User talk:GetAgrippa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Archive 1

See my new BRAIN it is delicious with a good Chianti and some fava beans. Happy dining!

Contents 1 Hey GetAgrippa! 2 No apology needed 3 some advice 4 being a nag 5 Cell nucleus evolution 6 nag, continued 7 Evolution 8 Smile! 9 deneticists 10 US education 11 Last common ancestor 12 Evolution

[edit] Hey GetAgrippa!

I noticed that you blank your talk page every now and then. A better alternative would be to archive the discussions when they become too lengthy. If you would like me to archive your old discussions, I can dig them up and archive them to your talk page (as a token of my appreciation of all your knowledgeable contributions to Wikipedia). Take a look at what I did for my talk page.
Oh...here’s a brain to enlarge your already huge brain. =D Jumping cheese ^Contact 07:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please reply to my talk page (I don't usually check the other user's talk page). Thanxs! ^_^ Jumping cheese ^Contact 07:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure your present brain will work perfectly fine (you only loose a few tens of thousands of brain cells a day).
Anyways, I archived all your old discussions. If there are any problems, please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Have fun editing! =) Jumping cheese ^Contact 22:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to be of service! If you want me to retrieve your previous user page, I can also do that. All I have to do is click the history tab and locate the previous version. Have fun editing! ^_^ Jumping cheese ^Contact 23:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No apology needed

Ho, stop, take it easy. You do not have to appologize. This is how article development goes, and it was just my thoughts that I expressed (a bit to harsh, my applogies). My frustration is with wikipedia as a whole. The page was a declared disaster in the past and it was only resolved by me rewriting the page together with Gleng in my userspace. Since then, it has been relative stable. I have always been someone who tries to write for lay people. It is a challenge, but one that I think academics can benifit greatly from if they can master that. I always step back, and ask myself if my mother would understand this (if she could read English). She is not stupid, but uneducated, and it is at times for me a challange to explain her things that I do for work.

As for leaving, unless there are some good changes in that it becomes much easier to crrect POV-pushing and things alike, and in which pages can be concerved and only changed by experts who know where they are talking about, I might come back. But the atmophere here is way to anti-expert, and even when you have written something, it just gets slowly demolished by passer-by's who think they know more than an expert on the details of complex concepts like natural selection. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] some advice

Never allow one person to bully you away from a page (e.g. Natural Selection, Evolution, or evo-devo). If this appears to be going on, try to start a conversation involving more people, especially editors whom you respect. See if you can evolve a consensus among them. If not, well, then your feelings that you should walk away from a page are probably valid. But I urge you to try this process first. Talk pages are often used for bickering and arguing. But they can also be used to develop a consensus (as I have tried to do on primary/secondary sources). You need to be willing to initiate and facilitate a dialogue (rathe than meerly present your own views) and you need to seek the participation of others who are knowledgable and, just as important desirous of collaboration — this is what the "wiki" in wikipedia is all about, a willingness and capacity to facilitate collaboration via dialogue among knowledgable editors of good faith. I urge you to give this a try and to cultivate your skills in this direction. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on Steve's page, you can always find something amusing on Wikipedia. To begin with, there's WP:BJAODN. Then there's WP:AN/I, which is always good for a laugh. If you really run out of things to laugh at, you can always laugh at people - they take themselves much too seriously around here. If you're having a really bad day, try writing at Uncyclopaedia instead.

If all else fails, try laughing at yourself. After all, you (meaning all of us with advanced degrees) are here arguing with 15-year olds about subjects we have spent half our lives (or more) studying. I think it's worthwhile, but if you don't laugh, you might as well cry.

Honestly, the key to getting things done around here is social/political. Being right isn't good enough - you need to negotiate with people, you need to "play well with others". As for your comment about not editing in the article space, (a) you should always revert vandalism, no matter where you see it, and (b) shouldn't it only apply to your field of research? After all, if you are writing about your home town you're just another unqualifed yahoo :) I actually believe that expert editors are a great boon to WP. That said, I rarely edit articles in my actual subfield. If I want to do that, I should work on a manuscript (that said, one of these days I will break down and totally re-write the ecology article).

Cheers. Guettarda 16:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda - as always - is spot on.

To respond to your response on my talk page - I do not think anyone has any grounds to thin you authoritarian, egomaniacle, or thin-skinned. But I do understand your frustration. Have you ever worked on a grant proposal with someone, or really coauthored an article (I do not mean one of those JAMA articles with 15 authors because you provided some data, but I mean, where you really shmoozed with a collaborator, brainstorming, and going back and forth clarifying both the language in the article (or proposal) as well as your own ideas)? It is time consuming to work in this collaborative fashion but also very rewarding. I ask, because this is what wikipedia can be at its best. Of course, to go back to my example, bear in mind that when you collaborate on a proposal or journal article you choose your collaborator which means (1) you probably know you like one another (2) you know how to communicate with one another and (3) it is very clear how and where you complement one another. Well, imagine that these three elements were missing. This is the case with Wikipedia, and it is this which makes collaborating on an article often frustrating. Nevertheless, anyone, certainly you, can learn how to do it and do it well and when you do, the result will be (1) much better articles (like evo-devo hint hint) and (2) a more pleasurable rewarding experience for you. I hope none of this sounds patronizing. You thanked me for my encouragement and I appreciate that. I am encouraging you because it has become evident that you are the kind of editor we need more of here. The better you get at our admitedly weird (well, unique) process of collaboration, the happier I think you will be. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your comments about collaborative research and the need for better science education especially concerning the ways ethics and methods intertwine. Be that as it may, Wikipedia bears the burden of being entirely collaborative (ideally) with none of the props most researchers can take for granted (beginning a collaboration only with people whom you know, like, respect, and can work with). Consequently collaborations often break down or hit rough spots. I think our policies (content ones lik NPOV, Verifiability, and NOR which are meant to ensure quality content, and behavioral ones like Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and Wikipedia:Civility to facilitate collaboration) take the place of (or provide) that education and are also meant to help people collaborate, resolve problems when collaboration breaks down, etc. For what it is worth, I believe that (1) you have never violated any of these policies and (2) I personaly feel strongly that the three major content policies trump the behavioral ones. If you get into a conflict with someone and you are sure you are complying with the three main content policies and they seem to be violating one of the conduct policies, stick to your guns and if necessary turn to others for help - other editors whom you respect or if needs be our mediation process. But stick to your guns, if you are right lots of people will support you. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] being a nag

Soooo... are you really not going to add to the evo-devo article? It still seems to me that you have valuable and relevant contributions to make. Based on what I have seen on the evolution page, no one doubts your expertise or your compliance with core policies like NOR, it seems like the only issues you have had have to do with properly framing your contributions (whose point of view is it, to what extent it is a matter well-established or currently being debated) and properly situating your contribution (literally in the sense of where in the article to put it, and metaphorically, explaining - in language accessible to a lay reader - how it relates to other elements of that section or the article as a whole). I hope you consider these constructive comments. It seems to me that as long as you are crystal-clear on these two things you can be more bold in your edits. I genuinely hope you will, on the evo-devo page. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

you are welcome ... sort of. Don'e ever let other editors get you down (see earlier advice). But know this: citing more and more articles will never "get your point across." ALL they will do is prove that you are not engaging in original research. This is in fact very important (i.e. not to violate our NOR policy) but that is all piles of citations or quotes accomplish. They do not prove that the research is relevant to the article, nor do they explain how the research is relevant to an article. In Wikipedia (as in an article for JAMA or American Anthropologist) it is us contributors who must make the connections, explain why and in what way and to what extent the research is relevant. And I urge you to do this work not on the talk page but in the article itself. Indeed, one way to conceive of writing an article is, explaining the importance and meaning of current and previous research in relation to other elements of the article. right? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Remember also that the research we draw on (e.g. the articles you cite) always reflect particular points of view, and that our article should provide properly contextualized accounts of multiple points of view. For example, when discussing the theory (ies) of evolution, I do not think it is always sufficient to say "this is the POV of scientists." We may need to distinguish between the POV of molecular geneticists versus zooligists versus phystcal anthropologists. Or maybe evolutionary biologists are divided into camps. My point is only that when two editors disagree over how to define or describe something, sometimes it is because each editor is informed by a particular point of view. the resolution may be just to acknowledge that in the article, e.g. "Although most biologists have defined evolution as x, some molecular geneticists have recently suggested defining it as y" 9and then explain how the research - or research aims - of molecular geneticists may have led them to see things differently from other biologists. Or physicians. Or whatever. I hope you get my point, it is pragmatic. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

With the single exception of harald88, who refuses to accept one edit, the debates are all resolved I think. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cell nucleus evolution

I think you did most of the work on the cell nucleus evolution section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_nucleus#Evolution), and so you should be able to help me: Is plantomycetes the same as Planctomycetes? ShaiM 13:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nag, continued

If you are wtill willing to put some work into evo-devo, perhaps you can respond to this [1] (I do not mean, respond on the talk page; I mean if you agree with the comments, see if you can make the appropriate changes to the article. You know far more than I do which is why i don't think I can do it, and you are also a very clear writer. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution

You may be right that it is a waste of time ... alas, many people will still use Wikipedia as their first step in research. And I do think good things are possible; it goes back to working with a very heterogeneous group of people through a medium that is not the ideal for collaborative work. In any event, have you seen the last few comments here [2]? you are not alone or unheard. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. If you do not mind further advice, here are two bits: (1) consider the talk pages as opportunities for "teaching moments." I do not remember the details of your professional career but I am sure you know what I mean. Try to identify Grafts main objections, and - as an expert - be willing to take on the burden of figuring out what the source of confusion is, and then explain. Perhaps people in different fields use certain words differently. Or - and this is crucial because Wikipedia is meant for public consumption, think average 10th graders (US system) - he, like many editors, may be focused on "translating" scientific debates into a simplified language that is easy to explain and can be used consistently, so those kids can make sense of things. I am not by the way defending anyone or anything, just explaining why many experienced editors and experienced experts come into conflict, they are used to writing for radically different audiences. But look at it this way, if you can figure out Graft's confusion and explain it to him in a way that makes sense to him, then you (you, not him - this is not about you guiding other editors, it is about you editing articles - with all due respect) can put that language in the article with confidence that other students will "get it." This is one function of talk pages - to identify every possible source of confusion or misunderstanding before text is put in the article. (2) when the core policies - NPOV, NOR, Verifiability - support you, stick to your guns. Don't get frustrated, just point out that the other editor is violating NPOV or NOR and insist that that cannot be the basis for making an edit. Never back down (as long as you are right) and others will support you. You can always ask mediation or put in a request for comment. These mechanisms didn't exist in the beginning, we developed them because we need them so don't be surprised if you need them sometimes too. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that your contributions and commentary are both appreciated. You do excellent work! Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smile!

Hey GetAgrippa! I noticed your recent frustration over POV pushing and harassment on Wikipedia. I also had my share of POV issues (mainly over the political status of Taiwan) so I know how ugly it gets. Remember, Wikipedia is suppose to fun to edit, not stress inducing. If you feel that there is too much pressure, take a short Wikibreak. I know there are disruptive users crawling all over Wikipedia, but you can beat them.
Stay strong. =D Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 06:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deneticists

The genetics people have been put in by User:TBHecht, and not by me. I can only hope to do as well on similar lists on related subjects. I would agree on the primary classification of about 90% of the people, especially because molecular biologist is an extremely general term & the more specific genetics or cell biology or [ ] is probably better when possible. For graduate school I applied to a department of virology, and by the time I arrived, it had become a department of molecular biology. DGG 03:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US education

You are correct. The US wins a lot of Nobel Prizes. However, I am afraid that is not a good measure of the health of the US public education system. I think there are plenty of bad signs. And the US Nobel Prize Winners I have spoken to have the same opinion I am afraid. I am sure I do not need to enumerate them for you, since you are a scientist yourself. It might be slightly better in the biological sciences than the physical sciences that I am more familiar with, but I have my doubts. This is not to say other countries do not have their own problems of various sorts in education, but that does not excuse us from trying to do our best in the US. US domination of science does not have a very long history, and is obviously true for a few special historical reasons which might not continue to hold if we do not bolster the support system.--Filll 16:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As a science teacher, a phrase spoken by a former prison warden frequently comes to mind "If you want better prisons; send me better prisoners". If I could fix the educational woes facing our country, would they be willing to pay me more than $25,000 / year?

I see they are at it again on the evolution page ... "call for edit". Perhaps the editors need a clear conception of who is the audience? I think in terms of high school students, which would struggle with much of the content (despite my godly teaching skills). Perhaps I should run a reading level test on it to see what grade level it is written.

Actually I enjoy reading the discussion page, it is both enlightening and entertaining ... Kudo's to you GetAgrippa for you insightful commentaries and your willingness to keep fighting the fight! Good Luck --Random Replicator 02:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last common ancestor

You said "Everything has a last common ancestor"; which is not true due to Horizontal gene transfer. If there had never been any lateral gene transfer, individual gene trees would have the same topology, and the ancestral genes at the root of each tree would have all been present in the last universal common ancestor, a single ancient cell. But extensive horizontal gene transfer means that neither is the case: gene trees differ (although many will have regions of similar topology) and there is no single cell that can be called the last universal common ancestor. WAS 4.250 18:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution

GetAgrippa, I'm honestly baffled by your defense of the old introduction, as, frankly... have you read it recently? It was a huge big block of jargon, that failed to explain a single evolutionary concept in terms that I'd be willing to believe the target audience could understand, and EveRickett's version, though much improved, just served to show how little content was actually in it, once you stopped looking at it as a list of links. I know you're an intelligent person from working with you elsewhere, so I'm frankly a bit baffled as to what you saw in the old introduction. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, i just noticed your last comment. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)