User talk:Jag123/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome 2 Thank you for helping clean up Wiki Syntax 3 WP:RfD 4 CSE 5 Redirects 6 Abortion in Canada Talk Page 7 VfD proc: Who makes changes? 7.1 Unlisting a page from VfD 8 BioChem Stub 9 nice cyt p450 pic 10 Left-handed DNA 11 Still just trying to clean up the talk page 12 Problem with Java Tag 13 Summary is about half done 14 Exceptional Newcomer Award 15 Calcium oxide 16 glucokinase and meissner corpuscles 17 Osteon pic 18 Free nerve ending 19 Meissner's corpuscle 20 Evidence presented by Jag123 21 Template:Fungi-stub 22 About stub sorting (response ... original included) 23 re: orphaned cats

[edit] Welcome

Don't forget to sign your VfD nominations with ~~~~. JRM 13:28, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot.

Welcome!

Hello, Jag123/Archive1, 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 (~~~~); 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!  JRM 13:28, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for helping clean up Wiki Syntax

Just a quick note to say thank you for all your help with fixing Wiki Syntax, such as the redirects you fixed. And also thank you for fixing the numbering of the links that I had stuffed up! :-) All the best, -- Nickj 23:40, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RfD

No, there's no need to delete entries - the admins will clear it away. In fact, of them, I (at least) prefer what you did - leave a note saying it's dealt with. That way I know what the resolution was without having to go look. Noel (talk) 14:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS: You might want to look at Hawke to see a more preferred style/formatting for disambig pages. Noel (talk) 14:20, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For the signatures, it's a Wikipedia feature that people have discovered how to be "creative" with. Click on the "Preferences" link, and then look under "Your nickname (for signatures):". You have to get a little creative to make all the extended ones (e.g. the direct links to talk pages work); AFAIK there's no page on how to do it, it's left as a sort of "graduate exam" in Wiki syntax... :-) Noel (talk) 12:10, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] CSE

In fact, somebody had created Canadian security establishment consisting of - besides the comparison to the NSA - nothing but content about and a link to the *Communications* one. I tagged it for a speedy but User:fvw disagreed, and by gosh, it turned out he appears to be right. This PMO backgrounder is pretty unambiguous ("the bill would not apply to the Canadian Security Establishment, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Communications Security Establishment and uniformed members of the RCMP or the Armed Forces").

At the same time, many people using the Canadian SE wording seem to be referring to the Communications SE, and the Canadian SE makes no information about itself available on the web that can be found at all. I know secrecy is a reasonable quality in a spy, but come on!

I'm once again not entirely sure what to believe. Samaritan 10:18, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He didn't provide anything. And there's no Canadian Security Establishment in business section (no government section seems to exist) of the Canada411 online phone directory. Back to square one, I guess? (I've redirected Canadian Security Establishment and Canadian security establishment to Communications and removed the disambig.) Samaritan 10:47, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

Hi Jag123, It's honestly not a big deal to have added the Hawke redirect. There were a very small percentage of things that got added (like I added 13th centuries → 13th century), which I thought later probably weren't so great (which I guess is pretty inevitable if we add enough redirects). Some of these can be left, but some should probably either be deleted or turned into disambiguations. I like the Hawke disambig page, by the way.

I'm not quite sure I understand the question about striking through; the reason for the strikethrough is that once all the pages are completed, I'll feed those completed pages into a bit software that makes a list of everything that has been struck through, so that it won't be suggested again in the future. Things that have already been added won't be suggested again, so what's left is stuff that's both not been added and not been struck through, or new suggestions (which can happen as the Wikipedia is constantly growing). So if we don't get something resolved one way or the other the first time round, then that's OK, as it can be sorted out in the next run.

All the best, -- Nickj (t) 22:26, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I think I understand. The next run will include anything that hasn't been added (so if it's not struck out, and not added, then it will be included in the next set of lists), even if nothing links there. Basically the suggestions are not being generated by looking at what links there currently - instead, it's looking at how links are used in all the articles in the Wikipedia, so it's a completely different approach to adding redirects. So taking "Geoffrey IV" as an example, there are 11 pages where "Geoffrey IV" is used as the label, but the target is "Geoffrey IV of Anjou", namely:

mysql> select dest, label, found_on_page from redirect_candidate where label = "Geoffrey IV";
+----------------------+-------------+-----------------------------------+
| dest                 | label       | found_on_page                     |
+----------------------+-------------+-----------------------------------+
| Geoffrey IV of Anjou | Geoffrey IV | List of Counts and Dukes of Anjou |
| Geoffrey IV of Anjou | Geoffrey IV | Fulk IV of Anjou                  |
| Geoffrey IV of Anjou | Geoffrey IV | List of state leaders in 1101     |
| Geoffrey IV of Anjou | Geoffrey IV | List of state leaders in 1102     |
| Geoffrey IV of Anjou | Geoffrey IV | List of state leaders in 1103     |
| Geoffrey IV of Anjou | Geoffrey IV | List of state leaders in 1106     |
| Geoffrey IV of Anjou | Geoffrey IV | List of state leaders in 1105     |
| Geoffrey IV of Anjou | Geoffrey IV | List of state leaders in 1104     |
| Geoffrey IV of Anjou | Geoffrey IV | List of state leaders in 1100     |
| Geoffrey IV of Anjou | Geoffrey IV | List of state leaders in 1098     |
| Geoffrey IV of Anjou | Geoffrey IV | List of state leaders in 1099     |
+----------------------+-------------+-----------------------------------+
11 rows in set (0.00 sec)

So because it's used more than a certain number of times, and because it seems to be unambiguous, the software suggests that maybe "Geoffrey IV" should be a redirect to "Geoffrey IV of Anjou".

Note that at the moment nothing may link to "Geoffrey IV" - but making it a redirect will make it easier for people to find the correct article, and in a fair number of cases there will be something that linked to the redirect, which now goes to the right place.

The other benefit is that the LinkBot software will use these redirects to suggest links. So for example, a few lines down from Geoffrey IV is the suggestion for "Giant Sequoias → Giant Sequoia". If this redirect gets made, then the LinkBot will suggest that any occurrence of "Giant Sequoias" be linked to "Giant Sequoia" (unless that article already links to the "Giant Sequoia" article). So using this example, the Yosemite Valley article includes a line that mentions "Giant Sequoias", but doesn't link to "Giant Sequoia". When the redirect is made, and then the LinkBot runs on this article, then it will automatically suggest that link. So even if a redirect isn't linked to, it still provides very useful information about which concepts are related.

So, that's the background. I don't feel it's neccessary for you cross everything off, but what you either don't cross off or add will come up again in the next run (even if nothing links there). Personally, if there's only a couple of things left over that were neither good enough to add, nor bad enough to strikeout, then I don't mind at all if it's marked as complete.

I know what you mean about slowness crossing stuff out. If the pages are too slow to edit and save in sections, then what I sometimes do is to do a whole page (adding the redirects I think are good), and then after that edit the whole page, and strikeout that ones I thought were bad in one big go. All the best, -- Nickj (t) 00:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure about striking out a whole section with a multi-line <s> (I haven't written the code for reading the processed redirect files yet, but I will when it's needed). If it's not too painful, then please use a different <s> on each line, but if is too painful then I guess use a multi-line strikeout, and I'll just have to find a way to make it work! :-)

I don't know of a way to strikeout using an easy-preview type thing, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. I'm open to suggestions if anyone knows how to do it or something similar.

With the numbers next to each redirect, their meaning is sort of half way between those two meanings you mentioned. So "germ cells → gamete 11" means that on eleven different pages that "germ cells" points to gamete. However, if there were 12 or 13 suggestions, and 11 of them were to gamete, and the others to something else, then it would still be listed a redirect with the number 11 next to it; But if there were 14 suggestions, with 11 saying gamete, and the other 3 all pointing to bacteria, then it would be listed as a disambig to both gamete and bacteria. So if it's a redirect suggestion, then either everything agreed on that suggestion, or most things agreed on that suggestion. Disambigs on the other hand are suggested where there is definite disagreement.

All the best, -- Nickj (t) 03:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey, just had a thought... Maybe we could change it so that it's not necessary to strikeout the bad ones... maybe people could just move the list down to the "completed pages" section, strikeout the name of that list, and then anything that they haven't added should be taken to mean the same thing as striking it out. It'd mean a bit more work for me, but it's probably worth it because it'd let people get through a lot more suggestions in the same amount of time ... What do you think? All the best, -- Nickj (t) 03:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion in Canada Talk Page

thanks for leaving the note on my page. I do appreciate it. I'm not all that good at PHP yet...i started learning when i joined Wikipedia. So some of the ideas like how to hive off information on a certain topic...I'm actually on dialup but i wasn't sure how else to get a common background since i thought at the time that was the problem.

As for the page being a pet project...well yes to some extent. I wanted a page that was good and written properly. Part of my interest stems from wanting to see if there is some way to have a page that is NPOV on genetic testing during pregnancy---but it seemed the page on abortion should be complete first. Also once i get involved with a project i tend to stay. If you go back you will see for a while i just put info in the talk page--my writing wasn't good enough yet to put on the page.

As to you offer...i'll take you up on it. I have done the best i can to try and NPOV it. And the POV mark came from an American at a time when the page was considered more or less finished i think. Some of the areas that hit me as more POV (such as counseling centres) weren't written by me. But its always easier to see POV in what others are writing than what you are. On a couple of pages i've written only or mostly on the talk pages to try and get the info correctly on the page. I see you point as to what to include as well being an issue.

I do wish it was more than two people mostly. But that being the case i think its a good way to proceed. The main problem with it is that it will likely be slow. I have a very hard time summarizing and couldn't really do it until mid university. So it won't be that i care less its just that it is a lot slower for me to provide the info in summary so that then you could write it in in a NPOV manner. But there isn't any real rush either as far as i'm concerned...i've been working on it on and off for quite a while. The only caveat i would want to add is if there was just some little section we disagreed about it might be better to try and continue working on it than give up. I don't know how often that would come up---hopefully not at all or infrequently. I guess at that point we could discuss why back and forth perhaps

I'll look into a way to try and hive off the information as you suggested. Give me a few days and the page should be shorter.

One idea that did occur to me is that there might be some validity in having a history of abortion in Canada and a abortion in Canada page. We could still work on it together but it might tighten the writing up in a way that works better. Or a section on precedent setting cases with more explanation? Just a thought.

I'm aware i do tend to look at the world in a political manner. I appreciate the fact that you don't think i intended to write it politically (and a fair bit was written by other folk too). I think i took a comment that was vaguely show it happened" maybe a bit too literally. Could have been meant very differently. Certainly the entry on my talk page shows a lot of respect and i think it is a good beginning. I wasn't quite sure where to go from where we were.

Look forward to hearing back from you. I'll try and make future entries here smaller but i wanted to respond to your suggestions in depth.--Marcie 21:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Enjoy your holiday...everyone deserves it..."I see what you mean about including being an issue" what i meant was i could see why you might feel that say putting in political parties positions might be an issue and so on.

Thanks for the help Tony...hopefully we'll be able to get the page together...enjoy your holidays too!

--Marcie 05:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jag got your message. I figurecd folks were on holiday and i'd take a break from the Wiki. It was nice but i figured i'd get back to it now...although perhaps slower than before...I'm going to work first on trying to clean up the talk page as we discussed. If i run into problems with the PHP i'll let you know...maybe check in once and a while to let me know what you think.--Marcie 18:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jag---i summarized two sections and moved them onto another page (the first entry has the name of it). I'm really not sure this is the right way of doing it though...and this goes beyond my PHP really (i don't know how to create a talk page without a page---or maybe the page should be labelled differntly?). I was also thinking that if people could link up more directly with the actual part that is summarized (ie not have to find it on a page that is chock full of the full versions) that this could be helpful...is there any way of putting something like a link to the middle of a page?--Marcie 19:45, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] VfD proc: Who makes changes?

Hey Tony, I know you didn't participate in this particular vfd but you're the only admin I'm familiar with and you seem pretty newbie friendly. If you look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Messner's corpuscle, you'll see that I nominated this for deletion. I wasn't aware of the mispelling policy (prior to nominating) and the majority seems to agree on the redirect. So I went ahead and created the redirect. This page seems to have disappeared from the main VFD page (I guess that happens after the {{vfd}} tag is removed?), so I'm not sure if anyone else will see it and address my question. I'm wondering who usually does the changes (if it's agreed to redirect, as in this case, for instance) and how long one needs to wait? Thanks in advance! --jag123 19:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the promotion! I'm not really an admin (at least, not yet). When the change gets done depends on what decision is made. It's all outlined in Wikipedia:Deletion policy, in particular the sections "1.5 Decision Policy" and "1.6 Unlisting a page from VfD". Jerzy cleared all the December 22 entries from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion this morning. He or another admin will take care of any decisions, deletions and whatnot, according to policy. Your placement of the redirect was quite in order and it would have been quite in order for you to unlist the discussion at that point if someone else hadn't already done so, provided your actions were backed by a clear working consensus (section 1.6).

Section 1.6 says:

[edit] Unlisting a page from VfD

If another solution has been found for some of these pages than deletion, leave them listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion for a short while, so the original poster can see why it wasn't deleted, and what did happen to it. This will prevent reposting of the same item. After the original poster has seen the explanation, or in any case after about a day, the page can be delisted from VfD.

(Proposed) Any page that has been listed on VfD for 24 hours that has not received a single delete vote beyond that of the original lister can be removed from VfD after twenty-four hours. The discussion for these debates should be kept, but it does not need to be archived.

Hope this helps. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:07, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just to confirm (and contrary to that quoted part), it is okay for me to fix a page in accordance with the consensus? I don't want to step on any toes or pass off as presumptuous. Also, if you could peek at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Human cells, what would usually happen here? Will it just get overlooked? Thanks again! --jag123 20:33, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, as long as the original list is made aware (or after 24 hours in any case). So you'd say "consensus seems to be X" and wait for a bit (or go to lister's talk page and get confirmation). Then you'd do the change. This applies where the decision is against deletion. For deletion, the decision should be made by an admin (I don't know how they arrange which admin does it, I suspect it's just a task that people take upon themselves).

In the case of the human cells article, there seems to be no consensus for deletion, but there's no reason why you shouldn't edit it to redirect--you don't need consensus for this, anybody can do it and if someone disagrees they'll just revert. As I've suggested elsewhere, it's a good idea to announce what you intend to do on the talk page for the article and then wait for a day or two before redirecting, then people will understand that you're not just doing this on the spur of the moment. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:49, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I guess I placed some kind of special status on pages with a vfd tag. --jag123 22:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, don't do this with just any ongoing VfD discussion, only one in which there has been time for discussion and the consensus is clearly not for deletion but redirection has been discussed and found favor. If you plan to do this, it doesn't do any harm to say so on the VfD page first. It's all about not getting people pissed off at you. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] BioChem Stub

Hi check out this as per our discussion on IRC

Onco p53 07:09, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can you put together all the possibilities on to one page? Onco p53 08:01, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] nice cyt p450 pic

Good to have another biochemist here. Is your pic really legal for us to use (i.e., pub domain)? And can you find a legal pic for glucokinase, which I have been working hard at? thanks alteripse 00:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Left-handed DNA

I was looking for a good public domain DNA graphic when I found this page that I thought you might find interesting:

The Left Handed DNA Hall of Fame http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/LeftHanded.DNA.html

From the same website, the DNA at the top right of the page look like it might work nicely if turned into a negative image and then cleaned up a bit [1]. It's a corrected version of an Israeli stamp [2]. Another possibility, the ASCII representation at the bottom of the following page is not bad when you do a screen capture and then shrink [3]. Microsoft also has some clipart, that if I read their User Agreement correctly, it is okay to use on the Wikipedia (two are left-handed versions, but they can be fixed by "mirroring" them. ;-) [4]. Here I found a nice public domain image of DNA, but unfortunately it doesn't shrink well [5]. Although this page says nothing about copyright, the DNA image looks like it might be the best looking one at small sizes [6] gK ¿? 05:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

from User:Jag123/Sandbox I got the idea that you were trying to decide on what would be a good graphic for the biochem-stub. The single spiral that you have now is not bad, but I thought that it might be better to have a "real" DNA double-helix. The one page on left-handed DNA was an interesting bit of trivia that I found when Googling on "public domain DNA". In all, it was not much more than a half hour a searching while I was finishing my dinner. gK ¿? 09:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Will there be enough stubs for a genetics stub? For the biochem-stub, what about using some simple organic compound that is based upon a benzene ring (although the benzene ring itself is already used for chemistry stubs)? gK ¿? 22:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The current pic is not DNA it is a alpha helix in a protein represented in the ribbon form. Onco p53 23:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Still just trying to clean up the talk page

Jag, i'm still just trying to clean up the talk page...although it sounds like i took a little bit too much out of that one...as for where the reaserch came from i did both the statistical and the historical at the same time...if you look through the historical you'll see a lot of it is from pro life groups. I didn't look to see where my stats stood in balance...as for the numbers you asked about specifically they are supposed to be pro life activists...although i thought i moved enough of that too the sumary page for that too make sense.

I can edit and summarize...or i can try and improve immediately what is on the talk page---personally i'd prefer to edit and then discuss it (and get stats from other sources if you'd prefer and go to the hansard to see if i can find Svends statement directly)...without a date i'm not sure...likely can be found there. To me it makes better sense to get rid of what we (or i) have been asked to make a lot smaller and then go over the problems (i'm sure there will be many).

OTOH it makes me aware of ideas...how about i'll read them but no big action until its summed up (which should i hope reduce the problems especially if you are pointing them out).

As for the PHP i do have a favour to ask for you. (i believe i mentioned earlier i'm not all that good at PHP? i see you've gotten a little award at cleaning up a page (congradulations). If you go to the top of the talk page there was a page that i opened which was then altered by Tony (correctly). I still don't understand much about opening new pages (only done it a few times) and not just one's to collect talk in a consistent way). Is there a way of renaming it so its clear it a summary of the talk generally of what is on the talk page at the moment? For now i'll continue to move the summarizing there. Also the first section is a good example of how i'm going to try and summarize it down to as little as possible (take a look at it now and before).

Good to see you are back keeping me on my toes Marcie PS You might want to leave some of the old PHP options when folks are writing from here..it took me a while to figure out how to sign my name and its still missing the time and date which are about 9:30AM on the 3rd.

[edit] Problem with Java Tag

Turned out it was because i was using a different browser...--Marcie 14:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Summary is about half done

Hi Jag...thanks for the info on naming pages...i decided not to mess with it today (i was more in a summarizing type of mood). I've got about half the talk abortion in Canada page summarized at the moment...up to the section of Non Statistical Historical/Present Position Articles/Timelines. I was wondering if you could take a look in and let me know what you think as we are going to be working with the summarized data afterwards from what i can tell (and i left a link on where we could get other stats from Stats Can although i'm not sure what would be considered relevant...you could take a stab at that one maybe...). I can see why you were concerned if you thought i'd finished summarizing the page when you looked at it...nope i'm slow at summarizing (heck i'll likely have it done by the end of the month maybe before!)--Marcie 15:04, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exceptional Newcomer Award

Jag123, I award you this Exceptional Newcomer Award for your service to Wikipedia! In a very short time, you have shown yourself to be a prolific and valuable contributor. May you have many happy days on Wikipedia! Johntex 00:39, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calcium oxide

Hi. Thanks. I've removed this article from the list of pages needing attention. Please note, however, that your link to Calcium Oxide from my talk page did not work because you incorrectly capitalized the "O"; these conventions are useful. (I've now created a redirect page so that if anyone links to that it will work.) Michael Hardy 19:15, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] glucokinase and meissner corpuscles

1. Thanks for the glucokinase pic, but tell me why the pic appears to be of two different molecules side by side. Are they back and front of the same?
2. Thanks for the minor copyediting. However, you removed a couple of subject headings that I had not filled in yet. As you probably noticed, I've been working on this slowly by myself for awhile and I haven't finished. Replacing the headings is not a big deal, but you accidentally corrupted and duplicated a couple of whole sections. I fixed.
3. I am not certain your change of the PO4- to PO4+ is accurate. I took the equation directly from the book referenced at the bottom, and I don't think PO4 ever has a net + ionization. Convince me or I'll switch back.

PS: I see you discovered our problem children engaged in their usual antics at Meissner's corpuscles. As you will notice, RB inspires a new version of the old joke, "Q: What's the difference between a terrorist and an "anti-anti-circumcision zealot"? A: You can negotiate with the terrorist." alteripse 03:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Osteon pic

moved from user page, signed by me from edit history
(I hope this is the right place to address you, Jag123; I find Wik very confusing.) Do you have a picture of osteons that you could post? I have a number of them, but I don't have copyright freedom to post them. (I don't know my Wik name, but I'm the person who made the tiny changes on the Osteon page.) 134.76.162.9 (talk) 11:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Free nerve ending

Hello - I saw your rewrite on Meissner's corpuscle. Looks like you're a wealth of knowledge. I've just written a (very short) article on free nerve endings - can you help to expand it? Cheers. - Jakew 03:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meissner's corpuscle

I keep googling and hitting biology sites saying stuff like "Meissner's corpuscles respond to stroking and fluttering types of tactile stimuli." [7] As far as I can tell this is what pretty much all the sources say. I'm still uncomfortable about your removing this. Do you think you could have a word with someone at your school or look in some primary literature where the modality is discussed in depth? I don't think it's fair to attack Ashley Y's good faith in the way that you have done recently because he is probably looking at the same clinical sources I am, not some propaganda site, and if so he's only reporting what he has good reason to be the case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you would expect Ashley to say. To me I'm fine if an editor doesn't want to discuss, particularly if the reason for his edit is plain. the reference to stroking and fluttering sensations is apparently the standard description of the modality of Meissner's corpuscle. That fact trumps any beliefs I may have about his motive for putting the information there, and any aspersions others might want to cast on him for putting it there. It's a fact and it doesn't unbalance the article (if it did I'd probably add other facts).

All of Jake's and Robert's arguments seemed to boil down to the fear that this fact may aid the case of those they disagree with, apparently because anti-circumcision activists have some semi-established theory about a ridged band that is supposed to be rich in these mechanoreceptors. Well sure, let them pour legitimate doubt on this theory, I may even aid them. But the expressed fears of Robert and Jake, for me, are a signpost to a path that would lead to the death of NPOV, where they are used as justifications for suppressing facts that may aid their self-designated opposition and they enlist others to aid in that suppression.

Ashley Y doesn't owe us a thing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Jag123

Hi Jag. I'm a bit confused by your note on my talk page. Since you've now removed the sections, do you still want me to change anything? - Jakew 04:40, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Fungi-stub

Thank you for creating this template. I was just looking for one like it yesterday!

(Just a note: In general, when you create new stub templates, it helps if you list them at Wikipedia:Stub categories so that other people can find and use them.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 20:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About stub sorting (response ... original included)

You wrote: I appreciate your help with recategorisation and re-stubbing of articles. However, adding two stubs to articles, especially with the recent concerns regarding the use of templates, is not necessary. I believe the animal stub is for actual animals; otherwise, a good chunk of what's in biology could end up there. In addition, nerve endings (Meissner's corpuscle, Pacinian corpuscle) and osteon are not related to cell biology. It is debatable whether or not virii/viruses are living organisms, so a med stub should be sufficient. --jag123 03:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll explain myself a bit and make a couple of comments ...

• two stubs - in some cases the article could go into either of two categories ultimately; as there are folks who concentrate on one category for their efforts, the addition of a second stub is helpful in 'advertising' the stub's existence. However, I'll refrain from adding two stubs to any future stub-worthy article.

• ?? what concern over using templates ??

• animal stub - I took a look at the contents of the animal stub category and determined that it included both specific animals and named groups of animals. If one would like it to be restricted to specific animals, then a change of name might be in order to 'Specific Animals' and keep the stub template name the same.
• plant stub - should the same 'specific plants only' be the rule of thumb for this stub as well?
• nerve endings are related to cell biology in being subjects of research into specific cell types. There is a general misconception about 'cell types' in general, that there are X cell types and that's it; in reality, it is quite difficult to enumerate the total cell type complement in an organism due to regional specification that occurs due to juxtacrine and paracrine influences and extracellular matrix cues. I put osteon into cell biology because of the impact on osteocyte function and cellular anatomy the structure has.
• viruses - you'd be hard pressed to find a virologist who did not think that virology is a subdiscipline of microbiology.
• last question - should I go back and fix all of the stubs I've touched according to your suggestions here, or simply apply them going forward?

Thanks for the thanks and the advice. Courtland 03:24, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

about that last question ... I see that you had reverted some of my changes; I've gone through and reverted or restricted most of the questionable changes based on your input ... I don't think there are any remaining with two stub tags, but I might have missed one or two. Regards Courtland 03:55, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

[edit] re: orphaned cats

Hi - You asked about how Wikipedia:Orphaned categories is set up. There's a description at the "semi-automated suggestions" header (immediately before the listing of categories), but, yes, if you categorize (or otherwise fix) one you should delete the bullet listing the category itself up to the next (major) bullet. The sub-bullets are "suggestions" for categories that might be relevant (based on word matching, and often not at all useful). When I work on these I first try to decide whether the category is remotely rational and, if not, edit the referring articles and/or list the category for renaming/deletion on WP:CFD. -- Rick Block 19:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Beland runs the program that creates the list. He generally dumps a given run under one header (I've taken to splitting the massive chunk into at least a few subheaders). I think most people who work on these do them in batches, so one header per category might be overkill. Feel free to make suggestions about the formatting of the list. I think Beland watches the orphaned categories page, so you could post suggestions either on Category talk:Orphaned categories or on User talk:Beland. I see user:ssd suggested including sub-headers some time ago on the category talk page. -- Rick Block 20:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)