User talk:Peak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A belated, Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --Lexor 09:49, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Nice work on helping to improve genetics, gene regulatory network and others. --Lexor 09:49, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] race

how come you disputed the race article? JackLynch 02:38, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

thanks for welcoming my input. i'll try to get round to paying a visit, although truly outside the wikiverse my plate is so full right now that i can't afford to aquire any new obsessions. i don't have to visit the article to know that, given the subject, it's liable to be a mess. 168... 00:55, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] MyosinUnrootedTree

Please respond to Angela's question at Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements#November 25 in relation to MyosinUnrootedTree.jpg.

Well, I put "language" paranthetically. I would quibble with you over this for two reasons. First, one may define behavior broadly and although I know of few botanists (in any) who use the term "race" their is no reason why they cannot include a plants' response to extenal stimulii as one criterion. Second, the article if almost eentirely about human races. As a matter of fact, I wish the article were only about human races; as of now there is no meaningful information about how zoologists or or botanists use the term . By the way, I agree with you about the opeining qualification and I think I found what you were callingmy attention to, and reinserted it in the article. If I got it wrong correct me, please. If anyone argues about this, it won't be hard for us to make the argument. Slrubenstein

[edit] Multi-regional hypothesis

You asked for citations on those believing molecular data supports multiegionalism. A well-known recent such paper is this one, and you can look at other papers by Wolpoff, Hawks, etc. Anyway, I'm bothered by the fact that every link you've added to this page is anti-multiregionalism. Don't you think that's not very appropriate for an entry about it? There should be at least one pro- link, and probably the majority should be pro-. I also believe your reading of the style guide is not correct; in general external links should be collected together rather than scattered uselessly, but if it's simply to provide a footnote reference for a portion within the text, that is not necessary. I also don't agree with the undoing of my other changes: splitting the examples of recent research back across two paragraphs, and removing mention of Wells' anti-multiregionalist stance. I actually don't see the point in the Wells' quote anyway; it's not very encyclopedic, just his opinion. -- VV 03:47, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hey, responding to your comments on my talk page....

I am familiar with that one and many others, but the particular one you quote is ancient (accepted 1999) relative to the recent evidence. I was genuinely asking for a RECENT paper - one that responds to the supposedly "nail in the coffin" evidence.

I don't know of any such, nor would I expect it. Given the length of the funding - research - submission - peer review - publication life cycle, I would not expect a thorough published counter yet, nor do I think 1999 is "ancient".

Peak 06:10, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC) Please note that I said "ancient relative to the recent evidence", i.e. that published in 2001.
Peak By the way, I only asked the question because someone (my recollection is that it was you, but it doesn't much matter at this point) added: Nevertheless, proponents of multiregionalism such as Wolpoff believe the molecular data can be reconciled with the multiregional origin hypothesis, and may even support it. I was just asking for something to back up the last five words. Specifically, in context, this addition seems to mean that some multiregionalists interpreted the results published in 2001 as supportive of multiregionalism, and I was just asking for a citation.
Peak It has since occurred to me that the addition was not meant to refer specifically to the 2001 evidence, but to "molecular data" in general.

However, the "molecular data" as such has been around for quite a while and always touted as supporting Out of Africa; the recent work is just a continuation of that in the same vein.

Peak Here, I think, is the source of misunderstanding and disagreement. Many people do NOT see the cited work published in 2001 as merely "more of the same". Consider, for example, the simple fact that one of the articles was published by Chinese scientists in the Chinese Science Bulletin. When you read what they have to say, it is truly astounding.
By the way, are you suggesting that a scientific hypothesis can never be rejected? The multi-regional hypothesis was proposed as a scientific hypothesis, and as such should be viewed from a scientific perspective, especially in an encyclopedia that purports to be about knowledge. Yes, history is important, but that doesn't mean that every proposition is eternally merely a POV. As you know, some scientific hypotheses are confirmed and become generally accepted theories; others fall by the wayside; and still others that fell by the wayside are later vindicated in some way or another.

I am suggesting that this hypothesis is not yet rejected. AFAIK, Wolpoff, Hawks, etc., have not conceded defeat. It is a subject of active dispute among scientists, regardless of which way you feel the evidence is falling.

Peak Again, my main question was: can we get beyond "AFAIK"? I have the impression (but it's just a weak impression) that the multiregionalist holdouts are whittling the hypothesis down to something entirely uncontroversial. In any case, it would be good if we could add some scientifically rigorous (testable) but succinct statements about the MR hypothesis.
I gave an exact quotation from the Style Guide. If you wish to do likewise, please do so.

I think you overrate exact quotes - the guide should be read as a unit - but you can read the section on footnotes, which explains the way I did it (with auto-numbering, etc.). Your quotation, incidentally, omitted the "in most cases" and "preferable".

Peak If someone has gone to the trouble of doing what is recommended in the Style Guide, it would in general be better to respect that person's effort; surely there are more important things to do.
I would of course be happy to try to justify or explain the changes I've made. At the same time, please remember that the changes you make to someone else's work may not always be agreeable if the author has invested quite a lot of time and thought in the work they've done.

That, however, is how Wikipedia functions. Other such resorces (such as Kuro5hin) include unalterable user submissions, but here altering others' work is de rigueur.

Wells is a scientist and co-author of one of the papers. He gave a succint summary for which we should be grateful.

He is also a partisan in an intense scientific debate.

Peak Perhaps you know more about Wells than I do, but your argument as presented so far seems overly general (it would seem to imply that Wikipedia articles should never quote a scientist who has done original research).
Peak As for the intensity of the current *scientific* debate - all I'm asking for is the evidence, preferably in the form of some post-2001 citations.

Just citing him as an unbiased authority is wrong, just as quoting Hawks as saying that single-origin has been "put to rest" without any context would not be right, either. -- VV 22:35, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Peak Signing off now. Thanks for the info about Kuro5hin. Peak 06:10, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Space for SLR

Thanks for your comments. I don't want to go through them point by point; I think we agree on more than we disagree and that some of our disagreements are semantic. I do have a general comment about the opening paragraph, however -- if you have strong feelings about it I hope you can express them (on the talk page for race, where we can start hammering out a consensus). You and I agree witha people use "race" in different ways -- given Wikipedia's policy of NPOV this is soemthing I think all contributors acknowledge. It seems to me that at the moment the first paragraph provides a kind of ad-hoc list, a grab-bag of different elements of different definitions of race. I am not opposed to this, although sometimes the elements seem arbitrary or redundant (which has motivated some of my changes). I think there is another way to introduce the article: instead of listing some criteria different people use in defining race, list the major different approaches to race. Of course, I can see how this can get sticky quickly too. It's just an alternative; if you like it, perhaps you can propose something. However, I do have to take issue with one thing you said on my talk page, about race generally involving a notion of shared ancestry. I agree that this is true in the US and likely true elsewhere, and that it is likely true among scientists everywhere. But I do not assume and indeed do not believe that it is true (popularly) everywhere. People by the way did have notions of race in the West before Darwin, when there were many notions of "descent" -- some people surely though all Whites were descended from Japheth and all Blacks from Ham, but there may have been others who conceived of race in different terms. I just wouldn't be so definitive about it. It certainlywasn't true in Brazil in the 1950s/1960s. Slrubenstein

How about you use the talk page yourself, to address whatever your concern might happen to be. Im not psychic, you know... Lirath Q. Pynnor

Peak, you might want to weigh in on the Krebs cycle vs. Citric acid cycle on Talk:Citric acid cycle. Thanks, --Lexor 23:56, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Instead of talking about me behind my back, how about you address your specific concerns with me? Lirath Q. Pynnor

I'm not sure whether your reversion was specifically intended to "undo Lir's damage as quickly as possible" or whether you also had some reservations about the specific changes I'd made. Peak 09:12, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I was intending to do the former. Sorry for squelching your additions and not having the patience to work with them. I agree it would be good to mention where DNA is found. 168... 16:48, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

So...did Stewart, Streitwieser and I persuade you it's accurate and pertinent to describe a piece of double helix as two molecules? Or are we agreeing to disagree? Anyway, I enjoyed the challenge of having to prove (at least to my own satisfaction) my point.168... 18:51, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)


"Now that Cyan is paying attention,..." Ouch! -- Cyan 02:49, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback regarding the new process!

I compared T6.2 with T6 and T7, and most of it is derived from T6. The following diffs are T6 (left column) vs T6.2 (right column) and T6.2 (left column) vs T7 (right column). You have taken one complete sentence from T7 - the one suggested by Lexor, which Lir then incorporated in T7. You have used "prokaryote" instead of "simple-celled", and changed the linking structure and target(?) of the "multi-cellular organism" phrase. The former is an innovation from T7; the latter isn't, though. In short, relatively little of T7 has made it into T6.2, so I am unsurprised that Lir does not find it acceptable.

You wrote, "Certainly it takes into account everyone's stated objections in a reasonable way." It doesn't just need to do so in a "reasonable" way, because judgments of what is reasonable necessarily vary. It needs to do so in a way that is acceptable to everyone. Otherwise, there's no point in unprotecting the page, as the edit war will simply continue. Similarly, all-but-one acceptance is unlikely to prevent the edit war from continuing after unprotection.

I have recently come to understand how Lir makes his new versions. He takes the one of the most recent versions (i.e. not written by him), and applies certain alterations. He then produces his versions, and specifies the reasoning behind his alterations as bullets underneath his version. He told me this in an email, and I have found this to be readily apparent by comparing T6 to T7, taking into account the bullets listed under T7. From his email, I have come to the conclusion that he will respond best to very specific recommendations as to how to change his versions, so it may help to be as specific as possible when discussing his texts.

With regards to Race, I suggest that you request protection of that page and ask a sysop you trust to mediate. -- Cyan 15:15, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I infer that you consider me a sysop you trust, and I am honoured. However, I'm going to refuse: one mediation at a time is plenty for me. I can make some suggestions: BCorr mediated at 2002 Gujarat violence in November, so you can check him out and see if his mediation style fits your needs. (He was not a sysop at the time, but is one now.) Also, Ed Poor considers himself ;-) and is, I believe, generally considered to be a good mediator, so you may want to ask him. The list of sysops is located at Wikipedia:Administrators; if you see the name of a user you trust, you could ask them. -- Cyan 16:35, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is getting difficult to follow the discussions on Talk:DNA. If you put forward your T6 (or one of its offspring) as the DNA intro "working copy", I will support it. I will then try to reason for others to do the same. Stewart Adcock 17:27, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't need to propose it because you already have. All that needs to happen now is that everybody needs to agree to be bound by the outcome. Proposals from me aren't any more important or binding than those of other participants. I had naturally assumed that I was the judge...

Unless or until an individual is banned, the wiki process requires all editors to be co-equal in terms of editing privileges. The whole point of protection is to stop edit wars, because edit wars rarely lead to better articles.

-- Cyan 17:33, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Big Bang intro

I like the latest intro rephrase that you did ... much more general and inclusive ... It may be helpful to see a "standard vs non-standard" line in the intro, though (mabey sometime later) ... but all in all, it seem alot better .... Sincerely, JDR

I've written some waffle about "information" on my talk page Stewart Adcock 21:32, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Peak, would you mind giving me a general idea of what you've studied in school and/or elsewhere? 168... 06:47, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't mix e-mail w/Wikipedia. I ask because I used to assume you were versed in molecular biology, but after our clashing of minds over "molecule" and your last change to DNA motif, I'm just about convinced that you don't have that kind of background. I'm trying to get a bead on how I ought to be communicating with you, how much to presume you know, how much detail I would have to provide to make my points sink in, whether to consider certain differences of opinion with you hopeless, because you have your own opinion from that was ingrained by years of formal study, or less than hopeless, because you acquired your opinion yesterday from Discover magazine. Also some things aren't worth explaining to somebody who doesn't know much about a subject and who insists that an explanation be complete and referenced down to the last claim. In such a case it's better to say "I studied this in school, you didn't, so just trust me" or "here's the title of a standard text book, I bet it's somewhere in there, go look and see if you can convince yourself."168... 07:32, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[Peak:] You can presume that I don't know everything, and that if I need to know something, I can find out, but that I appreciate pointers, and that I am usually quick to grasp things, including other people's points of view. In fact, I can usually see things from multiple points of view at the same time, which sometimes gets me into trouble because some people are not used to that. (It seemed to me that that might have been the case for you in the discussion about "molecule".)
I'll take that as a "yes, I mind." What gets us "into trouble" from my perspective is that sometimes is that you ask for a whole lot of convincing, and I get frustrated when you seem content to simply acknowledge multiple points of view rather than to resolve the initial question of which one of them is right. I'd like to avoid such debates, and I thought knowing the answer to my question might help me to do so. But I won't begrudge you your privacy.168... 18:29, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Regarding DNA motif - this article was supposed to be about patterns of nucleotide and amino acid sequences, whereas Protein motif was supposed to be about patterns of secondary structure. Different notations are used for describing them, so by moving most of the former article to the latter, the latter no longer makes much sense in many places. I'm sure you will rectify the situation when you find the time, so I'll hold my breath....
By the way, didn't we agree that it is NOT the case that DNA is the "primary chemical component of chromosomes"? Peak 08:42, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Re:"primary" I said in one of my most recent posts to that Talk page why I think it's apt...and I still do. "Chief" though I now agree is problematic. I didn't agree initially. I'll think more about motif, but at the moment I disagree with you.168... 15:59, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

So what does "primary" mean here? In context, it seems to refer to something like the chemical composition (by weight?). If so, then what is the percentage - and at which particular state? On the Talk page, I cited some statistics (while insisting that this is not my field of expertise). If you cited some numbers, I'm sorry but I missed them. Peak 16:28, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)


From the Talk:DNA archive:DNA is the "primary" component of chromosomes because you can have a chromosome without proteins but not without DNA, and because many things called "chromosomes" (e.g. BACs) are composed only of DNA. I guess "chief" really isn't as good as "primary" here, so I propose we go back to "primary" and substitute something else at the second instance. (this last point a postscript168... 15:52, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC))
I still think the whole emphasis on 'primary' and 'chemical' here is misguided, and I am still not sure what precisely you mean by 'primary'. (I've never seen "primary" defined as "necessary".) Furthermore, although I am sure you know what you mean, I believe that a preamble should convey something that is readily intelligible. Peak 17:22, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
"1. First or highest in rank, quality, or importance; principal."168... 17:53, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
OK, so you're saying something like DNA is important, but it would be better to focus on what makes it important, and let the reader judge whether that's important to them or not. (It's a bit like the advice given to writers: rather than telling your readers that something is interesting, show them.) Peak 03:55, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
No, I'm saying, "you know chromosomes? oh yeah, i guess you probably do, because we all learned about that in high school seen those pictures of cells and all. well,you know the stuff that chromosomes are made of? hah! i bet you didn't! well, the most important thing they're made of...as in, the most important for doing what chromosomes do...it's DNA'! Yep, no kidding. Did you know that DNA is chemical? Hah, yeah, I bet all you were thinking of was that stupid ladder cartoon! Well now you know it's like this goopy stuff, and it's the key ingredient in those puffy black X's you see in microscope photos. No, no, don't thank me. This is an encyclopedia. Just doing our job."168... 05:21, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
[Peak:] Well, yes, a lecturer needs to be strong on style, and Wikipedia articles need to be interesting, but what may come off well in a lecture may come across as condescending on the written page. Peak 05:57, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You'll have to connect the dots for me. I don't see how what you just wrote relates to what I wrote.168... 06:02, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)


BTW, what most flummoxes me is that you would consider "DNA motif" an apt name for a sequence of amino acids.168... 16:09, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Are you alluding to the fact that the mapping of codons to residues is not 1-1? If so, remember the context here is "DNA motif" - a pattern. A pattern can be specified in various ways, as described in the articles. (Btw, are you watching this page or should I post a note on your talk page?) Peak 16:28, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, I'm alluding to the fact that DNA is DNA and amino acids are amino acids.

[Peak:] So if the DNA sequence at a particular point is UUU, and if we agree to abbreviate Phenylalanine as F, then (recognizing that UUC also codes for F), we can still use F when talking about the pattern. F becomes even more appropriate if the pattern is UU[UC].Peak 17:22, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I can reference you with "Peak" but "Peak" is not a person. It is a name.168... 17:55, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[Peak:] The subject is notation. We need some notation (e.g. regexps) to describe DNA patterns of interest. The four single-letter notation is sometimes useful in this context; the AA single-letter notation is often useful too. Peak 03:55, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I would say that notation is the confusion, and the very opposite of the subject. "DNA" is a nucleotide polymer. The way I speak and think, a name like "DNA motif" unambiguously implies a motif of nucleotides. That is, not a sequence of symbols representing clusters of atoms, nor a secondary representation of that sequence of symbols by yet another sequence of symbols which represent alternate clusters of atoms (called amino acids), but those actual physical things in the world we refer to as nucleotides. (BTW I'm guessing you're a math major in your 2nd year of college, but don't feel obliged to tell me if I'm right)

[Peak:] I don't understand why you are having trouble distinguishing between the concept of a specific sequence (e.g. UUU) and the concept of a pattern (e.g. UU[UC]). (BTW, I have three post-graduate degrees, none of them in mathematics.) Peak 06:11, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I give up.168... 06:16, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(I look at my User contributions and if I'm not "top" here I know you've replied). 168... 16:42, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Peak wrote this on Stewart's Talk page:

[From Peak:] As you say, it is difficult to follow the discussion, so you may have overlooked the version which appears on the Talk page at "Peak 22:51, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)". I offered this in the hope that you would be able to support it as per your message above. Also, mav has indicated he likes most of it and perhaps could be persuaded that it addresses all the issues reasonably. Of course, some time has elapsed since your offer of Jan 16, so please feel free to offer another variant.

You are right, I missed that in the melee (pity, because I would have had no major issues with it). I shall just wait a while to see what comes of mav's comments.

Peak also wrote this:

However, I think that to avoid confusion at this point, it would be best if any new proposal is given explicitly.Peak 04:47, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, good point. Stewart Adcock 22:25, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Take the Sysop Protection Pledge Poll?168... 00:37, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Crazily

Sigh. I know but it's beyond my powers to do anything when everyone is acting as crazily as they are at this minute. Hopefully when people calm down and stop the deletion-undeletion war, 168 and mav might agree to mediation. Angela. 01:34, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, if things get sorted out with the whole 168 issue in other ways, I'll look into whether or not DNA is currently on m:The Wrong Version. Pakaran. 01:35, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your edits to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/168 - I've been busy lately. --mav

Sorry about the confusion on the race talk page -- I'm glad everything is sorted out (I think!). I take the process here, and the principle of fairness, very seriously and I appreciate the points you were making, Slrubenstein

[edit] Calling out the Wikipedia:Volunteer Fire Department

Peak, User:Dmb000006 although clearly well-intentioned is creating many idiosyncratic and poorly written sub-stubs: gene duplication, Omes and others, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Dmb000006 --Lexor|Talk 01:54, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for making such a kind comment about me! (I am well-intentioned). Actually I have dyslexia, which means my spelling will always be pour.

Is there a dyslexa index for people to put their names on, so people can go to their posts and see what they think? that would rock! Cheers, User:Dmb000006.

[edit] RfC/168

I took your advice and separated the complaint and the response. It was naive of me to think that anybody deeply involved in this issue could be neutral enough to work together on one version. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/168#Version of what happened edited by mav and other community members (complaint) please add or edit (but please keep it short and NPOV). -- mav

[edit] Question on Mutants

(I moved that stuff to my own talk page. P0M 05:48, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC))

yes, I have received your email, thanks. I actually have four draft of an answer in my mail box for that mail :-) and I always suspended answering. I decided at some point, that I would try to help on DNA after the mediation was over...then I decided to push it further till arbitration was under way...then...I had health problems (still have), so as a result, you never got an answer. I apology for that. I will try to think and answer today or tomorrow. Too many private discussions these days. My apologies.

PS : as regards your comment, I would wish that we wait a couple of days (in case 168 changes his mind) before fully letting DNA editable.

FirmLittleFluffyThing

[edit] Protection log

You wrote:

"Since I am not a sysop I cannot determine exactly when the page was protected..."

You can, actually. See Wikipedia:Protection log -- Cyan's non-sysop sock-puppet 20:22, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] DNA

Request for comment on why you reverted. Bensaccount 22:48, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello,

Please give your opinion here Talk:DNA/vote.

FirmLittleFluffyThing 06:04, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Race

You make some valid points. Anti-race was telegraphese for the view that race (in humans) has no biological validity, which may not have been clear. By sarcasm, I meant the prejudicial language "many continue to believe...", which implies these are the biological analog of flat-earthers; perhaps sarcasm is the wrong word. But, I think that the inference about "single subspecies" and citing the phrase the human race is problematic for reasons I noted on P0M's talk page, and I still object to it (also, "alternative definitions" is off the mark; it could be alternative classifications). Lastly, I was hoping "many areas of biology" would close the gap between you and Tannin, whose intense differences may just come from sampling readings from different subjects within this vast field. Based on your last edit, however, I fear the conflict may continue. -- VV 06:41, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] race

given my most recent post to the talk:race page, no I do not think there should be a seperate page on "race:bioloby." I am glad you think my points are helpful, although frankly I am not sure what more I could say to Tannin. Slrubenstein

[edit] Myosin image

Just FYI, the reason that mav probably pulled the image in the first place was that Imran added the {{msg:copyrighted}} tag on the 22 Feb 2004, for some reason (see the history). I removed the msg tag, since you clarified the terms. --Lexor|Talk 11:10, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Image question

Hey Peak - what's the source of this image and what license is it available under? →Raul654 01:17, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Planck units

your "copy editing" of Planck units destroys some of the meaning in the statements. try leaving it alone for a while. i'll try to see what i can do to resolve your concerns "Planck units are the elements of a system of units..." etc. r b-j 17:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] request

Can you comment on/intervene in my recent discussion with Jalnet2 concerning the race page [1]? Also, would you take a look at the little edit war he and I have had today (Feb. 11)? S/he has violated the 3RR, but I am in no position to do anything aboutit. Thanks, Slrubenstein 21:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient music

See Talk:Ancient music#From User talk:Peak#Ancient music

[edit] "sandbox edits"

I think Wikiborg's edits were made with one of the bad browsers that substitute "smart quotes" and other non-standard characters when they edit, and that what he was actually trying to do was alphabetize the other-language links. Since it wasn't a very big change, though, I didn't bother restoring it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MyosinUnrootedTreeThumbnail.gif

Hi, I've listed Image:MyosinUnrootedTreeThumbnail.gif for deletion, since it wasn't used on any page and its image tag is now considered "unfree". If you feel that this image should not be deleted, you can go to WP:IFD to voice your opinion. Thanks. :) Coffee 05:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Set

Response is on my talk page --Trovatore 03:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MRCA

Here's the first draft. It includes only those paragraphs that I'd tweak and/or rearrange.

An MRCA can sometimes be determined by simply referring to an established pedigree. Alternatively, an MRCA can be located in an estimated time frame by applying established mutation rates to DNA test results, or by reference to a non-genetic genealogical model.

[edit] MRCA of two individuals

The most recent common patrilineal ancestor of any two males, and the most recent common matrilineal ancestor of any two individuals can be determined by genealogical DNA tests. The tests use mitochondrial DNA for matrilineal inheritance or Y-chromosome-DNA for patrilineal inheritance.

[edit] MRCA of all living males or all living females

The most recent common patrilineal ancestor of all living male humans, and the most recent common matrilineal ancestor of all living female humans have been established by researchers using tests of the same kinds of DNA as for two individuals. Notions such as Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam yield common ancestors that are more ancient than for all living humans. (Hartwell 2004:539) Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived about 150,000 years ago. Y-chromosomal Adam is estimated to have lived between 60,000 and 90,000 years ago.

[edit] MRCA of all living humans

The MRCA of all living humans lived within historical times (3000 BC - 1000 AD), according to a non-genetic model reported in a 2004 article by Douglas Rohde, Steve Olson, and Joseph Chang, "Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans", while other models reported in the same article suggest the MRCA of only those living in Western civilizations lived as recently as 1000 AD. The same article provides surprisingly recent estimates for the identical ancestors point, the most recent time when each person then living was either an ancestor of all the persons alive today or an ancestor of none of them. The actual MRCA is farther back if one attempts to take into account long-isolated peoples, such as historical tribes in central Africa, Australia and remote islands in the South Pacific.

It should be noted that the MRCA of everyone alive today may not have been the same individual as the MRCA of all humans alive at some other time. Also, the existence of an MRCA does not imply any sort of population bottleneck or first couple. The MRCA of everyone alive today co-existed with a large human population, most of whom either have no living descendants today or else are ancestors of almost everyone alive today.

I've tried to make it a bit more understandable (at least to me) and to tie it all together a little better. I look forward to your comments. AnonUser (sorry, the system has been logging me out whenever I reach this page).


A revision of the above is in User:Peak/MRCA. I suggest you make further changes there, or at User:AnonUser/MRCA.Peak 20:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


Thanks again. Your revision looks fine to me now. If you want, you can post it or let me know and I'll do it. AnonUser 23:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure how you envision the merge, so please go ahead. Peak 02:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to chemboxes

Thanks for your interest in chemical compound articles, and in the tables in particular. Unfortunately, your templates {{EINECSRow}} and {{PubChemRow}} cause a few problems:

  1. External links in tables are badly rendered by some browsers (e.g. Internet Explorer), which expand the links when the page is printed.
  2. External links should not be placed "inline" in the article text as they tend to be fragile: instead they should be placed in an External links section at the end of the article (See Wikipedia:External links and the pages referred to from there)
  3. The amount of data we could include in tables is almost endless, especially for compounds such as Ammonia: the current form of the tables is the result of a long compromise to try to keep their length to a reasonable level. Data which could be included elsewhere in the article should be; other data can always go on the Supplementary data page. There is a long discussion on my talk page which illustrates the problems that unilateral changes to the overall format can cause other editors!

I have created a template {{PubChemLink}} which could be used in the external links section in the same way as {{PubChemRow}} in the tables. If you have any other comments or queries about the tables, please join in the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox. Physchim62 (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jean-Baptiste Lamarck

Odd as it may seem, the article Jean-Baptiste Lamarck should be a biography of the person with the minimum amount of other information. Lamarckism should be. As it is the has organically grown and is a disorganised mess. Cutting irrelevant bits out improves it and makes it relevant. Please do not vandalise my improvements to the article. — Dunc|☺ 19:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interested in QM?

Lodar,

I have gotten interested in a couple of articles on quantum mechanics. Originally it was because somebody put some curious assertions into an article I had been keeping an eye on for a long time, and then that person started an article that was tantalizing. Long story, but that article was eventually gutted by people who had not patience in discovering what he was trying to say (although supported by grad students in physics who told me what he was saying was right and was obvious). I found my way to a sort of "QM for Dummies" article that was hardly more than a stub. I did a little on it, working through the history and the experiments. Then somebody else took a hand in it. He has made what I think is an excellent article out of Basics_of_quantum_mechanics. I plan on straightening out some of the English. In this case it is perfectly clear what he is trying to say and the changes will be mainly to make it smoother. But others are attacking the article and claiming that it is an illicit "fork" of the QM article.

The QM article was written for people who already know what QM is all about and who already know very well how to do the math. It would be useless for the kind of high school student I was before heading off to Stanford. Einsten, Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli... They're all clearer in writing about QM than the authors of this "encyclopedia" article, some of whom use single-letter symbols for terms like "joule" in formulas without a word of explanation anywhere. So I think it is important that the "basic" article not be destroyed. I thought you might like to have a look at it. For one thing, Voyajer (the latest contributor) is good in physics but may not understand being politic very well, and it would be too bad to lose a good argue because he gets out-maneuvered.

Thanks for your esteemed opinion, and any help steering that you may be able to provide. P0M 22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bolding cross-references

Could you weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#.22cross-references.22_in_bold.3F? You seem to have expressed an opinion on this in the past; it doesn't seem to be what anyone is doing, and I'd like to remove it from the MoS. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pattern

hi. no, the deletion was everything but unadvertent. this article is on patterns in general and not on pattern recognition in particular. look closely: you favourite statement moved right to there. i do not think that linguistic pattern recognition issues bring much useful refinement to the article. -- Kku 11:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date links

Since you have taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. bobblewik 20:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:EL

Hi. Several users noticed your recent edit to the external links guideline regarding sites with advertising. While avoiding sites that include advertising is a laudable goal, it may be unrealistic in today's web. I reverted the edit for the moment, and would welcome your input at Wikipedia talk:External links#Links to normally avoid: advertising. Thanks! - EurekaLott 20:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:MyosinUnrootedTree.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MyosinUnrootedTree.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biblio

Hi,

I'm still involved with [race] issues sometimes, most recently on somebody's rather contentious article on Black people. People are quoting "authorities" that I regard as dinosaurs, and I'm wondering whether you have any awareness of who the major figures in the second half of the 2oth century (and beyond) may be. Thanks. P0M 09:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] addLoadEvent

Hi, one of your user scripts uses the addLoadEvent( func ) function (see [2]). This function will be removed from MediaWiki:Common.js soon. Please modify your scripts to use addOnloadHook( func ) instead. —Ruud 18:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiregional hypothesis

Back in '03 you made substantial contributions to Multiregional hypothesis. A related article Most ancient common ancestor needs some major help with respect to citations. If you are a subject-matter expert please help. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:PubChemRow

Template:PubChemRow has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — DoSiDo 19:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:OrganicBox ATC

A tag has been placed on Template:OrganicBox ATC requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:OrganicBox SMILES

A tag has been placed on Template:OrganicBox SMILES requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)