Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microbiology/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Help with explaining jargon.

I need to explain (or at least make an appropriate wikilink) the term "L forms of streptococci". I get the streptococci part, but what does the L form mean? I know some chemicals can be L or D, but I don't think this is what it means. Any suggestions? thanks... Lesion (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I missed this from the streptococcus page, "There are 20 described serotypes, named Lancefield groups A to V (excluding I and J)." so I will just wikilink to that page. Lesion (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

New animal phylum: Picozoa

I just started Picozoa. Help would be appreciated. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

From a quick look at the reference you cited, it looks as if picobiliphyte should really be moved over Picozoa and updated accordingly. SmartSE (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Inter-kingdom homonyms

Seeking comments about how to handle cases where a scientific name is homonymous across different nomenclatural codes. Please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Inter-kingdom homonyms for discussion. Plantdrew (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of material on biological contamination of Earth from Mars

This probably needs some introduction first.

Origin of the concerns

Carl Sagan was concerned about back contamination of Earth, and all the official studies since then have confirmed his concerns.

The main concern is that in the worst case it could cause environmental disruption of the Earth. This is thought to be a very low probability possibility, but can't be ruled out. As a result the conclusions of studies by the European Space Foundation, and the National Research Council, is that a great deal of care should be taken for any Mars sample return.

Legal issues and need for public debate

Due to the international nature of the low probability worst case scenarios, there are also many legal issues including internationally and the domestic policies of countries other than the launching nation, and the need to involve the public in debate world wide.

Mainstream view

This is the mainstream view. There is an organization ICAMSR which is an advocacy group opposed to any return of a sample to Earth. They shouldn't be confused with this mainstream view that accepts the concern and says a return to Earth is possible but needs great care, changes of law and worldwide public consultation.

Some space colonization advocates such as Zubrin take the view that these concerns have no scientific validity but his is not a mainstream view.

All the material I contributed on this removed

An editor has removed all the material I contributed to wikipedia discussing these issues. My material was heavily cited and carefully researched. He did it on authority of an AfD of an article I wrote, which was improperly carried out in many ways.

He seems to have support of most of the other editors who have got involved in the debate so far, so am posting to other related projects, to see if I get more sympathy elsewhere where perhaps there will be editors with different views on it all.

Links to follow up more

This is a short summary of it from previous version of the back contamination issues page: Back contamination from Mars

Here is a longer treatment which I keep in my user page because I can't add this to the main space in wikipedia at present:

Mars Sample Receiving Facility and sample containment

This is about irregularities in the AfD. Previous AfD

This is WPs most recent proposal to remove everything on interplanetary contamination issues from wikipedia except for one article (plus a short page about the extreme views of the ICAMSR).

Merger Proposal III

Why I posted here

I'm not sure what to do. The admin I've been working with so far is unsympathetic, and the other editors involved in the debate so far seem to be mainly in agreement that the material should be removed, though not giving any reasons why such notable material should be removed.

I am posting to any place I might get sympathy and help about what to do next. Robert Walker (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

To explain more - I posted this because just about all material in wikiedia on planetary contamination issues has been removed over the last few weeks or replaced with material biased towards the views of space colonization advocates that the issues are of little or no consequence. I wrote most of this material, summarizing numerous notable sources as best I could.

I feel it is wrong to remove it. I proposed to address issues of bias by collaborating with a friend with opposite views to do. But that was of no avail and it seems there is nothing I can do about it.

The admin who was helping me feels that I am ""whining" about this informal topic ban, that I can't seem to get the message of the other editors. Really no-one on wikipedia apart from me seems to think it matters at all if this material is removed, though many of my friends and colleagues outside of wikipedia think it is outrageous, especially exobiologists which is why I thought to post here. Anyway it now seems to me unlikely anyone can help, but just in case anyone else feels as strongly about it as me, that the material is needed, leave this in place for now. Be aware if you do try to restore it or support my side, you will encounter fierce opposition and insults from editors totally opposed to its inclusion in wikipedia. Robert Walker (talk)— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 21:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Have put the following extended discussion into a separate header so if anyone does want to reply you can do so here.

However, note, I have now totally given up on including this material in wikipedia. I am willing to give it a go if there is someone who is really keen to have it included, but any attempt would encounter fierce opposition and ad hominem attacks and insults from WP and BI and there are at least two other editors also now supporting them. Short of an admin incident on it all, I can't see any way forward, and don't want to do that so have give up. Robert Walker (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Update - have decided to reuse the articles I wrote for wikipedia on other sites where they are welcome, under CC By SA. Those articles of course are released under the same license. So, the content can be used here in the future if the climate of opinion on this matter changes. Robert Walker (talk) 07:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Extensive discussion by WP accusing me of being a SPA and spamming wikipedia

Heads up: user Robert Walker is a disruptive WP:SPA. Check his history and handle at your own discretion. Thank you. -BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not a SPA. Recently all my talk page discussions have been on contamination issues because a single editor took on himself to remove everything I wrote on contamination issues from wikipedia. Also before that I was engaged in a long weeks long attempt to save an article I wrote from the same editor- eventually it got deleted in an AfD.

Normally I write on many different topics. Robert Walker (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hiding long exchange with BI. of no relevance to microbiology or the issues above. I happen to be a developer of music software which I sell. I have full disclosure of this on my user page, you can show the exchange below if interested but I assume most readers here won't want to read it.Robert Walker (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

That's OK. I think as long as you are WP:CANVASSING multiple project pages in order to recruit meat puppets to your lost cause, I feel it's important that others know exactly what you are... Warren Platts (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Microtonal music doesn't count as "many"... Warren Platts (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to use Microtonal music as an insult, don't understand why. It is decidedly notable indeed many countries have significant ethnic microtonal music, e.g. Turkey with its maqams and India with its ragas, Thailand with its near seven equal tuning and so on. Historically in "Western music" the system we are all used to as twelve equal only became commonn in the C20, Chopin for instance would still have used a tempered tuning on his piano, and to this day some organs are tuned to quarter comma meantone because the long held chords sound better in that tuning, and many modern composers use microtones.

It is okay for authors of wikipedia to have diverse interests. The competence of an author for articles about microtonal music does not imply incompetence for articles about interplanetary contamination issues. Robert Walker (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, there is also the Metronome article where you threw up a wall o' text on "Criticism" of metronome use only so you could shamelessly spam your software here:

BTW I'm the author of a software metronome Bounce Metronome Pro which I've designed with the aim to introduce these rhythmic subtleties into metronome practice which normal metronomes lack. [Only $29.95!!!]Robert Walker (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Same pattern here: throw up walls o' text on your fringe POV in order to draw eyeballs to your blog and Science20 articles.... lol! BTW your website is broken. You've been obsessing at Wikipedia so much your business is starting to suffer. It might be a good idea to redirect your energies for a while. Cheers, Warren Platts (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Outrageous rewrite of my Metronome talk page post by WP. I did not add a price to my post. I did not make the product name into a link. It is good behaviour to disclose that you are an author of the software, and no-one else on the talk page commented on this, and the page itself makes no mention of my product. Robert Walker (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

That's right. The price comes from your link that you added. And your claim that you did not make the product name into a link is a lie: Here's the proof... Warren Platts (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You are right, missed that, yes seems I did make that one occurrence into a link to the website. Was not meant as promotion and had forgotten. Can't remember now why I did it, possibly just so they know what I'm talking about. A link to my website on a talk page discussion four years ago which I'd forgotten about does not count as spamming wikipedia :). And I did not mention the price or have any call to action or anything that could be considered advertising. Robert Walker (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

As with the Manned mission to Mars page where I added material to Concerns section after a request for material, in the Metronome article I added the material in response to request for positive material on metronome use because the article as it was then was thought as being too much biased against metronome use. I disclose my connection with the software in my talk page posts. Also my user page also has full disclosure of my connection with the software I sell. Robert Walker (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The criticism section for Metronome use was already there and not written by me. I can see that WP might now try to remove all my contributions to wikipedia on any subject. If he does that I will definitely file an admin incident report on him, which I have come close to doing a few times already. Robert Walker (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Viking spacecraft biological experiments#Labeled Release, i.e. Life on Mars claimed to have been discovered

Can someone add more views to that section? Smacks of WP:FRINGE. It's currently mostly based on Levin's publications. A search in Google Books finds plenty of material... Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by fringe. In the sense of minority view valid science, yes. But not so far fringe as e.g. Chandra Wickramasinghe's theories. More like a minority view that hardly any of his colleagues seem to accept. Probably we will only know for sure if someone does a successor to Viking on Mars, carries out an identical experiment and finds out in detail what happens and why. Until then it is a case of alternate theories, and most scientists are sceptical that the found anything.

There is a later controversy section in that page but that is baised towards the Levin interpretation too. I agree, it needs clearer statement of the mainstream POV and it needs to be made clearer that his is a minority view, but I think it is an interesting minority POV, needs to be balanced by clearer statement of mainstream view. Robert Walker (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Where should KPC-Oxa 48 redirect to?

Seems to be important enough to even be stubbed (mentioned in [1]), but Wikipedia doesn't seem to have anything significantly related, at least as far as the non-expert (me) can tell. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Methylobacterium mesophilicum

Can somebody clear up the reference list in this article? Robert (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

O157:H7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli_O157:H7 is a horrifying mess; along with ludicrous formatting errors, huge areas of the article having been blatantly coped-and-pasted from an external source, to the extent it has

Last Updated: May 2009 © 2009 page 5 of 10

right in the middle of one of the paragraphs-and this is marked as a top-importance article! Unfortunately I'm not remotely experienced enough with the ways of the wiki (particularly the markup language) to try to fix this myself, so I'm requesting help here. 151.226.23.102 (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)