User talk:Jrockley/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Whaling in the Faroe Islands

FYI. Regards, — BillC talk 19:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured Picture
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Whaling in the Faroe Islands.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Raven4x4x 07:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, and thanks for nominating (and editing) it for us. Raven4x4x 07:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

POTD
POTD

Hi Jack,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Whaling in the Faroe Islands.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 29, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-04-29. howcheng {chat} 18:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Scotland To Do

With all due respect I will be removing your addition. I am very supportive of attempts to involve others in Scotland related articles, but this is intended as a 'To do' list for the Scotland article, not for Scottish wikipedians and for those interested in Scotland. In addition to WP:SCOWNB you might want to use Talk:Scotland as an alternative. Good luck with the vote. Ben MacDui (Talk) 14:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

signature

You can look at User:CMummert/Sandbox for example code. You should keep the same timestamp format as the current automatic one, because various bots look for that format when deciding whether and when your posts were signed. You have to use three tildes to sign, as you probably figured out. Also, I like the small bullet · instead of the large one; you can copy and paste it once you have one of them on your screen. CMummert · talk 13:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Fair use rationale for Image:Windows Vista Capable.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Windows Vista Capable.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 15:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Thanks for putting up with my annoying pestering and for fixing up that image appropriately. Your efforts are much appreciated. --Yamla 17:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 :) No problem. I'll try to add the info in without having to be told to in the future - Jack · talk · 17:14, Wednesday, 7 February 2007

Featured Pictures
Your Featured picture candidates have been promoted
Your nominations for featured picture status, Image:Moons of solar system v7.jpg and Image:Alcatraz03182006.jpg, gained a consensus of support and have been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Raven4x4x 02:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, and thanks for nominating them. Raven4x4x 02:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

POTD
POTD

Hi Jack,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Moons of solar system v7.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 11, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-06-11. howcheng {chat} 17:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

POTD
POTD

Hi Jack,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Alcatraz03182006.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 17, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-05-17. Sorry for the short notice -- it's actually being thrown in as a last-minute replacement because there is a question about the licensing of the originally scheduled POTD. howcheng {chat} 21:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedialang

Thanks for making your changes, although I still think my layout is better. You don't think it's easier to read this way? I like the repletion of the numbers, seems (almost) like a geometric progression, and while this new cut-off point only currently excludes 3 Wikipedias, that'll be set to change, and we need to keep bumping it up or the list will continue to grow and bloat. I think it just seems unfair that Nynorsk and Norsk are in the same category, when the latter is 5 times the size of the former. Could we perhaps gain more of a consensus? Thanks, Jack · talk · 05:15, Friday, 16 February 2007

Absolutely. I suggest that you post your proposal (or a summary thereof) at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and encourage people to reply at Template talk:Wikipedialang.
Your version seems fine to me, but I also have no problem with the section's increasing length (given the fact that it's at the bottom of the main page). If we adopt a four-tiered format, I'd prefer that we retain the "20,000" designation (thereby preserving the ascending quantities).
Please refrain from adding the {{editprotected}} tag until consensus has been established. Thanks! —David Levy 05:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
There don't seem to be any objections :) would you do the honours? Jack · talk · 12:13, Friday, 16 February 2007
Main page design changes are taken very seriously by the community (most of which is unable to perform them). Please wait a bit longer to give more people a chance to respond. If there's consensus for your change (or even if no one else seems to care), I (or someone else) will gladly implement it.  :-) —David Levy 12:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, its been a few days now and no-one has come up with any major objection (IMO). Now can you introduce my changes? They always could be reverted, and the implementation seems the best way to notify any strongly opinionated editors who missed the discussion - Jack · talk · 15:33, Sunday, 18 February 2007
I agree that sufficient time has elapsed to proceed with a tentative implementation of consensus. What concerns me is that only one supporter has explicitly referenced the proposed "25,000" cut-off point. Of the other two supporters, one only mentioned the "layout," and the other expressed agreement with the first. Of the two opponents, one criticised the layout (but not the "25,000" cut-off point), but the other criticised the "25,000" cut-off point (but not the layout).
I'm inclined to say that there is rough consensus (subject to change) for the new layout, but not for the new cut-off point. Keep in mind that while I believe that the above is a fair assessment of the situation, I am not entirely impartial on this matter; I have no strong feelings either way, but I would prefer to retain the "20,000" cut-off point for the time being. I agree that we need to occasionally adjust these numbers (and raise the inclusion threshold) to prevent the section from becoming too large or unbalanced, but I believe that it looks a bit strange to have fewer languages listed in any tier than in the tier directly above it (because the higher number of articles is supposed to be a more notable distinction). If we switch to your four-tier layout (but retain the "20,000" designation), the numbers in each of the tiers (from top to bottom) would be 6, 6, 11 and 13. With the "25,000" cut-off point, the numbers would be 6, 6, 11 and 10 (which almost makes the last tier seem more special than the one above it).
Please note, however, that the Arabic Wikipedia is only 252 articles away from reaching the 25,000-article threshold (and changing the criteria to barely exclude it could be mistaken for a political maneuver). I suggest that we implement the four-tier layout now, and we can change the lowest tier to "25,000" when the Arabic Wikipedia reaches that level (most likely resulting in a breakdown of 6, 6, 11 and 11). How does that sound? —David Levy 17:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay then. I've performed the change. Now we can sit back and see what happens. (Don't be surprised if someone—perhaps Raul654—reverts.) Either way, we'll draw more attention to the matter (and hopefully receive additional feedback).
Yes, the Arabic issue does seem somewhat comical, but I've lost count of the number of times that people have complained about ethnic or nationalistic bias on the main page. The Hebrew Wikipedia's inclusion wouldn't help matters.  :-) —David Levy 18:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Heh, you're good at this. I just noticed the size of the Arabic, and was about to inform you, but you beat me to it! *Only* by three days... :P thanks for all your help! Jack · talk · 11:42, Sunday, 25 February 2007
You're welcome!  :-) —David Levy 13:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

User rights

I reverted your last change to the user rights page; user rights correspond to specific system abilities, and having one right doesn't give the abilities associated with another. For example, you can be granted bureaucrat rights without being a sysop (the fact that this is rarely done is a social, rather than a technical, construct); if you have a bureacrat flag but not a sysop flag, you cannot take sysop actions without first granting yourself a sysop flag. Likewise, certain permissions can be granted to a given class of users and denied to others, even ones that are "higher" in the usual way of thinking; one could grant edit permissions to unregistered users, but deny it to registered users and sysops, even though registered users and sysops are generally considered "higher" than unregistered users. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on my talk page. Essjay (Talk) 11:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, ok. Like I said, I doubted I was right. Is the table correct now? I know I went too far, but things like the edit permission, I'm not entirely sure that the only ones who can edit pages are unregistered users... and the read permission as well... I don't want to fill in too many boxes, but it seems a lot are missing - Jack · talk · 13:22, Saturday, 17 February 2007
Yeah, those are available to everyone; I think when the page was created it said "all users" instead of "unregistered", making the duplication unnecessary. If "unregistered" is going to be the title for that particular column, then there will be need for duplicating it over to the "registered" column. Essjay (Talk) 13:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I changed it to that, I felt it represented a hierarchy more. Since admins (as so on) have the right to edit, should that box be filled in too? Jack · talk · 13:30, Saturday, 17 February 2007

I think the problem may be in the way we tend to think about user groups. We tend to think that once someone joins a given group, they cease to be in another, when that really isn't the case. For example, we tend to think of IPs as one group, users as another group, and sysops as still another group; when you become a user, you cease to be an IP, when you become a sysop, you cease to be a user, etc. That isn't really the case, however; MediaWiki sees user groups as being cumulative, so abilities are assigned to one particular group and don't have to be repeated.

At the risk of getting too techie, user groups are set in a MediaWiki file called LocalSettings.php. The user group section looks something like this:

$wgGroupPermissions['*']['read']              = true; 
$wgGroupPermissions['*']['edit']              = false;

$wgGroupPermissions['user']['edit']           = true;

$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['block']         = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['delete']        = true;

$wgGroupPermissions['bot']['bot']             = true;

MediaWiki recognizes these groups in this way:

* = Everybody, with or without an account (hence "all users" in the original chart)
user = Accounts without any other flags
sysop = A user with a sysop flag
Etc.

If an ability is assigned to *, it doesn't need to be assigned to any other group, because everybody is a *. Likewise, if you assign a right to user, you don't need to assign it to sysop, because sysops are users by default.

At this point, you are probably thinking: "Well, then I was right, abilities are inherited." And that is true in appearance: Sysops do appear to inherit the rights of users and *. However, it's only an appearance, and here's why:

When we look at Special:Listusers we only see the extra rights assigned to users, i.e.:

Essjay ‎(boardvote, Bureaucrat, checkuser, oversight, Administrator)

This causes us to think "Essjay is a sysop" (Administrator = sysop in the code), rather than "Essjay is a user who is also a sysop." What the chart is actually relaying, however, is the user groups the MediaWiki code sees; if you actually look in the HTML of a userpage, you find the actual code MediaWiki is using to determine abilities. For me, this looks like:

var wgUserGroups = ["boardvote", "bureaucrat", "checkuser", "oversight", "sysop", "*", "user", "autoconfirmed", "emailconfirmed"];

So, in the short version, I can edit because I'm in the * group, not because I'm a sysop; I can create new pages because I'm in the user group, can move pages because I'm in the autoconfirmed group, can delete pages because I'm in the sysop group, and can do all kinds of other things because I'm in the cabal. ;)

Hopefully, that explains it a bit better; what the chart is actually trying to show is the abilities assigned to each user-group in LocalSettings.php. On the other hand, I may have rambled on for 400KB and made no sense whatsoever. ;) Essjay (Talk) 14:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

And sorry to keep bothering you, but could 3 new headers labelled oversight, checkuser, and bot be added, showing their powers? Just to make it that little bit more comprehensive. Thanks, Jack · talk · 13:36, Saturday, 17 February 2007

Yes those should be in there somewhere; I was thinking that they already were. :S Essjay (Talk) 14:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, looking back on it, they are there, they're in the list of various abilities. This is a different issue, actually: There are two kinds of user groups we tend to think of. Some, like sysop or bureaucrat, are compilations of individual permissions: block, delete, protect, makesysop, renameuser, etc. Others, like checkuser and oversight, aren't really user groups, they are individually assigned permissions that have been transformed into usergroups in the common thinking. The usergroups that are listed on the chart are the ones that are actually compilations of individual permissions; the other "groups" are just individually assigned permissions, and that's why they are included in the list of abilities and noted as "individually assigned". Essjay (Talk) 14:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that's a definitive answer! You're very good at this, and I think I'm in over my head slightly. I'll change "unregistered" back, I can see the wording of that is integral to the system. I'll also try and word some of that in, since the page seems aimed too aimed at those who already have your level of background knowledge (my edits may still need a knowledgeable glance over...) Thanks for the help! Jack · talk · 14:41, Saturday, 17 February 2007

Thank you. :) I have a couple advantages in knowing these kinds of things 1) I've been around a long time, and used to hang around the developer's IRC channel and mailing list, 2) I've got my own installation of MediaWiki at www.countervandalism.org, so I get to peek behind the scenes a bit and see how things work, 3) I work for Wikia, where part of my job is to be an intermediary between Wikia users and the Wikia tech team, so I kinda get paid to explain stuff like this. (Paid by Wikia, that is, not Wikimedia; I do it here for free, like everybody else ;)) I'll take a glace at it and see what it looks like. Essjay (Talk) 05:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, this'll probably be the last set of questions. I've edited as best I can what you said into the article. I have come across some issues, however. Does "developer" need to be included? "import" is empty, so should that be included? Should a "ability to view page history" be included? Is 'Create article' the correct title of that permission? Also, I don't understand "patrol", and "siteadmin" might be wrong. Jack · talk · 02:31, Sunday, 18 February 2007

developer is an old permission, it isn't assigned any longer, but it was just a different name for "siteadmin" since we call sysops "admins." import should be included because it is a valid permission here, it just hasn't been assigned to anyone individually. Import appears to be assigned to sysops, per the error message on Special:Import for non-sysops ("The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups Administrators, import."). I don't believe its actually useful, though, because I get a cryptic message from Special:Import as a sysop ("No transwiki import sources have been defined and direct history uploads are disabled."). From looking at DefaultSettings.php, I think page history viewing is covered under the read ability, but could be wrong; viewing deleted pages is covered under the deletedhistory ability, restricted to sysops. createpage and createtalk are the names of the two page creation-based permissions. patrol is a permission that allows users to mark an edit in recent changes as patrolled; it isn't used here (though, if a system for assigning it were established, it could be) but it is in the code and could be activated as it is on most other Wikimedia wikis. siteadmin is the ability assigned to the user-group developer; siteadmin lets you access two special pages (by default): Special:Lockdb and Special:Unlockdb, allowing you to lock and unlock the site's database. On Wikimedia wikis, database locking is done by the developers with direct server access, so there is no need to assign the permission. As for the chart, I'll take a look at it all in the morning and see how it looks. :) Essjay (Talk) 05:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:IPod Models Timeline.svg

You said: "I'm not sure about the chosen colours... Is there anyway you could re-upload it, with a more flattering colour scheme? Like primary colours, green blue and red? You could use the web colors article for ideas. I think this would make the iPod article look much better :)"

I'll see what I can do. Do you want the colours paler or brighter? Any suggestions? --IE 19:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
What I was thinking was start off (or finish with) with a dark primary colour and use increasingly lighter shades into the rest.
80GB 60GB 40GB 30GB 20GB 10GB
80GB 60GB 40GB 30GB 20GB 10GB
80GB 60GB 40GB 30GB 20GB 10GB

Somethin' like that... Jack · talk · 19:41, Monday, 19 February 2007

fixing refs

Wow, you're frigging ace! Not that I'm stalking you (more stalking Vitamin C), can I ask how did you do this? Did you use a tool? Cos I must have this tool, I've wasted hours fixing references when you made that look so effortless... Looking forward to your response! *not a stalker* Jack · talk · 05:07, Wednesday, 21 February 2007

Hi Jack. Yup, the ref fixer is found here: User:Gimmetrow/fixRefs.js. Look at my page User:Outriggr/monobook.js to see how to add it. At the bottom, see the three sections that look similar? Copy the first two into your own User:Jrockley/monobook.js, do a complete browser reload, and when you edit a page you'll see a new item in the "toolbox" called .... "fix reference marks" or something. Let me know if you need more detailed directions. :) –Outriggr § 05:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Erm, I have something that looks like this: {{DEFAULTSORT:}} now under wikimarkup, though I'm not sure if it wasn't there before... Did I put the code in right? How do I work it? Jack · talk · 06:04, Wednesday, 21 February 2007
Your monobook.js page looks fine. You might want to close and reopen your browser. That will force a download of the .js files. The toolbox I'm referring to is the white one on the left of the screen (unless you're into Hebrew). On any Edit screen you'll see "Fix reference marks" as the last entry in the toolbox. If that doesn't help, I'll come help if you buy me a ticket to the UK. –Outriggr § 06:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Aha! Yes it is there, thankyou very much, this'll help a load :) have a cookie - Jack · talk · 06:38, Wednesday, 21 February 2007

Chembox new

Hi, thanks for adding chemboxes to articles, but may I ask you to have a look at {{chembox new}}, it offers some advanced properties, and gives cleaner and smaller documents (less table-gibberish). Some of us have started to use the new one, or replace old boxes. See you around! --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm well aware of the {{chembox new}}, but I don't like to use it as I feel it's inferior to the other forms, like {{chembox}}. If you check, I wrote quite a lot of code for both the simple chemboxes to make them easier and clearer to use. Besides, the main reason I uses the 'obsolete' versions is because they're way more versatile. You can literally put any info you find in them, but you're limited to predesignated fields with the new version - Jack · talk · 11:00, Thursday, 22 February 2007
I still think that the whole table in the top of the document is a big list of gibberish, which may scare people to fill in other data. Also, fields are easily added to the {{chembox new}}, and can then be used in other chemboxes as well, without any trouble. In that case it is only once that you have to do the addition. One of the big advantages of the chembox new, IMHO, is that the chemboxes are similar all through, so that people know what to find where in the chembox, and they do not find chemboxes of different types in different pages. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Vitamin C

Hi Jack

The Martini reference actually is not a web resource, thus cite web may not be the best. It is actually a paper from a journal, Vesalius (never heard of it myself), and is not published by pubmed though they index it. Also, maybe you can consider using PMIDs instead of dumping the entire link from your browser. You can take a look at what I did from here: [1]. Hope it helps. --Rifleman 82 16:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for editing the Vitamin C article. Note my comment at Talk:Vitamin C#racemic mixture?. Apparently you added a claim about most commercial supplements being racemic mixtures. I don't think that's true. Do you have a citation to support that? (If it's in the source linked from the footnote, could you tell me where exactly in that article it says that?)
Also, please use more informative edit summaries. A summary such as "cleanup" should not be used when adding claims such as this one about the racemic mixture. Even just "did some editing" would be more informative. "Cleanup" sounds as if you're not changing anything important, or you're just deleting stuff. A better edit summary for this edit would have been "Edits re enantiomers etc.; added/edited info re scurvy etc." See Wikipedia:Edit summary. --Coppertwig 13:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality and notability

Hi, thanks for your edits to the article vitamin C, and welcome to Wikipedia! Glancing over your edits, would I be right to assume you're a megadoser? If so, You may want to glance over our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view. Look forward to working with you! — Jack · talk · 16:11, Friday, 9 March 2007

Hi, I understand that you strive to keep a neutral point of view. I don't see however how your guessing that I would be a megadoser would have an impact on the facts I brought in the lead section on Vitamin C. I don't understand that you suppress the fact that all primates have in common that they have Vitamin C as a... vitamin while others don't, and that humans is the only subspecies amongts primates to eat 10 to 20 times less vitamin C (than other primates). This deserves to be in the main section: tell me why it shouldn't;

  • primates are exceptional in that they don't produce vitamin C;
  • humans are exceptional in that they don't consume as much Vitamin C as other primates;
  • where do you see any lack of neutrality in stating the obvious?

You have put back the earlier misunderstandings about vitamin C synthesis in the 3. Macronutrient section: Nobody, and I mean, nobody at all, ever said that humans or their primate ancestors once produced those amounts. This is not the point that Stone and Pauling (and Bourne and Milton) make. These researchers just watched what happens in nature. This fiction that you help to propagate makes great disservice to these researchers and to... well I won't go further on that. If you do read the references (I took care to provide FULL TEXT articles), you'll find that they confirm that those gram amounts are grams of ascorbic acid consumed, not biosynthecized. I expect you to read the references you found fit to keep (you suppressed the comments I made on those references, which I did read) and decide whether or not these references, support what I brought (and that you suppressed under the name of neutrality). There's no basis to what you're bringing back, it hurts me to see such falsehoods, but I wish you'd understand before the evidence comes back in this article. Oh, BTW, I do think that vitamin C is quite helful. But your remark that I would be a megadoser is ad hominem. Not relevant. Stick to the facts.Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 04:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, first and foremost, I apologise for upsetting you, I know how much it sucks to be reverted. I've been there too. However; in your response you used a lot of words there that you probably shouldn't've. Cool it, dude. By asking your position on a matter of debate, I was trying to figure the chance of a conflict of interest. I did just glanced over your edits, I'll look them over properly when I'm more wide awake. Until then, I'll answer your queries:
  • in the intro — primates and our relationship to them may be exceptional in a genetic context, but not in the vast world in which we live. The biology gets a mention, but you also have to mention the chemical, political, dietary and medical sides of the subject. It's supposed to be a summary
  • in the megadose section — I saw that you'd wrote things like "Humans carry", replacing "Hickey believes that humans carry"; "Which begs the question" - sounds too much like an essay; and "This implies that vitamin C was misnamed as a vitamin", rather that "If true, this means that...". I apologise that the rest of what you wrote got lost in that.
Generally, you perhaps need to learn a bit more about the scientific method. Yes these researchers observed and noted the things you mention. But that doesn't mean the whole scientific community will go all up in arms and say "How can we have been so foolish?! Clearly they speak the immaculate truth." No. A new scientific theory takes a hefty beating (think of poor Darwin) before it is grudgingly accepted into the canon. Falsificationism, is a great idea - it tells us to only accept an idea if it cannot be proved wrong and can be proved right. S'what got us out the dark ages. Otherwise we'd be saying "Meh, god did it." Rambling now. I guess my point is, if your gonna say "stick to the facts", know what a fact is before you stick — Jack · talk · 04:51, Saturday, 10 March 2007


(technical question) Please le me know if, when I reply on my own talk page (here), you automatically receive a notice of it (just take a few seconds, please.. thanks ;-). (Other things: ) Concerning the scientific method: you describe resistance to facts, which is certainly something that happens in science. This phenomenon is also covered by the "author" of falsificationism. It is not always a problem that is scientific in nature: it is a matter... yeah you're guessing it... of paradigm. For instance, the "vitamin C"-as-a-vitamin is a paradigm that is contradicted by facts. But leaving the comfort zone (the consensus, the peer... pressure), for most, is not easy; it is not, however, a matter of scientific method. Now I have to go, but I wish we could go further on this paradigm concept, in relationship to vitamin C. I'll read again my earlier response to formulate due apologies or explanations if necessary. Last thing. I agree that my "this begs the question, blah, blah" was not appropriate. I'll provide the reference to support "Humans carry". Since OMIM ascertains it, I felt it was not a priority (i.e. easily referencable). The "Hickey says" and the rest (the vitamin c biosynthesis thing) appeared as groudless falsehoods (just plain misunderstandings) that had to be taken care of manu militari! OMIM even quotes Stone, so it will be quite helful. I'll be back soon, but til then, I take your apologies (about the unwanted edits) and tell you that I am reassured now that you formulated them. Your colleague,Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 14:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
No, the only person to receive a notice of a change to a usertalk page is the user who owns it. Unless that user made a change to it themself, or someone else adds it to their watchlist.
With regards to the article, anything you wish to add/change/delete can be helpful. However, its can easily be deemed unhelpful, and my be reverted. Best not to take offense. As the edit box says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." I've recently edited back in the point you made about consumption (here). To be honest, I've never really understood the idea of a paradigm, could you help me on that? — Jack · talk · 01:57, Sunday, 11 March 2007
First, thanks for editing back. It is rather moving to see one's own words come back, like that! Then, you might tell me that WP editing requires a thick skin. I don't have that!
I think your mention of the WP editing policy might help to resolve a disagreement. In WP, there is excess deletion, excess editing and all kinds of bad actions (with vandalism and even worse at the far end of the spectrum) that are condemned by WP. On the other hand, there is this "merciless editing". I think that it all comes down to editing vs. deleting. Let me give you a real life example. You know WP, but bear with me. I work as a medical translator. My trainer believes that her way of understanding the source text (Technical, medical, English) is better and that her way to write in French is also better. With this paradigm in mind (just joking), she feels totally justified to use the red pen "mercilessly" (for deleting) but not the blue pen (for editing; to enhance my own translation). However, others who are more experienced confess they can be merciless (but they will explain why they know their option is better); they also know it takes about 5 years to train a translator, so they try to put themselves in the novice's shoes. And, often, they discover new ways of seeing problems or problems they had never seen. This is how I undestand "merciless editing". Subjectivity should not bias editing. You won't let something in an article just because editing it might hurt someone's feelings. But one shouldn't be reckless (you know, be bold, but not reckless[2]), and WP is about cooperation.
This brings me to the bold idea of putting a notice on ascorbate biosynthesis deficiency right in the first sentences and to the notion of paradigm. I read the paradigm page again (well, of course, some parts require much more thinking but and I come up with these 4 aspects of a paradigm:

* a. what is to be observed and scrutinized,

  • b. the kind of questions that are supposed to be asked and probed for answers in relation to this subject,
  • c. how these questions are to be structured,
  • d. how the results of scientific investigations should be interpreted.
I would say paradigm is a very, very powerful word describing "mental determinism"; being determined by one's culture, society, etc... ; how can we see from inside the box (cf the paradigm article) what it looks like from outside ...? Do we even know we are in a box? Personally, I understand paradigm shifts by living them, at my own scale, by peeking outside the box, but I can't necessarily understand the whole paradigm we're in, and I believe that philosophy of science's work (and sociology's) is to understand all basic aspects of current paradigms, as opposed to scientists (like us!) who want data, good data. So I can only give an example, and another, and another, but thinking about the whole knowledge-producing machine is a nightmare sometimes. I'm working very hard on that, and I might come up with something in about a year.
Think of the basic questions a five year old would ask, like: why does my guinea pig needs different food from my hamster's? (no Vitamin C synthesis) Are there other animals who are like my hamster? (yes, us, and large apes) How much do they eat of this vitamin? (From 2000 to 8000 mg a day) And how much do we eat (If you eat all your fruits and veggies, my boy, you'll get a huge 200 mg) Its quite small when you compare. Why????? (It is called a vitamin, my boy, so you don't need so much) Why is it called a vitamin? (Because!) Dad, why are you angry? (Because when I was young they told me that vitamin deficiencies were rare in developped countries and vitamin C is a vitamin and we are in a developped country, and apes are not, that's why! Now shut up and eat your fruits.)
Ok, this is not yet the perfect ad campaign for a supplement company, but we're getting there.
So we don't ask why we are or should be so different from others of our descent with regards to Vit C. (i.e. item b.) Actually, most of us forget or don't know that we primates are exceptions in nature (GULO deficiency) (i.e. a.) We rely on RCTs of vit. C which use dosages that are lower than normal amounts (for other primates) and end up with reviews of trials showing rather weak effects (generally, but not always), and brush aside the minority of research on non-primate animal dosages (higher than what primates consume) (i.e. c.) and d)). There are other examples, but it is precisely my purpose, in contributing to Wikipedia, to show neglected facts. You can check my contribution to zinc (zinc deficiency as a cause of zinc deficiency; potentially a paradigm breaker (the paradigm of one-size fits all nutritional requirements, RDAs). Funny, isn't it? Not so actually, I know, when one thinks of it... I am actually involved with such a case around me (but i don't I have a conflict of interest. I swear... ;-)
So, yes, to conclude, putting those infos on gulo deficiency and how those affected cope (primates, humans, guinea pigs, FRUIT-eating bats) in the beginning is fundamental; it is the founding problem: what does "vitamin" means? Saying that the term "vitamin C" might, and I say might, not be accurate because vitamins are different things/amounts is fundamental. Of course, the opening sentence should be properly edited: "Vitamin C or L-ascorbic acid is an essential nutrient required in small amounts in order to allow a range of essential metabolic reactions in animals and plants." Small like what? Like other vitamins? Sorry, this is not neutral at all! A literary reference, to finish: it's like in Orwell's novel (careful, just an analogy): the ministry of propaganda was called the ministry of truth (and ministry of birth control becomes "ministry of love", ministry of war becomes ministry of peace, and so forth). I hope I didn't waste your time. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 05:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs
Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa
Peter Siebold
Scaled Composites Model 396
Naphthoquinone
Economics of global warming
Hydroxide
Scaled Composites Model 395
SpaceShipOne flight 13P
Media center
Life support system
Aerospace engineering
Merger Treaty
Scaled Composites SpaceShipThree
James Lind
Beta decay
Random access memory
Special K
Microorganism
Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa
Cleanup
Pyrimidinecarboxylic acid
Pickling (metal)
Corn Pops
Merge
Milankovitch cycles
Orders of magnitude (currency)
Retinoic acid
Add Sources
European Monetary System
Extensible Markup Language
Reserve currency
Wikify
Astronomical object
Valley of the Jedi
Starfish Prime
Expand
Haber process
Malagasy language
Tulip Revolution

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. -- SuggestBot 02:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 2 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vitamin C megadosage, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 07:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Vit C and birthday

Dear Jack! I'm not an expert (as only a medical student), but I, of course, take a deeper look at it. And thank you for the kind words, but my birthday is on the 26th of November. :) NCurse work 20:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Scottish topics

The Scottish topics template is only for key Scotland-related Wikipedia content. Only a tiny fraction of our Scotland-related material is listed there (probably less than 1/10,000 th). Our comprehensive thematic list, which you'll find here:

But again, that is only for cornerstone articles. We do not list absolutely everything: that is what categories are for. -- Mais oui! 17:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vitamin C article

Hi, thanks for the note. I've checked the peer review and To-do lists, and I agree that formatting the inline citations using templates is necessary for the article to pass the FA. You are welcome to tell me if any of my edits does not agree with the consensus. Thank you. --BorgQueen 22:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the "fact" tags. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 02:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol, no problem. I was only joking, as it was {{fact}}s that nearly deprived the article of GA status, since they look really bad. They're fixed now and its better off than before. If you see anything else dubious you'd like a citation for, don't hesitate to slap on a tag to alert me. 'cause if the FA reviewers spot a dodgy fact they may not be so lenient. Every little helps! — Jack · talk · 02:59, Saturday, 17 March 2007

Obviously, two editors of the vitamin C article don't live in the same time zone... (UK vs Qc, CAN) I have tried to detail and describe my interventions. I hope you (and other peers) find your/their way in these 20+ editings! Don't hesitate to contact me if there's a problem that can't be resolved through the discussion page.Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 07:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW

In your user page pic, which one is Alice? :-P Just kidding. --BorgQueen 11:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I can't possibly imagine what you're insinuating. I've replaced it now, it was old (and I never got Albob's permission). — Jack · talk · 05:15, Sunday, 18 March 2007

Proposal modification

You are making it look like I've proposed something I have not, and you are making it look like the users who have "voted" so far have done so on something they have not. Changing the proposed menu is disruptive.

If you have another design, please present that separately.

The Transhumanist   06:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I apologise, and from now on, I will do. The proposal page gets pretty high traffic, and I got myself in the midst of an edit conflict. My proposals are the ones that took a month of bother; at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign. While this will need a new box and developer interest; until then I will try to be as faithful as possible to the consensus of the community — Jack · talk · 06:50, Thursday, 22 March 2007
Hey, I'm not mad at you or anything. And I see what you are trying to accomplish. It's just that the people who voted "Support" were responding to my proposal. If there are more than one version up there, then how can we tell which one they were referring to when they said "support"? The appropriate place to place more alternative versions would be at the end, or in the "An alternative" section. If you need help, let me know. The Transhumanist   07:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I never thought you were annoyed, you don't need to worry. However, you did remove my proposal, which I ain't so happy with, but I've fixed that now. Fair enough, I can see you wanting your original simplified proposal to have precedence over the rest, but it does seem like the "alternative" section is the "maybe, but not likely" one. If you're going to propose something, don't you think all proposals should be treated fairly? i.e. listed together? — Jack · talk · 07:50, Thursday, 22 March 2007
Yes, of course, but that's not the point I was trying to make. You've got to be careful not to change the context of what others have posted. Besides, someone has already changed the side bar. Look to the left! The Transhumanist   07:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

To see the changes directly, the page is MediaWiki:Sidebar. User:Eloquence made the changes. An interesting development. Doesn't look half bad, actually. Close enough for me! The Transhumanist   08:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Woah!! That's amazing!! Lol, I thought we were just dragging a dead donkey! Wow, we got the site settings changed... This is even better that getting the main page template {{Wikipedialang}} changed! Woop! Although, I don't remember suggested "about" — Jack · talk · 08:04, Thursday, 22 March 2007

Edit count

I've replied to your query on my talk page. The Transhumanist   08:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

A request for a citation at Silverpit crater from User:Jrockley

User:Jrockey requested a citation for the statement:"Silverpit is named after the Silver Pit fishing grounds in which it is located" [with this edit]. On the face of it, this seems like an unconstructive bit of comedy. User:Jrockley is being asked to explain. --Wetman 07:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Answered at Talk:Silverpit crater — Jack · talk · 18:00, Saturday, 31 March 2007

Re : Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Falkland Islands

Hello Jack.
Thanks to worry about the map. I hope finishing it tomorrow. I will also search more about a more up to date census. Sting-fr 03:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA

If you have to ask these questions, then I must say you should un-transclude your RfA from WP:RFA right away. It is not uncommon for candidates or others to end a hopeless RfA. Admins are not above others and do not have more voting rights than anyone else. They may be more respected on average, but they are just another editor on RfA. Three months may be sufficient for another run, and for you, I think haste would make waste. I hate to see people fail, having gone through it once myself, so please consider my advice coming from a friendly place. Xiner (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

RFA closure

Hi! I had to prematurely close your RFA as it did not enjoy the community support for us to promote you. In particular, participants in your RFA did not express confidence to your answer of a particular question. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that your RfA has failed to go through. If you decide to attempt it again later on, I wish you the best of luck. Camaron1 | Chris 18:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone involved, and though I can't help be disappointed, I'm sure the decision was for the greater good. — Jack · talk · 02:19, Monday, 9 April 2007

Unspecified source for Image:French_Guiana_flag.png

Thanks for uploading Image:French_Guiana_flag.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 02:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't remember uploading that at all. Feel free to ahead and delete it, it's been superseded at Image:GuyaneLogo1.png anyway — Jack · talk · 02:18, Monday, 9 April 2007

Signature timestamp

Howdy. Just a quick note, you're sig's custom timestamp seems to be confusing werdnabot (See 1st thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)). I'm not sure what string the bot looks for, but maybe you could investigate, and update as appropriate. Thanks :) --Quiddity 18:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Newbies' contribs

Thanks for the info, Jack. Good find! Regards, Adrian M. H. 15:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Bugz

Well, it's not that hard. Go to the main page, [3]. First you'll need to create an account. Then click on 'enter new bug report'. There's a load of fields on the screen but you can ignore most of them and leave them blank. What's relevant is (1) the summary and description, (2) the version would be the latest one available, (3) product = Mediawiki, (4) find a component that fits best, probably "database", and (5) severity = enhancement. Be concise and to the point. Be prepared to have your suggestion rejected over server load issues, because that comes up surprisingly often. HTH! >Radiant< 16:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fight Club

Appreciate the GA nomination; I didn't even notice it until today. I'm the editor who added the large majority of the content, especially the Production section, to the article. Hope you enjoyed the content, and I actually still have more to add. I've got more thematic details (in the broader sense) on my subpage that I need to draw together, such as violence as a metaphor. I also plan to pick up a couple of books that will detail the issues that the studio had with the film, for being too violent, etc. Anyway, thanks! I'm pretty confident it'll go through without too much issue. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar! If you happen to be a fan of Spidey, check out Spider-Man 3 for a pretty good article about a film that will come out soon. Lots of blood, sweat, and tears have been put in maintaining that article by me and a couple of other editors. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You know, I've really love to, but for the last few months I've been desperately avoiding adverts or any form of hints on what that film's gonna be about. I just love entering a cinema with no idea what to expect. That link's staying blue for me for the next few months. Sorry, but I take this rule very seriously. I'm sure you understand :P — Jack · talk · 01:08, Wednesday, 18 April 2007

MoS

Hey there. No, it's not any tool—just me :D Since I do that kind of minor edit frequently, these "standard" edit summaries are already in a dropdown list on my browser. I know WP:TOOLS has plenty of useful stuff, but I don't think you'll find a "MoS fixer"; it's probably easier to just read the guidelines and do it yourself... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Medicine Collaboration of the Month

 Thank you for your support of the Medicine Collaboration of the Week.
This week Vitamin C was selected.
Hope you can help…

NCurse work 18:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

image

You might want to look at your image as there are a alot of warning tags stuck to it :) SGGH 13:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: your reason for nominating the whaling picture

I like the image and whatever, I would like to make a note about the description of the image as reminiscient of "holocaust-era images of mass graves." Descriptions such as this to further an anti-whaling cause necessarily trivialize the Holocaust and the true magnitude and horror of such an event. To compare the slaughter of over 10 million people to any smaller scale killing of animals is inaccurate, rude, and disrespectful. Sorry to sound like a pointless whiner, but I think a liberal athiest such as yourself would be sympathetic with such a point.

Otherwise, great image.--Blingice 00:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your absolutely right, it does sound trivial in comparison. I stand by my statement that it's along the same lines, though obviously not in the same line of magnitude. I am of the opinion it would be pointlessly anthropocentric to think otherwise. Think what you will, however, but please, bear in mind that I did not create, nor do I endorse what the picture depicts — Jack · talk · 00:48, Sunday, 29 April 2007
Fair enough.--Blingice 06:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny...

I was just about to add that figure about it being the 87th nearest star at the very minute you put it in.--Pharos 02:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Take that, Mr. *...googles for rest of quote* shit... Pharos! Will have to do — Jack · talk · 02:10, Sunday, 29 April 2007

FP
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Falkland Islands topographic map-en.svg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Debivort 00:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
POTD
POTD

Hi Jack,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Falkland Islands topographic map-en.svg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on August 25, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-08-25. howcheng {chat} 17:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

college courses

Congratulations, you have guessed the right answer. I just noticed it. Although, you don't win anything. Is it because I listed two professors marked with UD teaching-ness? gren グレン 00:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Aye 'twas :) — Jack · talk · 22:16, Tuesday, 5 June 2007

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Windows Vista Capable.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Windows Vista Capable.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 16:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Scotsoc.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Scotsoc.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A great idea - maybe combine forces?

I'm going through all the animal anatomic articles on Wikipedia & noticed your post on Category talk:Animal anatomy & thought maybe you'd like to help me? You did post a long time ago tough, but if you're interested, I'm going through slowly. I've rewritten & expanded these articles so far: Dewlap, Armour (zoology), Neck frill & I've attempted to expand Club (zoology), but it's a harder topic. Drop by my talk page & maybe we can combine forces & polish each other's articles once we've rewritten them or something? Cheers, Spawn Man 07:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Man, that seems quite a while ago now, 'twas when I got the chance to dissect stuff in biology. To be honest, I don't really know that much on the topic... Do you have any tasks in mind? If you drop by my talkpage whenever you have a task or question, I'd be happy to help — Jack · talk · 22:12, Sunday, 10 June 2007
Sure, if you're up to polishing anatomic articles? I'm going to go through & hopefully spruce up the woefully bad articles Wikipedia has on animal anatomy & if it's okay, I'd love to have someone to check them over after I've expanded them. I don't know many other people who are interested in animal anatomy, so it would be great if you could do that & I'll send the page links to you when they're done if you're up to it. Of course, I'm also going to ask at the science help desk for someone else as well so you don't need to feel pressured into doing this considering your comment was over a year ago lol. Anyway, I'll probably be a while before much gets done, but I'll make sure some polishing goes your way if you say yes. Cheers, :) Spawn Man 00:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Cool, that sounds perfect :) — Jack · talk · 00:57, Monday, 11 June 2007

Space Tourism

Hi, like the idea for the {{space tourism}} template, as it's recently created I'm guessing you might be adding to it. If not I'm thinking about jumping in myself.--Raerth 19:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, be my guest! I designed {{fusion power}}, and I was thinking something along those lines. But as I realised the magnitude of the task, my motivation waned. So I added the "edit this template" tag, hoping someone else would finish the job :P thanks for offering! — Jack · talk · 20:04, Wednesday, 13 June 2007
There are many space related templates out there, trying not to overlap with {{Space exploration lists and timelines}} etc... You're suggestion is fine, but pondering the best layout to emphasise why this is different to the others.--Raerth 21:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
My layout was not intended to be the final one. It's only a wikitable, after all! I think this is a key concept that deserves its own template. I've added some more links, while you think about it. — Jack · talk · 21:21, Wednesday, 13 June 2007
My point exactly. The concept is a good one, but picking the topics to stop this seeming a redundant copy of other templates is what I'm thinking about.--Raerth 21:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

let's move this to the template discussion page :)--Raerth 21:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Done — Jack · talk · 21:28, Wednesday, 13 June 2007

Image

Just looking over your image here and noticed "fused CNT" should be labelled "fused CTN". (Damn! Now, I'm thinking it might be the other way 'round!) Either way thanks for the graphic! DAG 01:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it should be. Source is here. Feel free to change it! — Jack · talk · 01:58, Thursday, 21 June 2007

Done! (Correctly, I hope) I re-input all text as I couldn't match the font accurately enough. Best regards. DAG 15:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Jack: It seems I've overwritten your original copyright on this uploaded file/image and I'm not sure how to re-speciify it.DAG 19:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Question re Image:Triethylborane.png

I left a question for you on Image_talk:Triethylborane.png Ariel. 08:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose carbon dioxide as this week's WP:ACID winner

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week carbon dioxide was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help.

Spamsara 22:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Search screenshot.PNG

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Search screenshot.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Search screenshot.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Search screenshot.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Animal language

Hey Jrockley, I'm wondering if you could expound a bit on Template talk:Animal language. I'm not liking the template, but am prepared to be swayed to support if you can make it make sense to me. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 19:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Flood map

Jrockley, congratulations on getting the map of the 2007 Floods done. However, I need to point out that you've left out North Yorkshire, Cumbria, Shropshire and Wiltshire. In case you need reassuring that these places did in fact flood, here are links to the Wiltshire floods, the Shropshire floods, the North Yorkshire floods in which one person died and the Cumbria floods in which one person died. If you or anybody else could update the map accordingly, that would be great. Sorry to bother you, kind regards, Anameofmyveryown 00:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I did one myself. It's not as good as yours but does include North Yorkshire, Cumbria, Shropshire, Wiltshire. It also includes West Yorkshire [4] and County Durham [5], which I forgot. Sorry to have bothered you, kind regards, Anameofmyveryown 02:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Jrockley, thanks for your message on my talk page: I've replied to it there. Kind regards, Anameofmyveryown 01:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:QI-Book.jpg

I have tagged Image:QI-Book.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

RE:The Tribe (2009 film)

Even if so, isn't all the text on the page a copyvio of Imdb? Onnaghar (speak.work) 17:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it for further development purposes. Onnaghar (speak.work) 17:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Serenity DVD cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Serenity DVD cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Featured image nominated for delisting

Someone nominated the Translational motion.gif animation for delisting from Featured Pictures status. I note that you took an interest in this animation. If you would like to vote to keep it, please vote here: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/delist/Translational_Motion. Greg L (my talk) 04:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

re: Image:Korea (179).jpg

Hi, it says,

강박에는 강타로.
«응징»에는 무자비한 징벌로!

which means, roughly:

Against duress, a hard strike.
Against "avengement", merciless punishment!

Hope this helps.. :) --Kjoonlee 20:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant :) thank you very much! — Jack · talk · 23:57, Wednesday, 22 August 2007

Replaceable fair use Image:Penang Google Map.png

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Penang Google Map.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VegitaU 01:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

List of private spaceflight companies

I noticed you tagged the article with "attention from experts needed". I think I qualify. What sort of review are you looking for?

The only comment I have is that there's still no entry for my company Venturer Aerospace, but we didn't win a COTS contract and aren't really active now, so that's ok. 8-) Georgewilliamherbert 06:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, anything at all that you could add to the article would be great. If you feel up to the job, it'd be great if you could clarify that the list is correct so far, possibly supplying references, add more companies and add information to fill wherever you see a questionmark.
Also, you could always create the Venturer Aerospace or S-550 articles, if you wanted? Having said that, why document history when you can create it..? Get out there and finish your rocket! :P — Jack · talk · 19:14, Friday, 31 August 2007

I really like the new layout. It went from the original 'scratched on a napkin' look to a more polished list. aremisasling 22:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Template standardisation implementation

Realistically, how long do you think it'll be till WP:TS is ready to implement? I'm all for starting now, but you guys seem to be debating on code. Having a look over Wikipedia:Template messages#Article-related namespace, there are literally thousands of article-space templates out there. For coding novices like myself who love this idea (and it seems I am far from alone), would it be possible to draw up an easy-to-use instruction manual for converting templates? (Say, at Wikipedia:Template standardisation/Instructions for implementation) As it would very much be in the spirit of the movement if everyone was standardising through the same method. — Jack · talk · 04:54, Monday, 3 September 2007

Such discussion belongs at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation, not on individual user talk pages. Indeed, I see someone else has already brought the discussion over there, at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation#Template standardisation implementation. Please join the discussion there. Your input is welcomed and valued, which is why everyone interested deserves to be able to read it! Thanks! —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the implementation method is being covered sufficiently by others :) I'll try to compile a list of affected templates... there are 23 main categories of templates, which I'll be sorting through. GracenotesT § 19:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Jack: Quiddity suggested a new kind of violet for the merge colour, slightly different to your suggestion and very different to my old "pink" suggestion. I like his new suggestion, it seems better than both your and my old suggestions. I have updated the examples at my demo and at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation so everyone can see the new colour. I'd like your input on the new colour at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation#Merge-specific color. --David Göthberg 00:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Foundation disambiguation page

When you attempt to clean-up disambiguation pages, like you did with Foundation, please follow the guidelines of MOS:DAB (especially "one link per entry") and MOS:T. :-) – sgeureka t•c 09:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No tool. I just applied MOS:T and then swapped the albums and the songs because of importance. And I'm pretty good with dab cleanups, that's all, and Foundation has been on my watchlist for some time. – sgeureka t•c 23:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/WTC (23 September 2001)
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Wtc-photo.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. MER-C 11:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture change of en:Vitamin C

Hi Jrockley, I have a question: Why have you changed my improvments of the picture Dehydroascorbicacid ([6]) to ([7])? There is a mono- and a dihydrate of the acid which I included into the picture!--Yikrazuul 14:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Puzzle globe

Since you proposed this merge, I thought you'd be interested in this discussion :) Waldir talk 23:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for help?

Hey, I hate to be a bother, but I saw your photograph from the Edinburgh Zoo at FPC, and... well, I have some anatomical drawings from the 19th century that are a bit too delicate to scan, and I live in Edinburgh. I don't suppose you could help out? They're mostly A2, a couple A1 size. I'm more-or-less a third year Biology major (there's some health issues that meant I'm doing my third year as special circumstances over two years), so if you wanted to wait until January, and meet up in one of the cafés around King's Buildings, that'd be fine. P.S.: Good luck with exams! Adam Cuerden talk 02:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(And yes, I know this is a funny hour for someone from Edinburgh to be up, but I napped this afternoon, and now can't sleep =) ) Adam Cuerden talk 03:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but it wasn't me who took that picture, it was Pascal Blachier. I'm rubbish at photography... How delicate are they? Scanning shouldn't be a very destructive process if you could find a scanner big enough. The Uni may have one. If by any chance they're not yours, I'd expect there are already existing scans, have you looked? Yeah my sleeping patterns are way off too. — Jack · talk · 03:00, Thursday, 6 December 2007
Ah, well. Also, the Uni have A3 scanners in the main library, but, as far as I know, not A2, and what I'm going to do with the full-sized anatomical chart of a woman I don't know. Also, they are mine - Pickering's Bookstore, if you know it - it's near George Square, had a 2/3rds off sale in October, and I found some great stuff for silly prices, so snapped them up. Adam Cuerden talk 03:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Could it be valuable? Who is the author? — Jack · talk · 03:08, Thursday, 6 December 2007

Probably. here's the list, for the record:

  • The Relations of the Abdominal and Pelvic organs in the Female, Illustrated by a Full-sized Chromo-lithograph of a section of a cadaver frozen in the genu-pectoral position, and by a series of woodcuts by Professor Alexander Russell Simpson [of the University of Edinburgh] and Dr. David Barry Hart. (1881)
  • Supplement to the Anatomy of Labour containing Plates XIII to XXVI and completing, with those previously published, the Third Edition. by A. H. F. Barbour. (1896)
  • University of Glasgow, Old and New, 1450-1891, Deluxe Edition. (No 22 of 50) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 03:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The Deluxe in the last one seems to mean that all the professors and worthies signed it. Adam Cuerden talk 03:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Notice of FP delisting

Hello,

This is to let you know that a picture you nominated, commons:Image:Alcatraz03182006.jpg, has been suggested for delisting here. Sorry --Malachirality (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Jaguar at Edinburgh Zoo
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Jaguar at Edinburgh Zoo.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Chris.B • talk 16:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Moose range map

Did you make this map yourself? I'm wondering where the information is coming from. Also, is it supposed to be current range, or historical? I ask because you have the Korean Peninsula in red, but you don't show them as being present in Kamchatka. I know I never saw a moose in Korea, or heard of them being there (I'm not even sure Korean has a native word for Moose), and it would seem really strange to me to find there were no moose in Kamchatka...and there is ample evidence on hunting websites that yes, there are indeed moose there.

Anyhow, I figured I'd bother you about this before I go changing anything. (Particularly since I don't know their extent in northeastern Russia, and I don't know that they NEVER existed in Korea)Andy Christ (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Moose distribution.png is nothing more than a cleaned-up version of a tiny jpg picture which has now been deleted (commons:Image:Moose map.jpg). I have no idea if that image was correct at all, so if you feel like you know enough and have a source, feel free to alter the map. It seems that if moose are present in Korea, then they will be there referred to as North Siberian elk (Alces alces bedfordiae). — Jack · talk · 01:51, Tuesday, 18 December 2007