User talk:David D./Archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

——————————————— TALK: DAVID D. —————————————


Welcome.

(Contributions) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Current Talk

Contents
Use Wikipedia at your own risk!
Inspired by BlankVerse talk




WIKIPEDIA IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA
An encyclopedia is a written compendium aiming to convey information on all branches of knowledge.
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DUMPING GROUND FOR RANDOM INFORMATION
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT FOR UNCITABLE MATERIAL
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A BUREAUCRACY
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A BLOG SERVICE
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A MESSAGE BOARD
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FREE ADVERTISING SPACE
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE TO PUBLISH YOUR NEW IDEAS
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE TO PUBLISH YOUR POINT OF VIEW
Wikipedia is not nearly this in-your-face most of the time
You may here

[edit] Username change?

Uhm, you didn't request a username change from your original username? This makes looking through your contibution history a tad more frustrating... NSLE (T+C) at 06:49 UTC (2006-06-07)

I didn't realise that i would have to do such a thing. For reference my old user name was user:daycd. I am still in the process of moving over book marks etc. From what you are saying it sounds like this can be done automatically so that would be a great help. My reason for changing is that all the time i have been editing as Daycd but signing as David D. Cyde and Tony Sideway pointed out that this is confusing, and i agree. So i switched over to the new user name. Sorry for the confusion, could you point me in the right direction for making such a request? David D. (Talk) 06:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Changing username would be a good place to start, I guess... NSLE (T+C) at 06:57 UTC (2006-06-07)
Hrm, looking through that...

Please follow the procedure carefully or your request will not be fulfilled.
1. Check that the new name you want does not exist by searching Special:Listusers, you must capitalize the first letter of the username! If you do not, the search will fail; the English Wikipedia does not allow usernames that begin with a lowercase letter. NOTE: Do not create an account under the new name if available.

Might not be so easy now... NSLE (T+C) at 06:58 UTC (2006-06-07)

I'll check it out, i could always get this new one deleted. I only created it in the last day.
I just saw your reply to my oppose vote in the rfa. it was proto that said he always votes yes. I was looking through the history but he has so many edits that it was hard to confirm. For that reason i did pose that as a question. The melt down after the last rfa is a very big problem for me. i have seen this with several users who appear to be overly keen to become admins. There is a maturity problem in these cases and one that really makes me worry about promotion to admin level. Can someone grow up in three months? Possibly, however, i think this has happened before, after the first RfA. I will look into it more. i am definitely open to review my oppose. David D. (Talk) 07:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Old sig

My entirely too long and difficult to type old signature can be found here where you originally commented. That thing is a pain to type! :| — Nathan (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magic numbers on Mitochondria image

So the editor before me had tried to get the image to be 400px but his comment said he failed and had to change it to 300px, which worked. I was curious about this because I didn't understand it (and 300px wasn't so good). I tried it, and indeed 400px was just blank. I noted that the source image was of type .svg (not .png or .gif or other raster image). SVG is a vector format which has to be translated to raster to display.

I hypothesized that the "Scalable" Vector Graphics (SVG) translator being used on the wiki site might be having problems scaling. So I found the "natural size" of the graphic by taking out the 300px spec, and found that it was 622px wide. I guessed that the SVGer might do better with simpler integer ratios, so I looked for one near the desired 400px. I tried 2/3 of 622, which is 414.66px, or 415 rounded. It worked. Whether the reasoning about the translator behind my guess is actually valid I don't really know. -R. S. Shaw, 9 June

Brilliant deduction. And a fun story. You're regular Sherlock Holmes :-) David D. (Talk) 04:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Yup, except I think I just sent the wrong denizen up the river. Bug 5463 is one where blank images are rendered for SVGs, which is likely this problem. Not known why, but re-rendering can cure it, so it's probably not the size-ratio I hypothesized. The 415px probably worked just because it was new, uncached, and lucky. I recently got the 400px to work. (The blanks remain troublesome because of the flaky multiple-"?action=purge"s workaround required to get an actual re-rendering which works.) -R. S. Shaw 22:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] H4x

haha. i like harry potter. it is from the movie billy madison. its a great movie if you like adam sandler. bye.H4x 02:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)h4x

yea, ive pretty much seen every harry potter page on the whole world wide web. ive even positively edited a view. i truly do love wiki's. so how are you related to chlorophyll? H4x 02:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)h4x

My mum was yellow and my dad was blue. i turned out green ! :-P
But seriously, I'm a biologist and this page somehow got onto my watch list. David D. (Talk) 03:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the Help!

Dear David: Hey, Thanks! Would you be able to tweak it just a little more? I'd like to move down the "indulgence" to the bottom row, so all the barnstars are listed above the informal thingies. --CTSWyneken 01:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject

I was wondering if you would reconsider your "vote" on the mfd page. We were only created at 17:28, 16 June 2006 ,and were down for a while as a result of a deletion. We are mainly about helping users make their own page, and from this they learn the technical apsects of Wikipedia. As for the "hired gun" aspect of the project, that part is not as important to us as the Do-it-yourself pages. Even when we do perform that part of the project, we still take time to explain and teach all the changes we have made to the user. This project was honestly created in the best intrest of Wikipedia, and I beg you to reconsider your position. Thank you, Thetruthbelow 06:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering. I have discussed your advice with another founder, and we are trying to expand greatly the Do-it-yourself section. If you have any more suggestions, please let me know, as I greatly respect your advice. Thanks, Thetruthbelow 07:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll certainly keep an eye on your progress and offer any constructive advice i can think of. I think it could become very useful. Sorry for my initial negativity, I have never really been a big fan of userpages. However, on thinking about what you are trying to do, I can see you advice can readily be used for all pages on the encyclopedia. Good luck with this project. David D. (Talk) 07:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that, and if you would like to join the project, possibly in a new position that deals with the expansion and policy of the project, you could do that. Give me your thoughts, Thetruthbelow 07:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer but I will decline for now. I will watch from the sidelines. David D. (Talk) 07:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
That's fine. If you do see something that you think is wrong though, please let me or one of the founders know. Thanks again, Thetruthbelow 07:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, what do you think of the project now? We have made alot of changes and added alot of stuff. Thetruthbelow 22:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I've been watching and it looks a lot better. Much more focus on the educational resources. :-) Sam seems to be giving you a lot of good advice and there is certainly a lot of positive energy in the project too. Is there any chance of a formal collaboration with the esperanza crowd? This would also be a step in the right direction since it would put a dent in the argument layed out by some of the projects critics that similar resources already exist in wikipedia. Personallly, I think what you are putting together is better than those other resources. David D. (Talk) 22:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Enzymes

Hey thanks for sorting out the table in that page for me, i had trouble getting it to work! Cheers! - Modulus86 23:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
John Godina
1958 European Championships in Athletics
Olga Shishigina
No Answers in Genesis
Mal Couch
Mirela Manjani
European Indoor Championships in Athletics
National Center for Science Education
Olga Kuzenkova
1962 European Championships in Athletics
Kim Collins
1946 European Championships in Athletics
Grant Jeffrey
Farrell Till
Werner Gitt
John D. Morris
Pacific International University
Coenzyme
IAAF World Junior Championships in Athletics
Cleanup
Steve Moneghetti
Brunch
Hackley School
Merge
Third-World Feminism
Holmenkollen
Taste (aesthetics)
Add Sources
Aldershot
Matronymic
John Flanagan
Wikify
Grottaglie
Jacqueline
Keith Douglas
Expand
Omega Watches
Karyotype
Canton McKinley High School

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba 13:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

(Sorry about the delay, it's not smart about redirected user talk pages.)

[edit] Vestigial structures peer review

I figured I should alert you that the article has passed GA and I have put it up for peer review where once again it has been suggested that the bullet format should be removed from the article. I was hoping you might drop by for some commenting. Thanks :)--SomeStranger(t) 19:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James McKinney Elementary School

I've been following the edits to the school, and yes, all that sports detail is unencyclopedic, but the editor's been doing a fine job otherwise, and I don't want to be discouraging. -- Usgnus 03:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. i had no intention of doing any massive editing. I looked at the editors work and s/he is doing a great job, i agree. I thought the mention in the edit summary may get the primary editor to reflect a bit on the page too date. Thanks for your observations. David D. (Talk) 04:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random picture of the day

Your pictures are fabulous! The Arabidopsis SEM from today is brilliant -- Samir धर्म 07:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, someones watching :-) thanks for the compliment. The SEM is a little over exposed but certainly pretty. I'll try and dig up a few more. David D. (Talk) 09:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Barbara McClintock

The article was held because it was determined to be outside the scope of 0.5. I don't have any concern about the sources. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Maurreen 12:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you're quick. We were writing to each other at the same time. :) Maurreen 12:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My rfa

I left an email to you. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 22:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

OK I have not seen that yet. But i just posted two questions for you on the RfA.
  1. Why do you think you would be a good administrator when you do not seem to handle the stress here very well?
  2. Do you think being an adminsistrator would make your time here more or less stressful?
I'd be interested to hear your answers before I reconsider the vote. David D. (Talk) 23:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally emailed the response because of privatcy issues. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

An e-mail ocnversation is finme with me. Please realise i do mean you well David D. (Talk) 23:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I did another reply. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] jaranda page

Obviously it looks ok on your browser, but have you checked others? This is the screen shot from my computer (safari). The problem, in my view, is that by not having a fixed width for the pin image cell then that cell in the table can be of variable size. As soon as it increase from 80 px the all-brown background is visible and it breaks the edge of the paper at the the top, as you can seen in the screenshot. Did the pin image cell remain a fixed size in your own browser? If so, I assume this is because the the 50% width you specified for the neighbouring cells that caused it too remain small. Clearly this does not work in all browsers. After i made the changes did it look wrong on your browser?

Also, on my screen, the colour definitely does not match. the colour i substituted was the exact match according to photoshop. Did it look wrong in your browser? David D. (Talk) 16:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The original looks perfect in Mozilla Firefox and reasonably perfect in Internet Explorer, the two browsers I looked at when I originally made the page. Since I made the image, I know for a fact that the background color is in fact the same color as the background color for the pin. The best option may just be to redesign a less complex page. I don't want to divert an unnecessary amount of resources away from the main objective of Wikipedia, building an encyclopedia, to dealing with the inconsistencies in web browsers for a user page. joturner 16:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, re: wasting time. But I am interested, did the changes i made mess up Jorges page in your browser? By the way i think what you did is very creative. David D. (Talk) 19:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It just dawned on me that the differences with respect to colours are due to the limitations of web colors (see figure to the right). Comparing the two shades of brown we were using (D5A96C and CC9956 respectively) neither equate to a standard web colour, although both are similar. The real colour that should be used is #CC9966, and will be universal with respect to different browsers and monitors. i hope you find this useful David D. (Talk) 21:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those changes did mess up the changes in Jaranda's... er... Jorge's browser. Regarding the web colors, I thought that perhaps that may have been the problem, but I perished the idea because the it's 2006 after all; the idea of web-safe colors ought to be outdated. Safari hasn't quite caught up. joturner 01:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Initially it never crossed my mind it was a safe color issue. Anyway at least we are more aware of the imcompatability issues. i had not realised there were such large differences possible between browsers. David D. (Talk) 03:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
So i just tried it with a mozzilla based browser and the only thing my edits mess up were the colours. The fixed 80px for the pin image cell didn't messup the formatt. i will make that formatting edit again, but this time without changing the colour. At least that way safari users will see the pinned pieces of paper the way they should be seen, rather than with the unsightly brown gap at the top (see screen shot above. The colour differences are tolerable, so that is a trivial problem. David D. (Talk) 03:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Not quite; it now looks even worse in Internet Explorer (Win XP); it looks very similar to the screenshot you took with the images off-center, but the colors are in coordination. joturner 03:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It does? Sigh, so mozilla, explorer and safari all look different. I don't have exploer to check. Before you revert it, could you please get a screen shot? i don't understand why explorer would reject that code. I can't guess without seeing the end result. if you get a screen shot can you e-mail it to me or just upload to wiki, thanks. David D. (Talk) 04:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
May I upload it in place of Image:Jaranda.jpg? joturner 04:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Perfect. Thanks David D. (Talk) 04:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Done. joturner 04:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My brother

Actually, the only reason he got on wikipedia was because I showed him my user page aqnd my contributions. He is still pretty young, and I don't think he is mature enough to edit here. Thetrutbelow 17:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Never under estimate a child. Raise the bar high and they will usually rise to the challenge. How old is he? He must be old enough to log in and write, or delete ;), at least. David D. (Talk) 17:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
He just turned 12, but he always uses aim language on everything. He does not write efficently or well, and he really doesn't have any interest in Wikipedia other than goofing around. Oh well, Thetrutbelow 17:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Obviously he is old enough to edit productively, if he chooses. He may goof around, but given responsability he may mature. At the end of the day denying access to something just makes people want to get to it more. In this case, almost certainly with destruction in mind. He has no interests at all? David D. (Talk) 17:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
He really enjoys tennis, and I tried to get him to edit an article constructively. He said that it was boring and left. I want him to edit, but I don't think he wants to. Thetrutbelow 17:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
He'll either get bored or hooked. But banning him is like waving the red flag at a bull. He'll get hooked on pissing you off. i.e. vandalising wikipedia. Just ignore him, or better yet, go and kick his ass in a tennis match ;) David D. (Talk) 17:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I wish i could beat him in tennis! He is ranked in the state I live in, and since my only sport is football, he can definetly whoop me :) Thetrutbelow 17:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Well go and get whooped for the sake of wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 17:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Pin-45leftWC.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pin-45leftWC.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quixtar

Thanks for the help on the talk page -- Though, it seems pointless as there is now a bot guarding against the links that were approved via discussion earier this year. It seems kind of heavy handed to sick an automated bot on the page when users were doing a good job keeping to the 'approved' discussed links... Gallwapa 18:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a bot? i had not noticed this? i apologise for being heavy handed with regard to deleting the links i was just trying to prune it down a bit in what i hoped was an objective way. I am certainly open to leaving some of them in (1 blog for example). i have left the talk page in such a way that i hope discussion can continue. David D. (Talk) 18:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation at Electron transport chain

Hello, Btarski has responded to the compromise offer with a counter-offer. Please review and comment. Also, I have contacted Btarski and asked that he continue to take every opportunity to be civil and assume good faith in this matter. Aguerriero (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Job

I just wanted to commend you for the great job you have been doing on the Martin Luther Article. Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 20:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but i assume you mean the talk page. i have edited squat on the article. David D. (Talk) 20:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, thats what I meant, but I was also referring to the FA thing, as you helped there too. Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 20:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] I have decided to retire

Hello David D. I just wanted to come here and thank you for everything before I retire from wikipedia. I have decided not to stay for various reasons, mostly from the past. I have seen what this place has done to people, and I have decided to not let it happen to me. I don't know if I will come back, but regardless I wanted to thank you. You were always nice to me, and for that I am forever greatful. Thank you my friend for everything. Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 04:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] returned from my retirement because of you all

Hey man. I just wanted to tell you that I have returned due to your’s and others kind messages and emails. I missed this encyclopedia, and I have missed you as well. I really appreciate all that you have done for me. Matt B."aka" Thetruthbelow 06:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enzyme kinetics

Hi David Could you have a look over the new enzyme kinetics section and see if I have missed anything out or become needlessly over-technical? Thanks--TimVickers 02:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Documenting Grace Alone

Would you weigh in on Doright's request that we document the obvious? --CTS Wyneken(talk) 21:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Since I know nothing about religion, nothing is obvious to me with respect to religious doctrine. Consequently I'm not sure any of my opinions on the topic would hold much weight. David D. (Talk) 21:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Athletics"

Sorry, David -- I live in Canada, and when normal people use the word "athletics," they always mean "sports." If you Google /athletics site:.ca/, you'll find the only results in the first 150 or so are Athletics Canada and a few provincial affiliates. I suppose Athletics Canada uses the term "Athletics" because of its association with the IAAF and because it is similar to the French term. You'll notice that Athletics Canada calls itself "The sport governing body for track and field in Canada" and its website "the online showcase of Canadian track and field."

I've changed the UK link again, this time to a "Track and field roundup" from the BBC (which uses both terms). -- Mwalcoff 04:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say they don't use the term track and field in Canada. Just from reading their web site it is clear the term is used. However, you said track and field is the only term used in Canada. If the organising body uses the term obviously you can not say that. David D. (Talk) 04:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean not everyone thinks soccer was invented by Satan? No worries -- might as well have my biases out in the open. -- Mwalcoff 05:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, just a warning because one of the common fights in athletics, from a north american perspective, is should it be measured/reported in imperial or metric. How can you be a Canadian but a metriphobe? Are you a Clevelander living in Canada? That would make more sense. David D. (Talk) 05:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] XS Energy Drink

Thanks. I've been meaning to do some cleanup on these Scamway articles. You want something interesting? Try a Google search with "Amway" and "scam". A nice synopsis is at Corporate Narc, I just may have to add that to some of the articles external links... Have a great day. Ifnord 05:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portals

Thanks, for the additions! I didn't want to add anything, since I was the creator and didn't want to seem too presumptious. It's good though, it will get things rolling and set standards for people to emulate. We need more people in the project to be proactive. Keep it up!--GAThrawn22 00:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, i find it amazing that there are so few cell bio pictures available. You're right we need more people involved. David D. (Talk) 01:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re your recent msg

thanks David for your msg however I do not understand what you mean? I don't know how to make the changes you suggest perhaps you can enlighten me further? many thanks Peter morrell 19:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thanks David for your msg: I have now ticked the raw signature box as you said but still don't quite know how to do the other thing...I must be very dim but I just don't get it! sorry thanks Peter morrell 19:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thanks I have done that but my name still appears in red and takes me to the user page instead of the talk page...any ideas? thanks Peter morrell 19:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
OK thanks I think I will leave it at that for now phew! cheers Peter morrell 19:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Sig

Dear David:

Thanks for the suggestion! The reason is I'm not a particularly effecient coder. I couldn't figure out how to do it without an underline under talk. Thanks for the suggestion. I think I'll put it into use. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 17:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is a better place to see what i proposed since your talk page link does not work on your own talk page, of course.
Proposed code:
<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">[[User:CTSWyneken|CTS]]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">[[User talk:CTSWyneken| Wyneken<sup>(talk)</sup>]]</font>
Gives this signature: CTS Wyneken(talk)
Not sure if this is any good since there is still an underline. Anyway now you know this code you can probably experiment. And now you can add somethiong else with your gained characters :) David D. (Talk) 17:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly you could just remove the talk althogether? I think it is quite intuitive that the second colour will direct to your talk page.

Thus, another altrernative:
<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">[[User:CTSWyneken|CTS]]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">[[User talk:CTSWyneken| Wyneken]]</font>
Gives this signature: CTS Wyneken

Which is even smaller. Then you won't be in Tony Sidaways crosshairs. David D. (Talk) 17:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... when your version appears on my talk page, its perfect! No underline under the talk. WHen I paste it into my perferences, it comes out with the underline... The reference librarian in me likes the little (talk), 'cause new folk here don't always get the concept and a little assistance never hurt. Anyway, thanks for taking a wack at the puzzle. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 20:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Any link that it to the same page will come out as a bold link. Look at the (talk) in my signature here, it is black bold since it is my own page. That is what has happened to your signature on your own page. Another solution is to not link the last part of your name, ONLY the talk part. Try this: <b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">[[User:CTSWyneken|CTS]]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">Wyneken</font><sup><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">[[User talk:CTSWyneken|(talk)]]</font></sup>, that will look like this: CTSWyneken(talk)
Now you only have the talk link. This makes more sense to me, my original problem is that i was confused by the two different links and thought that the Wyneken one was a different sub page in your user space. David D. (Talk) 20:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ATP

Sorry, yeh, mistake... I didn't realize.. I was trying to fix what you were talking about.... I cliked on the wrong revision... I'll revert it to the changes you made... it's good.--GAThrawn22 02:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm open to adding some of those changes but i still think the original diagram is better then the new ones. The spinning top gif is not really an improvement in my opinion. Possibly the space filling or the ball and stick model may be a worthwhile addition? David D. (Talk) 01:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, I do agree, that some of the images may be useful. I'm not sure that they should be at the top of the chembox. It takes up a lot of space... Either the ball and stick model or the space filling model might be useful, since it gives a 3D representation of the structure; as it stands now, it takes too much guess work to determine what color represents what atom (there's no key). Perhaps they might be added at the end of the article... what do you think? --GAThrawn22 02:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think in the article space, with a key, would be the best compromise. At the end of the day the chem box should be ultra informative, the old figure seemed to fullfill that role the best. But a coloured 3D picture does have a certain 'Wow' factor that is worth incorporating, as well as giving some useful 3D structural information. David D. (Talk) 02:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] thanks...

...for the warning :) --Striver 04:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem David D. (Talk) 04:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] User talk:149.135.47.197

Your edit to User talk:149.135.47.197 has been removed. Please feel free to use the sandbox. Continuing to vandalise may result in a ban.

149.135.47.197, it is against Wikipedia rules to remove warnings from your talk page which have been issued by users. I have warned you about that, so do not proceed to again. --Killfest2 05:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks again David, for your help, my user page is working great now! all blue! cheers Peter morrell 16:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure Peter, if you need any other help please ask. It does take a while to get the hang on the wiki markup and i have yet to find a place where it is all described in a way that is easy to understand. I have found the best is just to pick things up as you go along. Sorry for being your antagonist on the homeopathy page, I am a scientist by trade, so I am sure we come from polar opposites with respect to perspective. Please don't take any disagreements personally, despite how it may look, I do listen and think about what other people say, even if I disagree. Certainly I am into compromises and not edit warring. I find the edit warring futile since the pages are never stable using that tactic. Not to mention the burn out of edit warring contributors seems to be pretty high. I look forward to more interesting discussions. David D. (Talk) 16:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] ATP images

Response to ATP images at User talk:Bryn C:

Hi David and thanks for the notification. Indeed, the modifications I made to ATP were some of my first. Those images could certainly be improved. I have since made many similar changes and had intended to revisit the ATP article. For the time being I am happy to have the changes reverted. All of my images are created using ChemOffice 2005 and Adobe Photoshop/ImageReady CS2. All of the 3D models are MM2 energy minimized. I must disagree than any edit can be "too much to change in one go", and I would encourage you to assess the merits of each change individually. I am working slowly (the animations in particular are very time consuming) but steadily through the articles listed in Category:Organic compounds, and I would like to think I am improving them (compare before and after). If you have any specific comments or suggestions I would very much like to hear them. Regards, Bryn C (t/c) 00:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe i should say "too much to change in one go without an initial discussion". I think we are all open to changes. personally, I like the stick and ball models. I'm not too keen on the spinning gif, although a slower moving one might be desirable. At the end of the day my opinion does not count for much. My reason for contacting you is that there are a lot of people who will have constructive opinions and will be willing to help out. I think I referred you to the wikiproject (molecular and cellular biology). That is probably as good as any place to start a global discussion on a new style for chemboxes. Did you check out that page? David D. (Talk) 00:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers !

Cheers for giving me a hand with the Thylakoid article, it's a pleasure working with you :-) The magical Spum-dandy 17:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, good idea doing the pigment disamib page. David D. (Talk) 17:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The quote

I wouldn't have "over-reacted" if it hadn't been deleted a billion times, even though I referenced the friggin' quote about sixty times, and linked to it properly each time. Barwick 13:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Auxin

Good job, good points! I should do it long time ago! (But I was not bold enough as it is removing of the content). Have a good time. Yours sincerely Reo ON | +++ 18:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Black's RFA

Nevermind what I said, I'm not going to continue arguing this. His RFA is getting too spammy and lengthy. --Cyde↔Weys 18:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You have my permission to delete the conversation if that will help shorten the rfa. David D. (Talk) 19:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Removed, it really wasn't helping anyone. And I can see why you think my characterization of your words was a bit inaccurate; it was (a bit). --Cyde↔Weys 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't take it the wrong way Cyde, i was not trying to be offensive, but I really had no clue where you were coming from. Unfortunately, this is one of the major problems on the internet. Badly written English in combination with misunderstandings goes a long way to cause unneccesary friction. Glad to see you removed it. David D. (Talk) 19:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SB RFA

Yeah, too bad no one else will understand the reference, as the comments have now been moved off of SB's RFA and onto respective talk pages. This is not the first time that I've had a nominee's attack-dog come after me and ridicule (here, quite literally) my opinion because it didn't match their own. Questionable behaviour, really. Themindset 22:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Attack-dog? Hah. These comments are a bit more incivil than anything I've ever said to you, but I guess since this comment wasn't directed at me you think it's acceptable? --Cyde↔Weys 22:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falsely accused by David D

Pasted from Talk:Jennifer Granholm

[edit] counties won in 2002

The text that Steelbeard1 (talk · contribs) wants to be incorporated is:

Granholm's four point margin of victory was met with some criticism as she unanimously won only two of eighty-three counties in the state, Wayne and Washtenaw counties.

The source for election results by county: CNN shows that she won 11 counties of the first twenty five. Of those eleven she won nine unanimously 51% or more of the vote). She got 60% or more of the vote in four counties Genesee, Ingham Wayne and Washtenaw. So first, what does Steelbeard1 mean by "she unanimously won only two of eighty-three counties "? I'm confused by the criteria used to arrive at this number. Second, this looks a lot like original research. If this is such a well known criticism there should be a quotable article out there somewhere. David D. (Talk) 06:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Scrabbleship said that, I didn't. I was the one who deleted that statement originally. Check the article history. I also added the CNN source. An apology is due, David D. Steelbeard1 11:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, a case of mistaken identity. The correct attributions can be seen here. Sorry for the error. David D. (Talk) 15:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Corrected original entries. Apologies accepted. Steelbeard1 16:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Jennifer Granholm article

Actually, there is already a table of poll results in the article Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006 so we don't need another one in either the Granholm or DeVos article. Steelbeard1 21:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So let's just delete it. David D. (Talk) 21:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course. Let's direct readers to the article about the Michigan governor's race. I guess we should now simplify the DeVos article and add more detail to the governor's race article. Steelbeard1 08:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing that I simplified the Dick DeVos article. Since the material I removed was about the governor's race in general, I simply moved the material to the govenor's race article. Steelbeard1 17:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Line art

Hey, since you asked about line art and why PNG representations of line art are preferable over JPEG images, some good reading is at Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload. You'll find background information at Compression artifact and the pages that page is linked to, especially lossy data compression and lossless data compression. And don't omit to read the thing it's all built around, the deep and subtle Fourier transform. Dr Zak 21:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Great links that will definitely satisfy my curiosity, and save me time in the future since i'll save in PNG from now on. While were are at it, what is the prefered format for photos? David D. (Talk) 21:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
For line art SVG is best, since it's a vector graphics format and thus scales best. PNG (a bitmap format) is also good, as it is lossless. Photographs are best uploaded as JPEG images as the compression algorithm is well suited to such pictures. Dr Zak 21:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, i'll do this from now on. David D. (Talk) 21:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Double helix template

Hi, I must admit that I am a complete idiot when it comes to markup or html or whatever it is called. I tweaked (or more accurately plagiarised/modified) a template from one created by JWSchmidt by trial and error untill I got something approximating what I wanted. I'm quite open minded about the templates (and I think so is J.Schmidt), so feel free to play about with them. In December I modified one of John Schmidt's templates into several different ones for use in DNA discovery articles, originally it looked something like this, I modified it to include only those involved in 1953 this with photo and this without photo and also modified another one of J. Schmidt's templates for others not involved directly in 1953 but still involved in the discovery, for inclusion in the articles of the big four Template:Single strand DNA discovery2, so it's the same but lacking Crick, Franklin, Watson and Wilkins as they have their own template with each others names on it for their own articles (does this make sense?). Alun 21:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

PS I very much appreciated your general tidy up of the Rosalind Franklin article. Thanks very much. Alun 22:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Personal Note

Greetings,

I note a revision in your userpage indicating your college choices. Consider this a gentle prod from a like-minded admirer that you might wish to add Harvard among them. I'm quite certain, given both your intellect and your unusual background, that you would be a formidable candidate, and a benefit to the University as well. I would gladly pay your application fee myself. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; that's quite a compliment (and quite an offer). The only downside about Harvard is that it does not offer a degree in civil engineering, my intended major. And before you say MIT, I have to say I'm looking for an all-around, instead of specialized, school (if only they combined MIT and Harvard...). Perhaps I'll apply to one of two schools anyway (although I couldn't possibly accept your offer). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Harvardian aspiring engineers often choose physics, math, social studies, or sociology as their "concentration" (unfortunately, some small vestiges of elitism do remain at Harvard, and the curricular vocabulary is one: we don't have "majors.") Much flexibility is also given to undergraduates in designing their own course of study, so you may make the civil engineering curriculum for yourself, in consultation with a faculty advisor.
Your suspicion regarding our friends on the other side of Cambridge is correct: M.I.T. really is as frighteningly dull as is reported (for those people who have any interest in the humanities, anyway.)
My offer stands; should you decide to apply, a visit to Cambridge is always best, and I can see about arranging for an especially friendly person in the admission office to handle things. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 04:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
So you went to Harvard (still there?)... that answers a lot. I have visited Harvard on many occasions (note the second sentence of the bio on my userpage) and went once last August in a prospective student state-of-mind. Surprisingly, you have convinced me to apply to Harvard, especially since it looks like the school's application won't amount to a whole lot of extra work for me because Harvard uses the Common Application. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Given he grew up near Boston, i think its time for him to spread his wings. He can't go wrong with his current choices. David D. (Talk) 04:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Sigh... if only you knew...
My family is trapped... spread my wings indeed. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Proposition 209

Don't foeget that Berkeley abandoned affirmative action due to proposition 209. David D. (Talk) 16:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do remember that, but I was addressing his comment about Stanford specifically. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about stanford. Even the sports star are really intelligent. Stanford is known for its strict academic requirements. Its a shame you have to worry about such things. Again good luck. David D. (Talk) 16:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Readability of Chiro article

I suspect that the following message might apply:

  • Attention Firefox and Google Toolbar users: You may find that long pages are cut off unexpectedly while editing in tabs; please be careful. This issue has been reported to Google, and we hope they will fix it.

This message appears when in the editing mode. Right now I can't read the bottom of the talk page, including my own entries! I removed the "References" heading and code you had made, hoping that would help, but it didn't. Were you intending to start a references section on the talk page? If so, it's not a good idea, since archiving will screw it up. -- Fyslee 12:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I was trying to figure out how to make the text visible. I found by stripping out the refs it is back to normal. What you saw was me groping in the dark trying to get the text back. You'll note my first effort was to archive some of the page since I thought it possible that "cut off unexpectedly" message might be occuring. David D. (Talk) 12:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

Just to clarify. i noticed that tehre are some people very close to this subject commenting on this page. i had never heard of barratt untill recently and I'm not even sure how I stumbled across the page. i would like to think the comments i have made to date are from an outside perspective. Please don't think i am in any camp with regard to this issue. David D. (Talk) 08:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi David D. Thanks for the clarification. I am not saying that you are in a camp but agreed with your comments about lurking. It is good to have an outside perspective but sometime popping in and out does not allow a full understanding of the issue at hand. Case in point you pop in to bulk delete one of my contribution and did not reply to my comments on this, in the talk page. While I understand the OR point, I am sure that there is a better way to address these issues than just popping in and out...NATTO 09:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I fully understand. I may well be reading too much of the talk and not enough of the article. I will read the article properly and make some comments on the talk page if i see specific examples that need tightening up. To tell you the truth, considering the controversial nature of the subject, you are are all keeping your cool and making real progress. It nice to see mature editors for a change.
Re: the OR, i did come back to reply to your comments but it all happened so fast, compared to other pages i have edited, that you had already resolved the issue. Did you ever find good sources for those comments. i notice that to date you have not worked them back into the article. David D. (Talk) 09:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • David D. I agree. Of course everyone has his POV and trying to use his or her interpretation of the rules to get their POV across. I for have not affiliation with either those who are against so-called quackery ( being affiliated to Quackwatch or having their own anti-quackery web sites ) or people like Bolen or Negrete. However I know there is more to alternative and complimentary medicine than what Quackwatch is " informing people about. The problem is getting the correct information in the article without " protecting " one view over the other.

As for the posting on the information on the Quackwatch web site , I agreed that under the rules it is OR so I did not work on it since. This said even Barrett agrees that he is not fair and balanced in his presentation of information so that in itself should make Quackwatch more an opinion forum than a reliable and neutral source of public information. NATTO 12:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Comment: I bolded the text for easy reference not Natto. David D. (Talk) 14:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is good information but the OR criteria means it needs to be someone elses analysis. David D. (Talk) 12:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the statement above:
"...even Barrett agrees that he is not fair and balanced in his presentation of information..."
I have seen you write this before, but it is a misrepresentation of what he actually says:
"How do you respond to accusations that your writing is unbalanced?
"Balance is important when legitimate controversy exists. But quackery and fraud don't involve legitimate controversy and are not balanced subjects. I don't believe it is helpful to publish "balanced" articles about unbalanced subjects. Do you think that the press should enable rapists and murderers to argue that they provide valuable services? The information Quackwatch provides is not filtered by editors who are too timid or believe it is politically incorrect to provide the naked truth about theories and methods that are senseless. When discussing conflicting viewpoints, we indicate which ones are the most sensible." [1]
If you want him to treat the subjects he's dealing with in a "balanced" way (in the sense you seem to be using it, that is presenting both sides of an issue in a NPOV way), then of course he won't do it, and not many people would, since there would be no point in writing a book or having a website, if one did that.
His explanation above can be illustrated by this: That kind of "balanced" presentation about Hitler would give equal time to his own justifications for the holocaust, and equal time to his victims for why he shouldn't have done it.
Barrett thinks that kind of "balance" is nonsensical, especially when dealing with unethical, unscientific, and often illegal actions. He is presenting balance by presenting the "other side of the coin." The quacks are already out there with a far greater internet and written presence, than those who expose and debunk them. Of course they don't think it's "fair" of him to debunk them, but that's life. They make false claims, so he's in his good right to present the scientific POV and debunk them.
Unfortunately, they don't counter his criticisms by building a better scientific argument that proves him wrong. No, instead they simply attack him personally, the good old dirty street trick of ad hom attacks. If you can find the "exception that proves the rule" of somebody actually answering his scientific criticisms with scientific answers, I'd like to see them. I think I've only stumbled across one or two in the last seven years. All the other responses are straw man and ad hom, and the Talk page is full of them. -- Fyslee 13:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


I quote Dr. Barrett: " Balance is important when legitimate controversy exists. But quackery and fraud don't involve legitimate controversy and are not balanced subjects. I don't believe it is helpful to publish "balanced" articles about unbalanced subjects. Do you think that the press should enable rapists and murderers to argue that they provide valuable services? The information Quackwatch provides is not filtered by editors who are too timid or believe it is politically incorrect to provide the naked truth about theories and methods that are senseless. When discussing conflicting viewpoints, we indicate which ones are the most sensible. [2] " Of course he is also the judge of what is a legitimate controversy and what is fraud.... NATTO 16:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I read a reply, but not an answer to my questioning of your misrepresentation:
"...even Barrett agrees that he is not fair and balanced in his presentation of information..."
Where has he "agreed?" "Fair" is your POV. You're naturally welcome to have it, but to claim that he himself "agrees" with that POV is a misrepresentation.
As far as the question of "balance," what do you require of him for him to present the subjects in a manner that satisfies your POV on "balance?" Do you think he should promote the ideas he is debunking? What would be the point of speaking out at all? Doesn't he have a right to his POV, especially since he documents them? Doesn't balance require that both sides of the coin be examined? The salesmen of products and ideas certainly aren't interested in their customers learning about the other side of the coin! -- Fyslee 10:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dear David

Dear David, there is nothing, nothing to apologize for, and even less to feel guilty for, k? :) In fact, I should thank you for the smile that your words "smooshing, hugs and kisses" gave me... it made me imagine a dogpile of people all hugging and kissing each other while singing Friends Will Be Friends! The fact that you took the time to have a look at my portals was a flattery in itself, and even more your kinds words towards them. Allow me to be very honest to you, if you have a minute. I've at all times tried to keep my wiki-work and my wiki-leisure as completely separate aspects of a whole. Like Johnleemk wisely said once, "There's a difference between treating Wikipedia like a playground, and treating it like a place where you can whistle while you work." That's why I ask you not to worry about the importance I assign to my priorities; tho I value the human aspect of our project, I humbly try to focus my efforts into building our encyclopedia with the same zeal; one thing doesn't necessarily rules the other out. By all means, this is not an attempt to make you shift your opinion - in fact, I forbid you to! ;) But I just wanted to share my thoughts with you after you so kindly stopped by my talk page. Thank you for your birthday wishes as well - tho I don't want to get one year older! :( Have a great weekend! Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 18:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)