User talk:Malljaja

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Malljaja, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  Garion96 (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Helpme on Talk:Carbon mutual

{{helpme}} Should this page be here on Wikipedia? It seems merely an advertisement for a rather obscure company that seems to try to separate people with good and honest intentions from their money. Malljaja 15:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The page appears to be advertising; as such, a user has tagged it with {{db-spam}} to request its deletion under CSD G11, so the page is likely to be deleted soon unless sources to demonstrate the notability of the company are added and the article is reworded to be neutral and attributed (which is highly unlikely, but which would solve the problem just as well as deletion would), so you probably have nothing to worry about. If you come across spam in future, you're allowed to tag it the same way (read the rules about spam). Hope that helps! --ais523 15:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for the prompt tagging and clarification. I had noticed that this "company" had earlier posted its link on the Carbon offset website, and upon removal of the link, seemed to have founded this page. Malljaja 15:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up on what's happened:
  1. 16:12, 19 March 2007 NawlinWiki (Talk | contribs) deleted "Carbon mutual" (g11 advert), so the page was deleted as spam; and
  2. The user in question is now on a final warning for spamming (see User talk:Barnsdirect).
Hope that helps! --ais523 16:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] DNA sequencing

re dna sequencing timeline - it looks really good. You might consider adding the introduction of hte sequenase kit and s35 alpha dNTPS; my memroy is that these reagents had a huge practical influnecne on the field. Another huge influence was that with fluorescent sequencing, you didnot have to prepare the gel for autorads; if you talk to anyone who actually did sequencing pre abi, they will tell you of the immense anmount of work and wasted effort this end step entailed.

Thanks for your comments. I cannot take the credit for creating the time line though--I've been mostly editing this section for clarity, as some of the info was too long or dispersed. I've edited and moved some of your recent additions regarding the Sequenase method--have a look whether I left the main message intact. Some of the seq methods have become so extensive that they may deserve a page in itself Malljaja 15:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks for helping clean up & improve the clarity of the Polymerase chain reaction article! :-) -Madeleine 14:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for moving & clean up of the optimisation section in the first place :-). The PCR page has long been in need of some repairs, and it's good to see it move in a good direction now. Malljaja 16:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey there

You'll know me from the John McVie page... I was wondering if you'd keep an eye on the Danny Kirwan page for me in the same way - the same unregistered fool is doing the same thing there. And Mick Fleetwood as well, come to that, haha... the guy is persistent. Thanks, and keep up the great work! Bretonbanquet 20:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Plus, I'm already breaking the 3-revert rule on several articles... :( Bretonbanquet 20:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bretonbanquet... yes, between cooking and doing laundry, I've been entertaining myself with the same spiel :)) -- I think it's deteriorated into a bit of a pointless vendetta, one joker in his/her underwear, but apparently without linguistic ability, trying to make a dent in the world. I'd be inclined to let it go by way of discussion, but seeing that we've been doing a lot of work as authors on some of the affected articles, they've become quite dear to me... don't like to see them defaced by yobs. I'll be away for a few days, but I'll be back--with a vengeance if necessary!! All the best to you. Malljaja 21:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, I needed a laugh :) Also thanks for your help on these pages, it makes it so much less frustrating to know that others are fighting for the same cause! Cheers! Bretonbanquet 17:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Innate immune system

Fantastic job on the copy edits! Your edits certainly did clarify, and the article reads much better. Thanks!--DO11.10 03:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radiotrophic fungus

You have made some edits to this article which make references to NADH and the chemistry associated with the radiotrophic mechanism. Can you tell me where you got the details? Thanks. --Simpsons contributor 23:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preview button

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Fungus, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Bendž|Ť 20:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ZS Genetics second opinion

In the DNA sequencing article, I ended up removing this section and restoring some old writing about unproven commercial proposals for DNA sequencing methods. I tried to be neutral, but I know there's an apparent of a conflict of interest for me on the issue, if you get a chance I'd like you check over the situation and decide what you think is best. Many thanks! Madeleine ✉ ✍ 21:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPD @ The Times

See WP:MEDMOS, you can't use opinion pieces, even from the Times, as sources in a medical article! It also contains some seriously weird misinformation. --Zeraeph 19:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to take time to get back to you there. As far as "weird information" is concerned, the article opens by implying support for DIY diagnosis through online resources, most of which are self published, self appointed and rife with misinformation largely under the control of a single individual (with no relevant qualifications or standing) featured later in the article.
Then is goes on to imply that NPD is considered a "severe and dangerous" personality disorder in terms of the latest UK mental health legislation, which it is not (and cannot be, as the UK uses the ICD10 which does not include NPD). Then this: "if it ensures the continuation of what psychiatrists call “the narcissistic supply” of uncritical admiration and adulation." when, in fact "Narcissistic supply" is jargon exclusive to online "NPD resources" that Psychiatrists have a tendency to never have heard of.
Most of her "professional and academic" sources are gleaned, second hand, from publications, those that are not seem to confined themself to questiong the validity of DSM diagnostics...and so it goes on..--Zeraeph 03:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] carbon offsets

Hi Malljaja,

I edited the carbon offsets piece, section on co-benefits. Is this okay now? I'm keen to share the knowledge of my organisation but don't want to do it in a way wikipedia doesn't like!

Thanks, Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nscott.odi (talk • contribs) 14:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your reply - negative benefits was not my phrase but should certainly be changed. Will do it now. Nscott.odi 15:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries - I hope I didn't come over harshly! Nscott.odi 17:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zi Lan Liao

This was my mistake; I was attempting to respond to an editor who was removing templates stating that articles need Chinese characters, and reverted the wrong edit. Badagnani 15:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polymerase chain reaction video

Don't know if you've seen this PCR song video [1], I got a kick out of it... but I resisted temptation to add it to the article. Thought it might give you a laugh in the midst of the silly revert war.  :-) Madeleine ✉ ✍ 03:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Lydon

Did you know that this [2] edit on the John Lydon page puts you in violation of 3RR? FYI I agree with your edit. --Adamfinmo (talk) 07:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If the above is true, please do not do so again or I will report you for 3RR. In additon, there is widespread consensus to use English/Scottish/Welsh not British, hence the categories and the widespread use of these terms on people's articles. There has been many discussions on this, and I would ask you to accept the widespread consensus not insert what maybe your own POV. --UpDown (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
With regard to 3RR, I made no judgement as to whether you had, I said "If". English describes people from England, Lydon is from England. English/Scottish/Welsh are widely used terms to described nationality, both within and outside Wikipedia. Cockney is not. I to disagree with single-use accounts. There has been many, many discussions on article talk pages (I can think of Richard Branson, Daniel Craig, Bernard Manning for a start). The "broader consensus" is for English, not British; hence our categories for a start. As I said the majority of articles use English/Welsh/Scotttish, and an even greater number use the corresponding categories. You are going against the tide on this one article, and would urge you not to.--UpDown (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I also note that in one edit summary you say that Great Britain is a country – not true. The United Kingdom is a country, Great Britain is part of it. Hence if you are calling someone British the link should be "United Kingdom|British". In addition, no one is saying England is not a "constituent country". That is the point; it a country hence why we use its nationality, it is more than a region or US state.--UpDown (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I RETRACT the above statement. I was confused by the conflict of the text and audio versions of the rule.--Adamfinmo (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. There are huge differences between the US and the UK. England, Wales and Scotland have long histories, as independent countries with there own cultures, traditions, legal systems and these have remains since the UK’s formation. For example each has it’s own international football team, something the US does not have. They’re a lot more than states, regions or provinces; they are constituent countries and hence we use their nationalities, to use British would on the whole be greatly inaccurate.--UpDown (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] opinion

I saw you helped out with microarray cleaning spree, Thanks. That article in the last year became an eclectic mix of mess and I am a terrible writer. Tiling arrays and Illumina are completely absent, but oh well for now. However, could you give your opinion for a better leadDNA_microarray#New_Opening. Thanks x2. --Squidonius (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I linked it badly it was on the talk page. Talk:DNA_microarray#New_Opening, the current lead is understandable but has some badly defined terms, most notably gene chip=any micorarray and probe=gene and only tranditional solid microarrays exist. I tried to change it, but mine was confusing too, hence it is in the talk page. --Squidonius (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Antibiotic

Hi, I moved the article back to the original name. Garion96 (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


Hello, Malljaja. You have new messages at Eldereft's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.