User talk:Opabinia regalis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. For other uses of Opabinia regalis, see Opabinia regalis.

Old stuff: Archive 1 (May - 15 Aug 2006); Archive 2 (16 Aug - 19 Oct); Archive 3 (20 Oct - 30 Nov) _{RfA stuff here}

[edit] Cheery and cheeky

Hi, O, just a happy little note to draw you out of a dark non-sensible dreamworld — into a bright and cheery non-sensible dreamworld. ;)

After two solid weeks and countless repetitions of my favorite songs, I've actually reached saturation of listening to Jewel. Unfortunately, I've switched to Alanis Morisette instead of working on Cyclol and Karl Popper — sigh :( I'm not very pragmatic.

I drank too much coffee yesterday afternoon by mistake, but I intrepidly started a new sweater at midnight and worked on it until a little before daybreak. It's cabled with a beautiful dark purple yarn and has a little double helix down the back. I got up to just below the armholes, so maybe it's halfway done. :) I'm going to crash tonight, though, so it may be a while before I can shape it again.

More seriously, I'd like your opinion/ideas on something encyclopedic. I noted with surprise that the print version of the 2007 Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't mention Wikipedia at all. (See Wikipedia:List of 2007 Macropedia articles.) Does that seem strange to you? They apparently have a 700-word blurb about WP online, but I haven't read it yet. Is it just slow updating, do you think, or something else?

Randomly, affectionately, Willow 23:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A double helix sweater? That's awesome.

On Britannica - I'm not actually very familiar with them or their business model, so I'm not the best person to be making speculations, but I'd imagine the omission is mostly due to slow updating. They don't have nearly as many people as we do, and I imagine many of their authors have a number of other projects to work on also. (I don't know about encyclopedia articles, but the academics they get to write books chapters are routinely months late with their drafts :) Also, possibly, partly due to them not really taking Wikipedia, or Internet phenomena in general, all that seriously. (They somehow don't have an article on Internet, surely they won't on individual websites. Out of curiosity, what year are the references in virtual reality from?) Opabinia regalis 02:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

They have six references (the article is not quite 5 pages long), mostly from the early 1990's, in this order:

• Howard Rheingold, Virtual Reality, 2nd ed. (1992)
• Ken Pimentel and Kevin Teixeira, Virtual Reality: Through the New Looking Glass (1993)
• Francis Hamit, Virtual Reality and the Exploration of Cyberspace (1993)
• Myron W. Krueger, Artifical Reality, 2nd ed. (1991)
• Randall Packer and Ken Jordan, Multimedia:From Wagner to Virtual Reality (2002)
• Mark Weiser (1991) "The Computer for the Twenty-First Century", Scientific American 265, 94-105.

Most of the article seems to be limited to work before 2000 as well, but I didn't read the article thoroughly. All for indulging curiosity, Willow 23:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Did you know that the Encyclopedia Britannica is dedicated to George W. Bush and Queen Elizabeth II?

P.P.S. At long last, I began thinking about Cyclol again; it helped that Physchim62 wrote to me. I also got some more done on the dsS. :)

Wow, thanks for the indulgence ;) Sounds like pretty much what I figured - 5/6 look like early-90's 'visionary' speculation. It made me wonder because virtual reality is such a minor/novelty subject these days. (Though I honestly did enjoy my Virtual Boy while it worked.) Weird dedications, but who exactly would you dedicate an encyclopedia to? Good luck on cyclol; I'll keep an eye on what you're doing over there - I do agree that the last section could use some tweaking but all this Popperian falsificationism stuff makes my head hurt (and Structure of Scientific Revolutions made my brain want to leak out my ears and run away). Opabinia regalis 08:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi O,

I think I must've grown up in an alternate universe, since I'm so often clueless about things that everyone else seems to know, both here at Wikipedia and in real life. I'd had no idea that they'd ever made a 3D video game, until I read up on Virtual Boy. :p

Thanks very much for your kind words and help on Cyclol; it meant a lot to me. I feel the same way about scientific-method philosophy, although I'm determined to overcome myself and refine the article to include Physchim62's insights. It was fun to dip into Descartes, Galileo and Newton again, though. :)

I'm brooding on submitting Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector to be an FAC. I think it's close to being ready, but the subject is, umm, superlatively technical, maybe too much so to ever become FA. :( Would you be so kind as to look it over, and share your thoughts with me? Any advice on what to do with the article, or how to improve it, would be most welcome.

I've been thinking of trying something different for the next FA, maybe Encyclopædia Britannica or Johann Sebastian Bach. But if you were still interested in working on homology modeling, maybe we could work on it together? Just a stray thought, Willow 18:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

PS. Finished right lapel. :)

I'm still hoping the failure of the Virtual Boy doesn't ruin the idea of 3D gaming forever. I think the Wii is a step in the right direction (of course, I don't have one yet... waiting till the Christmas rush is over :)

I think my most immediate FA-related efforts will be for proteasome - it'd be nice for the MCB project if one of our collaborations reached FA status - but it needs some diagrams/images and some writing fixes at least. (BTW, I put it on the MCB peer review page and will probably send it to regular peer review after the images are sorted out, if you want to take a look.) When I originally created homology modeling I would've thought it was too narrow of a subject for FA, but there's been enough narrower subjects up that it's probably not a concern; I'll definitely get back to it soon, especially if you're interested in it also. I'll take a look at your vectors when I get a chance - now there's a narrow technical subject! But I'd much rather have that sort of article than Bulbasaur, even if you're not supposed to say that out loud... ;) Opabinia regalis 02:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I hate to lose some part of your efforts to a non-science article, but I would find it marvelous if Encyclopedia Britannica were an FA. Well, Bach too, but that's not quite the same irony value ;) Opabinia regalis 07:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's hold homology modeling in reserve, and perhaps I will indeed tackle the EB. Bach has the better claim, being far more beautiful and a subject that I know and love better; but there's no resisting the innocently impish fun of making EB into an FA. I can practically feel the horns growing out of my head, as doubtless it will appear to some. >:) I hope that I can count on your help, though, from time to time? I'll try and help out at Proteasome as well. I totally agree about Bulbasaur; Vulpix was always my favorite. ;)

I had an awful morning. I was only a few rows away from finishing the torso of the dsS, "when the magnitude of her folly was revealed to her in a blinding flash" — I had too few stitches across the back! :( I tried to make amends in the last few rows, but the back ended up looking too much like a sportsbra. :( I'm still not sure whether I'll have to rip out the whole sweater (I foolishly knit it as one piece), or just the upper back. Never, ever, design a sweater in your head in the middle of the night: words to live by. ;) The ds-helix panel came out beautifully, though, better than I deserved.

Sorry for punctuating your Talk page with unencyclopedic froufrou; I'll try to stick to more professional topics from now on. Disconsolately, Willow 16:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

PS. I should have realized that Opabinia would appreciate the difficulties of teuthologic hosiery; now I know what to knit you for Christmas. ;) In a happier mood again, and please forgive the inextinguishable silliness, Willow 20:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you've been doing great work on EB! I'll help a bit if I can, but as I noticed in cleaning up some articles I found in the speedy backlog, it's really hard to write articles on subjects I'm not familiar with, even if they google well. I don't have any good written reference works on the subject, and it'd be at least this weekend till I could get to the library.

BTW, I just left some quick comments on Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector; not too substantial but I haven't had many solid blocks of time lately to sit down with such thick reading material. Good luck on the sweater (I don't even know how you'd go about knitting it in one piece). I heard 'socks on an octopus' from a coworker the other day and it's the best thing since 'the best thing since sliced bread'... :) Opabinia regalis 01:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I can imagine what you felt, since I laughed so well myself! I wish I could draw; the metaphor brought a hilarious mental image of a consterned Kraken taking off his socks, while his human owner was rushing around to put them on, kind of like shoehorning a four-year old tomboy into frilly, uncomfortable clothes for church. ;)

I finished the sweater. :) Or at least its body; I haven't added any sleeves but I'm not sure that I will. I ended up not ripping the whole thing out, but just re-engineered the upper back; I tend to fall in love with my own creations and I couldn't destroy it utterly, whatever its imperfections. The collar came out really cute :) and, overall, it's got the look I wanted. Now I have to see whether it fits its intended...or, perhaps more accurately, find an intended that fits it. ;) More to follow.

Sorry that I didn't get to making that schematic diagram for Proteasome yesterday. If you could let me know your preferences there, that'd be great. BTW, I really hope that you don't mind my comments over at Talk:Proteasome; they were kindly meant, even if their author was clumsy with words and foolish in sentiment. Friendly, Willow 11:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Replied about the diagram and the lead at Talk:Proteasome. Don't worry about the diagram; the article's gone diagramless long enough and can probably wait a few more days :) I didn't get around to that article yesterday either. I did a little more tweaking of the lead that will hopefully, in combination with diagrams and the structure image, give a better mental image. As you've probably seen already, writing accessibly is not my strong point... Opabinia regalis 04:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Product

I'm not sure how non-notable Anti-Product are as they are mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia (see here). Although I created their page, it's not an ego issue, as I thought it was important to disambiguation from AntiProduct for obvious reasons, so created both pages at the same time. I did go through great lengths to make sure each reference to AntiProduct or Anti-Product was correctly linked. If only one band has an article and the other doesn't, it will be harder to keep track of incorret linking, in my view at least. It was only a stub anyway, but consider revoking the deletion — Superbfc 02:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Mentioned, maybe - I'm hardly an expert on the subject, but I'm not sure inclusion in a few lists makes them merit an article. However, the stub you created was speedied for not even asserting notability; if you think they are notable, you can of course re-create the article with more detail and with references to that effect, and it won't be (speedily) re-deleted. I'm not sure about the other band, but their article at least claims notability with a list of released albums and some references, though it too could use some cleanup. Opabinia regalis 02:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay - but I don't know enough about the other band to assert notability, but as a fan of the other similarly named band, it is a common confusion that is encountered. I was hoping that creating the stub would act as a catalyst for others to develop the article. I wouldn't want to write an article about something I have zero knowledge about, outside prosaically. — Superbfc 14:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Understood, but if there's not enough material for the band to sustain an article, then they shouldn't have one even if it would reduce the confusion. I don't know a thing about the band either, but I'd expect there's either a US music or a punk music wikiproject you could contact about creating a better article, even a stub, that provides a reference for the band's notability, if in fact they are notable. Opabinia regalis 00:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science Collaboration of the month

You voted for Gene and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Month! Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article.

NCurse _work 17:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This month's winner is RNA interference!

– ClockworkSoul 14:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Folding@home

• Object it's great to see interest in this article, but it really isn't close yet.

• Just in terms of the structure, the lead is too short and does not cover the article's content, there's a large and unnecessary blockquote, the referencing is mediocre (good that it exists, but all the inline citations seem to be to online sources/commentary rather than the published papers), and the linkfarm at the end needs cleanup.
• In terms of content, this article has zero information on how the technique works (which is all published); to be a comprehensive article on the subject, it would need substantial descriptions of the algorithms and methodology, and in particular it needs to detail the justification for sampling many short MD trajectories rather than one or a few very long ones, which is the key that makes distributed computing work for these types of calculations. Similarly, the types of problems for which this technique works well should be explicitly pointed out and contrasted to those problems for which it fails because a long trajectory really is needed. There is no academic criticism of the method presented in this article either.
• Lastly, as an article on an internet phenomenon, it's missing comparisons with the user base size of other distributed-computing projects (eg Rosetta@Home, SETI, the prime-number one, etc.) and could use expanded discussion of the 'work unit' model and the informal competitions that have developed between websites that encourage their users to join their 'team'. Opabinia regalis 07:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont know can you be bold and fix it for me, please? --Records 19:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this article needs major changes before it will be of FA quality. {{sofixit}} doesn't apply here. If you want to see this article reach FA status, I'd suggest first becoming familiar with the literature on its methodological development and with the theoretical basis for the distributed model. To be honest, I'm not sure what your goal is with these articles, since you've shown a lot of enthusiasm for distributed computing projects (I noticed your peer review request for Rosetta@Home also) but haven't done much active work on them or demonstrated much familiarity with the technical or methodological motivations of the projects. Opabinia regalis 00:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello O.R., I'm following this discussion at several spots - the SCOTM page, the article page and at the Folding community forum. Thank you for your balanced and diplomatic comments so far. User:Records, whoever s/he is, does not represent the project either officially or demographically. (Note, I don't represent the project either.) IMHO Records was out of line in his dual request for FA and SCOTM status, in asking others to do the editing for him, and in taking criticism personally. OTOH, Samsara and pschemp, who characterized the F@H people as hit and run posters and the SCOTM votes as spam, were jumping to conclusions. The F@H community includes several current wikipedians and many contributors competent to upgrade the article's content and style to the best encylopedic standards. F@H people can walk our talk whether the article eventually focuses on computational chemistry, distributed computing techniques, or F@H as an internet phenomenon.

Today the project director, Dr. Vijay Pande, suggested a delay of a couple months so that new results on Alzheimer's abeta protein simulations can be included in the article upgrade. Discussion will ensue; I won't try to predict the outcome but will invite you to follow the thread or to follow up with me on my user talk page. Thanks. susato 20:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

== Updates ==

• Reference & Bibliography merged as per suggestion of User:Selmo --Records 01:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Added new section for Google Compute & F@H with more information. --Records 02:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Improved Lead. --Records 02:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Removed bulky quote as it is not encylopedic. --Records 02:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Removed See Also as links in article direct to See Also articles, besides FA articles don't have see also eg. todays one.--Records 02:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Removed BOINC section as they dont plan on releasing a BOINC client in the near future besides the stand alone is more easy for newbies.--Records 02:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Changed Progress to Participation. --Records 02:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

After this "explanation" I am totally opposed to this article being nominated. User continues to spam talk pages for his cause and has admitted personal gain motivations. pschemp | talk 03:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I just posted on his talk page that this is completely unacceptable. I wouldn't have thought of this one way or the other beforehand, but if the article does ever become an FA, that's an excellent argument for keeping it off the main page. I think this particular nomination is well and truly torpedoed at this point; maybe someone heretofore uninvolved should just close it before the spamming and nonsense gets any worse. Opabinia regalis 03:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if I got carried away with this whole thing. I've had a nice little chat with Susato, and expect things to be put to bed now. Please understand I was only ever complaining about Records, not the other editor, who's name I had failed to see. Anyway, keep up the good work. pschemp | talk 22:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I probably would've clued in if it hadn't been so late ;) Glad everything worked out in the end and thanks for taking a hard line against Records' nonsense. Opabinia regalis 01:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ShaiM

The last I heard, he was busy with exams. His last edit was on November 2, so he's been idle for some time now. He does excellent work: it would be a real shame if he left the project. – ClockworkSoul 02:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cellular Biology Picture Request

Hi, Sorry for the intrustion on your discussion page. I couldn't find your e-mail. I'm looking for high quality pictures of cellular biology that are free and open to use. I'm creating a video game that will use the images as jigsaw puzzles, at www.youngforestgames.com and I want to ensure that everything is nice and legal. Please write to me at dpadula@youngforestgames.com if you know of a place (perhaps on wikipedia) where I can find this kind of image. I'd also like to use the DNA Clamp image, as it's quite good, and would like your permission.

Thank you, -- Derek Padula —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.169.231.166 (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Down Syndrome

It was on the main page during this time[1]. User type states come from existance of user/user talk pages (and an IP checking regexp) and edit type stats are based on the edit summaries and flagging of minor or not. Voice-of-All 00:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Viewing page modification statistics (from the 511 edits shown on this page):
User statistics for these edits:
Number of users: 279
37.18% IP/anon edits (190 edit(s))
1.37% likely new user edits (7 edit(s))
8.61% likely unestablished user edits (44 edit(s))
27.79% likely older user edits (non-admin/bot) (142 edit(s))
23.68% administrator edits (121 edit(s))
1.37% bot edits (7 edit(s))
Time range:
1 approximate day(s) of edits || 2 approximate day(s) since first edit
Most recent edit on: 04:12, December 6, 2006
Oldest edit on: 00:52, December 5, 2006
Current time: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 00:13:34 UTC
Analysis:
Notable edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0% (0 edit(s))
Significant edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 1.57% (8 edit(s))
Superficial edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 19.37% (99 edit(s))
42.27% marked reverts (any) (216)
31.9% probable reverts of vandalism (163)
Unmarked edits: 36.79% (188 edit(s))
Averages:
61.25% edit summary usage
Average edits/user: 1.83
[Value unknown]* edit(s) per day (current)
448.683 edit(s) per day (since last active)
189.659 marked revert(s) per day (since last active)
1 : 0.73 regular edit to marked revert ratio (RE:RV)
27.4% edit progess (non-reverts/reverted edits) (140 edit(s))
29.05% of edits by IPs/new/unestablished users are non-reverts/reverted (70 out of 241 edit(s))
27.37% of edits by IP-only users are non-reverts/reverted (52 out of 190 edit(s))

[edit] Favor?

Hi O,

Perhaps foolishly, I made a new template today to help me assess the coverage of the Encyclopædia Britannica. It may have been a bad idea, and it's already up for deletion. The voting is going poorly, so much so that the outcome seems a foregone conclusion even now. When the decision comes down, would you be the one to delete it? It wouldn't upset me that way, especially if you agreed with the decision. Appreciative thanks, Willow 22:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I still didn't get to that schematic, sorry. :(

Well, I do agree that this would be more useful the other way around - there might be some use in tagging the talk pages of articles that are also in EB. But in general I'm kind of anti-template clutter on article pages themselves, if only because some end up accumulating more templates than text. Maybe something to suggest at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles?

Anyway, if you want the template deleted I can just close the discussion now, otherwise I'll keep an eye on it, but since I tend to be off-line for most of the day it's possible someone'll beat me to it :( Opabinia regalis 04:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be best to just delete it. I'm feeling a little better now, but I'm not sure that I could take too many more comments like "Delete. Horrible, horrible idea." without crawling into my shell. It seems likely that no one will support it, and I do understand the reasons for deleting it. Thank you, Willow 09:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Closed the discussion and deleted the template; sorry I didn't get to it earlier. I also deleted the corresponding category, which is the usual for categories auto-populated by deleted templates. Opabinia regalis 23:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

(Peeking out) Is the coast clear? Whew.

Thanks so much for your help! I was so miserable over the weekend, especially after I discovered that my stupid template had been used to vandalize Wikipedia itself. There were lots of tears of vexation, self-reproach and grief at losing my friends, since I was determined never to show my face again for shame. Superstitiously, I even felt like I was being punished for trying to out-fox the Sweater curse. Luckily, sleep is a wonderful restorative, "knitting up the ravelled sleeve of care"; every morning, I felt a little better, and today I almost feel like myself again, ready to rush in where angels fear to tread... ;) I felt a surge of joy this morning when I saw that Tim was beginning to tackle DNA...this is gonna be good. Willow 16:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I found a little thank-you card for you, and did some calligraphy on it, just your name with five little eyes peeping out. I'll try to find a scanner somewhere so I can send it to you. It's nothing great, but well-meant and appreciative nonetheless. :)

P.P.S. Jitse Niesen added some excellent stuff to Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector today, and I touched a few things up as well. In particular, I tried to fix up the Noether and Lie sections you mentioned; if you have a chance, could you cast a glance over it? Thanks, you're a gem! :) Willow 22:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad you're feeling better then ;) (FWIW there was no vandalism to Wikipedia, just an over-enthusiastic vandal-fighter.) Wow... thank you for the thank-you, that's so sweet!

I'll check out LRL again tomorrow - at first glance I like the reordering much better. It's past my bedtime now :) Opabinia regalis 07:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In fairness to the vandal-fighter, someone did insert a, umm, anatomical picture into my template, which I guess was visible on Wikipedia, judging from the outraged parents on its Talk page. Someday we may laugh — perhaps tomorrow? I'm forgetful enough ;) — but then I was mortified to the point of Wiki-seppuku.

Sweet dreams and sweet knitting up those ravelled sleeves of care, Willow 09:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that's what you meant - sorry, I'm a bit slow sometimes :) That seems to be happening a lot lately. (Tangentially related: if you haven't already seen this, there's discussion about the wisdom of semiprotecting the FA of the day here - as a frequent FA author you might be interested.) Opabinia regalis 01:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bmmc.us

Dear Mr. Opabinia Relagis,

I am very sorrry you had to delete the article on Bmmc.us[2].

You did what you thought was necessary.

Well, can you please just restore the Bmmc.us for a couple of days. I would like to copy text from the bmmc.us page and put it in a Microsoft Word document for future reference.

Thanks!

Psdubow

[edit] Abdile gorod

Hi. You deleted this article just before I was going to do the same thing. It was tagged as nonsense by someone prior to us. It wasn't nonsense though - it was in Somali. I checked with Wikipedia:Translation, but there was no link there to translators of this language. I don't know if you looked at the author's talk pages, but there was some clue to the nature of the story written in very fractured English, and it seemed like it might have made an interesting article had we been able to dispose of it in some other way. Alas, but I think the deletion was reasonable given the circumstances. Denni ^talk 23:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; combined with the poor formatting, I had assumed it was a test page and the text was lorem ipsum of some sort. I've no objections to undeleting it if someone does want to translate it, but it's short enough that anyone familiar with the story seems likely to be able to recreate it. Opabinia regalis 00:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Revert on Wikipedia

I'm sorry, but my edit was correct. The version that was currently displayed, as well as the version that has your name you had displayed an obscene picture at the top of the page. when I reverted back one, all was fixed. All well, I suppose as long as it's gone...but my edit was DEFINITELY correct. I apologize if I made a mistake, but it's a minor change given what the vandalism was.BigD527 02:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ONE BUCK SHORT

Please leave the One Buck Short pages alone, the artist is well known and becoming quite successful and does not need to be merged into the band's article. Keep the member's articles seperate please. Citikiwi 04:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:OWN. I already declined the speedy on the singer; 'becoming quite successful' doesn't speak well to his notability, or the band's. Opabinia regalis 04:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deletion of Nate Conrad

I realize your rational for deleting my Nate Conrad page but You just re deleting it saying that it was the same post, it was not the same post, I added a link to a reputable magazine. Also as I continue working on I will be adding more citations, do u suggest I wait on posting it till it is completed? My only issue with that is that some changes dont show up in preview mode and I cant figure out how to see them without saving the page. (such as the category listing)

thanks,

-Peter —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peterdobey (talk • contribs) 06:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks!

[edit] Proteasome figures

Hi O,

Just a quick note to let you know that I uploaded a few Figures for Proteasome; I link to them from its Talk page. I had lots of fun making them, especially since I listening to some wonderful covers of Tom Waits songs, such as Tori Amos singing "Time". :D

Hope you like them, Willow 00:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Speaking of indulgences, I replied at that "Eric's" blog described on the Signpost; I couldn't resist the temptation. We'll see if he rises to the challenge; I hope that he does! :)

PPS. Good things are happening at DNA; I think your expertise would really benefit the article as well.

Awesome figures, thanks! Very simple and clear and to the point. I left a couple of comments on the third one at Talk:Proteasome.

Heh, looks like the blogger responded. I'm actually kind of surprised he predicts that spam will be the mechanism of Wikipedia's downfall - spam sucks, but a substantial fraction of it gets caught and speedied before it even gets google-indexed. The point about incentives is missing the MMORPG-like 'exp accumulation' factor that attracts all the people who spend their time on RC patrol and vandalwhacking.

So DNA is Tim's next project? I was going to pop over there in the hopes of keeping consistency with gene, which is also in the process of undergoing some major reorganization; IIRC there was a big edit war about the intro to DNA (of all things!) and even though it was a long time ago, it'd be nice to get some of these basic bio articles consistent and accessible. (There's also an effort ongoing to write a more accessible intro to evolution.)

I think I'm going to do some final fixes/copyedits and send cell nucleus to FAC later this week, while I still have the time before the holidays - so if you have any thoughts on that one, let me know. After we sort out the images in proteasome I'll send that to peer review - it would be nice to get some layperson thoughts on the accessibility and flow, since that is not exactly my strength despite trying :) Opabinia regalis 02:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

IIRC -- cool, I'll have to remember that one! :)

I'm toying with the idea of pressing our law professor onwards a little, but I want it to be substantive, professional and courteous and a happy time for all. There'll be only one chance, so we should think the reply through in advance. Can you think of a good metric for spam — perhaps average number of pages with a ".com" link or somesuch? I was thinking of using the EB Index as a metric of coverage and quality: the fraction of EB Index topics that have a referenced WP article. But I trust your ideas more than my own; you have a much better purview of WP and insights into the trench-wars it faces. Please reply quickly if you can.

I definitely think that DNA would benefit from your expertise, and coordinating with gene is an added bonus. Did you see the latest issue of Marie Claire (Jan 2007)? I mentioned it over at Talk:DNA. It's a classic canard, science and cosmetics, but nonetheless irresistably charming. ;)

I'm leaving soon for the holidays, too, and I might not have access to a computer for some time. I'l try to stay in touch, though. Good luck with all your FAC's! :) Willow 12:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genetics Introduction

Well from what I have seen in the gene and genetic articles, there needs to be a more gradual article that is appropriate for the average person and does not require a lot of specialized knowledge to access. The average reader will not know what a gene or a chromosome or DNA is. They will be starting much further back than many regular articles assume. Once a person can master some of what is in the introductory articles, they can tackle the reglar articles. It helps of course if the regular articles have very carefully written introductions, but I can see this is not possible or desired in many cases. On the subject of reference work vs. textbooks, I would note that Worldbook Encyclopedia is a pretty easy encyclopedia. Encyclopedia Britannica offers a macropedia, micropedia and ready reference volumes as well as the single volume Britannica Concise Encyclopædia, "My First Britannica" encyclopedia for 6 to 12 year olds, and "Britannica Discovery Library" for preschool children. So if I compare to Encyclopedia Britannica which many peple take to be the gold standard, one can find as many as 6 different types of articles for readers with differing amounts of sophistication. We are not considering as many as 6 here, but 3 at most on Wikipedia. I think that 3 is not excessive by comparison to our competition. This does not eliminate the need for carefully written introductions. But I do not think that we can reasonably expect to cover all needs from elementary school to postdoctoral level with a single article.--Filll 04:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree that most people know what a gene etc is. I would use myself as an example. I have 2 bachelors in physics, 3 masters in mathematics and physics and a PhD in mathematical physics. All from major institutions. I have years of research experience in the some of the most prestigious research labs in the US. I never studied biology, however. Of course I have heard the words "gene", "genetics", "chromosome", "DNA", "RNA" etc so I recognize them (at least vaguely). I could not define them however, or at least I could not until recently. But I had no real clear idea of what these terms mean. Until I started getting interested in a mathematical problem associated with genetics, I could not have told you a darn thing about genetics. I knew Gregor Mendel was a monk and had done something with peas. I knew there were dominant and recessive traits, sort of. I knew that there were X and Y chromosomes, but I had no idea if males or females had XX or XY or YY chromosomes and how many. However, I am not stupid, as much as you might be tempted to think I am. I am much more educated than the average person on the street. I have a string of honors and patents to my name. There are several things I have done that you use in your life every day, without even knowing it. So I am not a dope, but I did not know these things. And I am sure the average person does not, since I rub shoulders with them all the time. Remember, surveys show a large fraction of the general public think that the sun orbits the earth still. Remember, surveys show that a large fraction of the US public cannot find the USA on a map of the earth. Many people cannot tell you the most elementary things. So I know I am ahead of them. So believe me, the average person would have a lot of trouble fighting through the gene and genetics articles. And it is not that I cannot read the articles here on genes and genetics. Of course I can. But can I understand them without a huge amount of hassle and irritation and clicking of links that define things in terms of 10 others words I have to look up and then those are defined in terms of 10 other things I have to look up and so on and so forth? Nope. I cannot read the gene and genetic articles right now without a huge amount of irritation and trouble. Enough irritation that I would just not bother, probably. Now if I experience this, I am absolutely completely 100% positive that the average person or average high school student will find those gene and genetics articles worthless. Sorry to hurt your feelings, but they will not be of any value to anyone who does not already know most of what is in them. I could write an article like that for you in physics or mathematics, believe me. I could just blow you away and make you feel completely stupid. I could make it so you could not read past the first sentence of a 20 page article without choking (heck a 500 page article for that matter). But so what? That is not the point. The point is to provide a valuable resource that people can find useful. Not to impress us all with how erudite you are. I am not impressed with how learned and erudite biologists are or think they are. I want to read the article and learn something about the subject, not be awed by how difficult it is to read. The biologists still should write so others can read their stuff, especially the introductions, no matter how smart they are or think they are. And that goes double for encyclopedia articles. Because believe me, having graded thousands upon thousands of papers and tests and homework assignments in physics and mathematics from biology students and premedical students and medical students, biologists should not be too pleased with their brilliance. It is a lot more reasonable to just make things accessible. You will fool nobody by trying to put on airs, believe me. So, with all due respect, I would submit to you that it does not hurt to have a number of articles written at different levels. I know that one wants to have concise terse tightly written articles that are technically precise. But that still leaves the average person out cold. So what is wrong with having two or three that cover the full range needed? Just a thought...--Filll 05:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, he has a strange sense of "due respect"! But we should give him the benefit of the doubt, since physicists and mathematicians and especially mathematical physicists are not renowned for diplomacy — or modesty. ;) Moreover, if brevity is indeed the soul of wit, then we may assume.... ;D

Nevertheless, I do agree with him that encyclopedia articles need to be crafted very carefully, being complete yet gradually ramping up to the more technical aspects of a subject. I like the phrase "laying out a honey trail to enlightenment"; the hapless reader is lured ever onwards by curiosity, thinking all the while that they're in familiar surroundings when really they're wandering more deeply into a virgin forest...mwahaha ;)

It also might be cool for Wikipedia to have multiple versions of the same article, don't you think? Perhaps the reader could choose their own level by clicking on a radio-button-type link at the top left-hand corner of each page? Maybe people have discussed such an idea already in the higher-but-muddier world of WP?

Personally, I think it's more important to get an article complete, well-organized and well-referenced before anything else. Doing a little re-write for accessibility is a relatively easy task; even a sweet-natured and very verbal shepherdess could do it. We also benefit from a large community of well-meaning readers — such as our MP friend here — who routinely offer helpful suggestions; many readers have come to my rescue with great ideas for making my articles more accessible. Please be patient with yourself and the article and don't let apodictic critiques trouble your dreams. :) Willow 12:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)