User talk:Simpsons contributor/Out of date

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

test

[edit] Old stuff

Welcome!

Hello, Simpsons contributor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help pages Tutorial How to write a great article Manual of Style I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (Miller 20:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Eagleamn 03:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Photoinduced charge separation Regarding that article: You might want to write a good stub with one of the templates on Wikipedia:Template messages/Maintenance that apply to you. Thanks. --Wcquidditch | Talk 19:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Noncommercial images Please note that images which are restricted to noncommercial use are not suitable for Wikipedia. I have deleted Image:Phycocyanobilin.gif because it is restricted to noncommercial use. Please read Wikipedia:Image use policy before uploading more images. Rhobite 23:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Capitalisations Before you get too far into making new pages you may want to check out the style that others are using at WP:MOS. I noticed that you are using all capitals in headings and page names. Photoinduced Charge Separation should bprobably moved to Photoinduced charge separation as well as Reaction Centre to Reaction centre. All th sub section headings are usually lower case except for the first word. The reason i mention this is that I see you are linking Reaction Centre to many pages and you may have to go back and correct them all to Reaction centre if someone moves your page. David D. (Talk) 23:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I just created some redirects such as #redirect Reaction Centre to help out links from links such as Reaction centre and Reaction center. By the way i went to Edinburgh, it is a great University and a fantastic city. You'll love it. David D. (Talk) 23:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Simpsons_contributor"

[edit] Peace

Clearly me and you are from opposite ends of the spectrum. Lets just agree to disaggree. If you want to delete the molester comment, be my guest. However, I will not apologize for it. I was merely using rhetorical flair to illustrate my point. Illustration of the misuse of "allegedly" was my intention. For the record I did not accuse you of anything in that statement.

Also, thanks for the backhanded swipe at my locale. (I am tremendously impressed at your amazing internet skills at finding my location via IP, you must be like a magician or something?!?!!?? heavy sarcasm) Why didn't you just come out and call me a back woods idiot? Not very original. People from Alabama fought and died for your country, maybe you should think about that before slamming a region. (no insult here, I really do like the UK)

You seem to be attempting to intimidate me with comments like "If you don't your actions will be reported and you may be blocked from editing in the future." Whatever, you dont scare me.

Let's just end it. You and I are clearly not from the same mold politically. And good debate is important. You will continue to edit this article and I will just fade into the ether, deal?

I think this debate has illustrated some of the shortcomings of Wiki. What do you think? 68.62.150.155 02:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Since you asked for my opinion on this article I will give it to you. I honestly did not think you wanted to know. Jeremy Glick is in the zietgiest for only one reason, his apperance on The Factor with O'Rielly. I think the most fair thing would be to post the transcript of the interview and/or a link to the video and let people decide for themselves. As it stands now the article is a recap that ignores aspects of the interview that illustrate why the tone changed the way it did. If I had never seen the interview and only read this entry I would think O'Rielly flipped out for no reason at all. My solution would be to remove the recap altogether and post either a full transcript or the video itself and let people decide on their own who is right.

You mentioned international opinion about the war. I really dont want to debate the war because by now everyone has made up thier mind about it and debate seems useless as no one will change thier mind at this point. Americans are very independent minded people and are well aware that this war is unpopular in the salons of Europe. But, without trying to sound arrogant or flippant about it, we dont care what Europe thinks. France and other countries have let thier society decay into a decadent nihilist joke. (I would consider the UK outside this characterization)

Finally, I leave you with a quote. "The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke: English statesman, author, orator and political philosopher 68.62.150.155 02:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

First, I dont hate Glick, I think his views are infantile non-sense. He and his fellow travelers are more than welcome to express their views and I am free to ridicule them.

Second, I reallize that the war is not popular in Britain. I just dont care what other countries think. (just being honest, not trying to be insulting) I believe that France and other countries have become weak and capricious, that is why I singled them out. During the Cold War all of Western Europe was protected by NATO at the expense of the American tax payer who funded the US military. Now France returns the favor with opposition in the UN Security Council. With allies like these who needs enemies?

About the article...Are you willing to make any changes at all? What do you think is the most important part?

Lastly, the Guardian survey you mentioned probably did not survey Iraqis. Something to think about.

"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged 68.62.150.155 03:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photosynthetic reaction centre

Okay; these are the words that I found difficult or need explaining:

• heme
• dimer
• special pair
• periplasmic
• absorption maxima

Words I understood, but are still complex:

• analogous
• homologous
• redox
• transmembrane

smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 22:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Nice job with the article! About the stair analogy, Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia, even if everybody can edit it. By referring to the reader with a statement beginning with a word like "Imagine..." it takes a bit of quality away from the article. Though using the staircase as a direct comparison, "Just like a ball falling down a staircase, the electron can drop to its ground state and release energy.", would be appropriate, but with words like "That basically means that if " and "If you carry " weaken how the article sounds. I think on the FAC we rather overstated the difficulty in understanding the article- instead of simplifying in this way, I would suggest explaining things further instead. :) I also began including inline citations using <ref>s, which is probably the most major argument against this article. AndyZ 22:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Equations

Of course! What do you want converting? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 15:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocks

Of course- the "blocks" are actually just <div>s with certain properties/attributes. I created my own template for use, User:AndyZ/FA, and by looking at the source from that: <div style="border:3px solid #C91240; background:turquoise; width:90%, height:98%"> is the line that generates the "block" itself. Of course, the various properties like the color and the width can be shuffled around. If you need any addition help, I'll be glad to be of any help. Oh and btw, I think Photosynthetic reaction centre actually may attain FA status, since as of now several of the objections have been changed to supports, and the image copyright issue has been taken care of, inline citations have been added, copyediting has occurred, and history has been added. AndyZ 22:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hey, I noticed that you have just come back from a period of inactivity. I would like to suggest that instead of using an image on your user page, that you use the following:

Photosynthetic reaction centre has been listed as a good article for meeting the criteria for this category of articles. If you can expand or improve it further, please do so!

Thanks, AndyZ _t 00:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can you check...

I've replaced Image:Copy_PSII_new_design.JPG with Image:PSII_new_design.svg. Can you verify that the new version is correct? --Gmaxwell 20:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image reaction centre

(I'm moving this here since I'm not sure if you are watching my talk page) The image looks good. I would appreciate it if you incorporate it into the article because it seems as though few people support me or the article at the moment! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simpsons contributor (talk • contribs).

I think people are very supportive, they just don't think it is ready for FA status. Personally ,i think you have done a great job. I have tried to be constructive but if you don't like the changes it is your perogative to change back or discuss. Don't take the comments too harshly they are certainly not meant that way. Your contributions to wikipedia have been fantastic to date. David D. (Talk) 02:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photosynthetic reaction centre

Hi, the good article tag was removed on request as it had been added without any consensus to many articles, not because the articles were not good. As far as I understand there will be a process like the featured article one to decide what articles are "good". Martin 20:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

p.s. see Template:Good article, it says not to add the template, as you have done. Martin 20:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merge

(moved from DavidD.'s talk page to avoid breaking the discussion) Some time ago you helped improve the article Photosynthetic reaction centre to bring it to featured article standard. The article never became featured, probably because it's too obscure, so now I want to merge it with photosynthesis and then eventually rewrite that whole article. Few people have heard of reaction centres, but the majority of people have heard of photosynthesis, so this is probably a better candidate for a featured article. I just wondered if you would like to help merge the two articles appropriately. Thanks. --Miller 17:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• I wonder if the photosynthesis article is the correct one to merge with. At present it is already quite large. Do you think light-dependent reactions might be better? Personally, i think an article on reaction centres alone is quite a good idea. Part of the problem in wikipedia is that ithe crosslinking and context needs to be improved. Possibly we need to think of a hierarchial structure to bring together all the photosythesis related articles in a more coherent fashion. Top level simplicity (general and easy to read) leading to bottom level articles that are highly specific. This will also help eliminate the redunadancy that is present throughout the articles at present. it will also make the topic more approachable for all levels of education. David D. (Talk) 17:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • On the photosynthesis discussion page it is suggested that the article should be cleaned up. Maybe parts of the reaction centre article can be 'borrowed' to describe the light reactions in the photosynthesis article. I'm planning to create a section on the Calvin cycle and the pentose phosphate pathway too. After so much effort has been put into the reaction centre article by so many people it seems a great shame to get rid of it. The reason I want to do this is I'm desperate to get a featured article to my name! I figured photosynthesis is something that can be considered to be mainstream science and so has a better chance of becoming a featured article.--Miller 19:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Why are you desperate for a FA article? I'll be happy to help with the photosynthesis page too, but let's remember that it should be the entry page and an introduction to the topic (which is another reason why i think a merge would be a bad idea). The specific details, in my opinion, should be reserved for more specific articles (such as reaction center). The article should be appropriate for high school students reading about this topic for the first time. David D. (Talk) 20:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Agree with above; there is no need to merge the two articles (in other words, just keep them separate). However, I'll be glad to help to bring photosynthesis to FA status if possible! AndyZ _t 19:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• (replying to comment on my talk page): I don't have time to do big stuff right now (the next month or so looks busy as heck). However, I will try to keep an eye on Photosynthesis and help with the details—checking grammar and style, citing sources, etc. I agree that the main photosynthesis article is a better candidate for FA, but given the limits on article size (people on FAC tend to get more hissy than necessary when articles exceed 32Kb), it might be a good idea to keep photosynthetic reaction centre separate. The main article could have a summary of the biochemical structures involved, with a notice saying "For details, see the article photosynthetic reaction centre." This is how lots of articles handle that sort of thing. Anville 09:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] photosyntheses

no i didnt. looking at the talk page it still has the good article template. do you mean the little star that appeared on the article page? that template's been deleted for violating wikipolicy. Zzzzz 16:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

something about metadata, best to ask User:Raul654 about it.

I saw your note on User:Raul654's talk page. We try not to include metadata on articles themselves, relegating such self-referential tags and information to the talk page on the basis that they are more for editors than readers. One exception, for which there was wide-spread (although not universal) acceptance, is {{featured article}}, which shows that an article has been accepted as meeting the criteria to be a featured article and potentially appear as Today's featured article on the Main page. The good article process is relatively new and not entirely accepted, since the process for an article being selected as "good" is much more informal that the featured article process. The {{good article}} template was deleted recently for that reason (the closed debate is at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Good article).

Having said that, Photosynthetic reaction centre is a fine article: it may be worth considering a peer review, if it has not had one already, and then nominating it as a featured article candidate. Good luck! -- ALoan (Talk) 18:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cats

Elements cross-posted from here

Did you remove my cat picture from the cat article? If so why? Thank's George M, from George M.Miller 19:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The reasion I reverted it was because you replaced it with another one. If you were going to put it in, you should not replace it, and you should put it on the talk page first and see if the community wants it in the article. And even if the community wants it, please don't remove a perfectly good image so your cat can be in an encyclopedia. --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 22:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Bumhole.Miller 13:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cat

Elements cross-posted from here

Why isn't my picture 'perfectly good'? Why do you believe it's your place to remove my picture? Who says that you must post a request before adding new pictures? That one's news to me!Miller 13:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You removed another picture, so you could put yours in. You need the community to decide if they want your picture. And even if the community wanted your picture, then you should add it, not remove another picture to put that one in. --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 15:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:George.JPG

Hi, cute baby picture, hehe. If you still need this file please add it to some userpage, if not would you mind tagging it with {{db-author}}? - cohesion 03:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better late than never...

For excellent work on Photosynthetic reaction centre.

For excellent work getting Photosynthetic reaction centre to Good Article status, I award you this photosynthesising barnstar... smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 15:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better late than never...

For excellent work on Photosynthetic reaction centre.

For excellent work getting Photosynthetic reaction centre to Good Article status, I award you this photosynthesising barnstar... smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 15:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Root of all Evil?

Hi George, how's it going? I'm not entirely ecstatic about the latest bunch of changes you've made to The Root of all Evil?, and I think we should have a chat.

A week or so ago, I wasn't happy with the way the article was going, so I signalled my intention to "tidy it up" on the talk page. Did you read this? Maybe I didn't signal clearly enough, but nobody demurred on talk, so I took the green light to go ahead. As you know, I have tried to impose some structure on the article, but my main concern was that it seemed to be turning into a procession of quotations.

To be honest, I feel that your latest changes were slightly careless – not a problem, everything can be fixed – but worst of all (from my viewpoint) you have stuffed all the quotes back in. So clearly we need to get agreement on the way forward here. I happen to feel strongly that, in the present context, quotations in the main body of the text are neither helpful nor necessary, and should be used very sparingly.

(By the way, I know that my edits contained a few un-encyclopedic phrases – sometimes I can't resist bowling a few googlies. But I feel they could have been excised without turning over what I had written.)

Basically, I would like to undo your latest changes, and go back to a sanitised version of what I had written – and then proceed with re-working the remaining sections. Can I do that, or should I take my argument to talk?

Laurence Boyce 11:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea to get rid of some of the quotes, but I think those of Pastor Ted Haggard should be left in. Things like “some evolutionists would say…. that the eye just formed itself somehow” and how Rabbi Gluck pointed out that evolution is “just a theory” (this isn’t in yet) are two classic, recurring statements that anti-evolutionists use in an attempt to discredit evolution. Apart from those two statements I don’t think there are many more that need to be left in.

I have to agree with the goodies and baddies separation, but I changed it because this displayed a point of view.

I think you’ve done a good job with the article and you can remove most of the quotes so long as these important quotes (and maybe a short statement near each one about why they’re important) are left in.

Good job and thanks.

Miller 13:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks George, do you mind if we put this conversation in one place? I’m sorry, but I still disagree with you quite strongly. If I may just pick up on a few of the things you have said:

Things like "some evolutionists would say…. that the eye just formed itself somehow" and how Rabbi Gluck pointed out that evolution is "just a theory" (this isn’t in yet) are two classic, recurring statements that anti-evolutionists use in an attempt to discredit evolution.

George I agree, but this is not principally an article about controversies in evolutionary theory, though clearly that does come into it. We should try to forget whose side we are on, when reporting these exchanges.

I have to agree with the goodies and baddies separation, but I changed it because this displayed a point of view.

I happen to believe that the goodies/baddies thing was not an NPOV violation, because it was so obviously tongue in cheek. But, that is not an argument I feel I can win (or even want to win) at this point, and I am perfectly happy with the current headings.

However, I do feel that a number of things you have written (or maybe re-inserted) are a bit biased. To single out just one thing: Haggard fails to cite the "people" from the scientific community in question. He might very well have cited some sources for all we know – half of the footage in a documentary ends up on the cutting room floor. We should really be addressing what is said, not what is not said. In fact we shouldn't even be addressing it; we should be describing it.

I think you’ve done a good job with the article and you can remove most of the quotes so long as these important quotes (and maybe a short statement near each one about why they’re important) are left in.

No, no, no. We should not be saying why anything is important. Once again we should simply be describing the documentary, in a neutral tone. (And I apologise for my own ironic tone which I will endeavour to keep in check.)

Now you haven't really answered my question. Would you object if I were to undo your latest changes and then take things from there, or would you prefer me to open up a discussion on the talk page? I want this article to be of the highest quality, and I honestly don't believe it's heading that way at the moment.

Laurence Boyce 15:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi George. Did you think I'd gone on holiday? I'm afraid I've given you a public slap on the article talk page! Sorry mate.—Laurence Boyce 13:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please let's discuss it on the article talk page. Laurence Boyce 14:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] photosynthesis

hi, the article is tagged as a good article already, on the talk page? i dont recall ever removing it? Zzzzz 22:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

that template's been deleted. cheers. Zzzzz 22:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replies

Hi! I've already nominated about 50 medicine, life sciences related articles. You won't be told that your article was included or not. You have to watch Wikipedia:Version 0.5. But I'll review it today and I'll let you know when I'm ready.

Thanks for the image. :) I love all parts of life sciences: medicine, mainly genetics (I plan to become human geneticist), biochemistry. I maintain the featured Portal:Medicine and I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Medical Genetics. Hope to work together. :) NCurse _work 17:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to say that, but it seems that your article will fail on importance. It is just a protein, I know an important protein, but just a protein. Version 0.5 is at 620 articles. I nominated Tooth enamel, Helicobacter pylori, Tooth development... they all were moved to held nominations and were not included... Now just the most important ones will be included. Sorry, NCurse _work 19:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA

I recommend that you withdraw your RfA. For a while now, very few candidates have succeeded with an edit count of less than 2000, and self-noms with few edits succeed even less often. 18:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict I notice that you just applied for adminship. I'd like to suggest, just as advice, that it is way too early. I'm concerned that the experience of seeing all sorts of people opposing is not going to be fun, and you should consider applying when you have considerably more experience. Jkelly 18:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've delisted it. You might want to consider adding Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to your watchlist, and observe what happens there for a while to get a good idea of what people are looking for, and what it takes for a nomination to pass. Jkelly 19:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

In addition don't be too sarcastic in response to your RfA. It is a minor bump on the road and not worth getting frustrated over. I had an attempt to fix your barnstar, I'm not sure if that is what you were hoping for? Feel free to ask questions if you'd like some post RfA advice. By the way, your recent edits to your user page are a wise move for to facilitate more harmonious interactions with the politically motivated users here. David D. (Talk) 21:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Many redudant images

Hi, I noticed you've uploaded a lot of images and some of them are no longer used on any pages on Wikipedia. If you'd like to go through them and add {{db|put your reason here}} to ones that aren't being used. You can find your upload log Here. If you need any help with anything, drop me a message.--Andeh 12:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

To check if the image is being used anywhere, there's a header at the bottom of the page where the image is that says Image links. If it's being used somewhere, then there's no need for speedy deletion. Thanks.--Andeh 14:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, good work. :) --Andeh 14:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncyclopedia

Please keep the uncyclopedia stuff on uncyclopedia. Wikipedia doesn't need to mirror them :-) Cheers, -- Infrogmation 14:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In reply to your question, my comment above was in reference to eg the Colter caricature uploaded from there. I don't know of any problem with having the external link on your user page. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 14:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Root of All Evil?

Looks like Laurence Boyce (talk • contribs) is right. Whatever you do, don't editorialise, it violates WP:NPOV. — Dunc|☺ 08:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, okay, I'll warn Laurence Boyce (talk • contribs) about WP:OWN. Try to talk it out. I can't see really what you're arguing about. — Dunc|☺ 11:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your userpage

Looks like someone else beat me to it. By the way, you might want to archive your talk page, as it is getting rather long. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 22:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Root of All Evil?

Regarding my revert, I left a note about this at User_talk:Benjaburns. Essentially, I would prefer comments sourced from a reference, such as [1]. Addhoc 20:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your MedCab Case

Hello I'm Aeon and I will be your cabalist for you mediation case. I will be contacting th eother party in a minute. Do you still wish to pursue Mediation? Æon ^{Insane Ward} 16:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rv on creation-evolution

Sorry I had to revert some of your edits, it was easier that way than cleaning up all the mess prior to your edits. If you want to resubmit them that is fine. A couple might have been worded or placed better, but I generally agreed with them. Nowimnthing 19:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The mess I was refering to was more the edits by User:198.20.39.245. Yours were more of the right sentiment in the wrong place. Again if you want to take you proposals to the talk page, we can work out a better place for your additions. Nowimnthing 19:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved our discussion to the C&E talk page. Nowimnthing 20:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maths

Are these OK? They look right, except that Wikipedia does not support the two-way harpoon arrow for a reversable reaction. Nevertheless, reversible reaction indicates that a double headed arrow is an acceptable notation. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 19:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:BorisJohnsonemail.jpg listed for deletion

[edit] Image:OrphanBot small.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:OrphanBot small.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —AAA! ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Because the image is unencyclopedic and is a personal attack against OrphanBot. We have a strict No personal attacks policy on this site. --AAA! ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, even if the image is hidden, it is still considered a personal attack, and I have removed it from your copyright complaint archives page. Also, if you check the image again, you can see it has met the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, as another user has tagged. --AAA! ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't tolerate personal attacks on Wikipedia. Uncyclopedia, however, is another matter. So I won't stop you. But, knowing Uncyclopedia, I bet they'd remove it because it'd sound stupid. I'm an uncyclopedian aswell. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 03:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Cabal in english.jpg

As the original image commons:Image:Pasdecabale.jpg is licensed under CC-BY-SA, your modified version ought to be under CC-BY-SA, too, and not under GFDL. I've corrected this. --EvaK 19:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube link

What YT link are we talking about here? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it was taken out with this edit. The issue is that if someone illegally uploads something to YouTube (or Google video, flicker etc) then we can't link to it according to WP:C. Not all videos uploaded to YouTube are copyvio, but many are. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yuppers. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oxidative phosphorylation

I've done the equations. The page looks OK from a chemistry perspective, but I don't know much about electron transport chains; my biology A-level only touched on it. Laïka 15:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who Shot Mr. Burns?

I'm well aware of how DNA fingerprinting works. However, for you to point out that the filmmakers "goofed" in some way is original research. If you were to cite one of the filmmakers saying something about the goof, that's a different thing. However, in this case, you found the goof yourself and you reported on it. In other words, this is your own original research, which is not permitted in Wikipedia. Goofs are not permitted in the Trivia section or anywhere else. They belong on IMDb (which publishes such original research), not Wikipedia. --Hnsampat 16:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to look further. I can tell you for sure that there are tons of articles out there that have "goofs" listed in them. However, that doesn't change the fact that goofs are still original research.

Original research does not necessarily have to be completely made up nor does it have to be way off base. You're confusing original resarch with "quackery" and pseudoscience. Take a look at WP:OR and you'll see that original research can be somebody coming up with some incredibly new idea or somebody taking an existing idea and modifying it. For example, if an article about a film includes an "analysis" section where the author points out the various themes, motifs, symbols, etc. in that film without citing any outside sources, that would be original research. That is because the author of that section is introducing his own ideas. He examined the film and found something new that he is now sharing with everyone else. That is original research.

Likewise, you watched "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" and you, completely on your own, found an error. You then published what you found on Wikipedia. So, you conducted your own research and then you published it. So, that goof was original research.

Original research isn't a bad thing in and of itself. Every research article ever published anywhere is original research, since it is the author publishing the results of his/her own research. However, original research is forbidden on Wikipedia.

Furthermore, the inclusion of goofs in articles is unencyclopedic. An article on "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" in Encyclopedia Britannica (presuming that they were to ever write such an article) would not include goofs. Goofs don't belong in Wikipedia. --Hnsampat 16:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, just because other articles do it doesn't make it right. These articles also have lots of unsourced speculation (e.g. so-and-so may have been based on so-and-so), which is clearly original research.

Original research doesn't have to be false. It just has to be unverified. According to WP:Verifiability, information may only be included in an article that has been "published by reliable sources." Otherwise, it is considered "unverified." The "Sideshow Bob Roberts" example would be considered original research unless you found a source (e.g. a Simpsons producer) who explicitly said that that's what the reference was. (For example, in the episode where Homer becomes a union leader, Mr. Burns is shown making expressions like The Grinch. In the DVD commentary, Matt Groening explicitly says that the scene is a reference to The Grinch.)

I like reading Simpsons trivia as much as the next guy. But, we have to abide by Wikipedia's policies. If you'd like, I'd direct you to the SimpsonsWiki, which has different rules than Wikipedia. Also, like I said, trivia/goofs are encouraged on IMDb. Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Goofs are not notable enough to merit being in a Wikipedia article. --Hnsampat 18:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)