User talk:Wobble/archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

Lukas19

I sifted through both your contribs and Lukas19's, and I admit, I screwed this up. I've left Lukas19 an "only warning" for POV pushing, if he continues he may be blocked. I apologize for any problems this may have caused. --Coredesat 05:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Are you sure about this?

Alun you are a great editor and contributor to wikipedia, i'm sure admin will come round and see sense eventually. By all means take time out of editing wikipedia but im sure you will one day return to it, perhaps more serious action needs to be taken concerning vandals, perhaps media attention could be an option.

You are the best editor in all matters concerning genetics, ethnicity and related fields and a great all round person and a very intelligent, consice and clear thinking editor. Wikipedia (especially all matters concerning ethnicity) would suffer greatly with your departure.

If you feel unhappy here or stressed out by it by all means you have the right to leave, anyway I wish you the best of luck with your life and an enjoyable and happy future, you are a top man. Peace. --Globe01 11:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey.

Things change people change, and some of the time, new people show up, like me. If you come back, let me know. If you have these kinds of problems again, let me know. I'm here to help. futurebird 01:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

REF: DISCUSSION PAGE

Alun, what's gone wrong with it mate? It wasn't me guv honest! Martin

ps I hope the 'Tait' book is as good as it sounds re. KCL/DNA etc etc!! I love the thrill of the chase research-wise, if only to help Lynne Elkins with the third biography of REF, now that Bob Olby's Francis Crick biography is winding down this month prior to going to the publisher CSHL Press.

14:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Caucasoid race

The recently filed mediation cabal case on the above article has been closed - the dispute has stopped. I hope you aren't bitter about me ignoring the case - it was done in the hope that the disputing editors stopped arguing, which you have. If the dispute flares up again, please do contact me - a more active style will have to be incorporated. Anthonycfc [T • C] 22:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

ROSALIND FRANKLIN

ALUN, PLEASE SEE: http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/KR/

Nitramrekcap 21:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

EXPERT COMMENTS ON THE ROSALIND FRANKLIN ARTICLE

Alun, in the absence of a reply to my personal e-mail, they are:

"On the whole, an excellent summary-- I suspect of Brenda's book. That eventually leads to some problems, but still a good entry. here are specific comments:

be chronological-- coal, graphite, DNA, viruses she was an X-ray diffraction expert, not a crystallographer

  • The article is chronological. Alun 19:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

she was originally hired to look at proteins and lipids in solution

  • Yes, I know. Alun 19:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A form is shorter and thicker ( not fatter)

  • Is there a difference? Remember I am a scientist. I do have a degree in genetics and work in a mlecular biology laboratory. Alun 19:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

you have at least triple copies of jan 1951 ...

  • What does this mean, and why is it relevant? Alun 19:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It was significant that women were kept out of the smoking room where the men went after lunch to discuss science.

  • So add it to the article, with appropriate references. Alun 19:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

yes, male dining room was not big deal, but it bugged her.

  • Did it? Find a reference for this and add it. Remember verifiability not truth. Alun 19:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree and it sounds misleading, like Brenda's whitewash, to say that Feb 1953 W&C built their model "using similar data to that avaible to the team at KIng's"

  • Doesn't matter what you think. If it's citable it's OK. Different points of view can be added as long as they are verifiable. Remember Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding verifiability and neutrality. Your opinion is not citable. Alun 19:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I suspect these other misimpressions ( in my view) were also rooted in brenda's book:

  • This is irrelevant. Your view is not citable, Maddox's book is, it meets the requirements for a reliable source. Alun 19:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

YOu act like their getting the MRC report from Perutz was no big deal-- i disagree --so did Randall and many others. Also the seminar content is irrelevant since Watson did not understand and therefore did not report the info to crick so MRC report was critical to crick

  • I don't act like anything. I ad citable material from reliable sources. This information is cited from the letters to science that you sent me. It is irrelevant that Watson did not understand the seminar, Franklin knew he was there, she could not have known that he did not understand the talk. Therefore as far as she was concerned Crick and Watson already had access to this work, she could not have known that Watson's notes were no good. Alun 19:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Also scientifically it would not have been difficult to cite the MRC report, but it would have been awkward

  • How do you differentiate between "difficult" and "awkward", this seems like stating the same thing in a different way to me. Alun 19:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

she was not against model building-- she just thought you needed more data first, not the entire solution

  • Not according to Maddox, according to Maddox she thought that one should build models after one already knew the structure. Model building was not a tool of research, it was a way to display one's completed structure when research was finished. So no she was not against model building per se, but sha did not see it as a part of the process of research. Hence her comment how are they going to prove it? upon seeing Crick and Watson's model. This is citable, provide evidence that others hold another point of view and add it. Alun 19:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

REF did not receive a small footnote in W&C's paper

  • Who claims that she received a small footnote? Not me, and not the article as I wrote it. She is acknowledged in the paper: We have also been stimulated by a knowledge of the general nature of the unpublished experimental results and ideas of Dr. M. H. F. Wilkins, Dr. R. E. Franklin and their co-workers at King's College London. This is what Franklin's Wikipedia article claims. Nothing wrong here, have you actually read the RF article? Alun 19:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

She convalesced in several places-- first withe Anne SAyre at REF's own appartment, then with Cricks and finally with Roland + family

  • So? Alun 19:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

She was less careful with X-rays than most"

  • Not true, according to Maddox, she was no more or less unsafe than anyone else. There was a general disregard for safety at the time, but she was not especially unsafe caompred to others. Maybe she was just unlucky. Maybe she just got the wrong Ashkenazi genes. Don't try to diagnose the causes of her illness, it is unseemly, you do not know and neither does anyone else. Alun 19:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In view of the amount of time and effort, you put into the article you deserve to have this feedback from an expert on the subject! MP

  • You have just given me a biased opinion, there are no sources in your review of the article. I'm grateful for your candour, and it's nice to know that you do not totally hate the article, I ahd begun to wonder. Alun 19:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Nitramrekcap 12:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Alun, they were NOT my own expert opinions (I thought I had made that clear) but I will get the expert's thoughts on your comments! Nitramrekcap 07:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


On a different note, try to take Wikipedia policies and guidelines into account when editing. It's good to have a clear idea in your mind of what you want to say and why, it's also a good idea to have your source to hand while you edit, I usually have the various sources open on the chair next to me (or open in PDF or HTLM format in various windows on my computer), usually all open at the page that deals with the subject of my edit. This means I can add the citation as soon as I make the edit. It also means I can cross check that the sources agree or disagree, if they disagree i can add both points of view, if they agree I can cite them all anyway. Alun 19:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Alun, I am deliberately NOT disclosing the identity of my expert on Franklin, but this is part of an e-mail received this morning, which comments on the remarks you previously made about the expert's comments on 'your' article:

"* triple copies means the same text was repeated three times. I assume that was a simple cut and paste computer mistake I used the copy you sent me. Maybe you inadvertantly made the extra copies and listed DNA and virus work before coal. And yes, i did read it. It was out of regard for you that I stayed up late and took the time to respond.

    • some e.g.

about dining versus smoking rooms comes from MY direct professionally transcribed recorded lengthy interviews with seven women at King's plus Gosling, Brown and Anne Sayre

Perutz had to write about 50 letters reponding to specific criticisms of his handing over the MRC report-- They are in the Norman archive. Randall ws furious.

She maxed out her radiation badge in Paris, re: my VL interview and Geoffrey Brown specifically remarked she was in the X-ray beam for what he thought was an exceedingly long period of time while aligning and focusing the beam.

I don't think there is much else to be gained from any further exchange of views, but I think you should resume your editorial role sooner rather than later as there are some rather odd changes on the article - do see my very latest note on the discussion page! MP 18:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Feedback

I'd love to have your feedback on these proposed changes:

  1. Change Media section- change to match sub-article
  2. Change Utility of research- change to match sub-article
  3. Possible revision of text about race as a proxy-I've proposed two revisions here, if they don't work... why?
  4. New Intro Sentence

futurebird 19:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

PS. I think you told me that you've bowed out of this one-- but my god there will never be any progress if we don't get a few fresh voices in here.

THAT NEW PHOTOGRAPH OF ROSALIND "OUR DARK LADY" FRANKLIN

Alun, it's so good to see the back of that awful painting! Martin

81.78.88.109 18:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Archiving my discussion page

Hey Alun, just popping in for a bit once again to read up on some things. I was wondering if you could direct me to a page to help/show me how to archive my discussion page? Its currently massive and really long, lol. As for the ethnic group articles, I at hope you're taking at least some of my arguments in mind when making edits, lol. I hope all is well, ciao. Epf 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

black people

Hi wobble. You say that races are social constructions and you’re probably right. I’d be inclined to agree. Indeed the exact meaning of race and the precise number of races is a subject that has never reached consensus, with estimates ranging from as low as 2 to over 100. I also agree that the black people article is not the place to discuss whether race is a scientifically useful idea. The black people article is however the place to document the myriad ways this label “black” has been applied by different cultures, different eras, different disciplines, different ideologies and different people (including people who do believe in race, as wacky as they may sound to you and I!). I want this article to be diverse in every sense of the word because that makes your very point: black is just a metaphor hence there can be no wrong way to apply the category because it doesn’t reflect an objective reality but a social construction of reality. It means whatever people have wanted it to mean and it has been assimilated into very different worldviews. So if one person uses it to mean anyone with dark skin that should be documented. If a company like DNA print Genomics uses it to mean genetic markers associated with sub-Saharan Africa, that should be documented. If some racist in South Africa takes it to mean anyone with hair so kinky a pencil gets stuck in it, that should be documented. If someone else has argued that ancient Egyptians were black because they would not have been served coffee in the segregated South, that needs to be documented too. This doesn’t mean the article is endorsing the POV that race is real, the article is simply documenting the way the word is once again being applied to categorize people by yet another arbitrary criterion. Now I wont oppose your removal of definitions that only mentioned “Negro” or “Negroid” because the article is specifically called “black people” but when we start deleting referenced material simply because we feel someone is applying the term in ways that you or I would never apply the term, we begin to defeat the purpose of the article, which is simply to explain the diverse ways this highly controversial label has been applied and defined. The organizational change you provided to the article is good, and your views on race seem well informed. Don’t ruin it by selectively removing whatever cited content happens to offend you on a given day and thus leaving readers with only a skewed impression of this topic Iseebias

OH MY GOD

Wobble, I'm gonna lose it any second now. I start adding info about how the Irish were once not considered white and this guy counters with some IQ figures that I guess he intends to mean that it is true that the Irish are just a bunch of dumb paddies. I don't even know where to start criticizing this. I'm just very ANGRY. I'm going to change my username to ANGRYbird... AHHHH!! futurebird 00:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) You did cheer me up. futurebird 06:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Rosalind Franklin

Hi no worries about Photo 51. Incidentally, I actually created it not to get around the copyright, but because the photo itself is quite remarkable in the field of X-ray diffraction, being taken by a slightly modified processby Franklin, as well as due to it's role in history of molcular biology. Regarding, Rosalind Franklin article, no probs. I am a King's College London alumni you see, so it is something I both vaguely know, as well as find interest in. Thanks for the encouragement though.Dudewheresmywallet 11:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but you being a KCL alumni might explain your apparent bias? Do you not know how to spell 'molcular' by the way (molecular!)? MP

I am not sure where you got the "bias" from,I would really like it if you could explain to me where you got this from, and why me being a KCL grad has anything to do with this? As I have said, Photo 51 itself is quite remarkable, maybe you're being a bit too paranoid about conspiracy theories, regarding who gets the credit for double helix. I am guessing you're either a Crick fan, or somehow related to Cavendish or Cambridge (or Crick). That does not take away the fact that Photo 51 (and also Wilkins' image in that issue) is(are) critical evidence which (along with Wilkns' work) Watson and Crick "acknowledges" (not mentions in the foot note as somebody had written) in their paper with the words

"We have also been stimulated by a knowledge of the general nature of unpublished experimental results and ideas of Dr M.H.F Wilkins and Dr. R.E. Franklin and their co-workers at King's College London.".

  • PPPS: Are you Alun, or Nitram, or Wobble? It is getting a bit confusing,seeing as I was under the impression I was talking to three different people here.Dudewheresmywallet 12:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

D::udewheresmywallet, in the introductory paragraph this "Franklin is best known for having created Photo 51 which constituted critical evidence confirming the hypothesis of double helical structure of DNA by Watson and Crick in their 1953 publication[1] leading to the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953." is both debatable and a bit contensious - hence following the role previously played by Alun/Wobble, I am removing it! It is not necessarily true; her memory is NOT best served by mentionning "Photo 51" (sic) in my humble opinion, as referring to it is this rather silly way is not that scientific! By all means add it into the article's main body? Nitramrekcap 12:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Ok chaps, take it to the Rosalind Franklin talk page where it belongs. My talk page is not the place for this conversation. Dudewheresmywallet meet User:Nitramrekcap, who often refuses to sign in and comes disguised as various IP addresses with the additional signature of MP or sometimes Martin. If you want my opinion, I see nothing wrong with Dudewheresmywallet's contributions, indeed I support them. Oh, I sign my posts Alun, which is my name, my user name is Wobble, this is just the way it turned out several years ago, sorry if it's confusing. But as I say Martin uses an even more confusing system to identify himself. By the way Dude, Martin is a serious fan of Crick, and makes no attempt to be impartial when editing wikipedia, so your guess is spot on. If you have a problem here, then I can suggest that you try a request for comment on the talk page, I'd be more than happy to contribute. At the moment I'm not contributing to the Rosalind Franklin article, I've been editing there for nearly two years and am fed up with the constant bickering there. Alun 11:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Gen. Britain

I left you a question in the population of Britain section. It may be of use there. Cheers. Veritas et Severitas 04:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

PROPOSED INTRODUCTARY PARAGRAPH CHANGE: BEFORE (1) & AFTER (2) 1. "Franklin is best known for her work on the X-ray Diffraction images of DNA which formed a basis of Watson and Crick's hypothesis of the double helical structure of DNA in their 1953 publication,[1] and when published constituted critical evidence of the hypothesis.[2"

TO READ:

2. "Franklin is best known for her work on the X-ray Diffraction images of DNA which constituted critical evidence (used to formulate) [confirming] the hypothesis of double helical structure of DNA by Watson and Crick, (as presented) in their 1953 publication[1] [leading to the discovery of ] (outlining)the structure of DNA [in 1953]. However the wording and placement of the three 1953 Nature articles gave the false impression that Franklin and Gosling's work just confirmed Watson and Crick's brilliant theoretical structural proposal."

Nitramrekcap 17:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rosalind_Franklin"

An RfC brought up by User:Lukas19 et al.

Hello, sorry to disturb but I thought you might be interested in commenting on this rfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/LSLM·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Caucasian race

Keep in mind that both you and Lukas19 are about to violate the three-revert rule. Stick to the RFC for discussion, and cease edit warring or both of you will be blocked. --Coredesat 00:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Final attempt at resolving disputes

I've had enough of this. Do not address me again in your edits. Do not talk to me in discussion pages or edit summaries nor write in my talk page. Do not have any communication with me or with others regarding me whatsoever. The only exception to this may be RfC's or other proper venues, such as talking with admins, and with a tone which complies with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Not harassing me on other people's pages after my comments which had nothing to do with you. [1] Nor after my edits whose summaries had no mention of you. [2] You may think these are trivial or whatever. I dont care. I dont want to tolerate it. If you feel the need to edit articles which I edit, or talk in their discussion pages, do so only referring to my arguments, not me.

Ex: Correct: X point is wrong. Y point is unsourced. Z point does not cite a reliable source.

WRONG: Lukas is X, Lukas is Y. or "please don't remove cited information it is considered vandalism, who says thatall the time.........I wonder who........some one...nor.....dick....yes...dick....." which refers to me despite the fact it doesnt mention me explicitly. All of what I have talked also happens to be quite similar to the summary of WP:NPA which is

This page in a nutshell: Comment on content, not on the contributor.

This will be my last correspondence with you whatsoever. If you want to respond to this, do so in your talk page, not mine. Lukas19 01:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I've had enough of this.
I don't care, if you've had enough then you can do two things, leave Wikipedia, or take a less agressive attitude. It is odd to complain of conflict when your attitude is so confrontational. Alun 06:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not address me again in your edits. Do not talk to me in discussion pages or edit summaries nor write in my talk page.
Who do you think you are? You have no authority to dictate these sorts of terms. You are not the "dictator of Wikipedia". It is not my fault if you are not capable of handling conflict. I am not going to be ordered arround by anyone, least of all you. I am a grown man, I will not be treated like a child by you, this is a continuing behavioural pattern with you, bullying other editors in this manner, ordering them about and treating them as if they were children. You have no authority here, your bullying does not scare me, I am not intimidated. You do not have any special dispensation, different rules do not apply to you. I will continue to post on any page I see fit, and address any other editor I see fit. Alun 06:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Not harassing me on other people's pages after my comments which had nothing to do with you.
I will leave messages on other users talk pages if I see fit. As for harrasement, that's ludicrous and hypocritical. I have stopped editing most of the pages you are involvrd with because I cannot stand the sight of your user name, let alone ploughing through the excuses and sophistry that you substitute for reasoned argument, so how can I be "harrasing" you? Alun 06:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment on content, not on the contributor.
Ah, your famous hypocricy, you have called me "clueless", my comments "stupid", and another editor's comment "idiotic", and that is just what I know about, and you have the cheek to say "comment on content?" This is also a very consistent part of your behaviour. You insult other editors, then report them to PAIN or somewhere when they make a far less offensive comment than you have made. Most Wikipedians do not want to report people to AN/I or PAIN or wherever because we are supposed to be mature adults who can resolve our own disputes. But you are not interested in compromise and you have stated openly in the past that you are not interested in trying to reach consensus. Alun 06:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This will be my last correspondence with you whatsoever.
Best news I've had all day. Thank you. Alun 06:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • If you want to respond to this, do so in your talk page, not mine.
Now if you had been civil, had asked nicely, said please for example, you might have got somewhere, but I do not take kindly to being ordered arround by anyone. If I see fit to post on your talk page, then I will, whereas it is considered vandalism to modify another users main page, it is acceptable to post on their talk page, I do not think any user has the right to "ban" any other user from posting on their talk page, so I shall not comply with this "demand". In this case I see no need to post on your talk page, that might be seen as deliberatelly inflamitory, but I may do so in future. Tough luck if you don't like it. Alun 06:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


Lukas again

Look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dark_Tichondrias

It seems that this Lukas is plotting against you again. Just thought you would like to know. If he starts again, let me know if you want me to drop a comment. Veritas et Severitas 18:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Not bothered. I am happy for the community to comment on my behaviour and edits. I am not so vain as to think I am perfect, and I know that sometimes I edit when I am angry, and that I should wait and calm down before I edit. I am not unique in this, nor have my so called "attacks" been particularly "personal" or aggressive, in my opinion. If the community feels I have over stepped the mark I will accept their decision, take any block they feel I might deserve, and learn from the observations that are posted on the RfC by Wikipedians who are calmer and more collected than I am. I am generally a calm person, but I have learned something about myself recently that I did not know, which is that I really hate racists, this is something I feel is rather a good thing to find out about oneself. This is why I have stopped editing articles about "race", these articles need people who can stay calm in the face of POV pushing racists, and I do not refer to anyone in particular, it is a fact that articles about "race" attract "racists". At the moment there is only one article I am interested in and I might stop editing altogether when I feel I have contributed enough to it. Alun 07:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)