User talk:Wobble

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is currently 10:55 where I am

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11.

Contents

[edit] Quebec

Just to be clear; didn't contest his right to remove things from his page; just warning him about edit warring ahead of time--soulscanner (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey there

Just wondering if you knew of an uninvolved editor who could take a look at the argument going on on the Quebec page and weigh in? Possibly a total outsider (most editors active on the page are either Quebecers or Canadians) might have a more neutral viewpoint. What bugs me most, looking at the history going back several months, is that we build a consensus around the sentence about national recognition, then some editor who disagrees comes along, ignores the previous consensus and the consensus needs to be rebuilt all over again. If you feel like you want to take a look at it personnally, I'd be very grateful. And sorry for being so silent lately, but I was in the hospital for over two weeks. Fortunately, I'm much better now.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to do such a thing. I am totally impartial regarding the nationhood or otherwise of Quebeckers. Alun (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

Hi there. Following discussion and for practical reasons, is it possible to remove your vote against René Levesque at Talk:French people/Vote? Thanks - Wikigi | talk to me | 15:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Episode 42

Hey there. Just this note that Wikipedia Weekly Episode 42 is out.

You can download the episode or listen to the streaming audio at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/03/03/episode-42-the-question-of-muhammad-the-wikiand-everything/, and you can hear past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/ too.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine print: You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.
If you no longer wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from that list.

[edit] Your proposal

It sounds fine to me. It certainly seems as though our friend Epf is mixing up definitions. However, what scares me most is his seeming ability to argue with people who say they disagree with him that they really agree with him. Coming back to your proposal, should I just comment on it, or leave it to the members of the group?--Ramdrake (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pink Fairies - Never Neverland.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Pink Fairies - Never Neverland.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] English people and French people

  • Hi Alun. I really do not have time to be on here lately or finish our discussion we were having. I hope it is still OK between us and I didn't mean for things to get out of hand. I have a strong belief that misunderstanding and miscommunication is the main factor behind most issues and disagreements anywhere, this being yet another between us. I do admit sometimes I have a difficult time letting things go, especially when I have more important things to be focusing on rather than Wiki. Anyways, I just felt I should note that both the nation and ethnic group aspects to English people need more citations (in terms of that article, the concepts are distinct unless there are ethnic nationalists on that page, lol, I don't know), and French people really needs citations and almost the entire article is OR and POV right now. Anyways, take care. Epf (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] talk:Race and intelligence

this, you have to respond to. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"The concept of 'equality' is declared a lie by every evidence of Nature. It is a search for the lowest common denominator, and its pursuit will destroy every superior race, nation, or culture. In order for a plow horse to run as fast as a race horse you would first have to cripple the race horse; conversely, in order for a race horse to pull as much as a plow horse, you would first have to cripple the plow horse. In either case, the pursuit of equality is the destruction of excellence."
An interesting quote. Thought it may be relevant. --Confederate till Death (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Who ever said people were equal in all things? I never have. Individual variation is apparent to anyone with eyes. The question is not one of "all people are equal in all respects". That is a misrepresentation of the debate. The question is "do races", however constructed, have any biological validity. The evidence of human biological variation (whether measured by physical attributes or genetic ones) indicates that the answer is "no". Is there variation, yes, is this variation distributed into a few well defined "races", the answer is no. This is the crux, misrepresenting the facts is what racist bigots do well, portraying scientific reality is something racist bigots are uninterested in doing. Alun (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
If you have time, would you like to comment here? Thanks for your attention! :)--Ramdrake (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heritability of IQ

Alun, there seems to be consensus about developing this article (my proposal #2) along lines I and you, separately, have voiced. This is a fielkd in which you have far more expertese and fluency than I. I have copied our discussion on Race & Intelligence to the talk page for this article. Would you be willing to take the lead in rewriting the article so that it complies with our policies and plays its role as a content fork, to linnk to any article on "race" and "IQ," so that all discussion about genetics is in this article and properly contexualized rather than in some inappropriate hybrid? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Jagz' strategy is to get us bogged down on talk pages so no substantive work gets done. That is why I think your working on this article to the point where it can replace any discussion of this topic in the Racwe and IQ article is the way to win. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Confederate

In this case, please, just ignore him. This is one case where the "give 'em enough rope" will actually work. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Confederate continued

With all due respect (and I mean that) I think your comment to Confederate till death was unconstructive. Any response to him is feeding a troll. There was an RfC on the neutrality of the article and the overwhelming response was that the article violates NPOV. I made a four-part proposal that one person liked so much, he gave me a branstar. My proposal was not meant to be the last word but a starting point for substantive and productive discussion about how to move forward. I beg you to reread the discussion and look at how effectively Jagz and Confederate till death have utterly derailed my or any attempt to move forward. Look carefully at their comments and you will see disruptive editing that does not address the problems raised by the RfC nore adds to any proposed solution - just disruptive editing. The sad thing is, people keep replying to them, and more and more empty, meaningless talk accumulates - yes, I am including your comments which, though well-informed and reasonable, in this context (replying to a troll) just contribute to their aim to disrupt any productive work. And at this rate in a week or two enough of the talk page will have to be archived, that the RfC and my proposal will disappear, and we will just be left with a debate the terms of which are dictated by Jagz and Confederate till death. They will never stop - the question is, will the people of good faith, like you, who respond to them, who feed them, stop? I do not mean to offend you, I know you act in good faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Looks like Confederate has been blocked. I must confess that I dealt with his comments by not reading them - looking back I'm not sure how wise that was. However, I think this just illustrates the need for a stable article on this topic. Brighter minds than ours have already debunked this nonesense - the article is a place to let that debunking be documented.Nick Connolly (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
You're quite right both of you. I should just have ignored it. I'm currently going through some of the essays in "Race and IQ", especially those discussing hetitability, I think these are most applicable to the "Heritability of IQ" article. I must admit that I'm finding some of it is quite heavy going, but I'm surprised that this book hasn't been cited more in this set of articles, it seems to be a standard text but completely ignored by Wikipedia editors. Alun (talk) 06:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Hey I liked your addition of the "Clustering analysis from Rosenberg" in the Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia article. I have no idea how you do that and was wondering if you possibility could add it to the genetics section of the Kalash. There is already mention of it and the graph would be a great addition. Thanks again for the great work!! Cosmos416 22:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] French people/Vote

I was thinking should we get the page Talk:French people/Vote deleted. What do you think? I'm not sure of the normal procedures here, except that I have some idea that such sub-pages are usually only used on a temporary basis. I think the thing to do is to archive the discussion and then get this page deleted, would that make sense? Alun (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The actual page could become useful if someone was to switch the picture again in the future. Might be good to keep it as it is. Regards - Wikigi | talk to me | 17:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mediation

can you write up a veru concise statement of the key issue(s) that need to be mediated, here? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cambridge DNA Sculpture

The words highlighted below were recently deleted from the REF article and I have now reinstated them:

"The wording on the DNA sculpture (which was donated by James Watson) outside Clare College's Thirkill Court, Cambridge, England is:

On the base:

"These strands unravel during cell reproduction. Genes are encoded in the sequence of bases."

"The double helix model was supported by the work of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins."

On the helices:

"The structure of DNA was discovered in 1953 by Francis Crick and James Watson while Watson lived here at Clare."

"The molecule of DNA has two helical strands that are linked by base pairs Adenine - Thymine or Guanine - Cytosine."

The aluminium sculpture stands fifteen feet high. It took a pair of technicians 1 fortnight (2 weeks) to build it. For the artist responsible it was an opportunity to create a monument that brings together the themes of science and nature; Charles Jencks, Sculptor said "It embraces the trees, you can sit on it and the ground grows up and it twists out of the ground. So it's truly interacting with living things like the turf, and that idea was behind it and I think it does celebrate life and DNA".

The same wording is in place for Crick, Watson, and Wilkins and I can see no good reason why they should not appear in the Rosalind Franklin article; I suggest that it is important to know know that Watson personally donated the sculpture to Clare College, while for posterity alone the description of the sculpture itself is useful. Why someone apparently thinks that RF'S memory needs to be posthumously protected by deleting these words is beyond me! What do you think? Artistically I am NOT a great fan of the sculpture itself but I do like the carefully-chosen wording; anyone walking along the Backs can see it near the entrance to Thurkill Court.

regards, Martin 91.110.150.12 (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a biographical article, a brief mention of the sculpture may be appropriate in the postmous recognition section, but the edit was overly long and too detailed. This article is not about the discovery of the structure of DNA, it is about REF. I know you are a good editor, but essentially your interest is in the discovery of the structure of DNA, and you filter all of your edits to the REF article through this lense, I feel that often you loose perspective and forget that this article is about REF and not the structure of DNA. Alun (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Me "a good editor" wonders will never cease!

I don't have a problem with large scale abbreviation to:

The wording on the new DNA sculpture outside Clare College's Thirkill Court includes the words: "The double helix model was supported by the work of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins"

But the whole point of JDW having donated the sculpture himself has been lost at the moment.

Personally my theory for the whole DNA issue is that it had a lot more to do with Bragg and Randall as 'puppet masters' for: Bragg - Crick and Watson, Randall - Franklin and Wilkins?

By 'puppet master', I mean that these two laboratory directors controlled their staff and in Bragg's case gave the go ahead for Cambridge to get the recognition of discovering the structure of DNA. Randall I suspect was most aggrieved at the Cavendish Laboratory's success, especially as Wilkins (his deputy director) was effectively aiding and abetting them by talking to Watson and Crick. Hopefully someone will write Randall's biography one of these days!!

Martin 13:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation - Race and Intelligence

Hello, you have been named as an interested party in a request for mediation on the Race and Intellegence Article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Race_and_intelligence_2 Please stop by and indicate whether or not you wish to participate in this process. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Race and intelligence 2.
For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 14:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

[edit] University Challenge (BBC TV)

Guess who was a question on University Challenge tonight with a description of her achievements?

Yes, Rosalind Franklin!

23:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Words reinstated

"The sculpture was donated to Clare College by James Watson of Watson and Francis Crick."

NITRAMREKCAP 91.110.202.69 (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Alun, so why did you delete them? Surely you don't "own" the article? Anyone can edit it!

regards,

Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.192.94 (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Alun,

I beg to differ as those few words explain who supplied the new sculpture; please answer the two questions above? I respect your passion for the article, but why not explain exactly who initiated the new sculpture - or do you just not want W/C in the same sentence as REF? Martin

17:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Alun,

Do we need to go to ARBITRATION over this? I think it is important to record Watson's donation of the sculpture in the context of the wording about REF/MHFW - I presume you disagree? Martin

The wording on the DNA sculpture in Clare College's Thirkill Court includes the words: "The double helix model was supported by the work of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins"; the sculpture was donated to Clare College by James Watson of Watson and Francis Crick.

91.110.198.120 (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] R&I article

Instead of adding a tag to the article, why don't you just go ahead and add the other POV. You did nothing to help the article. --Jagz (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please go on the article Talk page and discuss the reason for the 100% revert you just made. --Jagz (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] English people

Thank you. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vittorio Luzatti

Although I am more interested in DAVID HARKER, I suspect you do know all about the above in relation to REF, but on the off chance that you don't, try the following extract from Nature?

There are NO Wikipedia articles on either DAVID HARKER or VITTORIO LUZZATI by the way!!

http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v7/n6/full/7400720.html

regards, Martin

Other episodes also cast some doubt on the intentions of Norman and Seckel. Vittorio Luzzati, a crystallographer at the Centre for Molecular Genetics in Gif-sur-Yvette near Paris, France, received a visit from Seckel at the end of March 2000. Luzzati collaborated with Rosalind Franklin during the period when she worked in France (1947–1950), and the two remained close friends. Seckel, who was introduced to Luzzati by Klug, inspected the Franklin-related material that Luzzati owned and asked him to donate it to the 'Norman Foundation'. Luzzati accepted and gave Seckel some reprints of old articles, a handwritten letter from Franklin discussing scientific issues, and, most importantly, an entire series of original photographs of Franklin that Luzzati had taken during holidays with her and other colleagues in 1950–1951 in Central Italy and the Alps (Fig 1). As the negatives of these photographs no longer exist, Seckel agreed to make copies of the prints and return the originals within a couple of days—according to Luzzati, Seckel's wife, a photographer, was in Paris with him and would take care of this task—together with photocopies of the Franklin letter. So far, Luzzati says that he has received neither the original photographs nor the photocopies, despite Norman claiming to have returned them in 2001 (Dalton, 2001). Luzzati explained that, after tense correspondence with Seckel and Norman, and his pressing requests for the original prints, the only things Norman ever sent were low-quality copies, for which Luzzati was even invoiced. "It was like one of those photographic albums grandpas give their grandchildren as a present," Luzzati recalled.

Figure 1 Vittorio Luzzati, photographed in 2003 with one of his pictures of Rosalind Franklin on the computer screen. Reproduced with permission from Philippe Plailly/Eurelios, Montreuil, France.

The situation eventually settled down in August 2005, when Venter announced the acquisition—for an undisclosed sum—of the Jeremy Norman Molecular Biology Archive and its relocation to the Venter Institute in Rockville (MD, USA). "As part of our public education initiative at the Venter Institute, we look forward to sharing this tremendous compilation of molecular biology history with others," Venter commented in a press release (23/May/2006 12:05J. Craig Venter Institute, 2005). "In the future, we hope to complement the collection with additional key scientific documents." Venter plans to add his own papers and those of his colleague Hamilton Smith (Wade, 2005). Now, Luzzati hopes that he will finally be able to get the Franklin photographs back, leaving copies to Venter. If the originals return home, Luzzati is ready to entrust them to a public institution. "I believe it appropriate that highly valuable scientific documents should be preserved by institutions, where researchers and erudites can freely access the records," he said.

91.110.198.120 (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VITTORIO LUZZATI

The REF article makes no reference to her close friend VITTORIO LUZZATI, Alun - do please add him in!

"Laboratoire central des services chimiques de l'État

After the war ended Franklin accepted an offer to work in Paris with Jacques Mering.[5] She learned x-ray diffraction techniques during her three years at the Laboratoire central des services chimiques de l'État.[6] She seemed to have been very happy there[7] and earned an international reputation based on her published research on the structure of coal.[8] In 1950 she sought work in England[9] and in June 1950 she was appointed to a position at King's College London.[10]"

nitramrekcap 19:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rosalind Franklin

Hi,

What's up with Rosalind Franklin and Nitrecap (or whatever)? Lots of SHOUTING and vigor. Feel free to e-mail if discretion is required. WLU (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

WLU,

I will leave my friend Alun/Wobble in Finland to interpolate the following into the article:

"[Vittorio] Luzzati collaborated with Rosalind Franklin during the period when she worked in France (1947–1950), and the two remained close friends." (taken from the Nature article above).

Incidentally I only remembered Luzzati myself after a remark he made about David Harker was quoted back to me from Pittsburgh earlier this evening; I am very surprised he was missed out!

Nitramrekcap (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Alun, here is how the relevant paragraph in the Francis Crick article has been updated:

"In 1954, at the age of 37, Crick completed his Ph.D. thesis: "X-Ray Diffraction: Polypeptides and Proteins" and received his degree. Crick then worked in the laboratory of David Harker at Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute, where he continued to develop his skills in the analysis of X-ray diffraction data for proteins, working primarily on ribonuclease and the mechanisms of protein synthesis. David Harker, the American X-ray crystallographer, was described as "the John Wayne of crystallography" by Vittorio Luzzati, a crystallographer at the Centre for Molecular Genetics in Gif-sur-Yvette near Paris, who had worked with Rosalind Franklin."

Nitramrekcap (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wobble, it all makes sense now. Though the Luzzati information could be added, I don't really see the point given the content - the two worked together, so what? Luzzati, from my memory of Maddox, deserves more than that, he was a huge part of her life for a while. A sentence about an unlinked person is kinda meaningless. If it could be expanded to say why he was important, that would be a solid addition.
I don't have anything to say about the second, but i definitely wouldn't put it in the Franklin article : ) WLU (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately the sole knowledge I have of Franklin comes from Maddox's book, which was very good but also currently at the library. I usually distinguish characters in books like that by the pictures that accompany, and I don't remember if Luzzati was the guy that Maddox made a case for her being in love with, or one of her many platonic male friends/coworkers. I wouldn't mind discussing expansions, but am far from an expert and doubt I could contribute much beyond 'wasn't that the guy with the bad hair and the open marriage?' Two things I remember Maddox spending time on was how she doted on children of friends and relatives, always taking care to pick out very specific gifts that would appeal to each one specifically, and her love of hiking holidays.
I'd also love to replace the current picture, which I think is very unflattering and makes her look like Richard Nixon, with this one, but I'm not sure of the copyrights.
Completely unrelated side note - did you notice how much time Maddox spent talking about her fashion sense? I found it a bit jarring. Interesting, but like there was a whole separate book that could have been written: Dress-sense of Rosalind Franklin by B. Maddox. WLU (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Both Harker and Luzzati were friends of REF, the connection between them being what Luzzati described Harker as ("the John Wayne of Crystallography"); I have just re-read both Brenda Maddox's biography and Wilkins's autobiography and not surprisingly there is common ground between them, especially as Maddox had access to Wilkins's MS pre-publication. Believe it or not, Alun - I do think REF was a great loss to science almost 50 years ago this week and I can only hope that Bob Olby's version of events reflects the contributions of all concerned - are you familiar with Olby's mini-biography of Franklin from 1972? I will add it to the article:

  • Olby, Robert, (1972) 'Rosalind Elsie Franklin' biography in "Dictionary of Scientific Biography", ed. Charles C. Gillespie (New York: Charles Scribner's sons) ISBN: ISBN: 0684101211

Nitramrekcap (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Thank you! Tim Vickers (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikipediaWeekly Episode 45

Hello again! Just a note that WikipediaWeekly Episode 45 has been released. Listen and comment at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/04/14/wikipedia-weekly-45-blps-revisited/. Cheers, WODUP 20:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you no longer wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from that list.

[edit] Hey there

Euh... Happy belated Birthday? :) --Ramdrake (talk) 06:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I did the same thing when I turned the big 4-0 a few years back. :) BTW, I was wondering if you could help me keep an eye on the Dysgenics article for a bit? There are some serious POV-pushers over there (the kind we're both familiar with), and it could use the help of somebody who properly understands population genetics. I'm trying to econstruct some of their arguments, but I'm afraid I might be losing the forest for the trees.--Ramdrake (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I was just wondering if you could point me (as an editor for whom English is a second language) to the difference in the vernacular language between claptrap and bullshit? I'm actually serious, as I pride myself in having the best possible knowledge of English, including vernacular, and this distinction lacks in my culture. And oh yes, you can laugh all you want. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Never mind. I actually found the meaning "empty verbiage or nonsense". Close enough, but not identical to bullshit.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your input on the Talk:Dysgenics page. With a little luck, this should calm down the POV-pushing.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like Zero g and Jagz don't want to play reasonable on the Dysgenics article. I'm at my revert limit. Could you keep an eye on it whenever you have a moment?--Ramdrake (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 46 and 47

Just a quick note: Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 46 and 47 are out. A good listen as always. :) Cheers, WODUP 03:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

[edit] the new Rosalind Franklin Society

Alun, "christ Martin, you've been editing here for nearly three years and you still can't do simple formatting"! Thanks for sorting it out for me, no excuses! There are only two people in this world who are as 'passionate' about REF, Lynne Elkin is one (a friend of mine) and you too of course. I only hope the version of events in Bob Olby's new biography of Crick meets with everyone's approval, especially your's and Lynne's. Best wishes from a sunny Birmingham, U.K.!!

Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Episode 48

Hey there! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 48, Wikipedia Weekly's third talk with Jimmy Wales, is now available. Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page.

Have a comment about the episode? You can leave your comment right on the episode's page!
Miss an episode? Catch up in the Wikipedia Weekly archives at wikipediaweekly.org!
Know someone who would love Wikipedia Weekly? Tell them about it!
Care to participate in a podcast? Sign up here!

For the Wikipedia Weekly team, WODUPbot 23:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

[edit] Nobel Foundation

Alun, you might find these two points interesting if you have not seen them before? Martin

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1962/

§ 4. A prize amount may be equally divided between two works, each of which is considered to merit a prize. If a work that is being rewarded has been produced by two or three persons, the prize shall be awarded to them jointly. In no case may a prize amount be divided between more than three persons. Work produced by a person since deceased shall not be considered for an award. If, however, a prizewinner dies before he has received the prize, then the prize may be presented. Each prize-awarding body shall be competent to decide whether the prize it is entitled to award may be conferred upon an institution or association.

§ 10. No appeals may be made against the decision of a prize-awarding body with regard to the award of a prize. Proposals received for the award of a prize, and investigations and opinions concerning the award of a prize, may not be divulged. Should divergent opinions have been expressed in connection with the decision of a prize-awarding body concerning the award of a prize, this may not be included in the record or otherwise divulged. A prize-awarding body may, however, after due consideration in each individual case, permit access to material which formed the basis for the evaluation and decision concerning a prize, for purposes of research in intellectual history. Such permission may not, however, be granted until at least 50 years have elapsed after the date on which the decision in question was made.

Nitramrekcap (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Rosalind Franklin's birthplace in London

Alun, I have always doubted 'Kensington' as such and prefer to go with Sir Aaron Klug's Notting Hill in Sir Aaron Klug’s Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on Rosalind Franklin:

‘Franklin, Rosalind Elsie, (1920-1958), crystallographer, was born at Chepstow Villas, Notting Hill, London, on 25 July 1920, the elder daughter and second of the family of five children of Ellis Arthur Franklin (1894-1964), merchant banker of London, and his wife, Muriel Frances Waley….’).

But I am sure you will be cross-checking this against the bottom of page 13 of Brenda Maddox! (Can I suggest you use this as an opportunity to add in details of her parents by the way?) Do you want a copy of Klug article's to cross-check against? If so, send me your e-mail address!

Hopefully we will be able to get it right for Lynne Elkin's new biography of REF!! Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ROSALIND FRANKLIN

Alun, I have asked John Schmidt to repair the top of the article as soon as possible, not done by me as I am now far too busy helping to finalise the new Francis Crick biography! Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Episode 49

Good news! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 49 is now available. Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page.

Have a comment about the episode? You can leave your comment right on the episode's page!
Miss an episode? Catch up in the Wikipedia Weekly archives at wikipediaweekly.org!
Know someone who would love Wikipedia Weekly? Tell them about it!
Care to participate in a podcast? Sign up here!

For the Wikipedia Weekly team, WODUPbot 23:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

[edit] R&I

[1] Still ROTFLMHO!!!! Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] THE WOBBLE SONG

"On a ribosome unit a messenger sat Singing ‘wobble, O wobble, O wobble’; And I said to a codon, ‘O why do you sit Singing wobble, O wobble, O wobble?

Is it weakness of Watson your little inside Or a Crick in your intercistronic divide?’ With a flop of a hydrogen bond it replied ‘O wobble, O wobble, O wobble!"

by Rose Feiner

Martin

Nitramrekcap (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] White people

Just so you know, I was making a point ;) --Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strange

I noticed that Zero g stopped posting after Jagz was blocked yesterday. Think there might be a connection?--Ramdrake (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I spoke too soon.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks like both Jagz and Zero g may have stopped editing now. Well, we'll see. Take care!--Ramdrake (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prince of Yugoslavia

He smelled of troll to me, and with the help of a friend we have shut im down [2]. No offense, but sometimes you are too quick to give someone the benefit of the doubt, Alun. Yes, when you and I first came to blows at the Race article years ago, I was quite lucky that you gave me the benefit of the doubt (i.e. thinking I was wrong, but not malevolent). Here is a rule of thumb: when race is the issue, it is at least as likely that someone is knowingly and wilfully malignant (and probably the sock-puppet of a banned editor) than that one is well-intentioned but naive, mistaken, or muddled. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you ever look at his user page? The photo was the big clue. But I did not mean (in any way) to be critical of you.

There are all sorts of threats to Wikipedia but once you know someone is a troll, in general it is better to expend energy working on the article than trying to educate the troll. At this point, everyone knows Jagz is a troll, and he officially "retired" so it is more important than ever not to feed him. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] R.E.F. by Klug

I found your personal e-mail address in an 'old' In-Box and have sent you Klug's article on her!

Nitramrekcap (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Episode 50

It may not be weekly, but Wikipedia Weekly has finally reached Episode 50! Listen or download MP3 and OGG versions at the episode's page.

Have a comment about the episode? You can leave your comment right on the episode's page!
Miss an episode? Catch up in the Wikipedia Weekly archives at wikipediaweekly.org!
Know someone who would love Wikipedia Weekly? Tell them about it!
Care to participate in a podcast? Sign up here!

For the Wikipedia Weekly team, WODUPbot 00:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

[edit] R&I

Please be cautious not to edit war on Race and intelligence, find consensus instead. Dreadstar † 19:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dysgenics

Sorry to point this out, but the definition you changed in the article used to be a direct citation (although it's my fault I didn't use quotation marks, so it wasn't obvious). I don't care whether you undo your changes or find another definition which you feel is more suitable, but I think two definitions (direct quotations that is) would be better.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize; I will gladly admit that a dictionary definition isn't ideal. The only thing I wanted was to provide a second definition. I'm fine with any definition you think is better. I just really didn't want to revert you.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] R&I - Take (who's counting)?

Alun, not sure if you realize, but your exchange with Legalleft of the R&I talk page may well fall into the WP:TLDR realm. I'm not sure that many people are bothering to follow at this point - though I guess you already knew that. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] advice

Am I wrong about this and the paragraph preceeding? Can you make a constructive comment? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hello. Your removal of the requests for additional citations on Afro-Europeans was inappropriate since if you actually look at the article you can clearly see it does lack citation and has some POVs. CanuckAnthropologist (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)