User talk:Marj Tiefert

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I answered your question in Talk:Molecular biology. maveric149

So I saw ;-) Actually, it was a tongue-in-cheek definition of research in molecular biology. In the same vein as "Pharmacology is when you inject a drug into an animal and out comes a journal article." -- Marj Tiefert

Thanks for your halophyte heads up. I'll keep this in mind when I get around to making the C4 etc articles. --maveric149

Marj
I'm troubled about your move from bioprospection to bioprospection. Especially if you did it because you considered bioprospection was not an english word.

Please, check "bioprospection diversity" on google. What do you get ?

You can find lots of misspellings of lots of words on Google. Google merely records what it finds, it doesn't indicate whether it's right or wrong. You can find "prospecting" in a dictionary, but not "prospection". If you need a word that ends in "ion", then how about "bioexploration" or "bioexploitation".
true. But, in this case, it is not a misspelling. Basically, 90% of my sources were english-speaking. And, all of them said bioprospection, not bioprospecting. Did you check ?
I forget the exact numbers, but googling for "bioprospecting" gave about 10 times as many hits as "bioprospection", FWIW. -- Marj
possible. Both exist. They have the same root. But, it seems they are not necessary used in the same context. The fact one is giving more hits that the other doesn't mean it should replace the other. I must stress out the fact that if I did an article on bioprospection (and not bioprospecting), it is precisely because bioprospection is a fuzzy term, that has different meaning depending on the person who read it and use it. For a corporation looking for biological resource, it is probable bioprospection and bioprospecting have the same meaning. But for indigenous people, and NGO, I believe the word bioprospection has an additional political and sociological meaning. So, by confusing both words, you just pick up the view of one group of people. I don't understand FWIW

Also, I feel there is a small difference between both terms (but, it's my feeling, I might be wrong). Bioprospecting mostly referring to a simple action (collection of sample, here I agree it better fit to indicate bioprospecting in biodiversity), whereas bioprospection is more about a concept, or even a bunch of conceptions upon which people don't necessary agree. For example, it sounds very weird to me to refer to "bioprospecting of people knowledge". And as the article is now (with all its imperfections), it looks weird that the subject switchs, just after the definition, from bioprospecting to bioprospection. What do you think ? user:anthere

It was late at night and I didn't have time for editing this one after starting on the biodiversity article (after correcting its link to this page) - all I did was change the name. If it turns out to be more of a political article than a scientific article, I won't edit it. Cheers, Marj Tiefert 11:13 Aug 29, 2002 (PDT)
I thank you for your editing. And I would be honored if you edited it more, for I know it is not proper english. But, hey, it is a field that is rather empty here! And I intend to help fill it a bit. Mostly in french, but I would also like to have a few articles in english as well. That is, unless somebody is interested in translating them for me :-) We did that for some of you on the french wiki.
I am a scientific first of all, but, yes, you could probably say that it is not intended to be a scientific article. I'll add another article later, to make it more obvious maybe, and I'll post some links later on. I would appreciate very much if you would agree to move it back. user:anthere
Maybe we should ask Mav or somebody what they think. -- Marj
Okay. I'll look for further evidence and links this week-end, and we'll ask. It may be that you are right :-), but I would appreciate if anybody else knowing a little bit on that matter could really tell if both words can be "switched". There's only one word in french, it makes things easier. Thanks user:anthere

As a person who has done some of this activity, I say we use "bioprospecting". That is the word I've always used and heard. "Bioprospection" seems a bit pedantic to my ears. --mav

--- Hello Marj, thanks for the note about [[cereal crop]. I had already amended the link on the Straw page from cereal crop to cereal. But, being a newbie, I don't know how to get rid of cereal crop again. Cereal is a good article. I also noticed there are oats and oat.

Thanks also for sorting out my Assisi embroidery mess! I hadn't even realised that I had started two pages!! It's a steep learning curve :-) but I'm becoming more careful. When I uploaded one of the images (Assisi butterfly), it was listed as a Bad file. I'll try again.... Renata

Hey Marj; I've started a new thread over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements about a concept for nav bars and locator maps for the chemical elements (there is a prototype example at Lithium). Join in if you are interested. --mav

Re your Q on my talk page: The best and easiest way to revert is to bring up the article's history, click on the date of the last "good" version, and from there click on "Edit this page". You can then save the old version without making any edits to it. Very handy. It took me a while to find out how to do this as well - I have a feeling it's in a help page somewhere, but I don't know which one. Hope this helps. --Camembert

Marj, Thank you for your grammatical corrections to my article Africanized bees. You are providing an important service! David 21:28 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

Marj, I appreciate the editing you did on Gene. After you edited one person suggested a revert, and another reverted the article to a stage prior to your editing. Personally, I think that your version was the last, well-edited version and I reverted -- and someone reverted back. Rather than get into a revert war, I spent some time trying to tighten up the prose again. I stopped work at 22:52 on Jan 19th. If anyone reverts, I will revert back to where I left off -- but I would appreciate it if you would take a look and make changes again as you think appropriate. By the way, I tried explaining my objections to the earlier version in the talk section, but was discounted -- if you make changes, you may need to explain them in the talk section too to prevent further reversions, Slrubenstein

you are welcome -- and I certainly understand your wise policy. Nevertheless, if you could look at the article I sure would welcome your opinion concerning the changes I recently made and the exchange on the talk page (but if you want to avoid even this I sure understand) Slrubenstein

re Roy Rogers, you're right that 88-11 is 87 not 86, but he died before his birthday. Similarly I was born in 55 but I don't turn 48 for another month or so.... Rick Boatright 04:41 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Marj,

Regarding your removal of "anthropormorphism" from the text of "Active Transport," I think you're being too liberal about what you're condemning. I assume you were using the label to refer to language about cells "dividing responsibility" between two transporters--just because none of your other changes strike me as likely. Would you regard a statement calling rains "responsible" for floods guilty of anthropormorphism? How about one saying that a mountain range "divides" a country into regions? I bet you'd have no quarrel with those. So why label the cell sentence anthropormorphic?

I won't lose sleep over the change you made to that sentence, partly because it makes the sentence less wordy, but I think the change throws away a chance to speak (albeit indirectly) about evolution, not to mention to write in the active voice. I thought your other changes all were sensible--and I've liked other copyediting you've done too.

168...

Hi, again,

You wrote: "Evolution is supposed to be blind and random, and selection is supposed to be mindless and statistical. It confuses things when people who believe in evolution talk as if they really (perhaps without realizing it???) believed in intelligent design."

I'm familiar with this criticism and might make it myself in another context, but not here. I agree it applies to the sentence in question if you read it in an anthropomorphic way, but from what I wrote before you know I see such a reading as unusual and inappropriate. What's wrong with writing: "Quadrupeds divide the responsibility for load bearing between the forelimbs and the hind limbs"? And how does noting an obvious utility or use of some trait ("photsynthesis supplies energy to plants", to pick your favorite kingdom) imply design versus selection? Neither side doubts that traits have consequences. If one doesn't assert that the consequences are the cause ("wings evolved for flight"), I don't see any problem. I don't think we should be walking on eggshells and curtailing our speach out of fear that designers will read into things, and I think you're veering a bit in that direction. 168...

Yeah Dayton is Ohio I may go back and add states later on or see if someone else wants to do that Smith03

Hi, Marj,

Thanks for copyediting to my recent additions to DNA. It makes me feel good about them that you went so lightly. About your change of "X-ray" to "x-ray," though: AP style is to use a capital X. Of course, I know you have a style all your own, but then we both know that's no attribute to show off in copyediting. Is there some institutional style you had in mind as you made this change? And does your insitution trump AP as an authority here? Elsewhere on Wikipedia I have been using "X-ray" and I have to say that as of this moment I remain stridently unrepentant. You may just be chasing my trail of X's to the edge of the known Wikiverse. Or can you offer me any persuasion? 168... 21:04 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, the following ACS Website provides a weak counter example to your claim about their style. It's weak because of the standards for Web content, but it is official, and they use a capital X: http://pubs.acs.org/instruct/joceah_cif.html 168... 05:51 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Hebrew and Opera

I found this page on the Opera site: http://www.opera.com/support/search/supsearch.dml?index=435, so it looks like they're be adding bidirectional support in the next stable release. -- AdamRaizen 19:06, 2003 Sep 21 (UTC)

[edit] How to make English less fancy and more readable

I am about to go through the article on Portable desk completely, as I create the articles which are mentioned but do not exist yet. I was wondering what you meant, more precisely by the langage being "still fancy". Are there too many adjectives? Is it a question of using words that are not within a common usage list? Is it something else? Could you give an example of this "fanciness"? AlainV, on a very wintery, snowy Saturday morning at the end of November,

[edit] Baron Coleridge

I think that such information is extraneous, and that it tends to clutter the list. The list should merely provide the names of peers, along with relevant dates. If you desire, however, you may of course insert such material as you please in the introduction. -- Emsworth 20:01, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Re: "Maybe separate the activists from the spies and terrorists on the Israeli people list? ... Of course, then the question of where to put Mordechai Vaanunu may be problematic"

The reason I grouped them together is precisely this problem of classification – one person's activist is another's traitor; one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Grouping them all together means there isn't any need to present a POV. That said, it might be better to move Cohen and Vanunu into the military section (as they both worked for the Israeli military), and add one section for Activists (Avnery & Sharansky) and another for Criminals (less POV title than terrorists?) (Amir & Goldstein). Opinion? - Udzu 19:25, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


==

Glycophorin C

Thanks.

[edit] thanks!

i apologize for my idiotic deletion (GC/MS redirect); i am new to editing wikis (though a wikipedia-reading junky), and misunderstood the directions for redirection...i got cocky and neglected to preview my changes. i had just finished recopying the article from history, when i saw you had already rectified my error. THANKS! --St3vo

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)


[edit] Molecular orbitals are the statistical states

Marj, you changed the definition for Molecular orbital from stationary state to statistical state. It looks like the definition is pretty common but I don't understand connotations of this.

For me molecular orbitals are eigenwavefunctions (or approximations to it), the definition as stationary state is much closer to that then statistical state. Why, then, you used the latter, what is the sense (or, maybe, reason) for that?

Statistical state AFAIU is basically a probability distribution.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/r/User_talk%7EMarj_Tiefert_2b82.html"