User talk:TimVickers/archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Speedy deletion of Evolution/draft article 2 Maternal Effect 3 Sigh 4 Topic bans 5 Article Assessments 6 Talk:Introduction to genetics 7 WP:HAU 8 AIDS denialism 9 Introduction to genetics AfD 10 Block request 11 Re: Block on TJ Terry 12 WP:NPA 13 Resource Exchange 14 Intro to genetics 15 You're Amazing 16 Introduction to genetics 16.1 Comments from RJHall 17 expert opinion 18 Re: TheNautilus RfC 19 Systemic lupus erythematosus

Speedy deletion of Evolution/draft article

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 20:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

OOPS! My mistake, sorry about that. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 20:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Maternal Effect

Hey Tim, I'm a student and I was interested in fixing up the Maternal effect Wikipedia page. Since it's a topic currently beicn covered in my Molecular Biology class @ Uni, I thought this article could do with a bit of a cleanup and clarification. I'm having trouble finding appropriate sources and diagrams (that aren't copywrited). I'm happy to draw my own and submitt them, so long as they're accurate and reviewed. In regards to the article, I *suggest* moving the Paternal effect paragraph, to create a "stub" article; for clarity... So far I have included a small section about the Dorsal-ventral Axis; next the anterior-posterior axis...

Cheers Mattycoze (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh

Sorry, Tim. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Topic bans

If someone is under a topic ban, rather than just prohibited from mainspace, they should not be continuing to advocate on that topic, even in userspace. They are prohibited from the topic, not simply a set of articles. Permitting such actions would be an invitation to continue advocacy and circumvent the ban, possibly getting other users to act for them. Vassyana (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Assessments

I was just wondering how articles get reassessed for quality, is that done automatically, or do they needed to be tagged for a reassess? I did a pretty large rework on Gluconeogenesis, I'm not sure if it is ready for an upgrade or not, but is much improved over what it was before. Thanks! Schu1321 (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Introduction to genetics

I thought I left a response to your message on Talk:Introduction to genetics about how Wikipedia articles covered Mendel's experiments, and now I can't find it. I'm confused. Did I fail to save it, or did somebody delete it, or did I leave it in another page? Did you see it? Nbauman (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 18:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed the work you've done on the article. It's certainly much improved! Although I really shouldn't have nominated it to begin with as I didn't really have a valid reason. cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 20:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

Hello again. The Highly Active Users project has gone through a complete revamping per popular demand. We believe this new format will make it easier for new editors to find assistance. However, with the new format, I must again ask you to verify your information on this page. I attempted to translate the data from the old version to the new, but with the extensive changes, I may have made some errors. Thanks again. Useight (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

AIDS denialism

Hi. Me again. The science cabal has decided that the article AIDS denialism should not contain the claims and rebuttles associated with AIDS denialism and so have deleted them. I think this is a shame as I believe the article is better with them. But they are extremely unpleasant to deal with and I don't care that much about the subject. I'm hoping you can look at the situation, talk to a few people, and perhaps something better can come out of this than me just walking away and the article not getting needed data - or maybe you agree that that deletion was appropriate and the article is better off without the data. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have now now notified FT2 and Viridae on their talk pages and I am walking away from this. My poor health requires that I keep my stress levels under control and this is what is best for that. I'm sure that in the end you guys will make the right choices. Good luck, and thanks for everything you do to make wikipedia better. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be not written perfectly, but I sort of wonder why so much well sourced material was deleted. Hmmm...--Filll (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to genetics AfD

While I was too late to the party to change my !vote, I probably would have changed it to Keep upon looking at what you've done to the article. Excellent work! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC).

Block request

Could you block this user? I'm deliberately avoiding AIV on this one. Thanks, Enigma ^message 02:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I do believe an indef block is the right call, but I was hesitant to suggest it initially. Enigma ^message 01:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Block on TJ Terry

[1] - For that I'd make it a month. If someone is going to display that sort of behaviour then they're obviously not interested in engaging with our community in a positive manner. It's your call though, I'd at least hope you'd consider it ;-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 07:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Could you talk to this editor[2]? Thanks. Nbauman (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Resource Exchange

Hello! I found your name at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. I am searching for the following articles: [3] and [4], unfortunately my university does not have access to these journals. Please tell me, if you have access to these articles! Thank you in advance, kind regards, — Tirk·fl  ^“…”  12:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast help! Kind regards, – Tirk·fl  ^“…”  06:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello again! You don't have access to these papers too? [5][6] Thanks in advance! Kind regards, – Tirk·fl  ^“…” 09:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Intro to genetics

I'd be happy to! Also, it seems a new user (User:By78) needs an outside admin to convince him that discussing contributors instead of content is unacceptable. Check out his latest comments to me in the last thread of Talk:Go (board game). A simple talk warning would suffice I think. VanTucky ^{Vote in my weird poll!} 21:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You're Amazing

The work you've been doing at Wikipedia is amazing. Awesome. Incredible. The sheer amount of time you've put in has gone above and beyond the call of duty. I tried to help with one of the entries in your project, by finding a few references for some unsourced information, thinking the more I helped, the more time you might have for other things, but most of this subject area is beyond my Liberal Arts education. Return2WUTA (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to genetics

Looks fine to me. Needs more references, of course, but the prose looks fine overall. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really -- I sort of paid attention in bio so I pretty much understand it all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It does need a bit of a copy edit though; I saw a couple grammatical errors. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Per above, pretty good, a few writing tweaks, and try to get at least one ref for every paragraph. It's very close to GA level. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from RJHall

Overall it seems fine. A few of the sentences could perhaps use a little fine tuning by a copy editor. The first sentence should clarify what you mean by inheritance, as the word is normally used in the economic sense. I think the sentence that begins "A trait can be a feature of an..." should be contrasted with a non-appearance trait.

One area where I would like to know more is the sentence that begins "When a gene is read by a cell...". In particular it does not mention how a cell knows it "needs" to read a gene and where it should begin and end reading.

A couple of minor comments:

• Do you need to start paragraphs with a "However"?
• I see plenty of dashes where an em-dash (or spaced en-dash) should be used instead.

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

expert opinion

Tim, can you check out this edit and let me (or the editor) know if that's a copyvio? This user has made a couple other similar edits (e.g., [7]) which copy-and-paste from the referenced site (which he apparently represents). Anyway, before I revert and explain, I wanted to get a second-opinion sanity check... AndrewGNF (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you want a letter on my company letterhead to say that using the text is okay and we're putting it unde a GFDL license? I don't know how else you can verify my identity other than pick up the phone and call me. Seriously, I don't know what to say here other than the fact that I'm the marketing manager for Boston Biochem and grant permission to put the text under GFDL. Rabbitvalley (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: TheNautilus RfC

In initiating the RfCU, you're trying to establish a pattern of problematic conduct - while failing to understand policy would be part of it, it is rarely enough, so providing evidence of more direct policy violations would certainly help.

I notice you've said he uses another account. Again you will need evidence that it is the same person (a diff of him admitting it would help, but there are other ways to find out if there are none). But most of all, remember: policies apply per person, not account. See WP:SOCK for more.

In any case, please don't hesitate to contact me if/when you do make any other substantial changes to that effect - I can then adjust my view accordingly. Best wishes in having the dispute resolved - Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I was on my way to alert you to my comment when I found your reply.--Alterrabe (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem - it's only changing a few numbers. Thanks for the heads up. :) I do want to modify my view at some stage, but I'll wait for a few things to become clearer first. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tim, this doesn't really belong here but I didn't want to start a new section on the same subject when it doesn't really seem necessary. I've reviewed my interactions with TheNautalis on the only page we've edited in common (orthomolecular psychiatry). On that page we didn't have any interactions that struck me as particularly negative, and given that I don't think I will be commenting further on the RFC. Given WP:SOCK has apparently come up as allowing multiple accounts if segregated (and that's a stupid exception, isn't it?), there is no basis for me having any real complaint about his conduct. The only thing I could provide would be an external opinion on him by reviewing his contributions, and I don't think I'll have the time for that (plus, what does my opinion matter given a dearth of actual contact?) I will say that after reviewing his contributions on OMP, I would expect him to conflict with other editors, push for unsourceable statements that promote the "truth" of OMP/OMM, and am not surprised to see issues with interpretation of policy. But I have never personally hit up against sufficient conflict to be able to comment personally. WLU (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Systemic lupus erythematosus

Hi Tim,

Could you have a look at the Systemic lupus erythematosus external links section? There's a lot of 'support' orgs and I'm betting a DMOZ would capture most, if not all. I'm still wading through my interactions with TheNautalis on orthomolecular psychiatry, I haven't really interacted with him/her much on OMM so I don't feel justified saying a whole lot about that situation. I have asked for the clarification regarding his/her possible multiple accounts but have yet to receive a reply. Thanks, WLU (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tim! Per Wikipedia:MEDMOS#External_links I would remove all the links to support organizations, but I've always been unusually vindictive harsh belligerent rigourous in my interpretation of EL guidelines. I'm sorry if I don't get to commenting on the RFC in the near future or possibly at all, my editing time is considerably reduced these days. I'll try though. One thing I plan on is a RFCU if I do not get an unequivocal reply regarding the possible use of two separate accounts without disclosure. WLU (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)