are cited from reliable sources. Indeed Slrubenstein recently stated that no one should edit this article because it is undergoing mediation. But his prohibition does not extend to himself or his compatriot Ramdrake.[8] Am I angry, yes I'm bloody livid about this, but I have tried to avoid personal comments, indeed my attitude has been extremely tollerant compared to the attitude and behaviour of Slrubenstein and Ramdrake, I have not engaged in edit wars like them and I have avoided including my personal opinion into the article (something I try scrupulously not to do). But somehow I am being portrayed as the agressor here. I am really amazed by this and really do think that some sort of double standard is applying. Obviously sometimes it is difficult to be perfect, but I maintain that there is significant distortion of material in this article. I have some understanding for genetics and hereditary. I do not claim to be an expert population geneticist, but I do know enough about genetics to know when a paper supports a certain propositiojn or not, I have a BSc in genetics fron the University of Wales (Cardiff), and an MSc in Biotec from the University of Central Lancashire (Preston, now who would make that up?). In the case of this articles several editors are making claims for scientific papers that the papers and their authors themselves do not make. I personally call this POV, and to be honest fraudulent. If this is a "personal attack" then please prove to me that what I say is a "personal attack", in so doing you need to show that the original editors are portraying the science in the papers in the same way as the originsl authors. In particular I would like both you and TimVickers to specifically show that the authors of the papers regarding multiulocus allele clustering specifically state that their research supports the concept of "race as lineage". When you and TimVickers can do this, then you can tell me that I have been a naughty boy. I wonder just who is compromising the integrity of Wikipedia here? Those of us who want science to be presented in a fair light, or those who want original research to predominate. Have either of you actually read any of the papers concerned? I suggest you do, then I suggest you both read the discussion on Talk:Race. If you are both scientists, and if you both know about genetics (which I think TimVickers does) then I think you will have to concur that I am correct in my analysis. I really don't care what you do. If you want to "block" me then please do. If you think this si some sort of "punnishment" for me then go ahead. I think my behaviour ahs been quite good considering the abuse and provocation I have had to endure. Alun 22:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I thought what I wrote was quite benign. I don't understand how this constitutes a "personal attack", I don't make any personal comment about another editor. Bloody is a relatively ordinary sort of word and is hardly "offensive" at all, more an expression of anoyance really. This and this are simply examples of calling a spade a spade, Users who consistently engage in disruptive editing are disruptive editors. Users who consistently push a POV are POV pushers. Users who consistently vandalize are vandals. There is no need to dress up the way we address such users. While we must remain civil, calling a spade a spade is part of a reliable editor's job. Whatever, I'll try to be a bit less agressive when I make edit summaries in the future, though I think your attitude is somewhat heavy handed for these relatively innocuous comments. Maybe "duh" was a bit uncalled for and I am sorry for that. Alun 04:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution FAC

Hi Tim. I've put a few more comments here. Will keep plodding through to the end! Article's pretty good to my mind - I'm proposing tweaks that possibly just reflect my bias. Cheers, --Plumbago 09:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah - you saw them. Brilliant. I'll keep pressing on when I have time. I think you're doing a great job balancing my quibbles against the more general readability of the article. Kudos. Cheers, --Plumbago 10:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution image

Sure, no problem. Also, I'm afraid I'll sit this one out—do you mind? Seems as though you have enough reviewers :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hola!

Hi ya. I don't know how long you've been in the states, but let me know if you've found any really good oatmeal stouts there. The only ones I can think of to recommend are Canadian, and unlikely to to be found south of the line... Have you tried the Rogue brewery's stuff? The Shakespeare stout is worth looking for... Cheers, Pete.Hurd 20:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

Hey, I've poked at this a bit, but I'm being hit with side effects of anti-depressants (it's rough, but, hey, at least I'm not depressed!) so I'm not sure it's myy best writing. Have a look over and smooth out the edits, would you? Vanished user ^talk 09:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Tim, you changed the order in the speciation text just as I changed the order in the speciation diagram. Both diagrams exist - which text order do you prefer? Vanished user ^talk 15:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And I got the last two backwards. Tell you what: tell me the order you want them in. The diagram will suddenly match. Vanished user ^talk 15:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This order? Vanished user ^talk 15:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Image:Speciation modes edit 3.svg

Except it was identical to Image:Speciation modes edit.svg. Deleted and swapped in the old one. Vanished user ^talk 15:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Evolution article's looking very strong now. Could use a lead image, though. I'm tempted to make a little diagram on processes of selection. Vanished user ^talk 15:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!!

I tried so very hard to get it through to the editors of the OU page that "borderline common knowledge" isn't good enough. Thank you for making my point so VERY clear. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi TimVickers. Thanks very much for the barnstar you left for me! I'm very pleased to have been some help on your drive to get evolution to FA status. Best of luck pushing it through the remaining hoops. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, I've left a few more comments in my sandbox, just finishing off the remaining sections of the article that I'd not reached before. --Plumbago 12:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Bio-Star

Thanks for the appreciation. It really cheered me up after some recent frustrations!--BirgitteSB 13:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so, as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and edit articles; however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is TimVickers). Logging in does not require any personal details, and there are many other benefits for logging in.

When you edit pages:

• Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
• Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such content or editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can click the edit this page tab above, type {{helpme}} in the edit box, and then click Save Page; an experienced Wikipedian will be around shortly to answer any questions you may have. Also feel free to ask a question on my talk page. I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia. :D Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Antibody

"Build it and they will come" - I heard that somewhere - oh yeah some lame movie. I watched it but don't tell anyone!!

		Cheers-ma-dears! Hic!
		I Ciar just wanted to thank my favourite copyeditor, TimVickers, for answering my cries for help and fixing the history section on the antibody page. Thanks mate! Ciar 16:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Tim,

I noticed you're still improving the antibody page. DO11.10 and me are going to start trying to improve the article to FA standard. You fancy getting in on the action?? Conversation is beginning on DO11.10's talk page so may be a good place to keep it going ;) Ciar 18:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A favor

I have been going through some articles that have been tagged as needing references for an entire year trying to help with the backlog. There were two stubs which are pretty technical and in somewhat in your area. Could you do me a favor and track down a reference for these?

• Endogenous mediator
• Exosome (vesicle)

--BirgitteSB 20:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for such quick work!--BirgitteSB 01:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

evolution

Tim, you are far too kind: I have many detractors and lots to learn. I'll have a look later. Tony 22:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Quibble

From Evolution's lead:

"The similarities between organisms suggest that all known species are descended from a single ancestral species, through this process of gradual divergence."

This isn't entirely true: fusion (as formed the eukaryotes) and hybridisation undo forks to some extent; and "gradual" is accurate in one way (as opposed to "hopeful monsters"), but not in the sense of as opposed to as opposed to punctuated equilibrium. That said, it's probably near enough to true for the purposes of a simple introduction. Still, any way to make it more precise without making it unduly complex? Vanished user ^talk 09:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

True, and that's the line of descent, even if the fusion may be a different process. Let's go with it. Vanished user ^talk 14:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Just for fun

As far as I can tell, this is the version of Evolution that last hit FA.

Actually, it's not hard to see, looking at this, the seeds of the demotion of four months ago: The demoted version was slightly better cited, but still extremely under-cited, and a lot of new technical material had gradually been added.

Frankly, losing FA was probably the best thing for it then: It's kind of like Punctuated Wikilibrium: An article demoted from FA experiences far more rapid change and adaptation than an article in the stable ecosystem of FA status, which has strong selective pressure against change. Vanished user ^talk 16:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

revert unsourced change. asked User talk:TimVickers for evaluation

[9] WAS 4.250 21:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. WAS 4.250 23:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

can

Geoffrey Miller says:

Species A group of individual organisms willing to breed with each other.

Speciation The splitting apart of one population to form two species that no longer interbreed with each other.

No sign of the word can. I just wonder whether it begs unanswered questions to include it.

PS I tweaked his wording slightly. Tony 04:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

PS Would you mind feeding back on the draft of the MOS on hyphens and dashes (there's a section on MOS talk for it)? User:Tony1/MOS_comparison Tony 05:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right on both counts. Tony 08:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA :)

File:˜‘.svg Thank you for commenting on my RfA, which closed successfully with a tally of 76/0/1! I hope I will meet your expectations, and be sure I will continue trying to be a good editor as well as a good administrator :) If I may be of any assistance to you in the future (or if you see me commit some grievous error :), please drop me a line on my Talk page. Again, thank you, and happy editing! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a million, Tim. Good luck on you-know-what :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Diligence on Evolution

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I award TimVickers this Barnstar of Diligence for an amazing feat—one I thought undoable—bringing Evolution back to featured status. This article is truly a testament to your ability to work with others to produce quality, neutral, well-sourced articles. Here's hoping it stays in good shape :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination)

You recently commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of Humanity, which closed with no consensus. The article has been re-nominated for deletion, and you may care to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cradle of humanity (2nd nomination). --Akhilleus (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

new ref formatt

One problem with the new format is when you try and print an article. David D. (Talk) 15:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What does it do on printable? (If it doesn't print well, I don't like it, because I always read the print version.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't see all the references, just thos in the window. David D. (Talk) 15:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

ugh ... although Wiki isn't a print encyclopedia, I always read FACs in printable form. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth would people choose to read a hyperlinked web encyclopedia as a printout? I'm not sure if we need cater to such a strange behavior. :) TimVickers 15:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Has something to do with those darn airplanes that don't have internet access :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I must say I don't like this much either... Sorry, Tim! I very, very rarely print articles, but I do find this hard to follow on-screen as well. Besides, if it's not meant for printing, who cares how long the page is? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The hyperlinking still works, so for a reader wanting a reference, it's a larger font and less screen clutter. I think this is an improvement for our general readership, even if it makes proofreading references a bit harder for us. TimVickers 15:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI, someone raised this here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar of bravery

Wikipedians collaborating to improve the evolution article

		The Barnstar of Bravery
		Tim Vickers truly deserves this Barnstar of Bravery for his undaunted zeal in bringing Evolution back to Featured Article status. His steadfast devotion to the article and his calm, professional interactions with other Wikipedians of differing viewpoints are reminiscent of a Daniel come to judgment — in the lion's den. Truly, angels rush in where fools fear to tread. Willow 16:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to congratulate you as well—I saw all the hard work you put into that article and we're lucky to have you here. Aaron Bowen 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

When to cite

This page concerns me;[10] I don't know how to write up examples (also leaving note to Fv and Colin, as they may know how to get started on this). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Belligero

Please see User talk:Belligero#Genocides in history. I have been actively involved in an edit dispute with User:Belligero over his/her recent additions to Genocides in history I was going to keep two paragraphs from a recent edit that (s)he made but they are a direct copy of text from published articles. I noticed that you had already policed such an action so please could you take a look and take what ever action you think is appropriate. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Pyroluria

Tim, if you're bored and have some free time, since you have access to medical journals and I don't, Pyroluria needs some verification and restatement of some alleged facts. It's not important enough to me to pay to obtain the articles or travel to a medical library, but you might spot something you can easily fix, if you have time. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

TS epidemiology

That was fast on Pyoluria! After 185KB of discussion, I've proposed a draft on TS epidemiology at Talk:Tourette_syndrome#New_draft, in case you want to glance at it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Tim, thanks for your supportive comments at my RfA. Your work is amazing. I would be pleased if I can ever make some useful second-fiddle additions to your work. Shyamal 03:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

Hi Tim. I stopped by to add my voice to the chorus of praise for your improvements to Evolution. While looking through some of your conversations about the article, I came across this on User:AdamCuerdan's page:

"It's OK, it can be quite upsetting to see article we have contributed to in a poor shape. My impression from looking at the old talk pages is that User:Gnixon had a bad influence on the article, and it has recovering slowly since he drifted away. TimVickers 16:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)"

Since I have a lot of respect for your contributions, I'd be very interested to know if that comment was based on anything other than the flapping yap of Orangemarlin. I've just now looked through my edit history, and I can't see how I could be blamed for putting Evolution in "poor shape" or having a "bad influence on the article." (Here it is before and after I was hanging around there.)

The last thing I want to do is revive old disagreements between myself, OM, and TxMCJ or involve you in them. Still, I'm a little surprised by the impression that someone like you is speaking poorly of me simply because of OM badmouthing me after I left. It's not that I particularly care what people in some corner of Wikipedia think of me, but it's a funny thing to see, you know? Also, like I said, I respect what you've done for Evolution, so if your words have a firmer basis, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

By the way, I do want to say that the article looks great. When I first saw it, it wasn't even readable, and now it's fantastic. The credit is due mainly to you and Silence.

Sincerely, Gnixon 15:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Gnixon 16:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Vaccination

I'm concerned about the first paragraph at Vaccination. It is as good as I could make it, yet it is not good enough. Vaccination is distinuighed from inoculation by being more about dead stuff than alive stuff while still both being about immunization but in common useage all three terms are used interchangably but vaccine tends today to be more about injected inoculation and historically the term derives from cow based immunization. All of that can be sourced but it seems to be inappropriate to throw all this at the reader all at once. I compromised with the simplification at Vaccination. Any edit you chose to make would be welcome. WAS 4.250 05:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The EMC² Barnstar

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		I thought I'd give you this barnstar for your impressive I have been noticing edits in numerous articles related to science. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ediacaran biota

Ah, Tim! We meet again on another article =) Vanished user ^talk 00:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Good job

You did a good job of adding sources for the Fragmentalism article. Nice work. Doczilla 08:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Immune system

Hey Tim. You're probably busy with antioxidant (what with it being on the Main Page today and all :), but, when you get a chance, could you weigh in on this new section? It might be more appropriate for the 3,3'-Diindolylmethane page, and there might be a tiny conflict of interest here. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Smells fishy to me, too. The effect of foods on the immune system is already mentioned in the "Physiological regulation" section: "Diet may affect the immune system; for example, fresh fruits, vegetables, and foods rich in certain fatty acids may foster a healthy immune system." This seems reasonable for an overview article. The fact is that many chemicals in foods can affect the immune system, inclusion of such detail places undue weight on Diindolylmethane, IMO. Also it read a bit like a sales pitch, the inclusion of a commercial link doesn't help either.--DO11.10 16:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Good article vetting

Hi, I'm writing to you for help by vetting Snake scales for GA.

I'm AshLin, an editor and contributor on Indian wildlife, mostly butterflies and sometimes snakes. I have worked extensively on article Snake scales under guidance of user:Jwinius. While I was offline in March 2007 the article was put up for GA but didnt make it. I've recently come online, polished the article by addressing the GA comments of reviewer User:Pete.Hurd. Unfortunately, he has left Wikipedia. Would you consider vetting User:AshLin/Snake_scales for GA comments please. Your cooperation would be highly appreciated.

In case you're wondering, I got your name from the GA reviewer's list. Thanks in advance, AshLin 19:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just to inform you that I have since put up snake scales as a GA candidate. Thanks,AshLin 17:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Want to use your image...

Hi Tim, I really like your image for the induced fit hypothesis. I would like to reproduce it in a book I'm writing. You can contact me through mcatpearls.com and see how I intend to use it. Looking fwd to hearing from you, Alfa Diallo

All these diagrams are free to use through the GFDL licence. Tim Vickers 04:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction in Stem Cell article

From the Stem cell article, two sentences that I think are contradicting. The first is from Adult stem cells and the second from the lineage section.

"Adult stem cells, like embryonic stem cells, have pluripotent potential and can differentiate into cells derived from all three germ layers. Pluripotent stem cells can be directly generated from adult fibroblast cultures.[10]"

"Initial studies indicate that transformation of mice cells with a combination of these anti-differentiation signals can reverse differentiation and may allow adult cells to become pluripotent.[13]"

Do they contradict, and if so, which is correct? Thx. --Seans Potato Business 13:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly sources

Please see my recent addition to WP:V. I think this is much better. Buttressed by the Arb ruling, I think it appropriate on the policy rather than guideline. Marskell 15:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Branching in to policy

I noticed that you are putting some efforts into WP policy areas. I wanted to recommend an interesting essay to you. I have had a hand in trying to make some of the polices at Wikisource conform to the better ideas in that essay, but have always found policy editing here too frustrating to be worth my effort for very long. I hope you find it more rewarding than I did.--BirgitteSB 17:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ditto that !!!! It still troubles me that RS has been de facto deprecated (not sure there was consensus for that, but whatever), and I learned the hard way to stay away from policy discussions to the extent possible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edits

Tim, please stop changing the policies. You're editing in a way that shows confusion e.g. your claim that sources aren't people. Of course they are, which is why we're allowed to use certain blogs depending on who the author (source) is. A source can be the writer or the publication. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you keep an eye on Anabolic steroids for me? Tim?

Given the recent event with Chris Benoit a professional wrestler who slayed his family and supposedly had steroids in his home at the time, numerous people have been attempting to alter the Anabolic steroid article to remove any implication that steroids don't result in "roid rage". I wanted to ask if you could keep an eye on it and revert any major changes to it before they get adequate discussion in the talk page by all involved parties. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Anabolic steroids

As expected a few people are attempting to get the Anabolic steroid article delisted from being a Good article because it doesn't conform to what the popular media says about anabolic steroids. You yourself passed it's nomination for being a Good article and it has done nothing but improve since then and is now at the criteria for a featured article. Nonetheless some people seem to want it delisted, So could you add some input? Here [[11]]. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 23:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Your edit aren't clarifying things — they're either making no difference, or they're introducing problems — and most of the people who agree with you are people who themselves don't understand the policies (one or two of whom have caused real trouble around them in the past). As an experiment, try inserting the most appalling writing you can force yourself to come up with; you'll find that most of the same people will still support you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Tim, I don't want to spend time going through the minutiae of your edits. You and Marskell have turned up at policy pages you're not familiar with in order to edit war for a substantive change you discussed elsewhere, and which arguably violates NPOV, leading to page protection on one of them — and another editor ends up reverting to a months-old version in order to undo your change, which has caused further confusion. It isn't good behavior, whichever way you look at it.

Above all, these pages need to be stable because they're the core content policies, the pages everyone most relies upon. They're also Foundation issues, as we saw when we recently tried to summarize them (not change them) on a new policy page called WP:ATT; even though there was widespread approval of this, Jimbo personally turned up to undo the revision.

Please don't tinker around with the wording for the hell of it, and please think carefully about your attempt to prioritize scholarly sources over other professional sources. If you want to add that to V, you'll have to initiate a Wikipedia-wide discussion, because it's a fundamental and substantive change both of V and of NPOV. It's not something you and Marskell can force in.

I received an e-mail about you from an editor I respect, who spoke highly of your work elsewhere. I'm certainly willing to work with you, but please imagine how you'd feel if I turned up at Evolution (which I was told you've done a lot of work on), and started crashing around with my own ideas and reverting you, even though I knew nothing about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1) Introduces a new theory is unnecessary; if it's introducing it, it's a new one; 2) Sources are people or publications, so saying "who" of a source is fine 3) "A journalist's analysis and commentary on a traffic accident is based on eye-witness reports ..." But what if it isn't? 4) Nothing wrong with his or her. 5) By a publisher, not in a source, because sources are sometimes people. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I had already said most of that to you, Tim. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Testosterone article needs major work.

The discussion of Anabolic steroids has brought to my attention the Testosterone article. Currently it contains only 6 references and 2 external links. Most of the material is unreferenced and the prose and flow of the article is in sad shape. Since you've contributed to that article in the past I thought you might want to re-write it and update it references included. It's a very important article in the Chemicals project however it's quality is bad. I've rated it a "start" class article. The article has a good amount of content, but it is still weak in certain areas and lacks adequate references. If you decide to attempt to re-write it let me know so that I can start making contributions. I think some of the sources from the Anabolic steroid article can be used in this one. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Testosterone, great, a page with lots of text but little solid content. My least favorite! Tim Vickers 02:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs a major rewrite. I'd be willing to contribute some time to it if you decide to as well. It would take quite a while for me to do it alone. It's one of the key articles concerning chemistry and pharmacology and seems to be in terrible quality. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Policy wording debates

Hi, was looking up the discussions that you have been at on the policy wordings. It is very interesting and I am beginning to suspect that the nature of the problem, which I cannot see either, is perhaps hidden by a science POV! Anyways, I am also surprised that there can be so much dispute when all appear to be thinking alike in spirit at least. Have a good weekend. Shyamal 05:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Testosterone sources

Can you give me a good list of scientific studies or websites dealing with testosterone that you think might be good for the article? Just a list of links to studies that may be relevant to the testosterone article that you have saved somewhere. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Good article review again for Anabolic steroids

It's been brought up again for good article review. Please show your support for keeping it listed as a good article. [[12]]. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was just erased by Vanished user because he claims the history section was copyrighted from the source. Of course that's totally false and is proven on it's talk page. Is there anything you can do to bring the history of the article back? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't find anything else, so let's call it provisionally safe, though I'm probably going to just go through and rewrite and clarify everything. It needs a dejargoning anyway, and that'll help squash any other potential Copyvios. Vanished user ^talk 17:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That said, the "Biochemical mechanisms" section is either copy-pasted from a scientific article, or the person who wrote it cannot write for laymen at all. Vanished user ^talk 18:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I wrote it, It's taken from numerous sources and may contain terms from those articles however that's not the same as a copyright. It's very difficult, I would say impossible, to write about the biochemical mechanisms of synthetic hormones in laymen. Most of the terms used have no laymen equivalent and can't be rephrased so your average scientifically illiterate person understands them. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

For instance, Tell me how "promoting the commitment of mesenchymal pluripotent cells into myogenic lineage and inhibiting their differentiation into adipogenic lineage." can be rephrased into laymen. I don't see how it can be, which is why I had to copy the sentence directly from it's source due to being unable to convert it into laymen. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I've dealt with that. Some of the detail is lost of course, but since most readers might have a chance of understanding the new wording, this is a simplification worth doing. Tim Vickers 18:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Anabolic steroid

Yup, I messed up. I've commented on the DRV and will revert my own revert if you haven't done so already. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 17:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Quote from Anabolic steroid article

Why did you remove the quote from Harrison Pope? He is a highly respected researcher of performance enhancing substances who has authored dozens of relevant studies and who is a researcher for Harvard. I think his opinion is very relevant to that section even if he is stating his personal beliefs based on his research. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you the peace offering, which I happily accept, especially as it was such a pretty one.

Let me make it perfectly clear to you that I don't like the way the policies are written, and in fact I've been known to let out low, pained groans when reading them — especially given how many edits I've made to them, because it means I get blamed for the content. The problem is too-many-editors syndrome: either too many editors writing them, or a small number writing them while trying to accommodate the views of too many. Then once they've settled into something most of us can stomach, someone turns up with a little tweak, which encourages someone else to do the same, and before you know it, the thing is totally incoherent again. The wiki system may be good for articles (in the end), but it doesn't work so well with policies.

Bear in mind that even tiny changes can lead to chaos, because editors do rely on these pages, especially when edit-warring when they need to make a point. If a POV warrior happens to turn up during the five minutes that "unsourced edits will be removed" is on the page (instead of "may be removed"), the next thing you know, articles are being decimated, and there are dozens of complaints on various talk pages and on the mailing list about how the policies are encouraging disruptive editing, and it's probably SlimVirgin's fault. That's why when I see something like that, I remove it instantly, because I've seen the consequences of not doing so too many times.

The other thing is that omission matters in policy too — some things are quite deliberately not spelled out.

If you want to get involved in writing content policies, I'm quite happy to work with you, but I'd ask you please to step back a little until you're more familiar with the way they hang together, and the intention and consequences of the core points. I've mentioned elsewhere to you that some of us spent months trying to revamp them, and we came up with WP:ATT instead of V and NOR, which I thought was much more coherent (not sure about the current version though, because I've not checked all the recent changes). But it didn't get consensus in the end, so we're stuck with V and NOR for the foreseeable future.

Anyway, thank you again for reaching out. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Note

Things will work out well in due time; they always do :) It was unfortunate that events had to reach such a point, but I'd like to think all that happens happens for the best. By the way, SV is very reasonable IMHO—just takes a deeper look at her points for some of us to realize it! (SV, if you're reading this, that's a compliment :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I happened across your work on WP:NPOV the other day, mainly because I noticed one of the worst POV warriors on Wikipedia is involved, which makes me laugh. My editorial opinion aside, I'm having the hardest time following the discussion to figure out exactly what is being attempted. Can you drop me a line about what you are attempting, so that I can make my comments on it. I've noticed that NPOV is abused by many, most people pushing a POV agenda. I like Slim Virgin's comments about WP:ATT. That makes a lot of sense as the "foundation" of good articles. Orangemarlin 01:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Falsifiability and evolution rough draft

Please take a look at the current version at [13] and let me know what you think. I want to incorporate the comments we had accumulated and clean it up a bit more. --Filll 16:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Kitten

Heya - would you mind terribly moving your comment on the kitten article to the bottom of the page? I opened an RfC down there, and it's more likely to be seen down there. -Superbeecat 17:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV citations vs. acessibility of citations

I'm trying to improve the stem cell article and have been removing some of the politicized (not NPOV in my opinion) citations and finding journal articles and reviews to replace them. The problem is only the abstracts are available to most users. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the balance between accessibility of information vs. the value of presenting the facts without slant, since they seem to be in conflict on this issue. -Id711 12:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see an accessibility issue here. Most good libraries will have access to these journals. David D. (Talk) 16:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Antioxidant layout

Sorry, then :) I thought it had happened inadvertently during the article's time on the Main Page. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Biology

In case you have forgotten :), I just wanted to give you a gentle reminder that one day, when you were totally bored, you'd help out in improving this core article. I haven't really taken a biology course since graduate school about 20 years ago, so I thought you could give it a jump start. I've tried to get some order to it by building a skeleton, but it really needs some more stuff. Orangemarlin 21:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor review

Further - Wikipedia:Editor review/TimVickers I often give comments on other's efforts at dispute resolution and discussion, and would love to do so on your editor review, as you requested at WT:3O. A few links to specific (long) discussions you wish me to look over would be great - wading through link after link, and your contributions page, is not very productive. --User:Krator (t c) 21:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am writing now, but it is a long read, so be patient. --User:Krator (t c) 23:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Completed. --User:Krator (t c) 00:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Tim - you said at your editor review that a conflict with SlimVirgin over some policy or another makes you question your dispute resolution handling skills. Surely someone with as many edits as you have has had other disputes over your time on Wikipedia - have those all gone smoothly? I don't want to say too much, but what you've said here doesn't strike me as any indication there's any problem with your dispute handling skills. Cheers, WilyD 22:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Tim - I hope you're not beating yourself up over this. You stepped into a minefield and came out pretty much intact. Editing policies pages is dicey, and even simple stuff like correcting grammer can get hairy. I don't want to speak ill of any editors - so I won't. The problematic behaviour here really isn't yours. In general, you should proceed much more slowly and with more talking on policy pages - but even well reasoned uncontraversial edits with good talk page consensus beforehand run a real risk of being reverted - for "stability" or ownership issues or just as a reaction by editors who watch the policy page but ignore the talk page. All in all, if you consider this "handling yourself poorly" you're well ahead of the crowd. Heck, I'm involved in an "edit war" that's left a page locked for three months now - maybe I'm not the best person to ask. WilyD 23:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• • I'll see what I can do tomorrow, but I don't think I'll have much to add; remember, I don't have much conflict experience :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: I haven't forgotten :) Have just been too busy off-Wiki for anything this demanding of attention. I don't want to just do a "drive-by" review! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Hi Tim, my own impression was that this conflict was just another great reason for that stable version feature for Wikipedia. If the policy articles were created by a committee which had given considerable thought, then it deserved to be blanket-protected by the system. I got the impression that SV was not really protecting it based on analysis of your edits, but as a kind of general protection policy when the people responsible for it were away. With this reading of the circumstances there was really no ownership involved there and I suspect that your edits might even have gone through if you had edited it in tiny bits over many days. Not worth mulling so much over. Cheers. Shyamal 02:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello Tim, and thanks a lot for welcoming me here and for those useful links. I hope to become more useful here once I get to grips with things like the citation system. Oh, and thanks for adding those sources to kitten too! Peace Tree Kittens 02:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Response

Hi Tim. Can you link me to the discussions you were having with Slim? Just a few threads would be enough...or those that you feel the discussion became heated. I see all your featured work, on very difficult issues, and it is impressive. I imagine if you are able to shephard such difficult articles through the FAC process, you can achieve anything you desire here. Shoot me a few links so I can examine them. Frankly, I am flattered that someone of your skill level would consider my opinion on such matters to be worth reading. I am not exactly reknown for maintaining absolute civility, but I do edit some pretty tough areas at times, so I have seen most everything. Maybe I can learn how to improve myself by also helping you.--MONGO 06:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for participating in my RFA. Hiberniantears 17:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Tim,

I prefer to always start out a policy from the simplest possible verbiage, so as to not handcuff future users, while assuming they'll use common sense to apply it. In this case, I prefer to use a generic, merit based approach, and if there is an example where that could lead to trouble, then, and only then, make it more specific. So if you have an example where you think that using a report in the Washington Post (say) as a source can lead us astray, please let's evaluate it. I can tell you that in a case I (regretfully) spent more than a year of my life on, we had an article in a 'scientific peer reviewed journal' that we had to fight hard to keep out, because we had a problem with its professional level and the peer review mechanism. Although the peer review was declared on the masthead, its specifics were totally hidden and unclear. Bottom line: we need to use common sense to apply clear and simple rules; using more elaborate and complex rules, as well intentioned as it may be, can lead to trouble downstream. Crum375 19:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I anticipate that artificially promoting a source that is labeled 'academic' over a source that is a reputed, well respected, mainstream publication, with lots of independent vetting layers, will create an improper balance and violate NPOV. As I mentioned to you above, we had a case where the so-called academic source was not really a good one, and we had to fight hard to keep it out. So I prefer to stay away from artificially boosting sources based on labels, and instead focus on merit. Crum375 19:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am simply against label-based discrimination. If the Wash Post (for example) publishes a report about some new phenomenon, my assumption is that its lawyers and fact checkers, with their access to inside and outside experts, will be no less reliable than some smallish obscure academic journal. I don't want to promote the academic journal simply because of its label. I do want our editors to use their common sense to carefully evaluate the context, the merits of each source and its prominence, etc. Crum375 19:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right, a respectable and reputable publication wouldn't normally publish an outrageous claim. But neither would an academic journal, normally. So the point is, why discriminate? If you have an example to make a case for label-based discrimination, let's evaluate it. But if you don't, by default and by NPOV we should not discriminate based on a label, but instead focus on the merits. Crum375 20:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My limited understanding of the genetics is that the 'memory' is based on the unused sequences, so it wouldn't be that bizarre, whether true or not. But that aside, the point is that we need to assess each case individually. The Wash Post has a reputation for respectability to maintain, a lot of shareholders to keep happy, a budget for expert consulting help for technical issues, and lawyers and managers who are paid to worry about errors. A small obscure academic journal (not Nature obviously) would have fewer vetting layers and a smaller profile to protect legally and financially. So the point is that we can't just say that if it has label X it's better than label Y - we need to judge each case on its own merit. Again, this is what NPOV is all about. Crum375 21:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement that the reputable, respected, mainstream publications, with access to technical experts when needed, won't publish junk. I would hope that you agree that there are some small obscure 'academic' journals who are less trusted in that regard. Bottom line: let's focus on the merits, not labels, per NPOV. Crum375 22:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds fine to me, but it also sounds virtually the same as 'exceptional claims require exceptional sources', so it breaks no new ground. Crum375 00:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the standard (and more subdued) terminology of 'exceptional claims require exceptional sources', which avoids the sensational-sounding 'extraordinary'. Crum375 00:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't recall saying I was happy with any version, except the specific wording you asked me about, which had to do with exceptional claims. I insisted and still do that per NPOV we cannot discriminate against any reliable source, and instead should focus on the merits of each source. Crum375 01:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that a policy must be broad and based on all cases, not most cases. Also, I think we should concentrate this discussion in the relevant Talk pages, as it's not a personal issue between us. Crum375 01:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Anabolic Steroid GA review

Can you clarify on the Anabolic Steroid GA review that you support it meeting the criteria for GA? Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 07:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you need to worry about this. GA review has made its archiving procedures more robust, in line with similar processes on Wikipedia. In particular, no one archiving the article would have missed Tim's earlier comment that the article is "good enough for GA". Furthermore, the emphasis now is on the weight of argument, not the number of votes. I think this article should pass, but it needs some work. I am willing to help, and have made some comments on the GA/R page. Please let me know if I have missed the point somewhere. Geometry guy 23:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. Tim, we have passed each other before on several occasions (e.g. Equipartition theorem), but I never properly said "hi". Like virtually everyone else, I am very impressed by your contributions - most recently to Evolution.

Do my eyes deceive me

I'm utterly shocked to see you here. I didn't think you had any interest in dead organisms locked in stone.  :) Orangemarlin 06:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

Hello Tim,

I'm curious to know, I'm currently 'debating' about Dawkins' book on Evolution(talk), and I would also like to discuss another change. When would I be able to make the change ? Currently, it's 3/1 in favour of the modification, is this enough ? Also, if you're interested in the subject, I would like to get the article on molecular evolution to FA status, it's an important article, in my opinion. I've created a draft here. - PhDP 18:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:V

I see that you're involved in the (sometimes heated) discussion WP:V regarding wording. I had protected it two days ago so that consensus could be reached before any changes were made, to prevent the edit war. It hasn't been nearly enough time for all parties to have agreed on a consensus text, and I don't think it was appropriate for you, as a party to the dispute, to have unprotected it yourself. There are admins with strong feelings on all sides of the issue, and this threatens to become a wheel war. I'd really like to avoid that. (By the way, I don't have any opinion at all about the wording of WP:V. I'm truly an outside party.) Could you please let uninvolved admins do any necessary protecting or unprotecting? Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

My bad, you didn't unprotect it. Sorry to bother you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced

I made a post to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that you might be interested in. Jeepday (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

An organism's environment

Hi Tim, I need your sagely advice. I was thinking of creating an article on an organism's environment. Environment is just a disambiguation page at the moment, and natural environment isn't exactly what I'm looking for. For example, the nature vs. nurture article doesn't once link to the 'environment' it is talking about. The article could discuss things like phenotypic plasticity, conditions and resources (again, with resources we only have articles with an anthropocentric view), environmental stimuli etc, as well as summarizing natural and built environment and social environment. Do you think such an article is needed, and if so, what name should it have? (I was thinking environment (biology), which currently links to ecology, though thinking about it, environment itself would do the job, if a new dab page was set up. Richard001 03:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Blind Watchmaker

Is it true that the book "The Blind Watchmaker: why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design" is misleading about genetic drift and should be removed?--Filll 12:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

An editor has removed it twice now from Introduction to evolution. My coauthors do not seem to be around and I am not a biologist. What is your opinion?--Filll 20:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy page work

Hi Tim, I just wanted to drop a note to say that I appreciate the work you're trying to do on the policy pages (Particularly WP:V). I haven't commented on them lately, and I'm not sure I'll have time to in the near future, but I do check in from time to time and admire the way you work under the circumstances found on those pages. Keep it up and don't let anybody invite you to leave. Thanks again, R. Baley 01:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive

A new elimination drive of the backlog at Wikipedia:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Wikipedia:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 03:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Tim, Can you take a look at this?

I've brought up this issue to you before but it's coming up again, I've brought it to the Administrators' noticeboard for a discussion and I wanted your input. The discussion is concerning the constant deletion of a specific image from the articles it's placed on. See [[14]] for more details. I'd like your opinion and/or support in restoring the image from those who erase it repeatedly. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Completely off-topic

Vassyana has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I also have four kittens. Aren't they wonderful creatures? And aren't they kittens no matter how old they get? :) Vassyana 04:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Wonderful, but infuriating in the kind of way that makes you smile as you frown. One is attacking my telephone cable as I write, I've been trying to convince them that electrical cables are similar to snakes and therefore scary, but without much impact. Tim Vickers 04:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No!! Then it's a moving cord thing and even more of toy! :o) Vassyana 07:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

I've seen you around GAC and have noticed you've done well with the reviews and that you have experience with FAs. I was wondering if you could take a look at Oklahoma City bombing and leave some comments at its peer review. I've never gone to FA before, and I need to know what the article has to have before I head to FAC. If you don't have the time, or if this doesn't interest you, then don't worry about. Keep up the good work with the reviews. --Nehrams2020 23:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking it over, I really appreciate. I'll address the issues as I find information for them. Also, thanks for correcting the links and cutting some statements. --Nehrams2020 00:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

I reverted your edits to the CoS userpage, because I think it's unfair to call this a sock account, it's just his work/church IP. He's probably not the only one editing from it.

Cheers, yandman 09:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Hi Tim, neither of us got that far, specifically we were BOTH about to get to the dreaded 3 reverts when it seemed better to try and 'suspend operations' and call a breathing space which is when I contacted you. That is the current situation. What he had done was to remove bland & neutral longstanding material that was NPOV narrative all fully referenced and when I rvt that he rvt back and so it went on...we need to have someone wade in and take stock so we can proceed through negotiated consensus...similar situation to what happened last year as you will recall. please check it over and do as you see fit. I am sure as a Biochem PhD man all will respect your sound advice and skilled impartial editing as much as I do. thanks Peter morrell 16:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Peter, apparently you missed my credentials. Let's see, an MD with 6 years fellowship in Cardiology, an MS in Biochemical Endocrinology, publications in drug interactions with cardiovascular tissue, and a long history of medical research. Tim, what you are missing is that there is an critical importance in keeping this junk medicine absolutely verified. If the Evolution article makes an error, the world will be a bit sadder, but in the end no damage done. If someone reads the Evolution article, and is misinformed, then sure maybe the Creationists get another point to cause their holy war, and I'm all right with it. In any medical article, NPOV has to be absolute. If the article does not provide accurate, sourced, refereed and primary data that supports any claims made, then Wikipedia has a moral, yes moral, obligation to delete it. As long as Wikipedia is the #1 hit on Google, people will come here to make a self-diagnosis, to find out how to treat their disease, to treat their children or loved-ones--if articles provide inaccurate, poorly sourced, or downright dangerous information, then we are harming people. "Physician, do no harm," is the primary ethos of an MD--how can I countenance bad writing, bad research or anything that promotes bad medicine. Homeopathy kills. Read the article, specifically against the UK physicians who diluted malarial medications to such a point that patients either became very ill or died. Homeopathy is NOT the only article on Wikipedia where these people are attempting to promote unverified "treatments" that will kill people, but it is one that I have chosen to clean up. I do not know nor care what Peter Morrell's motives are--but his edits are dangerous. Rarely will I stand on moral principle, because morality so hard to define. But if A will kill someone and B will not, and that is verified by research, then B ought to be the only point discussed. Undue weight of NPOV means we do not allow minority, and frankly dangerous, POV's to enter articles. I presumed you had a Ph.D. in a scientific discipline--you would never allow this junk science enter an article you are writing. One last point--this comment, specifically "weird dude", "know nothing" and "persistent vandalism" constitute personal attacks. Orangemarlin 16:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Pyloria

Hi,

You recently removed two cats, on of which I had put up (Protoscience). I had thought protoscience would be accurate as it is controversial and therefore unproven. And it's a more civil category than pseudoscience. I could be wrong, but is there a reason to leave it out?

Thanks,

WLU 12:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Would Category:Pseudoscience apply? I was tempted to assume and tag it as such, but I'm not sure what's been done in the past. WLU 16:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

More for my ever-growing to-do list. Thanks for the guidance. WLU 17:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What gives?

Hello Tim. Don't know what attracted you to Veganism, but it seems that it is not a coincidence. May I alert you to WP:STALK? I am willing to WP:AGF, and that it is not the case, but I would suggest that, to make your wiki time more enjoyable, that you consider editing other articles for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Are his contributions unhelpful? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Tim, thanks for your tips for improving the article; I'll see what I can do. I'm sorry to hear you are no longer reviewing the article but I hope you'll continue to be involved, as you have been participating on the talk page since at least June 4, 2007.[15] —Viriditas | Talk 03:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I enter the fray (Talk:Veganism#Vitamin_B12_section) and now you're stalking me? I'm sure you realise this article is too small for both of us. David D. (Talk) 03:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say how much I respect your ability to put ego aside and hand this review over to someone else. It is often I see someone so willing to put articles first above any other issues they stumble into on the wiki. Many editors in your situation would self-righteously object to any suggestion to edit elswhere, simply because they were doing nothing wrong(and some would even attack the person making the suggestion for bad faith or other such nonsense). But I can see you one the few people that understand it is possible to do everything right and still have the best interests of article rely on backing slowly away. Anyways I am giving you a barnstar and I hope your example is often followed leading to no one needing to quote WP:POINT ever again.--BirgitteSB 04:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ditto to that :-) I've always gotten on well with Jossi, but I guess he just doesn't know you as the rest of us do, and he probably doesn't realize you're not only a prolific FA writer, but also a prolific GA reviewer. Um, and that's why I'm really here. Something is really goofed up at the GAC you just passed; within hours, it was at FAC, but significantly deteriorated from the version you passed. Sorry to drop more unpleasantness on you, but it made it look like you had passed a bad GA, so you may need to keep track of the situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

oh, and I guess I should add that I keep appearing on that article talk page because the main editor there keeps destroying {{ArticleHistory}}, causing it to appear in the category that I check daily for errors. It's a small world out there :-) Feel like I have to say this with all this talk of stalking, etc. :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Appeal for help at Homeopathy

I have been trying to turn it slowly into English. However, I feel I am stuck in the middle. I have homeopaths on one side claiming I am making it too biased and too negative to homeopathy, and scientists and doctors on the other side claiming I am giving in to the homeopaths. All I want to do is to write the text clearly, and let others decide what the right balance should be. Come see the arguments on the Homeopathy talk page and on my talk page and Orangemarlin's as well. Help!--Filll 06:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 06:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Just to let you know that your name has been mentioned on my talk page.[16] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

TimVickers, Wikipedia has many mutual support groups that have different methods and goals. You have of late run into two different ones that sometimes support each other. These two groups most of the time do excellent work but are well known for winning their battles by less than policy supported means. Almost every time I see SlimVirgin et. al. critisized for their means; when I check the situation out, I find that I agree with the end result. Same too for FeloniousMonk and his friends JoshuaZ, Guettarda, and sometimes Jim62sch and KillerChihuahua. The very first time I ran into these two groups I felt very bullied; but over time I found I was able to successfully work with them. But only by biting my tongue a lot. Maybe when we get stable versioning installed, wikipedia will have less need for vandal fighters and thus less need to put up with policy breaking by our vandal fighters. WAS 4.250 18:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't life be so much simpler if all we did was write articles. Tim Vickers 18:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that's the best thing to do now, Tim. I'm terribly sorry that your name was invoked (not that anyone's name should have been, but you and I have barely even interacted)—you were probably rolled into that only because I defended you at the administrators' noticeboards. I hope you'll just write another featured article and forget all of this. And I truly admire how you've handled all of this; I hope I can be like you when I grow up. One other piece of sad news (I am really sorry to have be the bearer of such bad tidings); FeloniousMonk also posted that content to the Intelligent design featured article review. Since you've interacted with many of the editors of that article, I would think they wouldn't believe those things about you, but they do appear to have believed them about me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

ATP yield

Hi Tim, I have been following all your recent edits on OXPHOS. One section that I think is missing, and will try to add, is a discussion with respect to the theoretical maximum of ATP from the full oxidation of one glucose molecule. The main reason for this is that the text books are at odds with each other AND the primary literature. I think that this theoretical value needs needs to be more than an assertion backed up by a reference but explained, to stop future users coming in and changing these figures. Do you think such a section is worthwhile? David D. (Talk) 18:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again :)

Hi Tim,

Thanks for your nice note; I don't think I'd be able to give away kitties once I'd grown attached to them. Two kitties is a nice number, though; I have three, which can cause unhappy strife if two gang up on one. :( (Luckily, that phase seems to have passed.) Please upload a picture of Loki when you get the chance! :)

Over the next month or so, I was planning on writing an FA about the Loop of Henle; would you be so good as to look over and fix my prose/science? It's meant as a good-will gesture towards Citizendium, although please don't ask how that came to be; it's a little embarrassing. :p Silly though I was, yet I feel I should take the high road and reach out in a friendly way. Could you spare a few moments now and then?

I was also shocked to read some of the recent postings here, and their connected posts elsewhere. The policy stuff seems over my head, but the poor powers I have to sway a debate, make peace or inspire faith in you are at your service; please reach out if you're in need. As you say, why don't we all just write articles and get on with it? I'm not sure whether people realize the magnitude of their task, how long a road lies ahead, how little behind. :( Willow 03:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I as well am fairly confused. But at least people seem to be coming to a truce on homeopathy (partly thanks to your help, but I might call on your assistance again). Now homeopathy is starting to move forward, after a long time of laying fallow and just falling prey to edit wars. Hopefully we can make it readable and well referenced.

I also agree with WillowW. We have made a bit of a dent, but there is still so very very much more to do. If you look at the number of GAs and FAs, it is pretty embarassing, compared to something like the Encyclopedia Britannica. Some of our articles are very sad, and the amount of effort required to clean them up is like cleaning out the Stygian stables! We have a long long way to go. I think we will get there, but we don't need to waste more of our meagre energies on silly disputes that are basically meaningless. I do not know what sides exist, and I do not think I want to know. It is all too much for me. --Filll 03:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Timelines and Tense

Tim,

You seem to be able to string a few words together on technical subjects... I've written a Timeline of tuberous sclerosis and put it up as as feature list candidate. This met opposition from one editor on the grounds that it should have been written in present tense. The Timeline of chemistry does this. Well, it almost does it. It is very hard to do this consistently, and I'm really struggling to see how to rephrase some of my entries. Plus, I'm not convinced the change would be an improvement. The discussion and issues are on the feature list candidate page. You can comment there, or my talk page, or here, etc. I'd really appreciate any advise you can give. Thanks.

BTW: I posted a similar request to prose guru Tony, but I think he was tripping on magic mushrooms last night :-). Colin°^Talk 15:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and for tweaking the lead. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 16:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

quick question about medical images...

Hi Tim,

Hope things are going well. This shouldn't take but a sec.. how do you feel about images such as those in Gelding? Do you think they'll hit probs in some distant-future WP:FAC? Thanks Ling.Nut 19:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I meant, they're kinda yukky. Graphic. But the fact that you didn't mention is suggests that you don't think it's a prob... Thanks! Ling.Nut 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! :-) Ling.Nut 19:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I Am Not Sure

DeviantArt perhaps? I do have a deviantart account (the link being in my userbox subpage . . . somewhere). It's the same name I use. -WarthogDemon 20:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Gelding GA

You're absolutely right that my objection to those images was subjective. But first off, let me say that (though it may not have been clear enough) my reason for failing the article on the images portion was because of the very poor illustrative quality of the lead image. A lead image is the most important to an article, and though it might be more difficult with an elusive subject such as a gelded horse, it's not impossible. But as to your objection to my comments: the images of the gelding were not purely surgical in character. As I pointed out, there are many other articles depicting medical subjects far more potentially gruesome to people (such as open heart surgery, brain surgery, various STDs) that have images that show what is necessary without being excessive, and never are objected to on taste grounds. Those images, especially the first, of an animal's testicles being wrenched out of it's body in a bloody fist in a barnyard, are hardly an example of simple surgical procedure or even the best of horse veterinary care. The article on herpes simplex doesn't show pustules being lanced and leaking blood and pus. While I am a firm believer in Wikipedia is not censored and I would never and did never suggest that anyone should remove the images on the gelding article, to suggest that finding more tasteful images to replace the current ones would further our goal of an informative encyclopedia (we don't want to completely disgust our readers) is not out of line. This is, after all, an encyclopedia being read by humans with an all too human, subjective sense of taste. If we can make sure articles are not gut-churning to read without censoring valuable encyclopedic material, then we should do so. VanTucky ^(talk) 15:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Vegan GA Review: Did you notice a bit of a process burp?

Hello Tim, Did you happen to notice that the editor who put Veganism in the GA queue, Pendleton724 was a tad new to the game? An editor for less than a day, and his or her one involvement with the article was to fix a broken link. Hampered by inexperience, he or she forgot, (or did not know how) to post a {{GAnominee}} on the Veganism talk page. I fear, as a consequence, that your rather good review may come as a bit of a surprise to that community of editors; it is not clear to me that they were even aware their article was up for review. There may not be a person ready to assume the counterpart role to your review effort, take the article in hand and perform due-diligence. There appear to editors there so inclined, and might step up to the plate after the initial surprise. That might take a day or two, so don't be surprised if no one responds very quickly to your review comments.

I was in the process of picking this article up myself, became aware of the anormality, and was posting some procedural remarks at the GAC talk page when you roared past me. I don't mind that; you certainly have excellent credentials. I just hope you get a good editor from that community. Good luck with the review, and thank you for taking it on. — Gosgood 23:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice review, and ditto that about the credentials so please accept that the following question is from a complete layman! Can scientists not make artificial growth hormones? This ref seems to suggest so [17]. Perhaps artificial growth factor is more correct than artificial hormone, the word hormone being reserved for cell produced substances? regards sbandrews (t) 08:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Taking this one over

I (think) I see your issue, and yes, establishing space-time displacements with editors with whom you have standing disagreements is, almost invariably, a wise course of action. T'is better to play with kittens than fight with Wikipedia editors. I am, at the moment, wrapped up in Hippolyte de Bouchard which got quick-failed twice, and the kind folks at Good Article Review had thought that a bit unfair. I agree; I believe a reviewer should fail with as much helpful and constructive commentary and analysis as possible, so as to cultivate better editors. This task, however, is proving a bit time consuming. I promised delivery by 15 July 2007 and give them seven days with which to work with my suggestions, and I'll be right up to that line. So I could participate (assume your role) on that Sunday. I won't change any of your suggestions or recommendations; it looks like the folks over there are proceeding along the lines you've laid out, so my inclination is to give a pass, barring the eruption of an edit-war. If you could find someone to work on a speedier timetable, be my guest. Take care — Gosgood 01:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim -- I think I've figured out how my review is going down, could you take a look at it? User:Gosgood/GA Nomination Review

• The topic of Nutritional Risk/Benefit is crowding out other aspects of the discussion proposed in the lead
• The volatility of the article is of concern, but a procedural change can cure much of that ill
• Apart from that, well referernced, reasonably well written; it educated me.

These people have worked very hard on this article, and I'm leaning toward not letting the best stand in the way of good, but I did want to get my scope/volatility concerns out. Your comments will be greatly appreciated. Take care — Gosgood 20:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Done with it. You're welcome Tim; glad to have finished it, and glad that I was able to help in a diplomatic sticky spot. I over-rode some of your administrivia edits, replacing {{Template:GA}} with the shiny bright {{ArticleHistory}} which has been recommended on the backlog elimination page — now fairly eliminated, it seems. We were edit-conflicting a bit. I'm sorry I didn't wish you luck when you took on Raëlian Church (or whatever the article is called now). What a pleasant package did that turn out to be for the good SandyGeorgia! Between that and the recently minted Good Article up for deletion, this has been an amusing contest. — Gosgood 18:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology

VanTucky has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Thanks for taking this review on, and for the grammatical work you've done so far. We definitely missed quite bit in our debates over larger content.
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

VanTucky ^(talk) 22:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review Oxidative phosphorylation

Hi Tim,

I think I have bitten off more than I can chew with this article. Besides the level of biochemistry being much beyond my school biology, I dont have enough domain knowledge. I was going to give it up, but you are expecting a review vide your note on my talk page, so I'll try but I really cant say whether I'll be any good at all. So you'll just have to bear with me.

Regards, AshLin 19:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll give it a shot but I'll require a few days. In the meantime, is there any recommended wiki-reading to give me a backdrop to judge against.AshLin 19:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Please see my comments here Raul654 21:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal barnstar

		The Paranormal Barnstar
		This Barnstar is hereby awarded for your assistance in bringing the parapsychology article to Good Article status. Nealparr 04:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Good is great! --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Trouble at homeopathy

An RfC has been opened against Peter at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Peter morrell. Although I have tried to smooth things over a couple of times, and have put effort into editing a couple of the articles, which I believe have progressed, recently things have got out of hand. I really do not like this at all.--Filll 11:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed article rewrite project for homeopathy and related articles

Hello, I noticed that you were an active editor in the homeopathy article and I'm leaving you this message asking you to add some input into a proposed article rewrite project I have planned for it and related articles. This means that I will rewrite the article, post a rough draft as a sub page of my username, then when I am done I will gather all major contributors to work on the article from there following specific rules. Anyone who has been in previous disputes concerning this or related articles should be able to come to a compromise if they are reasonable. This project will take several weeks and will probably involve several other articles. Hopefully we can turn homeopathy and related articles into Featured articles or at least Good articles. If you're willing to aid in such a project then please leave a note of support here Talk:Homeopathy#Proposed_article_rewrite_project and answer these simple questions here Talk:Homeopathy#Questions_for_editors. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event

I know you've dropped an edit into this article, so I'm hoping you can drop by for a few more. I'm trying to get this article to FAC. I've written a lot of the biological/paleontology stuff--I would like you to give it a read and see if there are any areas that could use an upgrade or two. I'm not asking for a complete review (well, unless you have time), just how it reads to a practicing biologist. Thanks. Orangemarlin 07:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Switch on the deep freeze

Hi Tim,

I've downloaded the article, talk and wikitext. I'll review over the weekend and possibly a few days. Please bear with me as I find it difficult to wade through the material. Thanks for the other links - I have downloaded those as well. In the meantime, you may like to freeze major edits and switch to your sandbox as you said you would. Thanks for your cooperation.

AshLin 12:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Re Image:Etc4.svg

Sorry, Tim—as far as I can see, it's simply embedded the PNG in an SVG file. It's not editable, and there is no meaningful code. I'm not a Code Guy, but I'm 99.999999% sure this is not a real SVG :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Never is :) Would you like me to vectorize it? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

All right then. If you need any help, just give me a shout! Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Autism suggestions requested

SandyGeorgia (Talk) said you would be the best GA reviewer for Autism and thought your input could be very helpful. It's a controversial medical topic that was a featured article, got demoted, and now we're trying to bring it up to current standards. It's recently been peer reviewed and I suppose the next step is Good Article status. If you could take a look at it, either now or during/after the GA process, we'd appreciate it. Eubulides 23:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

My puppy would eat it

Very cute pic; just how did you get those whiskers perfectly symmetrical and aligned with the curvature of the ears? The pic of the kitten is nice, too.

See the silliest dog in town here.

Some time during the next two weeks, I'd be pleased to receive any advice or feedback you can manage on my proposed summary of MOSNUM for inclusion in MOS central and as the basis of improving MOSNUM itself. Tony 07:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Improvements to the article Metabolism

Hi Tim,

• In the newly replaced Image of ATPSynthase how about marking the ADP and the phospate group also?

• It should be 'metabolic reactions' instead of 'metabolism' in the text below :

Metabolism is usually divided into two categories.
Catabolic reactions yield energy, an example being the breakdown of food in cellular respiration. Anabolic reactions, on the other hand, use this energy to construct components of cells such as proteins and nucleic acids.

Suggest something like :

Metabolism is effected by means of biochemical reactions which fall into two categories.....

Regards, AshLin 07:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Its nice of you to acknowledge my work with a barnstar. I expected to get my first after I passed your article, but now that'll be my second! Thanks once again.

Though we are yet to have direct interactions on the subject as yet, I thoroughly enjoyed the intellectual wrestling with the large number of articles that I had to scan to do justice to this one. Regards, AshLin 18:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Improvement to Catabolism

May I request you to address my observation on Talk:Catabolism? AshLin 07:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it reads much better now. AshLin 10:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you

The throne of glory for one who looks after Main Page articles ;)

Dear Tim,

Thank you so much for looking after Cyclol; I found out that it'd been on the Main Page only after I returned home. It was a huge surprise since it seemed, well, rather obscure (although dear to my heart) and it'd never been nominated, as far as I know. It's perhaps good that I was away since, otherwise, I probably would've fretted over it like a mother hen. ;)

With affectionate thanks and warm murine wishes for Loki, Willow 20:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. I find myself committed — in itself not surprising ;) — to bringing Loop of Henle to FA status over the next five weeks. Could I call upon your help from time to time? I'll try to keep it from being too much of a burden on you.

Last two points

Please see talk page of OP. AshLin 10:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Finally, we have a GA on our hands. AshLin 16:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've suggested a simplified lead for OP on the talk page for your consideration. Regards, AshLin 22:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Timeline of tuberous sclerosis

The timeline of tuberous sclerosis is now a featured list. Many thanks for your grammar support and copyedits at FLC. Colin°^Talk 21:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Tim

User:Altruism wants to nominate me for administrator, and I've been thinking about it and believe that having the extra buttons would improve my ability to contribute to wikipedia dramatically. I was wondering if you would consider co-nominating me. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Tell me what you think of these answers to admin questions, Tim.

---

Candidate’s optional statement

Hello. I am ------. I joined Wikipedia in the end of July 2006 and since then have contributed time to numerous articles, backlogs and projects. I have done my best to suppress and fight vandalism vandalism, improve articles and unofficially mediate disputes. However, it has recently become clear that my ability to help Wikipedia would be greatly improved if I had the extra editing capabilities that come from having the Mop.

What admin work do you intend to take part in?

My work as an admin would involve helping with numerous backlogs including CAT:CSD, CAT:DFUI, as well as helping over at WP:AN3 and WP:AFD. I would also work at WP:UAA and WP:RFU as well, though they are rarely backlogged. I would of course continue my anti-vandalism efforts, quickly blocking obvious vandals(after warnings) or aiding in blocking vandals reported by other users at WP:AIV. Also, aside from working on the backlog of candidates for speedy deletion, I would monitor recent creations and delete pages that would qualify for speedy deletion per WP:SD after going through the necessary processes.

What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

I doubt I could name my top contribution. I have over 6,000 edits and have created several articles and uploaded about a dozen images so far. The Anabolic steroid article would be one of the articles that I consider to have benefited drastically from my work. I have over 450 edits to that article and since last year I have (along with the help of other editors) brought it from a start class article to a Good article and hopefully soon to be featured article. The Parapsychology article is also a notable one. I (along with the many other editors) have brought it from a disputed article with frequent edit wars, to a stable Good Article. I called upon all major editors to that article and helped them work out an article that they would not edit war over and that they could live with. The Bodybuilding article is another one which I have dedicated a lot of time to. I also frequently make numerous edits to various articles correcting their formats and citations. I am currently working on Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed Proposal, which would make it more difficult for repeat sock puppets to vandalize semi-protected pages.

I am also currently working on a total re-write of the Homeopathy article with cooperation of all of its major contributors. When I came to the article, it was in bad shape with POV tags everywhere and relevant information missing, however since then I have gotten all of the previously conflicting editors to engage in a constructive discussion of the article at a draft in my user space. BTW, If anyone wants to help they can come to User talk:Wikidudeman/Homeopathdraft and join the discussions.

Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

I have not been in any actual "conflicts" that resulted in edit wars or violations of policy on my part. I have been in disagreements and debates with other editors about numerous topics, most of which were quickly resolved, however, I can't think of any long term "conflicts". Concerning disagreements and debates that became heated, I have been in a few. One that comes to mind was with Vanished user after he deleted the Anabolic steroid article because he believed the first paragraph was a copyright violation and concluded that it all must be copyrighted. We had a heated discussion on the matter and almost immediately the article was restored by Tim Vickers, later this was confirmed in a Deletion review. At the time I was unaware that articles could be restored once deleted and from this ordeal I learned that deletions can always be undeleted. Considering I was under the impression I would have to write the entire article over again (which took several months) I believe I handled the situation very well, as the most heated thing I said was that "Adam, You don't know what you're talking about." Since this I try to remember that anything that is done can be undone and anything that is undone can be re-done very easily on Wikipedia. I try to remember this when someone does something that I believe is wrong or harmful so as to avoid being stressed by the situation.

---

Tell me what you think of it. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Tim, Your changes look good, except I wonder why you removed the parts about CAT:PER and also aiding in improving fully protected pages that have gone stagnant. BTW, I do have edit summary warnings turned on. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to add your thoughts to the discussion at my recent Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Angus Lepper RfA, which failed, with no consensus to promote me. However, I appreciate the concerns raised during the course of the discussion (most notably, a lack of experience, particularly in admin-heavy areas such as XfDs and policy discussions) and will attempt to address these before possibly standing again in several months time. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 16:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Georg Cantor

Hi, I dunno if this is canvassing or not — if it is, then please disregard & accept my apologies... but if not, & if you have time, then would you mind commenting on the FAC of Georg Cantor? Thanks! Ling.Nut 19:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

RFA nominating

Hi Tim, I was commenting on WikiDudeMan's talk page on an unrelated issue, and I saw your conversation about nominating him for adminship. Personally, I can't think of a better candidate right now, as WDM has been performing seriously important and trying administrative tasks that have gotten at least one highly controversial article to GA-status. He suggested I contact you about co-nominating him. I have little to no experience with nominating in RFA (I have participated in discussions), would it perhaps be more affective to simply voice my support as a "voter"? Any suggestion would be welcome, VanTucky ^(talk) 17:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Tim, I'm not sure where User:Altruism has gone to. He hasn't edited for the last 3 days an I thought that if you wanted to you could initiate the nomination and tell VanTucky how to co-nominate and then User:Altruism can co-nominate once he returns from wherever he is. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:10_large_subunit.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:10_large_subunit.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you made a mistake

You might of made a mistake in nominating me, I thought a user called "Your username" was nominating me because you must of forgot to put your username in there. Hmm Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the corrected nomination, I accept. Thank you. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you need to create a page here Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikidudeman so that I can answer the relevant questions etc. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've answered the questions. You can make any corrections I might have made before entering it for discussion. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are your comments in bold text? Tim Vickers 18:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't they be? That's how it was formated when I answered, inside of the bold text signs. If it's not supposed to be like that you can remove them. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, have you adjusted the date and time to be exactly 7 days after your acceptance (the edit answering the questions?) if so, then it is time for you to put it on the page with the others. Tim Vickers 18:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, It's continue our discussions here, Reply here, it's easier for me. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Tim, You should probably sign your name right after your text about nominating me. For instance how "Husond" did here Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Giggy. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Tim, I'm not sure how to move it to the page for discussion. I think the nominator is supposed to do that. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've tried to clarify the instructions here, if you found the third item confusing. Tim Vickers 18:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've added my name to that list for discussion. If I've made any mistakes or if anything else needs to be done please let me know so that I can correct it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Tim Vickers 18:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Images

Hi. See: Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags#Tagging_help or my talk page. ccwaters 14:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudeman's RfA

Tim, I have a lot of respect for your opinions, having read some of your work, but I am currently opposing Wikidudeman's RfA because of what seems to me to be poor judgement, as exemplified in the AAVE discussions. Since you're the nominator, I'd be interested to hear from you of areas where you feel he has really demonstrated good judgement in a difficult area. I would change to neutral or possibly support if I felt more confident about his ability to handle controversy in areas where he has strong opinions. If you have time, please drop me a note if anything occurs to you. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and good work

Re the Antioxidant article: thank you for consulting me. This kind of exchange makes WE engaging and worthwhile. In general, articles that touch on human health seem to merit particular attention, as you have noticed, to leaven the pop-health perspectives with modern (bio)chemistry and biology. Keep up the good work.--Smokefoot 04:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Template Magickal Spell Amiss?

Hello Tim. Hope all is well. Just a minor, minor note that a magical spell of yours is going amiss; no major population centers are being decimated, and, according to the news this morning, no more than the usual number of governments have toppled. I'm a bit chargined that News Corporation will likely become the new owners of Dow Jones, a decline in the number of independent information channels seems the order of the day, but since I haven't established your culpability, I shan't be hunting you down. However, I don't think this spell is quite working the way you expected. Surely you are not reviewing this article daily! Variables {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}}, and {{CURRENTYEAR}} are expanding out on every page rendition, and not just the one time you placed a reference to a template of some sort. The snippits <includeonly>subst:</includeonly> seem suspect. My (possibly defective) understanding of includeonly is: 'don't expand the stuff bracketed by <includeonly>...</includeonly> on the base page (usually in the Template: namespace), but do expand that stuff on the page upon which the template is being included.' Because these tags are sitting on the talk page (establishing that page as the base), and because subt: sits between them, the 'expand once' aspect of substitution is not being invoked and the date variables are rendered every time. Perhaps this is the result of some other template that isn't being rendered out in an expected way? Or perhaps my analysis and theory are all wrong. If that's the case, don't tell me; I cannot stand it when mere facts intrude upon my pretty little theories. Do look at this when you have an idle moment or two (And wouldn't '~~~~~' be simpler, per the KISS principle? But perhaps that is no fun)? Take care. — Gosgood 18:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't dare accuse you of writing the {{GA}} template. You GA reviewed Parapsychology July 19; you used (I think) a template of some sort to date-stamp your comments, ('This is how the article, as of July 19, 2007, compares against...') but, from my view, the date-stamp is not working properly; after I made some topic adjustments and was checking the link to GA review commentary, I saw your review and the date stamp of today, August 1, 2007, not the date in which you actually performed the review. Since you don't profess template writing skills, You probably used some template {{foodatestamp}} and read 'This is how the article, as of July 19, 2007, compares against...' after you saved your edits out. Now I've trotted by, days later, and I read 'August 1, 2007', probably not your intended date. I examined the page in edit mode to develop my pretty theories about the mis-expansion of some template {{subst:foodatestamp}}. The question arises, what is {{foodatestamp}}? The editors who wrote whatever this template is would be interested in this curious behavior. Perhaps you might recall what you use when you datestamp reviews.

By the way, I whimsically regard all templates as magic; though I have a software development background, I've not taken the time to fully spelunk MediaWiki templating code; I believe it was John W. Campbell who suggested that one culture's engineering is another (more primitive) culture's magic: hence my Potter-ish prose. Take care — Gosgood 20:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikidudemans RFA withdrawn

Hey, I've decided to regretfully withdrawal my RFA. Based on the numbers I don't believe it would have ever been successful. It seemed to have gotten off to a bad start and then went down hill from there. I appreciate your participation. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Tim, I might try at it again in a month or two. Would you be willing to re-nominate me again then? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Enzyme kinetics

Hi Tim, I know you've done a lot of the work on the enzyme articles so I thought I'd inform you directly. I've made a suggestion on the enzyme kinetics page to add more material on the effects of the environment on the rates of reactions, such as salinity, pH, temperature etc. These are quite important subjects that I've seen covered in basic texts and which I've studied in introductory biochemistry, but I can't find any significant coverage of them here on Wikipedia. Would this be the right article to add such material to? Richard001 06:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Thank very much for your comments on my talk page. --MatthewUND^(talk) 01:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Serpin

Hi Tim, thanks for your comments on Serpin. Have changed lead as per your ideas and nominated as GA as suggested. Cheers James Jcwhizz 02:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Tim great comments - thanks - will make changes on the weekend. Cheers James. Jcwhizz 11:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim - made all changes / edits you suggested, apart from the suggestion re the use of cofactor - in the serpin field at least it is a generally accepted term to describe a binding parter that modulates inhibitory activity so I would prefer to leave this as is. Thanks once again for your comments. Cheers James Jcwhizz 03:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim - thanks for your input on serpins - I'm really pleased its made GA! Jcwhizz 22:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Block

Sorry about that, but I blocked you briefly since I got the wrong entry on a history list when I was blocking a particularly nasty vandal. You should be unblocked now. Tim Vickers 01:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL Tim Vickers. If this is the worst thing that happens to me in life, I’ll count myself lucky. No problems! Have a great day/night. Shoessss |  Chat 

Unreferenced controversial information

Thank you for the advice, I am rather new to wikipedia, so I am still trying to understand all the rules, etc. If I have a quotation, that was made by the person who I am writing the information about, is OK to use that information, if I can state clearly where and when it was made, along with a link proving the authenticity of my information?

I think in order to be as honest and close to the truth as possible, showing a direct quote, without making any comments, either negative or positive would/should be acceptable.Sennen goroshi 14:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply.

I am still reading various pages, in an attempt to find out exactly what is acceptable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source states that: Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs

the situation that I found myself in, was that someone had made quotes online, there is no reasonable doubt that these quotes were made by the person in question, infact he confirmed that they were made by him, when talking about the source of these quotes. So in cases like that, would it be acceptable to quote the person, giving verifiable sources. I do not wish to quote himSennen goroshi 14:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC) in order to state his opinion on any other subjects, the quotes would be there, as a reference to the person in question.

Influenza pandemic

ZayZayEM is "revamping the entire article" over the next few days (after some unpleasant exchanges on the talk page). I feel I should ignore the page for a month or so at least. Could you look after it? Thanks. Any decision you make with regard to the page is fine with me. WAS 4.250 16:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

When a hypothesis becomes a theory?

This is a question about your edit to page "The Evolutionary Theory of Sex"

this isn't a theory, it is a hypothesis

It was a hypothesis back in 1965 but almost 50 years later with huge amount of backing data it stiil does not qualify? May be I am missing something, but what's your criteria? I suggest that you may visit http://www.geodakian.com to get an idea how big and powerful it is. And it's not even just one theory Sashag 23:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly your criteria of a theory: It should be published in magazine that is listed by PubMed and/or any journal outside of Russia and/or have a few good reviews of this topic in a high-impact journal such as Evolution, PNAS, Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics', Nature, Current Biology or Trends in ecology & evolution

Everything else no matter what the content is you consider a hypothesis, especially if published in Russia? [Which by the way is not true see http://www.geodakian.com/en/88_Bibliography_en.htm ]

May I suggest that the difference is more about complexity and proof rather than about types of journals or language? I was looking at Wiki definitions for both. Sashag 20:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Tim Please help me resolve the situation with the images. Most of them were printed in different articles and I made SVG diagrams to illustrate an article. How it should be handled? Sashag 21:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. What you need to do is contact S. Geodakyan, who runs http://www.geodakian.com and request permission to use the images. The process is outlined at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. Tim Vickers 21:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's me. Sashag 21:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, in that case you want Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. So Vigen Geodakyan is your father? Tim Vickers 21:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy rewrite

As you probably already know, I've rewritten the Homeopathy article and am currently engaged in improving it along with several other contributors of the article so that the current article can be replaced with it. The draft rewrite can be found here User:Wikidudeman/Homeopathdraft. When I initially proposed the rewrite I got a favorable reception from most of the contributors and I have spent a lot of my personal time writing the draft and working on the draft the past 2 weeks with other contributors. I thought you might want to look the draft over and make some suggestions for it and tell me what you think of it. Considering you've made a few edits to the article in the past I thought you might want to contribute. I'd really appreciate your help, just skim over it and point out some specific errors or things you think I should change and I'll make the relevant changes. I'm hoping to replace the current Homeopathy article with the draft and get it to GA status and then FA status soon. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Tim, Could you add some input to the draft? I'd really appreciate it, Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Any comments would be great Tim. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the tips and encouragement! Please comment or add on to my work if you have the time. Chriff 20:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Principle of Conjugated Subsystems

I'm not sure what advice to give here. I sort of grudgingly put it on AfD because I hate to delete long coherent pages which look like they might simply be under the wrong title. AfD just gives it a wider audience especially since the article was uncategorized during the prod. That being said, I don't think your prod was really inappropriate, I'm just playing it safe. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 06:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see my response under Evolutionary theory of sex. Sashag 17:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Quantum dots in living cells

Hello Tim. I found an article Quantum dots in living cells and I thought I'd bring it to your attention, simply because you are a biochemist and you welcomed me here. I don't want to be the philistine crying 'original synthesis' if it isn't, and I am absolutely incapable of assessing it in any meaningful way. I think it needs to be looked at by someone familiar with the subject. Any advice would be appreciated, but I absolutely understand that it may not be of interest to you. Otherwise, keep up the good work! Best regards TreeKittens 01:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, never mind - it's now been prodded by another user. Thanks, TreeKittens 03:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Help dealing with User:WAS 4.250

Hi Tim.

Thanks for your offer in helping me sort of the Influenza pandemic. I really just had a lot of concerns about how the information on that page is being presented (and looking through related pages, them too).

Can you perhaps offer some answers to my questions at Talk:Pandemic Severity Index. User:WAS is not being very helpful. I know it may seem I am being rude to him, but he has consistently treated my valid concerns in such a way that I find it hard to assume good faith in dealing with him. He also insists he has dealt with teh questions that I have asked, while all I can see is him parroting CDC PR material.

BTW I am a Bachelor of Biomedical Science graduate. I'm currently doing an Honours project, I really shouldn't be wasting my time on wikipedia at teh moment (Thesis due Nov 1, I've only done about 20 pages), but I could see that unless I backed up my comments with action Influenza pandemic would have stayed it in its sorry earlier state. Although at the moment I'm doing more Molecular Biology work, my otehr major interest area is Epidemiology, so I'd really rather I wasn't called ignorant, and I don't have to recieve dumbed down versions of stuff. Oh, and because I'm a scientist myself, I'm going to be skeptical of anything that comes from unspecified *experts* that are *secodn to none*--ZayZayEM 03:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary theory of sex

In looking into this I just got to the table here where he proposes that his idea of "conjugated subsystems" is the key to explaining any number of things. So instead of looking at this as one of many factors involved in the evolution of systems (as I was doing), he seems to have gone off the deep end and sees it as the key to it all. I still think this is very interesting, but I can see where he wouldn't get any traction from the scientific community. I honestly have no idea if the article should be kept or not, but I think I am going to stop editing it. Well for now anyway. As a systems approach to evolution, it is really quite interesting. WAS 4.250 12:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't let it go so I looked around his site some more and found these predictions; one of which is "Large vertebrates whose evolution was accompanied by increased sizes as a rule should have males larger than females." That's clearly false isn't it? So his theory is disproved by his own standards? At least his exaggerated "this theory explains everything" take on his ideas seems disproved by his own criteria. WAS 4.250 13:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking and even more thanks for giving it a thought. The Principle of Conjugated Subsystems‎ applies to adaptive, evolving systems not all systems (your refrigerator qualifies as adaptive). It’s very general so the area of application is very big. I witnessed how each line in the table became a theory. It’s a new philosophy – asynchronous 2 step evolution compare to current view (by default) – 1 step.

“wouldn't get any traction from the scientific community.” You are absolutely right. Many articles were approved by academicians, because there was a little chance that they could pass peer review. I just give one example. The line: DNA ↔ protein ↔ environment. In the sixties the information flow from DNA to protein (DNA → protein) was well known. Flow in opposite direction (molecular biology dogma) was not (environment → protein → DNA), especially the last part (protein → DNA). It was gently stated in the article that it may be worth looking at. In 1970 Temin & Mizutani discovered reverse transcriptase and the dogma started fallen.

Concerning your question. This is what it means: http://www.geodakian.com/en/52_Sexdim_forms_en.htm The phylogenetic rule of sexual dimorphism was successfully checked up on a large group (173 species) of lower Crustacean (Geodakian, Smirnov, 1968). Males in all cases are smaller than females. According to the rule we can assume that this group has a common evolution trend of size reduction. In fact, it is well-known that morphologically more primitive forms of Crustacean are larger. Inside the group we can pick out arrays of forms with sequential size and number of extremities reduction, and specialization according to phylogenetic preemptivity and smaller male size. The same reasoning is applicable to separate species and populations. For example, dog's ancestors (wolf, fox, and jackal) seem to have average size as compared to large (mastiff, St. Bernard weighing up to 70 kg) and small (Chihuahua— 2.5-3 kg, Toy Terrier up to 400g) dogs. The theory predicts larger-sized males in large breeds and larger females in small ones. The same tendencies should be observed inside smaller taxa, say in mammals females of small forms are larger than males, while large forms has larger males. For example African savanna elephant males weight up to 6.5 ton, but females up to 3.5 ton only. Small forms—some bats, flying squirrels, spotted hyenas, dwarf mongooses, rabbits and others frequently has larger females. Please let me know more about these island dwarfs, I am not familiar with them.Sashag 17:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You've done a great job

I'm just messaging to say that you've done a tremendous job with a number of articles in MCB and Microbiol. Although I am a biochemist in a slightly earlier career-stage than you (finishing up grad-school), I'd like to help out with the MCB and Micro projects as much as possible. In my first run with wikipedia, I was writing a lot of non-technical stuff. Well, a long hiatus due to personal and professional commitments followed that run. I am back now and intend on staying for a while. As I write new articles and expand others, can I request you to give me your opinion on them? I'll post the links at the MCB page in any case.

A couple of other things. The polar/non-polar issue with tyrosine seems to be interesting... as far as I've seen, it pretty much depends on what textbook one followed! Another thing I thought I'd mention since you are really interested in biochemisty - there is a new ACS journal ACS Chemical Biology that has a "wiki" journal club. The interesting part is they are publishing one entry in their print journal every month (which is kind of a freebie on PubMed). I got really excited when the accepted one of my entries this month, so I wrote up a wikipedia article on the journal. I didn't know if you'd be interested but I kind of threw that out there, since right now I seem to be the only one writing...lol.

In any case, thanks for all the great articles... I'll try to participate in the projects as much as I can (thesis and advisor permitting).

Best. Antorjal 17:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Evolution edits

Sorry, I did not know that consensus had already been established on those points. Thanks for letting me know! ffm 20:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Scrollers

I knew you weren't going to like it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment

Meant to ask on the worklist talk page, but since you are around anyway... :)

Can any MCB wikiproject member assess articles in Category:Unassessed MCB articles? Or is there an assessment team or something? I already assessed a few before realizing only members are supposed to do that (?). Which is why I joined. - TwoOars 20:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, ok, thanks. - TwoOars 21:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite

I'd love to join in, I'm more of an evolutionary biologist than molecular one but I would be happy to contribute in any way if I can. I am, however, on a fairly tenuious wikibreak at the moment (I had a whole host of pages I was working on and spent at least an hour each night on recent changes patrol) due to baby #3 and basically things getting too much in the real world what with the joys of teaching...

...as for my userpage, it was created in a hurry and I've never gotten round to working on it properly! Ooops!

I'll drop by the project page and have a look but I don't want to make any promises I won't be able to keep.AlanD 23:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello! (Thanks for the welcome).

I really love Wikipedia, I am a biochemist / bioinformatician so I think the MCB project is a wonderful thing. I have (here and there) been contributing to bioinformatics related articles for some time now. Its good to have some overarching organizational strategy to coordinate effort in this regard. ... Which brings me to my not so hidden agenda, basically I am recklessly trying to attract good Wikipedians to my project MetaBase (also MetaBase). The biggest problem that faces the project is organization. Any suggestions on how to attract competent users would be most welcome. Thanks for the good work. All the best --Dan|^(talk) 06:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Is History of paleontology ready for FA?

I have made some changes to History of paleontology since you passed it for GA, and I am now strongly considering nominating it for FA. If you have a few moments please take a look at it and leave any suggestions for improving it on the article talk page. Thanks. Rusty Cashman 09:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have failed

Sadly, I do not have the time to fact check and rewrite an article as extensive as Influenza pandemic. My project is really going sour as none of the primers I am designing for my PCR are working. I'm gonna have to focus on fixing that right now. I hope my work on Pandemic Severity Index sort of restores good faith in me (even though I still think it should be deleted). WAS seems to be expecting some sort of sempai help from you, so could I be polite and ask that you keep and eye on his editing style, and possibly give him advice on a more appropriate tone for editing health articles (particularly pertaining to the wording and attribution of information about catastrophe potential and public health advice).

Thanks.--ZayZayEM 13:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Lung cancer

Hi, Tim. I am working on lung cancer with the intention of submitting it for "featured article" status soon. However I need more assistance to make the prose compelling. I would be grateful if you could leave comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Lung cancer. If you have time to edit the "lung cancer" article directly, that would be great. Thanks for your help. Axl 18:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)