User talk:TimVickers/archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 5

Contents

[edit] Would you like to proof an article on emerging GI infections?

Hi Tim, It looks like we have some common interests. If you'd be interested, I am finishing up an entry on the history of Emerging Gastrointestinal Infections (H Pylori, Giardia, Cholera). Working version is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gastro_guy/emerg_work Feedback is welcome. Is it NPOV enough? Small changes->Edit away. Big changes->write me. Thanks! Gastro guy 23:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:TB poster.jpg

Not you too Tim! I have a policy of notifying everyone who uploads a Commons compatible image. I even had a template made:


Thank you for uploading images/media such as Image:TB poster.jpg to Wikipedia! There is however another Wikimedia foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading media there instead. That way, all the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!

Maybe you can help reverse this trend by uploading to Commons in future, and helping spread this meme. Richard001 22:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other wikis

Tim, a while back I did a mass search for other biologically relevant wikis. Managed to dig it up -- though I can't vouch for the utility of any of them. If you feel inspired to check them out and categorize them appropriately, go for it. I might have a chance to get to it next week if not... biodirectory.com biowiki.org biowiki.net colimod.org genomewiki.org wikiomics.org wikiprofessional.info (sorry for the lame formatting, about to run out...) AndrewGNF 00:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Aspergers

Please see my comment on Talk:Asperger's. The allegation that i am asserting ownership over the article is spurious, i have never made a substantial edit to this article and do not intend to.

Rather, the insistence of dicuss-before-editing is the expressed consensus of myself, PoindexterPropellorhead, Zaraeph, and the other active editors - sandy being the only exception. Sandy has charged ahead with a singular agenda and already been reverted once. The group would like to clean this article up, sharpen the sources and balance the various schools of thought on this issue. We cannot due this via edit-wars. CeilingCrash 21:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please help

Hi Tim, would you mind looking at the White people article and then I'd appreciate it if you would comment on this discussion. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 06:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exosome

Thanks for your nice comment Tim, I'll have a look into the Wikiprojects. As I am going for FA with the exosome article, comments on the article are more than welcome here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Exosome (RNA degradation machinery). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I posted a notice in the help section of both Wikiprojects. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your thorough copy editing of the exosome article, I've replied also on the FAC page. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 06:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paternal effect

Hi, Tim What if we forget about the theory and start with the facts. For example, please look at the table for reciprocal crosses http://www.geodakian.com/Articles/Articles%20in%20English/Translated%20from%20Russian/1979%20Pater%20Eng%20transl.doc This table illustrates both maternal and paternal effects. Logically it should be in “reciprocal crosses”, “reciprocal effects” or as you mentioned “parental effects” article. Maternal and paternal effects can be sections. Then we can provide some analysis of the facts listed in the table (see paper). You don't have to mention the interpretation. The Wiki article will look more complete and will provide structure for people to add more data.

P.S. I made 2 new pages: notability and main events. http://www.geodakian.com/en/04_Notability_Citations_en.htm http://www.geodakian.com/en/07_Chronology_&_Milestones_en.htm Let me know what you thinkSashag 21:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PDFs

Thanks, Tim! I was trying to download using Firefox under Linux, but attempting to login to Xdrive would leave me at an AOL https page, with a message that authentication had failed. If you're willing to email them to me, that'd be great! Poindexter Propellerhead 17:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old question responce

Re: your question:

Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:AfD debates (Science and technology) will make such a watchlist. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can you advise please?

Hi, thanks for your recent useful comments. I would welcome your advice on what to do next about this situation. If you have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jeffrey_O._Gustafson under "Tove Jensen" it seems we are not making any headway and I'm fairly new here. I don't want to be a POV-pusher but OTOH I would rather Wiki was authoritative on any subject than relying on dodgy info. Thanks. Rodhullandemu 01:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathy rewrite

Hey Tim, I plan to implement the homeopathy rough draft( link) by September 1st, 5 days from now. Unless of course more proposals are made to change it, in which case I will postpone the implementation until it is ready and agreed upon. Some things concerning the rough draft are still in discussions, which can easily continue once it goes live. An example is the inclusion of mentions of Jacques Benveniste. Other things can easily be fixed after a week or so of copy editors from the general public going over it and removing redundancy and rewording sentences to be more brief and precise, which will cut down size of the article including the lead without removing relevant info. So If by September 1st I receive no more suggestions on improving the rough draft then I will replace the Homeopathy article with it. If you see problems with the draft, please make suggestions on improving it. Even if the suggestions might have already been made, just make a new post with the suggestions so that we can discuss them. Here is the link to the rough draft again: Link to rough draft. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your kind words

ZayZayEM's efforts to delete H5N1 data and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Challenges and issues of industrial agriculture (part of SlimVirgins friends' efforts to delete agriculture data) combined to upset me greatly so I walked away for a while. I made one edit yesterday, and I have made a couple so far today. Thanks for your kind words. They helped. WAS 4.250 12:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I have been a few disputes with User:SlimVirgin's behaviour on other matters. Don't really being associated as her "friend".--ZayZayEM 06:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miscelleneous Kitten Talk

I think your loki image [1] would do a good job illustarting the Kitten page. But I think it already has too many images. the loki picture is a really good close up of an ordinary kitten sitting really close in front of the camera not doing anything too amazingly cute (cf. [2] - cute, but looks a bit alien)--ZayZayEM 06:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AS

Hey, Tim. Can you caste your eyes over Talk:Asperger syndrome if you have a moment ? (Cover your eyes at the part where I deleted the scrolling ref box :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Tim you are SO kind, and Sandy you are a GENIUS for asking him...--Zeraeph 21:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Tim, I haven't gotten an answer anywhere else; maybe you can help with this (no hurry at all). See the Table in my sandbox. If you compare that to the info in the original source, do you think that can squeak by copyright as Fair Use, or is it problematic? If you think it's problematic, do you know of any way to fix it? For example, if I just alter the labels? We need to somehow summarized the differences between the four. Feel free to operate in my sandbox if needed. No hurry; someone submitted the article to FAR, so we'll be at it for six weeks for sure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Huge favor/request. Feel absolutely free to say no, as I can try to scare up something on my own, although it won't be great. There's enough info in Baskin PMID 16596080 and McPartland PMID 17030291 to write a paragraph on neuroanatomical findings, neuroimaging/fMRI results, and neuroanatomy for the Causes section of Asperger syndrome. I don't have the technical, medical or bio background to be able to pound that out; would you be interested? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried it myself; if you have a moment, and if there's anything you can do to help User:SandyGeorgia/Sandbox2#Causes, it's all Greek to me (just regurgitating the sources). Feel free to operate in my sandbox if you're able to add anything. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Beautiful, thanks so much. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Tim, would you be able to review the wikilinking at Asperger_syndrome#Mechanism? I'm not sure where to start searching for some terms, although we may have gotten most of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

AS is completely rewritten now, tweaking and refinement of text pending. My summary/response to current issues on talk is at Talk:Asperger syndrome#SG multiple responses. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oxidative phosphorylation

Sure, no worries. I can't offer any expertise on this but I'll have a read of it nonetheless. If I don't offer any comments it will probably indicate I couldn't think of any improvements. Richard001 02:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim, I'll try to take a look at that article in between all the work I should be doing! Man, it's been a while since I clocked you homepage....what a cute kittie! Just noticed you got an FB too....if you get a poke from someone strange, it's just me saying hi and letting you know who I am in the real world. Shhhh...don't let the whole world know ;)

Ciar 06:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have had a quick look at the article and am impressed by the volume of information, but I agree with some reviewers that it is a little too technical for an FA, particularly in the lead (that bit should be comprehensible to wide audience). I know it's a tough topic to simplify, but I played around with the lead to see if I can help you out (just a suggestion, not a concrete change!). I have it stored in my sandbox if you want to take a look and see if it is helpful or just pants! In the meantime, I'll carry on reading through and coming up with suggestions and give you some time to deal with other peoples comments before I give an official view. Take care, and happy editing! Ciar 05:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick question

In looking this article over there is one main point that confuses me. In eukaryotes these redox reactions are carried out by a series of protein complexes in mitochondria, called the electron transport chain. In prokaryotes, these proteins are located in the cells' inner membranes. I read this to mean that electron tranport chains can only occur in michondria and that prokaryotes do not use the electron transport chain. But reading further in the article, this undrstanding appears either incorrect or else prokaryotes are being neglected. Do prokaryotes use the electron transport chain?--BirgitteSB 17:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Which of the following is most correct?:
  1. Oxidative phosphorylation is the particular pathway used in chemiosmosis.
  2. Oxidative phosphorylation is one type of chemiosmosis.
This is a bit technical for me but I think I can manage it.--BirgitteSB 20:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I posted my review. Good work! It was a bit beyond my educaton, but I enjoyed figuring it out.--BirgitteSB 18:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No hurry. I think I was reviewing a version of the article before your most recent fixes as some of my comment echo the ones you responded to in the reviewer above me.--BirgitteSB 21:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on the FA! What's next? :)--BirgitteSB 18:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction to evolution article

Hi Tim!

I have to run meet my family who's arriving any moment, but Awadewit alerted me to the failed GA for Introduction to evolution. I scanned it briefly, and I was concerned that, in addition to any glitches of style and organization, it might also have factual errors and be incomplete on some critical points? Would you mind looking it over when you have a moment, and seeing what you think? No hurry, methinks, to leap into the editing fray, but I'd just like to know what your impression was. Warm mice for L and his mom, and warm regards for you, Willow 20:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

PS. Daisy and I are almost done with genera of the Archaea! :)

Tim I think our ctitique was amazingly detailed. Rather than seeing this as a failure; I'm rather pleased at the level of criticism and specifics metioned for improvement.Awadewit provided very detailed recommendations. As you may note in the prior "failure" the only criticism was a deficiency of citations (Unfortunately). Which we corrected. I don't think the article is a disaster, in fact other than the introduction, the article itself held up very well. Bottom -line - nothing - and I mean nothing got by [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]. So most of the suggested edits are very specific. I noticed in the above post - concern over accuracy, There has to be some acceptance of generalization in an introductory level entry. If we start pointing out every exception to insure accuracy we destroy the purpose and goal of creating a layman's version. Of course if anything is an fact in error --- clearly it needs to be fixed. Rather than a complete tear down; I would rather focus on the very specific suggestions Awadewit provided. I've created a check off list of sorts on the discussion page which should allow us to address his concerns directly. I would be thrilled to have additional assistance. When they are corrected; I am hoping the Introduction to Evolution will be exceptionally good. I have re-written the introduction to eliminate the redundancy. We left the orignal text and added our own --- I hate to delete others efforts --- thus the redundacy. I think I fixed that. I hope I'm not implying ownership; if anything my early pleas for help from the Evolution guru's was largely ignored so the three of us were very much on our own. If we focus on the specifics of an incredilble critique then it will be worthy of a companion article to Evolution --- which has dramatically improved --- to which you get much of the credit. So ... the new introduction has been posted; if you would be willing to go back and edit this version as needed I would be grateful. --Random Replicator 13:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim!

Congratulations on oxidative phosphorylation becoming a Featured Article! :D It's not as controversial as Evolution, so lay-people may not love it as much, but for me, it's all the more satisfying, being so concrete yet rich in mechanism. You did an elegant job with it, for which once again students will bless your name for generations to come. ;) I'm awfully chagrined that I missed its candidacy altogether; I've been feeling swamped out there (it's harvest time and family is visiting) and I'm juggling too many articles in here, so I somehow never noticed it. Oh well, next time! :) Willow 22:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Oxidative phosphorylation

Another great article from the Tim Vickers stable! I'm just typing up a few minor comments for the FAC. Espresso Addict 15:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, ahem—say what? Another Vickers FAC on the verge of promotion and you didn't even let me know? Shame on you, Tim! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
But of course; I'll look as soon as I can. I presume you gave up on Inkscape? ;) Just drop me a line once everyone's satisfied with the pics, I can probably do them over the weekend. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, man! You'd better let me know sooner next time—I didn't even get to comment! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Congrats, Tim. Very well done. This gives me great happiness. Regards, AshLin 18:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] it may be too late to make TGN1412 a Good Article, but perhaps I can help with the CD28 part?

Hello, Tim- profuse apologies for knowing way more about immunology than Wiki-posting; this appeared to me to be the most appropriate place to leave a comment. I'd not been following the TGN1412 page closely for quite some time, but was prompted to check in after finding a wonderfully illuminating article in the August issue of the Journal of Immunology, on development of an in vitro scenario to duplicate the effects of TGN1412 in vivo- and strongly suggesting that the "low dose" given to the six human volunteers was quite likely at or near the 'maximum' immune-stimulating dose in humans. A bit disappointed to find your remark on the discussion page in re: not finding a clear explanation of what CD28 does. CD28 is a signal transduction molecule found on T cells, responsible for passing along what was years ago called a "second signal" for antigen-dependent T cell activation. I suppose it's the LIGAND in engaging CD28 that actually DOES something- but the "something" happens only when/if the "first" signal (ligation by antigen of CD3, the "T cell receptor") has been accomplished as well. TGN1412 (anti-CD28) is by definition a ligand for CD28, and in particular an agonistic one one with super-powers that allows it to make the "something" happen without the condition of that first signal. Thanks for your level-headed presence. 70.16.187.30 00:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Shannon, at UTC 0055 on 30 August 2007

[edit] Speculations on Wikipedia

Thanks.[3] I think his older work is also going to need reviewed, though. KP Botany 05:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EMBOencounters

cool, thanks for the heads up... I guess that means we better hurry it up. Any idea when it'd come out? AndrewGNF 18:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too Late!

Well, I guess I wasn't fast enough at reading the Ox phos article for you. Nevermind, I should just stick to quiet editing ;). Congrats on another FA. Never sure how you can manage all those edits AND be a full-time scientist! Take care, Ciar 23:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your expertise is requested...

at the Homosexuality article. I know we've disagreed in the past, but I also know you are more coherent in the life sciences than I am. Presently, a user is trying to get included in the article the notion that there is a direct causal link between homosexuality and pedophilia. The two studies he cited look to me, as does his general view, to be patently WP:FRINGE. Can you please lend the view of someone who is better equipped to judge the "mainstream-ness" of a scientific view? VanTucky (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You were certainly not "unpleasant". It was over at the vegan article. VanTucky (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much Tim. I really appreciate it. VanTucky (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NOR

Hi Tim. There has been a big debate over this policy. I think you have valuable experience that makes you an important interlocutor on this matter. I suggest you forst go here for a very concise account, and then depending on how much time you have read over the WP:NOR policy and the edit conflicts that led to its being protected, or the last talk to be archived ... or just go straight to the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolutionary history of life

Actually I wrote this article as a summary type article. kindly see WP:SS. Should I mention the list of articles from where i took the content on the talk page. Actually my main objective was to create a page where we can get all the content regarding the evolutionary history of life. thanks, Sushant gupta 11:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

hope so won't mean to delete the page. see, the page is recently created. if you want to some improvements then ask me. i will try my best to improve this article. one more thing; i am just 15 years kid. that is why don't expect much from me. also biology is not my field. thanks, Sushant gupta 12:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I have mentioned the whole list on the article's talk page. Kindly have a look please. Ummhhh... do you want me to add some more content which you expect me do myself without taking any stuff from wikipedia itself. if that is the issue it might take a few weeks to do so. though i won't mind anyway. thanks, Sushant gupta 02:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathy GA nominaton

Hello Tim, I've nominated Homeopathy to be a good article. You've helped me promote various Good articles in the past and I was hoping that you could also help me with this one. It has recently gone through a total rewrite and improvments and I thought that whenever you had some time you could read it and see if it meets GA criteria or not and make suggestions for improving it. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oxidative phosphorylation

You will see that I have been playing with bits of oxidative phosphorylation. The article is already excellent. Feel free to revert or whatever, I dont have any sense of ownership.--Smokefoot 22:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

Hi Tim, I'd be glad to review your man's article. Point me toward it and I'll give it a once-over. All the best, The Rambling Man 09:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello again, thanks for your response. Let me know if you'd like me to 'claim' it from the WP:GAC and review it formally or just give you/him some ideas. I don't really mind either way, but I wouldn't want to upset anyone unnecessarily! The Rambling Man 15:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, not a problem, I'll take one asap. It's worth noting that I don't usually refer to the checklists etc to the letter, I just review with a mind to what I think really is a good article. However, I'll go for it and we'll see where we end up! The Rambling Man 15:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Just as a heads-up, Oil spill isn't a current nominee and would quick-fail due to the number of [citation needed] tags all over the article. So I guess that leaves William I of England - I'm no expert but I'll give it a go! The Rambling Man 16:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey Tim, sorry I've been all over the place lately. I'll get my ass in gear and do the review in the next couple of days. All the best... The Rambling Man 06:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Tim, review done. Hope you approve of my comments. Cheers for now. The Rambling Man 14:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your block of Auno3

You blocked this user - Auno3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - for WP:3RR on Human evolution (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).

The 3RR seems pretty clear-cut, but in his/her request for unblock, Auno3 raises a good point - it is conceivable to say that you were involved in this dispute. Auno3 directly reverted your edit. Your edit was a revert to remove the exact information that Auno3 readded.

Although the 3RR block was correct - I have endorsed it as such - I was a little concerned by the above, and I'd much appreciate it if you could respond to the above. Although I believe placing blocks when one is involved in a dispute is perfectly proper - ie. copyright violations, biographies of living persons, etc: we're trusted to be correct on these - I just found this situation a little concerning, and felt the need to express my concerns on paper.

If I've missed an obvious fact, or I'm just totally wrong, my advanced apologies. As I said above, I just felt the need to express (and echo Auno3) these concerns.

Cheers, Daniel 06:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your comments on talk:Evolutionary history of life

can you explain me this thing-
...now this article is a GFDL compliant...
sorry to act stupid but i didn't get the exact meaning of this. i mean if this was an issue of some compliant then why didn't you told me earlier. i would have tried to improve the article. i don't know what to term this thing; your incivility and brutality or my stupidity! since i didn't get the meaning clearly of your statement i think i shouldn't make any more further comments. but if i am getting it right then that was really mean of you. also if didn't get it right then i am extremly sorry. Sushant gupta 12:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Collaboration of the Month

hi, any idea why no article has been selected for the month of September? Or are we supposed to wait till the previous month's candidate (Cell cycle) becomes an FA / goes through a review process? (that would probably take a long time :) If it's just because no one has come around to updating it, I would have done it, but am not sure which one qualifies (even after reading /Update how-to). - TwoOars 20:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion

Regarding this, the reason why I think it is useful is that it is brief and not overly technical. Wow, the EB article linked to is seventy web-pages long! Cryptographic hash 04:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A request

Hi Tim,

Could I request a peer review from you of Snake scales? A previous reviewer has recommended a style editing review and finding your name in the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, I thought Id request you for a look see!

Regards, AshLin 06:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re

Hey, sorry it took me so long to get back to you - I completely missed your comment actually - it wasn't until Rockpocket messaged me about it (saying I should accept an offer from "Tim" - at which point I went to the admin coaching page and looked for a "Tim" but couldn't find one ...) that I finally realized that you had posted - so yeah ... Anyways - I'd be happy to accept your generous offer - as new experiences can never hurt. I know my way around the GAC stuff - however I've never really participated in them - and I'm completely oblivious to the FAC deal - but I can read up on that. I would leave a longer message but i'm a bit pressed for time - so thanks again for the offer and, again, I gladly accept.--danielfolsom 21:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey - sorry for how long it's taking me to review a GA - my internet routers SUCKS (it shuts down practically every 10 minutes) and I can never stay on long enough to do much - but as soon as I get that fixed I'll get on the GA--danielfolsom 19:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I finally got it done - I put Kiev Expedition (1018) on hold.--danielfolsom 20:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahh thank you - and again, sorry it took me so long to do - it's just my personal life has been - everywhere recently. --danielfolsom 02:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhoh - I hope your still on - I could use some help on the talk page - the author is saying that the article only needs one source.--danielfolsom 02:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey - do you by any chance have AIM so I can talk to you a bit about this article?--danielfolsom 18:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Afraid not, I'm very 20th century. Tim Vickers 19:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, well hey then. Anyways essentially what I was going to say is I'm not really sure what to do anymore. The editor seems more intent on arguing with me than he does on improving the article - should I just fail it, tell the editor to renominate it, and move on?--danielfolsom 19:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha, yeah I guess I just got unlucky.--danielfolsom 23:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey - well right now I'm just crazy busy. I'm still thinking about the adminship thing - and I plan on taking a test Rockpocket gave me this weekend - I would've taken it sooner, I just haven't had the time! Oh and I'll probably go and pass Kiev after I read it over.--danielfolsom 03:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I am sorry!

I am extremly sorry for the misinterpretation of your statement. Hope so you will forgive me. Sushant gupta 10:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I am extremly sorry for the misinterpretation of your statement. Hope so you will forgive me. Sushant gupta 10:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
well, you are so kind that you deserve more than just a rose. Sushant gupta 09:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
there is a lot i need to discuss with you. i will be active on 26th Sep. till then thanks and forget me not, Sushant gupta 13:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotect Ankyra?

Hi Tim,

Daisy and I are trying to make taxonomic pages for all the algae, but we've been thwarted by the protection on Ankyra, which happens to be a genus of the Sphaeropleaceae. Would you be so kind as to unblock it for us — thanks! :) Willow 19:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hardy-Weinberg

Tim, I was waiting to see if there would be any additional commentary on your concerns on Hardy-Wienberg. I have seen none to date. When laying down the foundation for the article, I was primarily basing it on my teaching experience in high school. What topics were put in or left out was exclusively based on my class notes. No question that Hardy-Weinberg is a very challenging concept; but I was hoping by ignoring the math behind the theory I could at least keep it within the abilities of our target audience. All the high school biology texts place a fair amount of emphasis on the theory. I personally feel no strong attachment to the section as it stands. However, I do think we need to discuss forces that lead to allele frequency changes in populations (gene flow, mutations, etc...). If there is a better way to get that information across; then we should certainly attempt it. On a different note, your flurry of improvements has been followed by silence. All your edits, other than minor corrections are still in place so apparently they are seen as improvements. I was somewhat wondering why you stopped. Is it that the rest is adequate or is it so bad it is beyond repair? I am somewhat afraid that my commentary on the discussion page about sentence structure (length) was misread as a criticism; it was actually a compliment that you were correcting my rather lengthy and verbose style of writing. I was cracking on myself --- but some apparently misread it. Hope you return --- I cannot stand the GA / failure at the top. I use the article as a link for my students; such a banner is an embarrassment, and at this point, I think misleading as to the overall quality of the Introduction to Evolution entry. Thanks for your help. --Random Replicator 19:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PANDAS

Tim, Sandy tells me you helped polish PANDAS into shape. I've been trying to reword an awkward sentence in Tourette syndrome that refers to PANDAS. See the discussion here. Your opinion would be valued. Cheers, Colin°Talk 17:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parapsychology is now a Featured Article

The Paranormal Barnstar
I'm awarding you this barnstar for your having worked hard to help me get Parapsychology to FA status. Congratulations. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William I of England review

Hi Tim, don't know if you missed my note yesterday but I've eventually managed to complete the GA review. Hope it's suitable. Cheers for now, The Rambling Man 06:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, I enjoyed it. The Rambling Man 13:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I had to fail it - well past the seven day period of grace and no action taken against my comments... Just thought I'd let you know. All the best, The Rambling Man 17:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knock knock

Hi Tim! Long time no see :) You may have noticed that I finally uploaded two SVG diagrams for use in oxidative phosphorylation. I told you I could probably get them done over the weekend—I should have specified a weekend, though! Anyway, here you are: Please check them for accuracy and snazziness. I'll try to get the other two done ASAP.

Hope you're doing well, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Would you like me to do Image:Ubiquinol quinone.png as well? That's a quick one. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Done :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Tim

I propose a vote of thanks to you and all other editors who have single-mindedly kept the biochemistry articles clear of cruft, market-talk and unverified facts. Earlier it was just something I felt good about, now I have been diagnosed with CML so I fully realise the importance of the values you (all) proscribe to. Please accept from my side a very grateful thanks and I hope this enthuses you all to keep up the good work, cheers AshLin 07:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion proposals

That is exactly what I needed, I appreciate that. Even if I never become an administrator, this will be valuable for myself and the project.--Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 20:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dear expert in science,

I would like someone to do an experienced copyedit on the article Clonaid. I spent the equivalent of 2 shifts (16 hours) trying to improve the article from this to this. Since you know how to make featured articles, I was thinking that you would be interested. If you have any suggestions, please post them at Wikipedia:Peer review/Clonaid. The article is currently a featured article candidate. Sincerely, Kmarinas86 22:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Awesome man. You're always the best at this!Kmarinas86 22:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block 170.215.58.221 longer than 24 hours?

Hello there; I see you blocked anonymous editing from 170.215.58.221 for 24 hours today. This anonymous editor is a repeated vandal (see his/her contributions). From the diffs on this IP's contribs, every single one that I have checked is vandalism... going back to Aug 25, 2005! I'm not familiar with Wikipedia blocking etiquette, but I'm wondering if it is possible to block anonymous editing from this IP for longer than 24 hours? It might be appropriate in this case, if the user keeps it up. Anyway, just thought I'd bring this to your attention. Take care, and thanks for your work on animal testing! --chodges 22:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Admin?

Thanks, Tim, your support means a great deal. I've been contemplating taking the plunge since I started getting involved with Did you know, as it's a little silly to fill the update template only to have to wait for an administrator to come by and update the mainpage, and acceptable articles are frequently lost because it's backlogged. There again, I don't have much of a handle on how likely I'd be to succeed at RfA, given that I've never been heavily involved in vandal fighting, and my article creation has yet to produce anything above B-class. PS The kitten on your user page is simply adorable! Cheers, Espresso Addict 00:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If (when?) I do decide to take the plunge I would be honoured if you'd care to nominate me. At the moment, I'm waiting to hear from Fang Aili, whom I cheekily asked a day or so ago if she'd mind taking me on as a coachee.
In the meanwhile, your advice on GA/FA would be most welcome! I have two articles -- bovine papillomavirus & William Gaskell -- that I would love to get to Good Article. Both, however, are in their own way problematic and will certainly need a lot of further work. Bovine papillomavirus is presumably far more in your line -- my main problem here is that summarising the immense literature using BPV in viral molecular biology studies would take a lot of work and isn't really the area in which I'm interested. I'm also conflicted as to what depth to go into; there's already a moderately detailed discussion of the life cycle and gene functions at papillomavirus which probably doesn't need repeating. There's also various problems with illustration, although I could probably knock up a few diagrams relatively simply, and I have a tangentially relevant photograph that I keep meaning to load. Any advice most welcome... Cheers, Espresso Addict 02:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your very helpful suggestions about the BPV article. I agree that it currently reads a little too technically in places -- probably too close to one of my actual areas of expertise! I'll put one or two specific comments on the talk page so that others will be able to read them.
(By the way, Fang Aili is too busy to take me on for coaching, so I'm at liberty to attempt RfA any time you consider sensible.) Espresso Addict 03:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! (Blushes.) (By the way, I don't usually stress my gender online, but I'm actually female.) If it's ok with you, I'll mull the questions over for a bit, as it's 5 am over here, and I'd hate to derail the thing by misspelling my own name... Espresso Addict 04:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I've answered the questions and gone ahead and added it to the RfA page. I hope everything is ok! I note you've already done the talk page edit count stuff -- thanks. Espresso Addict 08:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific racism

Many scientists at the time thought Jews were inferior for this reason Hitler wanted to destroy the Jews to prevent them from intermarring with the Germans see Scientific racism --Alpha166 00:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps

This is a formal invitation to be a reviewer for WikiProject Good article sweeps. Only experienced and trusted reviewers are invited to participate in this task. If you decide to participate, keep track of your progress here. Everything you need is located on the project page. Drop a line on my talk page if you need anything. Regards, LaraLove 19:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bird

Hey, Tim, ping me when you're done at bird? The refs were all over the map (about six different styles, no PMIDs or DOIs), and I've got to finish the three bottom sections still, but I've been at it all day, calling it a night now, tired of the bird and don't want to edit conflict. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC) User talk:SandyGeorgia#Citations in bird SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GAC backlog elimination drive

The Working Man's Barnstar
Thank you for helping us. OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ADP-ribosylation

Updated DYK query On 16 September 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article ADP-ribosylation, 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.

-- Your article was kindly nominated for inclusion by User:PFHLai. :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 13:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Hello Tim. Apologies if it inappropriate to come on your talk page, but I'm not sure what you meant by your comment on my RfA. The canvassing was by users voting against me rather than for me. Could you clear up what you meant? Many thanks, Number 57 17:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medicine rant

(Message to Colin, Tim and Fv). You might want to follow this; I finally let loose on the rant that has been building since I became disillusioned that the Medicine Projects don't have a coordinated effort to combat medical misinfo, peer review articles, remove poorly sourced info, and maintain at least the medical FAs and GAs to a high standard. The Medicine Projects need a coordinated effort to review all FAs and GAs (to set the bar high where it belongs) and a method of dealing with the issues at articles like autism and Asperger syndrome (largely ignored by the Medicine Projects; if we don't maintain FAs and GAs at least, what the point?) and the messages left on my talk page about articles like pyroluria. Raul has given us the answer; will the Medicine Project do anything, or will they prefer to work on weekly collaborations that almost never yield featured articles? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anabolic steroid FAC

I was planning to nominate the Anabolic steroid article for Featured article once again. It's gone a long way even since it's last FA nomination and is very stable and looks great. I thought I'd get your opinion prior to nominating it again just to ensure that it succeeds. What do you think? Would you support it? Wikidudeman (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, No? Wikidudeman (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Therapies for multiple sclerosis

I have proposed this article as a good article candidate. Nobody reviews it probably due to its specificity. I belive everything in it is correct and at most there may be some missing info in the therapies for symptoms part. User:SandyGeorgia told me you may be willing to review it. I would greatly appreciate it; as well as any advises on how to improve it to FA. Thanks --Garrondo 07:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE Block comment

I already did - see User talk:Jaranda. Also, I think it's relevant to the RfA, because I also strongly disagree with comments along the lines of "... refrain from basing your comments in a criteria which was not created through consensus." RfA voters (yes, voters) are entitled to have their own views, and to exercise their own judgment in deciding whether to support or oppose. In a few rare cases of blatant bad faith or disruption, it is justified to strike users' votes, but where there is a question, we should assume good faith and allow their comments to stand. WaltonOne 16:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AS

TimV, Tony, and Colin, Eubulides (talk · contribs) has completed his rewrite of Asperger syndrome; it's ready for a fresh look by any new eyes who want to review it. He was working under pressure and on limited time, so he invites an additional prose check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Closure of Stanley Dunin AfD

Since you have closed this discussion, could you please add some reliable sources that discuss Stanley Dunin to the article. If you are confident that the subject is notable, perhaps you will take some responsibility for improving the article? Tim Vickers 02:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, thankyou for checking up on the AfD closure, its always good to ask :-) I closed the AfD for a couple of reasons. The nomination said that the person the article speaks about was not notable. Google searches should be avoided in notability discussions, especially when this person's notable events took place before Google was around, or the internet was even invented. According to the definition in WP:N notabillity is "Significant coverage by multiple Reliable Secondary Sources Independent of the subject." Notabliity has been established by citation of The New York Times, Detroit Times and Letter from Senator Homer Ferguson of Michigan to Secretary of State. While I agree the article needs a massive cleanup and many more citations, deletion is not the answer. Perhaps you could place some {{fact}} tags where you believe citations are needed? Fosnez 02:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realise you were an admin, the statement about adding tags was not ment to be patronizing. Fosnez 02:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sexual selection

Tim, you're a sane and reasonable kind of a guy, could you reality check me here on Talk:Sexual_selection#.22Darwin_befouls_a_lady_with_lecherous_monkey_tricks.22_image, maybe I've got a bee in my bonnet. Thanks, Pete.Hurd 21:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

thnx Pete.Hurd 22:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NeoDarwinism

Still the busy man. Where do you find the time? So many diverse topics you are entertaining. Kudos for all your excellent work and ethic. Well a quick read and a posit leaves me wondering what is going on over at the neoDarwinism article? Perhaps you could offer some insights as I don't think I understand the insistence of a separate article by Meme. Thanks for the good faith and request for participation. I don't understand why it wouldn't be more prudent to address problems in each article rather than create a separate article? I had hoped the epigenetics article would address a similar semantics conflict and hint that the stub needs further development to be an independent article. What is your take of it? Thanks GetAgrippa 18:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well that was interesting!!!!I tried to be diplomatic and display good faith, but some of what Meme was saying just kept making my little bug antennae go twitch,twitch. Some of his comments evoked my knee jerk response: Is he egomaniacal or delusional? I wish I could think of a more polite way to say that. I think you handled it appropriately. Regards GetAgrippa 18:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I would hope that Meme will learn from the experience and maintain one account so editors can Get A better Grip of his contributions (no pun intended hee,hee). We do share similar thoughts on some subjects so I have no direspect for him, but his demeanor at times worked against him. GetAgrippa 18:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I will stay out of Meme's situation, because I know too little of what is going on (nor would I want to influence anyone one way or the other). I respect you and OrangeMarlin so I am at a loss of what to make of it. I tend to think he is a conscientious editor and the engineering contributions are stellar. His psychological perspective is reasonable, but his biological perspective leaves me wanting. He has been courteous and offers cogent arguments (I like that). This is just the kind of situation I feared the creationist paranoia would eventually precipitate. I see no insidious plot to deceive and I think he just inadvertantly stepped in it. I think your correct to employ outside editors to sort it all out. My hopes is that an amicable solution will resolve the issues, and I will get to discover more about the gent. Thanks for your efforts to treat him fairly. GetAgrippa 01:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Your a good man Tim!!! Thanks for all you do in the MCB project. I would rather chew my arm off than be an administrator. Tough job. I note on your CV that it looks like your finishing your second postdoc. Are you planning to do another or are you job hunting? I remember, during my Masters, one of my professors was a parasitologist and he had a keen interest in trypanosomes. Parasitology was an interesting but disgusting course. Regards GetAgrippa 13:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Thanks ...

That's all I wanted to ask pretty much. I actually heard about a book that touched upon the things not adequately explained by the theory of evolution, so I expected to find something on the topic in the article, that's all. Thanks. Amit@Talk 14:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

I owe you a big thank you for supporting me in My RfA, which was successful with 67 supports and 20 opposes. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 23:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Your RFA was successful

Thanks, Tim! I'm sure the depth of support at least partially reflected the quality of the nominator. I shall do my best to wield the mop and bucket wisely. Cheers, Espresso Addict 19:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrophile image

Can you please add a sense of scale in the caption of this image as requested in FPC? - Mgm|(talk) 11:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My name

Thanks for the comment Tim! I've had this silly name for quite some time. It started as one of those silly gaming names, and has somehow stuck with me over the course of the years. I can't really get rid of it now - it'd almost be like ditching an old friend. In any case, good luck on folate metabolism. If I knew anything about such things, I'd love to comment. However, being a scientific dunce, I probably shouldn't. Regards, Folic Acid 18:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolutionary history of life GA review

Hi tim, this is Sushant again. hope so you haven't forgotten me. can you please review this article. thanks, Sushant gupta 11:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enzyme

Hey Tim, I thought you'd like to know I've semi-protected Enzyme for three days—it seems it's getting quite a beating. I noticed the article had never been protected, and thought maybe there was a reason for that? Anyway, if you think it should be open for anon editing I'll unprotect it. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm getting there :) I'll upload the last two soon. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duesberg hypothesis

You do realize that article is about as nauseating an article as one can find. I'm almost certain that Creation science is less annoying. I'm wondering if the proponent of such theories have an agenda? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  • That article s*cks.Kmarinas86 15:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
You think? LOL. Tim is editing it as penance for making me ignore another editor. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I need to pay a penance also,because I was going out of my way to sympathize and empathize with the editor only to now read all the posits he was pursuing. I look like a freakin idiot! Why is this article not a sentence in the HIV article,if that? GetAgrippa 23:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
This Duesberg article really annoys me!! I have argued to have it condensed into a paragraph or sentence for the HIV or another AIDs related article. Duesberg has published about 14 papers or so on the subject and this article status seems to fall under undue Weight (given the huge body of work to the contrary). Duesberg does have a significant body of work related to his aneuploidy and chromosome anomaly cancer hypothesis,yet the Cancer article doesn't even mention the hypothesis. I am all for NPOV and being complete but this seems like overkill. Why not argue including Intelligent Design as an alternate hypothesis in the Evolution article-GRrrrrrrr. The analogy seems appropriate (Ahhhhhhhhh). Where am I wrong in my thinking? GetAgrippa 12:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anabolic Steroid FA

I've nominated the Anabolic Steroid article for FA. Please leave some comments. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Tim, Could you please leave a comment or two at the FA nomination? Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clonogenic assay

This is a microbiology article that is unreferenced since June 2006. Since you have helped me out with similar articles before I thought I would ask another favor for this one. I am trying to clean out the non-biography articles left in that category, so I may find some more articles like this one soon.--BirgitteSB 13:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!--BirgitteSB 17:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

hmmm I will check if I can find one, she needs to be credited more.Its sad that even in 07 she still is not given that much of credit for the doble helix.Thank you!--Taulant23 04:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Wessely

This rather bitey comment wasn't aimed at you in particular, but just to preempt that section turning into yet another free-for-all discussion of the content of the papers regardless to their relevance to the article. (The papers aren't either by or about him.) — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. "Wolf-pit" is a fair description of the discussion. JFW | T@lk 19:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello.

Hi. Please check your email. – Steel 21:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Elonka move vandal

That's fine if you move-protected her user and talk page indefinitely, after all, they're her pages to use. :) I only move-protected them temporarily in case of any possible sleeper socks there might have been at the time. I do suggest that, with pages you created, also create matching accounts to go with those pages, and then block those accounts; that way, it'll prevent vandals and impersonators from taking advantage of those protected pages. I can do that if you like. Acalamari 22:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does, but at any rate, once they're blocked, no one can take them. Good work. :) Acalamari 22:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome! Glad to help. Acalamari 22:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question on Reliable Source

Hey Tim, Would this source be considered a reliable source for Homeopathy? Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have access to this source? Can you E-mail it to me? Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you checked? Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 12:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Tim, Can you extend the protection of the Race and ancient Egypt article for 1 more week? It's currently protected until tomorrow to prevent edit warring and to allow time for discussions however no real discussions have occurred and I'm afraid that edit warring will occur again and I would like an extra week to try to get discussions occurring and some consensus gathered prior to allowing it to be unprotected again since edit warring will no doubt cur any discussions that might occur. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, Do you have this full text source? Wikidudeman (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection of Cell (biology)

Does Cell (biology) still need protecting? It's been 3 weeks. — PhilHibbs | talk 15:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for this. It is my sincere hope that this will calm down what appears to be a POV-warrior. Thanks again. --profg 18:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oops

I accused you of vandalism at Homeopathy. I pushed the wrong button on Twinkle. I was just reading over your revisions. Don't block me PUHLEASE!!!!!! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4 questions

Hi Tim

thanks in advance for taking time to read.

1.Typically the block was according to the rules. It seems to me though that the WP:CIVIL rule applied exclusively to my account. I copied and pasted in my message just a tiny example of prior uncivil repeated behavior by the same users before and during my involvement in the edit. You could easily find more examples,if you wish. Was any similar action taken against this kind of disruuptive behavior which I did not notice?


2. I don’t know how you assumed “I would like to list a set of trials that show positive results, rather than citing meta-analyses that assess both trial outcome and trial quality”. I wrote that both negative and positive trials should be included. . At this point only negative trials are included which are not all metanalyses and some editors refuse to add the positive ones. Is this a NPOV? Only 3 metanalyses are cited in the article which I don’t object. However, of these three meta analyses one is heavily criticized for being selective and the other is misinterpreted. The others are negative trials . Shouldn’t the editors remove tehm for the sake of consistency if they don’t want to add the positives? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy#3_questions.

3. Homeopathy’s objections to the placebo randomized trials method (as not always be the best tool for testing homeopathy) should be included, briefly and sufficiently explained and -of course- strictly criticized using the mainstream scientific criteria. Isn't it inappropriate to exclude this important homeopathic view and its appropriate criticism (by the mainstream science) from an encyclopedia article on Homeopathy?

4.Looking at the discussion page everybody could assume that there are different opinions on the subject and the wikipedia itself nominates the subject controversial.Every side has specific arguments and there is discussion going on. I have to assumme so - otherwhise the users would not respond to my comments ( or other comments) and the subject would NOT be called controversial.

Why the issues under duspute cannot be tagged as under dispute, and if they are tagged some users (dominant opinion) remove them? Trying to hide that there is a disagrement on a specific issue is not inconsistent with the wikipedia policy ?

all the best —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sm565 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC) --Sm565 19:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New try at homeopathy intro

To all involved: please see "My two cents" edit of homeopathy intro here

Friarslantern 22:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolutionary history of life- Section deletion

may i know a good and a concrete reason why did you deleted the section on evolution of asymmetry from this article. hope so you didn't wished to vandalise the article. thanks, Sushant gupta 13:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

fine i agree with you.

[edit] Mechanisms and processes of evolution

i have recently created this page following WP:SS. i have taken content from evolution and speciation. is there any thing else i can add. thanks, Sushant gupta 14:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Official Invitation to GA Sweeps

I would like to invite you to participate at GA Sweeps. We decided it's time to give GA a good sweep to ensure the qualities of all GA articles. You recevied this invitation because we felt that you can improve and uphold the quality of Good articles. This is the reason why only experienced reviewers who are established (trusted) within the project should participate in this sweep initially.

Please take a look at the project page and see if you wish to participate in the Sweeps. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Relative scale.svg

Hey Tim. Would you like me to update it? I see you uploaded a new version of the PNG. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done :) Shame on me for not noticing. I fixed a doozy on Image:Sterol synthesis.svg the other day—seems we'd forgotten an all-important oxygen on the pyrophosphate groups. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethanol GA effort

Thanks for all the help getting this article back into GA shape. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 04:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary history of life-

i found that section from the article symmetry (biology) thanks, Sushant gupta 14:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD on Human chemistry

Hi there, the article has been changed substantially since your vote so you might want to have another look at the new version. All the best Tim Vickers 15:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me take a look. • Lawrence Cohen 15:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I updated. Good catch. • Lawrence Cohen 15:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

Yeah, as I said (in the edit summary right after that), I messed up. I remember thinking "That's odd, why on earth would such a good editor as Tim make such bad edits?" So I double checked. You hadn't, and I couldn't figure out why on earth I thought you had.

I'm going to put it down as temporary madness. Adam Cuerden talk 17:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Human chemistry and human molecule

Tim can you please speedy these for me. I am the sole author of these and I put speedy tags on them, as is my right per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, as through my best efforts I cannot seem to prove that these are "real" subjects, but my tags were reverted by: User:Kkmurray. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 19:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I admire your magnanimous approach, well done for doing what is best for Wikipedia despite the personal annoyance this must cause. I've already raised this at the admin noiceboard but don't want to do this myself since I was part of the discussion. Do you want the material copied to a user sub-page before the history becomes unaccessible? All the best. Tim Vickers 19:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. You can speedy "User:Sadi Carnot/Draft1", the subpage, as well. Let me know if there's any other help I can assist you with. Later: --Sadi Carnot 19:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on this. I removed the improper speedy delete so that the AfD discussion could be carried through to its conclusion. That was a nice gesture on Sadi Carnot's part, but I think that it might have extended rather than truncated the discussion. --Kkmurray 20:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
One problem with con-men is that once they are caught, they are very good at acting polite and friendly to avoid further consequences. I reiterate my strongly held opinion that Sadi Carnot deserves an indefinite block for his attempt at fraud.Kww 20:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I thought it sounded funny but I think a shit namespace for these should be begun so people can see what's what. The log entries (like this one plus the change log that would be viewable in the frozen article) are a sufficient audit trail. With that I could look at the article myself now and confirm it as a hoax by a little investigation. Veropedia also should just be an (unobtrusive) ns.
I meant human molecule which didn't seem like a hoax to me. The other one took milliseconds to dismiss. Lycurgus 23:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Lycurgus 22:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IRC?

Do you use IRC, Tim? Wikidudeman (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm still holding off from that. I do sometimes use #wikipedia at home, but not at work. Tim Vickers 16:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, Because I thought it would be a fast way to communicate live. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] October 2007

Hi Tim:

About your messages;

"Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Tim Vickers 01:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've put a note on the user's talk page link asking if he wants to clarify what he wrote. Let's leave this up to him. Tim Vickers 01:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC) "

This is getting silly. (I'm not saying that is your fault.) When I first saw the error (higher instead of lower, in a context where it was clearly an error), I did not change the text. I added a note further down in the same section questioning the wording. It's in the history if you want to read it. I figured someone else would read my note and fix the error.

Then OrangeMarlin moved my note to another page where it was so out of context as to be useless, with a comment to the effect I could not put a comment where I had.

I deleted my note from the place OrangeMarlin had put it, as being useless there, and changed higher to lower, on the basis of 1) it was obvious what was meant and 2) "be bold". It does not seem especially "bold" to fix an obvious error.

Cheers, Wanderer57 01:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 2

Yes, I figured there would be some response from my statement. I don't see where my statement is vague: could you elaborate? Thanks. -- llywrch 02:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


HI TIM: Me again. I talked it over with Llywrch. I think it is sorted out now. There are notes on his and my talk pages if you want to read them.

I was wrong about what he meant. Huge surprise to me! Haven't been wrong before. (I hope you can recognize irony in print.) Sorry for the mess. Wanderer57 03:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Congrats!

Loki is wonderful, no doubt!
Loki is wonderful, no doubt!

Hi Tim, Well I would like to thanks you from the bottom of my heart. truely all the content currently existing in the article Evolutionary history of life is from yours and other wikipedians. i just clubbed them in order to generate a good article. i checked out your paper works. they are great. i highly appreciate your knowledge. thanks a lot for all your help... Sushant gupta 12:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Mechanisms and processes of evolution-

i'll soon add up some of my actual work too. please lend me some more time. thanks, Sushant gupta 14:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathy article

Dear Tim Vickers

I hope this is the right section to write this.I may have put it in the wrong place before. I would like to ask for your opinion regarding the recent edit problems in the Homeopathy article. I apologize for the length of the message.

I did not do any “edit war” and I don’t know why it was perceived that way.

I had many objections about the Neutral Point of View of the Homeopathy article and have been trying to discuss this with all the editors for a month.In the discussion page it is stated that we should not edit anything in the article if we have not reached a consensus.

Later on we discussed with wikidudeman if it should be added in the introduction that Homeopathy has some therapeutic effect based on published studies, which have the same qualifications with the cited articles. He agreed. The user Wikidudeman replied that.:

The version 2 days ago did all of that. It mentioned that no clinical studies have proven the efficacy of Homeopathy and that some studies have shown results above placebo. However that has all been deleted by Jim62sch and OrangeMarlin since then. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC) I deleted it? Really? Got proof? •Jim62sch• 21:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Mostly OrangeMarlin. 1 2 Though tagging a section as POV when it's clearly referenced doesn't help much either. Nor does saying it needs to be "taken out and shot". That's very unhelpful. It's not constructive. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Could you possibly be any lamer? •Jim62sch• 21:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Insults aren't helpful... Wikidudeman (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


No one took any action to revert the edit. I tagged the specific section under dispute and gave 5 specific reasons in a long paragraph summarizing my objections. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy SM565 - why The neutrality of the introduction and "clinical trials" are disputed.

I did not delete or edit anything thinking that the discussion about the controversial matter should be open and should invite the individual reader to investigate. Is this wrong?

My tag was removed and I kept tagging it. The other users, who disagreed with our opinion (me and docboat ) kept removing the tag. In other words they did not want to announce in the article that there is a disagreement about Homeopathy’s efficacy in the discussion page.

Of course I made more than 3 edits ( tags) and Adam Cuerden blocked my account: The reason given for Sm565's block is: "WP:3RR after warning, with a side of particularly rude and vitriolic POV-pushing.".! I’m pretty sure Adam Cuerden –as everything was happening fast - did not have the time to see who had been really vitriolic and rude, who reverted wikidudeman edit without discussion, who used insults and he blocked the wrong account. I’m sure it was an honest mistake and he will recognize it.

I respect all the labor from the serious editors here even if I may disagree with them. But if they don’t even want to accept publicly in the article that there is disagreement on Homeopathy’s efficacy there is not even a chance for a consensus.

In my opinion, the only consensus, which is rational, is that there are 2 different opinions on Homeopathy’s efficacy supported by scientific evidence from valid sources. Both should be stated proportionally. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/321/7259/471/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=14734789&dopt=medline


Even if the pro-homeopathy view is held by a minority, it is an important enough minority, it exists even in the World Health Organization. A WHO draft of a paper supporting homeopathy triggered an article in the BBC and criticism in the Lancet. This pro homeopathy view in addition to homeopathy’s principle objections (cited of course) on the criticism and the qualified studies which support HOmeopathy should be included in the article - I do believe. Even the main editor of the article agreed with me as you saw. I don’t see any serious and bona fide excuse not to do it or at least not to state that the issue is under dispute.

Finally, I think that the examination of the history of the behavior of the editors could be a valid critirion in evaluating my comment.

Iwould like to hear your opinion -if you have the time - about this issue.

Thanks for reading.--Sm565 04:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Tim, I note that we played bat'n'ball over the reference to the NHS position on homeopathy. Given a careful reading of the source, it does not support the view which has been purported to it, thus I am (once again) removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.216.70 (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I still think that your reading of the NHS position is extremely misleading -- although I agree that the other citations do support the view (and clearly so) the citation regarding the NHS is taking what is effectively a deliberately non-position, and attempting to suggest that it purports a position which it does not. NHS trusts fund on the basis of a number of reasons, including scientific studies and results. The NHS currently actively funds and researches. 86.130.216.70 22:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


Tim, Whether one believes that homeopathy works or not, the particular citation from the nhs is a sumarry article on nhs direct, which could equally be used as a citation that "... people believe that much of the research conducted into the effectiveness of homeopathy is not representative of routine homeopathic practice ...". The other citations I agree support the view, but this one is particularly poor, as it does not suggest the position it is being given. IRL I work in an area where the specific verbage of text is extremely important, and this citation (which you insist on having here) simply does not state what has been ascribed to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.216.70 (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could you tell me more?

I would like to learn what in my arguments was "exceptionally intransigent and uncooperative". I would very much like to learn from my mistakes. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As the author of close to 20 Featured articles and 10 Good Articles I used to be under the impression that my (rather frequent) contacts with reviewers are rather positive; hence my surprise at your comment. As Daniel has admitted in his FAC, it was his first review - something I was not aware at the time of the review and which certainly explains some of the misunderstandings we had. Nonetheless I believe that I throughout my discussion with him at Kiev Expedition (1018) I have acted in a manner consistent with WP:CIV, and I addressed all of his (and your) points (note that addressing doesn't mean I had to agree with them). A civil difference of opinions is a perfectly normal part of an intellectual discourse. Again, I would like to see which statements I made struck you as "exceptionally intransigent and uncooperative" - forgive me, but if someone criticizes me so harshly I like to get to the bottom of this, so I can learn from my mistakes (or clarify some misunderstanding).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course we are all entitled to our own impressions. I would nonetheless ask you - in your free time - to review the discussion again. I think your description of my behavior (as cited above) was highly unfair, and I would appreciate it if you could present a specific citation that you view as fitting such a description. Forgive me, but I believe such an accusation, particularly when used on a highly public forum like RfA, should be either backed up with a diff - or refactored.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. While I think I was rather cooperative, the current comment is certainly much more civil. I believe it is crucial to moderate ourselves in order to maintain a pleasant working atmosphere on the project. Take care, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Veganism

Hi Tim, I'm just closing the GAR for Veganism, where the main concerns were NPOV issues. I agree with these concerns, but notice that you did not raise any during your initial review for GAN. Since I have great regard for your judgement, I wonder if you could check the archived discussion and give me your opinion in the light of my comments there. Possibly my POV antenna is too sensitive, but I believe the concerns are genuine. Thanks, Geometry guy 19:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't do that, I disassociated myself from that review when it became clear that I and one of the editors on that page were unable to work together in a constructive manner. User:Gosgood took it over for me and did an excellent job, you might want to get in touch with him. All the best Tim Vickers 23:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks anyway Tim. I wasn't actually asking for you to get involved, just looking for some personal feedback (e.g. by email), but I entirely understand if you don't want to comment. I already contacted Gosgood, but thanks for the suggestion. Cheers, Geometry guy 23:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Virus

Hi Tim, thanks for your encouraging words. I have more-or-less done all I can with virus for now. I need to step away from it for a while and perhaps get feedback from the (younger) lads and lasses at the lab. Would you have time to read it through? I speak Russian better than I can write this Wiki code, especially when it comes to hypertexting references.

Best wishes

Graham

PS My (completely black) cat is called Nochka. Her name comes from the russian word for night. GrahamColm 18:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World tb2005.png

I don't know if I am looking at the wrong data, but WHO report says that S. Korea has 80 TBs per 100,000. But the map says it is over 500 per 100,000. Can you check it? (I tried to change the image, but I didn't know what license type I was supposed to use. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_tb2005.png) Thanks

216.165.62.207 04:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why did you move my comments?

And I would like some of my issues addressed. There seems to me quote mining and cherry picking in these subjects and I was treated uncivilly. Also views of African-Americans are not adequately represented. Imbrella 13:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You've got post!

Emailed you. Cheers, Skinwalker 13:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Tim

What was the cite he/she removed? I can't find it...but hey don't worry the whole goddam thing has been pretty volatile of late if you follow my drift! ;-) hope ur doing well over in St Louis or wherever you hang out these days. Haven't you got a birthday coming up soon? well, keep on truckin, etc. cheers Peter morrell 21:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim, I will ponder on the lost cite tomorrow. Yes, re your hazy memory, that's where teaching keeps you on top of the subject. Is it a powerpoint type talk? Anyway have a great birthday! cheers Peter morrell 21:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have now checked all the diffs and I cannot find any missing cites which I personally placed. thanks anyway cheers Peter morrell 05:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mechanisms and processes of evolution

there are numerous fields what i was thinking to cover, like co-evolution, microevolution, macroevolution and lots more things. don't worry i will add my actual work too. give me some more time to edit this page. kindly don't delete this page. Sushant gupta 13:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

ummhhh... fine i will be deleting all your content from the article and try to add only my content. happy now! thanks for the help and advice. (i actually want to try once to write an article on such an interesting topic) Sushant gupta 10:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
would it be correct if i talk about general misconceptions regarding evolution in the article. Sushant gupta 11:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
today i could only wrote 2 sections. i will cite sexual selection tomorrow. i will soon try to renew the whole page. thanks, Sushant gupta 12:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

i need to prepare for my exams and i might not get much time to insert any new section in place of your sections. so can i please continue with the section which are currently placed in the article. if you have any problems regarding those sections then i am ready to rewrite them but it will take few weaks for me to make them perfect; like those of yours. thanks, Sushant gupta 09:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Influenza categories

Hello, I wonder if you would be interested in reviewing my proposal for new and reorganized categories for the influenza pages. Regards—G716 <T·C> 04:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mechanisms and processes of evolution!

i have done all the possible things what i could have. is it looking fine. well all is yours in this article. thankyou very much tim for leting your content exist in this and previous article. i would be only active on weekends now due to upcoming exams. cheers Sushant gupta 09:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bolding

Hey, Tim, I started to fix some of the bolding at Enzyme kinetics per WP:MOSBOLD, but I wasn't sure if those terms were bolded for emphasis and should be switched to WP:ITALICS, or just debolded. I'll leave it to you :-) I'll be traveling that day, so I won't be able to help vandalfight the mainpage. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Evolution4

Hi Tim, well is the following template serving any purpose. i mean template:evolution3 already exists. thanks, Sushant gupta 12:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

mechanisms and processes of evolution- i have nominated for GAC. i won't be available here for a bit long time. kindly maintain this article. thanks, Sushant gupta 14:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good job

Of cleaning up homeopathy. It will of course have to be repeated after a while, just as in the past. But I think the present state is a good standard to revert to if needed. DGG (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim, thanks for your msg; regarding your view that the homeopathy article is now ready for FA, I am not sure and I think the idea really now needs floating on the talk page and then we can see what all the other folks think. Maybe you can do that later today so we can see what the reactions are? thanks Peter morrell 06:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think nominating it as FA would be best if it's not even GA status yet. It was GA status a few weeks ago (for only a few days) and I think we should make it a GA status prior to nominating it for Featured Status. That's my opinion at least, though we could always go ahead with FA if you want. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dunin Family Spam

This is not a personal attack rather a recitation of facts. These editors (admins now) have been personally responsible for protecting these useless, vain and ponderous articles relating to Elonka Dunin and her family. What are you going to do about it? Past editors have actually been banned for attempting to remediate this spam - it is disgraceful! 72.107.35.156 22:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dysgenics, Human and Human evolution

Hey Tim, I've put up a notice at the fringe theory noticeboard, any thoughts or input you have would be appreciated. Looking through his history it seems like the matter is something of a personal crusade for aruno3. – ornis⚙ 02:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MOS change

Hi Tim: I read it and thought it was fine. Thanks. I've snooped around your user page: there's an "m" missing from "from" in the shiny things cabinet. And I love the absence of dots in your work-list. I'm waging a battle with the dot-manics at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Middle_names_-_abbreviations_of_names, and here. Tony (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello again!

Hi,

I think we corresponded breifly a few months ago. I've been meaning to contribute a lot more to the MCB pages but haven't had the heart to take time off from writing (my dissertation) to writing for leisure (g). Fortunately, the writing part is done and I am settling in nicely. I think I mentioned the ACS Chemical Biology WIKIspot journal club. I just joined the journal as a staff member this week. I'll be contributing a lot more to wikipedia now that I'm settling in my day job, but I was told by others here that you had some wonderful ideas on collaboration between the MCB wikiproject and ACS Chemical Biology. I am definitely on-board and ready to kick-start that. Thanks for your time. Antorjal 14:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Your ideas are excellent. I was thinking about taking it a step further. I'm going to be writing an editorial soon enough for ACSCB. A good topic would be collaborative efforts and experiences with wikipedia. Would be good for publicity and I'd mention a few wikipedians I know who are working on the MCB project (such as yourself). Then we could see if this could be highlighted somewhere here on wikipedia itself. Send me a message or an email if you'd like to bounce other ideas. Thanks. Antorjal 19:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Both good suggestions. Nice to see Enzyme kinetics as an FA up on the mainpage! :)Antorjal 19:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Random order ternary mechanism.svg

Hi Tim—congratulations on getting Enzyme kinetics on the Main Page! I was going over the article and noticed that Image:Random order ternary mechanism.svg looked like a JPG embedded into an SVG. I've been incredibly bold and replaced it with an actual SVG. I hope you don't mind; if you do, please revert to your version. Best as always, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments!

I have replied on the talk page of the article. Sushant gupta 15:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

replied on the talk page. kindly see to it. Sushant gupta 14:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A book to keep in mind

I am reading this book right now (On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen (ISBN 0-684-80001-2, 2004)). And it made me think of the peer review of Bacteria, in particular the section "Significance in technology and industry" which always had a weakness from the lack of top-notch sources. This book is really a different approach where the details of chemistry and historical methods are given a decent treatment. I am not knowledgeable enough to recognize any deficiencies in the chemistry, but the treatment is detailed enough to articulate which things are not yet understood by scientists. I just wanted to drop you a note about it because I can imagine it might be useful to you in future articles that need a information for the "practical" section.--BirgitteSB 20:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Tim

I agree with your comment about preferring to work with civil editors. Right on to that. However, do you know how I can access the wiki image bank? I just want to check if there pics already in there for certain subjects, such as embryology and histology slides. It would be helpful to view the whole bank of images and check them by name or as small thumbnails. Do you know if this can be done? thanks Peter morrell 12:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the link, Tim, that's just what I needed. Oh, and how come your cat's called Loki? why? cheers Peter morrell 16:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mischief, heh? well have you introduced her to a ball of wool or a 3 foot piece of string? Hours of great fun awaits you if you haven't. She's a beauty. cheers Peter morrell 17:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim, I had no problem with that 'tangtango image thingy' the other day but today for some reason I cannot access it in spite of repeated attempts...any ideas? thanks Peter morrell 15:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A reply would be nice! Peter morrell 21:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim, no probs; oh, its been saying that all day! hrumph! cheers Peter morrell 21:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Could you add "Category:Main Page" to the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page? I recently discovered http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Main_Page_alternatives which can be found through Category:Main Page. I tried it in a sandbox, and it works fine there. I asked about it on the main page talk page and was ignored. WAS 4.250 16:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. WAS 4.250 17:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virus

Did any relevant information get lost in the rewrite of this article? Can you refer me to your version as mentioned by the anon on the FAC page. - Mgm|(talk) 19:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ox phos SVG diagrams

All done, sir :) Took me a while, I know—I hope they're accurate! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I just redo them from scratch using the PNG as a basis. There are automated "tracing" utilities, even in Inkscape, but the results are awful. It's no bother at all, though; the worst part is my taking so long :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Welcome :) I completely forgot to add them to the article when they were done. I only noticed because I was updating my gallery at Commons. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enzymes

Hi Tim,

I support you on the units issue, although you might want to introduce the words "most common units in the relevant scientific literature". Unfortunately, I have to dash off to my adult-education class, so I can't anything to the debate just now. But something nicer is in the works, un petit cadeau mainly with you in mind. Please check out Daisy's work on 4-hydroxybutyrate dehydrogenase and let me know what you think. We've been gone too long from the MCB community and I thought this might be a nice revenir and souvenir. Ta-ta, and wish me luck — I have a test tonight! :( Willow 22:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Soooo — I guessed that this was your favorite class of enzymes? It does make for a good beginning, so that we can get our bearings and think about how to improve such articles. Daisy is eager for suggestions from everyone at the WP:MCB. I'm going to try to finish them tonight, but I'm leaving tomorrow morning to visit my sister, and won't be back until next week. I still have to pack as well!  :( Hoping that you like your oxidoreductases, however many there are, Willow 23:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
PS. You might want to move one or two articles to a simpler name, or maybe connect it by redirects to an existing article that I missed or to a redlink such as those on List of EC numbers (EC_1). I wasn't always sure which name to choose; some of them seem overly complicated and others overly simple. It was a hard balance to strike. Also, my wikilinks to metabolic pathways seem to need work. :( Willow 23:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to afd

Hi Tim. I noticed you deleted article Dom Passantino with the wrong link to AFD in the summary. The result of the first afd was "no consensus" thus preventing the article from being deleted. It had to process to the third AFD which you closed as delete that the deletion was justified. It happened on September 27, a fairly long time ago but I still want to notify you in case you make the same mistake again. Cheers. @pple complain 09:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization of Homeopathy

Tim, I saw your query on the article talk page. This came up during the parapsychology issue at WP:FA, and I raised the question here. I like categorizing these articles as Health to bring them under the WP:MEDMOS umbrella of requirements at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi Tim:

Thanks for the feedback on my talk page. Cheers, Wanderer57 20:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Asperger syndrome

Is AS still on your watchlist? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Same ole, same ole, allegations of POV still. I thought WP:NPOV#Undue was understood last time around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 19:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC) David Mestel(Talk) 19:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick head's up - you've mis-spelt Sadi Carnot as Saudi Carnot in your evidence section (x6). Carcharoth 22:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Oops! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] flu vaccination

Sorry. I just reverted your addition to Human flu as it was unsourced and I believe it to be inaccurate. I think the main difficulty with vaccinating humans for flu lies in the rapid evolution of the flu virus. If the current strains of flu never ever changed we could be successfully vaccinated against them all I would think. WAS 4.250 21:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Methyltransferases

Hey Tim,

So, I'm really sorry, but Daisy and I got tired of all those oxidoreductases, so we're taking a little vacation among the methyltransferases for a change. :) I didn't get them all, but at least we made a good start.

One problem we're having is how to make the first letter of the article title lowercase — do you know how to do that? It's rather annoying to have rRNA (guanine-N2-)-methyltransferase come out as RRNA (guanine-N2-)-methyltransferase, don't you think? Bleah :p Thanks for any help or insights in advance! :) Willow 23:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

PS. I kind of fixed some of the -ate endings to -ic acid, although I was uncertain about phosphate, isoaspartate and similar articles.

Thanks very much for the {{lowercase}} link to get the various RNA enzymes OK! :) I've started back in on the oxidoreductases today, as you can see. Do you think I should finish them off first before moving on to the other fives groups of enzymes (transferases, isomerases, etc.), or do you think I should do a smattering from each category and then gradually fill them in? It probably doesn't matter, but I was just curious whether you had any opinion, any pre-vision or foretelling from your dreams ;) Willow 21:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TATA box binding protein

Shouldn't TATA box binding protein redirect to TATA binding protein instead of Transcription Factor II D? I think TBP is a protein in the TFIID complex and has enough unique biology to warrant its own page. Forluvoft 03:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The pandemic vaccine puzzle

FYI: CIDRAP (Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy - Academic Health Center -- University of Minnesota) has an interesting series of articles called "The pandemic vaccine puzzle" available here containing:

  • Part 1: Flu research: a legacy of neglect
  • Part 2: Vaccine production capacity falls far short
  • Part 3: H5N1 poses major immunologic challenges
  • Part 4: The promise and problems of adjuvants
  • Part 5: What role for prepandemic vaccination?
  • Part 6: Looking to novel vaccine technologies
  • Part 7: Time for a vaccine 'Manhattan Project'?

WAS 4.250 18:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Cell Signaling

Hi there. I noticed you listed "Enzymes, enzyme kinetics, enzyme inhibition and pathogens" as an interest on WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. These interests may intersect with WikiProject Cell Signaling, which I invite you to join. Biochemza, 22:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help request

I was planning on removing a miscellaneous section from the Scriabin article. I know I've seen something on Wikipedia's policies that says you shouldn't have trivia. Do you know where I can find this info so I can put it in the discussion article? Thanks.  Stewy5714 01:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping  Stewy5714 —Preceding comment was added at 01:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Admin?

Hi there, many thanks for the offer! It has crossed my mind in the past but I while I would give it a go, right now I feel I would not stand up to closer scrutiny in any nomination! I feel that I still have a lot to learn about aspects of wikipedia and my lack of knowledge on all the polices would most certainly let me down! Andyreply 17:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FeloniousMonk

Hi Tim, can you check out the current edit war at Jonathan_Sarfati, I am no fan of creationists but to describe a letter to nature a note as FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs) is insisting on doing there appears to be a tactic to trivialise the work. I agree he is probably fighting fire with fire but that type of in your face escalation makes articles become highly unstable and leads to edit wars. Basically he is creationist baiting and that will make them a pain in the butt for everyone else too. David D. (Talk) 19:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. i now realise that FM is ignorant of the Nature set up and assumed it was a letter to the editor, at least I hope that is the reason. Seems strange to fight so hard for something you have no clue about. You'd think he would at least listen to input. I expect he assumed that since I disagreed with him I must be a creationist. David D. (Talk) 19:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible copyvio at RNA Biocatalysis

I was getting ready to remove sourcing and link to a nn blog when I realized the copy may have picked up from the blog, not the other way around...the blog has the same content and similar dates as the wikipedia article, which was created by the same editor who added the blog to several articles. In any case, the article needs a lot of work, and I don't have the expertise in either copyvio or biowhatevers :) to determine what to do ... would you take a look at this and Virtual colonoscopy (link I removed from VC is here: http://www.pulasthi.info/2007/07/vertual-colonoscopy.html )? Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 16:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm trying to stay calm

I understand what you mean. The problem is that it becomes very difficult to express things within Wikipedia when you actually do suspect someone of wrongdoing. My experience is that a retaliatory flurry of accusations tends to come from the guilty, not the innocent. When the discussion took the turn from whether Sadi was a bad actor to the idea that I had caused the whole problem by being tenacious in trying to get something done, I started to look deeper. I found what I thought was a smoking gun, although everyone seems inclined to discount it as nothing more than a cap pistol.

Anyway, I've put in my recommendation, documented my reason for it, and I'll try to sit quietly while I am sanctimoniously accused of bad faith by someone that assumes that I had an ulterior motive for trying to get Sadi banned. Once the arbitration is over, I expect that I will be getting blocked on a weekly basis, so I'll try to do my best in the small windows of opportunity I get.Kww 17:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Admin?

Hi, thanks for the offer but I have no intention of becoming an admin, now or anytime in the foreseeable future. I do not see the point in going through a grueling week for something I probably will not use often (or ever). :) On another note, please keep doing your good work on MCB articles; we need all we can get. - TwoOars (Rev) 21:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...

It's called looking out for other users and warning them of the dangers of having their personal information available publicly.--Snakese 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fixatropic

I've changed "Fixatropic" back to a request for speedy delete, because (a) it seems to me too wild a mis-spelling to bother providing for, and (b) we end up with a double redirect Fixatropic -> Thixotropic -> Thixotropy. But I don't feel very strongly about it - revert it if you like. JohnCD 22:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi Tim I didn't know how else to reply to your message so I guess this is the only way to express my sincere apologies for recklessly editing charles darwins page, I dont know what came over me, I realise that charlie is an inspiration for species all over the world including myself. I can only hope you will forgive me.. yours katie zimzalabim...yes thats my real name I'm from morrocco..


Hey Tim,

S.Percy Jones here. I noticed you help delete the profile of one of my clients, David Oliver Doswell. I researched (apparently, not good enough) the code of ethics and policies that apply to copyright and cannot find why this man is not "worthy" (politely spoken, of course) of a bio. Please let me know what I can do to be of assistance. Thank you Mr. Vickers.

S.Percy Jones Jones Agency, LLC 22:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] potential admin?

Thanks for the invite. I'm supposed to be writing a dissertation. I'll check back with you in eighteen months or so! ;-) later, --Ling.Nut 05:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from me too, but I don't feel a need for the tools. Plus I don't have enough time at the moment to write all the articles I want to, let alone take on extra responsibilities :) Dr pda 11:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Per Dr pda, as they say on AfD. Colin°Talk 22:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin hunting?

I presume this has to do with the impending anon-creation-of-new-pages deal? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

When searching out potential administrators like this, it's important to remember to only nominate those individuals that you have experience with personally and not various random editors with a lot of edits. This way you prevent numerous unqualified people from becoming administrator. I've seen people go on "nomination sprees" in the past and often a lot of the nominations fail due to lack of qualifications or other issues. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Judging from his contribs, Wikidudeman, Tim has approached editors I recommended, so I'll detail my criteria. I'm not much in the habit of recommending or supporting "various random editors with a lot of edits" for adminship. I'm more inclined towards supporting editors with a long-term commitment to and knowledge of Wikipedia who have evidenced a character and disposition to convince me that they are unlikely to abuse of the tools. I Support few RfA's; I have a phobia that anyone I support will join the ranks of abusive POV-pushing admins, which IMO is the scourge of Wiki. Specifically, I recommend editors who don't come with a pre-packaged POV agenda in any specific content area, but are just good, decent, productive editors working across the board, always willing to pitch in and help the Project without undue focus in one content area. If you are assuming that I would recommend "various random editors with a lot of edits" for adminship, there we find the reason some people avoid RfA; it is a process that slaughters editors of good repute while serving less well to filter out editors who seek the tools to advance an agenda in a specific content area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
That's good. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rotavirus

Hi Tim, can you cast a critical eye over Rotavirus? I'm nearing the end of a major edit and need some objective input. GrahamColm 19:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poliomyelitis

User:DO11.10 and User:MarcoTolo have been working on poliomyelitis for some time and DO11.10 is close to nominating at FAC. I'm partway through reviewing and copyediting but I'm not good enough to get it up to FAC quality. I'd really appreciate it if you could help to ensure it is well prepared for FAC. Be bold with your edits, or make some comments on the talk page. Regards, Colin°Talk 22:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin?

Hi there, would you have any use for the admin tools? You seem very well-qualified if you wished to apply. Tim Vickers 22:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been on the fence about that, mostly since I'm an admin on Wiktionary (where the policies and procedures are very different). But sure, OK. Then I could help with the DYK updates. How does that happen here? On Wiktionary, one is nominated (usually by an admin), accepts officially, then the votes happen and *poof* you're an admin. I've never paid attention to the process here before. --EncycloPetey 22:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
OK then. If you nominate, I'll accept (though I'm about to head off to a meeting in a moment). --EncycloPetey 22:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm interested, too. Gimmetrow 03:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Good news! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Gosh, you type fast; I'm still typing. I've never nommed or co-nommed; do I just add my blurb on to the bottom of yours? I expected PMA opposition; no surprise there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I added the co-nom, but I'm not sure if that's how it should be formatted; please let me know. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] adminship

Hi Tim, thanks very much for the offer (and to Sandy for -->pointing--> to the draft picks). I am not presently interested but might entertain the idea in the future. I like your pragmatic approach in trying to round up more admins and in doing so disarming the admin mystique, which is why I found Wikidudeman's cautionary message above a little disheartening—the message indicates essentially the opposite approach. I'm interested in adminship when the majority of admins really think adminship is "no big deal". That time hasn't come, I don't think! –Outriggr § 01:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gimmetrow

Please review the recent passages of Wikipedia talk:Footnotes before considering Gimmetrow further. He is revert-warring for an unsubstantiated claim of fact, and for an effort to make another guideline to make Wikipedia an instrument of language reform. (This is especially silly, since the matter in question is itself trivial: whether footnotes should go before or after punctuation; the shallowness of my feeling on this matter may be judged by the fact that I am arguing for the permission of a practice I do not myself follow, just as I do not use British English but support both sides of ENGVAR). My feelings about admin bullies, however, are much more serious, and will be reflected in any future RfA. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for looking.
Stepping back myself, I think my greatest objection is that Gimmetrow went to the brink of 3RR to legislate on such a point. Busybodies should not be admins. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Hey Tim, thanks for the kind offer to nominate. My opposition to the idea of adminship has been waning greatly over the last few months, and I might be up for a nomination in the weeks-to-months ahead. I've made promises to several/many people that I'd let them know if I ever changed my mind about having a go at RfA, and I will make the same promise to you. (Most importantly, I figure a run at adminship is going to chew up time in RL, and I have a bunch of letters of recommendation, course syllabi, and student papers unsubmitted to journals pending on my conscience. My promise to my inner demons is that I won't take a run for adminship while I have too many backlogged Responsibilities on my desk.) Thanks again for the offer, and best regards, Pete.Hurd 05:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] potential admin

Hi, your talk page is buzzing.. I hope I don't step on others' comments.

User:Cronholm144 will be a good admin candidate, but may decline at this moment 'cause busy with school. I strongly suggest User:Geometry guy be asked to be the nominator if Cronholm144 does accept. Later! --Ling.Nut 05:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I will decline (for now) :), but not for the school reason. I have figured out my schedule and would have time to wield the mop. However, I would like to have about 3000 or so mainspace contribs, 10000 total contribs touching XfD and other admin related areas, and have a FA that I contribute to significantly before I run for adminship. After all this is done I would gladly accept a nomination. Cheers —Cronholm144 06:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin?

No thank you. I don't have much desire to do admin things around here, and I really don't feel like going through the RFA process.--BirgitteSB 18:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PBB instruction revisions?

When/if you have a chance, please see User_talk:ProteinBoxBot/Volunteer#any_instruction_revisions.3F. Thanks! AndrewGNF 20:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the message

I'm not sure what exactly is inappropriate about my question. I felt the admin in question was misusing the tools in that case, and I told him so. If other admin candidates can't candidly say, "I would not set a punitive 3 hour block in that case" they will not have my vote. Is that against the rules of RfA somehow? If so, I was unaware of it, and I will withdraw my question. K. Scott Bailey 21:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning. As I said on FisherQueen's page, I tried to formulate a hypothetical, and it was so unwieldy and long I felt it would be easier to simply present the case. K. Scott Bailey 22:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:Admin?

I responded on my talk. Thanks, VanTucky Talk 23:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin?

Well yes I have in fact, I just seem to run so far below everyones radar I think people just don't notice me. –– Lid(Talk) 23:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I would. –– Lid(Talk) 23:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry I need to confess - I am in fact a vandal who adds blatant spelling errors to articles. My subtle slip of the tongue will be my undoing. –– Lid(Talk) 22:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course I then fix the errors afterwards, usually with the explanation I made a "spelling error" but I think we all knew the truth. –– Lid(Talk) 22:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks like your drive has been a success, six nominees accepted and zero with oppose votes. –– Lid(Talk) 04:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
True but it seems that has caused more of an attack on the opposer than the candidate. –– Lid(Talk) 05:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPA

You're trying to bait me into a conflict so you can block me. I'm not stupid. I'm not going to bite. You should know better. Perspicacite 02:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? You dont think posting an NPA warning more than 24 hours after a conflict has been resolved qualifies as baiting? Based on a diff that doesnt mention someone personally in any way? Perhaps you should step back and look at the wisdom of your post on my talkpage. Perspicacite 03:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, upon further inspection of WP:NPA it appears you have violated the policy. From the page: "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack." Perspicacite 03:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, actually, I do. Is there a reason you're not signing your posts? Consider that a rhetorical question. I'd prefer you not contact me in the future unless you have something to discuss. Perspicacite 03:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, Wikipedia:Signatures. Perspicacite 03:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OhanaUnited's RfA

Thanks for voting at my RfA. Unfortunately, the result stands at 51 support, 21 oppose and 7 neutral which means that I did not succeed. As many expressed their appreciation of my works in featured portals during my RfA, I will fill up the vacuum position of director in featured portal candidates to maintain the standards of featured contents in addition to my active role in Good articles. Have a great day. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Perspicacite

I just unblocked User:Perspicacite because I could not see any incivility on his part. Just to let you know. Kwsn (Ni!) 05:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not my place to comment on the incident above, but I would like to alert all concerned admins to a peculiar feature of User:Perspicacite's editing behaviour - not as a personal attack but because this behaviour damages collegiality and strikes at the very heart of our co-operative enterprise.

I am brand new here and perhaps, therefore, a little naive when it comes to interpreting policies and guidelines but I understood that simple reverts were basically to be used only for vandals.

I have spent some considerable time analysing User:Perspicacite's editing behaviour and discovered that he uses the powerful revert tools excessively - in my opinion.

We all understand that it is the work of a moment to revert to an earlier edit version but, if this is done without due care and attention, then not only can one unintentionally revert to a version that has errors and mistakes but one also risks (unintentionally or otherwise) belittling the work of other editors and slighting their feelings.

For example, in this recent reversion, User:Perspicacite re-introduced US-English spellings (against WP:ENGVAR) into our Rhodesia article that previously consistently used Commonwealth English, removed sourced material without explanation or discussion and changed into "redlinks" internal linking that, in the reverted edit, had functioned correctly. All with the less than helpful or explanatory edit summary of "Not sure why you're stalking me here...". {this diff shows that the edit in question was actually yet another one of Perspicacite's simple (but very destructive) reverts.}

For the avoidance of doubt, our behavioural guideline specifies "The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor.

Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment; those logs are public for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles (in fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam). The important part is the disruption — disruption is considered harmful. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter." (my emphasis added). Alice.S 06:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I posted the unblock on ANI. I thought it should have been discussed with you prior to being overturned. --DHeyward 07:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Despite Jimbo's desysopping of an admin for exactly this sort of thing, it appears that other admins are okay with simply undoing blocks without discussion. C'est la vie. --DHeyward 07:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Precisely...that is why I am asking some admin candidates about the unblocking issues.--MONGO 09:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Will do next time (responding to the comment on my talk page). Kwsn (Ni!) 17:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin?

Hey Tim, Thanks for your note. This is something I might consider in six months or so, but for now I have quite a long to do list that I have been neglecting. Thanks though. Ceoil 15:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Znznzn

Thanks for your help in this situation and your block of this user (who is apparently around ten years old). I'll keep an eye on your user page since he's persistent. From your appreciative "fat Canadian Nazi", Accounting4Taste 16:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin

Hi Tim, Thank you for the offer. I would like to have all those nifty tools, and with article creation by anons looming you guys will need all the help you can get. However, I am right in the middle of trying to get polio ready for FAC. I am not sure I can do both at the same time?. The article is almost there... can I contact you when it is over? I will definitely take you up on your offer then!--DO11.10 17:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Welcome back!

I'm only doing a few things here and there when I find something in need of a fix, but I'm still pretty swamped. How have things been here? – ClockworkSoul 20:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Admin?

Thanks for the offer. I'll consider it and try to let you know in the next couple days. --Onorem♠Dil 18:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. I'm thinking that now that IP page creation is looking like it might not happen, I'm going to decline at the moment. I'd prefer being nominated because someone feels that I should be an admin instead of because someone feels that more admins are needed, and I'm acceptable due to lack of other candidates. I do appreciate the offer, and I do think that eventually being an admin will be more of a goal now than it's been for me in the past...but the circumstance doesn't seem right for me at the moment. Again, thanks for your consideration...and if you'd like to nominate me at a later time, I'd probably be interested. --Onorem♠Dil 02:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree with you, and maybe the fact that I'm declining right now means I'm letting my ego get involved where it doesn't belong. I'm not really trying to consider it an "award" myself, It's just strange timing 20,000 edits in. I'd prefer to be confident that I'm being considered on my merits rather than the current situation. If you'd be willing to postpone, I'd be very likely to accept a nomination in a month or so. Thanks again for the offer. --Onorem♠Dil 02:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gimmetrow's RfA

You're right, of course. However, I just get so tired of one person mischaracterizing a dispute as "edit warring", "revert warring", or whatever to prop their oppose, and then others jump on the pile with little analysis of their own. This kind of thing is why I would never stand for adminship, and would hesitate to nominate an editor I respect for it as well. Any editor who has made any type of bold moves stands to come in for a lot of unwarranted criticism, which can become discouraging, even to those Wikipedians with the thickest of skin. K. Scott Bailey 03:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. For example. User:GwenGale is placing frivolous fact tags on the Lincoln intro, demanding citations for uncontroversial statements of facts. When I gave her one, she derided the source, demanding another. I have now posted two different refs for the uncontroversial statement of fact. However, I have been brusque with her, as she richly deserves in my opinion--both for wasting my time, and injuring (however slightly) the project as a whole. I'm certain if I ever stood for adminship (which I never will), she would oppose me vigorously, even though she very much earned the brusqueness she received. Anyways, I appreciate how you are able to comport yourself in the face of similar lunacy (see the reversion of your very legit block), but that's just not me. There's a reason I self-identify as a "Wikidragon." That's what I aspire to, not adminship. K. Scott Bailey 05:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could you take a look at Abraham Lincoln?

User:Gwen_Gale is holding forth on the talk page and at the article as well, pestering good editors to source even the most uncontroversial assertions about Lincoln, that every major biographer discusses. Then, when such sources are provided, she derides them as unreliable, or claims we're doing original research. It seems a classic example of pettifoggery, and I've disengaged a bit, letting her know that I'm not arguing with her about it anymore, and that the only time I will be engaging her is if she tries to push her POV (she claims she could source that Lincoln was "genocidal") into the article. I've asked one other admin to take a look at it as well, but I've appreciated your cool demeanor in our recent dealings, so I'd like you to take a look as well, if you have time. Thanks, and best regards, K. Scott Bailey 00:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your advice. Are you saying just edit, and don't even engage at ALL with her? If so, do you think it would be out of line to simply revert her frivolous fact-tagging of uncontroversial statements? K. Scott Bailey 00:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, okay, I think I see what you're saying. I've done some version of this (most of last evening, in fact), and she simply starts doing the wikipolicy alphabet thing, claiming that my sources aren't reliable, don't say what I say they're saying, or whatever. She's never once given a source that argued against any of the positions she attacks. K. Scott Bailey 00:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I haven't edited any assertions at all into the article header. I've only asked for citations to support those which were already there. Gwen Gale 00:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
You'll have to deal with her, Tim. I'm too frustrated, and I'm trying to improve the article, and can't be bothered with arguing with her right now. K. Scott Bailey 00:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Hepatitis B Virus

Tim, can you change the title of Hepatitis B Virus to Hepatitis B virus? GrahamColm 16:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Tim, thanks once more and I forgot to thank you for your help on rotavirus thanks for that too. GrahamColm 17:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HOLIDAY

I'll be off on holiday until Wednesday, contact will be intermittent. Tim Vickers 19:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Admin?

Thanks for the consideration. After looking over it a bit more, I think it could be beneficial, and I could have find new ways of contributing to the wiki. If nominated, I would accept. Cheers! Dr. Cash 05:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Admin?

Well, the one issue I can think of is that I've taken positions in a lot of controversial policy debates. —Random832 20:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I would be willing to - just out of curiosity, why me? —Random832 14:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
"He" is fine. I wouldn't say blogging is necessarily something i'm really interested in - the majority of my edits to Dave Winer were in trying to resolve the dispute there rather than any significant interest in the subject of the article. —Random832 03:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I've accepted the nomination. —Random832 03:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Re: incivility. With users Ryoung122 and User:Bart Versieck about a month or two ago. It started when I nominated one of Robert Young's articles, Gladys Swetland for deletion and was accused of, among other things, "conspiracy to commit supercentenarian Holocaust." The accusation got to me, and I unfortunately stooped to low levels in response and it was quite a kerfuffel. In the end, however, I did fully and sincerely apologize here (at the bottom of the page) and we worked things out. As you can see from my talk page, we can at least get along now. Bart Versieck was involved in the debate as well and, quite frankly, his continual breaking of promises to not edit others comments (he's been blocked several times, had one WP:ANI and the latest message on his talk page is regarding this type of behavior) really gets on my nerves. The angriest I got with him was about two weeks ago and can be found in his User_talk:Bart_Versieck/Archive_1. Both of these editors have had problems with other editors, which is clear from their talk pages, but this does not excuse my uncivil behavior.

I would argue that I have learned from it. Some recent examples:

  1. Rather than confront Bart Versieck, since then, I have just avoided him.
  2. User:Perspicacite me of vandalism and I then explained my actions on his talk page, to which he responded by templating me for vandalism. Rather than let the situation escalate, I removed the accusation from my talk page. When they readded it, an admin reverted it and then told me that it was fine to keep it off my talk page.
  3. In response to this personal attack I simply responded asking him to respect NPA. I later moved my response to his talk page and removed the attack from mine. This diffused the situation, rather than fueling the fire.
  4. Most recently, on Talk:Charles Barkley, I was the subject of complaints about a quick fail good article review I did. After pointing out that I was GA Reviewer of the Month, I decided that the best way to end the complaints was to not only review the article, but to give it a full copy edit as well as a peace offering.

So I guess it depends on what you think. While I feel that I have learned and grown from these stressful experiences, and I do feel that I would use the tools in a productive manner, I can completely understand if people thought I should prove myself for another month or two before being nominating. Cheers, CP 20:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind if I thought about it and let you know by the weekend? By the way, that's one hell of a cute cat, and the name just seals the deal! Cheers, CP 21:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I left my computer in the hedge maze! If you still have confidence in me then yes, I would accept the nomination. I had to think long and hard about what I would do if I were an admin, and if I would need the tools, and how I would answer the first RfA question. I now believe that I have a good answer for it. I think, of course, it will be absolutely necessary to disclose my past incivility and prove to community standards that I have learned and improved from these experiences. Cheers, CP 18:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Question. Is it acceptable for RFA candidates to vote on other RFAs? I can see the potential concerns (ie, support me and I'll support you), but I have also seen others do it and I do want to voice a vote with an opinion attached to it (ie. Rather than just "Support - sig"), but I wanted to be perfectly certain that this is allowable before I did. Cheers, CP 23:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could you take a look at my conduct at the talk page of Abraham Lincoln?

I have a request for you. I have been accused of several egregious policy violations by User:Gwen_Gale. I believe she is out of line in doing so, but I am requesting that in your capacity as an admin, you take a look at my actions (and hers as well) to insure that I'm not out of line in my behavior towards her. Thanks in advance for any time you spend on this matter. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 05:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Real sorry about the VanTucky thing. My passionate defenses of a superior candidate appear to have backfired and been completely counterproductive. I hope he can still make it through to promotion, as I feel he really would be good in the role of admin.

[edit] Allergy

Howdy, Tim, hope you've enjoyed your holiday. I'm just dropping a note to ask for your input on allergy. This topic has been in a deplorable state for as long as I can remember, and much work is needed. My immunology is a bit rusty, and I'd highly appreciate if you could help with some of the more technical topics in the article. JFW | T@lk 21:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Recent Rfa Nominations

Wow! Slow down with your nominations:) Honestly, good work with finding good people to nominate for adminship. You work with that, and your amazing article work is well appreciated. By the way, sorry for edit warring on the Evolution article back in March and May. Sorry for the disruption that I caused. I did learn from my mistake though. That is good. Have a nice day!--SJP 19:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim, do you think it's time I withdrew? The question in my mind is: would you still support me? If, as nominator, you've found yourself feeling that I'm untrustworthy, then it's time to shut it down. I guess three months is no time at all... VanTucky Talk 21:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

IMO your Rfa shows all the worst traits of Rfas and why the whole system needs overhauling and I don't believe there is anything there that would indicate you should not be an admin. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay Tim, I'm not feeling quite so down now. Maybe since I'll let it continue, in a couple days anything could happen. My question above still applies however. VanTucky Talk 05:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chelation therapy

Speechless, now I'm pro-quackery I guess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hepatitis B virus

Hi Tim, I've done a lot of work on Hepatitis B virus (mainly adding my homemade diagrams), I'm not quite finished with it, but could you have a look? I'm not sure if it needs a new section on liver carcinoma, it might make the article too long or too scary to those folk who have been infected at some time. I hope you had a good break. Who looked after the cat? --GrahamColm 20:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

If you voted in my RFA...


  • That's okay Tim, no worries. If you want to check back with me about renomination six months from now, that would be fine. VanTucky Talk 23:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Query

I notice that most RfA candidates after their attempt post on the talk page of every voter a template thanks, is there one I am meant to follow or otherwise? –– Lid(Talk) 23:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for help with Hep B

Hi Tim, thanks for your advice and encouragement re: diagrams in general and your help with the Hepatitis B virus ones in particular, (and the article). I read the Wiki link that you pointed me to; it was very useful. I have one worry: is there a Wiki size limit to these .png files? I see in my minds' eye a young person waiting, say in Africa, a long time for them to load. I know how to squash a jpg, but I don't know to reduce a png. The diagram I made of the Hepatitis B virus life cycle is huge, the full size image takes a while to load even down my cable. --GrahamColm 23:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks and now some help please

Thanks for the welcoming and offer of help on April 27. I will take you up on it now, calling on your Science CV and on your Wiki skills. A person has disappeared my article, my one article, Last Comnmon Ancestor." I am trying to be cool and all wiki-correct. I would like your advice, do you think I should put this letter up on the discussion or is it not in the spirit of the response I should be meking - or maybe I should not even post it here? And if not, what is the best thing I can do, my Wiki skills are nearly zero. So thus my appeal to you. Well, here goes:

You know, Fred, what you have done in deleting this article is so infuriating I can hardly respond with civility to you. But I will try.

Of the thousands of Wikipedians over the last six months who have read the article "Last Common Ancestor," you alone cannot seem to grasp it. Yet you believe this failure to understand gives you the license, after only a day after I responded to you and with absolutely not a single person agreeing with you, to destroy the article.

And you have done so in a way the dismembers the original - deleting parts and history and replacing the original information with your commentary, so the common man cannot judge the evidence, or undo what you have done, thereby covering your trail.

Regarding the material itself, you have a blind spot. You hold that the Most Recent Common Ancestor of All Mankind (Wiki) and the Last Common Ancestor of Mankind must be the same person and you cannot be shaken from that belief. Instead of looking for a consensus or an anthropologist or simply dropping the whole thing you decide to "merge" the two titles to comply with your belief.

In summary, you are wrong in your understanding of the article, you are wrong in acting unilaterally and you are wrong in the way you attacked - dismembering the original and destroying the evidence. You are wrong on many other counts as well but these three are immediately obvious under even a cursory review.

So what I request is that you 1.) reassemble the article as it was, 2.) not edit the talk page discussion we had (actually if you spent one-tenth the time reading it as you spent hacking it you might clear up your blind spot), and 3.) agree to let this article alone for a few months while we get an expert in here. What is the harm in that?

Finally remember that knowing how to manipulate the Wikipedia is not the same thing as being a subject matter expert. The Wiki is supposed to be about making the knowledge of the world available, which is what "The Last Common Ancestor" is doing. It is not supposed to be a forum for technobullies, Think about it Tom Schmal 00:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC) ____________________________ Tim What steps do you recommend I take to get a fair shake on this? should I just add the letter above to the discussion page of LCA (what's left of it)? There is not much traffic there, what should I expect? Tom Schmal 03:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Favor

Re this comment on Lid's talk page:

Tim, that sounds like a great idea. I'm currently trying to get some more really good users to consider adminship, and I'm sure they have a good idea who they would want to nominate. I'll pass on the idea.
I agree with you very much that the current attitude towards adminship is a problem for Wikipedia. I think you've hit the nail on the head. --Tony Sidaway 22:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I follow your rationale Tim, reminds me of the Esperanza case in egards to an elite group having their own community above the wikipedia community as a whole, in fact I am currently having a debate with the members of WP:PW over this very topic in regards to spoilers in articles.
Your request is one I understand however I see flaws in it, in that the "chain" may create a... well... cabal of people in the chain. Apart from which I would need to find these three users and the only user who springs immediately to mind is one I have in the past concluded would probably not pass. –– Lid(Talk) 22:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Amusingly one of the people I was considering just had this happen. –– Lid(Talk) 23:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. You said "The reason for this effort was that I have been a little disturbed by a growing attitude that admins are more than just editors with a few more buttons on their toolbars and are instead "senior editors" with greater authority." Are you saying I'm not a senior editor with greater authority who can throw my weight around, especially on topics that I know little about, while preventing edit wars by blocking those who disagree with my edits??  ;) David D. (Talk) 06:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

As I stated, but with perhaps more enthusiasm, on the Talk:Mass spectrometry. Thank you for you help. --CyclePat 05:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks Tim!

For the help reverting edits by User:Mooroonic. What do you think of this edit that was done immediately after the block? That's a longer standing editor, but I'm unsure why they would do such an edit, without any text explaining it, so soon after the spree of templating by the blocked editor. What are your thoughts on it? (And P.S., your kitty Loki is adorable!) Ariel♥Gold 23:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, my first impression was a bit too much of a coincidence, lol. I just removed it, but didn't feel it warranted any kind of notice, so no big deal. Humor is a good thing, I think. Ariel♥Gold 23:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Thank you again for your speedy reaction to the above situation. You beat me to most of the reverts, lol. Ariel♥Gold 23:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)