User talk:David D./Archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

——————————————— TALK: DAVID D. ————————————— Welcome. (Contributions as Daycd) Archive1 Archive2 Archive3 Archive4 Archive5 Archive6 Archive7 Current Talk
Contents 1 GangstaEB's RFA 2 Homogeneity (physics) 3 Your comments on Phaedriel's RfA talk 4 Ben Johnson 5 Joke 6 Re: kinds 7 Rosalind Franklin 8 NO RFA? DON'T YOU GET IT? 9 Aldershot 10 WP:RECALL 11 RE: CfD 12 Request for Cydebot 13 Athletics disambiguation 14 Homeopathy 15 Photosynthesis 16 Peter mitchell 17 University 18 Role of Enzymes 19 Nuclear age 20 RE:Your RfA 21 DNA structure picture 22 problem web site 23 Brighton article 24 RFA 25 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO 26 Athletics at the 1992 Summer Olympics results 27 MCB Newsletter - help? 28 RfA message 29 Guinnog's RfA 30 RfA thanks 31 Gene Naming Convention Table 32 Love the KGVF work 33 OR 34 Maintenance template on Enzyme 35 Thanks for your vote on the RfD on O'reilly's controversies 36 This month's WP:MCB Article Improvement Drive article 37 Confirmation Bias 38 arabidopsis 39 Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Organization 40 Thanks 41 Ivona onatop 42 RE:Level 12 football 43 Sondre 44 I see we each met an unusual user today 45 Second opinion 46 Template:MedalWorldChampionships 47 Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject Newsletter! 48 Help disambiguating 49 Barnstar 50 Spam blacklist 51 categories for halloween article 52 Mass of Hydrogen 53 PPP 54 WP:WP 55 Thatcher131's RfA 56 Yy-bo account switch 57 ATP Derived Hydrogen Ions 58 FA nomination Enzyme inhibitor 59 Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject Votes 60 Dyestat 61 Thanks 62 OK... 63 Request for peer review of Enzyme kinetics 64 Re:My RfA 65 Nishkid64's RfA thanks 66 Golf Course Infobox 67 Proposal to merge Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF article 68 Re : RfA/Jc37 69 This month's WP:MCB Article Improvement Drive article 70 RNAi 71 Barnstar! 71.1 Thanks 72 Would you have a look at this? 73 Reverting my Questions 74 Astrology 75 Re:Longtail_stingray revisited 76 Block form editing an article	Use Wikipedia at your own risk! Inspired by BlankVerse talk Wikipedia:General disclaimer Use Wikipedia at your own risk How to separate the wheat from the chaff Wikipedia does not give medical advice Wikipedia does not give legal opinions Wikipedia contains content you may find objectionable Wikipedia contains spoilers Wikipedia articles may contain nonsense Wikipedia articles may be vandalized Many Wikipedia articles may not have a Neutral Point of View In trying to edit a Wikipedia article, you may encounter edit warriors The Wikipedia is a work in progress Wikipedia articles may have (numerous) spelling and grammar errors Wikipedia articles may have errors of fact and errors of omission The Wikipedia has a strong bias towards Western Culture The Wikipedia has a strong bias towards modern topics WIKIPEDIA IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA An encyclopedia is a written compendium aiming to convey information on all branches of knowledge. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DUMPING GROUND FOR RANDOM INFORMATION WIKIPEDIA IS NOT FOR UNCITABLE MATERIAL WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A BUREAUCRACY WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A BLOG SERVICE WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A MESSAGE BOARD WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FREE ADVERTISING SPACE WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE TO PUBLISH YOUR NEW IDEAS WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE TO PUBLISH YOUR POINT OF VIEW Wikipedia is not nearly this in-your-face most of the time
You may here

[edit] GangstaEB's RFA

Thanks for your oppose on my RFA. The final vote count was (0/10/0), so I am now an normal user. Feel free to let me know how I'm doing at any point in time or if you need anything. I can't give it though. Once again, thank you. GangstaEB help me improve! 23:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC) I did steal this off Wickethewok's RFA thank-you too.

---

Good night, sir. It was a pleasure chatting with you. I admire your work here. --Rednblu 07:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homogeneity (physics)

Hi David. A valid equation in physics must be homogeneous. Homogeneity is the the quality of having all properties independent of the position. Scientific method assumes that the world is homogeneous. There is no example I can give about it, its an axiom. Scientists, in order for their inductive and deductive reasoning to stand , they are bound to believe that the natural world is homogeneous. They cannot deal with the possibility that the laws of physics could be dependant of space-time position, because in that case their reasoning turns irrational. Faaaa 09:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments on Phaedriel's RfA talk

Hi David, I just wanted to drop you a line to say thank you for your most recent comments under the cheerleading section of Phaedriel's RfA talk. They meant something to me. I suppose I really wrote this to say that I saw your message, and that I thank you for your understanding. Yours, Thε Halo ^Θ 09:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Halo, I'm glad you saw that note and appreciated it. I really was not trying to single you out. I apologise for how it turned out. David D. (Talk) 03:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Johnson

The top is pretty good, so it seems you've done a good job with it. I don't have any sources with which to continue the review, so I don't know that I can help much. It's a sort of fascinating train wreck as it now stands.Uucp 18:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"fascinating train wreck" sums it up perfectly. i suspect there are sources out there for those claims but finding them might take time. Most of the problem is the style, as in completely unencyclopedic. I will probably keep chipping away at it over time. David D. (Talk) 19:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You are clearly correct in the examples you put on my discussion page; the relevant sections are copyright violations and need to be removed or completely rewritten. If you get any hassle excising them, I'll back you up. Uucp 20:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joke

That was meant to be a joke, not saracasm. The barnstar's right now thanks. Miller 22:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The real reason I wanted to be an administrator is because I’ve been having a lot of trouble with the user Laurence Boyce recently. I’ve reported this user to rhobite but he hasn’t responded yet. The problem I’m having is that he doesn’t like what I’m putting down in the article The Root of All Evil?. He is committing a minor but visible NPOV violation by selectively quoting Dawkins into making him look arrogant and ignoring the all important subject of evolution that is central to Dawkin’s works. If you look at Boyce’s user page it is clear that this is part of a vendetta against Dawkins which I would like to see stopped. Maybe you could help here?

I’m glad you said something nice about me on the page. The only reason I’m “obsessed” or whatever with featured articles and barnstars is that it lets me know my work, time and effort is recognised and appreciated. When I’m at home my dad praises me for pretty much every piece of work I do! (of course I don’t expect this though) One more thing: how did you know about my joke: deleted nonsense additions and my request to have my barnstar changed too? Miller 22:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no secret as to how I knew your inner thoughts. I used the User contributions option and noticed your most recent edits. This is how people can follow you around causing trouble (wikistalking), fortunately it has not happened to me. i'd say your dad is not preparing you well for univerrsity if he does that too much. Although everyone should be praised. i will say that considering you are not in university you are doing a great job on some very complex topics. Are you doing A-level biology, or is it just a hobby for you? Any way at university it will be harder to get praise and it is easy to feel anonymous in the large classes. Especially in such as large university as Edinburgh.

With regard to getting admin tools as a defense against a troublesome user, that is a bad idea. You are not supposed to use the tools against a user with whom you have a dispute. So actually adminship would be no help to you and may well get you into trouble. You did the right thing by talking to another admin, and that would be the same thing to do even if you were an admin. The fact you are not familiar with this also tells me you do need more time to familiarise yourself with the behind the scenes activity. This is mainly through experience, both time and edit count. However, if you restrict your activity to only a few pages you will not gain such experience. This is why one of your oppose votes suggested that an average of seven edits per page was too high. It suggests you have seen little of the encylopedia. Another editor mentioned that most of your WP edits were sandbox and like FA pages. The reason for this comment is that they want to see you participating in the behind scenes activity so they know you kjnow how and when to use the admin powers.

So what to do with a problem user? patience is the key. Discussion on the talk page and building consensus with other users. One lone editor cannot push POV against many editors. It is, however, frustrating when this happens. Just keep trying to keep the NPOV of the article by making good edits and try to avoid reverting more than once or twice at most. Reserve your third for blatant vandalism only. Also keep in mind that you may be able to soften the POV by suggesting compromise edits that include but rebut the POV that is being pushed.

At the end of the day i suggest you start trying to get some self confidence in your own work. i suspect you can tell if what you are doing is good or not. Hold yourself to high standards and learn to appreciate your own work. Many appreciate your edits silently. Another posability is to join some project where you can interact with other users with common goals. I hope some of this is useful for you. Feel free to ask more questions. David D. (Talk) 02:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I only have an AS-level in biology (a C, oh the shame!) but I do have an A in chemistry. This is my third year at Wakefield college (that I’ve just finished), I took the third year to get what I was hoping would be “Cambridge grades” in maths and physics, which were C and B respectively when I finished my A2-levels; A-level maths is much harder than Ian Hislop would have you believe! My new A2 level physics and maths scores have given me a bit more confidence than I had before. With my new found A in chemistry (something I didn’t have when I applied to university last year) Cambridge invited me down to take a “thinking skills assessment test” after I applied and to allow me to purchase a £4 sandwich!

I don’t know all that much about biology itself, but ever since I found out the structure and functioning of ATP synthase I’ve been hooked on biochemistry. I found this out on a Nobel Prize poster in the chemistry lab believe it or not.

You may also notice that I’ve deleted the “redneck” comment on my userpage that may be offensive to some users; about 10,000,000 perhaps! When you say “This is how people can follow you around causing trouble” did you mean me when you said “you”? Surely I’m not a trouble causer am I? As for the Root of All Evil? Article I’ll just give that up as a bad job! Miller 10:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the ATP synthase enzyme is very cool as is the chemiosmotic hypothesis. Have you seen the gifs that use fluorescent actin molecules to show the head turning during the enzyme activity. It's amazing to think that this nano motor can be visualised as it turns. With respect to following around, no i was not referring to you. Athlough i did notice you baiting that guy with a anti Christian user box. Probably not a smart move as he may well end up following you around being disruptive and hypercritical. That would get old very quickly and ruin your fun here. David D. (Talk) 15:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn’t “baiting” him with an anti religion userbox, I just thought he’d think it was funny (I assumed he shared my views). I now realize this is probably not sensible and I’ve removed the box from my page. When you talk about the 3 reversion vandalism I actually reported him for doing this, four times! The admin looking over it didn’t think he’d done anything wrong. See, the problem here is that every time I change the Colorado Springs section by adding quotes that bring Haggard’s knowledge of science into the equation Laurence instantly reverts it. Like I said this has been done four times now. I can’t say for sure but looking at his contributions and the complaints on his user page he has some kind of agenda relating to religion and Dawkins in mind, but I can’t figure out what it is. He also called my work “rubbish”. This was his excuse for reverting the edit. Extremely discourteous and inappropriate I’m sure you’ll agree. Here’s exactly what he said:

George, I've reverted your latest bunch of edits plus an anon edit because they're rubbish!

I think (though I wouldn’t swear) this was the second time. Is there anyway you can help me? Thanks to you showing the user contributions section I’ve discovered that Rhobite hasn’t been on Wikipedia since I asked for help so maybe you could help me here please? I honestly have a good mind to give the whole root of evil thing up as a bad job though.

Is biochemistry just a hobby to you or is it something to do with your course, courier or research?Miller 17:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I teach and do research, although I'd consider myself more e geneticist/developmental biologist now. I actually graduate from Edinburgh so i have a soft spot for that University. It has a lot of tradition and is a great town to live in. You will enjoy it a lot more than Cambridge. But remember all Scots hate the English....well, not really, but they always say they do. Just ignore them when they go down that route.

You need to be careful with humour here on wikipedia. Sometimes it can back fire, especially if you don't know the user that well, or you have an ongoing edit war. The fact he replies in such an antagonistic way suggests he is trying to get you mad. POV pushing trolls do that all the time.

I was looking a the talk page of your problem user and i'd say he will be banned before long. He seems to be pissing off quite a few people. You may want to take a break from that page if it is annoying you. Editing here really should be a fun experience and if a page or user gets you frustrated just find something that is good. POV warriors are a pain in the butt. Best way to beat them is to outlast them. You can go back and edit the article in a week or so once things have settled down. David D. (Talk) 18:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

So you think he’s the bad guy here? That’s a relief. I’m sure I wasn’t doing anything wrong and I’m sure you’ll agree that my contributions to main articles aren’t rubbish. Thanks for that then. Miller 18:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not looked at your specific interaction with him but there seem to be many people who as pissed off with his editing. Bad is a loaded term, but certainly difficult. David D. (Talk) 18:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dave. I’m sure you’re sick to the back teeth of hearing this now but please have a talk with Laurence. He’s just put on the root of all evil? talk page falsifiable information about scientific facts and the things said in the episode. If you can’t do anything can you recommend an admin for me to talk to? This guy just can’t be reconciled with and I’m sure he’s outside of Wikipedia practices now. Miller 23:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I'll be out of town this week so i wil be next to useless. Possiby Duncharris (talk • contribs) could help you out. He is very good with this type of POV stuff. And very knowledgable in this area. David D. (Talk) 23:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I’ve told that the user the entire story now. Miller 00:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: kinds

"I hear with regard to undue weight. On the other hand it is in the misconceptions section. Nevertheless, i can go either way. What is the deal with Aidan, is worth responding too? I am trying to get him to make specific recommendations but he seem to prefer rambling. Any suggestions, like just ignore him? David D. (Talk) 19:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)"

So far I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. He did raise some good points (having a link for the kinds idea) but he seems to be of the opinion that every sentance should be cited. So far I think he should not be ignored as he has actually helped improve this article.--Roland Deschain 19:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rosalind Franklin

Hi David D, I really don't know if I am somehow being unreasonable on the RF talk page. Obviously I don't think I am, and I make no bones about the fact that I have an antagonistic attitude to Martin. I'd like to get your opinion about my edits/posts, should I try to be more tolerant? I certainly don't want to come accross as authoritarian or bullying, but I often feel that I am being attacked and feel the need to defend myself. I'm struggling to know how to respond in this situation. Alun 11:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NO RFA? DON'T YOU GET IT?

I AM NOT RUNNING AGAIN! I AM LEAVING! DUH! PUT 2 AND 2 TOGETHER! Stupid 23:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Be the drama queen then, your choice. David D. (Talk) 15:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aldershot

Hi - doing some detective work relating to someone who was obsessed with adding a link to (what turned out to be) their own personal website on the Brighton page, I came across the issues with Aldershot that you were dealing with. Looks like it's the same individual at play. See this page: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/08/346947.html and search for the paragraph beginning "Similar problems have arisen on a page on Aldershot". Also see the discussion on the Brighton talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brighton#External_link_to_.22www.heureka.clara.net.2Fsussex.2Fbrighton.htm.22 Gsd2000 16:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RECALL

Hi, I think you might find this policy proposal at WP:RECALL relevant, and I would be curious of your comments there and on the talk page. Thanks! rootology (T) 17:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: CfD

Hi there! It's no big deal. It is just a category, albeit not appropriate for Wikipedia. I feel that precedent has been set to delete these categories, but if the community feels otherwise I'll be fine with it. The community (almost) always does the right thing, so if the category is kept, I'll believe it was the right thing to do. I'd like to see some of Lar's explanations of the category become more visible on the page itself, but other than that, it's just a bit of silliness and nothing to get worked up over. Having said that, I do feel that respect and decorum is necessary if one decides to volunteer to weigh in on an XfD and some of the comments have been inappropriate (but again, nothing to get too worked up over). Cheers! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 23:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Cydebot

Hi. I happened to stumble across your request on Cyde's talk page about changing the MedalSport tags. I've modified the request a bit, and just wanted to let you know. If you have any questions about my modification, please let me know. Thanks! --Sue Anne 21:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that modification, although i think Cyde makes a good point. Are these headers specific for the Olympic games? If so i would say go ahead pipelink to that page. David D. (Talk) 21:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

While you are here Sue. I noticed on the Athletics_at_the_Summer_Olympics page that many of the links for specific events are red despite the fact there is a page for them. This is, in part, due to the inconsistent page names in use between Athletics_at_the_2004_Summer_Olympics and Athletics_at_the_Summer_Olympics. For example, the 10000 m instead of 10,000 m. David D. (Talk) 22:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I need a clarification on the medal template thing. Please respond on my talk page. Thanks. See also Cydebot's recent contributions. --Cyde Weys 00:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well? --Cyde Weys 15:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean have i found place where the event header is used in a non olympic setting? I replied on your talk page, you may have missed it since it was a bit busy yeasterday, but in short the answer is no. Why don't we keep the conversation going here since it is a little less busy. David D. (Talk) 15:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: This is a good example of the event header being used in conjuction with other major athletics championships: Irina_Privalova. In this context it is used specifically for the olympic event. I'm currently looking to see if the commonweatlth games uses this event header or whether they have their own. David D. (Talk) 17:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Bingo: the medal sport header is used for non Olympic events. in the Sally Gunnell page it is used for the Goodwill Games as well as the Commonwealth games. David D. (Talk) 17:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Athletics disambiguation

Thanks. I figured since I proposed and voted for the new page name, I should do at least some of the work! --Usgnus 19:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of reaffirming to see how many pages aren't referring to Athletics (track and field). --Usgnus 19:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathy

Could you please give to user Homy the advice you once gave me about making his red letters turn blue! if you follow my drift? he is a newbie on the homeopathy page and has made some useful additions please check it out and send him a msg like you did to me on how to "go blue!" cheers Peter morrell 20:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, i'll do that. David D. (Talk) 20:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks a bunch, David, for that! cheers Peter morrell 21:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. David I see there is written on your talk:

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE TO PUBLISH YOUR NEW IDEAS

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE TO PUBLISH YOUR POINT OF VIEW

and:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:Neutral Point of View (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, that is, they must represent views fairly and without bias and Wikipedia:Five pillars:Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view;...

I am a little confused here, could you give your 'point of view', especially on how to implement this in homeopathy ? Thanks.--Homy 10:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice again on user talk:homy/homeopathy. I reacted on your suggestions --Homy 00:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi David. See you're back. Would you care to react on homeopathy history (homy, you're the only one who claims this article needs a 'major' rework) from User talk:T.J.C. P.s. I made some progress with relativity User:Homy/homeopathy#Relativity and potentation Thanks, --Homy 09:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi David, you did not react on my message last time, therefore I wanted to awake the subconscious and I succeeded yesterday. I consider other types of homeopathy as very relevant to the topic, I placed the tag on top because it might take away confusion for the reader to distinguish. Do you have a better alternative?

I realize now the version about relativity was actually a physics philosophy. But I remain by the topic and made an easier version at User:Homy/homeopathy#General relativity and potentation. If you don't react I will place it in a couple of days, because I know my POV is a strong POV and shared with those who understand the essence of homeopathy. --Homy 09:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photosynthesis

I can’t seem to find your contribution page so I don’t know if you’re still working on Wikipedia (you said you leaving for a week or so a while back), but I’ll post this message anyhow. I wondered if you want to help “Cleaning up” the photosynthesis article. I’m sure you’ll agree it’s an awful mess right now. It’ll take a lot of hard work, but I’ve been bored stiff during the holidays and I’d love to help clean it up, or at least clean up the Biochemistry bit. Split it into the light and dark reactions with subheadings beneath them perhaps? Maybe this might be a more appropriate layout:

• The biochemistry of photosynthesis

• The light reactions

• Overview of the light reactions
• Plant reaction centres
• Bacterial reaction centres
• Light harvesting complexes

• The dark reactions

• Overview of the dark reactions
• The calvin cycle
• The pentose phosphate pathway

Perhaps remove the “molecular production” section too? Anyway, just a thought. Miller 15:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Don’t you think the Biochemistry/molecular production layout is confusing and poorly laid out? Shouldn’t carbon fixation simply be included in the Calvin cycle? We don’t have to include all the chemical reactions of the Calvin cycle! Maybe the structure and functioning of the individual reaction centres in detail might be inappropriate for this page I don’t think things like the Z-scheme and the path of the electrons is. Anyway, it’s just a thought. I will say it again though: my main concern is the biochemistry/molecular production layout. I think these should be combined into one somehow don’t you?

Also can you please give me a link to your contributions page; I can’t seem to find it myself. Thanks. Miller 23:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You should be able to see it on the left of your browser when you are on my talk page. for you convenience it is this link.

With regard to your specific points above:

"Shouldn’t carbon fixation simply be included in the Calvin cycle? We don’t have to include all the chemical reactions of the Calvin cycle!"

I would suggest that Calvin cycle is a subset of carbon fixation since CAM and C4 photosynthesis have alternative forms of carbon fixation too.

"Maybe the structure and functioning of the individual reaction centres in detail might be inappropriate for this page"

I agree this is too detailed for this page.

"I don’t think things like the Z-scheme and the path of the electrons is. "

i think a basic Z scheme is appropriate although the specific components of the scheme should be in a more specific sub page. i think the current diagram of the Z scheme is awful.

"my main concern is the biochemistry/molecular production layout. I think these should be combined into one somehow don’t you"

Possibly. I have not given it too much thought. To date my contributions to this page have been to copy edit, streamline and correct factual inaccuracies. There is no doubt there is a lot to do and this is one reason i have not started with a complete rewrite. I'll get back to you when i have given this more thought. David D. (Talk) 00:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I’ve been granted permission to use the image [1] on Wikipedia by the copyright holder (via an e-mail), but when I use this particular type of license (granted permission to use it on Wikipedia) it tells me it is to be deleted! Do you believe this qualifies as fair use? If not, what should I do?

We need to make our own version and we need to get the redox levels correct. Looking at the one you have uploaded I'm not sure that is true. David D. (Talk) 20:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That what isn't true? The redox levels are incorrect? Miller 21:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The redox differences down the ETC seem too evenly spaced to be true. I might be wrong but my gut feeling is that the cartoon is an approximation at best. David D. (Talk) 21:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a start to the new biochemistry section [2]. I’ve borrowed some parts of the old article to help fill some space. Feel free to add to or change it if you wish. Miller 23:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter mitchell

For your reference I ran into Btarski on the ETC pages. He immediately called in the mediators without entering into a dialog. He then proceeded to do nothing on the article. I get the feeling that this might be occurring here too.

I think you may have cleared up his major gribes. I think he made several good points but to write the article to the quality he is hoping for is quite a large task and one i suspect he is not willing to invest time in himself. Certainly it could be a very interesting article. i like your point about the fact that Mitchell's hypothesis was initially not understood and possibly rejected. From my dusty memory of biochem lectures his first support came as a result of a chat on a train (might be an urban legend). This person (don't remember who) then helped write a review to explain his ideas in plain english. I guess Mitchell's written skills were not that great, or he described everything from a thermodynamic perspective. Understandable given that ATP synthase and such were on the horizon so it was not possible to describe specific mechanisms. David D. (Talk) 22:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why it took over a decade before Mitchell's hypothesis was accepted. As said, his major opponents were Britton Chance and Paul Boyer.
I know Britton Chance from conferences; actually I attended a plenary lecture by him just one year ago, in which he reviewed 70(!!!) years of scientific career. At 93 he is still an active scientist. Britton Chance is someone who loves controversy, loves debate, so what I think was behind his opposition was his sense that there was a lack of clarity. At the time there simply was no know mechanism by which translocation of a proton could influence an enzymatic reaction. If I am not mistaken (I would have to check into that) Mitchell did eventually come up with cartoons showing a possible enzyme mechanism, so that may have an important factor of the ultimate acceptance of his hypothesis. Boyer insisted on conformational changes as a possible mechanism of ATP synthesis, and eventually that earned him a Nobel prize as well.
So part of the reason that it took so long for Mitchell's hypothesis to be accepted may have been that he dodged debate and confrontation: A cultural difference between American and European science so to speak. The fact that he liked to publish his hypothesis in booklets rather than peer-reviewed journals may not have helped. JdH 14:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University

You’ve talked about my place at Edinburgh University a few times, so I just thought I’d tell you... I didn’t get a place there. I’m going to Coventry University instead (my second choice). My place there is confirmed and I’ve sorted out my accommodation. I’ll be starting on the 23 September (I think). Miller 15:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a shame i have a soft spot for Edinburgh (biased of course). Coventry is great too. A lot of my family are from that area. Despite being bombed to oblivion the city and area has a lot going for it. Birmingham, too, has really got its act together, so i think you'll have a fun time there. Good luck with your studies. Are you still going the computer science route? David D. (Talk) 15:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The title of the course at Coventry is BSc Network Computing. I saw a bit of Birmingham (including having a Whopper at New Street station!) since the railway line between Birmingham and Coventry is out of service for some reason; so I had to take a bus between Birmingham and Coventry. This was a rail replacement bus so there was no fare; they didn't even check if I had a ticket when I got on it! Miller 16:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Role of Enzymes

I see your point David and I have noticed that the material above the “contents” is indeed like an abstract. My first edit attempt was way too long for the introductory material. But I think that a short paragraph which includes the idea that enzymes selectively or specifically accelerate only certain reactions should go there if it is short enough. I think it makes later ideas more easily understood. For example at the end of the paragraph that follows this one in the article, there is: “. . . enzymes do differ from most other catalysts in showing much higher levels of specificity.” This specificity now makes sense in the light of the previously mentioned specific action required on the part of enzymes. I really would like to avoid the assertion that enzymes are necessary in order that reactions can go fast. Or fast enough to support life. I just think that the statement is not helpful and I have always fought against it. What would you think of the following, coming right after the statement that enzymes speed up reactions: By selectively acting only on certain reactions among the many energetically favorable reactions of the cell, the enzymes direct the metabolism of the cell.That’s it. Nothing more. Don’t you think that this is ok for the introductory part of the article? Because the idea is an important one, I might try to expand it some in the section on function further down in the article and see how that flies.-Emhale 17:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be better to expand the article before changing the introduction. As far as i can tell everyone agrees with your input. Welcome aboard and note this forum can be a little frustrating to work with, so many people, in so many time zones, with so many other things to do. This is the bane of a wikipedia written by volunteers. Be patient and the article will blossom. David D. (Talk) 17:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear age

Yeah, I meant "a major factor" (forgive me, I've been running on 4-5 hour sleep periods the last few days because of work ^_^). The logic was that the Japanese could have caused the invasion greater headaches with a 100 percent defense rather than just the token military force (forcing Truman to drop the bomb). I agree that users need common sense, but if a user meets these basic requirements, why deny them the tools because they don't already spend a lot of time pretending to be admins? More trustworthy and decent users with admin tools means a greater vandalism/backlog defense, even if they only contribute a bit to the sysop force. By the way, my comment was in no way a response to your voting (which I agree with; Siva was an exception, whcih is why I was really grateful for the clarification on that RfA). By the way, do you have AIM/AOL? — Deckiller 04:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In terms of friendly fire, I do agree that a basic understanding is needed to reduce such incidents; however, we have to make sure it is nothing farfetched or ridiculously high that would force people to tailor their accounts for months out of fear that they would be opposed based on an image slipup five months prior. — Deckiller 04:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't use AIM and I did not take you comments as personal. I might add i thought our interactions on the Siva's RfA were very enlightening. Clearly we do have differences but also some common ground. The world would be a boring place if we were all in lock step on these types of decisions.

With regard to people tailoring their accounts, this is defintiely not the way to go. In fact, i just opposed an RfA based primarily on the fact that many of the articles mentioned in question two had been freshly created. I know such observations boarder on failing AGF, but when looking at the big picture of someones contributions such tailoring is hard to ignore. And it is usually pretty obvioous. People that want to be admins should just get involved in discussion and do quality edits. The rest will come easily. In short, they should edit what they know, speak their mind and be themselves. I respect that much more than seeing the 'perfect' candidate. Another really important factor for me is patience. In Siva's case i really think it was unwise to have an RfA less than three months after the second one. Being too keen for adminship can send the wrong message.

I can assure you that I do NOT take time to search out the bad in a candidate, but somethimes there are editing patterns that are too obvious to ignore. If it is any comfort to you I do take into account comments throughout the RfA's and have changed my votes based on arguments or new diff's. David D. (Talk) 21:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Your RfA

Thank you for your encouraging comments, David. Your vote is much appreciated. I would agree with you that an RfA process can be very stressful and demoralizing situation for some users. In some cases, users have left this project completely because of this. But this is NOT my intention. I intend to improve the quality of my edits and be a better editor on Wikipedia. However, allow me to point out to you that most RfA candidates are not perfect editors. They are bound to make mistakes. You must also consider the mitigating factors of each RfA candidates. Anyway, I would like to know whether you are an admin and if not would you like me to nominate you? I think you would be a great admin and the added responsibilities given to you would benefit this project immensely. Best of luck! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Siva, see my reply above to Deckiller, i have outlined some of my thoughts with regard to your RfA as well as other general thoughts that might help you in the future. I am really impressed with how you handled this RfA, i find it tiring to watch editors threaten to leave after such an experience. You have demonstrated your maturity by taking it in your stride, well done. I seriously recommend that you refuse any nomination for the next three months. Patience is important to many people, use it to your advantage. It might seem like a long time now but it will pass by fast. Your goal now should be to be yourself, edit topicvs that you find interesting. Most important, get involved in discussions. But don't hunt down the discussions for resume building. Once you start editing articles the discussion will come to you.

Thanks for the nomination offer, but I am happy with my current role in wikipedia. I will comment when i think it is neccesary and edit articles on my watchlist. I have never felt handicapped without the admin tools. Who knows I might need them in the future, but I am fine right now. Good luck with your next three months and I'll be happy to offer advice as needed. David D. (Talk) 21:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your kind and encouraging words, my friend. I will take your advise seriously. In fact, in about two months time, I am planning to bring up my contributions to Editor review and would really like to have your analysis of my contributions then, about one or one and a half months before my next RfA. Till then, I aim to improve the quality of my edits and NOT the quantity of them! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DNA structure picture

I think you're right to change it to black on white... I can try to make a version like that from the original ChemTool document tonight if you think that's useful, it'd be a better quality image. The only information lost is the color labeling of "phosphate" and "deoxyribose" in the backbone; do you think this matters? -Madeleine 00:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Try it. i can always modify it a bit in photoshop if it is not exactly what you want. by the way well spotted fixing that error . David D. (Talk) 01:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] problem web site

Would it work just to add it to the m:spam blacklist - that's likely the easiest way to stop stuff from appearing -- Tawker 05:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That could help. What is the result of being on the black list? David D. (Talk) 05:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice. I too would be very interested to know what the result of being on this blacklist is. Gsd2000 22:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Try and add the web site to a page and you'll find out. David D. (Talk) 22:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

HOORAH!!! This has totally made my day! Gsd2000 22:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought so :) David D. (Talk) 22:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brighton article

Hi there - i addeed a ^{[citation needed]} to a claim on the artcile regarding immigration, and see it has been removed with a comment "v talk page stuff and stop adding the spam. the consensus is that this link does not meet the criteria laid out in WP:RS)"

I think you have got something mixed up maybe. I put the ^{[citation needed]} there so somebody could perhaps provide a citation. Hope this clears this up.Thanks.Ukbn2 10:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes this clears it up fine. I was a bit hasty there. David D. (Talk) 16:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

Thank you for voting on my RFA, which closed successfully this morning with a result of (64/3/3). I will take to heart your comments and try and work more on collaborating with other editors. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. NawlinWiki 12:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC) talk contribs

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Athletics at the 1992 Summer Olympics results

Hello. David what i can do to not violating the rules of the pages. I'm intrested in sports i am very sorry that i have done this. I will try to be constructive with my edits. SndrAndrss August 26, 2006 21:07 (UTC)

Hi Sondre, i'm glad you are starting to communicate. The main problem i have is that you seem to prefer a format that does not include the results. This seems counter intuitive and a format more similar to the European and World championships would seem to make more sense. With regard to constructive edits I think our goals should be to fill in the missing results as well as use the consensus flag format as currently used in the World championship pages. If you really think that the Olympic pages are better without the results i am willing to listen to your argument. David D. (Talk) 04:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MCB Newsletter - help?

If you get a chance, would you mind taking a look at what I have for the MCB newsletter so far? It has links to everything else I'm working on creating as well. I know the colors are pretty bad, but they're in a state of flux. – ClockworkSoul 05:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA message

		My RfA video message
		Image:RfA message.ogg Stephen B Streater 08:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guinnog's RfA

Hi David. Thanks for your kind comments and support of Guinnog's RfA. I must admit that I stole the nomination format from my own RfA and must give credit for it to User:Petros471 who nominated me. All the best, Gwernol 18:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] Gene Naming Convention Table

Are you still working on that table for gene naming conventions? --Username132 (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I just saw you note on the project talk page and agree that it would be better the other way. My original aim was to point out that there is no universal standard for naming conventions (unfortunately). I thought it would be a good reference tool but did not get around to completing the table. Although i did find the source material for the different model systems. If you want to mess around with it that is fine with me. David D. (Talk) 19:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

For Drosophila,

Case of initial letter. The name begins with a lowercase letter when the gene is named for a mutant phenotype recessive to the wild-type in a normal diploid.

The name begins with an uppercase letter when the gene is named for a mutant phenotype that is dominant to the wild-type in a normal diploid.

Genes named after a protein product or other molecular feature begin with an uppercase letter.

Am I right in thinking that due to the thing about protein product/molecular features, this wont actually go into the table? --Username132 (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Love the KGVF work

If you are content to join in with adding the fields, too, I'd love a fellow editor to play. I've replied to your detailed msg on my own talk page Fiddle Faddle 11:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OR

Definition: Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

The ABMS data in the article is

1- is taken from a reliable source 2- has been previously published

So does not fit the definition of OR as per Wikipedia.

It is also highly relevant to the topic at hand. NATTO 05:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't think you are editorialising? Even if information is relevant, collating the information and presenting the story is not the job for wikipedians. You have to report what is out there. Find a reliable source that you can quote to make the point and it belongs. Editorialising, however, does not belong. David D. (Talk) 07:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• No it is not editorialising David. It is factual and neutral information directly related to the item at hand. It is not saying for example that it is bad that Barrett is not amongst the 81% of Board certified physicians , which would be POV. The reader can draw their own conclusions once they are provided with correct, verifiable, relevant information. That is what an encyclopedia does. This has been discussed by various editors on the talk page a while ago. The data from ABMS is very reliable and purely independant. NATTO 08:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The data might be factual and independant but a conjugation of the two bits of information is clearly POV and OR. You are painting a POV picture even if you are not directly making a POV comment. i don't understand why you can't see this. As far as I can tell the only editors that agree with your opinion are editors that ONLY edit pages related to Barratt. That says something about your objectivity right there. Clearly this needs a second opinion from people not involved on this page. David D. (Talk) 14:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• David you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I can see from your comments that I have to see things through your own prism otherwise it is wrong, in your POV.... Please note that there is more to Wikipedia than simply quoting what others have said. An encyclopedia can be defined as a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject. In this instance the issue of medical Board certification is relevant and Dr. Barrett himself has confirmed that he was never Board certified because he failed part of the Board exam. He also never attempted to retake the exam. Concurrently the published data shows that since then a growing number of his peers have become Board certified. All that is relevant, fully verifiable and NPOV as there is no personal comment on it. The critics that are quoted in the article are the one making a POV that is why it is in the accusation and bias section. In the same way that Dr. Barrett has his POV that he regularly and extensively post on his numerous web sites which are also prominently placed in this article, by the way. NATTO 22:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Then it should be easy to get a quote from a critic citing who is citing this 81%. I will not argue more since I think we may have reached our stalemate. I think neither of us wish this to be drawn out for too long. Nevertheless, I will seek a second opinion. I feel I am more objective on this subject than yourself given your editing patterns. However, if others not involved in the page agree with your observations I will be happy to back down on this. David D. (Talk) 22:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• You are a good policeman David. NATTO 23:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I am trying to be contructive. It may not come across that way from your perspective. David D. (Talk) 23:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Natto, while you are here, and we're talking about wikipedia policies, i assume you realise that this is plagarism? David D. (Talk) 22:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• David. Thanks for pointing this out. I did make some changes to the text, not the direct quote from the scientists of course, but should have taken the time to re-write it entirely. Of course a positive contribution would have been even better than a simple police action... I have now re-written the post and referenced it back to the original article. If you have any additional suggestions, be my guest. NATTO 23:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • My police action was just to point out the flaw. I was actually working on getting the references in a good format. I see your latest version is much better. I will add the the sources with in line references. David D. (Talk) 23:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maintenance template on Enzyme

Hi David. I thought a Help box might be useful on the Enzyme page. I used the Template:Maintained to create this. Do you want to be added to this list? TimVickers 00:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if it helps spread the load. David D. (Talk) 01:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your vote on the RfD on O'reilly's controversies

Thanks. Your comments were nicely presented. --Blue Tie 22:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This month's WP:MCB Article Improvement Drive article

Cell nucleus

This month's MCB Collaboration of the Month article is cell nucleus. Please help to improve this article to featured article status.

– ClockworkSoul 22:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confirmation Bias

• David, Good job on improving the section on the study of confirmation bias. NATTO 07:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Glad you like it. It's good you found the study, it is a fascinating piece of work. David D. (Talk) 14:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed and it is something that is constantly a problem. Denial is another significant issue. NATTO 21:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] arabidopsis

hey Dave, thanks for the info on arabidopsis, you convinced me, I'm a convert. I always considered that mouse eared cress would be the common name for Arabidopsis thaliana and that the use of "arabidopsis" was just a slang term of comfort between researchers. I was just considering other plants, like the ones that you message mentioned, like iris, petunia, and aloe don't have other common names so we use their only well known name we know. I was just thinking that if I ever called brocolli, "brassica", I would capitalize it even though brassica is used nearly as often in the lab. I just wanted an encyclopedia to stick to the most official nomenclature. But, from now on I'm typing arabidopsis. Adenosine | Talk 06:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well i think the jury is still out with respect to Arabdisopsis thaliana. I checked the plant journals and you are correct that it is quite common to see Arabidopsis as opposed to arabidopsis. i posted the question to an arabidopsis newsgroup to see if there is a definitive answer. But from the references i read examples such as petunia and iris are clearly lower case. It just goes to show it is almost impossible to generalise with respect to nomenclature in science. David D. (Talk) 06:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Organization

To respond to your edit comment, there's no need to change the statuses in the MCB organization page... those are updated semi-automatically according to the contents of the MCB template in the article talk pages. Only the category of each article on the organization page needs to be manually defined, and all you need to do there is to move the article listing into the appropriate table. Let me know if I don't make any sense. It's 3:30 am, and I can't tell anymore... Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 07:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This makes perfect sense. Thanks David D. (Talk) 14:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. Hut 8.5 17:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ivona onatop

David D., I've reported this user to the admins. He/she should be blocked soon, so I think we can leave the talk page of doom alone for now. --King Bee 17:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I guess they decided to take a different course of action. --King Bee 17:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty normal for a newbie. But that users actions will decide whether it escalates. I suppose this user is a sockpuppet since he knows his way around. But no harm in assuming they just do not understand the type or quality of sources required for material not to be deleted. David D. (Talk) 17:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Level 12 football

Well, I wish to thank you for your kind advise here. It is no secrect that one of the main reasons why I joined this project in the first place was to contribute on non-league English football club related articles. My initial intention was to have articles for ALL the football clubs within the English football league system. This was what motivated me to create huge amounts of articles relating to this genre. However, recent events have been very discouraging (at least personally) and most of these articles were deleted. I have realized that Wikipedians were not ready yet to have articles for these clubs. Anyway, one must remember that notablility issues are actually not official policies, but other editors have still used this argument to delete these articles. I have now decided to focus on other areas of this project and hopefully, my dream would be realized in the future. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sondre

I too have had a lot of problems with User:SndrAndrss. He rarely communicates. See two recent problems. [3] [4] many of his edits are good but all too often there are really bad edits. This means ALL his edits have to be checked. I can give you mnore info if needed. Something should be done since he is such a prolific editor and despite the good he does he sucks a lot of time from other editors. David D. (Talk) 15:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have warned him; I nearly messaged you yesterday as I saw you had too. Let me know if he strays again. It's difficult because as you say he is not a clearcut vandal and does do many good edits. We need to balance WP:AGF with protecting the content. --Guinnog 15:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Check out [5]. He has only ever made 1 user talk page edit. A remarkable record! --Guinnog 01:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It does not surprise me one bit. I believe that in the whole time I have interacted with him (about a year now) I have had only two messages from him on my talk page. The one you mention and another from an IP. It's actually much worse than you can imagine since most of Sondre's edits are from anon IP's (all IP's of the format 85.165.xxx.xx seem to be Sondre). For some historical context see the begining of the following page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports_Results/Archive1. His earlier IP's include 85.165.200.37 (talk • contribs), 85.165.198.135 (talk • contribs) and 85.165.225.156 (talk • contribs), 85.165.217.156 (talk • contribs), 85.165.229.54 (talk • contribs), and 85.165.212.241 (talk • contribs). More recent IP editing from the following: 85.165.196.126 (talk • contribs), 85.165.236.80 (talk • contribs), 85.166.215.101 (talk • contribs), 85.165.220.176 (talk • contribs), 85.165.233.118 (talk • contribs), 85.165.247.215 (talk • contribs), 85.165.239.7 (talk • contribs), 85.165.214.203 (talk • contribs), 85.165.221.207 (talk • contribs), 85.165.213.22 (talk • contribs), 85.165.245.7 (talk • contribs), 85.165.231.126 (talk • contribs), 85.165.239.127 (talk • contribs), 85.165.220.143 (talk • contribs), 85.165.194.23 (talk • contribs), 85.165.204.199 (talk • contribs), 85.165.205.144 (talk • contribs) and unfortunately this is not an exhautive list. David D. (Talk) 04:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I see we each met an unusual user today

I must admit even I can get tired of being relentlessly polite to people in the end :). Is there anyone who can assist our halloween friend with gaining a perspective on what is and what is not WP:BALLS, do you think? Fiddle Faddle 18:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say AfD one of his article so he can get some feed back from the community. Who knows, they may even find his stuff notable? David D. (Talk) 18:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You know that makes a lot of sense. The challenege is it just delays their going, probably. I'm tempted to do a bulk AfD on the whole shebang, but he has not removed the PROD. I've already CfD'd his categories. Well, maybe after supper :) Fiddle Faddle 18:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd assume good faith and not do a bulk AfD. I'd also give him a week to get them in better shape. Then if they are still a mess, send one to AfD to set the precendent. If successful I'd then go for the bulk AfD. The time frame should be to get them into encyclopedic shape, or deleted, before October 1st. At about that time people will be looking for Halloween links. I think we could do without wikipedia looking like a laugh stock and I do still wonder if they will be used as a marketing tool for someones web site. Links from those pages could generate a lot of traffic as well as get a site a higher google ranking. As yet this has not materialised, but it could. For example, what if this user controls the sites he is linking to? He could easily put up a web store to sell stuff. David D. (Talk) 18:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I fear your message was too late, and the bulk AfD is made. But no matter. I always assume good faith. I am hoping that the outcome is win/win, in that the creator of the articles wins and wikipedia wins, one by learning how to create excellent articles and the other by being enhanced with excellence. I view AfD as a Mind Concentrator. It often works miracles. I will withdraw any nomination that I beleive comes up to standard. Fiddle Faddle 18:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, let's see how the process goes. As you say, there is still a week since the AfD should run its course. It will also bring these articles to the attention of other users who may be interested on bringing them up to standard. Often one line school stubs get transformed into very useful articles during the AfD process. On the other hand, there is a well organised school lobby that coordinates those article improvement drives. Soon we will see how much interest there is in these articles. David D. (Talk) 19:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There remains one page that I have not nominated. Halloween traditions. I have left a comment instead on its talk page. It looks like a couple of decent paragraphs and then listcruft, but I coudl also be wrong. Perhaps you might run an eye over it and make some suggestions on the talk page? Fiddle Faddle 19:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That has more potential. It could serve as a merge target for these article in AfD. David D. (Talk) 19:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked hard at that page. As it stands I think it is at risk, so I have proposed that it be split, such that the verbiage migrates to Halloween and the list element is retitled in such a manner that the majority of the content is acceptable. Currently the page title impies to me that (eg) bats are "only a Halloween tradition". I've dropped anote onto both major contributors' talk pages drawing their attention to the proposals. Fiddle Faddle 08:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Clearly that page needs a lot of work. David D. (Talk) 08:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In case you are not familiar with this user's background, please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-16 the remarks of Fnarf999. and User talk:Akidd dublin . He does not take criticism very well. BigE1977 19:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, i was unaware. At first glance, his English has improved. And so far he has been cordial considering we are criticiing his work. I would hope he takes it constructively. David D. (Talk) 20:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

User David D wrote: I'd assume good faith and not do a bulk AfD. I'd also give him a week to get them in better shape. Then if they are still a mess, send one to AfD to set the precendent
This is my idea too. I have changed the cyberhaunt link. It is not advert spamming.
I am not user Akidd_dublin. This user account has become inactive. User:Yy-bo 12:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I recognize nominating the weakest article (little content) for a group afd. The argumentation OR (original research) does not apply for halloween yard, animated coffin. An animated coffin is an animated property, and can be linked to from Animated property. The link to cyberhaunt is no adver spam. It is a high-quality flash movie. I consider it noteable. I refer to Demented_Cartoon_Movie VS. Cyberhaunt.com in terms of notability. I do not really want to create an article about cyberhaunt.com. However, the demented movie has a low quality level, and is accepted on wikipedia. Cyberhaunt is not good enough? If DEMENTED stays, why my articles must go. I will argue in further discussions by this comparison. User:Yy-bo 13:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

David, I have tried, at User_talk:Yy-bo#Halloween_Articles_-_summary really hard to convince our mutual friend to create valid articles. I think I have exhausted all avenues. It may interest you (or not) to take a look. Fiddle Faddle

[edit] Second opinion

Hi NATTO, I have invited TimVickers and Peter_morrell to give their opinion on the Barrett page. FYI, I feel that they represent both sides of the spectrum with respect to alternative medicine. David D. (Talk) 17:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NATTO"

• Hi David. To make sure I understand: You have invited two editors, one at each end of the spectrum for a second opinion, I assume on the ABMS data. So now we have Fyslee, yourself and one of the two invited editors, an myself.... NATTO 22:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I am staying out for a while since I have said my piece but I am interested to hear their opinions. Tim and Peter are both working on the homeopathy article. Peter is trained in homeopathy, Tim is a scientist. They have both worked together to make the article as NPOV as possible. I thought it would be more productive to ask people who are familiar with the alternative medicine field. David D. (Talk) 22:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• David. Fair enough. Tim is already at work, we will say what Peter has to say. NATTO 23:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, David I do not know very much about this individual, have no interest in such persons and do not intend to become familiar with their backgrounds, views or ideas which are of no interest to me whatsoever; sorry if that disappoints you.Peter morrell 06:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• David. There you go. Tim had a look at the page and make some positive edits and kept the ABMS data and expended positively on it. Peter is not interested and I can understand why. So far all the anti-quackery editors have had a say. Since I am not an anti-quackery advocate like Fyslee and JoKestress, I am simply trying to have both sides of the issue presented. I have also added more info on the medical training of Barrett including his own statement that his medical training is the reason why he thinks he is qualified to do what he does. NATTO 02:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:MedalWorldChampionships

Just wanted to let you know that I set this template up to be neutral in the medal sport. If you want to put this in for a specific sport, you can use Template:MedalSport and for the championships and you can use the medal with the respective championship to link to that event. We need to keep this as sport neutral as possible in order to ensure full usage among all sports (athletics, swimming, [[sailing], nordic skiing, luge among many). I will change this template back as such. Chris 18:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh i see i had not thought about it that way (not seeing big picture here). Sorry for messing it up for you. i should have checked to see which pages were using it. Thanks for being polite. :) David D. (Talk) 18:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for not responding to you sooner, but there is no need for you to apologize. I was trying to make certain that everyone would be able to use this without having to create their own little template for each championship which would put unecessary work on everyone. I look forward to working with you again in the future if possible. Chris 22:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject Newsletter!

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

[edit] Help disambiguating

Hello, you commented on Talk:Athletics regarding the movement of that page, and so I was hoping you could help with the large amount of disambiguation that is now needed because of the move. All the wikilinks to Athletics must now be disambiguating to one of the more specific links. Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. The list of articles linking to Athletics can be found at Special:Whatlinkshere/Athletics. Regards. -- Jeff3000 00:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I see you're already doing it. Thanks for your help!! :) -- Jeff3000 01:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. And actually, User:Usgnus has done even more than me. David D. (Talk) 01:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Keep up the Rv Jeffklib 09:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam blacklist

As for the first issue, I believe it was not functioning earlier this week because it had gotten too long; I believe this has been fixed, so it should be working now. As for the second, there may or may not have been a discussion. Often they are simply added to the blacklist by an admin on Meta who catches them spamming or directly reported by someone else who catches them spamming -- if it is obvious enough a case there generally won't be a discussion. If there is any discussion attached, it will be on m:Talk:Spam blacklist. Many of the entires in the blacklist are annotated with who added the link, also, so you may wish to ask the admin who added it. (If it was me: sorry, I don't remember it!) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] categories for halloween article

(can i suggest you build this article in your user space without the categories. It will draw attention to this atricle as you preceed and may well result in a speedy delete as categories are cleaned)
do not understand how this relates to WP:SPEEDY User:Yy-bo 15:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It means your user sub-page will appear in the categories you have on the page. Anyone looking to clear the category of non-relevant pages might speedy your page. The categories are really meant for articles, not user sub pages, so it will stand out from the crowd, i.e. get unwanted attention until you have built the article into something notable. David D. (Talk) 15:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mass of Hydrogen

Rounding 1.008 to 1.00 reminds me of the shepherd who sent his sheep-dog out to gather and count his flock to make sure none were missing. The dog returns and says that there are 40 sheep. "40? I only started with 38!" "Yeah, but you told me to round them up." DMacks 23:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious, i had not heard it before, you got ot love the geek jokes! thanks for the levity! :) David D. (Talk) 23:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PPP

David,

You seem very knowledgable about G6Pd. I was wondering whether you might be able to help answer a question of mine. There is evidence that effortful cognition consumes more glucose from the bloodstream than does less effortful cognition. I was wondering whether G6Pd, because of its being downstream of glucose, therefore could influence effortful cognition. There is evidence that people with G6PdD might be, on average, less capable of effortful cognition than people without G6PdD. Could this in any way be a result of effortful cognition consuming a relatively large amount of glucose?

Thanks for any help you can give, Matt

Hi Matt, I am not well versed on why effortful cognition needs glucose. Is it to produce energy? If it is due to the need of ATP then the G6PdD would not make it harder for a cell to utilise the glucose source. If the energy requirement is in the form of the reducing equivalent NADPH then you may be on to something. ribulose is also an important product of the PPP pathway and that is very important for making nucleotides (needed for DNA synthesis. If I had to make a bet, I'd say it was something to do with the NADPH levels being too low in the neurons. David D. (Talk) 03:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:WP

It means, please do not talk to me like to one who has no knowledge of WP:WP, no edit experience.
It means, please point out the exact section of the policy, not just: your article is trivial, no one is looking for this information. User:Yy-bo 19:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thatcher131's RfA

Excellent work posting the entire context for "that edit" to the talk page. This candidate would make a superior administrator, and it would be nonsensical for his qualifications to be overriden even if he'd made a bad edit, much less a sensible one. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yy-bo account switch

A look at User:Akidd_dublin's last few edits would probably shed some light into what's going on here. Ehheh 23:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

déjà vu all over again, as Yogi Berra would probably say. I guess the mass AfD on the halloween stuff precipitated it. Just out of interest do we know how many of his articles have been sent to AfD? i too would be getting frustrated if this was happening. Although the quality issues cannot be ignored. David D. (Talk) 23:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure - I first noticed him towards the end of the Akidd Dublin days. I'm guessing at least four or five from that account, plus there was a big flap over some additions to the Red hair article. Ehheh 23:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ATP Derived Hydrogen Ions

You know, I would like to know a scientific verifiable source that states this as well. The Delayed_onset_muscle_soreness article also talks about it I believe. When taking notes one time I wrote down Oxidative_phosphorylation and Citric_acid_cycle so I think those may have mentioned it as well. I can't be bothered to look through those articles again and even if they did, I don't think any of those gave a citation for the information either. I have a friend who's a Personal Trainer and he believes in the ATP Derived Hydrogen Ions explanation as well. I am currently studying to be a Personal Trainer. Unfortunately, my course does not go quite that indepth about AMS or DOMS. Anyways, it is late right now where I come from. I did have a legitimate article that could probably qualify as a citation. I'd have to search around for it. I'll try to get around to doing that tomorrow. Jamesters 09:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Here you go: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15308499&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum Jamesters 22:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference, that is a start. I think they are partially correct but their abstract appears to confuse the main point. Here is my break down of the relevent section at the end of the abstract.

"Every time ATP is broken down to ADP and P(i), a proton is released. When the ATP demand of muscle contraction is met by mitochondrial respiration, there is no proton accumulation in the cell, as protons are used by the mitochondria for oxidative phosphorylation and to maintain the proton gradient in the intermembranous space. "

This is a good point. My immediate interpretation is that the muscles use up ATP so fast that the ADP and phosphate and proton concentration increase and pH goes down. Lactate would further add to this problem although may not contribute as much acidity as the ATP hydrolysis.

"It is only when the exercise intensity increases beyond steady state that there is a need for greater reliance on ATP regeneration from glycolysis and the phosphagen system. "

The is true but I am not sure why this is relevant. With respect to the acidity is does not really matter if the ATP comes from glycolysis or oxidative phosphorylation as it is the ATP hydrolysis that gives the acidity.

"The ATP that is supplied from these nonmitochondrial sources and is eventually used to fuel muscle contraction increases proton release and causes the acidosis of intense exercise. "

This also does not really fit with their idea. I think what they are really should be saying is that the ATP is used rapidly and the only source is glycolysis (since anaerobic). Lactic acid build up slows down glycolysis (presumably by substrate inhibition), thus glycolysis cannot keep up with the demand for ATP. Consequently the ratio of [ATP]:[ADP] decreases and the cytoplasm becomes more acidic as [ADP] rises.

"Lactate production increases under these cellular conditions to prevent pyruvate accumulation and supply the NAD(+) needed for phase 2 of glycolysis. "

This is also true but not relevant for the argument. Given their hypothesis, the problem of acidty would not be one of where the ATP is made but rather one of where the ATP is hydrolysed.

"Thus increased lactate production coincides with cellular acidosis and remains a good indirect marker for cell metabolic conditions that induce metabolic acidosis."

Here is the problem i have. It is not an indirect marker. it is almost certainly the cause for the drop in the level of [ATP]. It may not be the primary source of the protons but it is still the primary cause of acidosis. Increase in [Lactate], slows down recylcing of NAD+, that causes glycolysis to slow, causing less ATP production. Since the athlete is still burning the ATP like crazy the [ATP] drops fast releasing the protons that cause acidosis.

"If muscle did not produce lactate, acidosis and muscle fatigue would occur more quickly and exercise performance would be severely impaired."

This is true initially, since it is critical to recycle the NAD+. However, once the [lactate] rises too high substrate inhibition of lactate dehydrogenase will cause the NAD+ recycling to slow down, if not stop. This valid point, however, does not preclude the fact that once levels of lactate become too high it is detrimental to exercise. And remember there is a contribution of acidity from the lactate too, although I agree that most of the acidity may be due to ATP hydrolysis.

In summary, they have a good idea but they have expressed it very poorly. I'll read the article and see if the main text is more enlightening than this abstract. David D. (Talk) 22:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like you are getting close to comprehending the whole complicated process. Yes, I can't find any source that explains it all in an organized and precise manner. I am currently trying to do this myself. However, I'm not there yet. And also, I generally take on many projects at a time and therefore it could be awhile before I have it all nicely solved. Jamesters 02:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Extending these thoughts. A super athlete, one with a high anaerobic threshold will the one whose muscle cells can remove the lactate the fastest. Thus, delaying the onset of subtrate inhibition of the lactate dehydrogenase and maintain the [ATP] at a high enough level to delay acidosis. Is there any research suggesting this may be true? Sounds like a good hypothesis to me. David D. (Talk) 22:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the super athlete in your example sounds like an endurance athlete. A strength and/or power athlete would not necessarily have a high anaerobic threshold. An endurance athlete would since that means this athlete could train at a higher intensity before the anaerobic energy systems become the dominate systems. In which case, lactate removal would not be the main reason this athlete is so good. It may play a role, but probably the 2 biggest factors would be the ability to Environmental Oxygen Extraction Max (the ability to extract oxygen from the environment, which depends mainly on red blood cell and hemoglobin amount), and VO2 Max. VO2 Max includes Oxygen Extraction Max (the ability of the cells of the body to extract oxygen from the blood, which depends mainly on mitochondrial density and the enzyme activity within it as well as capillary density), and Cardiac Output Max (Heart Rate Max multiplied by Stroke Volume Max). Heart Rate Max is how many times the heart beats which is measured in a minute and Sroke Volume Max is the amount of blood pumped each time the heart beats. VO2 Max is a term that may be a bit complicated to define and understand, but once understood it makes a lot of sense.

You see in Aerobic Energy System, the main sources of fuel are fatty acids and glucose. In the Anaerobic Energy System, the main source of fuel are glucose and creatine phosphate. Even though both systems utilize glucose quite a lot, being in the presence of oxygen or absence of oxygen can create different results. The main byproduts of the Aerobic Energy System are water and CO2. The main byproducts of the Anaerobic Energy System are lactic acid and hydrogen ions. Therefore, a super endurance athlete doesn't need to worry too much about lactic acid. For a super strength athlete, it may be a bit different.

I may have misinterpreted you a bit. Maybe you were even suggesting that being able to remove lactate quickly is what can result in a high Anaerobic Threshold. That would not be true though, since being able to obtain and extract oxygen the best will delay excess accumilation of lactate and therefore render it obselite to be able to remove lactate quickly. Um, well I'll stop here. Hopefully I gave you a bit of insight. If you respond, then inform me on my talk page that way I know. I don't subscribe to any articles for my own reasons and I have times when I don't go on wikipedia often. Jamesters 02:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA nomination Enzyme inhibitor

Hi David. I was wondering if you might consider having a look at this nomination. Your expertise would be much appreciated. Thank you. TimVickers 20:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject Votes

The Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject has recently opened two surveys that will help to decide the direction of the project. First, nominations are currently being accepted for the position of coordinator of the project. Second, votes and additional suggestions for the official title of that position are also being taken. As a member of the project, we hope that you'll drop by and voice your opinion. – ClockworkSoul 03:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dyestat

Thanks for cleaning up the Dyestat Wikipedia page. (I post there, but hate to see vadalism here or there.)

I see you want someone to clean up the Chris Solinsky article. I may be able to get some guys to help me out with that sometime. shijeru 00:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I made a start on the article. At present it is like a laundry list and is pretty boring to read. We need to make it more succinct and focus on his major achievements. The article has a lot of potential and it might even get some of the vandals to start doing something a little more constructive. Thanks for your support. David D. (Talk) 00:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi David. Thanks for all the comments and suggestions. TimVickers 04:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OK...

OK, I'll change my user page. I actually don't care that much about things like soccer and the metric system. But it's no fun arguing about important stuff like abortion and gun control. -- Mwalcoff 03:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I am sure you will find other editors easier to deal with, i'd be surprised if it has not baited many to a point that they could not work with you. Also, remember that some would regard soccer or metric as a more bitter argument than gun control and abortion. David D. (Talk) 03:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for peer review of Enzyme kinetics

Hi David. Any feedback on this article to help bring it towards FA status would be a great help. Peer Review. Thank you. TimVickers 18:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on this article, if you have any more comments or suggestions, it is up for FA candidacy and the discussion page is here. Thank you. TimVickers 20:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:My RfA

"I did calm down problems. What McGinnly quoted on his talk page was the first edit I made. I ended up changing that a bit after I had cooled down a bit. I even repeatedly apologized on McGinnly's talk page, and I went as far as re-answering his question. We have resolved our conflict. Apparently, people may not have seen this yet (and I would understand why), but if people had seen it, they would have seen how that I avoided a potentially huge conflict by eventually resolving it in due time. 6 of these oppose votes came as a result of the comment I left on McGinnly's talk page the first time, and people haven't checked to see how I tried to make amends for my behavior."

I just want to tell you that this was an anomaly in my behavior, and that McGinnly took my comment out of context. I had reformed my edit, and I even repeatedly apologized to McGinnly and I have gone as far as making amends for my behavior.

Although you may think negatively of me still, I would appreciate it if you re-consider your vote on my RfA (even though, it looks like it will close later today).

--Nishkid64 20:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I promise i'll look into it in more detail and reconsider based i what i see. Thanks for pointing this out. David D. (Talk) 21:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I do see you were patching it up. But then you wrote this on your RfA. This does not sound like the right kind of attitude. In an RfA you should be listening and certainly be humble despite negative criticisms that will likely come your way. Moreover, you should let your supporters be your vigorous defenders, it is much more powerful coming from others. Even then it can sometimes be over the top. Based on how you have reacted to some negativity in your RfA makes me worry that it might be worse when dealing with other more volatile situations. Sorry for not changing my vote. I would also encourage you to listen to edit more in the articles to get a feeling for the types of issues that arise when editors disagree. i think your RfA will pass fine but I would hope that you will learn from this experience and use it in a constructive way to mature as a great admin on wikipedia. Good luck. David D. (Talk) 21:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nishkid64's RfA thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RfA, which closed successfully earlier today with a result of (60/9/4). Although, I encountered a few problems in my RfA, I have peacefully resolved my conflicts and made amends with the people involved. If you have any further questions or suggestions, feel free talk to me. I hope I will live up to your expectations. --Nishkid64 22:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Golf Course Infobox

Hiya David, I was wondering if you were able to create an infobox for golf courses for a potential Wikiproject Golf Courses. I don't have the expertise, and I noticed you helped with the Golfer infobox, so I thought you may have some interest in the field. Anyway, its totally up to you, give me a yell on my talk page if you want to try it. Thanks! Grover 00:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to merge Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF article

I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamiton of the merge begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks. Levine2112 00:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued efforts to resolve the Kauffman paper's summary at QW. It was important that we all were to take a breath, had a chance to step back from a point of divergence, and "reset". Looking at your latest edits and format, I would appreciate your candid thoughts here.--I'clast 11:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re : RfA/Jc37

I've responded to your concerns on the RfA. I hope it will clear things up. If you require further clarifications, please feel free to drop a note on my talkpage. :) - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 08:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've struck out my opposition, after Jc37's clarification. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 08:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This month's WP:MCB Article Improvement Drive article

Adenosine triphosphate

This month's MCB Collaboration of the Month article is adenosine triphosphate. Please help to improve this article to featured article status.

– ClockworkSoul 21:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RNAi

FYI, I just posted to AN/I about the ongoing RNAi problem after more spamming - which would probably look cabalistic from his perspective, but we can't have articles on recent Nobel Prize winners and winning discoveries sitting around full of unverified and potentially defamatory spam. Opabinia regalis 04:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

i had already noticed and posted a reply. David D. (Talk) 04:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, that's what I get for wandering away from the computer for a minute :) Thanks; I appreciate it. Opabinia regalis 04:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar!

(copied from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jc37) "And while I thought all the comments were interesting, I want to single out one person - User:David D. He not only went through my contributions list (and I have to admit, I really liked hearing from everyone who obviously did so), but he also showed how much of an encyclopedist he is, and cited sources from it. Even though he voted support, I hope that no one will misunderstand when I say that once this RfA is over, I intend to give him a barnstar for his efforts. It's intended as a "nudge" so that he continues this sort of work on RfA and elsewhere in wikipedia."

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Please continue your the excellent work on RfA and everywhere else on Wikipedia. : ) - jc37 17:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

That was a surprise. :) Sorry your RfA didn't go well. I should add that the sarcastic comment you made after my contribution was probably not a good idea. Even if a joke, and the irony is real, you need to be careful how such comments are perceived. I suspect you already know that now ;) Good luck with your continued editing an future rfa. I'd recommend waiting at least 3 months before running the gauntlet again. David D. (Talk) 19:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• You're quite welcome, it's well deserved. : )
• Honestly, I think the RfA went quite well. Gaining the mop wasn't my only hope/intended goal. I learned quite a bit; about myself, about others, about RfA, and about wikipedia in general. But thank you for the empathy. : )
• And as an aside, the comment wasn't intended to show sarcasm, but more a bemused observation. Hence the term "irony". Though I saw/can see how it could be taken that way. And because of that, I decided to not defend it, but rather just "stand by it", since editors will interpret it however they wish, in any case.
• Well, from what I've been reading, an absolute minimum of a month is stringly suggested, with a general minimum of 2 months. So who knows, maybe around the feast of St. Nicholas, or Little Christmas : ) - jc37 19:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Would you have a look at this?

See User:Friday/Sandbox. Dunno if this is a good idea or not. To me, Cyde's behavior (namely, incivility and improper blocks) is a problem, but then again it'd be easy for me to think so, given some of the things he's said to me. I don't believe that Cyde sees his behavior as a problem at all, so perhaps it'd help him see it, if he saw that sufficient numbers of other editors agreed (assuming they did agree.) Anyway, feel free to have a look, edit, tell me I'm crazy, or whatnot. Friday (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting my Questions

You reverted my edits in several Talk pages, and made the assumption that I was trying to "bait" people into an argument. However, if you had read closely, you'll find that those controversial theories did not belong to me, but rather, to someone else I know. Because I am not knowledgeable on any of these topics; I figured I would post these theories in several articles from which "experts" on those subjects would often be found looming in the Discussion forums -- I simply wanted ansers and information and/or rebuttals to the controversial theories brought up; I did not want to bait some kind of debate. Most people would find these theories ridiculous and not consider going into a debate.

The reason I post in several articles is obvious; the theories relate to these articles the most (if you feel they don't, can you please tell me some other subjects so that I can post these questions in the appropriate Talk page?) -- and I felt that posting in SEVERAL talk pages would get faster AND more responses -- in other words, more answers and information for me. I do not see the harm in posting in several Talk pages. I did the same thing with a question I had with a certain theory in Philosophy -- I did not understand these philosophical beliefs; and posted my question in numerous Talk pages. No one complained; no one reverted; everyone participated in the discussion, all was well. I got my answers, as well as any other potential reader who happened to be wondering the same thing (or read the questions and began to wonder the same thing).

So... Why revert my edits? 24.23.51.27 08:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages are to discuss the article. If you really want to ask such question the appropriate forum is the science desk. David D. (Talk) 08:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

David, where can I find the Science Desk?

I understand that Talk pages are primarily to discuss the article. How many times has this policy been broken? Of course, countless times -- it's not even worth counting. If this rule was strictly enforced (I'm not even sure if it's an official policy); would that really benefit the community? If a random reader was reading an encyclopedia article, and had a question about it; the thing to do would usually be: post the question in the Talk page. I feel my questions are very closely related to the articles I posted them in.

The reason I would prefer to not post in a Science Desk forum is that I assume these articles and whoever read the Talk pages would have a greater deal of knowledge than those who stroll the Science forums. I would get much better responses. Also, I would probably get people who are less sensitive, and would be less likely of accusing me of trolling. If I posted the questions in an article about Race and IQ; where controversial theories are talked about all the time, I know that people will tend to be less sensitive, and more open. 24.23.51.27 09:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

For the science desk just click on the following link Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science. you'll note that i only deleted the ones that were not on a relevant talk page. I left the one on the race and IQ page since I thought that was probably appropriate. i deleted all the duplicates that were unnecessry. Unfortunately someones else deleted your question on the race and IQ page. i suspect they thought you were trolling oto. You may want to reword the questions and ask them one at a time. David D. (Talk) 09:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

David, thanks for the help. The person who keeps reverting my edits (besides you) seems to be reverting my other edits today which have no relation to these series of edits. 24.23.51.27 09:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for posting so much in your Talk page, but I need your help. Whoever's reverting my edits (and assuming they are vandalism) has a Talk page that is protected. I am not allowed to post in there. I believe you may have the rights to post, because you have a Username. Can you notify that user to please discuss with me his actions on MY Talk page so that I can more easilly communicate with him? Sorry for the inconvenience. 24.23.51.27 09:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. David D. (Talk) 09:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you an administrator? I do not like this Ryulong user. I just found out he had not only reverted my series of edits/questions that I posted; but also some edits I had made days ago, which were not vandalism. Now I have to go back and re-edit everything. I understand Ryulong wants to become an administrator; and I would definately not recommend him. I was also wondering what is that "WHOIS" link you provided to him of me which featured my located, internet service, etc. Why was this information posted?

Good portion of this answered at my talk. Ryūlóng 09:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astrology

A "school", Kepler College, in Seattle is getting POV claims put in giving the reader the impression that Astrology is based on some scientific method. Arbusto 16:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Longtail_stingray revisited

Heh, thanks for the compliment. I'm just glad I was able to figure things out and save an article from being deleted. --Nishkid64 12:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block form editing an article

David, as far as you know, when an editor is blocked from editing a particular article, when does the block start ? NATTO 22:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to give you a vague, it depends. What are the circumstances? David D. (Talk) 22:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)