User talk:TimVickers/archive 7

Speedy deletion of Evolution/draft article

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 20:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

OOPS! My mistake, sorry about that. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 20:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Maternal Effect

Hey Tim, I'm a student and I was interested in fixing up the Maternal effect Wikipedia page. Since it's a topic currently beicn covered in my Molecular Biology class @ Uni, I thought this article could do with a bit of a cleanup and clarification. I'm having trouble finding appropriate sources and diagrams (that aren't copywrited). I'm happy to draw my own and submitt them, so long as they're accurate and reviewed. In regards to the article, I *suggest* moving the Paternal effect paragraph, to create a "stub" article; for clarity... So far I have included a small section about the Dorsal-ventral Axis; next the anterior-posterior axis...

Cheers Mattycoze (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh

Sorry, Tim. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Topic bans

If someone is under a topic ban, rather than just prohibited from mainspace, they should not be continuing to advocate on that topic, even in userspace. They are prohibited from the topic, not simply a set of articles. Permitting such actions would be an invitation to continue advocacy and circumvent the ban, possibly getting other users to act for them. Vassyana (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Assessments

I was just wondering how articles get reassessed for quality, is that done automatically, or do they needed to be tagged for a reassess? I did a pretty large rework on Gluconeogenesis, I'm not sure if it is ready for an upgrade or not, but is much improved over what it was before. Thanks! Schu1321 (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Introduction to genetics

I thought I left a response to your message on Talk:Introduction to genetics about how Wikipedia articles covered Mendel's experiments, and now I can't find it. I'm confused. Did I fail to save it, or did somebody delete it, or did I leave it in another page? Did you see it? Nbauman (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed the work you've done on the article. It's certainly much improved! Although I really shouldn't have nominated it to begin with as I didn't really have a valid reason. cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 20:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

Hello again. The Highly Active Users project has gone through a complete revamping per popular demand. We believe this new format will make it easier for new editors to find assistance. However, with the new format, I must again ask you to verify your information on this page. I attempted to translate the data from the old version to the new, but with the extensive changes, I may have made some errors. Thanks again. Useight (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

AIDS denialism

Hi. Me again. The science cabal has decided that the article AIDS denialism should not contain the claims and rebuttles associated with AIDS denialism and so have deleted them. I think this is a shame as I believe the article is better with them. But they are extremely unpleasant to deal with and I don't care that much about the subject. I'm hoping you can look at the situation, talk to a few people, and perhaps something better can come out of this than me just walking away and the article not getting needed data - or maybe you agree that that deletion was appropriate and the article is better off without the data. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have now now notified FT2 and Viridae on their talk pages and I am walking away from this. My poor health requires that I keep my stress levels under control and this is what is best for that. I'm sure that in the end you guys will make the right choices. Good luck, and thanks for everything you do to make wikipedia better. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be not written perfectly, but I sort of wonder why so much well sourced material was deleted. Hmmm...--Filll (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to genetics AfD

While I was too late to the party to change my !vote, I probably would have changed it to Keep upon looking at what you've done to the article. Excellent work! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC).

Block request

Could you block this user? I'm deliberately avoiding AIV on this one. Thanks, Enigma ^message 02:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I do believe an indef block is the right call, but I was hesitant to suggest it initially. Enigma ^message 01:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Block on TJ Terry

[1] - For that I'd make it a month. If someone is going to display that sort of behaviour then they're obviously not interested in engaging with our community in a positive manner. It's your call though, I'd at least hope you'd consider it ;-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 07:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Could you talk to this editor[2]? Thanks. Nbauman (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Resource Exchange

Hello! I found your name at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. I am searching for the following articles: [3] and [4], unfortunately my university does not have access to these journals. Please tell me, if you have access to these articles! Thank you in advance, kind regards, — Tirk·fl  ^“…”  12:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast help! Kind regards, – Tirk·fl  ^“…”  06:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello again! You don't have access to these papers too? [5][6] Thanks in advance! Kind regards, – Tirk·fl  ^“…” 09:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Intro to genetics

I'd be happy to! Also, it seems a new user (User:By78) needs an outside admin to convince him that discussing contributors instead of content is unacceptable. Check out his latest comments to me in the last thread of Talk:Go (board game). A simple talk warning would suffice I think. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You're Amazing

The work you've been doing at Wikipedia is amazing. Awesome. Incredible. The sheer amount of time you've put in has gone above and beyond the call of duty. I tried to help with one of the entries in your project, by finding a few references for some unsourced information, thinking the more I helped, the more time you might have for other things, but most of this subject area is beyond my Liberal Arts education. Return2WUTA (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to genetics

Looks fine to me. Needs more references, of course, but the prose looks fine overall. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really -- I sort of paid attention in bio so I pretty much understand it all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It does need a bit of a copy edit though; I saw a couple grammatical errors. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Per above, pretty good, a few writing tweaks, and try to get at least one ref for every paragraph. It's very close to GA level. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from RJHall

Overall it seems fine. A few of the sentences could perhaps use a little fine tuning by a copy editor. The first sentence should clarify what you mean by inheritance, as the word is normally used in the economic sense. I think the sentence that begins "A trait can be a feature of an..." should be contrasted with a non-appearance trait.

One area where I would like to know more is the sentence that begins "When a gene is read by a cell...". In particular it does not mention how a cell knows it "needs" to read a gene and where it should begin and end reading.

A couple of minor comments:

• Do you need to start paragraphs with a "However"?
• I see plenty of dashes where an em-dash (or spaced en-dash) should be used instead.

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

expert opinion

Tim, can you check out this edit and let me (or the editor) know if that's a copyvio? This user has made a couple other similar edits (e.g., [7]) which copy-and-paste from the referenced site (which he apparently represents). Anyway, before I revert and explain, I wanted to get a second-opinion sanity check... AndrewGNF (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you want a letter on my company letterhead to say that using the text is okay and we're putting it unde a GFDL license? I don't know how else you can verify my identity other than pick up the phone and call me. Seriously, I don't know what to say here other than the fact that I'm the marketing manager for Boston Biochem and grant permission to put the text under GFDL. Rabbitvalley (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: TheNautilus RfC

In initiating the RfCU, you're trying to establish a pattern of problematic conduct - while failing to understand policy would be part of it, it is rarely enough, so providing evidence of more direct policy violations would certainly help.

I notice you've said he uses another account. Again you will need evidence that it is the same person (a diff of him admitting it would help, but there are other ways to find out if there are none). But most of all, remember: policies apply per person, not account. See WP:SOCK for more.

In any case, please don't hesitate to contact me if/when you do make any other substantial changes to that effect - I can then adjust my view accordingly. Best wishes in having the dispute resolved - Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I was on my way to alert you to my comment when I found your reply.--Alterrabe (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem - it's only changing a few numbers. Thanks for the heads up. :) I do want to modify my view at some stage, but I'll wait for a few things to become clearer first. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tim, this doesn't really belong here but I didn't want to start a new section on the same subject when it doesn't really seem necessary. I've reviewed my interactions with TheNautalis on the only page we've edited in common (orthomolecular psychiatry). On that page we didn't have any interactions that struck me as particularly negative, and given that I don't think I will be commenting further on the RFC. Given WP:SOCK has apparently come up as allowing multiple accounts if segregated (and that's a stupid exception, isn't it?), there is no basis for me having any real complaint about his conduct. The only thing I could provide would be an external opinion on him by reviewing his contributions, and I don't think I'll have the time for that (plus, what does my opinion matter given a dearth of actual contact?) I will say that after reviewing his contributions on OMP, I would expect him to conflict with other editors, push for unsourceable statements that promote the "truth" of OMP/OMM, and am not surprised to see issues with interpretation of policy. But I have never personally hit up against sufficient conflict to be able to comment personally. WLU (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Systemic lupus erythematosus

Hi Tim,

Could you have a look at the Systemic lupus erythematosus external links section? There's a lot of 'support' orgs and I'm betting a DMOZ would capture most, if not all. I'm still wading through my interactions with TheNautalis on orthomolecular psychiatry, I haven't really interacted with him/her much on OMM so I don't feel justified saying a whole lot about that situation. I have asked for the clarification regarding his/her possible multiple accounts but have yet to receive a reply. Thanks, WLU (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tim! Per Wikipedia:MEDMOS#External_links I would remove all the links to support organizations, but I've always been unusually vindictive harsh belligerent rigourous in my interpretation of EL guidelines. I'm sorry if I don't get to commenting on the RFC in the near future or possibly at all, my editing time is considerably reduced these days. I'll try though. One thing I plan on is a RFCU if I do not get an unequivocal reply regarding the possible use of two separate accounts without disclosure. WLU (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Last Warning

Tim,

Please explain how the recent entry herbal remedies is disruptive to Homeopathy? herbmandan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review help

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Activation energy diagram

Sure, just give me a few minutes! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, how's this? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for this tidbit. It's kind of how I felt but I wasn't getting any traction. (Clearly there's not a single correct answer.)  Frank  |  talk  18:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Cylindrospermopsin

Hey Tim, thanks for your comments and help with this article. I saw your name on the peer review list and was going to ask you to have a look at it but you've beat me to the punch! I've left the article alone for a while to see what pops up on the PR and from other edits but I plan to action any suggestions soon. Any further comments/edits much appreciated, it would be good to get this to GA or FA status. Cheers Freestyle-69 (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! the sequel

Hi Tim,

Your ongoing, not-so-subtle push for me to saddle up to some extra buttons is shameless and flattering. I really, really appreciate it, it's the best compliment anyone could give me. I persist in not feeling ready for it, but perhaps one day I will.

Incidentally, a second thanks. Your constant example of carefully and civily working your way through disputes is one of the main drivers in my efforts to improve my own conduct. It's always an effort, but having your good example gives me hope that it's possible and a goal to aspire to. D'you like pie? I've got a recipe for the best pie crust ever. It involves vodka. WLU (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: the message you just left - peer pressure works for smoking, maybe for adminship :) WLU (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks, Tim. About your note the other day regarding that article, I don't have any sources to hand that I'm aware of, and I've not had time to take a close look at it yet, because I have limited time to spend on WP at the moment. But I definitely will look at some point. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 04:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You need a giant fan trained on your face; in the absence of that, hopefully you'll get some thunder soon. I always go for a walk when it breaks. I miss that kind of weather. :-) SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 04:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For your kind offer.--Alterrabe (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Tim, once again the bald villain is at the centre of a huge conflict. What frustrates me is that other countries don't get even coverage on here (the other day I started severla African cities with a population over 100,000). Its so Angol-Centric/ I've seen data for countries like Madagascar become avilabale on line and suddenly we have over a 1000 articles with half decent starter content and I am certain over time decent information on these places will became availabale if it isn't already. How people can think ignoring 95% of the world is a good thing I don't know particularly when there are so many particuarly excellent articles that could be included. If something was done automatically in creating these articles I could change my focus to actually developing and wrtiting articles rather than spending virtually ALL of my time starting them. It would allow myself and the group of editors who develop such articles to build content and concentrate on quality once we have addressed the huge uneven bias problem. I would love to start translating some of those french articles too like I did with Houmt Souk, may not be a perfect translation but it is beyond the one liner it was two weeks ago. What is very concerning is that people automically assume that nothing could possibly be written about any of the articles createfd by the bot and then they will ALL remain useless forever. The untlimate goal is a full and detailed article on every main town and village in the world. I believe we have to make this happen given the scale of wikipedia and its diversity of editors from around the world and is a step in the right direction. I guarantee that if wikipedia researched these places in their native lanagues and within the countries involved on paper people would be absolutely amazed at what actually could be written, Its not our fault that a vast amount of Africa, Asia and Latin America haven't developed enough to display their information on a computer and the web. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim is everything OK? I feel like there is some reason you don't respond to me anymore. I'm expanding those french places as we speak!! Am I no longer worth having my head polished? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I was concerned. Hey I just expanded Lagarde, Ariège. If this bot was allowed to operate, I could change my focus on wikipedia towards writing and developing the damn articles!!! If a bot had created those French articles instead of having to do them it could have generated them all first time with adequate infoboxes and some paragraphs of information and references and time now could have been spent expanding them. The same is for the rest of the world!! If I could be put at ease that other places are on the road to developing equally then my editing would become purely expnading them rather than creating them! Hope you are well. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Inquiry about TheNautilus

I'm not completely sure that's what was intended but it certainly looks plausible. I suggest you discuss this with AvB who had more involvement in that matter then I did. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate some feedback ...

on the genetic code talk page before the figure being discussed is inserted. Doug youvan (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the draft spot up on the genetic code discussion page. I have one sentence to insert in the article, plus one figure, and 1 or 2 references. Please have a look when you have time, comment, and I will go through another iteration if necessary. Humorous email is coming in at this time saying that both you and I will be "banned from the internet in perpetuity" over that single sentence - if it goes into the article! I see this as data. Others see it as evidence for GDI or ID. Doug youvan (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You were correct in moving the new figure out of the evolution section of the genetic code. It's just data. Doug youvan (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Baginni prot

I noticed the prot on the article has expired, but the prot tag is still on it. I decided not to remove it, because I wasn't sure whether you left it there on purpose. dorftrottel (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, but it's most strange indeed. I actually found out when I misread July 2 for June 2 and logged out to verify. dorftrottel (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I think it's because when the protection level is changed, it has to change to something different. So if it's s-protected and changed only to a different name, it seems to revert to unprotected. Bit of a bug in the system by the look of it. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

mischief

Now here's a curious thing. A few days ago when I looked at the history of the Baginni page history, it was quite clear that my edits were removed by one 'Hicklup' who had also made a wholesale deletion of comments by docmartincohen a few edits back. Curious about his user, I looked at his user page, and it contained only edits to the Baginni page. But now all these episodes have gone! The hickleup version of Baginni just does not exist! Hickleup the user and his history has gone!

Tim, someone is falsifying the 'histories' on Wikipedia. I think you won't nedd to look very far to see who it is. Surely you can see that this is wrong.

I'm disappointed that you failed to understand that my complaint was not about the edits to the article, but about their wholse slae nature plus the 'blocking' of the page, that pre-empted further negotiation. That said, I write again as I got the impression that whether you agreed with me or not, you were trying to be honest.

Wikigiraffes (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tim,

It would be good if your page could accurately reflectactivity anyway. So here's the first thing. You posted me this invitiaton:

1. " If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Tim Vickers (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)""

2. Then I requested your help, to prevent somone who started a page from blocking edits on it that they did not agree with. I indicated I was quite prepared to accept my original edits were not to be 'reverted' but I wanted to find a consensaul version.

3. Without contacting me or making any attempt at communication you imposed your own 'padlocking' of the page.

Hey, thanks for the help! No need to write again!

Wikigiraffes (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Templates

Hey Tim,

The templates {{ArticleHistory}} and {{NewsBanners}} being used on Talk:Evolution look like they need a little bit of tweaking. I'd try and fix it myself but they're protected. If you compare the {{NewsBanners}} and {{WikiProjectBanners}} templates, you'll see the text is slightly off center in the NewsBanners template. It looks like someone has already fixed the WikiProjectBanners template, so I think you should be able to just copy across that fix. Likewise, the Article milestones text in the ArticleHistory template is slightly off center, but I'm not sure that fix will be so straight forward. Cheers, Ben (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC).

User:GODhack

Hi Tim, thanks for moving that comment, I didn't realise I put it at User instead of Talk.

Cheers

Ben (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Content forking dicussion at FAC

Tim, can you peek in at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Content forking and introduction articles ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:HEPPS.png

Hi Tim, Would you mind if I deleted Image:HEPPS.png so that a higher resolution version on Commons could "show through" instead? -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 02:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Julian Baggini unprotection request

For your reference. I declined to unprotect it until you've had your input. Thanks! PeterSymonds (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, why is it protected? Kelly ^hi! 19:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It is very likely that the subject of the biography beat us to removing BLP violations. Please keep this protected so we can sort this out without offending Dr. Baggini any further. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Doctor Bojangles

I see where you warned him for his racist comments. Did you see this? This guy needs close scrutiny. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

"Welcome to MCB"—Thanks a lot. That's very nice of you. Regards. —KetanPanchal^taLK 22:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you again ...

... but I have asked a simple question, and it is being deleted, repeatedly. If my conduct is wrong, please tell me. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design#I_don.27t_understand_this_undo.2C_given_here_by_difference Doug youvan (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim! :)

Thank you very much for keeping an eye on the Encyclopædia Britannica! I've had my head down these past few weeks with trying to learn Galois theory and noncommutative algebra and who-knows-what-else to help Emmy Noether reach her FA. Thoughts of other articles — including Lactoylglutathione lyase! :) — wander into my brain from time to time, but there's only so much room in my brain at one time and Emmy's math is hard, at least for me, so I'm trying to concentrate on that alone. Everyday I have a little breakthrough or two, which makes me happy, but then I realize how much further I have to go to really understand her work... :P

Would you mind looking after the EB for another week or so? For better or worse, I don't think Emmy's FA can last much longer than that. I'll ask Awadewit if she could help, too; she likes encyclopedias, and I still smile thinking of her help with the EB back then. :) Willow (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Horizontal gene transfer

I reverted some edits here. What do you think? You may care to read:

• Horizontal gene transfer - article in Citizendium
• Horizontal gene transfer in prokaryotes - article in Citizendium
• Horizontal gene transfer in plants - article in Citizendium
• History of the study of horizontal gene transfer - article in Citizendium

WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I just ran across Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Mae-Wan Ho. This is the first I have heard of a problem with her credentials. WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. I'll defer to your opinion on this. WAS 4.250 (talk) 05:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

New aircraft pictures

Thanks for the heads-up on WP:AIR - these are really nice :). I was able to spot one that you'd missed - one of your pics is now illustrating the Curtiss-Wright CW-12. Looks like there were a lot of interesting machines there :) Cheers --Rlandmann (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. My name is Taraneh. I am an Iranian biochemist. I invite you to visit my Web site. Please accept my best wishes for your activities in wikipedia. I am sure that you do your best. Javanbakht (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have the time....

I found Achromobacter clevelandea while on NP patrol and I'm not really sure what has to be done to clean it up. (biology was never one of my strong areas....) I was wondering if you could cast an eye on it and maybe clean it up or something. Thanks. Thingg^⊕⊗ 21:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:June 2008

I've changed my username (Wikipedia:Changing username/Archive44#Bstlee → Luuva). Thus I modified these wikilinks into my present name. luuva (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

For the welcome. Echinoidea (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Clues that Paul is Dead

there was far from consensus about deletion on that admittedly silly article - don't you think you were a bit high-handed in deleting it? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I am about to explode

Tim, I am having an ongoing discussion with Pdeitiker (talk · contribs) on Talk:Coeliac disease that is going nowhere. I am at the end of my tether with this user, and was hoping you could stop me from WP:NPA. JFW | T@lk 19:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Tim. You've hit the nail on the head. JFW | T@lk 07:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Why deleting Heat Source Unit Nuclear Reactor ?

I created one entry Heat Source Unit Nuclear Reactor a few days ago. When I wanted to add more contents to it, it was deleted.

Can you tell me the reason you deleted the page?

If it is valid reason, I will post my pages in somewhere other than wikipedia. If the deletion was a mistake, please put it back.

AndrewHangChen (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Primary/Secondary or Research/Review distinction over at WP:OR

I commented over here on that issue and I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Specifically, I'd like you to address what I consider to be 3 invalid conclusions: that reviews put things in context whereas primary studies don't; that reviews are easier to read; and that reviews are less biased. I've provided a counterexample. It seems more important to me to judge things on a case-by-case basis -- some reviews will be great, others won't. Same goes for "primary" articles. Thanks. ImpIn | (t - c) 06:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion nomination to make a point: Reply

Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, as you did when you nominated Centre national de la recherche scientifique for deletion. -- SCZenz (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You also added a PROD tag to Peter L. Hurd, an article that has been through AfD. This is not acceptable behaviour. Any further disruption will cause you to be blocked. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I just think that this article on Centre National De la Recherche Scientifique lacks references, must be improved or removed. As for the article which had resisted AfD I did not know that it did, and think that the references are spurious because they amalgamate own works and third-parties references. For me it is a vanity article close to self-promotion. I have much respect for Wikipedia's policies. My role as editor is to let them be applied, which includes quality of references. --Jessika Folkerts (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

comments about other editors?

Tim, this must be a misunderstanding, Where did I comment about other editors on the temazepam page? I am sure this is a misunderstanding. Can you please explain for me? 70.137.161.241 (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In the old archive there are some comments about other editors going back a few months. Tim just wants everyone to chill. Tell ya what anon, lets try and chill and sort out our differences on the temazepam article. I am sure we can do it, afterall we have at least 3 admins involved now LOL.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Temazepam

Argh. I had a deadline due yesterday, and simply couldn't put RL on hold to do more here. I do hope I'll be able to help out more now and still maintain some distance—I'm fighting the urge to hack away at the article become involved. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I'll start by removing the copy-pasted stuff (abstracts! PI sections!). Copyvio trumps content dispute, and it's a step towards getting the article into more encyclopedic shape. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with unprotection, but I think we should hold Literaturegeek and TheGoodSon to the revert parole originally suggested by AndonicO on their Talk pages—0RR, no tolerance: disagree with an edit, take it to the Talk page. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, seems only fair; 0RR and trial unprotection it is, then :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

2008 Georgia sugar refinery explosion

Thanks for catching those; I tend to make vast numbers of silly errors when typing - double letters are particularly bad. I use IE and don't have Firefox installed on this computer, so I can't use that spellchecker. I think AWB is meant to work in IE but I still need to check it out properly; maybe not.

One of your edits concerns me - here. Maybe a copyedit would be good, but was it really required to be deleted completely? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I did that. Thanks again for cleaning it up. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Query

I don't see you anywhere in the edit history of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Polyclonal B cell response? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Do I see...

Another FA in the making? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I sure hope so. This article is much better than its current rating suggests, and is listed on Wikipedia:Vital articles. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikiblame

This should make things much easier in the future. Thanks! St3vo (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. How did you find this? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A reading

Hi Tim, in case you do have some time and energy, it would be nice if you could look at ant and smooth out any particularly rough bits. Don't bother if you are hard pressed for time. Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Archaea

Sure, any section in particular? The article seems pretty good so far, but I notice something in the talk page. Living in space is quite possible, a fact remarked by ALH84001 and the current NASA mission in Mars. Since archaea microorganisms are the most basic life form it should be notice the possibility of a link via theory of Panspermia. You also suggested using the same schematics as the bacteria article. About the relations with other organisms there is a image showing that archaea is a major component of plankton, being plankton as the bottom of any aquatic food chain archaea has a major importance in the carbon and energy cycle. Please talk me if you have more ideas about it. --ometzit<col> (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Archaea are common in the plankton, and yes plankton forms an important base of the "food chain", but that does not mean that archaeal plankton is an important part of the food chain. Archaeal biochemistry is radically different from bacteria and eukaryotes. I'm not aware of an studies showing that archaeal membranes can be metabolized by other organisms, or that they form any significant fraction of any organism's diet. If you know of such a study, it would help. Without such a study, any text written about the role of Archaea in the food chain would be entirely speculative. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

But they're not just ether lipids, they're also enantiomers and isoprene-based. The handedness would require a different set of enzymes, yes? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Not entirely, I mean many carbon-based energy sources are so different but using the same array of enzymes all of them can be diverted into a simple one like glucose or any saccharide. I am not aware of the diferences between the composition of archaea and prokaryote membrane, but if they cannot be used as carbon sources then their ecosystems would lack the entire base for energy cycle and therefore be locked in inorganic sources. The image in the infobox should be a microorganism of importance and relevance to the archaea. I sugges Pyrococcus.--ometzit<col> (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You can find more information about fundamental membrane chemistry differences in the Archaea article; the differences are rather profound and require different enzymes for handling the backwards molecules. I do not understand what you mean by "their ecosystems would lack the entire base for energy cycle", sine an ecosystem does not depend on any one species. If you can provide an image of Pyrococcus, that would be great, but the article has the best image of an archaean currently available at Commons. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm well handling the "backwards" molecules would require a isomerase which is, in fact a pretty simple enzyme present in many life forms but I´m not gonna fall in original research and claim that for fact. About the energy cycle, forget about it I was just thinking that archaeal ecosystem like acid mine drainage or underwater thermal vents would (it could) be locked to extremophiles, lithotrophs would be in environmental advantage against heterotrophs. Now this article [8] mentions that archaea compose over 60% of plankton as a oceanic microbial community. --ometzit<col> (talk) 03:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Correction: The article says that Archaea made up 60% of the prokaryotic plankton, but only 14-43% of cells counted. That figure ignores multicellular plankton such as animal larvae. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Message from God in our DNA

Should I put this article back with a title that does not say it's from God. Why was the article deleted. The people that wanted it deleted seemed to not disagree that the letters were in FACT there. Is it because of what it interpreted. I think it's valid info. You don't have to agree with the interpretation, and that doesn't mean it should be deleted. It seemed that the people that wanted it deleted were mad at it. Maybe it should be left for the controversy of a message in DNA. People may have soon started to appear that did like it, but it was deleted only 5 hours after the discussion started. Was that fair.Creation-of-Heaven (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What can I do to revise the article, what do I need to omit. Can you help me out.Creation-of-Heaven (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC) I think it's important information that there is a 9 letter message in 1 vowel, 2 consonants, 3 letter words in all DNA. Don't you.

I would greatly appreciate that. Could you put it into my userspace so that I can refine it. I will look into what should be done, to make it acceptable, Thank-you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creation-of-Heaven (talk • contribs) 03:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you very much. I will be working on it.Creation-of-Heaven (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Archaea

Thanks for your message. The article seems to be brilliantly written. Good work. I guess you are aiming for a GA atleast for this. I think the lead may be have to be rewritten so as to summarise the whole article. I would do it myself if I were good at it, but unfortunately am not. :D I also have a question about this image. What is this tree based on, id est what genes? You might want to state that in the legend. I know that it is easy to comment on your hardwork. Honestly thats not my intention. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why withdraw the GA nom? By keeping the GA nom going, the article can be eligible to receive GA status, even if it should fail or be delayed at FA. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a rule I've ever seen. It's not mentioned at the FA criteria. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Already 3 "supports" and some helpful review comments besides. (Keeping fingers crossed) --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

COTD

I really had to thank you for my Chuckle of the Day; I owe you :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Textbook recommendation

Tim, my roommate wants to buy the standard and most comprehensive textbook on the biology of the cell. Is Molecular Biology of the Cell by Bruce Alberts, et. al. the best way to go or has something replaced it? I would appreciate any advice you could give on this matter. (By the way, I am currently reading the homeopathy archives for my Wikimania paper - wow.) Awadewit (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

!

Well, in my defense, I did say in the making... It's not like I meant to rush you or anything! Oh well, now the deed is done; I guess I'll have to read the article properly now and leave my two cents at the FAC page :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Archaea section order

I'm thinking of moving the "Morphology" section ahead of the "Origin.." section. If you agree, let me know and I'll made the edit (with a couple of minor tweaks). I want to alert you not only to get your opinion, but also to avoid an edit conflict as a result of such a major structural change to the article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: If you don't want the Metabolism section listed under Cell biology, then the paragraph introducing Cell Biology must be changed. It currently introduces the subject of metabolism. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

RNA Polymerase I

As my first contribution to the Molecular and Cellular project, I randomly selected the RNA polymerase I (aka the undervalued polymerase) article and expanded it. I dont think it's a stub anymore, but didn't know the rules on removing the stub tag. Any help would be great. Artephius (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Temazepam

Tim, I have done some minor edits on the article and some points for discussion on the talk page. Can you take a look and comment please? I am concerned that the original editors are not around for comment. Have I been right that the cholinesterase ref was talking about Acetylcholinesterase and Pseudocholinesterase? Deleted it for lack of relevance. 70.137.161.241 (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost Dispatches

Tim, sample Dispatches, published in the Signpost are at {{FCDW}}; would working on this with Laser brain interest you? Please respond over there to keep it all in one place, and if you decide to participate, the temporary workspace will be WP:FCDW/June 30, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim, no problem! There are plenty of dispatches to go around. :) --Laser brain (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony's been there, in case you want to take another look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

gene page question

Tim, quick question that I'm hoping you'll know the quick answer to. Is this change (coupled with {{PBB}} and ITK_(gene)/PBB) an acceptable way to (re)structure PBB pages? I think it really cleans up the the main gene page. Especially for newbie editors, that template code is a tough thing to wade through to find the relevant sections to edit... Just not sure if it runs afoul of WP:SUBPAGE though... Thoughts appreciated. (Credit to David D. for the idea...) AndrewGNF (talk) 05:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tim, good suggestion from you led to a good suggestion from the village pump. Hopefully we'll find a volunteer to do the coding (while we're in between students right now)... AndrewGNF (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Prokaryotic systematics

Hi Tim! Just a quick question. Do we have any article on Prokaryotic systematics (or Microbial taxonomy) on Wikipedia? I searched for these terms and couldn't find any. I don't want to creat a redundant article. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 13:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've not seen one, but there is one on Virus classification and on the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. I will leave a message there. I would like to do a small article on it and may be some others who are interested can expand it further. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 16:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Collapsed tree labels simplified.png

Sorry to be a pain. Can you amend the lables (if you find it appropriate) as follows in the tree:

• Gram positives to Low GC Gram positive bacteria and
• Actinobacteria to High GC Gram positve bacteria

This is just to avoid confusion the Actinobacteria as Gram negetives and is also more accurate with the current taxonomic hierarchy. I am assuming that you have the raw data file and it would be of better quality if you did it rather than me trying to mess up with your beautiful image file. You may also be interested in this paper where they argue based on HSP that Archaea are more related to Gram-positive bacteria and Gram negetives are related to the Eukaryotes. I have a huge phylogenetic tree based on HSP70, but unfortunately can't put it on here since its unpublished. Anyways, I guess this would be an interesting info to add on to the article. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 17:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed! Thanks Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 01:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC Nominators

I just discovered that it's possible for an FAC to have more than one nominator. As the person who proposed the GA nomination that started off this process, and a continued active participant in improving the article, do you think it is appropriate for me to be listed retroactively as co-nominator for the Archaea? If so, I will leave it to you to amend the FAC page to reflect this. I just hadn't considered previously that FAC could accomodate co-nominators until I happened to spot some examples. This would be the first article I've helped through to FA. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm already thinking ahead to perhaps improving and nominating the Fungus article to FAC when the Archaea are in order. Is this an article you feel qualified to assist with? I've checked the page's history and know that User:BorgQueen is (by far) the leading contributor to the article. Since she continues to be an active Wikipedian, I expect she would be willing to help as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Equipment and protective systems intended for use in potentially explosive atmospheres

Thought I would contact you about this because you were the admin when we closed the article of deletion. We have the information from this article merged into ATEX directive. How long before it gets merged. Thanks. --Npnunda (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Temazepam

Thank you for your contributions to temazepam. I am working on the Pharmacology section. There are a few open points. I saw your proposed simplification to the most elementary level. I didn't so far implement it, because I hesitate to remove material, which is not obviously irrelevant, highly speculative research or conjectures or proposals for further research, or erroneously cited, anecdotal, unrelated. However, I applied some edits which seem safe with above in mind. Open points: 1. Their text suggests a more pronounced effect of sedation, ataxia, amnesia vs. anxiolytic and anti-seizure activity in the sleeping pills temazepam, nitrazepam, nimetazepam, flunitrazepam. (Compared to day-tranquilizers) Thereby their pharmacological effect would be closely related. The abstract of the ref doesn't yield that. I have no full text. They further suggest that this is due to differences in binding to subunits a1, a2... of the benzodiazepine binding site. It sounds plausible, but I was not able to confirm or reject, lacking full text. Can you please help and comment? 2. Their text mentions AVP release into rat paraventricular nucleus and consequent reduction of ACTH release by temazepam under stress. My opinion is, that the AVP part of this is a proposed new mechanism, is research and points to further investigations. They don't yet fully understand the mechanism and say so. I have described my fight with that on the talk page. Please comment. My opinion is that the reduction of ACTH release is important, as it further down diminishes the cortisol response to stress. So I thought to keep it. Has also been observed with other benzodiazepines in humans. See talk page. Could you please take a look? Comment?

Besides, the Archaea article is so interesting and educating. Thank you. Maybe we can polish the temazepam article also into an educating and concise article, separating the more general and simple mechanism from functional detail in separate parts of each chapter. Maybe simple, educating and general statements, followed by a more detailed view, which may be skipped in reading. Your simplification could be part of that. 70.137.161.241 (talk) 04:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Here the ref, which doesn't lead itself to the statements of the article:

Studies of the electronic structure and biological activity of chosen 1,4-benzodiazepines by 35Cl NQR spectroscopy and DFT calculations

K. Bronisza, M. Ostafina, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, O. Kh. Poleshchukb, J. Mielcarekc and B. Nogaja

Department of Physics, Adam Mickiewicz University, Umultowska 85, 61-614 Poznan, Poland

Department of Chemistry, Tomsk Pedagogical University, Komsomolskii 75, 634041 Tomsk, Russia

Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Medical Sciences, Grunwaldzka 6, 60-780 Poznan, Poland

Abstract

Selected derivatives of 1,4-benzodiazepine: lorazepam, lormetazepam, oxazepam and temazepam, used as active substances in anxiolytic drugs, have been studied by 35Cl NQR method in order to find the correlation between electronic structure and biological activity. The 35Cl NQR resonance frequencies (νQ) measured at 77 K have been correlated with the following parameters characterising their biological activity: biological half-life period (t0.5), affinity to benzodiazepine receptor (IC50) and mean dose equivalent. The results of experimental study of some benzodiazepine derivatives by nuclear quadrupole resonance of 35Cl nuclei are compared with theoretical results based on DFT calculations which were carried out by means of Gaussian’98 W software.

Keywords: Benzodiazepines; Anxiolytic drugs; Nuclear quadrupole resonance (NQR) spectroscopy; DFT calculations

Comment: So they look at 2 benzodiazepines, lorazepam and oxazepam; Plus their 2-methyl derivatives lormetazepam and temazepam. Not nitrazepam and nimetazepam.

Delete, doesn't lead itself to a comparison between temazepam and nitrazepam. Doesn't yield the article statements.

But I totally doubt that such complex things like t 0.5 can be correlated with simple electronic properties, given the complexities of metabolism, generally.

I also doubt that binding to receptor subtypes can be theoretically derived from electronic properties. But maybe it would be possible to develop heuristics. The receptors are just too complex to be modeled in a partial differential equation, IMO.

I also doubt that equivalent doses may be calculated from electronic properties, given the complexities of such a composite measure and the organism. Given the complexities of even defining equivalent doses.

Overall: The claims seem rather exotic to me. A hoax?

And: They are not leading themselves to the article

Please comment. I am not familiar with quadrupole resonance, will try to find out. Propose to delete: Unrelated. Find clinical reference. I will copy this to the temazepam page too. 70.137.161.241 (talk) 07:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Water ionizer

Hiya Tim,

Could I request your expertise as a biochemist on Water ionizer? Mostly on this discussion and this external link. Thanks! If you've no time then I understand and don't worry about it. WLU (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tim, my belief as well and I've appended a comment to that effect. As ever I am most grateful and appreciate your expertise in this regard. WLU (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Gut microbe mutualism

I just don't see the mutualism the way this is now worded. How does the archaeal consumption of hydrogen benefit the protozoa? The sources I've consulted indicate that the microbes (unidentified) on the surface of the protozoa supply some necessary enzymes. I'm also awar that although spontaneous combustion in humans is apocryphal, it is a real phenomenon in termites because of the buildup of explosive gases. The removal of one of those gases by archaea would therefore be a benefit. I'll look for more, but the current wording leaves the mutualism as rather dubious. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean that, in essence, removal of hydrogen gas from the gut enivronment improves the diffusion gradient for the release of more hydrogen gas? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I see now; it's a matter of electron transport. I'll take a stab at explaining this in simple language. The Stolyar et al. reference would be a good one to include if it's possible to do so, since it establishes the necessary use of hydrogen over format in at least one microbial exchange system. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The prose was becoming difficult to parse. I was independnetly working on an explanation and have incorporated some of the result into the article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Dysgenics

I was asked to look at this article by someone who noticed my cleanup of The Gene Bomb. I've taken it as far as I can; maybe you can do more with it? It's cleaned up, but not very good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources and so on

Hi Tim, could I ask you to review my discussion with Craigsjones (talk · contribs) on his talkpage and shine your light if necessary? JFW | T@lk 06:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Genesis Vandel Strikes again

It looks like User:Xvej is another sock puppet of the genesis vandal. He has just vandalised the evolution talk page [[9]]Coffeeassured (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Boru Irish Pipe Band

Hi TimVickers. Mind if I just double-check with you about this AfD that you closed? I'm not sure if my memory is to be trusted on this, but I had thought that I had added references to this article. All the "delete" !votes had come prior to that, and a "keep" !vote appeared after I added sources. I cannot quite remember even if the references were particularly good. Thank you in advance for taking one more look at it. Best, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. No, I am sufficiently ambivalent about it that I would not go to DRV. :) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Roma (Romani subgroup)

The user that asked for the deletion of the article said: "all the books/articles I have read use the words "Roma people" and "Romani people" as synonyms". Although he DID NOT present any source for that, we didn't even contested his claim. But we have brig references that show that Roma it is also used to nominate only the Eastern Europe branch of this ethnic group. So it is a word that is used for 2 distinct (although related) entities and both should be represented here. For this reason I consider the deletion of the article to be incorrect. Please reconsider the problem to accommodate both usage of the term "Roma". AKoan (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured article

Nice to see Oxidative phosphorylation on the Main page. Great work. AshLin (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's because of the Canada Day long weekend, but (knocking on wood) this is arguably the least-vandalized FA I've ever seen.-Wafulz (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Same here—now I don't feel so bad about having been off-Wiki all day :) On another note... woo-hoo! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

More snakes

Hi Tim, Good to see you're still active. I've been working on Agkistrodon piscivorus and thought I was doing a pretty good job, but then I saw Oxidative phosphorylation... wow! Anyway, I seem to have gotten it into my mind that I can do the same thing to the Boidae series as I did to Pythonidae. I've suggested that 14 of those articles be moved to their scientific names, but expect there will be some resistance, so I was wondering if I could count on your support. :-) Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim! --Jwinius (talk) 10:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I may be off Wikipedia for a day or two. I have (since before the Archaea FAC started) obligations for a couple of projects on Wiktionary. This hasn't been a problem until now, but I've had to schedule doctor appointments for today and tomorrow that are taking a huge chunk of my time away. Jest letting you know I may not make many edits or comments for a couple of days. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding images of Archaea. It might be possible to write to Dr. Karl O. Stetter at the University of Regensberg, Germany, or to Mike Dyall-Smith at the University of Melbourne. Dr. Stetter provided many images for Howland's book, and Dr. Dyall-Smith has taken some incredible images of Haloarcula quadrata. I wrote to Dr. Stetter about ten years ago, and got permission to use some of his lovely images for a website. He was very friendly and glad to provide the images. Of course, Wiki policy pretty much requires GFDL now, but one of these individuals might be willing to upload a low-resolution image or two to Commons themselves. I think many profession scientists underestimate the value of a place like Commons, where digital images can be uploaded for general use by colleagues. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Gee, I guess I didn't need to worry too much about not having lots of wiki-time... Thanks for suggesting that the article go straight to FAC instead of GAN, and thanks for dedicated work improving the article! --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats!

Just noticed the archaea page got promoted to FA after much hard work during the FAR - well done! You must be exhausted :o) Best wishes, ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 16:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Congratulations! I do like the new structure. It really is a fine article and a much needed one at that.--BirgitteSB 16:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Message from GOD in our DNA

Sorry about not editing it, I was working on Assignments for College, but I've got time this week, and I do want to work on it, so I should be this week. Thanks.Creation-of-Heaven (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've edited it a lot. Do you think I could post it? Maybe under a different title, "Simple Message encoded in all DNA", what do you think?Creation-of-Heaven (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ant

Tim are you able to help move Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ant out of stall mode? There have been several calls for a copyedit, but no work done in five days. I need a new set of eyes to help bring it over the hump, or at least say yes or no. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Very nice, Tim; thank you so much. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a ton. That is indeed a much better article now. Shyamal (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to virus

Tim, congratulations on Archaea. I see that Sandy has asked you to look at Ant, but would you also have time to cast your editorial eyes over this one? (It's very short!) I think we need a basic virus article because it will make the creating and writing of others a tad easier. Best wishes. Graham. GrahamColm^Talk 17:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Temazepam

Tim, I don't need to remind you that I did 34 edits on the temazepam page. Then somebody yelled vandalism and they all got reversed. I don't see discussion. I think bold edits are perfectly legal. So why don't you comment on my previous discussions? If we can not discuss these, no edit can be made. 70.137.153.69 (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

So to discuss the text and refs, what is the opinion about the KGB antics? I wrote about that, no reply. If no objections, I delete that. 70.137.153.69 (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikigiraffes

Hullo Tim! Just a totally neutral npov type just making a limtied contribution to the Enclopedia here...

I saw a reference to the 'Wikigiraffes' case on Slim's talk page (protected, hence no reason to add a comment there and risk being blocked) talk page. Slim seems to be evasive:

1. she says 'that admins may take action, including blocks, even if they've edited the article in question (and I hadn't edited it for a while)'. But she does not say she started the page, and that she, not 'Hicklehup' wrote the current version which she then protected from further editing (see also Hickleup (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)).

2. She says anyone is entitled to protect themselves if they 'see actionable libel being posted about themselves'. This of course has nothing to do with the Baggini page but seems to be a reference to comments repeated on the BLP by Wikigiraffes from Wikipedia Review about SlimVirgin herself. However, these comments were not only not 'libellous' but merely repeat comments already made about Slim by many others as part of Wikipedia's own internal and ongoing complaints procedures. Even the 'outing of Slim' is not an 'outing' as eg WikiMan53 (talk) (sign?) 18:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC) such claims are common curency. On the other hand, Slim's immediate and IMO speculative 'outing' of Wikigiraffes as Baggini's fellow philosopher, Martin Cohen, has been left uncriticised by anyone.

3. Merzul and others encouraged Wikigiraffes to suggest new text for the Baggini page. Wikigiraffes did so withdrawing the most critical material. Yet Slim even quotes these suggestison as evidence of repeating 'banned materail'. A quick look at the edits will show this is ridiculous.

4. Slim claimed to have acted swiftly following mysterious vandalism to her pages which she speculatively links to Wikigiraffes! Of course this was not backed up by any evidence. But it seems to have been good enough for the WIkipedia community of editos. Yet here is what, following the Essjay controversy, Larry Sanger said, "Wikipedians have plainly become a very insular group: they have their own mores and requirements, which are completely independent of the real world. Indeed, that's what this story is about, after all: real-world identities and credentials are rejected as unnecessary by Wikipedia."

For that reason, I think SlimVirgin's actions in this matter should be challenged. As yyou know, if I use a username I will also be immediately blocked, and you cannot comment on WIkigiraffe's userpage. So I have to remain anon - but of course I can check this page if you have a comment on this.

86.220.75.241 (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Splitting the biology section at WP:FA

I keep waiting for Yomangani to come back, but it doesn't look like it's going to happen, and bio just keeps growing. Raul weighed in, so let's pow-wow with Casliber and Tim Marskell here and get on with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Ketogenic diet

Many thanks, Tim, for your review and tweaks/additions. I'll start working through the points later this evening. Colin°^Talk 18:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I've addressed most of your specific points. The more general improvements to the prose will take me a little longer. Colin°^Talk 22:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

CIITA

What do you think? I can't make heads or tails of it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispatches: Sources in biology and medicine

Greetings. This week's Dispatches column in the Signpost is just excellent. Thanks for all the useful information, and especially for the "breast cancer" example and the links to various tools. Great work, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU, Status, and you!

As you may know, the StatusBot responsible for maintaining the status of the Highly Active Users was taken offline. We now have a replacement in the Qui status system. This semi-automatic system will allow you to easily update your status page found at Special:Mypage/Status which the HAU page code is now designed to read from. If you are already using Qui (or a compatible) system - great! - no action is needed (other than remembering to update your status as necessary). If not, consider installing Qui. You can also manually update this status by changing the page text to online, offline, or busy. While it is not mandatory, the nature of HAU is that people are often seeking a quick answer from someone who is online and keeping our statuses up-to-date will assist with this. Note if you were previously using your /Status page as something other than a one-word status indicator, your HAU entry may have been set to "status=n" to correct display issues. Please clear this parameter if you change things to be "HAU compatible". Further questions can be raised at WT:HAU. This message was delivered by xenobot 22:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for the nice welcome to Wikipedia. I am also active in the German Wikipedia and I hope that I also can contribute here. Thank you and have a nice day. --Martina Steiner (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

could you please do me a favor?

Hello,

I am a master student at the Institute of Technology Management, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Currently I am wrapping up my master thesis titled “Can Wikipedia be used for knowledge service?” In order to validate the knowledge evolution maps of identified users in Wikipedia, I need your help. I have generated a knowledge evolution map to denote your knowledge activities in Wikipedia according to your inputs including the creation and modification of contents in Wikipedia, and I need you to validate whether the generated knowledge evolution map matches the knowledge that you perceive you own it. Could you please do me a favor?

1. I will send you a URL link to a webpage on which your knowledge evolution map displays. Please assign the topic (concept) in the map to a certain cluster on the map according to the relationship between the topic and clusters in your cognition, or you can assign it to ‘none of above’ if there is no suitable cluster.
2. I will also send a questionnaire to you. The questions are related to my research topic, and I need your viewpoints about these questions.

The deadline of my thesis defense is set by the end of June, 2008. There is no much time left for me to wrap up the thesis. If you can help me, please reply this message. I will send you the URL link of the first part once I receive your response. The completion of my thesis heavily relies much on your generous help.

Sincerely

JnW^talk 13:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, here is the link

Pretest webpage

If you have any question during pretest, please contact me.

Please finish it before 25 June. Thanks a lot. :)

JnW^talk 14:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, the questionnaire is completed. Link:

evaluation questionnaire

thanks for doing this questionnaire, and I hope that you will feel interested about this. :)

JnW^talk 04:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just remind you to complete the questionnaire.

My thesis's oral defense is on next Wednesday. So please complete it as early as you can. I believe it would just take you 5 miniute. Thanks a lot. :)

JnW^talk 07:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thanks a lot for your help on filling out the questions on the pretest and questionnaire. In order for us to interpret the answers you gave, I have three additional questions to ask you. In the questionnaire, you check ‘free’ for the compensation of answering the question. Now there are some scenarios:

1. If the users need to pay for asking questions through our knowledge service, will you still answer the questions for free?
2. If the users pay a certain fee for each of his/her questions being answered, will you receive the compensation for answering the question or allow us to donate it to the charitable institutions?
3. Do you have any comments on the knowledge service which we plan to develop? In this knowledge service, we will allow users to ask their questions, and the system will forward these questions to the users who edited wikipedia and were identified by our system as the domain experts. Which business model do you think is more proper? The expert can be compensated by the fee paid by the seekers or do it for altruism with no charge.

JnW^talk 13:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

1. No.
2. Donation.
3. I'd leave that decision to the individual expert involved.

Is this a thesis defense or a business plan? Tim Vickers (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem?

What's all this vitriol for? Are you that annoyed by a simple biological principle. The human population clearly meets all conditions necessary for evolution. You have mentioned that the races are a social concept, but how can you explain the prevalence of Tay-sachs disease in the Jewish population or the fact that all the major scientists so far have been white. A list of the 100 greatest scientists [10] is perhaps the strongest proof of race in determining scientific achievement. The top 100 scientists most notable include Francis Crick, Alfred Binet, James Watson, Francis Galton who all believed in eugenics and dysgenics. This is not to say blacks or asians dont have their own strengths. You should read more, perhaps, to gain an understanding of the current scientific mainstream. I'm not trying to change your personal views, but the main human article should certainly include all prevalent views. Verwoerd (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Lyme's Disease

“ Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Lyme disease. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC) ”

Hi Tim- Above is your message to me. I am adding this topic to the talk page. I did include a reference for my edit, which was to a CNN.com artice. The original source is a book. There are no peer reviewed articles on this theory, in fact that's not something that you would typically find as a peer review article. Do you believe I need assistance adding references? Is the one I added originally not enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amdurbin (talk • contribs)

SLE

Hiya Tim, wishing you well as always. Another lupus favour - [11]; note Wolff's edit summary in the previous version. Revert? Thanks, WLU (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

...and again... WLU (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea but Wolff just reverted - I've no real concerns I just really dislike medical articles with unsourced content added de novo. That's not the right term...ex nihilo? Anyway, I'm fine with sources or outright removal but unsourced bugs me. Thanks! WLU (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Blazinpaddles

Hi Tim: Drifting about Wikipedia, I came across the "Dr Ward, User:Chuwils, User:Blazinpaddles" mass of verbiage. What I can't find, however, though I have read as much as I could tolerate of all parties' wanderings, is a legal threat by anyone. Could you provide the reference, just so I don't have to go back through all those words again? (Please note: I have no complaint. I am just curious as to who is threatening whom about what.) Thanks ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Call off the search team! I just found the discussion on WP:AN/I. (One day, I will learn how to do diffs quickly and easily.) Everything has been oversighted, I think. Sorry to have bothered you. ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Gene wiki

I figured you had a hand in the gene wiki stuff that's been in the news, sure nuff [12]. Nice work. Interesting writeup here: [13] -Ravedave (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Mesosomes

Hi. Today, I have updated the mesosome article at the spanish wikipedia (es:mesosoma), which has been forgetten for some time. I have just traslated the english article. Thanks you for the notice at the spanish disccusion page. Regards. Francisco 213.60.68.208 (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Virus versus Viruses

Tim, this has cropped up again, [14]. Can we reconsider renaming the articles to the plural? Graham. GrahamColm^Talk 21:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Missing biochemicals

Tim, As a biochemist, could you help start articles uvaricin, rodiasine, or demethylrodiasine? All of these turned up as redlinks when I did an expansion of the page on the Magnoliidae, but are either new enough or specialized enough that they're beyond my ability to research well. If you don't have the time or background to start them yourself, could you perhaps point me to someone who likes to start articles on phytochemicals? (Biochemistry doesn't seem to have its own Wikiproject.) Thanks, --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Pulmonary contusion

Hi, I wondered if I could ask a favor. I'd like to take pulmonary contusion to FAC, but I'm not sure if it's ready. Someone recommended you since you've gotten a bunch of medicine articles to FA, and I've noticed you've worked on other lung-related FAs like tuberculosis. Would you mind having a look and letting me know what you think it needs before FAC? It would be much appreciated! Peace, delldot talk 00:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Added at Newsroom Suggestions

FYI: [15] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well; now they've got it twice :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

GeneWiki

Nice work. So do people show up on GeneWiki and edit-war to promote their favorite genes and defame other genes? Is there a GeneWiki Review where people can go to gripe about cabals and admin abuse? :) MastCell ^Talk 21:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"The most vicious fights in the world happen in Irish pubs and academic journals." Tim Vickers (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes. "The fighting in academia is so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." Actually, I prefer the remark of a famous physician-scientist, who said: "I knew I'd been in academic medicine too long when I was watching Amadeus and found myself rooting for Salieri." MastCell ^Talk 21:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions about Combinatorial biology

Pete Hurd suggested that I forward my request for some comment on the article to you. Long story short, I saved an article on a molecular biologist, Richard A. Houghten from deletion. In doing so, I created a stub for Combinatorial biology. Reflecting on both of them I feel that I need a specialist look to see if I have done either subject justice. I feel that I probably have, but I don't hold a degree in the field or even in a related field, so given how thin the sourcing is, I would prefer to defer to authority. If you get a moment I would love it if you could take a look at either or both of the articles. Thanks! Protonk (talk) 21:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Image swap

Thanks for the notification! When I think of evolution, I guess my mind just automatically jumps to that picture. You would think that a university student would be able to distinguish evolution and progression. I think I've got some reading to do... hahaha, thanks for the revert though. Cheers! _{TIM KLOSKE|TALK} 17:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Youre Welcome

Lol, no problem. Just here to help. :D. CheersII MusLiM HyBRiD II (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

wiki template filling

Thanks for the advice and the template filling tool Ging3rnut (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Dysgenics

I believe I have acted in a professional manner, however, your personal beliefs have railroaded many articles such as Human. Dysgenics is a concept explored not only in science, but in many other disciplines as well. Perhaps the most important goal of evolutionary science is ultimately the betterment of mankind, and what better way than to treat humans rightly as any other species, meaning there is great genetic variation, and it is possible to breed out the bad and breed in the good. Humanity is imperiled, and despite my best sources, you, Ramdrake, and Alun have tried to stifle me by attacking me, not the ideas I and many scientists uphold. Verwoerd (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sharing

Problem resolved (as far as it can be) in evolution. Thanks --Candy (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Amateur Station Operator's Certificate

About the copyright infringement: Please see Talk:Amateur Station Operator's Certificate#Alleged copyright violation =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Tuberculosis

You've made quite a few edits there. I found this FA to have an awful lead focusing on epidemiology and not providing a basic summary. I've written one now, but in the interest of brilliant prose, could you have a copy-edit? Thanks. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be honoured to be nominated by you, thanks. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Creation-of-Heaven

I think wikipedia should allow OR especially if it is verified, and especially if it is verified with wikipedia information. If A plus B can denote C, and it is recognizable shouldn't that be added to the human body of knowledge. I'm just saddened by that wikipedia doesn't allow referenced OR. It shouldn't matter where the original information came from - be it a blog - if it has references explaining that it's true it should be accepted. The quote that is referenced in verifiability is not nice and you shouldn't go by that, " I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. –Jimmy Wales [3]" Please review your policies.Creation-of-Heaven (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Southern tick-associated rash illness

On 19 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Southern tick-associated rash illness, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Laveran

hello. they were comment out because they are not references, but just a data dump without any context. i kept the references used to support the text and claims made in the article. cheers! --emerson7 00:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

that's why i didn't remove them altogether. i was hoping someone knowlegeable on the subject would do just that!--emerson7 00:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE

Outside of the title, I was unable to find an injunction to what I added to Agkistrodon piscivorus. I note that you already removed the text, and I will certainly accept that, based upon what I perceive to be your far superior knowledge about both the subject & Wikipedia policies. However, I am unclear as to both why this is disallowed & why it may impair the quality of the article. I am aware (after your message & reading the Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer) of the inherent danger of attempting to offer medical advise of any kind; yet it seems to me that the basic mention I made might be expected to be found in an encyclopedia. Either way I appreciate your kind editing advice (and by now have bored you quite to death), and desire, if you could, a clarification about thisSnideology (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That was very clear & concise information. It specifically described the failings of my edit & how to simply correct such in the future. Rarely am I corrected with such finesse. Frankly, it is advice I can use both within & outside of Wikipedia. A catnip mouse to Loki for your help Snideology (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dysgenics

Hi Tim. What I meant to say was that I vote either for merging or deleting. Am I right that your point is that it has to be one or the other, but cannot be both? Or have i misunderstood you (and WP policy)? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Coeliac

Tim, I think we're having pretty much the same problem as before on Talk:Coeliac disease. I was wondering if you could review the situation and offer your opinion. JFW | T@lk 22:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have again asked Pdeitiker (talk · contribs) to adhere to the talk page guidelines. This hasn't gone down well.[16][17] Is there any hope of you formally mediating between us, or alternatively suggesting another editor who might be able to do this? JFW | T@lk 13:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Options for Dysgenics AfD

Many thanks for pointing this out. I should really have realised this because a problem with page histories also arose when the titles of Commutation theorems and the redirect Commutation theorem had to be switched. An administrator had to do it, precisely because of the GFDL problem. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Scale of changes

Hi. I see you could give me short info about this: does DNA pass small modifications in global meter, which are then transferred while reproducting. It means that for example one gene switches on and off and on sometimes, but this change is done in all DNA instances in body, somehow, and final state is inherited in children with probability. I am asking after reading this [18] article. To now I thought DNA is only modified in reproduction - and also this way doesn't give a sense (I am programmer: how are value modifications stored temporarily if not in DNA?). Could you give me some general info on scales of DNA changes? Thxkonikula —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.77.118.227 (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You can get an overview at introduction to genetics. The process is called development (biology) and is controlled by the mechanisms controlling gene expression. However, this is impossible to explain in detail in less than a book! Tim Vickers (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok I got It. it is not only:local/mutation, synthetic/replication and virtual/expression level but it is also something called reverse transcription. But anyway It isn't a part of human program, it is only retrovirals job, isn't it? So there is no eveidence that person A have different DNA in year X than Y...?

Eh. Also sorry for me being so non-wiky here. But could you anyway support me some materials for studying abiogenesis. I am interrested in sulfur bacterias, porfyrins and partially in DNA/RNA background. If you'd have some start pages, books, links or even keywords would eas my trying. If you help, I will give you interresting feedback maybe :) Thx for any help. Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.77.118.227 (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

konikula

Microbiology and MCB

Hi Tim,

Thanks for the welcome :) I'll help where I can. Anything you would like working on? (I'm a bit new to the whole project format)

--Carbonrodney (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, I've been reading around the projects I joined and I've got an idea of how the whole thing is supposed to be set up. Unfortunately, I don't have anything to add to restriction enzyme. But I will find another article. :)

--Carbon Rodney (Talk but be nice) 01:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any comments

on the criteria for notability of accademic books? If you have time could you comment here Slrubenstein | Talk 09:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online sales tricks

Your close of this seemed to give undue prominence to your own views on the matter. This seems improper since it appeared that there was no consensus in the discussion between the various options. Please reconsider. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broad homeland hypothesis

The result was Delete, there is a lack of sources that define this topic and consequently an absence of reliable sources discussing the topic. This article therefore fails WP:V since it consists mainly of original research and synthesis of unrelated sources.

Before requesting a review, I ask you to reconsider the following:

• Six votes in favor of keeping
• Of the ones that voiced their concerns, FIVE (Merzow, Mathsci, DBachmann, PhilKnight aka Addoc and Doug Weller) have a history of escalated clashes with the main contributor of the article (me) involving severe current as well as reluctantly resolved (apparently) content disputes (4X), mediation disputes (2X) and personal attacks (4X).
• Of the ones that voiced their concerns, only TWO are active on archeological articles. Only ONE is aware of the PIE homeland-related literature at issue. My kind explicit and long standing request to this most violent and influential attacker to supply the requested diffs to back up claims of WP:SYNTH and take things from there [19] has been ignored and thus should be seen as rhetoric and personal attack.
• Two voters for keeping qualified the nomination as "content dispute"; additionally one voter for keeping criticized the obvious clash on what would be the "best" theory, and with me this makes four.
• Seven against six is no indisputable headcount consensus for deletion: rough consensus?
• The topic, describing the common linguistic ancestry theory that involves a "broader homeland", has been defined and described extensively in reliable sources. Nobody openly doubted the reliability of names like Lothar Kilian, Häusler and especially Mallory. Thus, there is no lack of sources that define this topic and comply to WP:V.
• Sources have been compiled, not synthesised, within the scope and definition of the topic: the theory of common linguistic ancestry of archeological cultures delimited by the broader homeland according to Lothar Kilian. To contest this, is a matter of content dispute that can best be resolved by expert review and third party "neutral" verification of sources.

I suggest the article is deleted because of a content dispute and personal agony, using wrong arguments that compromise objectivity and fact, and that it should be restored. Any true doubt on the content should be resolved by expert review and constructive discussion on TALK. Thank you. Rokus01 (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Consensus has been reached!		Thank you for participating in my RfA, TimVickers!
		I am grateful for your confidence: My RfA passed by a count of 64/3/3, so I am now an administrator! Of course, I plan to conduct my adminship in service of the community, so I believe the community has a right to revoke that privilege at any time. Thus, I will be open for recall under reasonable circumstances. If you have any advice, complaints, or concerns for me, please let me know. Again, Thanks! Okiefromokla questions? 21:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Hi Tim,

Don't know if you recall User:Robin48gx; called you a Nazi for deleting one of his articles back in March, and since it was immediately after I'd unblocked him for previous disruption, I indef blocked him. It's been 4 months, he's emailed me with an unblock request, and I'm inclined to grant it, subject to his staying completely off your talk page. Since you were the target of his harrassment earlier, I'm checking to make sure you don't have a serious issue with the unblock. I'll keep an eye on his edits if he returns. OK? Or not OK? --barneca (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

A message from Steven Fruitsmaak.

Thank you for participating in my RfA, wich was successful with 73 support, 6 oppose, and 5 neutral. I'll try to be as clear as I can in my communication and to clear some of the admin backlog on images. If there is anything I can help you with, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page! Cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You deserve a special thank you because the fact that a great contributor like yourself nominated me is an honour and something that really helped my RfA. Thanks, and see you around! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, actually, I would also like to thank you for nominating Steven. It's always good to get a chance to support a solid editor such as him. Antelan 15:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD lists

Thanks Tim, I have added both to my watchlist and may check in every now and again to add some comments! Best wishes, ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 20:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

History of evolutionary thought FA

And thank you Tim, for your help during the FAC. Rusty Cashman (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, Sam4bc (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thank-you

Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB Thank You spam

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

December 2008 ASCB workshop

Hi Tim,

What does your schedule look like in the near future? We should probably start to sketch plans for the workshop, and to draft a new description for Alison. I made a subpage as a central place for us and other interested Wikipedians to plan the workshop. I threw out some basic ideas there, but they might be terribly obvious to you and other experienced Wikipedians. I also contacted Phoebe and Awadewit, two Wikipedians I met at Wikimania, to ask for their help and advice. I might begin writing up a tutorial for newbie scientists, but as a newbie scientist myself, I'll definitely need your help with that. If possible, I'd like to get most of the workshop organized by the beginning of September, since I have a significant teaching load next semester. Regards, Proteins (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That was another good suggestion you had about the potential edit conflicts. As you asked, I made this category for the participants, although I don't know enough about Wikipedia's category tree to know where to categorize the category itself. I also made this template that automatically categorizes the users, and transcludes a tutorial. The participants only have to add one template to their user page. The tutorial is just a draft, some stuff that I wish I had known when I started; I think I'll add some screenshots, etc. Proteins (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR

It's probably inevitable that any deep revert will unfortunately undo a few perfectly good edits. I have no problem with the change. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Plos biology article

You probably do not remember me but we have crossed a few times in medical articles (I have mostly edited multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer articles. I work in an investigation group very interested in genes and also network theory. I am a psychologist but I work with engineers, doctors and biologists. Today my chief has sent us an article about gene wiki published in Plos. I red it and I thought it was really interesting not only becouse the utility of these gene articles, but also because publishing such an article in Plos is a very good way of attracting high quality contributors to wikipedia. Only later I saw your name in the authors. WELL DONE. --Garrondo (talk) 12:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The taxonomy community seems to have sat up and taken notice as well [20] Shyamal (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion...

...would be most appreciated, and comes by recommendation, here. Thanks in advance! Keeper ǀ 76 18:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Help

Helicobacter pylori has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

About litho and organotroph

Hi, I have read the article Bacteria. And I have found it a really good article. Here I just want to discuss a small thing.

In text, the organo and lithotroph are about the electron donor. But in the table, they are about the energy source. I don't think the latter is right. Because the photolithotrophes and photoorganothophes gain their energy from the light. If the table just talks about chemotrophes, those correlations (litho, organo-energy source) can be reluctantly accepted. But anyway, it is not a good idea to mix up electron donor and energy source.

With best regard!!

Dgg32 (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)dgg32

Objections to evolution

Don't you think a better name for this article is Objections to the theory of evolution? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

FAR I thought you might be interested in looking into

As a science guy, I thought you might be interested in looking into this FAR on Helicobacter pylori. I saw (I think) Sandy mention your name somewhere with regards to this article. S. Dean Jameson 17:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That would have been on my talk page, where I told Orangemarlin that the only chance that most med/bio articles had at FAR was if Tim Vickers got involved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I thought it was you that had said it, but I wasn't positive, so thanks for confirming. Looking over Tim's contributions (and his recent offer of help to Wilhelmina), I thought I'd go ahead and notify him of that FAR. S. Dean Jameson 17:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Good thinking :-) Except Orange had already notified him (above) and I wouldn't have let him escape for long, either :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I skimmed his page, and didn't find anything, but sure enough, there it is. Sorry for the double post, Tim. S. Dean Jameson 18:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I keep a close eye on Tim's whereabouts, just in case I need to kill him someday. :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There's an ANI subpage waiting to be started... S. Dean Jameson 18:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget this ANI subpage. :-) OK, I'm going to leave Tim's page alone now; I hope he's off enjoying his Sunday and the orange bar isn't making him nuts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

MR IP

What is the point of question 8 to Mr. IP? — Rlevse • Talk • 19:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Answer: the Colts suck because they're not Mares. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

And that has what to do with an RFA? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

ping

I sent you a message. Just let me know if you check e-mail regularly, and prefer not to be ping-ed. S. Dean Jameson 20:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

thankspam

Thanks to everyone who participated in my RfA, regardless of their !vote. I have withdrawn the nomination as a failure at 19 supports, 45 opposes, and 9 neutral statements. As has been written and sung, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need — and what I need is to go back to working on our shared project. Not everyone has to be an admin; there is a role for each of us. After reflection, I feel I don't have the temperament to secure community consensus as an admin at any point, and I will not be applying again in the future — and hey, that's all right, 'cause I stay true to the philosophy that adminship is no big deal: I tried, I failed, and now I'll return to doing what I've always done. I have an extremely strong belief in the consensus process, and the consensus was clear. I will be devoting my energies to volunteering at MedCab and working up a complete series of articles on the short stories of Ernest Hemingway, among lord knows what else. Thanks again to everyone who spared the time to weigh in on this one. It was made in better faith than it probably seemed. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 15:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am indeed closing shop on my RfA. When I think about it further, I can serve the project better in other capacities and am possibly not suited to adminship, so I will be doing other kinds of work here instead of applying again in the future. I can promise you that I was not merely attempting to create drama, however. Anyway, thanks for participating, and I'll be happy to work with you in the future. Cheers! (P.S., thanks also for your truly excellent work over the years in making Wikipedia a good home for science.) Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 15:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to reply

Sorry about that - Don't worry about your comment to me at RfA, it was perfectly in line, logical and obviously just an expression of your very valid opinion, which I respect. It did not come off rude one bit and an apology is unnecessary. This is what makes RfA so interesting, the conflicting viewpoints : ) Cheers dude Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

DOI bot

Thanks for checking. Mietchen (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:MDCCCXLVIII - probable sockpuppet

You recently blocked Standingout (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet of Undercovergals (talk · contribs). "New" user MDCCCXLVIII (talk · contribs) has proposed a series of questionable article merges, including tweaking one originally proposed by Standingout a few days ago. I would file a sockpuppetry case but (a) I'm unfamiliar with the puppetmaster and (b) a stroll through their contributions will probably convince you. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, Standingout (talk · contribs) signed several posts with the similar "mcmlxxxviii ", so that moves it from probable to almost certain (for me, anyway). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarines and Ultramarine

Please note [21]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange edit

As noted at the top of my talk page, this is a notification for a reference not in the article. Feel free to work it in there (I won't spoil the surprise, if you're interested in chloroplasts you'll possibly find the data quite intriguing indeed) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Tried that. It doesn't work, the sources simply get dumped in the Talk archive or are never dealt with, and a proposal to add a "missing references" section to Talk pages as ToL standard never went off. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing's better than a naked scotsman

This user enjoys contributing to Wikipedia without wearing clothes.

WLU (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Horizontal gene transfer edit war

Please look at the recent history of Horizontal gene transfer. I'm no expert on this, so maybe I'm wrong. Please do whatever you think best. Thank you. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OMM

Perhaps this reference would help bolster your position. [22] Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 19:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That source has a reputation as an industry front group. Columns on organization websites (outside of the gov't) in general are not really "published" enough to cover BLP concerns in my mind, and that's an organization with an especially bad reputation. OM is not a pseudoscience per se, especially now that vitamin C is being studied again for cancer with interesting results.[23] There's also a trial on the schizophrenia thing going on. These are happening because there are recognized flaws in the 60s literature. II | (t - c) 20:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Pushing science is always a good thing, even if the group gets funding from Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Johnson and Johnson et al. The pharmaceutical companies, despite their warts (and they have more warts than a good sized ogre), invest more in basic scientific and medical research than any government could ever imagine. They might be looking for the almighty dollar in the next statin that drops cholesterol by 0.0001%, but they brought statins to the market, which reduces cardiovascular disease significantly. And your reference for Vitamin C is laughable. Levine clearly states that the the results are a long way from "prime time." Do you know how many things in science are tried and failed? I follow baseball closely, wait, the metaphor will make sense, and every team claims they have the next Koufax or Ruth, but oftentimes, they have me (in other words, totally incapable of throwing a curveball or hitting one). Vitamin C might work, might not. We're 20 years away from any clinical proof that it does in any manner that is safe and efficacious. But read carefully, Levine states that it has to be delivered intravenously, meaning don't go down to your local GNC to scarf 2000 kg of Vitamin C. Or don't buy orange juice futures. :D OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I ask: if you want to claim that OMM is a pseudoscience, you need a good reference which discusses, at length, how OMM falls into the criterion of pseudoscience. It should reference the studies which have been done on orthomolecular medicine's claims. The paper you referenced (unpublished) does not do that. The most scholarly, referenced source on the subject is Melascino (sp), which I'd suggest you check out. Marlin, intravenous has been the preferred administration method in orthomolecular medicine for a long time. II | (t - c) 22:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

OMM proponents take legitimate studies and reinterpret them unscientifically to satisfy their claims. That's what makes them pseudoscience. There are no reliable OMM studies because OMM is not recognized by mainstream research laboratories as a legitimate field of inquiry. What there are are people who document practices and claims that constitute pseudoscience. These are the good references that document that OM falls into the criterion of pseudoscience. And the number and quality of references identifying OMM as pseudoscience is more than adequate to justify inclusion of the infobox. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 01:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

OM is pseudoscience?  :) I happen to agree with II. If there's no verification of OMM being pseudoscience, then we can't invent it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Since one cannot logically perform studies to verify that any particular field is either a science or a pseudoscience, that seems a rather absurd criterium. But perhaps I don't understand what you mean. What would you require as adequate verification? I would argue that your answer, if it is reasonable and legitimate, must also be adequate for verifying that a particular field is a science. Perhaps we should continue this discussion in the infobox section of the OMM talk page where it originated. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 02:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The self-published paper used by TimVickers (which uses the word orthomolecular a scant one time, and devotes only a few sentences to the topic, no references) discusses the basic criterions of a pseudoscience. The two major ones are: 1) scientific implausibility and 2) lack of testability/falsifiability. Orthomolecular medicine is uncertain on both counts. Nutrients, broadly termed, to treat certain diseases is not implausible, especially since they are used for certain rare genetic conditions, and since certain ones do have a demonstrable effect on hormones. Most of the OMM's treatments haven't been tested in 30 years, and the criticisms on the tests from Pauling and others have been ignored. Does anyone mind if I move this discussion over to orthomolecular medicine? II | (t - c) 18:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Phlegm Rooster

On Slrubenstein's page I pointed out to this editor the page Mathematical Association of America as a random example. He unwisely did a search on "Mathematical Association of America" and "negroes" and included the results of his findings in a sentence very near the beginning of the article. However, he used two primary sources (letters fully reproduced in a book without commentary) in preparing his comment. So what he wrote counts as WP:OR. He seems to be gaming the system. I have cleaned up the article, with three new references, in a properly encyclopedic way. I wonder whether you could give him a warning for disruptive behaviour, because he seems to have some problems as to what the purpose of this encyclopedia is. It is not here for him to prove a WP:POINT by capricious edits, because that is simply disruption, for which he could be blocked. Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have responded over on the talk page of the article in question. The book has plenty of commentary in the pages just before the letters. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This editor is continuing to add an unbalanced account of the history of the MAA to make a WP:POINT. He is attempting to add controversy into the article for some reason best known to himself. I have no time to waste on undergraduate antics, so others can deal with him. Mathsci (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

what is a species?

Tim, can you show me where you moved the material on species I wrote and sourced? I was surprised - I thought you too were disatisfied with the current article. But I have no problem with moving wehat I wrote here if you and GetAgrippa and others would be working on it and improving it in order to reinsert it into the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. What is the time-table for moving things from the draft to the article? What is the process for working on the draft? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 03:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wha ... ?

Are you going American on us? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, know what I mean? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

RCSB

Restore away :-) I didn't see anything to the effect of being copyright-free when I looked at the page, and there was nothing listed on the image description page such as a link that you left me, so I didn't know that it was free. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wording

The wording sounds fine to me, although I'm not sure what measure of plausibility we're employing. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. I don't know much of anything about Orthomolecular medicine; certainly not its standing with mainstream science. If you provided supporting sources, that would be helpful. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, certainly by the measure of the existence of atoms and molecules, orthomolecular medicine is more plausible. My issue, though, is that there is no evidence that orthomolecular medicine is any more effective than magic water memory. What's worse, orthomolecular medicine has the potential to be much more harmful than homeopathy, for example. People can die of vitamin overdoses, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

People can, and actually do, drown in their bathtub. Surely you are not against bathing!--Alterrabe (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

OMM

I think the propopsed wording could be improved; orthomolecular medicine is not regarded as unscientific, but as not scientifically proven. There is no understanding of the theory how homeopathy is supposed to work, on the other hand. Why some orthomolecular therapies should work is clear, the question is whether they do.

How about: This lack of serious testing of orthomolecular medicine has led to its practices being classed with other less plausible forms of alternative medicine and regarded as not scientifically proven?"--Alterrabe (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Lyme disease updates

I recently updated the discussion on the controversies section of lyme disease because the section currently misleads readers into believing that four different reputable organizations support one theory. However all of those sources themselves do not perform their own research but rely on guidelines that were found corrupt by the conneticut attorney general from another organization (IDSA). There is no mention in the entire page on lyme disease about ILADS which is an international research based organization consisting of physicians currently treating these diseases. The fact that it was changed is very discerning due to the reputable sources cited. It may be hard to believe corruption and bribery (which violations of anti-trust laws are) exist in such large organizations, but until it is pointed out and fixed misinformation and miseducation continues. I ask that if you don't appreciate what I added that you do some research and editing instead, because as it stands the information is no less corrupt than that which resulted from bribes the IDSA accepted. A separate problem is there is so much mention and reference to IDSA when they've been found to be corrupt and no mention of ILADS and all the research they've done around the world. Pryorka82 (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• There is reference to ILADS - their guidelines for Lyme disease treatment are cited in the article, currently reference #81.
• "Corruption and bribery" are either exaggerations or downright fabrications based on the claims of one side of a dispute in which no legal charges of any sort were brought, much less decided. Thus, their absence from the article is a reflection of Wikipedia's core policies of verifiability and neutrality.

Please take a look at Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, appropriate sourcing, neutrality (particularly undue weight), and the issue of multiple account use or recruitment of editors to advance a specific agenda. Among many other things, Wikipedia is not a venue for advocacy, nor a place to Right Great Wrongs. MastCell ^Talk 21:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have since posted references on the lyme discussion page that I'm hoping people will take the time to read. I am fully aware of Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, appropriate sourcing, neutrality. Where we have a problem is on the neutrality of the subject. The subject is heavily weighted with one point of view therefore not neutral. One sentence on the position taken by a differing organization (ILADS) is referenced. Which is followed by texts suggesting just the opposing view. Even mentioning death from sepsis to add to that point of view instead of death by infection which would be the other road that could be traveled. This is the problem with neutrality that I'm trying to get addressed. Stop being so hypocritical quoting Among many other things, Wikipedia is not a venue for advocacy, nor a place to Right Great Wrongs. While I'm trying to get editors to stop this and quit advocating one point of view it puts your intentions in question by saying that. Understand what is meant by one sided arguements and unjust support of single points of view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-sided_argument . This hurts the purpose of wikipedia.

Further understanding of what corruption entails is also needed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption Understand that antitrust violations for personal gain at the expense of the people the organization is suppose to support is by definition corruption.

Nineteen members of Congress recently sent a letter to the CDC requesting that agency to review the IDSA guidelines, which they said have "the potential to effectively shut down" all treatment of chronic Lyme disease. So this is not a minority matter as was suggested.

Please do some reading.Pryorka82 (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Idiopathic inflammatory diseases

Hey Tim, I see you recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology (2nd nomination) and deleted Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology. I draw attention to the AfD template on Idiopathic inflammatory diseases, which also points to the same AfD. I think this is due to User:DRosenbach's page move during the course of the AfD "19:17, 14 August 2008 DRosenbach (Talk | contribs) moved Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology to Idiopathic inflammatory diseases ‎ (this would be the proper terminology) (revert)". I'm no sure how these things work, I would have thought that there would be nothing at Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology to delete after the move, but it seems to me that Idiopathic inflammatory diseases ought also to be deleted. Cheers, Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Idiopathic inflammatory diseases

Hi, unsure what all got crossed here but isn't this Idiopathic inflammatory diseases the deleted article? Banjeboi 04:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natal hypnotherapy

The author has provided reliable sources on which this article could be based, please review the AfD discussion and consider whether or not your vote remains the same. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked sock using talk page for soapbox

See here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It is continuing. Should I ask elsewhere for page protection? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to copy the contents into another language Wiki?

Hi! Could I copy the contents of the protein box, for example, from the NOTCH1 when I create a page in the Russian Wiki? If yes, how do I do this? Thanx. --CopperKettle (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry!

I realize I have been doing a lot of reverts, in fact a good deal of them were my own...my computer has been acting really crappy, while I am typing it takes me back in my text and erases things! Anyway, I agree I have been a bit edit happy of late, I will try to not do that so much. Thanks for your warning and I apologize.Jumacdon (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I will not attempt to edit this page for awhile, if ever. I hope you do see that my position has merit, I am not arguing anything unscientific. I am, in fact, a scientist. However, I know when a battle cannot be won :) Take care! Jumacdon (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

advocacy, promotion, and advertising not allowed

Mr. Vickers you know that those articles are promoting one organization and one point of view and in violation of neutrality. Why are they still there? I know we can say they are reputable and verifiable, but they most certainly advertise one group with one unproven opinion. This makes wikipedia look bad. It makes the people that include these comments look questionable. I can't go on editing because you and sandygeorgia have teamed up on me. Do you not see a problem with this? I see your involved in biology which helps with the entire rest of the article, but try to picture this from a legal perspective. Pryorka82 (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Temazepam

'faces' or 'feces'? Philip Trueman (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Verbiage on OMM

I really have never been a fan of "scientific consensus." See my comments here where I tried to elucidate why not. There is not any significant minority sourcing that supports OMM. Every exception stated in the article really supports standard nutritional practices. And ever reliable source that counters OMM, really counters it. I know I should write this on the talk page of the article, but I just wanted you to understand. If you revert my edits, I'm OK with it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Temazepam

You mean temazepam is metabolized by DEmethylation and conjugation, right? 70.137.130.176 (talk) 05:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

reference

I would appreciate the favor of a temporary copy for (fair use) critical review of this reference: Weitzman S (1998). "Alternative nutritional cancer therapies". Int. J. Cancer Suppl. 11: 69–72. PMID 9876483. My library does not have the Supplement. A wikipedia email with the text would be satisfactory to me but some editors use other temporary postings for all. Thank you.--TheNautilus (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Why you don't wont the article on the DAN!?--Francis89 (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC) It is very interesting and it is present also in the italian Wikipedia. It cites many sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.49.254 (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC) a lot of international doctors are part of this organization medical against autism--151.51.49.254 (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Autism and Dan!

The article about Dan! is very interesting and it is present also in the Italian Wikipedia. It cites many sources. A lot of international doctors are part of this organization medical against autism. If there are errors in English or remained some Italian word, if you have time you can give it a try and correct it. Surely you know English better than me! Thank you very much!--Francis89 (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Defeat Autism Now! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

the Italian guy is back

He's currently posting as User:82.107.211.21. I'm not an admin or anything; I mostly just watch the Autism articles to revert repeat-vandalism that has already been pretty much agreed upon as bad by the other people. So I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be able to do anything myself or just report this person to you since you're the one that took care of him before. If this is not the best thing to do, please let me know. I reverted 2 of the 3 spam-pastes he made but the third one was on a User page so I didnt want to have that escape the notice of the user. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Attention!

I do not understand why they cancelled my thoughts in the discussion on autism. I was not vulgar, I have not mentioned copyrighted material, I have offended anyone. I have only given a text of journal The Lancet. I did not in any way abused multiple identities being the first time today that are entered into Wikipedia and I registered as Samuelgood. I hope to explain the misunderstanding.

I await your reply in the same page. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.44.218 (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

AN/I:MOSNUM

Hi. I am the editor who started the recent AN/I thread on MOSNUM "hijacking". (A strong term, I know!) Was this question directed at me? I did not contest your "resolved" decision, but would be happy to suggest some admin actions that might be appropriate when a small group of editors essentially hijack _any_ article. I'd prefer not to do it at AN/I, though, unless you really prefer that forum. Best regards, (sdsds - talk) 04:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your rapid reply! Here is the edit where the over-eager editor claims a "clear consensus" was reached to, "Remove the double square brackets around month-day and month-day-year dates in the main text and footnotes". He claims this based in his own closure as "resolved" of the discussion at WT:MOSNUM made with this edit. But there are plenty of dissenting voices to the "deprecation" of date linking, not just mine. And the "deprecation" certainly doesn't include a consensus to remove links from existing dates.

Every good article includes dates. Now every good article will have those dates unlinked. This is not, as you characterized it, "a minor disagreement over date formatting." These 'bot-based unlinks can't be easily undone; the article database is losing the work of those who have done the linking. And it's happening because of an intensive effort (not to say a "crusade") by a small number of influential and eloquent (but misguided) editors. Their central conceit is that there's no way for editors to change the behavior of the enwiki website configuration; so they must change the article database instead. In this case, the cabal has just plain got it wrong. (sdsds - talk) 05:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, and as for "what to do about it?" Caution them (they're well-intentioned, after all, and don't need blocking) not to edit WP:MOSNUM; leave that to un-involved editors. (sdsds - talk) 05:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

Tim—I thought I should inform you of my latest post (the unindented one currently at the bottom). Thanks. Tony (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi! I have a question: how can I create categories in Wikipedia? --Feierabend (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Thank you! --Feierabend (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:FA

Tim, I need your input on some recent fiddling at WP:FA (look in the edit history there, as well as this latest diff and the post on my talk page. The bio/medicine split was the subject of several long discussions. See Wikipedia talk:Featured articles#Flora and fauna section and Wikipedia talk:Featured articles#Splitting Biology (again). I usually defer to Raul on that page, but Yomangani had one opinion, Marskell another, Casliber another and now a new person is moving things around. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay; if you get a chance, can you check the rest of the Health and medicine category? Thank you, Tim! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

And in all your spare time :-) you might cast your eyes over WP:FFA as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The mockups were six-month old history, now deleted. We went ahead and did the split of biology into Biology vs. Health and medicine, per Rauls' final comment on the second thread. The mockups are in the old history on my sandbox pages, but since Yomangani left, Raul, Marskell and I just went ahead and split according to Raul's criterion. Remaining now is for you to see if you have any disagreements at WP:FA and WP:FFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm pretty sure your recommendation doesn't contradict:

I'm strongly inclined to put all life forms, quasi-life forms (viruses and the like), and other bio topics (like action potential) in one category, and have another one for medicine. HIV is a virus and AIDS is a syndrome, so the former (if it were an FA) would go in bio and the latter would go in medicine. Also, there is at least one article (Proteosome) that should be moved to chemistry. Raul654 (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Right? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Translation of 6-(3,4-ksilil)-1-hegzen

Hello,

English translation of the compound's name is 6-(3,4-xylyl)-1-hexene. However, this is a wrong nomenclature. Correct name should be: 4-(hex-5-en-1-yl)-1,2-dimethylbenzene.

Correct name in Turkish is 4-(hekz-5-en-1-il)-1,2-dimetilbenzen. Kaygtr (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary history of life

Hi, Tim. I as far as I can see you've been the most active recent editor of Evolutionary history of life. A couple of us have posted comments on gaps & questionable structure at Talk:Evolutionary history of life - as the nost active members of WP:CEX we've been doing a fair bit of work recently on early life on Earth. I've also outlined what I think the article should cover, plus a list of additional sources that might fill the gaps. In view of the effort you've put into the article your comments would be very welcome. -- Philcha (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Tim, I see you've been taking an interest. Could you look over what I've done so far and comment at Talk:Evolutionary history of life. I think, perhaps rashly, that I'm over half-way through. The next big item will be the colonization of land, featuring mosses, fungi, arthropods and tetrapods. After that I hope it's a fairly simple cruise through dinosaurs (can't omit them, readers would be disappointed; will include origin of birds), therapsids+mammals, flowering plants, social insects (impact; peculiar genetics), hominids (I remember a phrase "evolutionary speed demons", must find a ref for that), the role of mass extinctions and the fact that evolution continues (featuring guess which moth plus anti-biotic resistant germs). But before I start to wind down I'd like a second opinion on the choice of topics and presentation in the front end, which IMO is the more important. -- Philcha (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

DNA Article

Hello Tim.

I am an AP Biology high school student with plans to synthesize and article that would have the caliber to attain the Good Article status. However, a perfect score can be consumnated if the article achieves the Featured Article status. Thus, I have been contemplating about a topic would have the potential to meet these guidelines. I deduced that perhaps an "Introduction to DNA" article could fulfill the requirements. After observing that you were a top contributor to the DNA article on Wikipedia, I figured that you could advise me on whether to pursue this or not. Is the type of information found in your article possible to simplify? Could it be put into a format that would be suffice for and introduction level piece?

This is a project that is not due until next year, so I have a reasonable duration of time to ponder over this notion. Here is the link to our class page that identifies our goals and project information: Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008

Thank you for your time.

--Wikitrevor (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Tim, it seems more teachers are realising the value of contributing to Wikipedia. I would be happy to be a mentor for this one, if you want me to. I think Introduction to DNA is a good idea. If you agree, please point them in my direction. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 20:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Electro Homeopathy

I've done some work on this page which is currently an AfD (and on which you commented). Nonsense though the science behind the topic almost certainly is, it does have some interesting history and might be saveable. Have a look at the rewrked page and see if you think there's the basis for an article there. thanks Brammarb (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to Genetics

After reviewing the Introduction to Genetics article, I concluded that it seemed as if it already incorporated an Introduction to DNA element within itself. So I may need to consider an alternative topic that has not been integrated into another.

--Wikitrevor (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Biology Interests

I am considering an Introduction to Bacteria article. I think that topic is rather intriguing. Additional topics of interest include: enzymes, enzyme kinetics, enzyme inhibitor, and the cell nucleus.

--Wikitrevor (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Topic Selection

Ah. That seems like a fantastic idea. I'll definitely consider that one. That was a good point--an introduction article is best suited for a broad subject.

My hunch for these "Introduction to..." articles is essentially derived from the accomplishment of my AP Biology teacher. He wrote the Introduction to Evolution featured article and he mentioned he was a supporter of introduction articles.

--Wikitrevor (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

In second thought, a specialised article might be more opportune for focus and concentration. Generating a strong article about one specific subject could possibly be stronger than an article geared towards a wide area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitrevor (talk • contribs) 18:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe I'll continue contemplating about some articles of interest that are of a more "narrowed-down" type. I'll generate some ideas and get back to you on that.

Thank you very much for the brainstorming session.

--Wikitrevor (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Helicobacter pylori

Tim, would you like to have a glance at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Helicobacter pylori before Marskell gets to it? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to Microbiology

Tim, after pondering about potential article topics, I concluded that Introduction to Microbiology is a splendid idea. Perhaps we could tentatively establish this as the selected subject. And we can always select an alternative if we discover anything that would diminish this notion. This subject seems like a lucrative opportunity to shoot for Good Article and Featured Article status.

Best regards, --Wikitrevor (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Kudo's to Trevor; he is bright enough to solicit help from one of the best science editors on Wikipedia. Tim, regarding how much to help. My hopes are that the students will step up and generate the content and required citations. Formatting, organization, guidance on writing style, and grammar will likely need considerable tweaking. You may recall "The List" generated on the discussion of Introduction to Evolution page by Awadewit. Basically pointing out concerns; but leaving them to find solutions. Its a fine line, I agree; however, they should play the role of the primary editor. They are allowed multiple attempts at GA; so if they are gutted the first time - then they can always bounce back. Thanks for offering to mentor. If any concerns should arise feel free to email at my school account, --JimmyButler (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a fabulous project, and i look forward to watching it develop. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!

Hey! Thanks for directing User:Jfdwolff to my article! I cannot express in words how much help he will be in guiding me to writing a better article. Again, thank you for taking your time to help me out (as well as some of my fellow students, I see)! Cheers! FoodPuma (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Article Change

Hello Tim.

I was just perusing Molecular and Cellular Biology stubs, and I discovered an article in need of revision and expansion that struck me as very intriguing. The topic is Mycobacterium tuberculosis. I feel that the topic has a lot of potential to reach Featured Article status. Let me know if you would suggest this pursuit or if I should stay with what I have.

Best regards. --Wikitrevor (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is that line between the virus itself and the source that causes it. I will try and avoid transcending that barrier between the two subjects. I think I might be able to pull it off. There is multitude of research I found that keeps the focus on Mycobacterium tuberculosis, as opposed to TB itself. I guess I'll give it a try and see if I can keeep from venturing into the sister subject. Thank you very much for your input. It is greatly appreciated.

Regards, --Wikitrevor (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No idea on "glyceryl-glass"

I haven't run into it, but it's listed under gel filtration products at Sigma. Probably something that predates Sephadex. My two initial guesses from the name were a crosslinked form of glycerine or a form of glass beads that had been surface derivatized. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Safety of the LHC

I'm not worried about black holes, but have they considered resonance cascades? It seems they might be worried, as this photo proves that they've enlisted the help of Gordon Freeman! Where's my Hazard suit? Verbal chat 10:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Chagas disease

Tim, Chagas is getting close; we may be able to remove it from the citations list. But there's a discussion about the apostrophe here; unless you object, it seems everyone so far says to lose the apostrophe. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Tim—just saw who your supervisor was. Wouldn't you like to work on the article a bit? I'm sure you could add something to the Treatment section (hint, hint ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ping!

Have you had a chance to read my e-mail yet? I'm kinda stuck... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I realise your time is precious, especially since that video from Bill praising you at Wikimania --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking for input on Rosetta@home

The article on Rosetta@home was recently promoted to GA, and even more recently got a peer review by Graham Colm. Since I would like to nominate it for FA, I thought I would ask for another source of feedback before doing so from someone knowledgeable in biochemistry and molecular biology. If you have some free time, could you critique this article? If not, perhaps you could direct me to someone who could? Thank you! Emw2012 (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Applications of evolution and other things

Hi Tim. I noticed you deleted my coral example from the evolution article. Why did you do this? This was the only example of how understanding phylogenies can be of any practical value, unlike the others which are just applications of natural selection/microevolution. I would like to see a real world example of how knowing phylogeny has actually had practical benefits though; it seems somewhat hypothetical.

Do you think we should have an article on this subject, applications of evolution?

By the way, I seem to have managed to get the biologist John Endler (the one who is often cited for his work on guppy evolution) interested in contributing to Wikipedia. I have suggested he write an article 'natural selection in the wild', which is the name of one of his books. What do you think?

I have tried about 4 academics now and this is the first positive response. I was beginning to think it was a waste of time, but I'm much encouraged by this result and will have to try emailing more biologists. Richard001 (talk) 05:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I never said 'understanding evolution', I said 'understanding macroevolution', but somebody changed it (I don't know why; no edit summary was given). It could also be rephrased as 'understanding phylogenies/evolution above the species level/evolutionary relationships' etc. However, 'evolutionary relationships' can also include shorter term relationships, like the origins of HIV. Richard001 (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess phylogenies would be the best word. I'll leave it to you to restore it or not. Richard001 (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI

On my page: [24] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Macromolecular crowding

On 15 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Macromolecular crowding, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Virus

Hi Tim, just to let you know, Virus is back at FAC. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 13:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Hello again, Tim.

Pardon my delayed response. I've been battening down the hatches here on the coast of North Carolina since tropical storm Hanna set her sight on my region.

I would be delighted to receive your mentorship throughout this project. Much thanks.

Cheers. --Wikitrevor (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Tim.

Please excuse the delay of this response. I am currently new to the WikiWorld. I have chosen a topic (Anacondas). Now I am not exactly sure how to make a page for it but I am sure I will figure it out soon. If you would be so kind to help me rearrage my user page or help me with starting a page for Anacondas, that would be great.

Thank you again for the adoption and me and WikiTrevor are good friends. I hope we can form what our instructor likes to call and alliance and work towards FA status. It will be pleasant working with you.

--Dorkstar17 (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you look at this?

Hi Tim. I have a trouble at the moment because of this ban request at the ANI. Things are getting from bad to worse, with people coming to my talk page to accuse me of WP:COI violations in Biology articles. Could you please look at the article in question and check if it complies with WP:NPOV. WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability? And of course, you are very welcome to fix any problems if necessary. Thanks a lot. Perhaps I should to stop editing political subjects...Biophys (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim! I hope this resolve the question. I am going to take a wikibreak when it all ends.Biophys (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

IDCab

The problem with these guys isn't that they have a similar interest in topics, as I said in the RfC [25], as long as the policies and guidelines are followed, there isn't a problem. Unfortunately, as noted by many others, these guys just don't seem to get how to relate to editors who disagree with them. Although the group bullying they've used in the past (see my talk page for some examples) appears to be diminishing, it still hasn't completely disappeared [26] [27]. Two or three of them still show up on user and forum talk pages and leave rude comments. It needs to stop. But, you're right that name calling probably won't help the situation that much. Cla68 (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"random article"

Hi Tim! Deleting Trevor's "random article" page was by complete accident! I guess I just wasn't really sure of what I was doing. Im slowly but surely figuring everything out. :) HannahSharpe (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Language of evolution

Hey Tim, here is an interesting suggestion. I am throwing this up for discussion for a few of the more evolution-minded editors...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Chromium picolinate

You were for a while on top of chromium picolinate - a magnet for pseudoscience and hawkers of nutritional supplement. Your help would be much appreciated in trying to slow the use of Wikipedia as a mechanism to legitimize this suspect material. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Procedural question

Hi Tim, I've got a situation over at WP:AAR that I'd like to ask your advice about. I got involved after being notified of what I felt looked like a heated and pointless debate regarding the tuatara article ("is it a sauropsid or a reptile?"). To end the dispute, I've proposed a solution (the creation of a new policy) that has so far been well-received, with four votes in favor and two against. However, the opposition has now accused me of trying to railroad the situation and is calling for WP:TOL to get involved. It sounds to me like they're grasping at straws, but since I've never done this sort of thing before I just wanted to ask for your opinion about it first, as well as what might be the correct way is to move forward from here. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Names of viruses

Hi Tim, thanks for your help with this one. I'm too tired to edit now; I've been at it most of today, (and all of the past week). I like your clarification on prion replication and so on, (— "so on" — that's how tired I am!), but we need to agree on the names of these viruses: I see you prefer lower case as in tobacco mosaic virus and hepatitis delta virus, but these are proper nouns. Shouldn't it be Tobacco mosaic virus, Hepatitis B virus, Rotavirus..? I only use lower case when I write "rotaviruses" or "adenoviruses" or "retrovirsues". Is it me? I would never write "tim vickers". :-) Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Good old SGM. OK so, what do we do? Go for species names in italics or lower case? I would prefer species names in italics; we need to be consistent. ( But, I'm not going to lose any sleep over this Tim :-) ). Graham Colm ^Talk 21:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Requesting uninvolved opinion

There is a discussion at Talk:Liancourt Rocks regarding:

1. Whether the proposed Disputed Islands infobox is neutral in its presentation of basic article information
2. Whether there is a valid reason to exclude the proposed infobox from the article

I should note that I am involved in the discussion, but I do not want to influence your opinion should you choose to offer one. I merely want some uninvolved editors to view the discussion and then offer an opinion. If you choose to participate, please post your opinion in the RFC comments section there. Thank you for your time. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)