User talk:Samsara/Archive09

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

Darwin citing

I've finished marking up the page. I really wish I could be more help citing it, but as you may know, I've been ill of late, and thus find it hard to get to books I can use. I'll do what I can for the easier stuff, anyway. Vanished user talk 12:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not sure I said, but I honestly think you and Dave Souza are doing an excellent job of this, and when you're done, this will surely be an FA, provided hordes of Creationists don't try and stop it for political reasons. Vanished user talk 12:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'bve thrown out a couple paragraphs to the talk page. We need a description of how Darwin came up with his theoory from the works of Malthus. What we had was barely coherent, frankly. I've thrown it out to the talk page, in the hope a few of the non--fork people will be able to help. In better news, I've been able to ad several more cites. Vanished user talk 21:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A star

The Ninja Pancake Barnstar
For improving the encyclopedia by excellent use of wiki-ninja skills on Group-Office. pschemp | talk 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. :) Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Wondering if you're interested in this AfD

I've noticed that the article on Sexuality in older age is up for deletion. I just added the article to a couple categories hoping that may help its exposure some. I was going to put a note on the sexuality portal discussion page, but things do not seem to be very active there. So ... I thought I'd try your talk page. Thanks for your consideration of my request. I'm still rather new to WP and don't really know too many ropes yet. Regards, Keesiewonder 00:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your reply, and even more so for posting your own vote. That, really, is what I'd hoped you'd do! :-) Looks like the article won a Keeep status. I realize I can vote 'keep per X,' but like to try to include something more substantial. I think I was too tired to do this myself last night. Thanks again for your help! Regards, Keesiewonder 12:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Style

I like your style [1]! :-) Kudos to you, sir! --Kralizec! (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I like your style as well, and that opinion isn't diminished in the least by the fact that your calculation in the edit summary is incorrect by a full order of magnitude. ;) Tim Shuba 00:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Rest assured that no calculators were harmed in the process. :) Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Cactus as this week's WP:AID winner

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

MER-C 03:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Updates on Folding@home

  • Reference & Bibliography merged as per suggestion of User:Selmo --Records 01:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Added new section for Google Compute & F@H with more information. --Records 02:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Improved Lead. --Records 02:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Removed bulky quote as it is not encylopedic. --Records 02:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Removed See Also as links in article direct to See Also articles, besides FA articles don't have see also eg. todays one.--Records 02:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Removed BOINC section as they dont plan on releasing a BOINC client in the near future besides the stand alone is more easy for newbies.--Records 02:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed Progress to Participation. --Records 02:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The easy way

User:Gurch/Reports/ArbComElections pschemp | talk 05:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


Health Wiki Research

A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.

Please consider taking our survey here.

This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.

We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.

Thanks, --Sharlene Thompson 17:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Folding@home

Thank you for being bold. Sometimes, I should ignore all rules... NCurse work 19:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Records also nominated Rosetta@Home for peer review here. susato 20:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Project

I have now decided to rename the project to Transport in Scotland. This is going to be very broad but i have stated it will focus primarily on public transport. Do you think this is going to be any good? I have also made a start on the sub-page.

Simply south 12:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well i have renamed it and it has gone ahead. Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport in Scotland. Simply south 12:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :-)

Thank you so much for fixing the "stuff" I don't understand on my user page - that is SO kind of you. Sandy (Talk) 21:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. :) Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Darwin Banner

...Er, well, remmeber how I mentioned I had flu? It seemed amusing when I thought it would be on the fork a while longer, and was heavily drunk on virii. Vanished user talk 22:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

By the by, d'ye realise there's now four times as many cites as before the fork? Vanished user talk 22:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That was the idea. :) Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
These cites are going berserk, and we're not finished yet! I've been focussing on looking afresh at the article, and have still some ideas to implement. The last couple of paragraphs of Publication need sorted, and I'm tempted to add a quotation of Darwin's paragraph from his intro to Origin which outlines the theory: however, the article's 80kb and, even allowing for commented out stuff etc, about twice as large as the desired size. Which is why I cut away some of the vague uncited praise from the Legacy, and intend to give the whole article a pruning once all the ideas are in. It's never ending: just had a pov question on the talk: do we need to spell out that Darwin still believed in a Creator when going beyond Lyell's ideas? .. dave souza, talk 20:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Do realise that the cites are pretty wordy: It may well be it's only half the size sans the cites. That said, I came here to apologise for putting in so many cites that need converted. Sorry! Vanished user talk 13:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

RE:Bio star

Yes I was aware of that. Most agreed that the addition of the Fauna Barnstar can be used to be more concise to animal related contributions, the bio-star is for the category I believe.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Notability

If you wish to have an effect on the larger debate (I did notice your essay/template on the topic), you should be aware that the WP:N talk page has gotten very, very active of late with more sides represented than were even two weeks ago. The seeming WP:OWNership is coming to an end. Thought you might like to know since you've obviously given the topic a lot of thought, and more input would be valuable for consensus-building purposes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you assist?

I gather from Sandy's talk page that you're a WIki admin. If so can you assist me? I stumbled across a user page and I am concerned that it is too much information. Here is his name: User:Caldorwards4. Thanks. Jeffpw 15:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Darwin citation problem

Samsara, you don't seem to be aware that there are two autobiographies of Charles Darwin: The abridged one from Gutenberg, and the unabridged one from Darwin Online. The page numbers don't match at all, so be careful. (I'll go through and convert all the Gutenberg ones to the unabridged version, I guess, if you think it's necessary.) Vanished user talk 15:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

man, that bot is creepy. pschemp | talk 15:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I am fully aware of that. I've done them all as stated. If you didn't label them correctly in the first place, then please fix it. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, folks, but there are several autobiographies: Gutenburg has the abridged one which is out of copyright, Darwin Online has both main ones. Haven't yet checked the page numbers, sorry that I've got into a muddle with edit conflicts / Wikipedia having a problem, hope to fix all soon. .. dave souza, talk 15:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
That's the proble,m: Same names. I'll go through and check 'em, though. How's that citation template work, by the by? Vanished user talk 16:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
<edit conflict!> Right, from a quick check Gutenberg has different page numbers from DarwinOnline, both being links to the 1878 abridged version. My intention was to leave the numerous gutenberg links as they were, while referring to the (1887) The life and letters of Charles Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter. using the Harvard cite style. Where links come from the 1958 unabridged biog, these go to DarwinOnline and The autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882. It would be possible to unify these, which just happen to be whichever anyone had looked up, but that didn't seem worthwhile. Hope I've fixed my inadvertent reverting of a ref, will aim to review all refs to make sure they're ok. Happy with references to both autobiographies as above? .. dave souza, talk 16:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
There was one error, but it was trivial to spot and fix. =) Vanished user talk 16:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. I'm afraid I've been unable to find any more cites for the 11 left - unless you think the link I added to Essays and Reviews is sufficient. I'm not sure. I must now hand over to you and Dave. Vanished user talk 15:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, will get refs from D&M then go through them again to see if better refs elsewhere. The Social Darwinism section's pretty well referenced, but the last half sentence has references about slavery rather than "that sympathy should be extended to all races and nations". The point's covered in other sections, to that bit could be trimmed. .. dave souza, talk 15:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:ELAC

Hi Samsara, I put a ELAC cat on your talk page. I am still hoping that you will contribute a little to our growing project: WP:Extra-Long Article Committee. Your earlier comments "I have been thinking about doing this for weeks" helped stimulate this project. Please join in for a few comments at: ELAC talk. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 16:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Theory

"Roland, it's not a theory. Hypothesis vs. theory has nothing to do with how much support there is for it. Universal descent is a prediction that arises from our understanding of evolutionary and ecological processes. It's a simple testable thing. It's not a whole body of mathematical models (i.e. not a theory). Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)"

Rather than argue about why common descent is a theory, here are various sources that back up this interpretation:
I can give you more, but I hope those are enough.--Roland Deschain 02:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the mistake in common descent. As for the rest, please review Theory#Science. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Extra-long?

I just came across this committee, after finding a well-referenced article, with 53KB overall and 38KB prose, tagged with a big ugly tag on the article page. I saw your name there. Does that committee know how to calculate prose size, realize that the technical limitations are old, and understand that citing requirements have changed since the old 30KB limit? If they are going to be tagging everything over 32KB, that would probably be most FAs. It seems a very misguided effort to be tagging articles that have 38KB prose - I wish they'd go calculate the prose size on History of Russia or Hugo Chávez, and focus on those, rather than an article with 38KB prose (Psycho (1960 film)). Mostly, I hope they understand how to calculate prose size, and realize that keeping a well-referenced, comprehensive FA-quality article below 32KB would compromise quality. Best, Sandy (Talk) 06:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My name was added to that because I am involved with the related project for modularised articles. The concern expressed by the founder was not, I believe, about the technical limitation, but about those articles that are too long to be attractive for people to read through. I'm not entirely happy that it is a "committee", rather than a WikiProject - it sounds a bit of cabal, which is explicitly what I hope it wouldn't be. Okay, I see now that the technical limitation was mentioned first. The best thing to do is talk to Sadi - he/she knows the whole thing will be met with resistance. I hope you will find him/her easy to talk to. Best, Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Their overall tone and approach is very negative and conspiratorial, and they are tagging articles without any (apparent) awareness of how to calculate prose size and account for references. Not a good start they are off to ... I've not encountered such a tone on any other "committee" or Project. <blech> Sandy (Talk) 09:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, my initial hope was that this zeal could be channeled into a more constructive project, i.e. Wikipedia:WikiProject Modular Articles, but the demands could not apparently met by that project. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
You may also wish to file a bug here if you believe the technical limitation to no longer apply, because I see that the banner saying "Note: This page is 53 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size." still gets displayed automatically when you click "edit" for that page. This should be very easy to fix. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I could do that, but first, WP:LENGTH should be updated to reflect that we aren't living in the Stone Age anymore - most computers can easily load larger pages, and the old 30KB no longer makes sense, when we add 10 - 15KB in references. Thanks, way past my bedtime here. Sandy (Talk) 09:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Darwin

Well! Think we're ready for FAC now? Vanished user talk 18:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S.

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Awarded to Samsara for her immense work in helping get Charles Darwin fully cited. Great job! Vanished user talk 18:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! We'll get 'er there. :) Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Still a lot to do, in my humble opinion. After the references, time to scrutinise the text for FAC qualities as set out in Tony's handy hints. Which I'll try to do. However, first thanks for sticking the fork in! .. dave souza, talk 21:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The Life Sciences Barnstar
Awarded to Samsara for outstanding work in inspiring improvements to the chas darwin biography, and a lot of hard graft and expertise in taming the wild references! dave souza, talk 21:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again! I agree that there is a lot left to do, but we're going all the way this time. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Since I don't think we've had one, I've requested a peer review. I don't think my template is ideal yet, though. Vanished user talk 04:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

...You know, when requesting a Peer review gets you yelled at because it would be a waste of time, given the article's quality, I think it's getting time to submit it. ...Heh. That was a bit surreal, I can tell ye. Vanished user talk 05:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Darwin

Hahaha... I can't believe you caught this before I did. I noticed & fixed it immediately, but you beat me to it! :-)... Btw, great job on the article; it's pretty clearly FA quality now methinks. Mikker (...) 23:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Main-page FA for Enzyme inhibitor

Hi there. I was wondering if you could semi-protect the templates and images in this article to reduce the impact of vandalism? Apparently policy has changed and template/image protection is now routine for articles that are put on the main page protection discussion. Thanks. TimVickers 23:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, it's scheduled for the main page on the 15th. When Down syndrome was up, the vandals got the disease infobox and we also had to protect images and things like the PMID and OMIM templates. Sandy (Talk) 23:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to remind me again nearer the time. My memory is short these days. ;) Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Reminder :-) Sandy (Talk) 17:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Drini has protected the two navigational templates. I trust that (s)he has done the rest as well. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The PMID template was unprotected after Down syndrome moved off the main page (for example), and all of Tim's images aren't protected. Since Drini did some, maybe there is a new policy, and maybe someone is routinely doing this now? The vandals are inserting penis pictures into the images and templates. Sandy (Talk) 17:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
There's been a rash of penis vandalism of templates lately. :( pschemp | talk 17:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
OMIM and PMID are fully protected. I'll look at the pictures. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict). LOL <pun>! (I left a query for Drini.) Sandy (Talk) 17:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Can someone upload Image:Competitive inhibitor.svg from Commons? I can only protect it here. Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll leave a note for Tim - I don't know how to do that. There's a lot I still don't know how to do on Wiki <eek>. Sandy (Talk) 17:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I've uploaded it into Wikipedia. The Image on the page is now a link to the Wikipedia version. TimVickers 18:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Just found a few more that need uploading to en: You guys can go comment on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles Darwin while I do that. ;) Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I was going to get to Darwin, but my Christmas tree *really* wanted to be decorated first - a masterpiece, if I do say so. I'm going to expand your website refs, and include last access date, then read the article. After dinner. Thanks for taking care of Tim - now for the wild ride on the front page. It should be better than the "retard" vandalism on Down syndrome. Sandy (Talk) 22:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Uploaded them all now. TimVickers 18:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
You missed two, but I've done them now. Looking forward to opinions on the Charles Darwin article. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Group-Office

Bainer, I don't know what your issue is taking sides here. I feel that I have already dispelled the argument that OSNews is unreliable because user-submitted. It is, in fact, peer-reviewed, and the author of the article has written 28 reviews for the site. All of this is in the second AfD nomination. None of the visitors of the site commented that the article was inaccurate. Are we going to re-run this AfD until the dissenters get the result they want, or I leave? What's become of WikiLove? And while we're on the subject of being nasty, looking through the contributions of 152.91.9.144, I see every bit of evidence that this person is just a perpetual complainant, and not a great content producer. So just make sure you know which side you want to be on. No regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi there Samsara. I was just chatting with Pschemp about this on email. As I said to her, I wasn't aware of any ongoing dispute, I was merely answering a question someone put to my talk page. Maybe the intent of my answer wasn't obvious, but I was trying to point out to the person why their arguments didn't prevail in the debate I closed, and then I was suggesting how they might go about reframing their own arguments to make more sense. I don't really have an interest in whether the thing is deleted or kept. Sorry if this has caused any bother.
To the anon 152.91.9.144, if your intent was to try to draw me unwittingly into an ongoing dispute, then please don't. If you have a dispute then you need to engage in dispute resolution. Maybe mediation. --bainer (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh my gosh! Not more of this! This type of article is the reason I think Wikipedia is useful. If I want to learn about some software and find out where to look for reviews and information about it, I feel I can trust Wikipedia far more than any other sources. It is hard enough to navigate through the computer world without any guides. Wikipedia is very helpful in this regard. If you need a more spirited defense of this article, count me in. I have no idea what people are thinking when they want to get rid of articles like this. And we have tons of articles on Japanese video game and cartoon characters? Come on !!! --Filll 16:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Cladistics FAR

You asked me to let you know when I nominated this - well, someone else beat me to it. Sorry 'bout the bad timing, competing with your FAC.

Cladistics has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy (Talk) 23:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk: Fact/Theory

Hi. I saw your comment about a "hard" reload of the page. I'm using a Mac, so it's possible that ctrl-shift-r doesn't work on Safari. No matter, there are several methods to do a reload on Safari, and I still do not have the displayed page looking anything like the edits within the edit box. It's driving me crazy. This has never happened on any other edit that I've done on Wiki, so there must be something imbedded in the code to cause me to have problems. I've tried several other browsers on several different Macs, and I see the same thing. Any ideas?OrangeMarlin 18:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You can usually substitute Cmd for Ctl when using a Mac. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Softblock

Could you softblock my school's IP range (in the range of 142.32.230.251)? It's been responsible for vandalizing quite a few articles. I don't want to see the range fully blocked, but a login-only would do to minimize collateral damage from potential good edits. You were the last one to block the IP, so that's why I've asked you. Thank you, Freyyr890 20:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

That block is still in place. Thanks for your concern. In future, please put new posts at the bottom of talk pages. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ouch!

I have hit a road block or two when trying to improve the lead section on evolution and in the "fact and theory" sections of the evolution and the Creation-evolution controversy articles. I have compiled a comparison between the different proposed sections of text at Talk:FactandTheoryComparison and at Talk:Evolution/LeadComparison and there is a discussion of this at Talk:Evolution. I would appreciate it if you took a peek and let me know what you think. Thanks !!--Filll 19:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to WP:AGF

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hi. I was asked to take a look at History of electrochemistry. I could do with a second pair of eyes, if you have time. Thanks in advance, --Guinnog 04:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Astronomical object templates

Thank you for deleting the Projects template from the WikiProject Astronomical objects. Do you need me to do anything else regarding the other templates that are currently nominated for deletion or the templates that I may nominate in the future? Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 08:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted that third one as well. Next time you have a simple deletion job, just let me or another friendly admin know. You could probably also use the {{prod}} template, or some variation of the {{db}} ones (I'm not yet very familiar with those myself). Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

FA?

Why are you not submitting History of supernova observation as a featured article candidate? Is it not comprehensive? Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's fairly comprehensive, but the FAC process is a pain in the backside that requires a higher level of commitment and a fairly thick skin. In most instances I'm content to get a page up to GA level. In the case of the above mentioned article, I was going to see if I could bring the Supernova page up to FA level (with the history at GA). — RJH (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep warm!

What's with this no jacket required / quit business? If the east coast's anything like here, full winter outfit required. Maybe take a wikibreak and relax away from the Christmas frenzy, have a guid Hogmanay. ... dave souza, talk 22:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You helped choose Yeast as this week's WP:AID winner

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

AzaBot 03:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolution award

The Evolution Award
The purple plush Tiktaalik is hereby awarded to Samsara for raising the Charles Darwin biography to FA status. Thanks, dave souza, talk 17:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Cladistics?

I'd like this article to keep its star, and it's not in such bad shape, but this isn't really my area and I doubt I'll have time to give it justice within the FAR time limits, especially since I'm going out of town for the holidays this weekend. I suspect you're much more knowledgeable about this field than I am, and Aranae had some useful comments on improving and updating it - wondering if you had any plans for or interest in this? Opabinia regalis 06:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well damn, I guess that'll teach me to look at userpages first. I bet you're reading this page anyway. In that case, have a good holiday and a nice break, and I hope to see you around again sometime. Oh, and belated congratulations on Charles Darwin. Opabinia regalis 06:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sexual Selection article work

Hiya, i'm looking to start working on the SexSel article again, i'd like to add examples of the process working in plants. If you have any examples or references please let me know. Also, in the articles discussion I hacked out some of the proofs and models on geometric progression. It's very rough, if you have any input let me know, I think if it can be presented in an articulate way its worth being in the main article. --Mike Spenard 05:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for protection

Hi there. Influenza is going to be on the main page on Jan 1st, could you semi or fully-protect its images and templates before then? Thanks! TimVickers 15:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month

You voted for Carbon and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Month!
Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article.

NCurse work 09:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Best style for quotes? (R.A.Fisher article)

Hello Samsara. Please see my comment at Talk:Ronald Fisher. EdJohnston 16:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)