User talk:David D.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject Newsletter
|
The project main page has gotten a facelift!
|
|---|
| When people visit the project, the very first thing that they see tends to be the project's main page, and with this in mind, the main page has been completely overhauled. To enhance readability the various "goals" sections have been merged, and a detailed "how you can help" section has been added. To increase accessibility for more established members, the links to any resources that were in the main body text have been moved onto the navigation bar on the right. Finally, the whole page has been nicely laid out and given a nice attractive look. |
|
New project feature: peer review
|
| I'm proud to announce the addition of out newest feature: peer review! The MCB peer review feature aims serve as a stepping stone to improve articles to featured article status by allowing editors to request the opinions of other members about articles that they might not otherwise see or contribute to. |
|
Project progress
|
|
The article worklist
|
| We’ve had quite a bit of progress on the worklist article in the past month. Not only has the list itself nearly doubled in size from 143 to 365 entries, but an amazing three articles have been advanced to FA status, thanks in great part to the efforts of our very own TimVickers! Remember, the state of the worklist is the closest thing we have to quantifying the progress of the project, so if you get the chance, please take a look at the list, pick a favorite article, and improve it! |
|
Collaboration of the Month
|
| Last month's Collaboration of the Month, cell nucleus, was a terrific success! In one month, the article went from a dismal stub to an A-class article. Many thanks to all of the collaborators who contributed, especially ShaiM, who took on the greatest part of the burden. This month's Collaboration of the Month, adenosine triphosphate, isn't getting nearly the attention of its predecessor, so if you can, please lend a hand! |
|
Finally...
|
| The project has a new coordinator, ClockworkSoul! The role - my role - of coordinator will be to harmonize the project's common efforts, in part by organizing the various tasks required to make the project run as smoothly and completely as possible. Many thanks to those who supported me and those participated in the selection process. |
|
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] Plugging away alone :)
Thanks for the kind words! I hope you can find a use for some of the stuff ive done!
[edit] EssjayBot III
I've set the bot up with the template you provided; please check this diff to be sure everything worked correctly. If you ever need to make any changes to the setup, please let me know on my talk page. And as always, thank you for shopping EssjayBot. ;) Essjay (Talk) 16:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- That's great , I appreciate it. David D. (Talk) 23:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] bioenergetics
Thanks for the lol ;-) Perhaps it's a difference in fields (your talk page seems to indicate you're into molecular and cellular biology, whereas I'm much more of a behaviour/ecology guy) but I myself can't really say I've come across the term bioenergetics too much. Granted, I haven't seen it called biological thermodynamics either, hehe. At the organismal scale it usually just seems to be called energetics as far as I can remember, or even be lumped into some term like eco-physiology. I take it this isn't the case in cellular bio? The problem I see with making bioenergetics the main page for this subject is that it will surely continue to be infiltrated by bioenergetic analysis stuff. How about if we did the following instead?
bioenergetics --> disambiguation page, branch to bioenergetic analysis and biological thermodynamics (or even this same page under the title "bioenergetics (biology)" to distinguish it from the disambiguation page). bioenergetic analysis --> have an Otheruses4 link on top, to bioenergetics (biology) or biological thermodynamics bioenergetics (biology) (or BT) --> inverse Otheruses4, linking to bioenergetics analysis.
Hmmm, complicated. Let me know what you think.
--BadLeprechaun 16:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Hey David D - thanks, first for cleaning up a typo on my user page and second for the vote of confidence in the edit comment. I appreciate that you understand my intentions even though we have different views on the subject. By the way, feel free to jump into the discussion that I'm having with Ronald Deschain on my talk page - it isn't corollary to any particular edits but it should prove interesting. Roland is really good about keeping a level head so it is easy to discuss matters with him, and I think the same is true for you. I would like your input on the discussion on my talk page if you would like to give it. standonbibleTalk! 18:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cork argument
You wrote: "My primary reason for voting oppose was that the plan for the move was very premature. The proposer had not laid out a strong enough argument and previous arguments had not been referencd." The argument "the proposer" had laid out was:
- Neither the Irish city nor the material is clearly the main usage of the term. Cork (city) currently redirects to the article about the city at Cork.
What other argument is there? None of the opposers questioned the premise (neither is main usage), and the conclusion (dab page should be at Cork) follows logically from it. How is this not "strong enough"? --Serge 20:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Becuase if we don't have a place to move it too, then what? You were already moving changing links to Cork (County Cork), The proposal was for city and others thought Ireland. There needs to be a clearer plan. I think you will get a consensus to move Cork if you gather the arguments together and have a consensus for the new name. Does that make sense? Also when I voted I had not seen the prior argument on the Cork (material) talk page. That may have made a difference. David D. (Talk) 20:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Request
Could you look at the discussion on my talk page and maybe explain what you think I did that was innapropirate beyond the simple matter of blocking way too early? JoshuaZ 03:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- You seeme dto have already admitted your falability. This IP wants his pound of flesh. I say you don't let the user pull you into an argument. This IP clearly know WP inside out and given the editing patterns i don't think you were completley out of line. As you say more warning in the future. No need to dwell on it more. David D. (Talk) 05:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] [Statement of gratitude]
 |
[Your username name, not subst:ed properly], [statement of gratitude] for [your specific vote] in [link to request for adminship], which passed with a final tally of [final tally][percent in parentheses (optional)]. I plan to [statement of intentions regarding admin tools] and [statement acknowledging oppose votes as helpful]. If you [type of desire for help] or want to provide any [type of feedback], feel free to [link to talk page or e-mail]. [Statement of gratitude, again (optional)] [signature of new admin] |
Because people often complain that RfA thank-you messages are impersonal, I thought I'd give you the opportunity to create your own. -- tariqabjotu 05:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] My Contributions to the Pathway Project
Hi David, I need to say that the work that the Pathways Project has done is incredible! Glycolysis has improved beyond belief, there is no comparison between before and after. Anyways to the meat of it -- I have been doing some work for a bit now towards pathways. I have drawn diagrams for the TCA cycle, the pentose phosphate pathway, the Calvin Cycle, and the Hatch Slack pathway. But I love the style that the new glycolysis page has taken (with the data boxes for each reaction, the look, and the comprhensive explanations), and I think it is the way to go. I'd love to know what you (the project) think is the best way I can help out. Is there a place for my 'pathway overview' diagrams? I could try to standardize a format for them all (colour, ways to show stereospecificty, style etc.) so they better fall in line with an overall design. I would love to see all the pathways treated similarly so they can be quickly understood. what do you think!? Adenosine | Talk 05:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- While I'd love to take credit i can take none. This has been a solo effort from Zephyris. My claim to fame is i ask the difficult questions; such as why didn't you add so and so to the template. With regard to how to incorporate your own diagram, i would love to see them featured on the pages. They are a great summary and so much better than the junk we had before. My sense would be that they should be the lead photo, as a summary. Then we get into the nitty gritty of each reaction. i have to say i am in two minds about the footers. They seem very big and despite that, the diagrams are still too small. But overall that is a minor worry. As always i would say just get stuck in and you, more than most, must know that. Thanks for the enthusiasum, it makes a change from the sniping, now go and give where it is really due ;) And welcome aboard the smallest project in wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 06:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Assistance needed
Hey David - I wanted to ask a favor. Samsara is becoming increasingly aggressive over at the Talk:Evolution#sprotection page and I was wondering if I could get your input. I don't want to make a big deal out of this; maybe you can help out some. standonbibleTalk! 07:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Peer review of bacteria
Hi there David. I'd value your input on this article. Thank you. TimVickers 05:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- This article is now a Featured Article candidate, the nomination page is (here). Thank you. TimVickers 04:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Userbox version
This is a userbox version of the barnstar that I previously gave you. Use if you wish : ) - jc37 10:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 |
The Barnstar of Diligence - Please continue the excellent work on RfA and everywhere else on Wikipedia. : ) - jc37 17:06, 4 October 2006 |
[edit] Date linking
Hi. I wondered if you would be interested in contributing to User talk:Guinnog/date linking? I'm trying to tidy it up over the next few days. --Guinnog 18:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Definitely interested, but very busy recently. Sorry i forgot about that page. David D. (Talk) 19:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This month's winner is RNA interference!
– ClockworkSoul 14:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your input is requested
Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vertical box on introduction to evolution
I think it does not look too bad. I like it more than horizontal box. What do you think?--Filll 04:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree it looks a lot better. It probably still needs tweeking and a better title than overview, but its a step in the right direction. David D. (Talk) 04:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Doing something about the ridiculous date autoformatting/linking mess
Dear David—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 05:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
